Yeah, that's called 'reductio ad you win, alright, now shut the feck up'.

Every situation has to be judged on its own merits, given the time and energy to do so. Creating extreme situations to obfuscate a generalization isn't really doing much for your point. This is opinion; you can't be proven right by proving me wrong.

Does Verithrax know he won? If so, I'm pretty sure that's causing him some harm, not to mention the fact that you stole his identity to do it, which is questionable as hell in the circumstance. If he threw his ticket away and didn't know the number, then you took it and handed it in for the winnings, no harm done. You could make him a lot happier and thus be said to do a bit of good by saying, "Hey, is this your winning lottery ticket? Have it back." but I wouldn't say you're required to in that situation.

Doubleposts ftl.

New sig.

"Deprives someone of something" is the definition of theft, it is not the reason its "wrong."


What so wrong about stealing an identity by your definition? It doesn't hurt them, because they don't notice.


And Verithrax, by the rules of the Lottery, you earn it when you win it. As for the free donuts, I was talking about taking the donut so that another employee isn't able to take it, thus depriving them of a donut. Although possibly rude, its not theft.

It's wrong because it harms someone. Going to argue with that?
Pretending to be someone else isn't quite the same as theft, but it's still harmful - You're ether using the stolen identity to get someone's property (Theft) or misrepresenting their opinions and actions (Slander), etc.

So if I pick someone's wallet off the floor and take the money, that's not stealing because I 'earned' it? How is that different from winning the lottery?

And no, it's not theft because the real owner of the donuts (Your employer, presumably) is giving you consent to take the donuts. You're keeping someone else from eating said donut, but that's not stealing.

I don't like it when people eat the last doughnut.

A word you're all using a lot without defining properly is 'earn'.

earn1 /Éœrn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object)
1. to gain or get in return for one's labor or service: to earn one's living.
2. to merit as compensation, as for service; deserve: to receive more than one has earned.
3. to acquire through merit: to earn a reputation for honesty.
4. to gain as due return or profit: Savings accounts earn interest.
5. to bring about or cause deservedly: His fair dealing earned our confidence.
–verb (used without object)
6. to gain income: securities that earn on a quarterly basis.


Daganev (&co) seem to look more at point one - to gain or get in return for labor or service - and Verithrax (&co) seem to come at it more through three or five.

Analysis over, my own opinion/argument begins.

I have to take fault with the perspective that Daganev is taking of 'earn'. Ultimately, as he argues it, someone has 'earned' something because they went through a hardship to obtain it that others did not. This spirals downward to the point that only masochists can 'earn' anything, as ever-narrowing bands of service, labor, and effort must be put forth to 'earn' something. At a certain point, 'earning' something becomes rather pointless. If it can be taken, it will be, and imposing too many artificial scarcities will only hurt everyone. Look at the origin of the word 'earn' - it comes from a word similar to 'harvest'. At a certain point, corn will be harvested, no matter whether the reaper was the sower or whether he fought his way through sufficient arduous circumstance to acquire it.

There's that, too. Imposing that we should 'earn' whatever it is we get (Even though, I don't see how any of these definitions encompass 'earning' lottery winnings...) means imposing scarcity where there is none.

No, you completely missunderstand me. I ment all definitions of earn.

Winning the lottery follows under definition 5. The rules of the lottery are set up in a certain way, everyone who follows the rules, and wins through such rules, deserves/earns what they get. If I ment even close to how you think I ment it, then Theft also would be earning as its full of hardships.

Perhaps "earn" was the wrong word, I probabbly should have said "aquired thier objects through the set rules of aquisition that everyone knows about."


Theft has the exact same affect on people as cutting someone off in traffic. I think you need a stronger argument than "its bad"

http://www.thefttalk.com/cuz.htm

strange but interesting website.