• I get your point but I'm not referring to litigants, just the average people on the street.
And, I'm also talking about the people on the street, who answer with a resounding "no." I believe if they're angry enough over being disrespected, they will sue.
• Yes, but the part that bugs me is Harvey's assumption that no matter who you are or what your situation is, you can be bought.
Your opinion vs Harvey's.
But, I think you're wrong looking at is as "being bought."
As I've tried to say, when people have "had enough abuse," they'll sue. They might let $1000 slide, but they'd be foolish not to try to recoup $10,000. If I loaned you money and you refuse to repay, how am I "being bought" by trying to recoup what is rightfully mine?
I think your problem is with Harvey, not the idea of suing a relative.
reply
share
rrattbbooyy
8 years ago
I think your problem is with Harvey, not the idea of suing a relative.
I thought I made that clear. He questions the street people as though he was a lawyer cross examining them in court. If he can get them to admit they have a price, he wins. He shouldn't keep trying to win. He's not in court.
As I've tried to say, when people have "had enough abuse," they'll sue. They might let $1000 slide, but they'd be foolish not to try to recoup $10,000.
Your opinion vs mine. I would, and actually have, let any debt my mother owes me to slide. I lent her some money, she cannot afford to pay it back, whatever, the loan becomes a gift and we all still enjoy holiday meals together. Hardly foolish because, as I've said, some things are more important than money. There is no realistic amount that would make me destroy our relationship, just so I can put a few more dollars that I don't need into a savings account. But that's me. Clearly, everyone's mileage varies.
reply
share
Gubbio
8 years ago
Your mother is fortunate that you feel that way.
However, you can't project your relationship onto everyone else. Each case has to be reviewed individually.
As you, yourself, said: "Clearly, everyone's mileage varies."
He questions the street people as though he was a lawyer cross examining them in court. If he can get them to admit they have a price, he wins. He shouldn't keep trying to win. He's not in court.
Harv doesn't bother me one way or the other.
reply
share
rrattbbooyy
8 years ago
Harv doesn't bother me one way or the other.
Well, Curt didn't bother me, but now he's gone. :-(
reply
share
LittleBrother55
8 years ago
FYI: Harvey's recurring "gotcha" on this topic is not original.
Since the early decades of the previous century, an anecdote known as "haggling over the price" has been circulated and attributed to numerous sources.
The gist of the anecdote is that a man asks a woman if she would sleep with him if he gave her an exorbitant amount of money. She says yes.
The man then asks if she would sleep with him for a very small amount of money, and she is shocked and insulted. She says, "What kind of a woman do you think I am?"
The man replies along the lines of, "I already know what kind of woman you are. Now we're just haggling over the price."
There are numerous variations to this exchange.
See this article for background: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/07/haggling/.
That's the basic argument or logic Harvey uses.
As I say, it can be applied in various ways. So Harvey begins at the low end, and works his way up.
But it's the same basic point.
As other commenters have pointed out, there's more than one possible "moral of the story". The simple one is "everybody has their price".
A related, but more nuanced one, is that its easy enough to stand on principle in the abstract-- but when tested with practical application, if the incentive's high enough, principles will go out the window.
Anyway, this is one of Harvey's wind-up "gotchas". He loves to let them fly, and never misses a chance to spring them on the crowd.
With this one, he's playing at being Socrates, and trying to get the typically mentally-deficient onlookers to "think". Good luck with that.
Over time, it becomes as tiresome as his pitches for taking in rescue dogs, or getting the group to agree that low-life tenants are much worse than abusive landlords.
reply
share
rrattbbooyy
8 years ago
Outstanding post, LB. I have heard variations of that anecdote but had always assumed it originated with Groucho Marx. The research you linked to was an interesting read.
I might add, in addition to the biases you've mentioned, Harvey also has a low opinion of tow truck drivers. :-)
reply
share