If I had a vacation home and someone stole my snacks I would be like. Thank god. Imagine if someone starved to death in the woods near my vacation home? That would be terrible, right? …Right?
If you are forced to resort to imaginary scenarios just to try to prove your point, that should be enough of an indication that it doesn’t hold up to reality.
And if they stole your vacation home instead of just a few cherries? How would you feel about it then?
You just compared apples to an entire apple orchard. Of course someone whould feel different. I feel different if someone cuts me off in traffic compared to slamming into my car.
You have it backward. What’s legal or not is not the same as what’s ethical or moral. Their morals aren’t flexible, quite the opposite. They just recognise where the law is wrong.
Theft is the ONLY harm. Taking a life, taking another’s liberty, taking the fruits of another’s labor, taking what you have no right to… it all boils down to theft.
I agree that this guy’s thefts were mostly harmless, but to say theft isn’t a harm is ridiculous.
“Taking a life” is an euphemism for “killing”. It’s not like you get your victim’s remaining lifespan when you kill them. Life isn’t taken, it is destroyed.
Second, if you’re going to stretch the word Theft to include murder and kidnapping/imprisonment, we’re both wasting time because we aren’t using the same language at all. Just let me know you’re standing on that principle and I won’t bother you again.
That being said, with the normal usage of Theft, it really depends on what you take from whom, and how much as to whether harm is done.
Secondary to that, even when there is harm from theft, it can still be justified. Me stealing a medication from a pharmacy certainly costs someone something, but if that’s the last ditch option when all else has failed, is it really a situation where the harm of the theft outweighs the harm of the broken society that made it necessary? While two wrongs don’t make a right, some wrongs preclude right in the first place.
In that scenario, the harm is so heavily distributed via tax breaks and insurances that it might even be a benefit overall since without some theft as a reason to exist, there’s entire industries that wouldn’t exist. The individual theft is still a harm tp some link in the chain, but the chain itself is not harmed at all.
Stepping back even further, what about stealing back? I paid taxes and monies into a broken system, thus me stealing necessary medication could be simply taking back what was taken from me in bad faith. Restitutional theft ain’t really theft, in other words.
Again, I never said theft was never harmful, I said it isn’t inherently harmful.
No, you said theft wasn’t “a certain harm” (which is weird phrasing by the way).
Inherently, certainly, or whatever qualification you want to put on it, it doesn’t matter because the rest of your novella is just a bunch of bullshit wherein you try to convince me that a small amount of harm, or justifiable harm, isn’t actually harm. Get real.
His take on the broken window fallacy is pretty hilarious. “Theft can be good because it might create jobs in the woefully underfunded insurance industry! Won’t somebody please think of the insurers?!”
Sure, attack me because you have no better argument than a personal insult.
Thanks for proving my claim about your shitty parents— and your incapability of understanding how theft is both injurious and morally despicable is a sign of sociopathy.
Try thinking of someone other than yourself for once
Also, definitely not a conservative. So you’re wrong about multiple things.
No, calling someone a conservative, or MAGA, is a complete argument. At this point, we all know what being a conservative includes, so all you need to do is say the word Conservative or MAGA, and you’ve made an efficient argument.
Every time I encounter you in the wild, you are espousing conservative views or defending conservatives. Stop being so conservative and people will stop calling you conservative.
Conservatives are always claiming they aren’t conservative or Maga, but Conservatives/ MAGAs lie. They are convinced that the rest of us are blind, so they think they can SAY one thing, and do something totally different, and we won’t notice.
You can’t trust what a MAGA says, you have to watch what they do.
Those two statements are in direct conflict. Both cannot be true.
Edit: wow, you all had some pretty shitty parents
Edit: No, you did.
Food, shelter and hygiene should all be basic human rights. If they were, this wouldn’t be a debate.
But they aren’t. And it is.
You can’t just dismiss reality when it becomes inconvenient, and if your morals are so “flexible”, you might as well not have any at all.
If I had a vacation home and someone stole my snacks I would be like. Thank god. Imagine if someone starved to death in the woods near my vacation home? That would be terrible, right? …Right?
If you are forced to resort to imaginary scenarios just to try to prove your point, that should be enough of an indication that it doesn’t hold up to reality.
And if they stole your vacation home instead of just a few cherries? How would you feel about it then?
A bit different, I suspect
You just compared apples to an entire apple orchard. Of course someone whould feel different. I feel different if someone cuts me off in traffic compared to slamming into my car.
You have it backward. What’s legal or not is not the same as what’s ethical or moral. Their morals aren’t flexible, quite the opposite. They just recognise where the law is wrong.
Not so.
Theft in and of itself isn’t a certain harm.
And stealing food isn’t a crime.
Theft is the ONLY harm. Taking a life, taking another’s liberty, taking the fruits of another’s labor, taking what you have no right to… it all boils down to theft.
I agree that this guy’s thefts were mostly harmless, but to say theft isn’t a harm is ridiculous.
“Taking a life” is an euphemism for “killing”. It’s not like you get your victim’s remaining lifespan when you kill them. Life isn’t taken, it is destroyed.
Yeah no, murder doesn’t “boil down to theft”. Murder is murder.
I said it wasn’t inherently harmful.
Second, if you’re going to stretch the word Theft to include murder and kidnapping/imprisonment, we’re both wasting time because we aren’t using the same language at all. Just let me know you’re standing on that principle and I won’t bother you again.
That being said, with the normal usage of Theft, it really depends on what you take from whom, and how much as to whether harm is done.
Secondary to that, even when there is harm from theft, it can still be justified. Me stealing a medication from a pharmacy certainly costs someone something, but if that’s the last ditch option when all else has failed, is it really a situation where the harm of the theft outweighs the harm of the broken society that made it necessary? While two wrongs don’t make a right, some wrongs preclude right in the first place.
In that scenario, the harm is so heavily distributed via tax breaks and insurances that it might even be a benefit overall since without some theft as a reason to exist, there’s entire industries that wouldn’t exist. The individual theft is still a harm tp some link in the chain, but the chain itself is not harmed at all.
Stepping back even further, what about stealing back? I paid taxes and monies into a broken system, thus me stealing necessary medication could be simply taking back what was taken from me in bad faith. Restitutional theft ain’t really theft, in other words.
Again, I never said theft was never harmful, I said it isn’t inherently harmful.
No, you said theft wasn’t “a certain harm” (which is weird phrasing by the way).
Inherently, certainly, or whatever qualification you want to put on it, it doesn’t matter because the rest of your novella is just a bunch of bullshit wherein you try to convince me that a small amount of harm, or justifiable harm, isn’t actually harm. Get real.
Damn, you went from zero to asshole in one comment. Sorry you wasted my time.
The way you twist the meaning of the word in order to rationalize your offense is pretty disgusting
If you can rationalize that, you could rationalize anything
What? How are they twisting the word, the person they replied to said murder was a form of theft.
His take on the broken window fallacy is pretty hilarious. “Theft can be good because it might create jobs in the woefully underfunded insurance industry! Won’t somebody please think of the insurers?!”
Found the conservative.
Sure, attack me because you have no better argument than a personal insult.
Thanks for proving my claim about your shitty parents— and your incapability of understanding how theft is both injurious and morally despicable is a sign of sociopathy.
Try thinking of someone other than yourself for once
Also, definitely not a conservative. So you’re wrong about multiple things.
No, calling someone a conservative, or MAGA, is a complete argument. At this point, we all know what being a conservative includes, so all you need to do is say the word Conservative or MAGA, and you’ve made an efficient argument.
I will never cease to be amazed by the lengths people will go to in order to avoid admitting they were wrong
This is great coming from the person calling everyone else a sociopath with shitty parents 😂
Every time I encounter you in the wild, you are espousing conservative views or defending conservatives. Stop being so conservative and people will stop calling you conservative.
Conservatives are always claiming they aren’t conservative or Maga, but Conservatives/ MAGAs lie. They are convinced that the rest of us are blind, so they think they can SAY one thing, and do something totally different, and we won’t notice.
You can’t trust what a MAGA says, you have to watch what they do.
Except that is never happened.
If you have to lie just to save face on a public Internet forum, that’s pretty pathetic. It’s not like my comments are private.