The Starbucks "bootleg latte"--Starbucks' official response

[$tevie]

If you are going to waste this much time on supposed ethical questions, then please include a discussion of why it is okay to refer to something you consider unethical and "scum-baggy" as "ghetto." I have a MUCH bigger problem with that then with the idea of a microscopic percentage of people in the entire world putting Too Much Dairy in their cups.

[Silencio]

I still think it's pretty funny that Mr. "All Muslims Are Terrorists" is trying to be the voice of "ethics" here. Riiiiiiiiight.

[anonymouse1]

Best post ever from Elmo3...never thought I'd be sayin' that.

[SeattlePhotog]

1) Where did I say all Muslims were terrorists?!? I remember saying they are all WEIRD, but that's just because it's true.

2) I didn't create the term "ghetto latté"...the Starbucks crew did. Don't like ghettos? Volunteer.

3) Um. That's it, I guess. Unless all of you really want to be on the scum-baggy side of ethics? No?

How's this: if it were YOUR coffee shoppe, would you want people abusing YOUR system?

[Carthaigh]

A few thoughts:

1. There is no moral or ethical dilemma involved here. Starbuck's officially says that the practice is okay .: it is OK!

2. Why does Starbuck's think the practice is okay? What do you think their profit margin is on a $4 latte? It is frikking coffee! If you want to know how much coffee should cost try making it yourself at home (hint: it wont cost $4).

3. Why does Starbuck's think the practice is okay - part 2? These people are getting free milk, not coffee. All customers at Starbuck's are entitled to free milk. That is why they put it out for use by their customers.

4. Shouldn't your outrage be focused on Starbuck's customers who order their coffee "wet". This means that they are getting more COFFEE for the same price. In your mind this should border on stealing.

5. I love SBUX because this company has a product that people will over-pay for. This makes SBUX a good stock to own.

6. These threads are like car wrecks, it is hard to look away because you think you might see a dead guy.

7. This is the second stupidest thread in months.

That is all.

[voodoopenguin]

[quote herbiesyufy]
How's this: if it were YOUR coffee shoppe, would you want people abusing YOUR system?
If the customers kept coming in and I was making a profit...yes. Is Starbucks making a profit?

Oh except I wouldn't use the word 'abuse'. That's what a teacher of mine, a few decades ago, called 'word magic' where you put a spin on a sentence by using words that have a derogatory slant to them to somehow enhance your own argument. I would just use the word 'use'.

[$tevie]

[quote herbiesyufy]1) Where did I say all Muslims were terrorists?!? I remember saying they are all WEIRD, but that's just because it's true.

2) I didn't create the term "ghetto latté"...the Starbucks crew did. Don't like ghettos? Volunteer.

3) Um. That's it, I guess. Unless all of you really want to be on the scum-baggy side of ethics? No?

How's this: if it were YOUR coffee shoppe, would you want people abusing YOUR system?
I didn't say you did invent the term. It's just funny what you choose to become infuriated about.

Who's "abusing the system"? Wow, that sounds really serious! Too bad it is being applied to POURING HALF AND HALF OUT OF A CONTAINER AT STARBUCKS.

You are obviously never going to back down from your pseudo-moralistic high horse. So have fun judging other people. It must be nice to feel so smug and perfect.

[elmo3]

you know, herbiesyufy, I've been munching on your position, and it suddenly became crystal clear:

you think that if a customer is not given explicit permission to do something, then by definition the customer is forbidden from doing it.

Since Starbucks never said explicitly, "Please use our condiment bar to create your own drinks in whatever fashion you choose," it was your stand that customers were forbidden from creating their own drinks in whatever fashion they chose.

Man. Do you wait for explicit permission for everything?

But now, of course, Starbucks has given explicit permission, so it's a moot point--and yet, you stand firm and insist that somehow, Starbucks is wrong.

Starbucks is wrong. Hmmmm.........

[elmo3]

[quote $tevie]If you are going to waste this much time on supposed ethical questions, then please include a discussion of why it is okay to refer to something you consider unethical and "scum-baggy" as "ghetto."
That's an excellent question. Even when the title of the thread refers to them as "bootleg lattes," herbiesyufy insists on calling them "ghetto" lattes--without any explanation whatsoever as to why he refers to them as such.

This is probably the third time he's been asked that question, and it will be the third time he ignores it.

The answer, of course, is that it shows his true colors.

[chas_m]

Man am I glad I don't patronise Starbucks!