| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Stealing. The Seventh Commandment | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sunday, 24. October 2010, 21:42 (489 Views) | |
| Peter | Tuesday, 26. October 2010, 09:20 Post #16 |
|
Well.............., Mairtin has said that on this subject I've been full of nonsensical hyperbole and Alpac has said that I've had a rant. And all I thought I was doing was expressing MY opinion! I must do my best not to be full of nonsensical hyperbole in the future, nor must I rant - I must keep myself in check. Oh that we could see ourselves as others see us and don't forget that cuts both ways!! Peter |
![]() |
|
| tomais | Tuesday, 26. October 2010, 09:22 Post #17 |
|
Super Markets / banks; David Hume predicted many unregulated actions;sumed up as; " theft" in my book-immorality = theft |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Tuesday, 26. October 2010, 09:48 Post #18 |
|
"Super Markets / banks; David Hume predicted many unregulated actions;sumed up as; " theft" in my book-immorality = theft" Agreed Tomais. Of course not acceptable for many if it is 'in their patch'. [smile] PJD |
![]() |
|
| Alpac | Tuesday, 26. October 2010, 11:19 Post #19 |
|
And I agree with the gist of what you say Peter, if you manage to wade through my 'Waffle'
|
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Tuesday, 26. October 2010, 11:28 Post #20 |
|
Just as we are surely entitled to give our opinions ![]() The point that I was trying to make is that if you want to attack what you consider the damage done by large supermarkets than you need to get the right target in your sights and that, in my opinion, is not the supermarkets. In you post you said “the people” in a town near you fought against Tesco for 15 years; can I ask you who these people were? I ask because in my experience the people who oppose supermarkets are generally existing businesses who don’t want the competition and maybe some environmentalists; in most cases, the majority of townspeople support the supermarket coming in. Alpac gives a typical example in his post where after a 15 year planning permission battle, “To the towns delight the [Sainsbury] store opened”. He points out that after the store opened, some apparently dubious behaviour came to light; he doesn’t say whether that impacted on the store’s performance but I’m willing to bet that it didn’t make one iota of difference. That’s the problem you have to face up to – the majority of people want and welcome these large supermarkets into their area, there’s not much point in moaning about business responding to consumer demand, that’s what businesses are set up to do. |
![]() |
|
| Alpac | Tuesday, 26. October 2010, 11:38 Post #21 |
|
You are correct Mairtin. I have long since moved on and I suspect the current generation know nothing other than the convenience of having Sainsbury on their door step just as their parents went to Fine-Fare and their parents a selection of local shops and traders. |
![]() |
|
| Derekap | Tuesday, 26. October 2010, 12:29 Post #22 |
|
True there were no supermarkets at one time and our city and town centres were full of small shops. For example, Maypole, Liptons and a number of other similar shops but I suspect many of them were owned by the same people. Stead and Simpsons, Freeman, Hardy and Willis etc sold shoes and they changed their name every few years and changed back. |
| Derekap | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Tuesday, 26. October 2010, 12:32 Post #23 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Cuts both ways? That's the spirit!
|
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Tuesday, 26. October 2010, 12:37 Post #24 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Derek as you and I were born within 30 miles of each other I am familiar with those names. There were a few chains of good quality family owned grocery cum bakery shops. As the founders and their children died, the following generations sold to Hillards, which in turn was bought by Tesco. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Tuesday, 26. October 2010, 12:52 Post #25 |
![]()
Administrator
|
It ain't what they do, it's the way that they do it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7132108.stm
|
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| PJD | Tuesday, 26. October 2010, 16:21 Post #26 |
|
So they are cheats Rose? What then has been stolen? And who then become receivers? PJD |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Tuesday, 26. October 2010, 16:57 Post #27 |
![]()
Administrator
|
In response to PJD's post above, the supermarkets broke the law by operating a price fixing cartel. However I do not see how that could be regarded as theft. My opinion is they are greedy, will trample upon anybody to increase their power, but that has nothing to do with the Seventh Commandment. |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Tuesday, 26. October 2010, 17:03 Post #28 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Most of us on this thread including me have turned it into a discussion about the morality of supermarkets techniques. If anybody would like to open a thread specifically about morality in business, as it relates to Christian faith, feel free to do so. There is more I would like to say about supermarkets, but not on here. Meanwhile
|
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Tuesday, 26. October 2010, 17:10 Post #29 |
![]()
Administrator
|
I say the individuals who took advantage of the system, claiming on expenses to make themselves property rich, were breaking the Seventh Commandment, taking milk from the mouths of babes, and taking my money from me. Some people are in a position to unlawfully under-declare their income for tax purposes. Is it justifiable to hide some income from Inland Revenue so they avoid paying on what they consider to be theft? |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Peter | Tuesday, 26. October 2010, 18:30 Post #30 |
|
Alpac, no worries, it was just my (obviously) feeble attempt at humour - I must try harder in future! Have a good evening. Peter |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |








7:53 PM Jul 11