Do you support extortion?

[fuji]

If you were convinced that someone you had a business relationship with owed you a large sum of money, but they believed they did not owe you the money, would you threaten them with violence, or commit acts of violence against them, to get the money you believed was yours?

In short, do you think extortion has any place in Canadian business dealings?

**** EDIT / NOTE ****

IGNORE ANSWER #3, it was added by a moderator who supports the concept of extortion but dislikes the word. Threatening someone with LEGAL action, protests, exposing them, etc., belong to answer #2, threatening someone with VIOLENCE belongs to answer #1. Choose answer #3 if you are a coward who wishes to use violence to settle business disputes but dislikes the word we have for that. Note he left out threatening WHAT because he's too chicken to own up to the fact that it's threatening VIOLENCE.

The point of this poll is violence vs no violence, not some ambiguous "threatening". Sheik please remove the ambiguous and unnecessary answer #3 you added to my poll against my wishes.

 

[YellowDog]

I just read all this crap in another thread:
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=151578
Let it go.

 

[fuji]

Sure, I just want to see if those who support extortion are really the majority they claim to be. I somehow doubt it. Even here (or especially here?)

 

[Moraff]

If you were convinced that someone you had a business relationship with owed you a large sum of money, but they believed they did not owe you the money, would you threaten them with violence, or commit acts of violence against them, to get the money you believed was yours?

In short, do you think extortion has any place in Canadian business dealings?

If you did business dealings with someone where large sums of money are involved and you did it without paperwork to substantiate where the money's ownership lies then you're an idiot. Threatening them and/or commiting acts of violence against them just ends up getting you in trouble (since you obviously can't prove they owe you money or you'd just take them to court).

So in short. NO.

 

[fuji]

Would whoever modified my poll by adding the redundant answer #3 please remove answer #3?

Threatening violence to get your money back in a non-payment situation IS EXTORTION. Threatening something other than violence (legal action, publicity, protest) fits perfectly well under answer #2.

Apparently someone who does believe in extortion doesn't like the word that describes it. Someone who is a moderator. Gee I wonder who that might be?

 

[fuji]

Extortion is one thing as I said earlier, business dealings on the other side involve threats of action, whether it be legal action or otherwise. You twisted it around so deal with it.

I don't have ANY problem with legal threats.

Would you please delete redundant answer #3. If you want to threaten legal action, threaten to expose someone, threaten to protest against them, etc., then choose answer #2, that extortion has no place in business.

If you want to go BEYOND all of that and threaten to hurt them unless they pay you, then choose answer #2, extortion, and very possibly go to jail for it.

Answer #3, that you added to my poll because you dislike the word that describes what you agree with doing, has no place in this poll. It adds nothing except it allows you to weasel out of the word extortion.

 

[Moraff]

IMO threatening legal action is hard to put in the same class as threatening to do violence. If you have paperwork to justify your position in court it's hardly a threat, more a promise. If you don't have the paperwork (and the person knows it) it's hardly a threat.

 

[tboy]

For the record Fuji: extortion is NOT threatening legal action if someone legitimately owes you money and refuses to pay.

For eg: any collection agency that says "if you don't pay us your credit rating will be affected" could be convicted of extortion (in your mind).

Might I suggest you pay what you owe and forgetaboutit?

 

[MuffDiver]

If I asked a question, I'd be pissed if someone modified my choices. I would rather the whole thing be taken down then.

I voted on the modified poll, but I won't vote on this one, since it seems to have been modified.

 

[dcbogey]

For the record Fuji: extortion is NOT threatening legal action if someone legitimately owes you money and refuses to pay.

I think that's his point.

For eg: any collection agency that says "if you don't pay us your credit rating will be affected" could be convicted of extortion (in your mind).

I don't get that at all. How is that extortion?

 

[fuji]

For the record Fuji: extortion is NOT threatening legal action if someone legitimately owes you money and refuses to pay.

I agree absolutely! THIS poll is about people who threaten violence.

It only has two choices: In favour of violence (extortion), and against it. Sheik added the wishy-washy third option because he is too cowardly to come out and admit he supports extortion. He likes the concept but not the word. Ignore choice #3, I didn't post it.

Sheik please put my poll back the way I wrote it, delete that meaningless option #3. You are either for extortion or against it.

 

[papasmerf]

If you are involved in legal activities you have the courts as a solution to non-payments.

If you are involved in illegal activities extortion is pretty much so your remedy to non-payment.

 

[Esco!]

If you are involved in legal activities you have the courts as a solution to non-payments.

If you are involved in illegal activities extortion is pretty much so your remedy to non-payment.

Exactly, smartest thing Papa has ever said.

If you have 2 people involved in illegal drug dealing and one party decides not to pay then you cant very well take that person to court.
Threats are the only way to get your money back (unfortunately).

And before you say its unfair to resort to threats/violence keep in mind the non-paying party knew this was part of the trade and should have thought of that before engaging in drug dealing, so all's fair IMO.

 

[BuffNaked]

If you are involved in legal activities you have the courts as a solution to non-payments.

If you are involved in illegal activities extortion is pretty much so your remedy to non-payment.

QFT. The people you deal with determine your recourse when you're conducting business. Deal with thugs? You better be hard or you are not going to last long. Deal with crooks? Hope you have a lawyer.

I have no idea the point you are trying to make with this poll Fuji.

 

[Meesh]

Extortion has so many different levels fuji and guess what, you`re guilty of it too. I`ve seen you make threats here on TERB that are tantamount to extortion.

Someone hired you to do a job and then didnt pay you are you seriously saying that you wont threaten them?

Someone you bought something from, ended up being totally defective and you wanted your $25,000 back. But they changed their phone numbers to prevent you from calling them. Then they called you and told you to come over and talk to them about it and they told you, hey, I`m not giving you your money back sucker. You wouldnt threaten them?

Come on Fuji..... there is a difference between threatening to get your money back and holding a gun on someone`s face demanding money (which is theft) or threatening to blackmail someone because they used a hooker and are married and cant afford to let the wife find out......

Now I`ve put up a more clarifying poll instead of your misleading one.

https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=155955

Your arguments make no sense in the context of this thread.

Extortion is an illegal act. The question was whether you supported the use of that illegal act in ordinary business dealings, the presumption being that ordinary = legal.

He didn`t say `threatening` legal or othewise. He was quite definitive in using the word extortion. All you`ve done is to add a third option that has nothing to do with the original question. Talk about twisting things...

It also strikes me that your accusations might be somewhat out of line. Might even be `defamatory` as mentioned in rule 10 of the posting guidelines.

 

[Berlin]

In short, do you think extortion has any place in Canadian business dealings?

No, it doesn't.

But I wholeheartedly support the use of sex to settle business dispute.

 

[Never Compromised]

Gentlemen,

This thread, and the other thread, are not doing anyone or this board any good.

Continuing to wave a red flag will eventually attract the attention of a bull. I strongly counsel discretion.

 

[Never Compromised]

I wholeheartedly support the use of sex to settle business dispute.

I take it that you enjoy being bent over without the use of lube?

 

[Berlin]

I take it that you enjoy being bent over without the use of lube?

That depends on how much I owe. No hands on my shoulders though , K ?

 

[fuji]

there is a difference between threatening to get your money back and holding a gun on someone's face demanding money (which is theft)

The reason why this issue makes you so uncomfortable is that it is a "wedge issue". Biker boosters like you see nothing wrong with a little extortion here and there, and don't understand why the overwhelming majority of Canadians have a big problem with it. And yes, the overwhelming majority have a big problem with it--over 75% (likely much more, given that you corrupted the poll with that ambiguous weasel answer #3 that omitted what was threatened.)

Most people likely have some sympathy for anyone who is perceived to be getting mistreated by the police--Canadians as a whole are strong believers in the rights of the accused. You and the HA have played that up to the max. But THIS is the issue that separates you from civilized society: You think violence has a place in business, and we don't.

By the way, there IS a difference between the two things you mention: One is armed robbery. The other is extortion.