Some examples. I know some very religious Christians. Yet I’ve caught one cheating in a game. Is it the worst thing in the world? No. But it’s lying. That’s a sin.
Look at many members of the “religious right.” I just finished a book that documents a number of outright lies (among other things) that these supposedly righteous Christians have been caught in. But they all advance their aims. So I guess it’s ok to sin in some cases. But I bet they would say it’s never ok to lie or steal, etc. Self-deception is the name of the game.
Nice examples, David. But I suppose Jews, Muslims, Pink Unicorn worshippers, and liberals never are guilty of any form of hypocrisy. Is there any particular reason you seem to single out Christians?
It’s a shame that some individuals cast a bad light on an entire group. Fortunately I know you’re smart enough not to generalize that all Christians are hypocritical, but some of your audience might think that was implied.
Because I don’t have all the time in the world to type in an example for every single possible religion in the world. It was one freaking example, fercryingoutloud. Calm down. I never said anybody else was incapable of hypocrisy.
I never said that, either.
Only the really stupid ones, and I don’t care what the really stupid ones think. Glad to hear you’re not in that group.
I once got new tires for my car. As I got in to drive away, I noticed the ones they had put on were much better ( and more expensive ) than the ones I had paid for. I thought for a minute, then went and told them. What ticked me off was that they just said thanks, and made me wait another hour while they fixed their mistake. I didn’t do it for this reason, but I know damn well most people wouldn’t have told, and for them to have demonstrated some real gratitude would not have been out of line. Offering to compensate me for the extra hour ( a free oil change or something?) would seem reasonable too. If it happened again, I’m not sure I wouldn’t just drive off.
I thought about not punishing the store owners for the bad employee too. (Actually, that one wasn’t the art store, it was a huge hobby chain. The art store folks are always attentive.) I concluded that people who would hire someone who turned their back on a customer, which customer by saying “Hey!” and waving a hand couldn’t get their attention, just didn’t deserve having me take the time to go hunt down a manager or something to give them their money. But you’re probably right.
weirddave, that would tick me right off. I’d probably wait 15 minutes, then tell them I’d come back for them to take their tires off when it was convenient for me. Bet they’d get the lead out then.
C’mon David, I was being sarcastic… (maybe I needed a :rolleyes: )
Let’s see, there were actually two examples, both pointing out hypocritical Christians. OK. But if you were to replace the word “Christians” in that post with “Blacks” or “Jews” (removing the reference to the “religious right”), are you telling me you can’t see how that might reasonably imply a veiled prejudice against the whole group?
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve read enough of your posts to not misinterpret it as such. I am not at all angry or offended; rather I was simply trying to head off hostile reactions.
I sort of agree. If there’s a crime in the books, ‘they’ can call it whatever they like, but it’s only a legal abstraction. If doing that thing was morally wrong before, it still will be. If it wasn’t morally wrong, it won’t be even though there’s now a law against it.
But, you did say making copies… That does shorten the life of the photocopier and take paper and toner… Only pennies, I’m sure, but it still does take something they bought and remove it and make other things they bought less useful.
Not at all. Copying a CD doesn’t cost the company any money at all. If you distribute copied CDs, that might drop the value of their music, but the simple act of copying the CD does not.
On the other hand, having you wallet stolen costs you both time and money.
So anything you decide is wrong is wrong. If you sang a song and I liked it and started humming the tune, that’d be stealing and I’d get hurt?
How about if you broke up with a girlfriend and she started dating me, would you decide that I had stolen her and hurt me?
Sorry if I’m a little reluctant to base my morals off the actions of someone who seems a little trigger happy. (If only with their fists.)
I’d say society. The ‘victim’ is likely going to be overly sensitive, seeing anything anyone does that adversely affects them as stealing. The agressor will likely see things the other way, that the target is evil and thus won’t miss something…
Only an impartial observer can do this, imho.
If the store employs someone who can’t do the job, it’s not the customer’s fault. He tried to get her to listen.
You keep stating your opinion like it’s fact. You need to say “I think …” before those statements.
I’d probably go back too, but this is courtesy imho, not stealing if I don’t.
If someone makes a mistake, I’m not obligated to fix it.
Many people would say you stole, had you simply drove away. But that’s simplistic. And what would happen if you didn’t notice then, only a day later. Or how about if you noticed six months later when having the car worked on, and the tires weren’t in top shape anymore? Would you still be obligated to go and pay for the difference even though you didn’t ask for it?
Their mistaken actions, their problem. A customer who wants to deal with them again should probably tell them, to avoid hard feelings, and because it’s polite, but I don’t see an obligation there.
Were the owner (or producer) of the item (or service) to know what you did, would they consider it stealing.
If so - it is, if not - it is not.
I would disagree that ownership is a legally-imposed abstraction, I would argue that ownership is an abstraction to assist in commercial and interpersonal interactions. If theft apparently injures nobody (e.g. bumming Xeroxes at work, stealing cable) it is easily justified, but still theft.
In the case of the Tires. The Tire Store botched their work, they should have taken steps to reimburse the car owner for the time it took to re-do the job correctly.
This doesn’t sit right with me… There are a lot of things that people think are crimes, or should be, that other people don’t.
Software companies want you to be bound by a contract you don’t see until after you buy the software. If you broke this, they’d see that as contract violation.
Imagine that the company puts a clause into the contract that says they own all graphics files you produce with their program.
So you produce a graphic and distribute it, they say it’s theirs and theft. Does that make it theft?
I really think the opinion of the person with the thing is irrelevant. If I took something from someone, it would be theft even if it later turned out that they didn’t care. If they wanted me to take it, they’d have given it to me.
But, when you try to expand this away from real property, into the realm of ideas, this gets tough. There is no ‘right’ to own an idea. If you want to own a physical thing, carry it with you, if someone wants it, they’ll have to take it. But with an idea, if you tell someone, how can you expect that they won’t use it? Especially if it’s something they can see. If you invent something and someone sees you use it, how can it be theft for them to build something similar?
What did they take?
And this is where the opinion again is irrelevant. You can dislike something till you’re blue in the face, but that doesn’t change it. Just because you think I should ask to do what I saw you doing doesn’t mean it’s theft if I don’t.
Theft is defined as taking with intent to deprive (and no matter how much Manhattan doesn’t like this doesn’t matter, facts is facts) and as such, you can’t steal an idea unless you remove it from the inventor’s head.
Copyright violation and IP crimes are crimes. You can feel guilty about them. They can hurt people in some instances. But they aren’t theft.
And as for feeling guilty… who honestly feels guilty just because they break a law? That’s pathetic. Feel guilty because you hurt someone, sure. The laws are there to stop those who never feel guilt. If you feel guilty when hurting people you shouldn’t need to live your life by the letter of the law.
If you do live by the law, and only feel guilt when breaking it, then you’re a ruthless bastard. There are many things that you can and should feel guilty about that aren’t regulated by law.
Let society decide? Society has never been an impartial observer of the actions of its members. That is not to say that representatives of society can’t sometimes make impartial decisions about things; they do it often. But society as a whole will always be biased one way or the other. The bias changes with time, and the only “impartiality” you’ll get is that the average bias over time will be evenly split.
For someone other than you to determine whether a taking harms you or not, assumes that someone other than you knows more about your life and your needs than you do. This would be true for children or mentally incompetent adults. But a competent adult is the only rightful decision-maker of what harms him. Even if he makes a bad decision, clouded by emotion, it is still his decision as to what harms himself.
The degree of harm is something else. Emotion might cause someone who’s had a dollar taken from him feel that he deserves a great deal more in return. Here, decisions from neutral parties are relevant, as degree is something measurable.
The examples you used against Freedom are something else again. “If you sang a song and I liked it and started humming the tune, that’d be stealing and I’d get hurt? How about if you broke up with a girlfriend and she started dating me, would you decide that I had stolen her and hurt me?” The questions here are whether or not something was taken, not whether taking something is wrong.
Rights are defined by laws. It’s that simple. You can deny it till you’re blue in the face, but it’s just rambling. You might as well deny the effects of gravity because you think they’re unfair. Or because the dictionary says “gravity” can mean “importance”. Your words don’t keep you from falling off the earth.
There is a right to own an idea. It’s called Intellectual Property Law. It doesn’t seem to matter to you, but this is a well-accepted concept, with pretty much universal understanding around the world.
And by the way, this may be fuzzy fun for you to debate. And for some this denial is a way to get something cool without paying for it. But I’m from a different world. In my world (software development), we expend a shitload of money to make something that has no edges or form. It’s entirely IP. And stealing my work is no different from stealing from any other shop-owner. It’s theft, and the laws of the world are crystal-clear on this.
Perhaps your stance is “Yes, Bill, I know it’s the law, but dammit, the law is wrong.” Is that possible?
Let’s start from zero. Let’s assume that laws (and dictionaries) don’t exist. In a pure world of logical constructs, I believe that things which spring from my head are mine, and I should be able to profit from them. Likewise, I feel you should have that same right. Do you disagree?
In fact, let’s go one step further back (and I don’t mean to be insulting here). Do you believe that people should be allowed to own physical things? Do you believe that when people manipulate physical things that they should own the new thing and be able to profit from it’s invention?