|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
NYC_Gal 2.0
Joined: 10 Dec 2010
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 5:29 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Ill informed? So Ms. Parks was a slave?
I'm curious�Calendar, what was your name before you got banned for trollery? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mayorgc
Joined: 19 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| No, it is hearsay and that is not admissable in court because it has nothing to substantiate it. For all we know the Op was the jerk but decided to caste himself in the good light and the shopkeeper in the bad to 'get even with him'. |
Wrong. The op's testimony is not hearsay. It would be hearsay if the OP was relaying info from another. Also, this isn't court, this is Daves, the only thing that matters is the court of public opinion.
| Quote: |
Discrimination is very subjective and one of the failings of the American legal or governmental system is that they went the existential route and said that it is 'how the person perceives it' which is very wrong as every person does not perceive these acts in the same way.
The honest and actual way to judge if it is discrimination is to look for the INTENT of the person doing the deed or speaking the words. The OP did not provide any evidence fo the intent but relied upon his perception without evidence thus his claims of discrimination fall short. |
What exactly would be evidence of discrimination? Do you need to read minds? do you need signed confessions? How is this situation not intent? the OP asked to use a guitar, shopkeeper says no. Later on, the shop keeper is allowing koreans to test the guitar.
| Quote: |
| I am not saying that discrimination doesn't happen I am saying that the OP can't prove it happened to him and he is libeling the shopkeeper. He needs to remember that he is in Korea and even if his claims were true, the shopkeeper could sue him and win a lot of money. |
You/Op can't prove that discrimination happened but you also can't prove the libel has occured. You think libel has occured but you don't have any evidence to show for it.
| Quote: |
| All a good defense attorney has to do is provide reasonable doubt (under the American and most western legal systems) and I have done that. The OP can't prove his claim. |
Since the OP isn't in court, reasonable doubt doesn't matter. OJ got away with murder, but we all know he pretty much did it. If the OP is telling the truth, then the OP faced discrimination. You can either accept it or reject it. You haven't even provided reasonable doubt. You just said that the OP can't prove it, then you accused the OP of maybe lying or visited the shop at lunch time or whatever.
| Quote: |
| For all we know the OP visited the shop previously and did something that made the owner dislike him so he was tossed the second time he visited. It is known to happen. |
Very true, that could have happened. But the OP could have also been a nice guy and faced discrimination for being "western". Both are likely scenarios.
| Quote: |
| Under's whose definition? The Korean or western one? Or the western dictionary's or thea Korean source? You can't point to the western dictionary as it was written under western influence thus rendering it invalid in different cultures. |
What's the Korean definition of discrimination? What's the Korean discrimination for dog? They'd have the same meaning in both languages I believe.
| Quote: |
| But she was living under a different set of laws than the OP. Here whites and Koreans can sit together on a bus, drink from the same fountains, eat at the same rest., gamble in the same casinos (example only) and so on. The blacks had laws targeting them and keeping them from integrating into society and being thought of as 1st class citizens. The Op does not. He can even marry a Korean girl with no threat to his life, like the blacks had. |
You're treading into strawman territory. The direct comparison is the bus and the music arcade. Rosa parks/ OP was not a slave. Nobody forced either of them on the bush. Both were denied services that were provided to the 'locals'. Both situations are directly comparable.
| Quote: |
| So? The refusal of service is not strict evidence that discrimination has occured. I won't rehash the reasons for that statement. What is that saying in the west--- Want in one hand and crap in the other and see which fills up first? |
You're the one who brought up the hand and foot thing. So what exactly would be strict evidence that discrimination occured? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calendar
Joined: 22 Sep 2011
Location: being a hermit
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Wrong. The op's testimony is not hearsay |
Okay I used the wrong word. It is his word against the shop keeper's. Still no evidence of discrimination.
| Quote: |
| Also, this isn't court, this is Daves, the only thing that matters is the court of public opinion. |
So? Do we throw the rules out and let anarchy reign? Public opinion is not the rule of law and doesn't matter. people only use it to get revenge, or hurt someone they should not. In this country, it can get people into a lot of trouble.
| Quote: |
| What exactly would be evidence of discrimination |
It is hard to prove in your favor isn't it? The OP's perception is not evidence and you cannot claim discrimination when your request is refused. Let's use another example. A young man of color asks to drive my car and I say no, can't be done but he comes back a little later and sees an older white man driving it. Can he claim discrimination? No because insurance coverage may limit who drives my car. The OP has no evidence to counter alternative reasoning for the refusal of service.
| Quote: |
| You/Op can't prove that discrimination happened but you also can't prove the libel has occured. You think libel has occured but you don't have any evidence to show for it. |
But you see, I can make the same charge as the OP and in this case if the shopkeeper does, whom will the Korean courts listen to--the Korean or the FT? Will the OP keep claiming discrimination if he loses?
| Quote: |
| Since the OP isn't in court, reasonable doubt doesn't matter |
An excuse to avoid the point made.
| Quote: |
| OJ got away with murder, but we all know he pretty much did it |
Were you there? No, you do not know that he did it. stories surfaced that OJ's son had an obsession with Nicole, did you ever stop to think that OJ took the heat for him like a good parent would?
| Quote: |
| If the OP is telling the truth, then the OP faced discrimination. |
He may be telling the truth about what happened but that is not evidence that discrimination took place. Your logic is wanting here and ignoring all the posts we have put up and the alternative reasons given for such action. He only related the event but his conclusion was based upon assumption without evidence.
| Quote: |
| You haven't even provided reasonable doubt. You just said that the OP can't prove it, then you accused the OP of maybe lying or visited the shop at lunch time or whatever |
If the OP can't prove it, then guess what, that is reasonable doubt. He left the door open for other possibilities and does not have an iron clad case.
| Quote: |
| Very true, that could have happened. But the OP could have also been a nice guy and faced discrimination for being "western". Both are likely scenarios |
Yes that is correct but since we only have the OP's word for it, he doesn't have a case for discrimination. He couldbe Jimmy Stewart or Tom Hanks but he still wouldn't have a case for discrimination.
| Quote: |
| What's the Korean definition of discrimination? What's the Korean discrimination for dog? They'd have the same meaning in both languages I believe |
Did you put the wrong word in there by chance?
| Quote: |
| The direct comparison is the bus and the music arcade. Rosa parks/ OP was not a slave. Nobody forced either of them on the bush. Both were denied services that were provided to the 'locals'. Both situations are directly comparable |
BUT Mrs. Parks was NOT denied services
| Quote: |
| You're the one who brought up the hand and foot thing. So what exactly would be strict evidence that discrimination occured? |
I know I did but that is the way these posts come across a lot of the times.
It may not apply to the OP but neither does discrimination when applied to the actions of the majority of Koreans. As I said earlier, discrimination is very subjective and people have different standards for its application, whose are we going to use? We can't use the OP's because he is now biased and influenced by the rejection.
Wouldn't it be wiser for the FT to give the benefit of the doubt and just simply move on nursing his or her disappointed feelings until they are cured by a Korean shopkeeper who gives them the service they desired? Why cause problems when you do not have to?
I am ignoring the kibbitzers as I do not want to ruin the discussion in progress and they only describe themselves and go off track with their hair splitting and assumptions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calendar
Joined: 22 Sep 2011
Location: being a hermit
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P.S. I am going through far worse with IX web hosting than the OP went through at a guitar shop but you do not hear me crying foul do you? They are robbing me of agreed service yet you do not hear me libeling them do you? Why should the Op do it to a Korean or Koreans when they can't defend themselves or give their side of the story? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mayorgc
Joined: 19 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Okay I used the wrong word. It is his word against the shop keeper's. Still no evidence of discrimination. |
The OPs testimonyy is evidence. You can either accept it or reject it
| Quote: |
| So? Do we throw the rules out and let anarchy reign? Public opinion is not the rule of law and doesn't matter. people only use it to get revenge, or hurt someone they should not. In this country, it can get people into a lot of trouble |
Nobody suggested that rules be thrown out. I'm telling you that Dave's isn't a court of law. Therefore, you don't need to treat it like a court case.
| Quote: |
| It is hard to prove in your favor isn't it? The OP's perception is not evidence and you cannot claim discrimination when your request is refused. Let's use another example. A young man of color asks to drive my car and I say no, can't be done but he comes back a little later and sees an older white man driving it. Can he claim discrimination? No because insurance coverage may limit who drives my car. The OP has no evidence to counter alternative reasoning for the refusal of service. |
Perception isn't a form of evidence but testimony is. Yes, you can claim discrimination when a request is refused if the reason for refusal is based on discrimination. In this case, if the OP is telling the truth, then it's a clear case of discrimination. Your example is way off because you are not a car dealership. The OPs example involves a place of business that supposedly serves everybody.
| Quote: |
| But you see, I can make the same charge as the OP and in this case if the shopkeeper does, whom will the Korean courts listen to--the Korean or the FT? Will the OP keep claiming discrimination if he loses? |
Buddy, you said that discrimination did not occur. But you so easily said that libel did occur. How can you so easily decide one thing didn't happen yet another thing did.
| Quote: |
| An excuse to avoid the point made. |
You're making excuses for the points made by the OP.
| Quote: |
| Were you there? No, you do not know that he did it. stories surfaced that OJ's son had an obsession with Nicole, did you ever stop to think that OJ took the heat for him like a good parent would? |
I wasn't there. What you just posted is hearsay. Sorry, not admissable.
| Quote: |
| He may be telling the truth about what happened but that is not evidence that discrimination took place. Your logic is wanting here and ignoring all the posts we have put up and the alternative reasons given for such action. He only related the event but his conclusion was based upon assumption without evidence. |
The OPs story is evidence that Discrimination could have taken place. Your counter point is that the OP came at lunch time or that the shop keep didn't speak english. You have zero evidence for either, but you have no problems suggesting it.
| Quote: |
| If the OP can't prove it, then guess what, that is reasonable doubt. He left the door open for other possibilities and does not have an iron clad case. |
Considering that this isn't a court of law, it doesn't matter. If the op told the truth, then it's likely that discrimination occured. If he's lying, then he's lying.
| Quote: |
| Yes that is correct but since we only have the OP's word for it, he doesn't have a case for discrimination. He couldbe Jimmy Stewart or Tom Hanks but he still wouldn't have a case for discrimination. |
The OP does have a case. It could be weak or it could be strong depending on the situation. You're saying that discrimination could not possibly have happened. I'm saying that based on what was posted, it most likely did happen. You could be right, or I could be right.
| Quote: |
| Did you put the wrong word in there by chance? |
Nope. Discrimination has the same meaning in both English and Korean.
| Quote: |
| BUT Mrs. Parks was NOT denied services |
Yes, she sorta was. She was not allowed to sit in the front, like the others.
| Quote: |
| I know I did but that is the way these posts come across a lot of the times. |
But that's not the situation here. OP supposedly only wanted the same treatment as Koreans. He's not asking to be treated like a king.
| Quote: |
| It may not apply to the OP but neither does discrimination when applied to the actions of the majority of Koreans. As I said earlier, discrimination is very subjective and people have different standards for its application, whose are we going to use? We can't use the OP's because he is now biased and influenced by the rejection. |
You're talking about the majority of Koreans, the OP is talking about a specific subset. We'll use the definition that's provided by western/korean dictionaries. Both definitions suggest that discrimination has occured.
| Quote: |
| Wouldn't it be wiser for the FT to give the benefit of the doubt and just simply move on nursing his or her disappointed feelings until they are cured by a Korean shopkeeper who gives them the service they desired? Why cause problems when you do not have to? |
How are problems being caused?
[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calendar
Joined: 22 Sep 2011
Location: being a hermit
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The OPs testimonyy is evidence. You can either accept it or reject it |
No, it is an accusation which requires evidence to support it.
| Quote: |
| Nobody suggested that rules be thrown out. I'm telling you that Dave's isn't a court of law. Therefore, you don't need to treat it like a court case. |
Doesn't matter, you need to get it right. Mentioning it on Dave's still reqires truth so people do not get the wrong idea. Court of public Opinion means nothing, for opinion isn't law and the OP stated an opinion about the actions and had nothing to support it.
| Quote: |
| Perception isn't a form of evidence but testimony is |
Testimony can also be wrong, Don't automatically assume it is correct. No, it is not a clear case of discrimination, that is the OPs version of events not fact.
| Quote: |
| you said that discrimination did not occur. But you so easily said that libel did occur. How can you so easily decide one thing didn't happen yet another thing did. |
The name of the market is in the thread title, and most people knows who he is talking about--the shopkeeper selling musical instruments. We only have a he said case for discrimination.
| Quote: |
| I wasn't there. What you just posted is hearsay. Sorry, not admissable |
No, not hearsay, but a theory based upon years of training and some pieces of information. It is a possibility but so far no real evidence. hearsay is : witness-- 'the defendant told me blah blah blah.'
| Quote: |
| The OPs story is evidence that Discrimination could have taken place. Your counter point is that the OP came at lunch time or that the shop keep didn't speak english. You have zero evidence for either, but you have no problems suggesting it. |
The Op is telling only one side of the story--his version. I am bringing reasonable doubt into the equation. I am merely offering alternative reasons other than the more harsh and flaming accusation of discrimination. Preference plays a part as well.
| Quote: |
| Considering that this isn't a court of law, it doesn't matter. If the op told the truth, then it's likely that discrimination occured. If he's lying, then he's lying. |
No, he could be telling the truth as he knows it then leaping to a conclusion that it was discrimination but it doesn't mean such took place.
| Quote: |
| The OP does have a case. It could be weak or it could be strong depending on the situation. You're saying that discrimination could not possibly have happened. I'm saying that based on what was posted, it most likely did happen. You could be right, or I could be right |
i am saying he doesn't have a case as it is unprovable given the information we were told. Remember we only have his side of it and I di dnot say it 'could not possibly happen' I am saying that there are other reasons available not the harshest one only that spurred the shopkeeper's actions. It would be wiser to give the shopkeeper the benefit of the doubt instead of getting all riled up because the Op doesn't know the intent and can only assume.
| Quote: |
| Discrimination has the same meaning in both English and Korean |
Read your sentence again, I was talking about the word order and usage as one seems very out o fplace.
| Quote: |
| Yes, she sorta was. She was not allowed to sit in the front, like the others. |
Now you are bending the situation to fit your point. If she got up she wold have still been on the bus getting her ride home. But still what the OP faced was noting like the blacks faced and it is still absurd to bringit up.
| Quote: |
| OP supposedly only wanted the same treatment as Koreans |
Who says all Koreans are treated in the same manner and that the shopkeeper doesn't toss some of them out as well? He would be going on the assumption that all Koreans were treated like the children he saw in the shop later.
| Quote: |
| You're talking about the majority of Koreans, the OP is talking about a specific subset. We'll use the definition that's provided by western/korean dictionaries. Both definitions suggest that discrimination has occured. |
I would disagree with all of this.
| Quote: |
| How are problems being caused? |
The obvious one is that the OP is on this board and possibly others causing problems for the shopkeeper and that market by trying to deter others from going to those locations. His own attitude is influenced as well which leads to more negative encounters as his daily life continues here.
Anyways, i think we have discussed this to its fullest but if you have other good points I will respond when I get the time. I will leave it at that we disagree on the incident and its meaning. It is just better to not make a big deal out of it for it is not life threatening or employment altering (unless the Op's employer reads what he writes on the internet).
I just wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it was discrimination and that the OP was just angry and disappointed so he went for the kill shot instead of being reasonable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mayorgc
Joined: 19 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| No, it is an accusation which requires evidence to support it. |
The explanation of the incident is testimony. That's a form of evidence.
| Quote: |
| Doesn't matter, you need to get it right. Mentioning it on Dave's still reqires truth so people do not get the wrong idea. Court of public Opinion means nothing, for opinion isn't law and the OP stated an opinion about the actions and had nothing to support it. |
How do you know the OPs events aren't the truth? You're operating under the assumption that the OP is lying. Nobody said that opinion is law. Even if no opinion was offered regarding the event, the entire thing speaks for itself pretty much.
| Quote: |
| Testimony can also be wrong, Don't automatically assume it is correct. No, it is not a clear case of discrimination, that is the OPs version of events not fact. |
You're assuming it's absolutely false. If the op is telling the truth, then discrimination occured. If he's lying, then nothing occured.
| Quote: |
| The name of the market is in the thread title, and most people knows who he is talking about--the shopkeeper selling musical instruments. We only have a he said case for discrimination. |
Is it libel if it's the truth?
| Quote: |
| I wasn't there. What you just posted is hearsay. Sorry, not admissable |
| Quote: |
| No, not hearsay, but a theory based upon years of training and some pieces of information. It is a possibility but so far no real evidence. hearsay is : witness-- 'the defendant told me blah blah blah |
.'
umm, you read that OJs son might have been behind the murders. Yeah, that's pretty much hearsay.
| Quote: |
| The Op is telling only one side of the story--his version. I am bringing reasonable doubt into the equation. I am merely offering alternative reasons other than the more harsh and flaming accusation of discrimination. Preference plays a part as well. |
You can offer alternative reasons all you want, but based on what the OP has posted (could be true, could be false), it's possible that discrimination has occured. Therefore, the OP is justified in making his initial statement.
| Quote: |
| No, he could be telling the truth as he knows it then leaping to a conclusion that it was discrimination but it doesn't mean such took place. |
He could be leaping to conclusions and he could be spot on. Both are possible.
| Quote: |
i am saying he doesn't have a case as it is unprovable given the information we were told. Remember we only have his side of it and I di dnot say it 'could not possibly happen' I am saying that there are other reasons available not the harshest one only that spurred the shopkeeper's actions. It would be wiser to give the shopkeeper the benefit of the doubt instead of getting all riled up because the Op doesn't know the intent and can only assume. |
Yes, there are other alternatives. Maybe it was discrimination or maybe it wasn't. Based solely on OPs original post, it looks like discrimination.
| Quote: |
| Read your sentence again, I was talking about the word order and usage as one seems very out o fplace. |
You suggested that the definition of discriminate was different between English and Korean. I"m suggesting that it's the same. You said that the shopkeeper could pick and choose who to service. I advised you that it's discrimination if that happens.
| Quote: |
| Now you are bending the situation to fit your point. If she got up she wold have still been on the bus getting her ride home. But still what the OP faced was noting like the blacks faced and it is still absurd to bringit up. |
The reason Rosa Parks is brought up isn't because FTs and Blacks faced the same treatment. It's because both are cases of discrimination. Rosa park could ride the bus, but she just can't sit in the front. The OP can buy a guitar, but he just can't test it out.
| Quote: |
| Who says all Koreans are treated in the same manner and that the shopkeeper doesn't toss some of them out as well? He would be going on the assumption that all Koreans were treated like the children he saw in the shop later. |
Shopkeeper said that nobody can test out guitars on saturday, too busy. OP left and when he came back, some Koreans were testing the guitars.
It could be an age thing, or it could be a color thing or it could be something else. Maybe language? But either way, that's a form of discrimination, either color, age, language, etc.
| Quote: |
I would disagree with all of this. |
Why disagree? The OP specifically names the Koreans at the music arcade. Not all of Korea.
| Quote: |
| The obvious one is that the OP is on this board and possibly others causing problems for the shopkeeper and that market by trying to deter others from going to those locations. His own attitude is influenced as well which leads to more negative encounters as his daily life continues here. |
If the OP is telling the truth, he isn't causing problems, he's helping others. there's a thread on page 1 about a humidifier that almost killed a guy's wife/kid. Does the guy who started that thread need to provide evidence? maybe some x-rays or something? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pugwall
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I have used this website for years. This is argument is very odd, even by the standards set on this website. Where do people like this come from? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Someone said that this a result of some foreigner probably coming in and "testing" the guitar for hours like back home, while clearly having no intention to buy it. It's just a cross-cultural misunderstanding.
I can get why the store owner would change their policy. At the same time to have a different set of rules IS discriminatory.
At the same time the discrimination might be necessary. Maybe, just maybe if people thought for a second that to go into the stores and play the guitars like some vagrant might not be viewed the same way in this country, the situation might be different.
On the other hand, the store owners should have a vague clue and try to winnow the wheat from the chaff when it comes to testing and at least be open and not have a strict policy against foreigners testing guitars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calendar
Joined: 22 Sep 2011
Location: being a hermit
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The explanation of the incident is testimony. That's a form of evidence |
No, evidence is what supports the testimony or knocks it down.
| Quote: |
| How do you know the OPs events aren't the truth? You're operating under the assumption that the OP is lying. |
No, I am operating under the premise that the OP leaped to a conclusion and cannot prove his assertion/accusation. He may think it was discrimination but it may not be.
| Quote: |
You're assuming it's absolutely false. If the op is telling the truth, then discrimination occured. If he's lying, then nothing occured.
|
No I explained this once before. Just because the OP is telling the truth doesn't make it discrimination. he is only going by what he thinks is evidence and may not be. When he came back later did he know if the children playing were relatives, grandchildren, children? Friends of the shopkeeper? No he assumed something and went from there. Rules are different for family and friends
| Quote: |
| Is it libel if it's the truth? |
In Korea it can be
| Quote: |
| you read that OJs son might have been behind the murders. Yeah, that's pretty much hearsay. |
No, it was speculation and a possibility. Not hearsay. They presented some evidence to support their thinking. I do not know if they were correct ro not but it does make sense.
| Quote: |
| You can offer alternative reasons all you want, but based on what the OP has posted (could be true, could be false), it's possible that discrimination has occured. Therefore, the OP is justified in making his initial statement. |
It is possible but the Op hasn't presented anything to confirm his speculation and assumption that it was.
| Quote: |
| He could be leaping to conclusions and he could be spot on. Both are possible |
Yes but seeing children play the guitars isn't evidence because there is nothing in the observation that determiness intent. Also since the shopkeeper owns the shop, he has the right to serve whom he wants, it is his place not the OPs and what I see is the OP trying to make trouble for a Korean.
| Quote: |
| It's because both are cases of discrimination |
Really? There was no loss of service till Mrs. parks refused to move and the police had to be called. But that was over 50 years ago and people pull out all sorts of things to justify their assumptions today. I highly doubt the OP experienced discrimination, besides it is a lone incident. There is not a movement or laws being done to suppress and opppress FTs. I highly doubt he could prove his case, even if it were true.
| Quote: |
| But either way, that's a form of discrimination |
Siounds like someone is bending the definitions to get the accusation they want. The Op was disappointed so he thought he would get even by making one sided claims on this board. Does the shopkeeper's actiosn justify the OPs? WHy?
| Quote: |
| If the OP is telling the truth, he isn't causing problems, he's helping others |
No he is not, he is trying to hurt the shopkeeper. Very few people are in the market for Fenders etc.
| Quote: |
| there's a thread on page 1 about a humidifier that almost killed a guy's wife/kid. Does the guy who started that thread need to provide evidence |
Again ...yes. or are you in the habit of blindly believing one side of the story simply because the guy is white, a FT or American (western)? He claims it almost killed his wife and child but how do we know they didn't make a mistake when they were adding the chemicals? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calendar
Joined: 22 Sep 2011
Location: being a hermit
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Someone said that this a result of some foreigner probably coming in and "testing" the guitar for hours like back home, while clearly having no intention to buy it. It's just a cross-cultural misunderstanding.
I can get why the store owner would change their policy. At the same time to have a different set of rules IS discriminatory.
At the same time the discrimination might be necessary. Maybe, just maybe if people thought for a second that to go into the stores and play the guitars like some vagrant might not be viewed the same way in this country, the situation might be different.
On the other hand, the store owners should have a vague clue and try to winnow the wheat from the chaff when it comes to testing and at least be open and not have a strict policy against foreigners testing guitars. |
Steelrails, you and TUM are usually pretty good in your posts but discrimination is a violation of certain laws. The OP can't just walk to the police and claim it. There has to be real evidence not someone's word alone.
he can do it here because he nows he can get away with it and have people leap to his side against the big bad korean nationals but in reality he just makes things worse because he can't prove his case or show intent by the shopkeeper.
As I have shown, the shopkeeper has the easier time of it as reasonable doubt is simple to create by providing legitimate alternatives. Even if the Op was a mind reader it would still be his word against the owner's. Thus no discrimination took place and ther Op needs to get over it, find another store to do business with.
i remember reading about women who claimed OJ was guilty not because there was evidence but because 'they just knew it'. Such things just do not work in the real world and why return bad for bad? it doesn't help anyone except to make things worse. I can see the shopkeeper now agetting wind of this and callimn ghis friends with his version of events and they get angry, soon innocent people are hurt because the Op made a big deal out of soemthing he could not prove. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seoulman69
Joined: 14 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Someone said that this a result of some foreigner probably coming in and "testing" the guitar for hours like back home, while clearly having no intention to buy it. |
Who said that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calendar
Joined: 22 Sep 2011
Location: being a hermit
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Someone said that this a result of some foreigner probably coming in and "testing" the guitar for hours like back home, while clearly having no intention to buy it. It's just a cross-cultural misunderstanding.
I can get why the store owner would change their policy. At the same time to have a different set of rules IS discriminatory.
At the same time the discrimination might be necessary. Maybe, just maybe if people thought for a second that to go into the stores and play the guitars like some vagrant might not be viewed the same way in this country, the situation might be different.
On the other hand, the store owners should have a vague clue and try to winnow the wheat from the chaff when it comes to testing and at least be open and not have a strict policy against foreigners testing guitars. |
Steelrails, you and TUM are usually pretty good in your posts but discrimination is a violation of certain laws. The OP can't just walk to the police and claim it. There has to be real evidence not someone's word alone.
He can do it here because he nows he can get away with it and have people leap to his side against the big bad Korean nationals but in reality he just makes things worse because he can't prove his case or show intent by the shopkeeper.
As I have shown, the shopkeeper has the easier time of it as reasonable doubt is simple to create by providing legitimate alternatives. Even if the OP was a mind reader it would still be his word against the owner's. Thus no discrimination took place and ther OP needs to get over it, find another store to do business with.
I remember reading about women who claimed OJ was guilty not because there was evidence but because 'they just knew it'. Such things just do not work in the real world and why return bad for bad? It doesn't help anyone except to make things worse. I can see the shopkeeper now getting wind of this and calling his friends with his version of events and they get angry, soon innocent people are hurt because the OP made a big deal out of something he could not prove.
Last edited by calendar on Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:59 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eamo
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| calendar wrote: |
i remember reading about women who claimed OJ was guilty not because there was evidence but because 'they just knew it'. Such things just do not work in the real world and why return bad for bad? it doesn't help anyone except to make things worse. I can see the shopkeeper now agetting wind of this and callimn ghis friends with his version of events and they get angry, soon innocent people are hurt because the OP made a big deal out of something he could not prove. |
Calander, man. I suggest you take a break from Dave's. It's bringing out your inner nut. Drunk? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calendar
Joined: 22 Sep 2011
Location: being a hermit
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| eamo wrote: |
| calendar wrote: |
i remember reading about women who claimed OJ was guilty not because there was evidence but because 'they just knew it'. Such things just do not work in the real world and why return bad for bad? it doesn't help anyone except to make things worse. I can see the shopkeeper now agetting wind of this and callimn ghis friends with his version of events and they get angry, soon innocent people are hurt because the OP made a big deal out of something he could not prove. |
Calander, man. I suggest you take a break from Dave's. It's bringing out your inner nut. Drunk? |
 Thanks for the smile. Over the years I have seen small things escalate and it happens. But anyways, I doubt discrimination took place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
