Cant guns are illegal. How about a really really high powered air rifle? Those aren't guns technically... Or buy a high powered paint ball gun. Automatic FTW!
I'm not putting blame in society or in anything/anyone else. I just think a lot of (petty) crime is done because people have few other alternatives according to their pov.
Considering the excessive extent of the development of UK Nanny State since the 1930s I can't imagine they have a sound argument to any degree. Furthermore their rationalization for committing crime rather than putting for the effort to work is a classic excuse born of indolence, particularly for UK natives. The immigrant crime, particularly violent crime against Europe's Jewry, has other motivations.
Last I checked Brits aren't starving so no, there's no excuse for their crimes.
If you have something that you don't want stolen the easiest solution to resolve it permanently is to unhook the live feed of the mains leading into the main cable electric feed box of the building hook it/jerry rig it to a clip system and then clip those directly to the chassis and make sure that the doors and any entrance ways are securely locked. This way the first person that touches the thing is fried on the spot and no one else will dare come near it and you may get lucky enough to actually get on of the buddies helping him when they touch him as well.. Since your taking it directly off the feed line its easier and they have no way of shutting it off. Plus its legal, there is nothing stopping you from hooking it to your mower.
I'm not putting blame in society or in anything/anyone else. I just think a lot of (petty) crime is done because people have few other alternatives according to their pov.
Wow!!! Just wow!!! Madace your political views never cease to amaze me. Im just curious, does anyone else here subscribe to the above theory? ANd if so, please tell me where you live in case Im in need of your private property I want to be able to steal from someone who understands ;-)
Dont go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. (Mark Twain)
I'm not putting blame in society or in anything/anyone else. I just think a lot of (petty) crime is done because people have few other alternatives according to their pov.
Wow!!! Just wow!!! Madace your political views never cease to amaze me. Im just curious, does anyone else here subscribe to the above theory? ANd if so, please tell me where you live in case Im in need of your private property I want to be able to steal from someone who understands ;-)
If it were me you could simply ask. I'm always happy to share. Shame I don't have anything.
Originally posted by Kaiaphas
I'm not putting blame in society or in anything/anyone else. I just think a lot of (petty) crime is done because people have few other alternatives according to their pov.
Last I checked Brits aren't starving
Please... Check better. That's an insane thing to say.
Please... Check better. That's an insane thing to say.
That brits aren't starving? Where are Earth are you hearing that they are? I tried "starvation in uk" and "starvation in england" in google and first example I found was a child abuse case. I can find no statistics asserting people in england are starving.
I'm not putting blame in society or in anything/anyone else. I just think a lot of (petty) crime is done because people have few other alternatives according to their pov.
Wow!!! Just wow!!! Madace your political views never cease to amaze me. Im just curious, does anyone else here subscribe to the above theory? ANd if so, please tell me where you live in case Im in need of your private property I want to be able to steal from someone who understands ;-)
I may feel sorry for a lower class criminal but I certainly won't excuse him.
Couple different directions you could go with this.
1)Turnover your weird, anti-natural, geometrical lawn. Then plant lots of groundcover with paths of flagstones or brick and such. All you have to do is hit the worst of it with a weedwacker or a hedger.
2)Alternately, get a mower that is so rediculously heavy that it cannot be loaded into any vehicle, nor pushed up to a semi trailer under its own power. Then they'll have to drive it off. Might as well attach a large train horn that sounds when ever it is turned on. Your neighbors will love it.
3)Take out a lease on combine, and sublease it to someone to drive it freelance. On the weekends you can refit it and mow your whole yard in one pass. And your neighbor's.
Of course, don't excuse criminals. That's insane. Try excusing humans.
Anyways, starvation is of course a huge word. Noone's really STARVING, those people who are in situations where they could be starving will die long before that from drugs, CO intoxication, diseases due to bad or no housing, ...
So relax, noone's really starving. You check up on campaigns against poverty? Their emphasis on "how poverty leads to depression and a low self-esteem" while they willingly ignore that there are many people who wake up not knowing how they will eat that day. Yea, drama, cry, cry. "All their own fault, lazy fucks... Get a job!" I know the cliché's and so do you. Fact is that there are many situations that are simply beyond peoples' scope of imaginations. So be it.
Of course, don't excuse criminals. That's insane. Try excusing humans.
Anyways, starvation is of course a huge word. Noone's really STARVING, those people who are in situations where they could be starving will die long before that from drugs, CO intoxication, diseases due to bad or no housing, ...
So relax, noone's really starving. You check up on campaigns against poverty? Their emphasis on "how poverty leads to depression and a low self-esteem" while they willingly ignore that there are many people who wake up not knowing how they will eat that day. Yea, drama, cry, cry. "All their own fault, lazy fucks... Get a job!" I know the cliché's and so do you. Fact is that there are many situations that are simply beyond peoples' scope of imaginations. So be it.
I'm not going to excuse anyone's wrong doing. If they have another option to provide for their well being then they have no excuse. If this is a matter of them being frustrated with issues regarding their social mobility I have absolutely reason to excuse them. There is no reason for them to engage in theft to "get ahead".
No one in first world countries are starving. My point is starvation is the only excuse I can of to justify theft. Good job on trying to turn this post into an emotional tirade. I can think of no better way to marginalize your argument. The use of drugs is a choice, a choice for which i have no sympathy. I would also like for you to reference a reliable source if you're going to infer most criminals are drug adeled addicts.
There are hardly "many" cases for people not having jobs and futher less for justifying crimes. In the real world we find most of these don't apply to criminals. Its simply easier to steal and drug deal than it is to work. Low self esteem? Are you really willing to accept that as an excuse for criminality? Depression is not an excuse to commit crimes, its a scape goat. There's really nothing more cliche than the excuses bleeding hearts make for murders, thieves and child abusers. Certainly there's nothing more apalling. Some how I imagine if a thief killed your wife or child in the process of robbing you you'd feel quite differently. You choose to minimize the feelings of those being victimized and I for one am quite perplexed by your actions.
What's even more shocking about perpetual criminal enablers is that they continue to cover for idividuals who victimize other people in their own economic classes.
Of course, don't excuse criminals. That's insane. Try excusing humans.
Anyways, starvation is of course a huge word. Noone's really STARVING, those people who are in situations where they could be starving will die long before that from drugs, CO intoxication, diseases due to bad or no housing, ...
So relax, noone's really starving. You check up on campaigns against poverty? Their emphasis on "how poverty leads to depression and a low self-esteem" while they willingly ignore that there are many people who wake up not knowing how they will eat that day. Yea, drama, cry, cry. "All their own fault, lazy fucks... Get a job!" I know the cliché's and so do you. Fact is that there are many situations that are simply beyond peoples' scope of imaginations. So be it.
I'm not going to excuse anyone's wrong doing.
Right and wrong are agreements made by society. They are supposed to work if everyone starts in fair starting positions.
If they have another option to provide for their well being then they have no excuse.
If they don't you simply won't believe it. Not your fault.
If this is a matter of them being frustrated with issues regarding their social mobility I have absolutely reason to excuse them.
Frustration is an absurd word in this context. Try explaining "frustration" to a mother who can't feed her children.
There is no reason for them to engage in theft to "get ahead".
Living = getting ahead?
No one in first world countries are starving.
Again, it's not your fault you don't see that this is such a rich place of the world people have far more options to die from poverty than starvation. Frankly... Starving is extremely hard. Try it some time.
My point is starvation is the only excuse I can of to justify theft.
I'm not talking about justifcation. Frankly, if it were up to me there would never be any need for stealing.
Good job on trying to turn this post into an emotional tirade.
I'm not emotional. I'm really logical. I'm simply stating that there are certain situations (that might or might not trigger an emotional reaction from a certain standpoint) that are unimaginable. That's a fact.
I can think of no better way to marginalize your argument.
Whether or not the argument is marginalized is irrelevant. The very subject is marginalized.
The use of drugs is a choice, a choice for which i have no sympathy.
Starting drugs is a choice. Continuing taking it and the circumstances leading to the weakness required to start aren't.
I would also like for you to reference a reliable source if you're going to infer most criminals are drug adeled addicts.
I never said such a thing. I'm talking about a minority, you know. I was also stating examples that in stead of starving to death people are likely to die sooner of a whole range of other things.
There are hardly "many" cases for people not having jobs and futher less for justifying crimes.
Nice to see you're linking "criminals" to human beings. You'll get there. No. I'm being naive here. Each "case" (don't we all love that word?) is a person (or a family) and each "case" is one too many. And each of those "cases" (how few there may be) are a reality.
In the real world we find most of these don't apply to criminals.
Aaah. The "real" world. Define the "real" world, for a sec, will ya?
Its simply easier to steal and drug deal than it is to work.
Easier to steal... Yea, that's why the majority of people steals in stead of works. And dealing drugs is jolly good fun too! Especially if you're addicted too.
Low self esteem? Are you really willing to accept that as an excuse for criminality?
I never said it was an excuse. I simply said that even organisations that fight crime put "low self-esteem" forward as a really bad thing about poverty, because even they are ashamed that some people have far more pressing issues. Also, people (perhaps those in the real world?) won't believe in a million years that there are others going hungry in their own, perfect and nicely social country. And if they do they'll state it's "their own choice". So aid organisations would rather put problems forward to which the people in the "real" world can relate. Like low self-esteem or depression, or other crap.
Depression is not an excuse to commit crimes, its a scape goat.
Indeed. Depression doesn't exist. For the rest... see above answer.
There's really nothing more cliche than the excuses bleeding hearts make for murders, thieves and child abusers. Certainly there's nothing more apalling.
To whom? You're the living proof that people simply won't buy it, true or not.
Right and wrong are agreements made by society. They are supposed to work if everyone starts in fair starting positions.
what is fair is entirely subjective, a nonrequirement for society to function. "Fairness" is not a prequisite for people to obey laws. As such we offer no pardon to those who flaunt victimizism. Your line of reasoning enables those who break laws and push society closer to the abyss of anarchy. I doubt highly though you consider such in your opinion making. Also, no one has stated criminals are jobless. Clearly criminal statistics don't represent unemployment.
If they don't you simply won't believe it. Not your fault.
the vast majority of people, even poor people, don't commits crimes. These criminals, who predominately victimize the lower class, are parasites who feed off of others and add to the instability lower class communities face which drive away economic opportunity. They play a causal roll in the degredation of neighborhoods and cities.
Frustration is an absurd word in this context. Try explaining "frustration" to a mother who can't feed her children.
Living = getting ahead?
Since we've addressed the issue of starvation already I think we can dismiss this fiction. if you think the vast majority of criminals fit into this category I ask you to cite me resources.
Again, it's not your fault you don't see that this is such a rich place of the world people have far more options to die from poverty than starvation. Frankly... Starving is extremely hard. Try it some time.
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I wasn't refering to "other places in the world" I quite succintly stated england. If there are issues of starvation in places such as zimbabwe (largely their fault btw) I can perfectly understand stealing to survive. Stealing for the sake of survival hasn't been a matter of contention. What has is attempting to fit typical thieves into this category and thus undermining the rule of law.
I'm not talking about justifcation. Frankly, if it were up to me there would never be any need for stealing.
Well then forgive my sense because, quite frankly, it seems that you are trying to excuse them.
I'm not emotional. I'm really logical. I'm simply stating that there are certain situations (that might or might not trigger an emotional reaction from a certain standpoint) that are unimaginable. That's a fact.
If you were logical you wouldn't be trying to focus your arguments around emotional hot spots such as mothers stealing to feed their children and such. In short, things that really don't happen in the first world.
Whether or not the argument is marginalized is irrelevant. The very subject is marginalized.
I would think it has great revelance. By marginalizing your position you're making yourself look as though you're not making a rational argument. Being that its been highly emotional I hardly see this is an invalid assumption.
Starting drugs is a choice. Continuing taking it and the circumstances leading to the weakness required to start aren't.
One can't become addicted until they make a choice to be. Rehab is also a choice too. I won't deny that addiction makes this increasingly difficult to choose, I've never had the lack of sense to try addicting drugs. However you can't deny the onus to have chosen another path.
I never said such a thing. I'm talking about a minority, you know. I was also stating examples that in stead of starving to death people are likely to die sooner of a whole range of other things.
No? Well you see to be playing loose with inferances. What really is the purpose of your argument in relation the typical criminal if you're constantly using example which only apply to the minority of criminals?
Nice to see you're linking "criminals" to human beings. You'll get there. No. I'm being naive here. Each "case" (don't we all love that word?) is a person (or a family) and each "case" is one too many. And each of those "cases" (how few there may be) are a reality.
Wanting to see them brought to justice is about the most human thing I can think of. Watching them victimize the lower classes and knowing good and well what they're doing makes it harder for other lower class people to get ahead fills me with the desire to act. Most businesses won't enter lower class communities because of crime. Businesses starting out in lower class communities are far worse off in terms of finacial aid due to high costs of insurance and such. Sad facts that people ignore on their crusade to make victims out of assailants.
Your condenscending attitude doesn't fill me with much confidence in your willingness to carry on a rational argument btw.
Aaah. The "real" world. Define the "real" world, for a sec, will ya?
I might be mistaken but didn't you earlier deny that you were trying to make these minority situations appear to represent crime as a whole?
Easier to steal... Yea, that's why the majority of people steals in stead of works. And dealing drugs is jolly good fun too! Especially if you're addicted too.
Why do you assume that those who are stealing are without jobs? Do you know this to be fact? The vast majority of people work because they respect humanity and others rights. If that were gone we'd all be criminals. You've stated you're not interested in making excuses for them but here you are again lamenting their practices.
I never said it was an excuse. I simply said that even organisations that fight crime put "low self-esteem" forward as a really bad thing about poverty, because even they are ashamed that some people have far more pressing issues. Also, people (perhaps those in the real world?) won't believe in a million years that there are others going hungry in their own, perfect and nicely social country. And if they do they'll state it's "their own choice". So aid organisations would rather put problems forward to which the people in the "real" world can relate. Like low self-esteem or depression, or other crap.
You tried to draw a line between having low self esteem and being driven to commit crimes. I don't see depression as reason I see it as scapegoat.Like you stated earlier most people work. A lot of people are depressed so it stands to reason there's little association between the two. A person's motivation to commit a crime is not also his justification.
Indeed. Depression doesn't exist. For the rest... see above answer.
Are you or aren't you trying to draw a conclusion here?
To whom? You're the living proof that people simply won't buy it, true or not.
I could say the same for the statement by you that I replied to. Doing so wouldn't bring this argument any further along.
Try getting yourself a tracking device, something small with a GPS that you can locate, let them steal it then find them. Once you have the people doing it sue the hell out of them for all the damages and losses, since it's obviously the same people doing it over and over (and I bet it's someone you know or knew)
Try getting yourself a tracking device, something small with a GPS that you can locate, let them steal it then find them. Once you have the people doing it sue the hell out of them for all the damages and losses, since it's obviously the same people doing it over and over (and I bet it's someone you know or knew)
Ding Ding DIng! He totally wins! This is a perfect idea. I'm not sure if it's too expensive or what, but that would totally work. What I was also thinking is that you could put several spike strips down so that when they blow through the fence, they won't have a getaway vehicle. I also like the paint idea, but if they just blast through the garage it wouldn't work.
It seems you and I are confused about each others' opinion on the matter. So I'll try to clarify my pov.
So I was saying that harsh laws won't help fighting crime. I said that the reasons crime exist should be eliminated.
For example extreme poverty or no future will cause some people to resort to crime. Did I say that all criminals suffer this pressure of circumstances? No, of course not. I never suggested that all laws should be traded for the perfect society.
I know that people will always try to be creative and will seek opportunities and some people will try to find ways to make money faster and easier than someone else, this breaking laws. I really think that there should be swift, consequent and proportionate action against those people. And all punishment should aim for rehabilitation.
Because... If someone has to be punished, then society has already failed.
I also repeatedly tried to make the point that "criminals" aren't faceless demons but in fact people, possibly with some worth to society.
My main point is that there are people in such deep shit (a small but still significant minority) that they will turn to crime. But I also tried to make clear that these are situations which are unimaginable for the next guy in the street. Or simply impossible to understand.
Next thing I said that even aid organisations turn their campaigns away from those "cases" of people who are in situations which render them unable to lead an even remotely normal life to the things that are more understandable and imaginable to the "real world" masses, like depression and such.
I also never said that all people in those situations conduct crimes but I simply said that it might be their only option.
Also, you seemed to see "starvation" in a literal sence as the only motivation for petty crime whereas I say that it's extremely rare that people die of hunger since in those situations they'll sooner die of other things. So they might turn to criminals before the "starvation" state.
So you're right, noone in first world countries are starving (ehem, there are some... that's a statistical certainty, but a small one) but there are more situations than can lead to people losing their "moral values" (as they only apply to normal situations) and turn to criminal acts.
So for people who are cornered so to speak I think that they should be excused as their actions are a failure of the system in stead of a personal failure. And I think this can be seen broad, up to the point where a druggie steals to get his/her next fix.
But I know chances are tiny you'll understand and I doubt my judgement is perfectly objective, this due to past experiences.
It seems you and I are confused about each others' opinion on the matter. So I'll try to clarify my pov.
So I was saying that harsh laws won't help fighting crime. I said that the reasons crime exist should be eliminated.
For example extreme poverty or no future will cause some people to resort to crime. Did I say that all criminals suffer this pressure of circumstances? No, of course not...
I don't necessarily agree with you're perspective on harsh laws. Singapore has very harsh laws and low crime. I believe there to be a relationship between the two.
Suggesting that we should remove "the reasons for crime" is like asking us to find the holy grail. If we could we'd be perfect, if we were perfect there'd by no crime to begin with. Removing criminals from society is a pretty good start IMHO.
. I really think that there should be swift, consequent and proportionate action against those people. And all punishment should aim for rehabilitation.
Because... If someone has to be punished, then society has already failed.
I don't see it as Society's responsibility to disciplin or provide for people who comitt crimes. No one else but you are responsible for your actions.
I also repeatedly tried to make the point that "criminals" aren't faceless demons but in fact people, possibly with some worth to society.
Then they will learn from their punishment and work to be a benefit to society.
My main point is that there are people in such deep shit (a small but still significant minority) that they will turn to crime. But I also tried to make clear that these are situations which are unimaginable for the next guy in the street. Or simply impossible to understand.
Or they're really just an emotional appeals meant to enable criminals. Most criminals will apeal to such rationalization if they know it can get them a plea bargin and or lesson the punishment. Being in "deep shit" that isn't life threatening doesn't justify their criminal actions. That's really the crux of my position.
Its also a shame that we're spending so much time discussin the humanity of criminals while ignoring the humanity of the people they victimized
Next thing I said that even aid organisations turn their campaigns away from those "cases" of people who are in situations which render them unable to lead an even remotely normal life to the things that are more understandable and imaginable to the "real world" masses, like depression and such.
Why would you expect aid organizations who are making little if any difference to crime in the US, South Africa, and England to say or do anything else? They're hardly professionals and they're definately not impartial. Their method of asserting that criminality and depression are heavily related isn't reflect anywhere else but with those who have an agenda to accept it. Futhermore no one recognizes depression as a rationalization for crime. Unless of course you're a woman who's suffering from post pardum despression and massacre you're whole family in an act of first degree murder that is.
I also never said that all people in those situations conduct crimes but I simply said that it might be their only option.
That comes off as a rationalization. You're asserting something which is highly unlikely to be a likelihood. Being that survival isn't the motivation for crime in first world nations I can't accept they have no other option. Think about this for a moment. Can you think of a situation in a first world country where crime can be justified? Crime that will ultimately victimize people who will have to struggle to recover from your abuse of them?
Also, you seemed to see "starvation" in a literal sence as the only motivation for petty crime whereas I say that it's extremely rare that people die of hunger since in those situations they'll sooner die of other things. So they might turn to criminals before the "starvation" state.
So you're right, noone in first world countries are starving (ehem, there are some... that's a statistical certainty, but a small one) but there are more situations than can lead to people losing their "moral values" (as they only apply to normal situations) and turn to criminal acts.
No, what I'm saying is that survival is the only reason I can think of to steal. However there are other options you can take before you get to that position. A lot of those people are likely to have had chemical addictions to drugs which have driven them to those positions. This is of course was a choice and thusly rules out my sympathy for them. Arresting them and getting them off the street may in fact be the best thing for them.
Also I don't have any reason to believe that even 5% of crime is represented by individuals in this position.
So for people who are cornered so to speak I think that they should be excused as their actions are a failure of the system in stead of a personal failure. And I think this can be seen broad, up to the point where a druggie steals to get his/her next fix.
Again I disagree with you blaming everyone else for the choices of individuals. There's no god and thusly there's no absolute law that forces us to be responsible for others. In shot this group blame is your opinion.
But I know chances are tiny you'll understand and I doubt my judgement is perfectly objective, this due to past experiences.
Of course I won't. I'm a morally inferior, savage, pro-self responsibility conservative.
It seems you and I are confused about each others' opinion on the matter. So I'll try to clarify my pov.
So I was saying that harsh laws won't help fighting crime. I said that the reasons crime exist should be eliminated.
For example extreme poverty or no future will cause some people to resort to crime. Did I say that all criminals suffer this pressure of circumstances? No, of course not...
I don't necessarily agree with you're perspective on harsh laws. Singapore has very harsh laws and low crime. I believe there to be a relationship between the two.
Suggesting that we should remove "the reasons for crime" is like asking us to find the holy grail. If we could we'd be perfect, if we were perfect there'd by no crime to begin with. Removing criminals from society is a pretty good start IMHO.
Defeatism hasn't brought us to a point in our evolution where we can say "all moral options are open now". Scandinavian countries have aimed to get rid of social injustive for decades now and they have very low crime reates.
. I really think that there should be swift, consequent and proportionate action against those people. And all punishment should aim for rehabilitation.
Because... If someone has to be punished, then society has already failed.
I don't see it as Society's responsibility to disciplin or provide for people who comitt crimes. No one else but you are responsible for your actions.
Untrue. Read any biology book. We're still animals with a basic instinct for survival. I'm not saying that people shouldn't account for their actions, but the circumstances should be a factor. If I had the power to manipulate your mental/fysical health, your bank account and your acces to friends and family then I'm sure I would get you to commit a crime within 48 hours.
I also repeatedly tried to make the point that "criminals" aren't faceless demons but in fact people, possibly with some worth to society.
Then they will learn from their punishment and work to be a benefit to society.
Noone learns from punishment. When I was a small kid I didn't learn from standing in a corner in recess, I learned from understanding why I stood there. All people learn in prison is how to be more careful and how to be better at cri... I mean, be better criminals.
My main point is that there are people in such deep shit (a small but still significant minority) that they will turn to crime. But I also tried to make clear that these are situations which are unimaginable for the next guy in the street. Or simply impossible to understand.
Or they're really just an emotional appeals meant to enable criminals.
Like I said, unimaginable for the next guy in the street. Which noone can blame you, as you lack a frame of reference.
Most criminals will apeal to such rationalization if they know it can get them a plea bargin and or lesson the punishment. Being in "deep shit" that isn't life threatening doesn't justify their criminal actions. That's really the crux of my position.
I'm talking about "life" threatening situations.
Its also a shame that we're spending so much time discussin the humanity of criminals while ignoring the humanity of the people they victimized
The humanity of victims is without question, at least them being human.
Next thing I said that even aid organisations turn their campaigns away from those "cases" of people who are in situations which render them unable to lead an even remotely normal life to the things that are more understandable and imaginable to the "real world" masses, like depression and such.
Why would you expect aid organizations who are making little if any difference to crime in the US, South Africa, and England to say or do anything else? They're hardly professionals and they're definately not impartial. Their method of asserting that criminality and depression are heavily related isn't reflect anywhere else but with those who have an agenda to accept it. Futhermore no one recognizes depression as a rationalization for crime. Unless of course you're a woman who's suffering from post pardum despression and massacre you're whole family in an act of first degree murder that is.
AGAIN I will try to explain that those organisations focuss on that simply because the next guy in the street won't appeal to anything else, as they simply won't believe certain things happening in their country. And if they beleive they will place full responsability with the people who are victim of social injustice.
I also never said that all people in those situations conduct crimes but I simply said that it might be their only option.
That comes off as a rationalization. You're asserting something which is highly unlikely to be a likelihood. Being that survival isn't the motivation for crime in first world nations I can't accept they have no other option. Think about this for a moment.
Can you think of a situation in a first world country where crime can be justified?
Yes, a few, no, a bunch. Some from personal experience, so it's rather impossible to discuss those, as it would interfere with being objective. Also, they're in the context of my own country, so there might be differences.
Crime that will ultimately victimize people who will have to struggle to recover from your abuse of them?
Ergl... Reluctantly, yes... More or less. Highly depends.
The whole issue here is that you are compltely unable to imagine any of those situations or that you can relate. You simply can't think of any. The whole issue is that most people can't think of any of those situations.
Also, you seemed to see "starvation" in a literal sence as the only motivation for petty crime whereas I say that it's extremely rare that people die of hunger since in those situations they'll sooner die of other things. So they might turn to criminals before the "starvation" state.
So you're right, noone in first world countries are starving (ehem, there are some... that's a statistical certainty, but a small one) but there are more situations than can lead to people losing their "moral values" (as they only apply to normal situations) and turn to criminal acts.
No, what I'm saying is that survival is the only reason I can think of to steal.
More or less true.
However there are other options you can take before you get to that position.
They can be depleted.
A lot of those people are likely to have had chemical addictions to drugs which have driven them to those positions.
True. Or not. It's rare that there first was addiction and then extreme poverty. People with a back up in life are far less likely to remain addicted.
This is of course was a choice and thusly rules out my sympathy for them.
Why is that? The circumstances usually leading to addiction are usually the same circumstances that are the result of extreme poverty. Drug addiction isn't a cause, it's a symptom.
Arresting them and getting them off the street may in fact be the best thing for them.
Detox in prison? Excuse me? Or no detox at all. Since drugs are freely available in prison. Perhaps some psychological guidance would help?
Also I don't have any reason to believe that even 5% of crime is represented by individuals in this position.
5% = 5%.
So for people who are cornered so to speak I think that they should be excused as their actions are a failure of the system in stead of a personal failure. And I think this can be seen broad, up to the point where a druggie steals to get his/her next fix.
Again I disagree with you blaming everyone else for the choices of individuals.
I'm not blaming anyone. I'm blaming circumstances. People are still people, and they will adapt, no matter what moral boundaries are set by society.
There's no god and thusly there's no absolute law that forces us to be responsible for others. In shot this group blame is your opinion.
Well, actually there's a biological background for empathy, but that indeed focusses more on smaller groups than the whole of society.
But empathy becomes a profitable POV when you take into account that every human lost to poverty or any human lost in prison is millions and millions wasted. Simple as that. It's all about the money.
But I know chances are tiny you'll understand and I doubt my judgement is perfectly objective, this due to past experiences.
Of course I won't. I'm a morally inferior, savage, pro-self responsibility conservative.
Your words, which I would never say. You have the same issues as every other guy in the street. Not your fault. And I would actually say I am morally inferior, since I crossed a few boundaries too many.
Technically, it wouldn't stop them. But ultimately it would slow them down a considerable amount. If they had to travel a far distance, it would draw a considerable amount of attention. The robbers could run, but then the van would most likely be tied back to the owner. Unless this van is only worth like $500, then it wouldn't be worth it to leave their car at the scene. It would definately make them think twice about coming back again. New tires are pretty expensive if they manage to get away. Also, video cameras could work, but that would be damn expensive. I still think the GPS idea is pretty damn good. Set everything up, and then let the cops do the tracking. Put those fuckers in jail. Oh yea, and good luck dude, I hope you catch the pricks.
Defeatism hasn't brought us to a point in our evolution where we can say "all moral options are open now". Scandinavian countries have aimed to get rid of social injustive for decades now and they have very low crime reates.
Japan also have very low crime rates and achieved this without sacrificing personal liberties to socialism. There are many other countries who've run the socialist gambit and have come up with opposite results. So I really have nothing else before me that convinces me their results are anything but a fluke. The notion that "social injustices" are at the root cause of all crime is simply naive. If equalization of the playing field curbed crime then the Soviet Union should have been crimeless obviously it wasn't. If crime and poverty were in direct correlation with each other then American whites would comitt more murders per capita than American blacks. Yet the opposite is true.
Untrue. Read any biology book. We're still animals with a basic instinct for survival. I'm not saying that people shouldn't account for their actions, but the circumstances should be a factor. If I had the power to manipulate your mental/fysical health, your bank account and your acces to friends and family then I'm sure I would get you to commit a crime within 48 hours.
You proport there's an absolute morality that enforces humanity to be responsible for others according to anthropology? This argument is simply spurious. There's nothing in a biology book that could validate your absolute moral stance. Responsibility is a rational construct not an instinct. No one is any more responsible for you than you are for them. We're not an ant colony we're thinking beings with free will.
Noone learns from punishment. When I was a small kid I didn't learn from standing in a corner in recess, I learned from understanding why I stood there. All people learn in prison is how to be more careful and how to be better at cri... I mean, be better criminals.
This is patently false. Any base level psychology course will teach you animals with higher cognitive capacities will learn through association. Didn't your parents disciplin you in your life? Didn't they deprive you of something you would normally have to reinforce the message?
Like I said, unimaginable for the next guy in the street. Which noone can blame you, as you lack a frame of reference.
You obviously consider yourself highly informed.
I'm talking about "life" threatening situations.
You obviously have a different interpretation of "life" threatening than I do.
AGAIN I will try to explain that those organisations focuss on that simply because the next guy in the street won't appeal to anything else, as they simply won't believe certain things happening in their country. And if they beleive they will place full responsability with the people who are victim of social injustice.
Of course they won't appeal to anything else. Projection is a typical human behavior. You're more likely to find people who are receptive to your invitations through appeasing them. You're not however more likely to reach them. Given that these angencies help only a few of the people they reach out to I can't say their procedure is effective.
Yes, a few, no, a bunch. Some from personal experience, so it's rather impossible to discuss those, as it would interfere with being objective. Also, they're in the context of my own country, so there might be differences.
Then you really haven't answered the question. I imagine though this portion of the argument will degrade into subjective arguments based on what is and is not life threatening though.
Ergl... Reluctantly, yes... More or less. Highly depends.
The whole issue here is that you are compltely unable to imagine any of those situations or that you can relate. You simply can't think of any. The whole issue is that most people can't think of any of those situations.
No, it never depends. The vast majority of people victimized by criminals are of the lower class. They ruin lower class communities, drive away jobs and economic opportunities, they destroy local grass roots businesses and offer nothing to society.
THeir theivery never benefits anyone but themselves. Its purely self motivated acton with deliberate intent to deprive others of something they've earned through work.
They can be depleted.
If you choose to strain them
True. Or not. It's rare that there first was addiction and then extreme poverty. People with a back up in life are far less likely to remain addicted.
Definately true but not my responsibility. If they wish to avoid poverty and jail then they'd best assert themselves and change. There are many who do.
Why is that? The circumstances usually leading to addiction are usually the same circumstances that are the result of extreme poverty. Drug addiction isn't a cause, it's a symptom.
It rules out my sympathy because they knowingly made a choice. They went against common sense and have placed themselves in a position where they live paracitically off of people work hard for what they have. They are also a danger to other people.
Detox in prison? Excuse me? Or no detox at all. Since drugs are freely available in prison. Perhaps some psychological guidance would help?
As a result of their incarceration sure.
5% = 5%.
5% of less than 5% of people in any given first world country. If you wish to shell out the money to help this extreme and undescernable minority of people be my guest. I just ask that you don't try and force me to do the same.
I'm not blaming anyone. I'm blaming circumstances. People are still people, and they will adapt, no matter what moral boundaries are set by society.
I don't blame circumstances I blame people. No one has the god given "right" to by the next Bill Gates. They do however have the right and responsibility to ensure they take care of themselves.
Well, actually there's a biological background for empathy, but that indeed focusses more on smaller groups than the whole of society.
But empathy becomes a profitable POV when you take into account that every human lost to poverty or any human lost in prison is millions and millions wasted. Simple as that. It's all about the money.
There's also a biological basis for abortion, rape, and cannibalism. Darwinism suggests that as species we're better off without these transients polluting the gene pool and keeping the rest of society down. Eugenicists suggested earlier last century that we sterilize these people. Do we want to take the anthropological stance?
The notion that the empathetic POV is profitable is based purely off of insanely optomistic wishful thinking. You can't controll what people do and how they spend their money (clearly the Soviet Union illustrates the end result of trying this). You can't garuantee they'll listen to you. Nor do you have a monopoly on methods to cope with poverty. This has been apart of the socialist economic battle cry since the 19th century and yet no socialist country has ever achieved these lofty expectations. In fact they more often than not drove away economic opportunity. Venezuela, Ghana, India, Venezuela and Zimbabwe are perfect examples of where these theories lead to grave failures.
Defeatism hasn't brought us to a point in our evolution where we can say "all moral options are open now". Scandinavian countries have aimed to get rid of social injustive for decades now and they have very low crime reates.
Japan also have very low crime rates and achieved this without sacrificing personal liberties to socialism.
The Japanese society is also one in which people are open to take responsability for each others' well-being as they understand how the misfortune of one person affects everyone.
There are many other countries who've run the socialist gambit and have come up with opposite results.
This only proves that democracy doesn't work as it should... Says nothing about being able to back people up when they're in trouble.
The notion that "social injustices" are at the root cause of all crime is simply naive.
I never, ever suggested it was the root of ALL crime. Like I said before, people will always try to improve their living conditions and some will try to bend or break the moral boundaries set by society. But those people are perfectly suitable for punishment with intend of rehabilitation.
If equalization of the playing field curbed crime then the Soviet Union should have been crimeless obviously it wasn't.
Idon't really care what aspirations the USSR had or what it claimed to achieve. The playing field in the USSR wasn't equal and all the attempts to do so ignored human nature.
If crime and poverty were in direct correlation with each other then American whites would comitt more murders per capita than American blacks. Yet the opposite is true.
We're discussing petty crimes here, not murder.
Untrue. Read any biology book. We're still animals with a basic instinct for survival. I'm not saying that people shouldn't account for their actions, but the circumstances should be a factor. If I had the power to manipulate your mental/fysical health, your bank account and your acces to friends and family then I'm sure I would get you to commit a crime within 48 hours.
You proport there's an absolute morality that enforces humanity to be responsible for others according to anthropology? This argument is simply spurious. There's nothing in a biology book that could validate your absolute moral stance. Responsibility is a rational construct not an instinct. No one is any more responsible for you than you are for them. We're not an ant colony we're thinking beings with free will.
You will read in a biology book that we are still animals with instincts for survival and that we as humans (everyone, even you, ...) will be subjected to these instincts no mather what social boundaries are set by society. Society and law only works as intended if everyone gets opportunities. How many nations don't have a constitution which states its citizens have a right for food, shelter, whatever... But the every day law book is filled with rules (luckily so) that punish people who try to take it, even tho it's supposed to be guaranteed. Of course the vast majority of people commiting crimes are people who have a means of existence, so they are subjected to every day law.
Noone learns from punishment. When I was a small kid I didn't learn from standing in a corner in recess, I learned from understanding why I stood there. All people learn in prison is how to be more careful and how to be better at cri... I mean, be better criminals.
This is patently false. Any base level psychology course will teach you animals with higher cognitive capacities will learn through association. Didn't your parents disciplin you in your life? Didn't they deprive you of something you would normally have to reinforce the message?
If punished I will associate my crime with the punishment, but if not explained I won't associate my crime with a reason why it's a crime. Also, if the conditions which forced someone to commit a crime remain unchanged then how would someone stop themselves from not commiting them?
Like I said, unimaginable for the next guy in the street. Which noone can blame you, as you lack a frame of reference.
You obviously consider yourself highly informed.
Do you consider yourself uninformed? If not, how so?
I'm talking about "life" threatening situations.
You obviously have a different interpretation of "life" threatening than I do.
"Life" can have many meanings. It can be the simple state of being alive that is being threatened or it can be the sum of all things that someone can consider valuable to ones life, such as dignity. Many prefer stealing above prostitution (which are both crimes, actually).
AGAIN I will try to explain that those organisations focuss on that simply because the next guy in the street won't appeal to anything else, as they simply won't believe certain things happening in their country. And if they beleive they will place full responsability with the people who are victim of social injustice.
Of course they won't appeal to anything else. Projection is a typical human behavior. You're more likely to find people who are receptive to your invitations through appeasing them. You're not however more likely to reach them. Given that these angencies help only a few of the people they reach out to I can't say their procedure is effective.
If those organisations were to tell the truth then people just wouldn't believe them.
Yes, a few, no, a bunch. Some from personal experience, so it's rather impossible to discuss those, as it would interfere with being objective. Also, they're in the context of my own country, so there might be differences.
Then you really haven't answered the question. I imagine though this portion of the argument will degrade into subjective arguments based on what is and is not life threatening though.
Can YOU imagine yourself such situations? Does everything you can't imagine yourself not exist?
Ergl... Reluctantly, yes... More or less. Highly depends.
The whole issue here is that you are compltely unable to imagine any of those situations or that you can relate. You simply can't think of any. The whole issue is that most people can't think of any of those situations.
No, it never depends. The vast majority of people victimized by criminals are of the lower class. They ruin lower class communities, drive away jobs and economic opportunities, they destroy local grass roots businesses and offer nothing to society.
It's irrelevant who's the victim. Victims are victims. And you make it seem the stupid lower class uses one agenda and one will and says "Hey, let's go mess up our neighbourhoods!".
THeir theivery never benefits anyone but themselves. Its purely self motivated acton with deliberate intent to deprive others of something they've earned through work.
No, correction: THeir theivery never benefits anyone but themselves. Its purely self motivated acton with deliberate intent to get something.
BTW, do you, as someone who worls for a living, do this for anyone else but yourself? I don't think so.
They can be depleted.
If you choose to strain them
A person can't decide whether or not resources are depleted and whether or not they should use them. A person only wants help. You make it seem a whole community speaks out in one voice and says "Hey! Let's go strain the system!".
Also, you seem to think the resources given are adequate, which they are not. A few hundred years ago people like you thought that services were adequate, although they weren't according to todays' norms.
True. Or not. It's rare that there first was addiction and then extreme poverty. People with a back up in life are far less likely to remain addicted.
Definately true but not my responsibility. If they wish to avoid poverty and jail then they'd best assert themselves and change. There are many who do.
Change what? Their circumstances? Well of course someone tries. Change their addiction? Are you addicted to anything? If so, would you be able to get rid of it without support or resources (such as medication, money, psychological help, ...)?
It is your responsability, since society exists simply to put the power with the people. And you are one of the people. Welcome to democracy.
Why is that? The circumstances usually leading to addiction are usually the same circumstances that are the result of extreme poverty. Drug addiction isn't a cause, it's a symptom.
It rules out my sympathy because they knowingly made a choice. They went against common sense and have placed themselves in a position where they live paracitically off of people work hard for what they have. They are also a danger to other people.
Like I already said, drug addiction is rearely the cause, usually the symptom. Their circumstances were against common sense and they were already in a position where they were unable to provide in their own physical and mental welbeing. And they are not only a danger to others, but also to themselves... And who wouldn't want to change that?
Detox in prison? Excuse me? Or no detox at all. Since drugs are freely available in prison. Perhaps some psychological guidance would help?
As a result of their incarceration sure.
How so? Do you think this is the case now?
5% = 5%.
5% of less than 5% of people in any given first world country. If you wish to shell out the money to help this extreme and undescernable minority of people be my guest. I just ask that you don't try and force me to do the same.
I just noticed you live in the US...
In 2005, 37.0 million people were in poverty, not statistically different from 2004.
The poverty rate in 2005 for children under 18 (17.6 percent) remained higher than that of 18-to-64-year-olds (11.1 percent) and that of people 65 and older (10.1 percent)—all were not statistically different from 2004.
Roughly 754,000 Americans are in a homeless shelter or on the streets on any given night. About a third are families with children. About a quarter are disabled. These figures are quite substantial, so 5% isn't all that realistic.
You already said that those "criminals" have an effect on society, so I guess that taking care of circumstances would be much, much cheaper than putting people in jail.
I'm not blaming anyone. I'm blaming circumstances. People are still people, and they will adapt, no matter what moral boundaries are set by society.
I don't blame circumstances I blame people. No one has the god given "right" to by the next Bill Gates. They do however have the right and responsibility to ensure they take care of themselves.
You are denying that people will want to survive and don't just lie down and die because they might harm society if they do otherwise. Many don't want to be the next Bill Gates (do you?) but many just want the bare necessities (don't you?).
Well, actually there's a biological background for empathy, but that indeed focusses more on smaller groups than the whole of society.
But empathy becomes a profitable POV when you take into account that every human lost to poverty or any human lost in prison is millions and millions wasted. Simple as that. It's all about the money.
There's also a biological basis for abortion, rape, and cannibalism. Darwinism suggests that as species we're better off without these transients polluting the gene pool and keeping the rest of society down. Eugenicists suggested earlier last century that we sterilize these people. Do we want to take the anthropological stance?
We won't better society by denying what we are. What you perceive as mistakes are actually the very things that make this great world where you can have two cars and your daily bacon. If we take the realistic stance then we should strive to help people if they are in trouble, in stead of punishing them if they fight their trouble with the only options they have left.
The notion that the empathetic POV is profitable is based purely off of insanely optomistic wishful thinking.
Why is that? The more people that have jobs, the more people that pay taxes, the more people that can be helped, the better a job society does.
You can't controll what people do and how they spend their money (clearly the Soviet Union illustrates the end result of trying this).
You can control how they are being brought up, if they are at all being brought up, if they have everything they need to start in life and you can respond if people need help.
You can't garuantee they'll listen to you.
People strive to have the best living condtions possible, that is a fact. So most will.
Nor do you have a monopoly on methods to cope with poverty.
Currently there are no or very few methods.
This has been apart of the socialist economic battle cry since the 19th century and yet no socialist country has ever achieved these lofty expectations. In fact they more often than not drove away economic opportunity. Venezuela, Ghana, India, Venezuela and Zimbabwe are perfect examples of where these theories lead to grave failures.
I don't give a fuck what governments chose as their ideology or what they said they would do or what they attemptedc to do. Those things can't be changed, nor can the alternative motives at which they were suggested. What can change is our stance towards poverty.
I just woke up and I'm not going to read the funny color rants but how the hell did we get from stolen lawnmower to the USSR??? You guys are making me, a senile wack job, look sane and sensible... oh wait I should just shut up shouldn't I.
Baff just use a tracker, after you find them you can decide what to do with them, either let the cops handle them and sue the hell out of them, or go for a tabloid spot and use the mower to chop off their nads. You could go by the moniker "The Masked Nad Mulcher of _your neighborhood here_" or some such, we'll need to know where you're from to make a good one for you, maybe get to meet a few page three girls.
Comments
You're safety is probably a product of location and or luck.
Considering the excessive extent of the development of UK Nanny State since the 1930s I can't imagine they have a sound argument to any degree. Furthermore their rationalization for committing crime rather than putting for the effort to work is a classic excuse born of indolence, particularly for UK natives. The immigrant crime, particularly violent crime against Europe's Jewry, has other motivations.
Last I checked Brits aren't starving so no, there's no excuse for their crimes.
http://www.forceofarms.com/index.php
That's not legal here, it's called murder.
A deliberate attempt to kill someone.
Wow!!! Just wow!!! Madace your political views never cease to amaze me. Im just curious, does anyone else here subscribe to the above theory? ANd if so, please tell me where you live in case Im in need of your private property I want to be able to steal from someone who understands ;-)
Dont go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first. (Mark Twain)
Wow!!! Just wow!!! Madace your political views never cease to amaze me. Im just curious, does anyone else here subscribe to the above theory? ANd if so, please tell me where you live in case Im in need of your private property I want to be able to steal from someone who understands ;-)
If it were me you could simply ask. I'm always happy to share. Shame I don't have anything.
Last I checked Brits aren't starving
Please... Check better. That's an insane thing to say.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
That brits aren't starving? Where are Earth are you hearing that they are? I tried "starvation in uk" and "starvation in england" in google and first example I found was a child abuse case. I can find no statistics asserting people in england are starving.
Wow!!! Just wow!!! Madace your political views never cease to amaze me. Im just curious, does anyone else here subscribe to the above theory? ANd if so, please tell me where you live in case Im in need of your private property I want to be able to steal from someone who understands ;-)
I may feel sorry for a lower class criminal but I certainly won't excuse him.
1)Turnover your weird, anti-natural, geometrical lawn. Then plant lots of groundcover with paths of flagstones or brick and such. All you have to do is hit the worst of it with a weedwacker or a hedger.
2)Alternately, get a mower that is so rediculously heavy that it cannot be loaded into any vehicle, nor pushed up to a semi trailer under its own power. Then they'll have to drive it off. Might as well attach a large train horn that sounds when ever it is turned on. Your neighbors will love it.
3)Take out a lease on combine, and sublease it to someone to drive it freelance. On the weekends you can refit it and mow your whole yard in one pass. And your neighbor's.
Anyways, starvation is of course a huge word. Noone's really STARVING, those people who are in situations where they could be starving will die long before that from drugs, CO intoxication, diseases due to bad or no housing, ...
So relax, noone's really starving. You check up on campaigns against poverty? Their emphasis on "how poverty leads to depression and a low self-esteem" while they willingly ignore that there are many people who wake up not knowing how they will eat that day. Yea, drama, cry, cry. "All their own fault, lazy fucks... Get a job!" I know the cliché's and so do you. Fact is that there are many situations that are simply beyond peoples' scope of imaginations. So be it.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
No one in first world countries are starving. My point is starvation is the only excuse I can of to justify theft. Good job on trying to turn this post into an emotional tirade. I can think of no better way to marginalize your argument. The use of drugs is a choice, a choice for which i have no sympathy. I would also like for you to reference a reliable source if you're going to infer most criminals are drug adeled addicts.
There are hardly "many" cases for people not having jobs and futher less for justifying crimes. In the real world we find most of these don't apply to criminals. Its simply easier to steal and drug deal than it is to work. Low self esteem? Are you really willing to accept that as an excuse for criminality? Depression is not an excuse to commit crimes, its a scape goat. There's really nothing more cliche than the excuses bleeding hearts make for murders, thieves and child abusers. Certainly there's nothing more apalling. Some how I imagine if a thief killed your wife or child in the process of robbing you you'd feel quite differently. You choose to minimize the feelings of those being victimized and I for one am quite perplexed by your actions.
Right and wrong are agreements made by society. They are supposed to work if everyone starts in fair starting positions.
If they have another option to provide for their well being then they have no excuse.
If they don't you simply won't believe it. Not your fault.
If this is a matter of them being frustrated with issues regarding their social mobility I have absolutely reason to excuse them.
Frustration is an absurd word in this context. Try explaining "frustration" to a mother who can't feed her children.
There is no reason for them to engage in theft to "get ahead".
Living = getting ahead?
No one in first world countries are starving.
Again, it's not your fault you don't see that this is such a rich place of the world people have far more options to die from poverty than starvation. Frankly... Starving is extremely hard. Try it some time.
My point is starvation is the only excuse I can of to justify theft.
I'm not talking about justifcation. Frankly, if it were up to me there would never be any need for stealing.
Good job on trying to turn this post into an emotional tirade.
I'm not emotional. I'm really logical. I'm simply stating that there are certain situations (that might or might not trigger an emotional reaction from a certain standpoint) that are unimaginable. That's a fact.
I can think of no better way to marginalize your argument.
Whether or not the argument is marginalized is irrelevant. The very subject is marginalized.
The use of drugs is a choice, a choice for which i have no sympathy.
Starting drugs is a choice. Continuing taking it and the circumstances leading to the weakness required to start aren't.
I would also like for you to reference a reliable source if you're going to infer most criminals are drug adeled addicts.
I never said such a thing. I'm talking about a minority, you know. I was also stating examples that in stead of starving to death people are likely to die sooner of a whole range of other things.
There are hardly "many" cases for people not having jobs and futher less for justifying crimes.
Nice to see you're linking "criminals" to human beings. You'll get there. No. I'm being naive here. Each "case" (don't we all love that word?) is a person (or a family) and each "case" is one too many. And each of those "cases" (how few there may be) are a reality.
In the real world we find most of these don't apply to criminals.
Aaah. The "real" world. Define the "real" world, for a sec, will ya?
Its simply easier to steal and drug deal than it is to work.
Easier to steal... Yea, that's why the majority of people steals in stead of works. And dealing drugs is jolly good fun too! Especially if you're addicted too.
Low self esteem? Are you really willing to accept that as an excuse for criminality?
I never said it was an excuse. I simply said that even organisations that fight crime put "low self-esteem" forward as a really bad thing about poverty, because even they are ashamed that some people have far more pressing issues. Also, people (perhaps those in the real world?) won't believe in a million years that there are others going hungry in their own, perfect and nicely social country. And if they do they'll state it's "their own choice". So aid organisations would rather put problems forward to which the people in the "real" world can relate. Like low self-esteem or depression, or other crap.
Depression is not an excuse to commit crimes, its a scape goat.
Indeed. Depression doesn't exist. For the rest... see above answer.
There's really nothing more cliche than the excuses bleeding hearts make for murders, thieves and child abusers. Certainly there's nothing more apalling.
To whom? You're the living proof that people simply won't buy it, true or not.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Try getting yourself a tracking device, something small with a GPS that you can locate, let them steal it then find them. Once you have the people doing it sue the hell out of them for all the damages and losses, since it's obviously the same people doing it over and over (and I bet it's someone you know or knew)
µV
Ding Ding DIng! He totally wins! This is a perfect idea. I'm not sure if it's too expensive or what, but that would totally work. What I was also thinking is that you could put several spike strips down so that when they blow through the fence, they won't have a getaway vehicle. I also like the paint idea, but if they just blast through the garage it wouldn't work.
ET
It seems you and I are confused about each others' opinion on the matter. So I'll try to clarify my pov.
So I was saying that harsh laws won't help fighting crime. I said that the reasons crime exist should be eliminated.
For example extreme poverty or no future will cause some people to resort to crime. Did I say that all criminals suffer this pressure of circumstances? No, of course not. I never suggested that all laws should be traded for the perfect society.
I know that people will always try to be creative and will seek opportunities and some people will try to find ways to make money faster and easier than someone else, this breaking laws. I really think that there should be swift, consequent and proportionate action against those people. And all punishment should aim for rehabilitation.
Because... If someone has to be punished, then society has already failed.
I also repeatedly tried to make the point that "criminals" aren't faceless demons but in fact people, possibly with some worth to society.
My main point is that there are people in such deep shit (a small but still significant minority) that they will turn to crime. But I also tried to make clear that these are situations which are unimaginable for the next guy in the street. Or simply impossible to understand.
Next thing I said that even aid organisations turn their campaigns away from those "cases" of people who are in situations which render them unable to lead an even remotely normal life to the things that are more understandable and imaginable to the "real world" masses, like depression and such.
I also never said that all people in those situations conduct crimes but I simply said that it might be their only option.
Also, you seemed to see "starvation" in a literal sence as the only motivation for petty crime whereas I say that it's extremely rare that people die of hunger since in those situations they'll sooner die of other things. So they might turn to criminals before the "starvation" state.
So you're right, noone in first world countries are starving (ehem, there are some... that's a statistical certainty, but a small one) but there are more situations than can lead to people losing their "moral values" (as they only apply to normal situations) and turn to criminal acts.
So for people who are cornered so to speak I think that they should be excused as their actions are a failure of the system in stead of a personal failure. And I think this can be seen broad, up to the point where a druggie steals to get his/her next fix.
But I know chances are tiny you'll understand and I doubt my judgement is perfectly objective, this due to past experiences.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
It seems you and I are confused about each others' opinion on the matter. So I'll try to clarify my pov.
So I was saying that harsh laws won't help fighting crime. I said that the reasons crime exist should be eliminated.
For example extreme poverty or no future will cause some people to resort to crime. Did I say that all criminals suffer this pressure of circumstances? No, of course not...
I don't necessarily agree with you're perspective on harsh laws. Singapore has very harsh laws and low crime. I believe there to be a relationship between the two.
Suggesting that we should remove "the reasons for crime" is like asking us to find the holy grail. If we could we'd be perfect, if we were perfect there'd by no crime to begin with. Removing criminals from society is a pretty good start IMHO.
. I really think that there should be swift, consequent and proportionate action against those people. And all punishment should aim for rehabilitation.
Because... If someone has to be punished, then society has already failed.
I don't see it as Society's responsibility to disciplin or provide for people who comitt crimes. No one else but you are responsible for your actions.
I also repeatedly tried to make the point that "criminals" aren't faceless demons but in fact people, possibly with some worth to society.
Then they will learn from their punishment and work to be a benefit to society.
My main point is that there are people in such deep shit (a small but still significant minority) that they will turn to crime. But I also tried to make clear that these are situations which are unimaginable for the next guy in the street. Or simply impossible to understand.
Or they're really just an emotional appeals meant to enable criminals. Most criminals will apeal to such rationalization if they know it can get them a plea bargin and or lesson the punishment. Being in "deep shit" that isn't life threatening doesn't justify their criminal actions. That's really the crux of my position.
Its also a shame that we're spending so much time discussin the humanity of criminals while ignoring the humanity of the people they victimized
Next thing I said that even aid organisations turn their campaigns away from those "cases" of people who are in situations which render them unable to lead an even remotely normal life to the things that are more understandable and imaginable to the "real world" masses, like depression and such.
Why would you expect aid organizations who are making little if any difference to crime in the US, South Africa, and England to say or do anything else? They're hardly professionals and they're definately not impartial. Their method of asserting that criminality and depression are heavily related isn't reflect anywhere else but with those who have an agenda to accept it. Futhermore no one recognizes depression as a rationalization for crime. Unless of course you're a woman who's suffering from post pardum despression and massacre you're whole family in an act of first degree murder that is.
I also never said that all people in those situations conduct crimes but I simply said that it might be their only option.
That comes off as a rationalization. You're asserting something which is highly unlikely to be a likelihood. Being that survival isn't the motivation for crime in first world nations I can't accept they have no other option. Think about this for a moment. Can you think of a situation in a first world country where crime can be justified? Crime that will ultimately victimize people who will have to struggle to recover from your abuse of them?
Also, you seemed to see "starvation" in a literal sence as the only motivation for petty crime whereas I say that it's extremely rare that people die of hunger since in those situations they'll sooner die of other things. So they might turn to criminals before the "starvation" state.
So you're right, noone in first world countries are starving (ehem, there are some... that's a statistical certainty, but a small one) but there are more situations than can lead to people losing their "moral values" (as they only apply to normal situations) and turn to criminal acts.
No, what I'm saying is that survival is the only reason I can think of to steal. However there are other options you can take before you get to that position. A lot of those people are likely to have had chemical addictions to drugs which have driven them to those positions. This is of course was a choice and thusly rules out my sympathy for them. Arresting them and getting them off the street may in fact be the best thing for them.
Also I don't have any reason to believe that even 5% of crime is represented by individuals in this position.
So for people who are cornered so to speak I think that they should be excused as their actions are a failure of the system in stead of a personal failure. And I think this can be seen broad, up to the point where a druggie steals to get his/her next fix.
Again I disagree with you blaming everyone else for the choices of individuals. There's no god and thusly there's no absolute law that forces us to be responsible for others. In shot this group blame is your opinion.
But I know chances are tiny you'll understand and I doubt my judgement is perfectly objective, this due to past experiences.
Of course I won't. I'm a morally inferior, savage, pro-self responsibility conservative.
It seems you and I are confused about each others' opinion on the matter. So I'll try to clarify my pov.
So I was saying that harsh laws won't help fighting crime. I said that the reasons crime exist should be eliminated.
For example extreme poverty or no future will cause some people to resort to crime. Did I say that all criminals suffer this pressure of circumstances? No, of course not...
I don't necessarily agree with you're perspective on harsh laws. Singapore has very harsh laws and low crime. I believe there to be a relationship between the two.
Suggesting that we should remove "the reasons for crime" is like asking us to find the holy grail. If we could we'd be perfect, if we were perfect there'd by no crime to begin with. Removing criminals from society is a pretty good start IMHO.
Defeatism hasn't brought us to a point in our evolution where we can say "all moral options are open now". Scandinavian countries have aimed to get rid of social injustive for decades now and they have very low crime reates.
. I really think that there should be swift, consequent and proportionate action against those people. And all punishment should aim for rehabilitation.
Because... If someone has to be punished, then society has already failed.
I don't see it as Society's responsibility to disciplin or provide for people who comitt crimes. No one else but you are responsible for your actions.
Untrue. Read any biology book. We're still animals with a basic instinct for survival. I'm not saying that people shouldn't account for their actions, but the circumstances should be a factor. If I had the power to manipulate your mental/fysical health, your bank account and your acces to friends and family then I'm sure I would get you to commit a crime within 48 hours.
I also repeatedly tried to make the point that "criminals" aren't faceless demons but in fact people, possibly with some worth to society.
Then they will learn from their punishment and work to be a benefit to society.
Noone learns from punishment. When I was a small kid I didn't learn from standing in a corner in recess, I learned from understanding why I stood there. All people learn in prison is how to be more careful and how to be better at cri... I mean, be better criminals.
My main point is that there are people in such deep shit (a small but still significant minority) that they will turn to crime. But I also tried to make clear that these are situations which are unimaginable for the next guy in the street. Or simply impossible to understand.
Or they're really just an emotional appeals meant to enable criminals.
Like I said, unimaginable for the next guy in the street. Which noone can blame you, as you lack a frame of reference.
Most criminals will apeal to such rationalization if they know it can get them a plea bargin and or lesson the punishment. Being in "deep shit" that isn't life threatening doesn't justify their criminal actions. That's really the crux of my position.
I'm talking about "life" threatening situations.
Its also a shame that we're spending so much time discussin the humanity of criminals while ignoring the humanity of the people they victimized
The humanity of victims is without question, at least them being human.
Next thing I said that even aid organisations turn their campaigns away from those "cases" of people who are in situations which render them unable to lead an even remotely normal life to the things that are more understandable and imaginable to the "real world" masses, like depression and such.
Why would you expect aid organizations who are making little if any difference to crime in the US, South Africa, and England to say or do anything else? They're hardly professionals and they're definately not impartial. Their method of asserting that criminality and depression are heavily related isn't reflect anywhere else but with those who have an agenda to accept it. Futhermore no one recognizes depression as a rationalization for crime. Unless of course you're a woman who's suffering from post pardum despression and massacre you're whole family in an act of first degree murder that is.
AGAIN I will try to explain that those organisations focuss on that simply because the next guy in the street won't appeal to anything else, as they simply won't believe certain things happening in their country. And if they beleive they will place full responsability with the people who are victim of social injustice.
I also never said that all people in those situations conduct crimes but I simply said that it might be their only option.
That comes off as a rationalization. You're asserting something which is highly unlikely to be a likelihood. Being that survival isn't the motivation for crime in first world nations I can't accept they have no other option. Think about this for a moment.
Can you think of a situation in a first world country where crime can be justified?
Yes, a few, no, a bunch. Some from personal experience, so it's rather impossible to discuss those, as it would interfere with being objective. Also, they're in the context of my own country, so there might be differences.
Crime that will ultimately victimize people who will have to struggle to recover from your abuse of them?
Ergl... Reluctantly, yes... More or less. Highly depends.
The whole issue here is that you are compltely unable to imagine any of those situations or that you can relate. You simply can't think of any. The whole issue is that most people can't think of any of those situations.
Also, you seemed to see "starvation" in a literal sence as the only motivation for petty crime whereas I say that it's extremely rare that people die of hunger since in those situations they'll sooner die of other things. So they might turn to criminals before the "starvation" state.
So you're right, noone in first world countries are starving (ehem, there are some... that's a statistical certainty, but a small one) but there are more situations than can lead to people losing their "moral values" (as they only apply to normal situations) and turn to criminal acts.
No, what I'm saying is that survival is the only reason I can think of to steal.
More or less true.
However there are other options you can take before you get to that position.
They can be depleted.
A lot of those people are likely to have had chemical addictions to drugs which have driven them to those positions.
True. Or not. It's rare that there first was addiction and then extreme poverty. People with a back up in life are far less likely to remain addicted.
This is of course was a choice and thusly rules out my sympathy for them.
Why is that? The circumstances usually leading to addiction are usually the same circumstances that are the result of extreme poverty. Drug addiction isn't a cause, it's a symptom.
Arresting them and getting them off the street may in fact be the best thing for them.
Detox in prison? Excuse me? Or no detox at all. Since drugs are freely available in prison. Perhaps some psychological guidance would help?
Also I don't have any reason to believe that even 5% of crime is represented by individuals in this position.
5% = 5%.
So for people who are cornered so to speak I think that they should be excused as their actions are a failure of the system in stead of a personal failure. And I think this can be seen broad, up to the point where a druggie steals to get his/her next fix.
Again I disagree with you blaming everyone else for the choices of individuals.
I'm not blaming anyone. I'm blaming circumstances. People are still people, and they will adapt, no matter what moral boundaries are set by society.
There's no god and thusly there's no absolute law that forces us to be responsible for others. In shot this group blame is your opinion.
Well, actually there's a biological background for empathy, but that indeed focusses more on smaller groups than the whole of society.
But empathy becomes a profitable POV when you take into account that every human lost to poverty or any human lost in prison is millions and millions wasted. Simple as that. It's all about the money.
But I know chances are tiny you'll understand and I doubt my judgement is perfectly objective, this due to past experiences.
Of course I won't. I'm a morally inferior, savage, pro-self responsibility conservative.
Your words, which I would never say. You have the same issues as every other guy in the street. Not your fault. And I would actually say I am morally inferior, since I crossed a few boundaries too many.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Technically, it wouldn't stop them. But ultimately it would slow them down a considerable amount. If they had to travel a far distance, it would draw a considerable amount of attention. The robbers could run, but then the van would most likely be tied back to the owner. Unless this van is only worth like $500, then it wouldn't be worth it to leave their car at the scene. It would definately make them think twice about coming back again. New tires are pretty expensive if they manage to get away. Also, video cameras could work, but that would be damn expensive. I still think the GPS idea is pretty damn good. Set everything up, and then let the cops do the tracking. Put those fuckers in jail. Oh yea, and good luck dude, I hope you catch the pricks.
ET
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
I just woke up and I'm not going to read the funny color rants but how the hell did we get from stolen lawnmower to the USSR??? You guys are making me, a senile wack job, look sane and sensible... oh wait I should just shut up shouldn't I.
Baff just use a tracker, after you find them you can decide what to do with them, either let the cops handle them and sue the hell out of them, or go for a tabloid spot and use the mower to chop off their nads. You could go by the moniker "The Masked Nad Mulcher of _your neighborhood here_" or some such, we'll need to know where you're from to make a good one for you, maybe get to meet a few page three girls.
µV
