In my eyes it is stealing.

[slowmotion]

We do not live in a black and white world, the whole way you said less morally defensible and have now deleted the less to me says you realise this, include the less and and I'd disagree, in fact I do either way. I think the only reason you'd get a stiffer penalty is because it would be less morally defensible. After all, they were both stolen from the same place, and neither of you were armed were you? Surely it's being humane and seeing the real circumstances behind what pushed each of you to break the law that is the reason why you agree you should get a stiffer penalty?

I deleted "less morally indefensible" actually, and it was because I couldn't work out what it meant having typed it! No, I don't agree with your suggestion that because you are disadvantaged, you should be given greater leeway to be dishonest. If I drove past the McLaren showroom in my Porsche, would I be justified in nicking one of their cars because mine was just a bog-standard 911?

 

[dantheman]

Okay, so you don't think that scenario in any way makes you look worse than someone who stole a loaf of bread from a bin to feed their starving family because they only had bog standard rain water collected in an old boot that someone threw from a porsche?

And you're trying to take the moral high ground...

I find that laughable .

 

[slowmotion]

Okay, so you don't think that scenario in any way makes you look worse than someone who stole a loaf of bread from a bin to feed their starving family because they only had bog standard rain water collected in an old boot that someone threw from a porsche?

And you're trying to take the moral high ground...

I find that laughable .

I'm not taking the moral high ground. I'm questioning the concept of "flexible morality", and wondering where it might lead us.

BTW, were they living in a rolled-up newspaper in a septic tank too?

 

[dantheman]

I think you've made a good argument in favour of "flexible morality"

- they used to find shelter in a mclaren showroom..

Seriously though, on TV we have seen homeless people beg police to lock them up, which they cannot for no reason so then they go and break the law just so they can have food/shelter/safety...

Is it not morally right to try and help people who can be in physical danger? If they truly are going to freeze to death/get beaten to death or starve to death, do you not see a need to protect them for this? And if there's no place that can or will help them, do you not think that these people stealing either to eat or to get caught so they may get help as a less bad for of stealing?
These are things that they need to survive.

I will steal in the future if it means I can keep any member of my family from starving, and I don't care what anybody thinks about that cause maybe just maybe they don't love their family, maybe they hate them as I wouldn't even want someone I hate to starve, hence why I wouldn't look down on someone who did steal for such a reason...

 

[nickyboy]

Okay, so you don't think that scenario in any way makes you look worse than someone who stole a loaf of bread from a bin to feed their starving family because they only had bog standard rain water collected in an old boot that someone threw from a porsche?

And you're trying to take the moral high ground...

I find that laughable .

You're conflating two different issues

Is theft of food by a parent with hungry children less of a crime than someone stealing food just because they thought they could get away with it? Yes

Is theft from an individual more of a crime than theft from a business? No

 

[dantheman]

You're conflating two different issues

Is theft of food by a parent with hungry children less of a crime than someone stealing food just because they thought they could get away with it? Yes

Is theft from an individual more of a crime than theft from a business? No

I agree completely, you enforce what I'm saying with your first sentence, and make me see that what I said is being taken wrong with your second.... - it is no less of a crime but in my opinion is preferable. If preferable is the correct word - I think it hurts individuals less. Can cause less heartache/anger/pain/worrying etc etc.. This is why I say preferable or such, I am not implying that it is any less a crime and did not mean to portray that.

 

[slowmotion]

I think you've made a good argument in favour of "flexible morality"

- they used to find shelter in a mclaren showroom..

Seriously though, on TV we have seen homeless people beg police to lock them up, which they cannot for no reason so then they go and break the law just so they can have food/shelter/safety...

Is it not morally right to try and help people who can be in physical danger? If they truly are going to freeze to death/get beaten to death or starve to death, do you not see a need to protect them for this? And if there's no place that can or will help them, do you not think that these people stealing either to eat or to get caught so they may get help as a less bad for of stealing?
These are things that they need to survive.

I will steal in the future if it means I can keep any member of my family from starving, and I don't care what anybody thinks about that cause maybe just maybe they don't love their family, maybe they hate them as I wouldn't even want someone I hate to starve, hence why I wouldn't look down on someone who did steal for such a reason...

Here's some stuff about morals....
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/moral

It's about "right and wrong", and acceptable behaviour that enables societies to function without descending into chaos. For me, it doesn't have any religious slant at all, just a practical one.

 

[dantheman]

Yes, I don't think I need to read that, we have only been stuck using the word at all since you brought it up. I believe it's human nature to have flexible morals, just like it's human nature to be selfish or many other things I won't say because people will be offended and get on their high horses and such.

I just think I'm more honest about my thoughts on things, I think a lot of people think ( or at least make out) that they are better and have overcome these basic failings that mankind have almost hardwired into the way we are..

The whole thing about them believing they're better kind of proves their not in my eyes.

Opinions are opinions.

This is way off topic.

 

[Mugshot]

But he stole from the rich to give to the poor.

As opposed to Robin Bastard who stole from the rich and kept it for himself.

 

[Drago]

And Robin Reliant, who didn't steal because he's always crash on the way to the store.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Stealing from a company causes less worry and pain?

When I was 18 working in a bar, and everybody was locked in while the safe was empty.

Certainly no worry or pain caused by the theft of a business there........

 

[dantheman]

Stealing from a company causes less worry and pain?

When I was 18 working in a bar, and everybody was locked in while the safe was empty.

Certainly no worry or pain caused by the theft of a business there........

Would you have been less or more worried had the same type of thing happened in your own home?

 

[I like Skol]

I bet you'd rather someone stole a rolls Royce from the makers than from your driveway ( should you own one)

Surely that is the wrong way around? Anyone that can afford a Rolls can obviously afford the minor increase in insurance premiums as a result of having it stolen off the driveway, whereas the manufacturer may become unprofitable if one too many of the product gets nicked and subsequently they call in the administrators, resulting in factory closure and immediate unemployment of the workforce, plus a slow and gradual knock-on collapse of related support industries, also leading to further closures and unemployment.

I still think it's better to steal from a company than a private residence - would you not feel more upset and unsafe/ invaded if someone broke into your house and stole stuff rather than your business premises?

You have obviously never had your own, privately owned business. I have, and I can assure you that you are talking utter ballcocks! Theft is theft and it can hurt emotionally, financially and psychologically regardless.
If I took a pick'n'mix from Woolworths without paying I would be under no illusion that I was doing anything other than stealing!

 

[RoubaixCube]

Most people steal because they think a big retailer can afford to lose the odd sandwich or chocolate and keep operating.

Some steal because they have genuinely nothing to eat. Others steal because they have to feed an addiction.

The average person steals because they don't think the retailer loses any money over it but they don't take into account how many other people are doing the same thing.

I read an article online once where they took a poll and the general consensus was that most people thought it was acceptable.

This was years ago but I'll see if i can dig it up.

It doesn't help that police have told us they won't take action regarding shop lifters we have caught and detained unless we have video evidence of them coming in and stealing 3 times. At least this was what the police in Holborn told me when I tried to report someone for stealing.

If people can get away without paying for something. It's what they will do because it's more money in their pocket they can spend on cigarettes or petrol etc etc.

Such is the world we live in

 

[I like Skol]

Would you have been less or more worried had the same type of thing happened in your own home?

I think I would be more worried about being injured or killed as 'just an employee' than I would as a home owner in their own home! I don't pretend to be inside the minds of the kind of people that would commit such a crime but I cling to the hope that a family person in their family home is likely to be valued more highly than an unidentifiable employee in the workplace on the scale of things.....