Nobody better break into my home to steal food.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

http://www.imdb.com/...eenplay/vi3836936473[/img]

I have to admit that reading the likes of The Forgery, Methejury and Splot as they rush to agree with each other is like watching three yappy chihuahuas lick each other's balls.

If I thought I was discussing this issue with a grown up I would ask you to show any evidence to support your assertion that somehow we all lack empathy and simply conform to rigid conformity...but the fact that you're mixing people's names in a an apparent four year old'esque effort to ridicule people clearly shows we are dealing with a person with a mental aptitude of a child so I won't bother.

~Matt

Nobody better break into my home to steal food.

While I think it's a viable question to wonder if breaking and entering should also be legal if one is "Hungry enough" I suspect the answer will be "No, you can only steal from those places that are "Public"" So essentially you can only steal from business. However that leaves you wide open for a dude to walk by and steal your families picnic lunch you are having at the park with your family as you are in public and the dude is hungry after all.

I quite honestly do not understand the justification or mentality for this other then the fact that I think those supporting it do not view stealing from a business as an issue. I seriously doubt any of them would be so understanding if they were eating their lunch on a park bench and someone came along and took their food.

~Matt

I am never under the delusion that any response on the LR comes from an adult. The concept that evidence based arguments carry any weight here is equally silly. And I understand that for some the concept of empathy is difficult, especially when jails can provide 3 square a day with such ease. As for the ridicule I must admit that was over the top....fair cop. I am chastised.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

I quite honestly do not understand the justification or mentality for this other then the fact that I think those supporting it do not view stealing from a business as an issue.

It's interesting how you see this as an assault on business, when you're really the only one who's drawn that line.

And I'm still not sure why it's anti-business to say it's not a crime to steal food when you're hungry, but it's apparently fine with you to say that it's a crime, but we won't punish it. What, in your mind, is the difference? Some homeless guy shoplifts five bucks worth of food. In scenario one, the judge says it's not a crime, and let's the homeless guy go. In your preferred scenario, the judge says it was a crime, but let's the homeless guy go. Either way, the grocer is out five bucks worth of food, and no deterrent has been enforced.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

It's interesting how you see this as an assault on business, when you're really the only one who's drawn that line.

I only draw this line because no one has answered any of my questions concerning private individuals, so I'll ask again.

1) Is it ok for a hungry person to enter your house and take your food? if not, why?
2) If you are in a public place with food, is it ok for a hungry person to take that food?

If you think the above is perfectly ok then your position is not directed at business, OTOH if the above is not ok, I see no reason to think your position in practical use does not only apply to businesses.

And I'm still not sure why it's anti-business to say it's not a crime to steal food when you're hungry,

It's "Anti-Business" at the point the same rules do not apply to individuals that don't own businesses. Again if you're ok with people entering your house or taking your lunch while you're in the park, it's not anti-business. I simply have a hard time believing that you and your family are sitting in a park somewhere about to enjoy a nice lunch for a family of four and four homeless dudes walk up and say "Give us your lunch" that you're going to be completely ok with it.

but it's apparently fine with you to say that it's a crime, but we won't punish it. What, in your mind, is the difference? Some homeless guy shoplifts five bucks worth of food. In scenario one, the judge says it's not a crime, and let's the homeless guy go. In your preferred scenario, the judge says it was a crime, but let's the homeless guy go. Either way, the grocer is out five bucks worth of food, and no deterrent has been enforced.

You're driving down the road and you are doing seven miles over the speed limit, you're stopped, told to slow it down, given a written warning and told that if you need to drive seven miles over the limit the road a block over allows those speeds and let go. You're driving down the road doing seven miles over the speed limit, you're stopped and you're told it's ok to do seven miles over the speed limit because you're driving a yellow car, the law does not apply to you.

Do you not see the difference in the two scenarios above?

Enforcement of the law and discretion in the punishment of those laws is an entirely different scenario then removing the law entirely. One says the action is perfectly ok. The other says the action is not ok but keeps in mind the conditions under which the law was broken and allows for leniency. I find it odd that people who are claiming that a point of view lacks empathy can not understand that there is an allowance for empathy under the law.

~Matt

am never under the delusion that any response on the LR comes from an adult.

Maybe act like one yourself and others will treat you more like an adult and this delusion will slip away.

Personally, despite disagreeing with many here I find most actually are generally reasoned and fairly adult like.

~Matt

I think I did address that question earlier, although I guess in not enough detail.

It's a problem for me, obviously, if someone breaks into my house in order to raid my fridge. Because, first of all, I probably don't know that he's there just to raid the fridge. That said, even in that case, if I determine that the intruder is in desperate hunger and just trying to feed himself, I don't really see myself pursuing criminal charges.

It seems reasonable to suggest that there are limits to what can be excused by the circumstances of serious hunger. I think basic theft of enough food to sustain oneself for a day easily falls into that category. All that's taken in that case is the bare minimum necessary. I don't think I'd be as quick to excuse a forcible robbery, in which an injury is committed, in addition to the theft- now there's additional harm done. I also think under that reasoning, breaking into someone's private residence would also remain impermissible- there's a lot more value in the security of one's home than there is in a handful of food.

In a public place, where the question comes down to the same question confronted by the grocer, yes, I think it would be ok for a hungry person to steal the food. If some guy who needs to eat snatches by sandwich off a park bench or whatever, I think that's allowable. (Again, assuming it's his only option.)


It's "Anti-Business" at the point the same rules do not apply to individuals that don't own businesses

Again, you're the only one in the entire thread who's suggested the same rules don't apply to individuals.


You're driving down the road doing seven miles over the speed limit, you're stopped and you're told it's ok to do seven miles over the speed limit because you're driving a yellow car, the law does not apply to you.

Of course, that's not remotely similar. Try, "You're stopped driving 7 miles over the limit, and told it's OK in your circumstance because you're transporting someone who's been seriously injured to the hospital."

Besides which, no, I don't really see the difference in the hypothetical you present. Your objection to the ruling is that grocers can't bear the burden of hungry shoplifters, and whether or not a written warning is issued, the grocer is still out the amount of food that was stolen, right? And no serious deterrent against further theft has been imposed, unless you're saying that after the first warning, food thieves who steal because they're hungry WILL be prosecuted.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

The difficulty is not in understanding your viewpoint, it's patently obvious what that is, you have stated it in various heart warming unwavering forms for umpty posts. And aside from taking the mickey out of you I haven't said much at all, about my views.

Let me leave it to you to guess. ,

I grew up in a rebuilding, but bombed out city, with food rationing, that lasted long enough for me to remember. I lived for a while, as a young child, in social housing which was better than the Salvation Army hostel my sister and my single parent mother first experienced. Some of my best meals were state provided. I could go on. We went on to better thing. But I have never and will never lose empathy for someone who's situation was so desperate. Neither would I ever end a sentence of supposed sympathy about that desperation with the proposal that when all else fails you can always get three square meals a day in a prison. As solutions go, it leaves a little to be desired, although it does appear to be a particularly American response (4.4% of the worlds population with 22% of the worlds prisoners).

When you challenge me to debate empathy it would be usefull if you showed any so that your level above zero could be determined.
As for the idiocy that is The Forge or Spot, you appear closer to their spectrum than to mine.

That said, even in that case, if I determine that the intruder is in desperate hunger and just trying to feed himself, I don't really see myself pursuing criminal charges.

Ok call me skeptical. I think that if your kids are sitting in your house, front doors not locked, you're out back and someone strolls in and raids your fridge, you flip your shit. I don't care if they cause damage, talk to anyone or anything else. You lose it, period, end of story. Yes I get this is not the same as finding a homeless person in your store.

I don't think I'd be as quick to excuse a forcible robbery, in which an injury is committed, in addition to the theft- now there's additional harm done.

No one said anything about additional harm. I'm trying to find the line between where it's ok and where it is not. How do you rectify that if the homeless person comes to you and says "Give me your sandwich" you can say no, but if you are not there protecting your food they can just take it? Also why is it ok to say no? Legally it's there's is it not? Do you own the food or do they?

If some guy who needs to eat snatches by sandwich off a park bench or whatever, I think that's allowable. (Again, assuming it's his only option.)

So just to be clear. You and your family sitting at a picnic table and homeless guy says "Give me your food", you say no and that's ok. You and your family leave the food on the picnic bench, go to a nearby swing with in 10 feet of the table, homeless dudes walk by and steal it, that's fine?

Again, you're the only one in the entire thread who's suggested the same rules don't apply to individuals.

Again, I'm only suggesting that the rules are not the same because I'm having a hard time you or anyone would be perfectly ok with having your food taken under any circumstances. It's not ok for people to steal from me, period. This is true whether it is my grocery store or my picnic basket. If you came to me and asked me for food I'd give it to you in a heart beat even if that meant my family didn't have a picnic, that's my choice. You've essentially not only taken that choice away from me by stealing from me but also violated my property rights in the process.

I honestly do not understand how anyone is perfectly ok with that.

Of course, that's not remotely similar. Try, "You're stopped driving 7 miles over the limit, and told it's OK in your circumstance because you're transporting someone who's been seriously injured to the hospital."

Fine, same thing. You're stopped because you're speeding and then escorted to the hospital by the cop. They don't simply make it legal to speed if you have an injured person in the car, that is still illegal, every time. However I would suspect that in 99.9% of the cases, despite it still being illegal, you get an escort to the hospital rather then a ticket DESPITE it being illegal to speed.

Your objection to the ruling is that grocers can't bear the burden of hungry shoplifters

No my objection is that violation of individuals rights is fundamentally wrong. The idea that a grocer can not carry the burden is a single example for the justification of not having ones rights violated.

If I would have simply stated, it is wrong to violate anothers' individual rights you would have asked why, I simply started with an example.

And no serious deterrent against further theft has been imposed, unless you're saying that after the first warning, food thieves who steal because they're hungry WILL be prosecuted

When you are doing something illegal you are always open for prosecution. When you make something legal you can't be prosecuted for doing it.

Take your above scenario of driving an injured person to the hospital. You have an injured person in the car, get pulled over, get an escort to the hospital. You are then told that you should not do this and you should dial 911. The very next day you do the same thing, same cop pulls you over, take you to the hospital. Next day same thing and so on. Well at some point you SHOULD be prosecuted because you are NOT calling 911 which is a better option.

Same thing here. You get caught stealing. You are told you should not do this, if you need food go a block down to the pantry. A week or so later you are again in "Dire hunger", you steal again. Again...go to the pantry. Yes, at some point you should be prosecuted.

Furthermore this follows your Catholic premise as clearly there are "Better options" available, calling 911 and going to the pantry.

~Matt

Right. Don't confuse idiocy with disagreement. To validate your statement, I do lack empathy, especially for malcontents and lazy people. I have done volunteer work and worked with many charities and have been told the same thing. We have the beds, we have the meals. We only require sobriety and decent behavior to get it. And a lot of bed remain empty. A lot of people in street are mentally ill or substance abusers. I have never heard of a family that wasn't able to get assistance. Is it luxurious? No, it is a helping hand, a temporary solution. You don't help the mentally ill or substance abusers by exempting them from crimes. You arrest them, take them into custody and give them the choice to get help or suffer the consequence of their actions. A family caught in the same circumstance could be handled more delicately, but you again do not exempt crime.

Your solutions are always handouts in nature forced by the gov't. Charity is the right thing for a civil society to do, but it must be voluntary. Only when voluntary can a society do all it can to prevent abuse and actually encourage those getting the help to get better.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Again, you clearly lack reading comprehension skills, and what's more, you tend to want to think the worst of what people actually meant. What I said was, and you can go back and check, is the punishment "at worst" would be a couple days in prison. Usually, when someone says "at worst," they clearly mean that something lesser should be considered, which is what I meant, but you, as usual, want to adopt a case of moral superiority and demean and insult people, rather than start an actual dialogue. Personally, I find prosecuting the person in question at all to be over the top.

Furthermore, it's plainly obvious that if you had wanted to actually start a dialogue, you could have led with your story above, and then contrasted it with the ruling in Italy. Instead, judging by how you come across, your entire intent was to demonstrate your moral superiority to everyone.

As for idiocy, all I can say is that you routinely make ludicrous assertions and then fail to back them up, relying instead on insults and condescension. At least I can make coherent arguments and debate with more civil discourse.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

He's a troll. One of the first people I mixed it up with here on guns. Like most anti-gunners, he didn't have a logical argument. So he started to get heated. Then somehow I think I found out he was Canadian, and I pulled the "why am I even debating this with you then" comment. He blew his lid about how this is a triathlon forum and I told him "go talk triathlon in the main forum and don't let the door hit you on the way out". He stayed out for a while. Now he only comes in with condescending drive by posts. Good for a few laughs when your in the mood to just argue with somebody for fun.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Neither would I ever end a sentence of supposed sympathy about that desperation with the proposal that when all else fails you can always get three square meals a day in a prison.

The statement was not meant as a statement of sympathy. It was meant as a statement to bolster the idea that getting food in the US is a non issue. We have so many options for getting food that even if you are throw in jail you get three meals a day. I spent more then a couple posts listing all the possible options and not a single person has disputed any of them.

The point was not to say "Get thrown in jail to eat" the point is that there is absolutely no reason to break the law to get food and even if you do you still get food.

When you challenge me to debate empathy it would be usefull if you showed any so that your level above zero could be determine.

So you just want to ignore the several posts I stated where I said the police could take them to a food pantry or homeless shelter and file no charges? Did you miss the entire exchange where Vitus made fun of the suggestion because it was going against his and your position that we had no empathy?

As for the idiocy that is The Forge or Spot, you appear closer to their spectrum than to mine.

If you mean by "Closer to their spectrum" that we should not allow people to break the law, yes I agree with them. You however don't have some magical hold on all things empathetic and the idea that you can't have these laws in place AND be empathetic is simply incorrect. Furthermore despite having this pointed out to you several times you continue to ignore.

~Matt