you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 1 year ago (31 children)

Man, people should have a right to defend their shit. The idea that someone should be allowed to take your things in front of you and you should be charged if you beat them up is pretty unhinged tbh

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (10 children)

    I fully disagree and enjoy living in a society free of such barbaric tendencies.

    Make your people happy and maybe they'll stop stealing your shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    There are people who steal no matter how wealthy or comfortable they are. Theft is not stopped by making people happy. Reduced significantly, yes. But absolutely not stopped. Wage theft is the largest form of theft in the world, done exclusively by the better off and rich. Never forget that

    (And yes, I'm saying that people should have the right to beat up their employers to get back their stolen money)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Also not really a thing here, and that's fucking insane

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Where do you live? I want your shit

    Not rhetorical, I personally want your shit

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I bet you would, but assuming you're American, you'll never get anywhere close to it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Where is that? Turkmenistan? Russia? Bhutan?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (19 children)

    Man, it's just shit. Life should be of higher value than an object, even if it's a really cool object or useful. You beating someone for taking something is a bigger problem then things being taken. You can't commit a crime because someone else also committed a crime first. Get it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Quite simply, that should be the thief's decision to make. It's their risk to undertake, it was their decision to make that choice to rob and steal.

    You can't commit a crime because someone else also committed a crime first. Get it?

    Legality is not morality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Just like it is your decision to make too? Do you not see how that applies right back to you as the victim that then perpetrates a crime? It is in no way moral to gun some one down because they stole your chocolate bar, or your daughters virginity for that matter. It is your decision to act in retaliation, howsoever you do, and yes you should be held accountable for how YOU handle a situation, any situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (16 children)

    What's really lost in this whole conversation is how its... 2025 and almost nobody walks around with cash anymore?

    You can literally call your bank and credit card companies and have all your cards cancelled and locked within minutes? Any money spent by the thief will be returned to your accounts?

    If it's your phone stolen instead of your wallet... You didn't have it set to be locked or auto-lock when theft is detected? You didn't have find your device set up? You don't have it set to be able to be remotely wiped? Pretty sure you can also get your phone insured for theft.

    One of the few valuable things Tyler Durden said in Fight Club was "You are not the contents of your wallet. You are not the car you drive. You are not your fucking khakis." Yet Americans still love to extend the concept of who they are to the things they own.

    People are fucking unhinged, man.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    Pretty sure you can also get your phone insured for theft.

    No individual should be expected to use insurance to protect themselves from theft as a solution to it. That's a crazy take.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    That's literally why insurance exists and is a foundational principle in most modern societies, but uhm, go ahead and keep living in the stone age.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Insurance exists to allow thieves to get off with your stuff with no recourse? Ignoring anything that could be unrecoverable ~ and that insurance is overpriced for it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Gosh I guess that means we should get rid of insurance for things like natural disasters, too, since often your home is unrecoverable in the event of a hurricane, volcano, or some other event with no recourse.

    Lmao

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (9 children)

    At no point did I argue insurance shouldn't exist. I said they shouldn't be expected to use it as such

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (8 children)

    Yet insurance for theft exists because it continues to be a thing that happens. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    Are you intentionally ignoring what I'm trying to say?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (6 children)

    It feels like it's the other way around, from my end. Natural disasters don't stop happening, and crime doesn't stop happening, ergo, having insurance for both is reasonable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children)

    I never said it wasn't. So you misunderstood. Having insurance is reasonable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children)

    No individual should be expected to use insurance to protect themselves from theft as a solution to it. That’s a crazy take.

    Then I really don't understand what you're saying here. Insurance coupled with wiping your device remotely makes you whole and renders your device unusable to the person who stole it (sometimes it even leaves you with a nicer, more current device). It's not like the police do much more to help an individual with theft, even when you can show them where your device is with Find My Device enabled. Sometimes you might get lucky and they'll go retrieve it and allow you to press charges, but that's pretty rare, frankly.

    I still maintain this a better solution than trying to beat the shit out of someone, possibly failing and ending up hospitalized or dead yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I believe it's a reasonable thing morally to do. Maybe not smart. Not going to argue it's the best idea. But, reasonable moral thing to do.

    There's games with offline accounts, pictures that don't sync properly -- age of a phone is not the only thing that matters.

    I don't think insurance is a bad idea to have, I think the standpoint that insurance should be the only recourse is what's bad

    Yes, police will do nothing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    But, reasonable moral thing to do.

    We frankly are just going to continue to disagree on that point. Say you punch the assailant and they go down in one blow, cracking their head on the pavement and dying. Did they really deserve a death penalty for petty theft? An extrajudicial death penalty no less. I don't think so. Thus, I don't think it's reasonably moral to risk it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    The difference could lie in the viewpoint that I believe it is their fault in that case. Deserve? No, absolutely not, but I would see it as suicide, rather than an extra judicial punishment. Like falling off a cliff when rock climbing, it's a risk they took when stealing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Here here! It's what they are indoctrinated to do in their defense. You make a good point that decades and decades of effort has gone into making things more secure has reduced the risk/reward for stuff like pickpocketing. I would bet they mostly target things like travel documentation now for identity theft, something more varied and readily available in multi country Europe than North America.

  • source
  • parent