|
Post by RedSmile on Aug 17, 2011 15:04:10 GMT -5
Oh ok, so..........what if Nate missed? Would Nick have a legit gripe? Gripe with what? Missing? He can give him grief for it but not forever. Taking his shot? Nick wasn't even in the stadium at the time--I'm pretty sure he would appreciate the sub, cause you know these promotions are limited time offers. I have a feeling Nick would be mad for not being able to take his shot. How do you know that? Would some go to other siblings as well? False, there is no guarantee that Nick would have made it.
|
|
|
Post by RedSmile on Aug 17, 2011 15:08:35 GMT -5
If they didn't know they were doing something dishonest why not be up front about it the entire time? 1) They're kids man. He was probably just excited to be shooting the puck in front of a huge audience. 2) It wasn't like these kids were maliciously lying to get one over. They were just kids being kids. "Hey man - I'm out of here, take my shot if they pick me." "Okay - later bro." Kids are kids, but that doesn't make this any less dishonest.
|
|
biafra
El Dandy
Biafra Who?
Posts: 7,617
|
Post by biafra on Aug 17, 2011 15:11:48 GMT -5
1) They're kids man. He was probably just excited to be shooting the puck in front of a huge audience. 2) It wasn't like these kids were maliciously lying to get one over. They were just kids being kids. "Hey man - I'm out of here, take my shot if they pick me." "Okay - later bro." WHAT HORRIBLE CHILDREN! BURN THEM! No one has implied anything close. Stop being dramatic. And to the point about them just being kids, I agree. which is why it is important to teach them that gaining by dishonest means is wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 15:12:25 GMT -5
I have a feeling Nick would be mad for not being able to take his shot. Then he would have been mad at whatever made him leave the arena and fail to be there. You're only proving my point even more... You said earlier that Nate and Nick should not split the money because its rightfully Nick's. Whom the check was given to is moot...it would be for EVERYBODY in the family. There's no guarantee Nate would have made it either. unless the father knew Nate was some kind of hockey prodigy...which is unlikely. The way you put it, the parents/kids had some kind of setup going on. They didn't.
|
|
King Ghidorah
El Dandy
On Probation for Charges of two counts of Saxual Music.
How Absurd
Posts: 8,330
|
Post by King Ghidorah on Aug 17, 2011 15:16:20 GMT -5
I am still trying to figure out who was being dishonest, remember, them being twins is irrelevant to the competition at all, they had no idea who the hell Nick or Nate was, it was all the name. It could have easily been a 20 year old brother taking the shot instead, were they supposed to forfeit the chance to try at all. No one anyone can be mad for the kid giving it a shot anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Aug 17, 2011 15:18:54 GMT -5
Bolded is important, because we've established the money would've gone to the same family either way. So who's being screwed? I think if you really, really wanted to bring a legal issue into it, the damages would probably be applied to the group that was giving away the money. They selected someone to take a shot and someone else did, the person who posed as a different person, no matter how innocuous it might have been, made the shot and took the money. I think if they prosecuted, which is doubtful because it'd be horrible PR, they'd have a case.
|
|
|
Post by RedSmile on Aug 17, 2011 15:19:54 GMT -5
I have a feeling Nick would be mad for not being able to take his shot. Then he would have been mad at whatever made him leave the arena and fail to be there. and what entitles Nate to take that shot? Exactly, why should they split the money? Why shouldn't Nate get all 50,000 since he made the shot, despite the check being in Nick's name? No, but the father enabled the deception by allowing Nate to accept the prize money. That is until, he slept on it, and wasn't comfortable with it. And in this society, with the internet and cell phones and social networking, the truth would have come out eventually. And this family may have faced a potentially serious situation.
|
|
|
Post by Cela on Aug 17, 2011 15:20:57 GMT -5
WHAT HORRIBLE CHILDREN! BURN THEM! No one has implied anything close. Stop being dramatic. And to the point about them just being kids, I agree. which is why it is important to teach them that gaining by dishonest means is wrong. I implied it. How dare they combine tickets into family tickets when one of them goes home. Burning is the only way to cleanse this sin.
|
|
|
Post by Cam on Aug 17, 2011 15:25:11 GMT -5
I don't see why everyone is getting so high and mighty about right and wrong, and giving the money back yadda yadda yadda.
They fibbed a little to win some money, so what? His brother took it, it's basically the same thing. And who did they take the 50 thou from? Probably some big faceless evil corporation who have millions of dollars at their disposal.
But hey, I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know.
|
|
|
Post by King Fox -1017 Bricksquad on Aug 17, 2011 15:28:17 GMT -5
I knew somebody would get on the high horse and say the would give it back lol...Man some of ya'll on some Dudly Do-right s***.
@biafra man if you well off to give 50 racks back bruh do you.
|
|
biafra
El Dandy
Biafra Who?
Posts: 7,617
|
Post by biafra on Aug 17, 2011 15:29:29 GMT -5
I am still trying to figure out who was being dishonest, remember, them being twins is irrelevant to the competition at all, they had no idea who the hell Nick or Nate was, it was all the name. It could have easily been a 20 year old brother taking the shot instead, were they supposed to forfeit the chance to try at all. No one anyone can be mad for the kid giving it a shot anyway. did the kid taking the shot admit he wasn't actually the one supposed to? Then he was being dishonest wasn't he? I can see the logic of admitting it was wrong but not caring enough to give back the money. But to act like the kid was being honest is just ignoring the reality of the situation to justify immoral behavior.
|
|
|
Post by RedSmile on Aug 17, 2011 15:30:16 GMT -5
I don't see why everyone is getting so high and mighty about right and wrong, and giving the money back yadda yadda yadda. No one is being high and mighty A little fib, that could come back to haunt them, had the father shurgged and said "so what" But it isn't the same thing An evil corporation that was willing to give away 50 grand. And if this corporation was really evil, how do you think they would have reacted once they found out the truth?
|
|
biafra
El Dandy
Biafra Who?
Posts: 7,617
|
Post by biafra on Aug 17, 2011 15:31:44 GMT -5
I knew somebody would get on the high horse and say the would give it back lol...Man some of ya'll on some Dudly Do-right s**t. @biafra man if you well off to give 50 racks back bruh do you. I'm not on a high horse. I'm not judging anyone, just stating what I would likely do and why. And I'd respond to the last sentence but I don't know wtf that means.
|
|
|
Post by RedSmile on Aug 17, 2011 15:33:24 GMT -5
I knew somebody would get on the high horse and say the would give it back lol...Man some of ya'll on some Dudly Do-right s**t. @biafra man if you well off to give 50 racks back bruh do you. Your honesty also has a price tag. I have Ted Dibiase's laugh in my head right now.
|
|
BK From WV
Hank Scorpio
Claims to have sense of humor, probably stole it
I'm Here
Posts: 5,611
|
Post by BK From WV on Aug 17, 2011 15:36:31 GMT -5
I'm with you Biafra 100%. I would've returned it without question. Like you said,if others want to keep it,that would be up to them. Personally,I would've returned it. If the insurance company says to keep it,awesome. If they take it back,at least I would feel comfortable doing what I thought was right. Sure,I could use 50,000 dollars but I wouldn't feel comfortable getting it that way.
|
|
|
Post by Hassan bin Sober on Aug 17, 2011 15:38:03 GMT -5
I think he should of kept the money. Why? Because I don't think what the kids did was morally wrong. It's not like they went up there pretending to be someone outside of their family. Both kids had bought a ticket and therefore nobody was scammed really. Even if they weren't twins I would of been fine if one boy had went up rather than the other.
|
|
erisi236
Fry's dog Seymour
... enjoys the rich, smooth taste of Camels.
Not good! Not good! Not good!
Posts: 21,904
|
Post by erisi236 on Aug 17, 2011 15:38:30 GMT -5
No one has implied anything close. Stop being dramatic. And to the point about them just being kids, I agree. which is why it is important to teach them that gaining by dishonest means is wrong. I implied it. How dare they combine tickets into family tickets when one of them goes home. Burning is the only way to cleanse this sin. Exterminatus!
|
|
King Ghidorah
El Dandy
On Probation for Charges of two counts of Saxual Music.
How Absurd
Posts: 8,330
|
Post by King Ghidorah on Aug 17, 2011 15:39:13 GMT -5
I am still trying to figure out who was being dishonest, remember, them being twins is irrelevant to the competition at all, they had no idea who the hell Nick or Nate was, it was all the name. It could have easily been a 20 year old brother taking the shot instead, were they supposed to forfeit the chance to try at all. No one anyone can be mad for the kid giving it a shot anyway. did the kid taking the shot admit he wasn't actually the one supposed to? Then he was being dishonest wasn't he? I can see the logic of admitting it was wrong but not caring enough to give back the money. But to act like the kid was being honest is just ignoring the reality of the situation to justify immoral behavior. I can't think for him, he probably thought things were just fine, but I'll tell you this, parents can make a child feel as if they've done something bad. Pop probably got angry and made the kid feel like crap even though he thought he was doing a good thing. Good example is my little cousin, he is 11 and pretty much takes care of the other two 7 and 5. They were hungry so he used the stove to cook them breakfast. The mom comes in and in a angry voice goes "Did you use the stove." Now he has used the stove before plenty of times, but just hearing that voice made him want to lie *self preservation maybe* even though he was just trying to feed his brother. He got a nice whoopin for it.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Aug 17, 2011 15:40:31 GMT -5
People keep saying the money would go to the kid. It wouldn't. Legally, he's a minor and it'd go to his parent(s). It'd be up to them to decide how to use or divide it from there.
|
|
|
Post by RedSmile on Aug 17, 2011 15:43:47 GMT -5
did the kid taking the shot admit he wasn't actually the one supposed to? Then he was being dishonest wasn't he? I can see the logic of admitting it was wrong but not caring enough to give back the money. But to act like the kid was being honest is just ignoring the reality of the situation to justify immoral behavior. I disagree. I am not sure why you think he would accept the 50,000 and then all of a sudden get angry about it the next day. It seems to me, judging by his actions, that the father was extremely conflicted. Apples and oranges
|
|