Family stealing stuff at Mini’Os

MPJC wrote:

There’s no doubt that some people add more value to society than others. However, value that is measured by factors such as relative contributions to others...

There’s no doubt that some people add more value to society than others. However, value that is measured by factors such as relative contributions to others is extrinsic value. Extrinsic value can vary widely. Intrinsic value is a function of the kind of being you are (eg. a being whose wellbeing matters to itself). That is not variable in the same way. Someone who is, for example, in a coma has little extrinsic value - nothing really much to offer others. They still deserve to be treated with dignity because that matters to the kind of being they are, even if they can’t presently be aware of that. 
 

Things become more tricky when people actively disregard their duty to respect others - they fail to treat others with the respect due them, especially in egregious ways. Stealing, raping, killing, etc are especially egregious examples. They surely forfeit something by doing so. Figuring out what is the question. They are still humans, deserving at least some sort of moral consideration, which is why punishment not proportional to the crime is unjust. That’s why something like theft - which is a property crime - is not as bad as a crime like rape, murder, or mutilation. The object of justice should be to make the victim whole - restore what has been lost. To take something that can’t be replaced (eg a hand) as punishment for taking something that can be replaced (property) is disproportionate. (Factor in the injury to the victim’s psyche and it could make sense to say more is owed than was taken, within reason). 
 

This principle of proportionality makes sense of severe punishments like capital punishment when what has been taken can’t be replaced. But it doesn’t justify torture just for the sake of retribution. Retribution is irrational - it achieves nothing since it doesn’t actually restore anything. The rest of us deserve to be kept safe from those known to be dangerous - this may include ending a perpetrator”s life. But inflicting suffering just to satisfy a sadistic sense of blood lust is egregious and if that’s what someone wants, that someone either hasn’t thought things through or is simply not a good person. 

FGR01 wrote:

Your concept of proportionality does not tell the whole story or align with the laws of basically every nation.  If that was the case, when the...

Your concept of proportionality does not tell the whole story or align with the laws of basically every nation.  If that was the case, when the cops caught a thief they would simply make the thief return the stolen item and all would be even and settled, correct?  Well, that's not all that happens because the justice system exists not only to make the victim whole, but also to punish the perpetrator and serve as a deterrent to future crimes.   So, it's just a matter of disagreeing on what is appropriate to punish and deter, but it's definitely not just about making the victim whole.    On that subject, it's worth noting that our criminal justice system is absolutely abysmal at collecting and making perpetrators pay up on restitution, etc.    Anytime you hear a judge order restitution to you, you may as well get OK with the fact you'll never see it.

Gravel wrote:

This is very well said, but I respectfully disagree with one of your foundational statements. While I agree that all humans are intrinsically valuable, (All men...

This is very well said, but I respectfully disagree with one of your foundational statements. While I agree that all humans are intrinsically valuable, (All men are created equal..) I’d offer that the intrinsic value of a human isn’t a permanent thing, it’s only true at creation. The lives we live, the choices we make, the way we live up to our personal ability, (or don’t), all define our current value to humanity. A wasted life may be great fun for the person who decides not to contribute to the common good, but it ultimately drags us down as a group. A thief is a drain on the group success and that’s why theft and other crimes should be discouraged in some effective way. 

What would the world be like if everyone behaved like the guy who’s the topic of this thread? Bunch of thieves would be a crappy culture..

 

Question wrote:

Guys you are too much in philosophy :) They don't understand education, values, etc so you got to adapt to how they think, most are f...

Guys you are too much in philosophy They don't understand education, values, etc so you got to adapt to how they think, most are f... up and just fu... stupid. They just understand a slap if they do wrong (imo why we have police, justice, jails, etc).

Gravel wrote:

No argument from me on that, a lot of people only understand brute strength and don’t care about anything other than themselves. 

Badd127 wrote:

I read the first page, but don't have time to read the next 7, but can someone tell me if the was a consensus on whether...

I read the first page, but don't have time to read the next 7, but can someone tell me if the was a consensus on whether he should keep his hands, or not?

kijen wrote:

Seems the owner of the hands is the one who would make the decision if the material worth would be greater the the value of thier...

Seems the owner of the hands is the one who would make the decision if the material worth would be greater the the value of thier hands, thats why its called a deterrent. Seems a lot of horrible crimes are commited and the deterrent of a nice cell and 3 squares is not enough of a deterrent. Not sure what the penalty should be, but crimes sure seem to out pace the punishment.

 

kijen wrote:

Seems the owner of the hands is the one who would make the decision if the material worth would be greater the the value of thier...

Seems the owner of the hands is the one who would make the decision if the material worth would be greater the the value of thier hands, thats why its called a deterrent. Seems a lot of horrible crimes are commited and the deterrent of a nice cell and 3 squares is not enough of a deterrent. Not sure what the penalty should be, but crimes sure seem to out pace the punishment.

 

Chris_Buehler wrote:

X2. I've seen similar sentiment about someone getting shot robbing a house. "Is your stuff worth a human life?" Apparently it was to the thief. Don't...

X2. I've seen similar sentiment about someone getting shot robbing a house. "Is your stuff worth a human life?" Apparently it was to the thief. Don't rob anyone. Problem solved

plowboy wrote:

I've said it before...public mutilation or worse is not a deterrent.  It may temporarily satisfy a revenge/blood lust but doesn't solve anything. I've also stated that...

I've said it before...public mutilation or worse is not a deterrent.  It may temporarily satisfy a revenge/blood lust but doesn't solve anything.

I've also stated that I have no qualms or hesitation with ending someone that enters my house uninvited.  They may only intend to "rob" but I don't know how far they're willing to go to achieve their objective.  I'm a proactive type of fella.

If this mindset seems conflicted/confusing I am not apologetic.  It makes sense to me. 

plowboy wrote:

I've said it before...public mutilation or worse is not a deterrent.  It may temporarily satisfy a revenge/blood lust but doesn't solve anything. I've also stated that...

I've said it before...public mutilation or worse is not a deterrent.  It may temporarily satisfy a revenge/blood lust but doesn't solve anything.

I've also stated that I have no qualms or hesitation with ending someone that enters my house uninvited.  They may only intend to "rob" but I don't know how far they're willing to go to achieve their objective.  I'm a proactive type of fella.

If this mindset seems conflicted/confusing I am not apologetic.  It makes sense to me. 

FGR01 wrote:

Certainly not a 100% deterrent to some idiots.  But also certainly there are some who will consider other career choices when the real threat of losing...

Certainly not a 100% deterrent to some idiots.  But also certainly there are some who will consider other career choices when the real threat of losing limbs is on the table.

Acocountylaw wrote:

A reliable source with the case said that it is believed this guy bought 2 bikes that were disassembled from another party at the track.  Evidently...

A reliable source with the case said that it is believed this guy bought 2 bikes that were disassembled from another party at the track.  Evidently they searched the guys rig high and low and it was determined he was not in possession of several main components to the vehicles that he was original though to have been the one to disassemble. Namely a $2000 battery to a Talaria along with many other parts that one would think he would have had if he had been the party responsible for the disassembly. They also located a bill of sale during the search that had both vehicles listed along with the date it occurred and the selling parties signature.  The other party wasn’t immediately searched for untill the search warrant turned up this  information and by that time almost everyone camped  in that area had loaded up and left.  The guy and his family seem just as much victims as the family’s who had their bikes stolen if not more at this point.  If these fact are indeed true which I believe them to be.  I feel horrible for them after reading the sick and down right twisted comments ppl are posting.   This could have happened to anyone considering there isn’t anyway for a member of the public to check vins to see if they are stollen or clean at the time of purchase.   Just remember it could easily happen to you any time you purchase something from a private party you don’t know. 

kijen wrote:

Seems the owner of the hands is the one who would make the decision if the material worth would be greater the the value of thier...

Seems the owner of the hands is the one who would make the decision if the material worth would be greater the the value of thier hands, thats why its called a deterrent. Seems a lot of horrible crimes are commited and the deterrent of a nice cell and 3 squares is not enough of a deterrent. Not sure what the penalty should be, but crimes sure seem to out pace the punishment.

 

Chris_Buehler wrote:

X2. I've seen similar sentiment about someone getting shot robbing a house. "Is your stuff worth a human life?" Apparently it was to the thief. Don't...

X2. I've seen similar sentiment about someone getting shot robbing a house. "Is your stuff worth a human life?" Apparently it was to the thief. Don't rob anyone. Problem solved

plowboy wrote:

I've said it before...public mutilation or worse is not a deterrent.  It may temporarily satisfy a revenge/blood lust but doesn't solve anything. I've also stated that...

I've said it before...public mutilation or worse is not a deterrent.  It may temporarily satisfy a revenge/blood lust but doesn't solve anything.

I've also stated that I have no qualms or hesitation with ending someone that enters my house uninvited.  They may only intend to "rob" but I don't know how far they're willing to go to achieve their objective.  I'm a proactive type of fella.

If this mindset seems conflicted/confusing I am not apologetic.  It makes sense to me. 

Acocountylaw wrote:

A reliable source with the case said that it is believed this guy bought 2 bikes that were disassembled from another party at the track.  Evidently...

A reliable source with the case said that it is believed this guy bought 2 bikes that were disassembled from another party at the track.  Evidently they searched the guys rig high and low and it was determined he was not in possession of several main components to the vehicles that he was original though to have been the one to disassemble. Namely a $2000 battery to a Talaria along with many other parts that one would think he would have had if he had been the party responsible for the disassembly. They also located a bill of sale during the search that had both vehicles listed along with the date it occurred and the selling parties signature.  The other party wasn’t immediately searched for untill the search warrant turned up this  information and by that time almost everyone camped  in that area had loaded up and left.  The guy and his family seem just as much victims as the family’s who had their bikes stolen if not more at this point.  If these fact are indeed true which I believe them to be.  I feel horrible for them after reading the sick and down right twisted comments ppl are posting.   This could have happened to anyone considering there isn’t anyway for a member of the public to check vins to see if they are stollen or clean at the time of purchase.   Just remember it could easily happen to you any time you purchase something from a private party you don’t know. 

derekmccann wrote:

It’s the Mini O’s bandit himself!

kijen wrote:

Seems the owner of the hands is the one who would make the decision if the material worth would be greater the the value of thier...

Seems the owner of the hands is the one who would make the decision if the material worth would be greater the the value of thier hands, thats why its called a deterrent. Seems a lot of horrible crimes are commited and the deterrent of a nice cell and 3 squares is not enough of a deterrent. Not sure what the penalty should be, but crimes sure seem to out pace the punishment.

 

Chris_Buehler wrote:

X2. I've seen similar sentiment about someone getting shot robbing a house. "Is your stuff worth a human life?" Apparently it was to the thief. Don't...

X2. I've seen similar sentiment about someone getting shot robbing a house. "Is your stuff worth a human life?" Apparently it was to the thief. Don't rob anyone. Problem solved

kijen wrote:

Seems the owner of the hands is the one who would make the decision if the material worth would be greater the the value of thier...

Seems the owner of the hands is the one who would make the decision if the material worth would be greater the the value of thier hands, thats why its called a deterrent. Seems a lot of horrible crimes are commited and the deterrent of a nice cell and 3 squares is not enough of a deterrent. Not sure what the penalty should be, but crimes sure seem to out pace the punishment.

 

Chris_Buehler wrote:

X2. I've seen similar sentiment about someone getting shot robbing a house. "Is your stuff worth a human life?" Apparently it was to the thief. Don't...

X2. I've seen similar sentiment about someone getting shot robbing a house. "Is your stuff worth a human life?" Apparently it was to the thief. Don't rob anyone. Problem solved

PNWMXer wrote:

This reminds me of one of my favorite news comment section exchanges of all time. The story was regarding a local burglary suspect getting beat up...

This reminds me of one of my favorite news comment section exchanges of all time. The story was regarding a local burglary suspect getting beat up (badly) by the homeowner.

OP: 

“I don’t care what you have, nothing is worth a loss of human life or harm to another human being.”

response:

”obviously you’ve never come home to a kicked-in door and your stuff gone that you’ve worked hard for.”

OP:

“Actually I have. I’ve been robbed, house burglarized, car stolen…I would never harm another human being over property.”

response:

”in that case, what’s your address? I need a new TV.”

FGR01 wrote:

Bike thieves in the pits dont deserve hands cutoff by the government.  How impersonal.  A hefty beatdown by some motodads is more appropriate.  

MudPup545 wrote:

I hope I’m doing this right and the link works. Here’s another way to deter theft. 
 

https://x.com/playteaux/status/1731898638660464668?s=46&t=Rc1glho2jUsQH…

 

MPJC wrote:

Civilized people see humans as intrinsically valuable - that is, valuable in and of themselves, irrespective of their value as a means to another's ends. That's...

Civilized people see humans as intrinsically valuable - that is, valuable in and of themselves, irrespective of their value as a means to another's ends. That's why we shouldn't do things like round up people with nothing material to offer anyone and no family connections and harvest their organs. Our whole system of medical ethics is founded on this principle - not based on actual practices or conventions, but on rational principles. You on the other hand, are committing the naturalistic fallacy: inferring an ought from an is (drawing conclusions about how things ought to be based on how things currently are) because you have no idea how to engage in philosophical reasoning. It's embarrassing.  

Even the wrongness of stealing is grounded in the idea that by stealing from someone, you are exploiting them as a mere means to an end without regard for their interests. Persons have their own interests and ends, unlike mere tools that don't care how they are used, That's why the value of persons is not defined by the degree to which they are resources for others. If you don't grant that, then why object to stealing in the first place (other than the brute fact that you don't like it, but why should anyone give a shit about that if persons' interests don't matter?)?

 

Gravel wrote:

This is very well said, but I respectfully disagree with one of your foundational statements. While I agree that all humans are intrinsically valuable, (All men...

This is very well said, but I respectfully disagree with one of your foundational statements. While I agree that all humans are intrinsically valuable, (All men are created equal..) I’d offer that the intrinsic value of a human isn’t a permanent thing, it’s only true at creation. The lives we live, the choices we make, the way we live up to our personal ability, (or don’t), all define our current value to humanity. A wasted life may be great fun for the person who decides not to contribute to the common good, but it ultimately drags us down as a group. A thief is a drain on the group success and that’s why theft and other crimes should be discouraged in some effective way. 

What would the world be like if everyone behaved like the guy who’s the topic of this thread? Bunch of thieves would be a crappy culture..

 

MPJC wrote:

There’s no doubt that some people add more value to society than others. However, value that is measured by factors such as relative contributions to others...

There’s no doubt that some people add more value to society than others. However, value that is measured by factors such as relative contributions to others is extrinsic value. Extrinsic value can vary widely. Intrinsic value is a function of the kind of being you are (eg. a being whose wellbeing matters to itself). That is not variable in the same way. Someone who is, for example, in a coma has little extrinsic value - nothing really much to offer others. They still deserve to be treated with dignity because that matters to the kind of being they are, even if they can’t presently be aware of that. 
 

Things become more tricky when people actively disregard their duty to respect others - they fail to treat others with the respect due them, especially in egregious ways. Stealing, raping, killing, etc are especially egregious examples. They surely forfeit something by doing so. Figuring out what is the question. They are still humans, deserving at least some sort of moral consideration, which is why punishment not proportional to the crime is unjust. That’s why something like theft - which is a property crime - is not as bad as a crime like rape, murder, or mutilation. The object of justice should be to make the victim whole - restore what has been lost. To take something that can’t be replaced (eg a hand) as punishment for taking something that can be replaced (property) is disproportionate. (Factor in the injury to the victim’s psyche and it could make sense to say more is owed than was taken, within reason). 
 

This principle of proportionality makes sense of severe punishments like capital punishment when what has been taken can’t be replaced. But it doesn’t justify torture just for the sake of retribution. Retribution is irrational - it achieves nothing since it doesn’t actually restore anything. The rest of us deserve to be kept safe from those known to be dangerous - this may include ending a perpetrator”s life. But inflicting suffering just to satisfy a sadistic sense of blood lust is egregious and if that’s what someone wants, that someone either hasn’t thought things through or is simply not a good person. 

Gravel wrote:

This is very well said, but I respectfully disagree with one of your foundational statements. While I agree that all humans are intrinsically valuable, (All men...

This is very well said, but I respectfully disagree with one of your foundational statements. While I agree that all humans are intrinsically valuable, (All men are created equal..) I’d offer that the intrinsic value of a human isn’t a permanent thing, it’s only true at creation. The lives we live, the choices we make, the way we live up to our personal ability, (or don’t), all define our current value to humanity. A wasted life may be great fun for the person who decides not to contribute to the common good, but it ultimately drags us down as a group. A thief is a drain on the group success and that’s why theft and other crimes should be discouraged in some effective way. 

What would the world be like if everyone behaved like the guy who’s the topic of this thread? Bunch of thieves would be a crappy culture..

 

MPJC wrote:

There’s no doubt that some people add more value to society than others. However, value that is measured by factors such as relative contributions to others...

There’s no doubt that some people add more value to society than others. However, value that is measured by factors such as relative contributions to others is extrinsic value. Extrinsic value can vary widely. Intrinsic value is a function of the kind of being you are (eg. a being whose wellbeing matters to itself). That is not variable in the same way. Someone who is, for example, in a coma has little extrinsic value - nothing really much to offer others. They still deserve to be treated with dignity because that matters to the kind of being they are, even if they can’t presently be aware of that. 
 

Things become more tricky when people actively disregard their duty to respect others - they fail to treat others with the respect due them, especially in egregious ways. Stealing, raping, killing, etc are especially egregious examples. They surely forfeit something by doing so. Figuring out what is the question. They are still humans, deserving at least some sort of moral consideration, which is why punishment not proportional to the crime is unjust. That’s why something like theft - which is a property crime - is not as bad as a crime like rape, murder, or mutilation. The object of justice should be to make the victim whole - restore what has been lost. To take something that can’t be replaced (eg a hand) as punishment for taking something that can be replaced (property) is disproportionate. (Factor in the injury to the victim’s psyche and it could make sense to say more is owed than was taken, within reason). 
 

This principle of proportionality makes sense of severe punishments like capital punishment when what has been taken can’t be replaced. But it doesn’t justify torture just for the sake of retribution. Retribution is irrational - it achieves nothing since it doesn’t actually restore anything. The rest of us deserve to be kept safe from those known to be dangerous - this may include ending a perpetrator”s life. But inflicting suffering just to satisfy a sadistic sense of blood lust is egregious and if that’s what someone wants, that someone either hasn’t thought things through or is simply not a good person. 

gantry25 wrote:

 

Retribution is irrational - it achieves nothing since it doesn’t actually restore anything

I respectfully disagree, it certainly does act as a deterrent. 

MPJC wrote:

There’s no doubt that some people add more value to society than others. However, value that is measured by factors such as relative contributions to others...

There’s no doubt that some people add more value to society than others. However, value that is measured by factors such as relative contributions to others is extrinsic value. Extrinsic value can vary widely. Intrinsic value is a function of the kind of being you are (eg. a being whose wellbeing matters to itself). That is not variable in the same way. Someone who is, for example, in a coma has little extrinsic value - nothing really much to offer others. They still deserve to be treated with dignity because that matters to the kind of being they are, even if they can’t presently be aware of that. 
 

Things become more tricky when people actively disregard their duty to respect others - they fail to treat others with the respect due them, especially in egregious ways. Stealing, raping, killing, etc are especially egregious examples. They surely forfeit something by doing so. Figuring out what is the question. They are still humans, deserving at least some sort of moral consideration, which is why punishment not proportional to the crime is unjust. That’s why something like theft - which is a property crime - is not as bad as a crime like rape, murder, or mutilation. The object of justice should be to make the victim whole - restore what has been lost. To take something that can’t be replaced (eg a hand) as punishment for taking something that can be replaced (property) is disproportionate. (Factor in the injury to the victim’s psyche and it could make sense to say more is owed than was taken, within reason). 
 

This principle of proportionality makes sense of severe punishments like capital punishment when what has been taken can’t be replaced. But it doesn’t justify torture just for the sake of retribution. Retribution is irrational - it achieves nothing since it doesn’t actually restore anything. The rest of us deserve to be kept safe from those known to be dangerous - this may include ending a perpetrator”s life. But inflicting suffering just to satisfy a sadistic sense of blood lust is egregious and if that’s what someone wants, that someone either hasn’t thought things through or is simply not a good person. 

gantry25 wrote:

 

Retribution is irrational - it achieves nothing since it doesn’t actually restore anything

I respectfully disagree, it certainly does act as a deterrent. 

MPJC wrote:

Retribution and deterrence are two separate reasons for harsh punishment. Deterrence aims to prevent bad actions, retribution is a sort of vengeance. One can be rational...

Retribution and deterrence are two separate reasons for harsh punishment. Deterrence aims to prevent bad actions, retribution is a sort of vengeance. One can be rational (deterrence, if it indeed works) irrespective of whether the other is or is not. 

gantry25 wrote:

 

Retribution is irrational - it achieves nothing since it doesn’t actually restore anything

I respectfully disagree, it certainly does act as a deterrent. 

MPJC wrote:

Retribution and deterrence are two separate reasons for harsh punishment. Deterrence aims to prevent bad actions, retribution is a sort of vengeance. One can be rational...

Retribution and deterrence are two separate reasons for harsh punishment. Deterrence aims to prevent bad actions, retribution is a sort of vengeance. One can be rational (deterrence, if it indeed works) irrespective of whether the other is or is not. 

gantry25 wrote:

I am again going to disagree. Retribution by the state for a criminals actions is the punishment inflicted on the criminal for the crime. The amount...

I am again going to disagree. Retribution by the state for a criminals actions is the punishment inflicted on the criminal for the crime. The amount of retribution certainly does act as a deterrent. I believe your definition of retribution is too strict.

MPJC wrote:

Retribution and deterrence are two separate reasons for harsh punishment. Deterrence aims to prevent bad actions, retribution is a sort of vengeance. One can be rational...

Retribution and deterrence are two separate reasons for harsh punishment. Deterrence aims to prevent bad actions, retribution is a sort of vengeance. One can be rational (deterrence, if it indeed works) irrespective of whether the other is or is not. 

gantry25 wrote:

I am again going to disagree. Retribution by the state for a criminals actions is the punishment inflicted on the criminal for the crime. The amount...

I am again going to disagree. Retribution by the state for a criminals actions is the punishment inflicted on the criminal for the crime. The amount of retribution certainly does act as a deterrent. I believe your definition of retribution is too strict.

MPJC wrote:

This is so conceptually confused and confusing that I’m not even going to attempt a response. 

kijen wrote:

Seems the owner of the hands is the one who would make the decision if the material worth would be greater the the value of thier...

Seems the owner of the hands is the one who would make the decision if the material worth would be greater the the value of thier hands, thats why its called a deterrent. Seems a lot of horrible crimes are commited and the deterrent of a nice cell and 3 squares is not enough of a deterrent. Not sure what the penalty should be, but crimes sure seem to out pace the punishment.

 

Chris_Buehler wrote:

X2. I've seen similar sentiment about someone getting shot robbing a house. "Is your stuff worth a human life?" Apparently it was to the thief. Don't...

X2. I've seen similar sentiment about someone getting shot robbing a house. "Is your stuff worth a human life?" Apparently it was to the thief. Don't rob anyone. Problem solved

PNWMXer wrote:

This reminds me of one of my favorite news comment section exchanges of all time. The story was regarding a local burglary suspect getting beat up...

This reminds me of one of my favorite news comment section exchanges of all time. The story was regarding a local burglary suspect getting beat up (badly) by the homeowner.

OP: 

“I don’t care what you have, nothing is worth a loss of human life or harm to another human being.”

response:

”obviously you’ve never come home to a kicked-in door and your stuff gone that you’ve worked hard for.”

OP:

“Actually I have. I’ve been robbed, house burglarized, car stolen…I would never harm another human being over property.”

response:

”in that case, what’s your address? I need a new TV.”