See Acrune's edit

Edit: Post removed because the personal attack that I was agreeing with was removed as well. Hmph.

No more personal attacks. Keep it civil.

Funny read.

It's half satire, half serious, half offensive.

So very true.

Whats fundamentally wrong about theft?

I don't mean specific cases of theft I mean theft as a whole though.

I know why I was taught that theft is fundementally wrong, but I don't know how to translate it into PC words.

I also never understood what was wrong with theft and was quite the klepto untill I was taught about it.


The "normal" reason is that its not earned, and by getting things that you don't earn it reduces the insentives for people to do work to earn things. Why buy a new car when someone down the street will just take it from me, and why invent a new car if noobody will buy it because thier neighbor will just take it from them. But I find that logic doesn't really hold because theft still happen and people just invent better ways to not have things stolen.

I always understood theft was wrong because it deprives someone of something. Getting things you didn't earn shouldn't be considered wrong; to me it seems part of the bondage and submission mentality that is pervasive of morality systems that revolve around authority.

So then I shouldn't participate in contests because if I win it deprives someone of something?

There are so many things we do that "deprives someone of something" on a regular basis that, I think that has to be the worst explanation ever.

Er... deprives someone of something without that person's consent. I thought that was a given.

ETA: So if I win the lotto, that is immoral because I didn't 'earn' it?

Moral relativism => aporia.

Is there anything inherently good or evil anyway? I think the only conclusion all these discussions of yours lead to is that it is quite hard to judge this. The only point to any further dissertation should be merely humoristical. Either that or sempiternal suffering from super serious studies of superfluous subjects.

Unless, you don't subscribe to moral relativism.

Then you can argue forever!

Who says you don't earn winning the lottery?

But either way, I was giving the normal answer, not the answer that got me to stop stealing things.

Lots of free donuts at the office, I don't get consent from each person there that I can take a donut. Its assumed or implied consent if anything, however assumeing consent is the same as doing it without consent. (If he knew how badly I wanted his car, I'm sure he would let me take it)

Oh sweet Lady, you went there.

I basically agree with Verithrax. To me theft is wrong because you deprive someone of something. However, I will make liberal exceptions for when that taking does them no harm (i.e. they don't even notice) or when it serves the greater good (i.e. stealing to survive).

I couldn't agree more.

But I had already ninja'd you.



Can you see my uber alliteration!

So when Verithrax wins the lottery, and I steal his name and collect the reward before he does, its ok? Afterall, it doesn't do him any harm, as he never had the money to begin with, and it serves the greater good because I'm nicer than him and will give more to charity.

That is debatable.

Because all those lotto winners work so hard to make those random number generators hit the numbers they picked. It seems we define 'earn' differently.
Assumed or implied consent is consent all the same... The only difference between stealing and being given is consent. Your employer, or people using the company's money, to buy donuts and leave them at the workplace constitutes consent that the donuts are a communal resource which a small, unaccountable part of your economic incentive to work there. If I leave my car on the road with the keys in a nearby box with 'free car ' written on it, I am beyond reasonable doubt giving that car away to whomever happens to find it, despite not being aware of whom or when the car is taken. And of course, there's always ex post facto assertion of consent granted previously.



Note, however, that you can't deprive someone of something he would have had and call that 'theft'.


Except the lottery winnings become my property at the moment it becomes determinable beyond reasonable doubt that I had the winning numbers, so you are using false pretenses (IE, stealing my identity) to obtain something which doesn't belong to you... and the notion that you're nicer than me is very very debatable.

You're taking very sensible statements a step further in order to nitpick every possible outcome until someone, beaten over the head with excessive verbose and confusing posts, gives you quote number four to add to your signature.

Richter, that is absurd.

Barring all details, Daganev is absolutely right.