If you've had platinum passes for years so you get a discount

MaverickLaunch said:
I don't see anywhere here where people have stated the Platinum pass is not a good deal.

Well that's exactly the problem, isn't it? It's not that they don't think it's a good deal. It's that they feel they're entitled to a better deal.

It would be like me going to Target and complaining that I don't get an extra discount for being a loyal customer. Never mind the fact that as a loyal customer, I'm likely a Red Card holder, and get 5% off on everything already. I'm entitled to an additional discount!

djDaemon said:

godsonsafari said:
Or, as a consumer, I'm aware of my other entertainment options and am open to shaking my loyalty to FUN. There's that too.

And as a consumer, spending your money where you find the best value is exactly the right response. Speaking with your wallet, etc.

When people choose to bitch and moan instead, that's entitlement.

I don't see anyone bitching and moaning. I see people framing a simple question as "bitch and moan" because...I don't know why? Lot of defensiveness for no reason. The Platinum Pass isn't a loyalty program.

All I ever said is that the platinum pass renewal is a WORSE deal than the platinum pass first-time purchase. And that's a fact. People can feel however they want about that, and vote with their wallet as you stated. Simply because they choose to go forward with the purchase does not mean they give up their right to have an opinion on the process.

The Target analogy is off-base. It would be comparable if all first-time shoppers received 20% off their purchase, but that's not the case in this example.

I think if you asked 10 people if policies such as this (and back to my Comcast analogy) bothered them, you'd have a very high percentage agree that it is irritating to customers who already have the service or product.

I understand where people enjoyed the renewal price that was lower or whatever that's no longer there...ok I get it.

But for a platinum renewal for CF is 194 bucks, or spread out over payments. For how many times these are usually used in the park, you've paid it off so many times with admission price/parking, ect.

One week the pass paid for itself and twice over. The value you get for that price, I'm not complaining.

MaverickLaunch said:
Simply because they choose to go forward with the purchase does not mean they give up their right to have an opinion on the process.

I don't think I've suggested they aren't entitled to an opinion. I just feel that such an opinion comes as a result of their sense of entitlement.

I think if you asked 10 people if policies such as this (and back to my Comcast analogy) bothered them, you'd have a very high percentage agree that it is irritating to customers who already have the service or product.

All that suggests is that a majority of people feel they're entitled to stuff. It doesn't justify that entitled attitude. :)

djDaemon said:

MaverickLaunch said:
Simply because they choose to go forward with the purchase does not mean they give up their right to have an opinion on the process.

I don't think I've suggested they aren't entitled to an opinion. I just feel that such an opinion comes as a result of their sense of entitlement.

Wait, what?

If you need clarification on something, you'll need to be more specific than "what".

djDaemon said:
If you need clarification on something, you'll need to be more specific than "what".

I'm just enjoying your arbitrary standards here. Continue, please.

There's nothing arbitrary about the definition of "entitlement". To quote Merriam-Webster, entitlement is:

the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges)

You can never please some people.
Give them a free pass and they will complain because they can't park in the front row.

djDaemon said:
There's nothing arbitrary about the definition of "entitlement".

Oh, I get it. Deeply. It is more about watching you draw a line between legitimate criticism and/or query and that which you feel is clearly illegitimate by virtue of being the product of "entitlement" via the magic of context and syntax.

I'm not drawing a line. The definition of "entitlement" draws the line for me. :)

I'm not saying the "I deserve a discount" opinion is illegitimate, or that those who hold that opinion don't have a right to do so. I'm just classifying it according to what it is: entitlement.

I get that people like to be rewarded for loyalty. I mean, who doesn't enjoy rewards and saving money? But there's a difference (perhaps subtle) between wanting to be rewarded, and feeling that you deserve to be.

Insane:

As a Browns fan of nearly three decades, I deserve more than this.

No. It's my own fault for continuing to be a Browns fan.

Sane:

As a Browns fan of nearly three decades, I want more than this.

Omaha!

To quote Obi Wan, "Who's more the fool...the fool or the fool who follows him?"

djDaemon said:
I'm not drawing a line. The definition of "entitlement" draws the line for me. :)

I'm not saying the "I deserve a discount" opinion is illegitimate, or that those who hold that opinion don't have a right to do so. I'm just classifying it according to what it is: entitlement.

The entire way you've framed the discussion of "entitlement" is not one which shows a neutral stance on the original question in the thread. Play coy if you want and hide behind a literal understanding. I'm hardly surprised you took that path. There's a reason why I worded my previous reply the way I did, after all.

I get that people like to be rewarded for loyalty. I mean, who doesn't enjoy rewards and saving money? But there's a difference (perhaps subtle) between wanting to be rewarded, and feeling that you deserve to be.

I don't see the original question in that context. I do see the rush of highly defensive replies wanting to frame it that way, though. Why?

I need popcorn, this is getting good

You can put the popcorn away. :)

I'm not going to be baited into what essentially amounts to ad hominem trolling.

But...it's already got butter on it :)

Having done this a great many times, let me give you a timeline of a typical debate with djDaemon

1. It starts with a little dig at someone's opinion. Classifying an opinion as "entitlement" in this case. Usually the dig is a word with a slightly negative connotation.

2. A lengthy debate ensues, only during business hours, as I presume he would rather do this on his employer's time than his own.

3. At some point, dictionary definitions are pasted into the thread.

4. Someone calls into question the way he is framing the argument, putting words into people's mouth, or something else to do with the way he is presenting his case, then:

5. Finally, dj claims the "ad hominem" fallacy is being used, to which their is no defense. When the problem with the argument is the attitude of the person making it, it's not ad hominem any longer. It's just the facts.

Now that all may seem a bit harsh given the relatively innocuous nature of this particular debate, but I've been around the block enough with this guy to see the pattern. You're better off just ignoring his comments, because I can tell you, it will never end. It's too bad he wasn't the prosecuting attorney in the Bill Clinton sex scandal. I can't imagine his response to "It depends what the definition of "is" is."

And while I do not expect to have the last word, they will be my last on this thread. I'm self employed and I can't afford to spend more of it responding to this crap. Call me entitled, whatever, I simply don't care any longer.

Yeah I'm glad I kept the popcorn

MaverickLaunch said:

5. Finally, dj claims the "ad hominem" fallacy is being used, to which their is no defense.

Well, it if was an ad hominem fallacy, it would be difficult to properly defend. That's why fallacies are fallacies. But it isn't, which makes it humorous.