maxi1966

Maxi I think you need to take a refresher course in English:

 

sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous (saŋk′tə mō′nē əs)adjective

pretending to be very holy or pious; affecting sanctity or righteousness

 

You don't know me but you label me a "extemely judgemental person" for explaining things that you don't understand.

 

I live in the real world. I would love for everyone to get along but unfortunately there are many people who don't obey the rules of society. Everyone has transgressions and makes mistakes but there are certain people who just don't care how their actions affect other people. People who shoplift don't care that stores have to raise prices for those of us who don't shoplift. Others falsify insurance claims or fake injuries without regard to those of us who play by the rules and see our premiums continue to rise when we've never made any claims. Still others go on a cruise and purchase a single alcohol package with every intention of getting drinks for themselves and their spouse without thinking about how it affects other cruisers or the cruise line.

 

To those specific people that I have mentioned in the prior paragraph, the lyers, cheats and frauds, yes I am judgemental. I disapprove of inappropriate/illegal behavior.

 

That doesn't make me santimonious in the least. If that makes me judgemental in your eyes - well then I guess I'm judgemental.

Lucky...you are the master of spin and doublespeak. No where in your post did you mention a dress code. You stated you (personally) would not hire them because they disrespected their body in your opinion regardless of perhaps that individual being besy qualified for the job...etc etc.

Secondly.......I do not need a lesson in anything from you. The definition of sanctimonious = pious, self righteous, holier than thou, smug. Seems about right.

I am done here. This thread has lost all direction and purpose....and yes, if my wife is thirsty on our cruise I will give her a drink of my beverage because that is the right thing to do!

I accused you of nothing, I simply told you why the post was pulled...I even put a disclaimer to avoid such a comment.....I would think you would appreciate someone clearing it up....

My apologies if I misunderstood your post

Don't shoot the messenger, I was just answering your question because I saw it the other day....

Except for the fact that you accused me of "attacking" an individual with my post. Which I did not do. My post was generalised to include all those on these threads that were pointedly attacking me and others that did not share their point of view.

People make judgements about things/situations and yes people each and every day. That's why we have things called laws. When you break a law you go before a judge.

 

When I see someone who has gobs and gobs of tatoos over their arms and face with facial piercings I judge that person as someone who doesn't really respect their body and I would never hire that type of person to work in my business. If that person speaks to me I answer in a polite and civilized voice but I don't ask them over for drinks.

 

A judgemental person, however, would go over to that person (unsolicited) and tell the tatoo'ed person how wrong they are and express their beliefs - unsolicited.

 

Telling others your beliefs that people who take drinks and giving them to people who aren't on a drink plan is theft isn't judgemental - it is their belief based on their morals/principles.

Absolutely unbelievably sanctimonious!! One does not have to verbalise one's intents in order to be biased/judgemental. The fact that you have mentally labelled an individual the way you have and deemed them unfit to be in your company without knowing anything about the individual save for what you see on the outside is tremendously sanctimonious and tremendously judgemental. So by definition...you are an extemely judgemental person.

By the way....being judgemental can be and is mostly separate from "law". Not sure why you drag "law" into everything.

Not vague or ambiguous at all . I understand it fully.

 

I can make the judgement call that I don't want to live a certain way , or do a certain thing because it isn't right for me without passing judgement on the person who feels its right for them.

 

It's called I'll go my way. You go yours.

The vague part to me was the attempt to differentiate between making judgements and being judgemental. If you make a judgement about someone aren't you judging them? if if you judge them, is that being judgemental to a certain extent.

Also, I responded to your posts from the other day and they were not removed because you disagreed with someone but because they had personal attacks within them. My posts were removed also because I responded to yours...

 

I am making no personal opinions on the actions described in this thread...

I

So...........it is acceptable to call others immoral thiefs etc etc but it is not ok to respond that those people judging others as immoral and thieves may be sanctimonious and hypocritical. I never did attack any one idividual. I may a broad sweeping statement that there seems to be some hypocrisy at hand on these threads.

There's a big difference in making judgements and being judgemental. Anyone who doesn't make judgements in his daily life is a fool. There's a reason people are often admired for having good judgement. If you don't make some judgements about people you come into contact with you may end up in some unfortunate situations.

 

I haven't even commented on this subject, but it always seems that when someone cannot justify his poor behavior, the first thing they always do is acuse others of being judgemental.

All semantics and word smithing. I am not sure of the point of your post but these threads on this topic are full of people being judgemental. The post seems rather vague and ambiguous.

Originally Posted by Mr. Luckytoo

 

2. It allows people to evaluate what their moral stances are or if they have any moral stances for that matter

 

 

 

 

What I was/am saying is that a discussion like this allows a person some information about self-reflection. At no time have I advocated that by reading this thread it allows someone to make judgements on others. How a person comes to the conclusion that following (or not complying) =X='s rules regarding unlimited alcoholic drink passages can help someone determine where their moral compass is; or if they have a moral compass in the first place.

 

For example some people follow certain laws based upon the consequences of their actions, i.e., if I steal and I get caught this will happen. These people make their decisions based on risk/benefit analysis and there is no moral clauses.

 

Other people may look at the same exact situation and base their decision solely based upon their moral beliefs about right vs. wrong irregardless of consequences (laws) but based upon their eternal consequences.

Lucky......there is no way you can spin this so please stop trying to undo or redefine what you have written. This whole thread, and the other 2 for that matter, is full of people making judgements about others (you included).

Maxi, I was by no means name calling/insulting. Please look at the definition of morality vs. immorality:

 

Morality (from the Latin moralities "manner, character, proper behavior") is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is a passive indifference toward morality.

 

 

I wouldn't say something like that to anyone's face - please re-read my original post.

I certainly do not need a lesson in comprehension. You post remains crystal clear to me (good versus bad....moral stance versus no moral stance). Great effort on damage control and spin.....just unconvincing.

What? You are coming in late and saying what?

 

I am suggesting the whole idea of theft is off the mark and that its actually fraud.

I am simply trying to make sense of this whole thing...late or not. No one in their right mind is going to refuse their partner a sip of their drink if asked for.......but that goes against the black/white stealing is wrong in every circumstance and situation. The amount is a moot point...blah blah blah. Common sense and reasoning checked out of this topic 3 days ago.

And it isn't fraud either. It is giving a thirsty person a drink to tide them over until they get one of their own. There is nothing fraudulent or criminal in either situation...it is just life happening in real time...not on a blog.

Mr. Lucky;)

If she takes a sip and likes it and says she would like one for herself I would go to the bar and PURCHASE that drink for her. If I were to use my beverage package and get another drink for my wife then in my mind that is stealing.

 

But stealing is stealing! Whether it is 50 cents or $50,000 or part of that drink or the whole drink. There is no situational drf'n here according to you and many posters on the other thread. If she takes a drink of your beverage purchased from the "package" she has committed theft according to many of you on this thread and the other thread.

You can't have it both ways...that is hypocisy....yes/no?

 

2. It allows people to evaluate what their moral stances are or if they have any moral stances for that matter

 

Isn't questionning whether someone has "any moral stances" or belabouring them because their "moral stance" is a degree or 2 different from yours, a form of name calling/insulting?

If you came face to face with me and told me I had no morals, I would find that somewhat insulting.

As of the time of this posting, 19% of those who had voted went with this option:

 

It's not right, but sharing a drink a few times is ok.

 

It saddens me greatly that so many people could have been trained (by parents, teachers, peers, pastors?) to think so illogically! If human minds are in such shabby condition, there is no hope for civilization to continue.

 

It is absolutely RIDICULOUS for someone to say, in one breath, that an action is "not right" -- and yet to say, a half a breath later, that the same action "is ok" if done "a few times."

 

This way of thinking for an adult is totally inexcusable. It is something that one used to find done only by little children and juvenile delinquents! If something is "not right," it is WRONG ... and doing something wrong is NEVER "ok" -- not once, not "a few times," not ever!

 

Case closed.

 

Well, wait a minute. On re-reading the choice, I can see that it is ambiguous, and that may have caused SOME people to vote for it. The problem is the word, "sharing." If it means "sharing the package" or "splitting some drinks" with a second person, THAT would be wrong. But if "sharing" means letting a spouse take one sip, to find out if he/she would enjoy ordering a second (fully-paid-for) drink, that would not be improper, because there would be no intent to cheat the cruise line.

So are you telling us all that if you had a drink and your cruising partner asked you for a sip because it is 2PM and hotter than hot, you are going to deny him/her a sip and accuse them of being a juvenile delinquent thief simply because you have an ice cold drink (purchased via the drink package) and they do not (at that particular time)! I think reality and message board topics like this often bipolarise "the real world". I find it hard to believe that you would not offer your partner a drink to ease her/his thirst in the meantime until they have an opportunity to purchase their own.

No, it is not within reason. It is stealing. Where would you say it starts to become wrong? 3? 4? 11? Wrong is wrong. If you can't afford to pay for your wife's 1 or 2 drinks then she should not be drinking.

Whatever, Clemm!! This horse has been dead for a while now. Quit beating it!

The cucumber would be thrown away because it was already on the plate of the person who paid. That is the comparison that the poster was using. Read the post I was quoting.

So are you saying that if I ordered a beverage as part of this plan, and I decided that after drinking some of it, I was not going to finish it....it is stealing if my wife finishes the drink which I would have left to be thrown away?

The original example using the cucumber, which I put out there, had the diner purposefully bring a piece of cucumber back from the salad bar for his wife. It seems the same to me but for some reason, because we are talking alcohol and not vegetables, it becomes a crime......which if you really sit back and think about it....is ridiculous. I am in no way suggesting is ok for one passenger to buy this plan then have 2 people spend the entire cruise double dipping BUT 1 or 2 drinks over the 7 days is entirely within reason.

So, if one were to expand on your logic, I guess you'd think it acceptable if you and a friend were to go into a buffet restaurant, pay for one person, and you would bring your friend a plate of food, because some of that food would probably be thrown out eventually. When you pay for something that's only for one, and two people partake, that's OK by you? What if everyone adhered to your logic? Do you honestly think the beverage program would be long for this world? Where would this end----two times a day---three? Celebrity does NOT build in that much of a profit margin to cover an unlimited number of passengers who would cheat the system.

Where did I ever state that it would be acceptable to do as you mentionned above. There is a significant difference between where the original discussion began......one or two drinks over the cruise...which I do see as acceptable.....and your ramblings above. You have taken significant liberties and expanded the discussion far beyond where it began simply to prove some inane point.

I couldn't find myself able to defend people who ignored the dress code, but STEALING! There is no excuse for out and out stealing. A cucumber slice that would have been thrown away anyway is a ridiculous comparison to a drink that was NOT paid for because it was not consumed by the purchaser. PERIOD.

Who says the cucumber slice would be thrown away?? Wouldn't the next patron to the salad bar simply choose that cucumber slice??

That cucumber slice was also not consumed by the purchaser and is of relatively simlar value to the overall price of the salad as one beer is to the overall price price of the drink package. One beer is equivalent to 1.72% of the overall price of the package.

Originally Posted by jg51: "No, it never 'makes sense' to break the law. Please, 'mamoune,' do not cheat. Not only would it make you guilty of a crime, but it would hurt the rest of us."

 

 

Sorry, "maxi1966," but you couldn't be more wrong.

What I told "mamoune" was factual. Were you somehow never taught that stealing is a "crime," and that a person who does it is "guilty?"

 

It's really a very simple and true concept. EXAMPLE:

Suppose we are dining separately in a restaurant. Suppose you leave some change or a $1 bill on your table as a tip for the waiter. Suppose I walk over, pick up that money, and walk out with it ...

Guess what? I am "guilty of a crime." That money didn't belong to me. I stole it from you and/or the waiter to whom it belonged.

 

I just described a situation in which the amount was very small ($1 or less), and yet all normally educated people would see it as a crime of which I was guilty -- one for which I could be arrested. So much more, therefore, would it be a crime for "mamoune" to cheat on a beverage package, where the amount stolen would be between $2 and $12 ... and, if done daily (even more than once daily), could add up to more than $100.

 

 

Oh, no, mon ami! Not "for the most part," but always. Honesty is the way of life pursued by civilized people with whom decent travelers want to associate. Occasional or habitual dishonesty is not.

 

"Maxi1966," it is very disturbing to see you trying to defend theft. Did your parents or teachers wrongly tell you that stealing is OK, despite the laws that society has had against it for millennia? Or is it that you know that stealing is wrong, but you've stolen things many times in your life, and now the way you deal with the repressed guilt is to try to get other people to commit similar crimes?

 

Don't answer, please. Those are rhetorical questions -- to get you to think and change.

PS: What Celebrity may or may not have factored in is irrelevant. What is right and wrong is the only thing that matters.

Please feel free to jump off your soap box whenever you are ready! It is disturbing to me that you sit yourself on such a high pedestal and judge others so acrimoniously. The rambling psychobable is moderately amusing but has a modicum of hypocrisy sprinkled throughout. Please save your sanctimonious squalor for someone and somewhere else. It really has no place on a blog about Cruises and Cruise boats. Find a more suitabe forum. Lastly, the drinks have been paid for, therefore nothing is being stolen. No different than buying a plate at an all-you-can-eat salad bar and giving your wife a slice of cucumber off your plate. Are you supposed to do that?? No! Is it a stealing?? No! Is it a crime?? Definitely not!!! Find some perspective jg...you cant' paint everything with one large sweeping brush stroke.

My buddies and I are debating whether to do one of the alcohol packages. I would appreciate it if a few of you could attempt to persuade us to purchase the package, or attempt to persuade us not too.

 

Here's a few specifics for those of you intent on convincing me: Generally, everyone in our group limits our drinking until the evenings, although that's not always the case. And my guess is that will certainly not be the case if it's pre-paid. We like wine with dinner, but any other drinks go the rest of the time. I like good wine, but there are plenty of nice glasses under $12. Three of the four of us enjoy specialty coffees. We're on the Solstice in November - I'm not sure whether that helps or not.

My guess is the delta either way is going to be less than $50 (either saved or overspent) so it really comes down to convenience. The convenience of just getting your drink and not having to sign that little piece of paper with the wind blowing and sunscreen and water everywhere is well worth it. Plus you have the added advantage of sinking it into the cost of your vacation up front......peace of mind....just do it.

No, it never "makes sense" to break the law. Please, "mamoune," do not cheat. Not only would it make you guilty of a crime, but it would hurt the rest of us.

 

If enough people cheat Celebrity and they thus begin to lose money (or to profit insufficiently), they either will stop offering packages or will jack up the prices "artificially."

That's a bit extreme......."guilty of a crime". Obviously the rules state that the privilege is exclusive to the card holder alone. And that should be honoured for the most part. Ultimately, we would be naive to think Celeberity did not build a certan % buffer into their pricing for some "slippage". They would have built a pricing model, built in cost associated with average consumption over a 7 day period by a typical passenger, then added margin to cover squeued results (covering double dippers to certain extent and excessive drinkers). Finally coming up with a price that was affordable but continued to allow them to make profit based on all variables.