No, its not that stealing isn't all that bad, its that there are clear degrees of crime and wrongdoing, you fucking dense buffoon.
The punishment should fit the fucking crime, but then again I'm talking with someone who has no idea that even his history of being a reddit liberal in the past could be used to end him in the future if the pendulum swings back hard enough.
If you think human's life is worth $3.50, I'd ask you what separates you from those niggers who kill each other over $20 in the ghettos. The difference is that you could probably moralize yourself into believing you're somehow better for it because you have a rule you can point to for your bloodlust and sadism, as if you've never done anything wrong in your own life, ever.
Absolutely graceless and completely lacking in self-awareness.
I actually agree. But then you also agree there should be punishment. Not like some people on this thread who think he just should have to pay what he had refused - that is not punishment.
but then again I'm talking with someone who has no idea that even his history of being a reddit liberal in the past could be used to end him in the future if the pendulum swings back hard enough.
I joined Reddit for GG.
The difference is that you could probably moralize yourself into believing you're somehow better for it because you have a rule you can point to for your bloodlust and sadism, as if you've never done anything wrong in your own life, ever.
Do you think it is 'bloodlust'? Or is it that having any sort of functioning society requires that some, generally malefactors, be screwed over? Do you know what used to happen to girls who got pregnant out of wedlock in a place like Ireland? Pretty unpleasant things. Which is why that was rare.
But then you also agree there should be punishment.
Yeah, that's an option. But this kind of incident is small enough that it also could've been avoided entirely. The law and enforcement usually has discretion to handle things depending on their disposition and the facts of the incident.
If every crime was punished, everyone would be a criminal. If you've ever driven on the road for example, everyone fucking speeds, only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction are ever caught for it. Doesn't get into how many obscure, arcane, and outdated laws there are that are still legally in effect that people would be considered guilty of if they were ever enforced.
Not to mention things like context matters. We treat a 5 year old, a 15 year old, a 45 year old, and an 85 year old differently for a reason. We also treat first offenses differently than repeat offenders, and those are 2 of many, many factors that would play into such things.
I joined Reddit for GG.
Irrelevant. You were a liberal (and to an extent, still are). You think your reasoning would make a difference to someone with an axe to grind against the enemies of his civilization?
On that note, you've also used the word "nigger" before iirc, so you would be no darling of the left either and would probably be executed if crazy enough leftists got into power and enacted a totalitarian rule.
Or is it that having any sort of functioning society requires that some, generally malefactors, be screwed over?
You can point to big picture issues being solved by overwhelming retribution all you like until it happens to you.
Forgiveness, mercy, restraint and grace are also part of the western world's moral (and by extension, legal) foundation. We aren't mudslimes here.
Leftists have misunderstood and taken advantage of this "weakness" for their own ends and twisted it around towards their political agendas.
If you've ever driven on the road for example, everyone fucking speeds, only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction are ever caught for it. Doesn't get into how many obscure, arcane, and outdated laws there are that are still legally in effect that people would be considered guilty of if they were ever enforced.
I don't give a damn about 'the law' - look at the moral character of those who make them. I've never followed any speed limit. Jaywalking and speeding are not moral matters, unless you're going 200 km/hour where it's unsafe.
There is a sharp difference between law and legislation, as Hayek said. Law is something that is organic and has deep foundations in a society. The law against stealing would be law. On the other hand, a ban on gas stoves is legislation. If you define the terms in this way, law is worthy of respect and legislation is not.
Not to mention things like context matters. We treat a 5 year old, a 15 year old, a 45 year old, and an 85 year old differently for a reason. We also treat first offenses differently than repeat offenders, and those are 2 of many, many factors that would play into such things.
Yes, I don't understand why you're explaining this. Although this guy was a repeat offender.
You think your reasoning would make a difference to someone with an axe to grind against the enemies of his civilization?
Before he gets to me, he'd have to kill 95% of the population first, so I'm relatively safe.
On that note, you've also used the word "nigger" before iirc
In fact, I used it today. What about the word 'nigger'? I hope I've never given the impression that I care about ridiculous liberal-American sensitivities.
so you would be no darling of the left either and would probably be executed if crazy enough leftists got into power and enacted a totalitarian rule.
I never argued that I was a 'darling' of the left. Considering the things that make them cheer, I hope not.
Forgiveness, mercy, restraint and grace are also part of the western world's moral (and by extension, legal) foundation. We aren't mudslimes here.
It's long abandoned.
Leftists have misunderstood and taken advantage of this "weakness" for their own ends and twisted it around towards their political agendas.
That's a big issue, isn't it? They have an aversion to any sort of punishment - except for their political opponents. If you know Robert Sapolsky, the allegedly eminent biologist, in one of his books he argues that humans do not have free will, and that ideally, people who commit crimes would be segregated from society in such a way that they would not feel as punishment. Quite apart from the moral wrong that this is, only a total fool would believe that this has no anti-deterrent effect.
With all this said, I do understand where you're coming from. But what I don't understand is how you can be so certain and confident that where you decide to draw the line is good, and the people allowing stealing up to $950 are wrong. I can easily see them make the same argument for that, though they never make arguments based on any moral foundation, let alone that of the Western world.
There is a sharp difference between law and legislation, as Hayek said. Law is something that is organic and has deep foundations in a society.
That's a nice philosophical delineation. I will admit that Japanese culture leans more towards collectivism and passive deference to authority, and is far too accepting of legislation as authority in itself. From my experience, many people there would explain that you can't do something simply because it's against the law or rules and that's the only explanation needed. Morals and justification are irrelevant. There's also a petty nature to some people who think "if I can't do that thing, I won't let you do it either", but I'm not sure how common that is.
I don't give a damn about 'the law' - look at the moral character of those who make them. I've never followed any speed limit. Jaywalking and speeding are not moral matters, unless you're going 200 km/hour where it's unsafe.
There is a sharp difference between law and legislation, as Hayek said. Law is something that is organic and has deep foundations in a society. The law against stealing would be law. On the other hand, a ban on gas stoves is legislation. If you define the terms in this way, law is worthy of respect and legislation is not.
In other words, laws are moral codes, and legislation is merely regulation? Fair enough, however laws are expected to be followed for a functional society. There is a lot of laws (and legislation) that is important to our society to function and ensure high trust, but wouldn't immediately appear as a moral issue, such as contract law.
There is also other aspects of said legislation that people choose to follow, and if they didn't, our society would be in a lot worse place, like driving on the correct side of the road and not running red lights. Not following those kinds of laws put everyone, and yourself, in much more danger. Speeding does the same thing, but its so minor that nobody cares (on top of most speed limits excluding like, school zones, feeling arbitrary).
Some can argue as well that flaunting the law (even legislation) is a form of moral decay, and can lead to flaunting the law in other ways including morally. Who's to say those are not slippery slopes in and of themselves?
It's long abandoned.
No, its just been corrupted.
But what I don't understand is how you can be so certain and confident that where you decide to draw the line is good, and the people allowing stealing up to $950 are wrong. I can easily see them make the same argument for that, though they never make arguments based on any moral foundation, let alone that of the Western world.
In the law, something frequently comes up called the reasonable person standard. There is some vagueness with such a standard, but its ultimately necessary for enforcing and interpreting laws because legalism is not a virtue and we don't live in a vacuum.
Just a reminder, it was the legalists in society (the Pharisees and Saducees) who were responsible for Jesus' being executed, and their legalism was routinely condemned by Christ because it ended up disregarding their humanity. These were the people who attacked Christ for healing people on the Sabbath because it constituted as "work".
There is also some level of relativity of course, since $3.50 is a piddling amount now, but 100 years ago that would've been a lot more than it is now (and also varies a lot between countries, but Japan is a first world one anyways so w/e). My method isn't law (nor should it be, these are just my opinions), its just my opinion, and what I believe to be the opinion of a reasonable person using ordinary common sense.
I don't think a reasonable person would believe someone deserves to have their life ruined for the cost of... less than a big bag of chips, there is something profoundly inhuman and callous sounding about that. A warning, a citation, a fine, reimbursement, a temporary or permanent ban from the store, maybe something a bit more, sure, those are all legitimate and reasonable options, but this... is just disturbing.
Before he gets to me, he'd have to kill 95% of the population first, so I'm relatively safe.
Be careful about assuming too much. Stalin killed tens of millions of his own people, who knows how much the next one will do.
No, its not that stealing isn't all that bad, its that there are clear degrees of crime and wrongdoing, you fucking dense buffoon.
The punishment should fit the fucking crime, but then again I'm talking with someone who has no idea that even his history of being a reddit liberal in the past could be used to end him in the future if the pendulum swings back hard enough.
If you think human's life is worth $3.50, I'd ask you what separates you from those niggers who kill each other over $20 in the ghettos. The difference is that you could probably moralize yourself into believing you're somehow better for it because you have a rule you can point to for your bloodlust and sadism, as if you've never done anything wrong in your own life, ever.
Absolutely graceless and completely lacking in self-awareness.
I actually agree. But then you also agree there should be punishment. Not like some people on this thread who think he just should have to pay what he had refused - that is not punishment.
I joined Reddit for GG.
Do you think it is 'bloodlust'? Or is it that having any sort of functioning society requires that some, generally malefactors, be screwed over? Do you know what used to happen to girls who got pregnant out of wedlock in a place like Ireland? Pretty unpleasant things. Which is why that was rare.
Yeah, that's an option. But this kind of incident is small enough that it also could've been avoided entirely. The law and enforcement usually has discretion to handle things depending on their disposition and the facts of the incident.
If every crime was punished, everyone would be a criminal. If you've ever driven on the road for example, everyone fucking speeds, only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction are ever caught for it. Doesn't get into how many obscure, arcane, and outdated laws there are that are still legally in effect that people would be considered guilty of if they were ever enforced.
Not to mention things like context matters. We treat a 5 year old, a 15 year old, a 45 year old, and an 85 year old differently for a reason. We also treat first offenses differently than repeat offenders, and those are 2 of many, many factors that would play into such things.
Irrelevant. You were a liberal (and to an extent, still are). You think your reasoning would make a difference to someone with an axe to grind against the enemies of his civilization?
On that note, you've also used the word "nigger" before iirc, so you would be no darling of the left either and would probably be executed if crazy enough leftists got into power and enacted a totalitarian rule.
You can point to big picture issues being solved by overwhelming retribution all you like until it happens to you.
Forgiveness, mercy, restraint and grace are also part of the western world's moral (and by extension, legal) foundation. We aren't mudslimes here.
Leftists have misunderstood and taken advantage of this "weakness" for their own ends and twisted it around towards their political agendas.
I don't give a damn about 'the law' - look at the moral character of those who make them. I've never followed any speed limit. Jaywalking and speeding are not moral matters, unless you're going 200 km/hour where it's unsafe.
There is a sharp difference between law and legislation, as Hayek said. Law is something that is organic and has deep foundations in a society. The law against stealing would be law. On the other hand, a ban on gas stoves is legislation. If you define the terms in this way, law is worthy of respect and legislation is not.
Yes, I don't understand why you're explaining this. Although this guy was a repeat offender.
Before he gets to me, he'd have to kill 95% of the population first, so I'm relatively safe.
In fact, I used it today. What about the word 'nigger'? I hope I've never given the impression that I care about ridiculous liberal-American sensitivities.
I never argued that I was a 'darling' of the left. Considering the things that make them cheer, I hope not.
It's long abandoned.
That's a big issue, isn't it? They have an aversion to any sort of punishment - except for their political opponents. If you know Robert Sapolsky, the allegedly eminent biologist, in one of his books he argues that humans do not have free will, and that ideally, people who commit crimes would be segregated from society in such a way that they would not feel as punishment. Quite apart from the moral wrong that this is, only a total fool would believe that this has no anti-deterrent effect.
With all this said, I do understand where you're coming from. But what I don't understand is how you can be so certain and confident that where you decide to draw the line is good, and the people allowing stealing up to $950 are wrong. I can easily see them make the same argument for that, though they never make arguments based on any moral foundation, let alone that of the Western world.
That's a nice philosophical delineation. I will admit that Japanese culture leans more towards collectivism and passive deference to authority, and is far too accepting of legislation as authority in itself. From my experience, many people there would explain that you can't do something simply because it's against the law or rules and that's the only explanation needed. Morals and justification are irrelevant. There's also a petty nature to some people who think "if I can't do that thing, I won't let you do it either", but I'm not sure how common that is.
In other words, laws are moral codes, and legislation is merely regulation? Fair enough, however laws are expected to be followed for a functional society. There is a lot of laws (and legislation) that is important to our society to function and ensure high trust, but wouldn't immediately appear as a moral issue, such as contract law.
There is also other aspects of said legislation that people choose to follow, and if they didn't, our society would be in a lot worse place, like driving on the correct side of the road and not running red lights. Not following those kinds of laws put everyone, and yourself, in much more danger. Speeding does the same thing, but its so minor that nobody cares (on top of most speed limits excluding like, school zones, feeling arbitrary).
Some can argue as well that flaunting the law (even legislation) is a form of moral decay, and can lead to flaunting the law in other ways including morally. Who's to say those are not slippery slopes in and of themselves?
No, its just been corrupted.
In the law, something frequently comes up called the reasonable person standard. There is some vagueness with such a standard, but its ultimately necessary for enforcing and interpreting laws because legalism is not a virtue and we don't live in a vacuum.
Just a reminder, it was the legalists in society (the Pharisees and Saducees) who were responsible for Jesus' being executed, and their legalism was routinely condemned by Christ because it ended up disregarding their humanity. These were the people who attacked Christ for healing people on the Sabbath because it constituted as "work".
There is also some level of relativity of course, since $3.50 is a piddling amount now, but 100 years ago that would've been a lot more than it is now (and also varies a lot between countries, but Japan is a first world one anyways so w/e). My method isn't law (nor should it be, these are just my opinions), its just my opinion, and what I believe to be the opinion of a reasonable person using ordinary common sense.
I don't think a reasonable person would believe someone deserves to have their life ruined for the cost of... less than a big bag of chips, there is something profoundly inhuman and callous sounding about that. A warning, a citation, a fine, reimbursement, a temporary or permanent ban from the store, maybe something a bit more, sure, those are all legitimate and reasonable options, but this... is just disturbing.
Be careful about assuming too much. Stalin killed tens of millions of his own people, who knows how much the next one will do.