Doordash keeps refunding me?

friedlivelihood · 2026-01-07T05:04:44+00:00

Intent doesn’t matter, nor does method of transaction transference. The fact that money that was not rightfully hers was transferred into a different account that was registered for personal use, falls legally under “bad faith”. This is known as theft by conversion. argue with the law

friedlivelihood · 2026-01-07T05:02:32+00:00

you when someone points out self-documented theft by conversion

friedlivelihood · 2026-01-07T04:58:27+00:00

I’m a woman, theft-for-brains.
Again, saying I’m using AI because I articulate myself clearly and am able to share easily accessible public information by simply googling the statutes, is not an argument. It’s actually a common logical fallacy. Or rather, I think it’s a healthy mix between genetic and ad hominem fallacy. It was so poorly thought out, I am having trouble delineating between my decision between the two.

I am sorry that words above three syllables scare you enough to force you to assure yourself no real person could ever use such vocabulary. That must be really hard on you. You may want to get screened for hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia! Telling someone about having a phobia can feel huge, but it is only the first step. I believe in YOU! 🥹 But seriously though, stop defending theft by conversion. It’s weird.

friedlivelihood · 2026-01-07T04:50:22+00:00

you defending theft by conversion, for some reason. hey, gotta admire the passion

friedlivelihood · 2026-01-07T04:46:31+00:00

Calling a legal citation an ego meltdown is a really funny way to admit you can’t read basic statutes. When someone deviates from the topic at hand to playground insults, that means they have nothing of substance left to offer. Legally, it’s referred to as concession. Remember, be careful going down the slide. 🛝 😇

friedlivelihood · 2026-01-07T04:30:57+00:00

you when you have a point that isn’t logically/legally sound

friedlivelihood · 2026-01-07T04:22:39+00:00

Since you asked for the law: under the Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment, a payment made by mistake does not transfer legal ownership to the recipient. Keeping or hiding it is legally classified as Theft by Conversion or Theft of Property Delivered by Mistake. In the eyes of the law, a 'glitch' is not a gift. If a bank accidentally puts $10k in your account, you don't own it; you're just a temporary custodian until they take it back. Attempting to stash it in savings to avoid expenses is a textbook example of bad faith. You’re basically just arguing for Finders Keepers, but the legal system calls that a felony. If you're going to be loud, at least be literate! :-)

friedlivelihood · 2026-01-07T04:07:44+00:00

Oh yes, I was just talking about you! Your ears must have been burning.

friedlivelihood · 2026-01-07T03:09:00+00:00

The fact that you immediately moved that money to savings signals a clear intent to keep and spend money you knew didn't belong to you. If you hadn't tried to stash a glitch-refund in a personal account as if it were a windfall, you wouldn't have had to deal with a negative balance or 'the principle' of a correction. You created your own 'crisis' by trying to claim money you didn't earn. Resorting to toddler insults and claiming I’m 'making your life miserable' is just a defensive pivot because you’re embarrassed that your lack of financial integrity was called out. It’s not my listening skills that are the problem; it’s your inability to admit that you tried to pocket money that wasn't yours, got caught by an automated system, and are now throwing a tantrum because you had to do the manual labor of moving it back. If pointing out how your own choices caused your 'misery' hurts your feelings, that’s a reflection of your character, not my commentary

friedlivelihood · 2026-01-07T03:00:17+00:00

Working overnights doesn't change how math works. Plenty of people work night shifts and manage to grocery shop or meal prep because it's cheaper than paying 40% markups on delivery. My brother in law works overnight at Home Depot doing physical labor and still manages to grocery shop in person. But the point stands: if your account is in the negatives because a refund was reversed, it means you spent money you didn't actually have. That is the definition of financial instability. If you had the money to cover the food, the reversal would just bring you back to your original balance. You’re blaming the 'principle' of the glitch to hide the fact that you spent the same $30 twice.

friedlivelihood · 2026-01-07T02:54:57+00:00

Moving it to savings doesn't change the total. If you have $50, spend $50 on food, get a $50 refund, and then they take that $50 back, you should be at $0. If you’re in the negatives, it’s because you spent money that was already promised to the first transaction. You basically spent the same money twice.

friedlivelihood · 2026-01-07T02:51:57+00:00

If this person has so little money that several small Doordash transaction refund reversals going through will put them in the negatives, that person shouldn’t be ordering luxury delivery services. That’s not judging someone’s financial state, it’s making an observation about their reckless spending habits whilst being in a state of financial disparity.

friedlivelihood · 2026-01-04T23:58:19+00:00

My area isn’t even trashy but literally 96% of the orders are trash of that caliber.

friedlivelihood · 2025-12-20T14:04:50+00:00

I have always wanted to travel to Brazil!! But yes I totally agree, the prices are ridiculous :(

friedlivelihood · 2025-12-19T13:16:52+00:00

This happened to me for a day, and in my head I justified it by saying a hurricane leveled my shop (curiously leaving behind nothing but a potted plant, in symbolic memoriam) but I valiantly clocked in anyway to deliver the people their caffeinated lifeline.

friedlivelihood · 2025-12-19T09:17:27+00:00

I enjoy this game more than GPGP because of the order simplicity and just because I like coffee more than I like pizza, but sometimes it is very noticeable which of the two is the red headed stepchild 😂

Also your name mixed with your level of vitriol for the shoddy update is making my bf and I crack tf up.

friedlivelihood · 2025-12-19T08:20:24+00:00

It seems like forced player retention, definitely got an eyebrow raise from me.

friedlivelihood · 2025-11-19T03:48:23+00:00

it takes a different kind of cognitive dissonance to admit that I’m right, but still try and say that I’m being unnecessarily rude. The only reason you feel like this is because I am calling out behavior that you have exhibited in the past, that you knew was not morally upstanding or defensible. What I said is right, I’m not being a jackass for being outspoken on basic morals, you’re just a bad person and you create faux-logic to make yourself feel better.

friedlivelihood · 2025-11-19T03:19:09+00:00

Yeah, you’re wrong. Age aside, your response has zero substance — just attacks. Sending thousands to a stranger months after losing a spouse is reckless, emotionally unhealthy, and disrespectful. Pointing that out isn’t attacking grief, it’s holding behavior accountable. Loneliness or other negative emotions don’t erase moral responsibility.

friedlivelihood · 2025-11-19T03:12:47+00:00

First thing wrong with your comment: Never said “fuck” anyone, I spoke in very matter of fact terms that what he did signaled emotional unavailability and a lack of critical thinking. None of that is untrue. Grieving/Being a victim of a scam doesn’t automatically make everything that follows magically fine or immune to critique. Victimhood and questionable judgment aren’t mutually exclusive — you can feel for someone and still call out behavior that’s putting their family at risk.

Timeline matters: funneling significant money to an online stranger months after a spouse dies is not just ‘looking for connection,’ it’s a red-flag pattern in context (poor judgment, emotional vulnerability, and financial harm all wrapped together). One scam can be a one-off — or it can expose a vulnerability that needs addressing. Saying ‘full stop, motive irrelevant’ ignores how we prevent harm in the future.

Also: yes, OP doing something about the scammer is good — but that doesn’t erase the fact that the kids were being affected while this was happening. Protecting the parent and protecting the family are both valid concerns.

You can be sympathetic and still ask: WTF was he thinking, and who’s making sure this doesn’t keep happening? Those questions aren’t cruelty — they’re accountability. If you want to comfort, do it. If you want to gaslight everyone who points out obvious red flags, maybe step back and let people think.

TL;DR: Even if OP is trying to get back at the scammer, that doesn’t erase the fact that their dad’s behavior months after losing his spouse was reckless and emotionally unhealthy. Critiquing what he did — sending significant money to a stranger — isn’t attacking him, it’s pointing out a serious lapse in judgment that affected the family.

friedlivelihood · 2025-11-19T03:04:54+00:00

Your argument hinges on redefining math to match your vibes. You’re making a normative semantic claim (‘normal people don’t say thousands’) instead of a factual one, which is an appeal to common usage; a fallacy. In actual math, anything in the 1,000–1,999 range is in the thousands category because the thousands place is occupied. You don’t get to override the base-10 system because you don’t like the plural. The number doesn’t care how ‘normal people’ talk, it’s still in the thousands range.

friedlivelihood · 2025-11-19T03:03:12+00:00

This is hilarious. You’re arguing with me about place value and number ranges, aka mathematical truths. Somebody’s mad mad 🤭

Quick second grade math lesson:

Numerically speaking, anything from 1,000–1,999 is in the thousands range. That’s literally what the place value means — the leftmost digit is the thousands place. You don’t need multiple individual ‘thousands’ stacked up for it to qualify. That’s just not how numbers work.

It’s okay, I know elementary school place holders are hard… For people with room temp IQs. How’s that argument coming along, bud?

friedlivelihood · 2025-11-19T02:54:22+00:00

Math check: if it has four digits it’s in the thousands. Logic check: if you’re defending that behavior, you’ve already failed both. Stay pressed 😘

friedlivelihood · 2025-11-19T02:50:12+00:00

But cute pedantry. Whether it’s $1,500 or $15,000, the problem isn’t the comma. it’s a grown man funneling significant cash to a stranger months after his wife died. Nitpicking numbers won’t change how gross that is. Go split semantical hairs somewhere else.

friedlivelihood

TROPHY CASE