Seleni comments on I'm not touching that Trump mystery meat

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (7 children)

Again, you're assigning a value of zero to someone else's property.

So, speaking of putting words in people’s mouths, I never said that.

What I am saying is, if you see someone about to touch your stuff without asking, then the usual, sensible action is to say something along the lines of ‘hey, stop!’ Not tackle them to the ground like a linebacker.

Yes, golf clubs are expensive. I have friends who golf, and one of the things that has convinced me I don’t want to is them talking about the price of their clubs.

However, I have never yet seen a golf club that is so fragile that it will shatter into pieces when touched (and if you watch the ad, all she’s doing is reaching out to touch them). Nor do they electrocute anyone who touches them. Therefore there is absolutely no fucking reason to assult someone for touching them without asking. Yell at them, maybe. Actually attack them, no.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] historicaldocuments@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (6 children)

So, speaking of putting words in people’s mouths, I never said that.

Still haven't seen you posting a picture of you destroying your most prized possession and then whining about how there's nothing anyone could do. So I guess it's only your stuff that you place a value on.

one of the things that has convinced me I don’t want to is them talking about the price of their clubs.

Just because it's not worth it to you doesn't mean it's not worth it to them. If you're ever looking to get into it then Costco currently carries some reasonably priced clubs...

I have never yet seen a golf club that is so fragile that it will shatter into pieces when touched

I've seen some persimmon wood clubs with wooden shafts that I wouldn't touch, but then again I'm respectful of other people's stuff.

Nor do they electrocute anyone who touches them.

I've known people to have a concealed carry stashed in their golf bag.

This portion of this thread has turned into a trolley problem where a guy standing next to a lever has one of his golf clubs laying on one track, and someone voluntarily laid down on the empty track while he was standing at the lever. He's going to catch shit either way because of someone else's actions ("your stuff's broke!" versus "why'd you do that?"). I don't think anyone's arguing that the person at the lever/club owner created the setup to the trolley problem.

I don't see a difference between the golf club and an ironworker's spud wrench in his tool bag. If someone pulls it out of the bag and drops it into a storm grate early some morning, but the golfer is going to be short a club and the worker will have to go to work without all the required tools on the tool list. At some point the club/tool/purchase has to actually be used for its intended purpose and go from a "securely locked up" state (in a locked house/vehicle) to an "in use" state where someone is clearly using it. Before this thread I'd have thought it was axiomatic that you don't do something like run up to someone while they're actively using a tool/machine, but I guess some folks need to be told: if you see a golfer lined up at a ball and concentrating on it, then he's actively golfing and you shouldn't interfere. Likewise with going and grabbing a hard hat off a worker's head. My argument is that the golfing stand bag, next to the golfer, on a golf course is still actively in use even if you think it's not. The tool bag is in use if the worker has set it on the ground to juggle car keys and a cup of coffee next to their vehicle. They're a professional in their domain and you don't get to be an outsider and set rules for their domain.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)

Where the heck did this part about destroying stuff come from? Where in the ad did the woman say she was going to destroy his clubs?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] historicaldocuments@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (4 children)

You. You don't assign a value to other people's things or care what happens to them, so I assumed you'd not care about your own stuff as well. If you treat your things different from other people's then what business is it of yours how they protect their things?

I suggested the easiest way as a test for you to put your own money where your mouth is.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

You. You don't assign a value to other people's things or care what happens to them, so I assumed you'd not care about your own stuff as well.

And you base this off of… my belief that one should ask people to stop touching their stuff rather than immediately run up and beat the shit out of them?

Were you dropped on your head as a child, or do you come by this level of violent sociopathy naturally?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] historicaldocuments@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

And you base this off of… my belief that one should ask people to stop touching their stuff rather than immediately run up and beat the shit out of them?

I base this off of what you've said which leads me to believe that you think other people should act that way in that situation, but you'd do something different if it was you. We also don't know the intent of the grabber.

Were you dropped on your head as a child, or do you come by this level of violent sociopathy naturally?

Your histrionics may play better with someone else. Do you not think the owner of the golf club has any rights at all? Have you ever in your life heard of thieves scouting/casing a location, or probing actions that can be played off as "just looking" or "was just curious?" If someone carries your drink at a bar is the first thought that goes through your head "that guy seems just as nice as the guy selling roofie test kits"?

History decides whether a reaction or preaction was proportional or not, and they use context that we don't currently and will never have. Predeciding a course of action for every future interaction between humans at a personal, state, nation state level is just dumb. History is littered with people who suffered because they didn't believe something would happen and people who look back wondering why nobody did anything to stop a situation. I understand better why that is, now.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Seleni@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

I don’t think he, or anyone else, has the right to go from zero to violence without any steps in between for something as mild as someone trying to touch an object that belongs to him. Talking to the offender should always be the first step. If they refuse to listen or back off, then escalation may be warranted, but, again, that’s not what happens in the video. He just flat-out tackles her.

I base this off of what you've said which leads me to believe that you think other people should act that way in that situation, but you'd do something different if it was you.

Not sure where you’re getting this. If someone reaches out to touch something of mine, I ask them to stop. That is what sane people do. They try talking first.

We also don't know the intent of the grabber.

And we should always assume the worst of people and immediately attack them? Dude, that’s what gets people shot for accidentally knocking on the wrong door. That sort of behavior is not okay.

And my question was a serious one. Sane people, again, don’t go around assaulting other people at the slightest provocation. That you apparently do, or fantasize about doing so, is a sign that you are quite mentally disturbed.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] historicaldocuments@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

without any steps in between for something as mild as someone trying to touch an object that belongs to him.

Again, you're assuming the offender's intent a priori, and assigning a low value of someone else's property for them which you don't have the right to do. Everyone has a smart phone these days, but you can't know whether the loss of that phone is a minor inconvenience to a person or whether it's their "home address" with the only contact information they have. That places a major value difference to the property to the owner that won't be visible to anyone else.

And we should always assume the worst of people and immediately attack them?

Certainly not, and from the context of the ad that's not what happened there. In the ad world the owner of the clubs didn't create the set of conditions that led to the grabber's actions, the grabber did.

Sane people, again, don’t go around assaulting other people at the slightest provocation. That you apparently do, or fantasize about doing so, is a sign that you are quite mentally disturbed.

Again, "slightest provocation" is relative. That's why we're having this long ass conversation: you've obviously never been down to your last two nickels and watched something critical fail because of the preventable actions of someone else. Lucky you, congratulations, and I hope that you continue to have that sort of luck going forward because you obviously don't have the toolset developed to handle that kind of situation. Your strawman and ad hominem attacks aside I'm happily sitting at zero altercations and hope that continues on for the rest of my days.

I also no longer have to wonder if long, monotonous safety briefings are really necessary; that nobody truly could be so stupid as to ignore all warning signs, social cues, pictographs of danger, lights, sirens, bells and whistles, because I can remember that you're out there somewhere oblivious to the world and its consequences and armed with all the world's knowledge about all possible events and outcomes and have them prejudged based on your interpretation of violence.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent