Oh, that poor "deprived" and "abused" Walmart corporation!

[Cooky]

If we were under Shariah law things would be much different for the culprit. Maybe we should submit to Allah and adopt Shariah law and all the thieves would think twice before they steal

Yeah, and then deny them medical treatment with their hand all chopped off too if they don't have insurance.

<EDIT> I wonder how that actually works in Muslim countries... Do they chop off the hands at a hospital, with surgical instruments? Or do they use an axe as in a 'field operation', because in that case, I would assume you'd bleed to death.

 

[Cooky]

Asparagus. I would have cleaned you all out and taken all I could carry.

Indeed you would.

Can Rabbits Eat Asparagus?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Though the language, if true, was pathetic, one must remember that Wal-Mart is not the victim of that thief. The ultimate victims are the consumers of Wal-Mart. Companies take loss control into their calculations when they set their prices. If they are too lax their prices will go up. If they are totally lax they will have to raise their prices to the point that people shop at other stores. Ultimately a business can go under if they do not protect themselves.

The man was a thief. He got a light punishment. Hopefully the slap on the wrist woke him up. He has no right to complain.

 

[PureX]

The man was a thief! You're making excuses for a thief.
Who could have sought public assistance to sustain himself. Food stamps, like that. Or food banks, are available. Public libraries here collect for food banks. And if someone is hungry and desperate the library contacts help.
He could stand out in public with a sign. HUNGRY! PLEASE HELP!
He could do anything but think to go to a store where there are clearly security camera's all over the place and STEAL!

You don't know a thing about this man, and yet here you are making up reasons for indicting him.

Walmart or otherwise, he was a thief!

So what? So is Walmart. Yet you defend the really BIG thief and indict the really small one. Why?

 

[PureX]

The moral of the story seems to be that it is OK to steal from someone that has more than you do. I was raised that stealing is stealing. If a person is making $40,000 a year and supporting a family of four on that income and is robbed by someone making $20,000 dollars a year selling stolen property, then it must be OK?

You are making up a more proportioned scenario to make your argument seem reasonable. Isn't that because you want us (and yourself) to ignore the unreasonableness of the extreme scenario at hand? No one here is justifying stealing from anyone making $40,000 a year and raising a family. We're talking about stealing from a giant corporation that is worth many BILLIONS of dollars, and that does everything it can to take as much as it can from everyone is does business with. It wouldn't exist at all except that we are all so stupid and greedy that we are willing to buy from them even though doing so destroyed thousands of small towns and millions of family livelihoods all across the United States. We care more about saving a few bucks than we do about the well being of our own communities, and neighbors.

 

[Revoltingest]

So what? So is Walmart. Yet you defend the really BIG thief and indict the really small one. Why?

You've done what many thieves do, ie, justify theft by demonizing
the victim. Grifters do that....they say anyone stupid & greedy
enuf to fall for their scam deserves to be fleeced of money they
don't need.
You hate Walmart, & call'm thieves for various reasons, but based
upon bizarre personal definitions. Would you allow everyone with
diverse animosities to steal based upon hatred & odd perspectives?
The generalized consequence of your approach would be rampant
theft throughout all levels of society.

 

[Stevicus]

You've done what many thieves do, ie, justify theft by demonizing
the victim. Grifters Capitalists do that....they say anyone stupid & greedy
enuf to fall for their scam deserves to be fleeced of money they
don't need.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Revoltingest]

Fixed that for you.

Which are the non-capitalist countries where you'd prefer to live?

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Though the language, if true, was pathetic, one must remember that Wal-Mart is not the victim of that thief. The ultimate victims are the consumers of Wal-Mart. Companies take loss control into their calculations when they set their prices. If they are too lax their prices will go up. If they are totally lax they will have to raise their prices to the point that people shop at other stores. Ultimately a business can go under if they do not protect themselves.

The man was a thief. He got a light punishment. Hopefully the slap on the wrist woke him up. He has no right to complain.

But it is hard to sympathize with a thief like Walmart becomes the "victim" of petty theft

 

[Stevicus]

Which are the non-capitalist countries where you'd prefer to live?

Non sequitur, as it presumes that economic systems are the only reason to choose to live or not live in a given country.

 

[Curious George]

Are you always guilty of theft if you steal?

No. For example, one can use the defense of necessity. However, that defense is not applicable in the situation posed in the OP. The person did not need to steal from Walmart. They chose to do so. We have chosen to recognize property rights and it has seemed to do well for us.

I wouldn't expect anyone to feel bad for Walmart in this scenario, any harm they suffered was nominal. But, our criminal justice system is not victim focused. Instead we focus on the accused. In this instance the accused broke the law. It does not matter if the accused is a little old lady that saved 3 kittens from drowning during the commission of her crime. What matters are facts relevant to the crime.

That some want to engage in a sort of balancing test, counting the accused's suffering and the big corporations misdeeds and wealth is not surprising. That, however, is not how our legal system works. Any attempt to justify the accued's actions is no more than obfuscation. You needn't feel sorry for Walmart; you needn't support walmart. Rather, you need to ask yourself if this person did this person intend to take property that did not belong to them? Was this act a necessity?

 

[Revoltingest]

Non sequitur...

No, as I've shown in another thread, ditching capitalism has
emergent properties, eg, authoritarianism, poverty, famine.
Asking which country you'd prefer to a capitalist one would
illuminate 1 of 2 things....
1) That there are no preferable non-capitalist countries.
2) Where our social values differ.

 

[Stevicus]

No, as I've shown in another thread, ditching capitalism has
emergent properties, eg, authoritarianism, poverty, famine.

Well, you've claimed that, yes. We've debated this particular issue quite extensively with no real conclusive outcome or agreement.

Asking which country you'd prefer to a capitalist one would
illuminate 1 of 2 things....
1) That there are no preferable non-capitalist countries.
2) Where our social values differ.

It doesn't prove anything of the sort. For one thing, it assumes that people can simply move at the drop of a hat, which isn't always feasible.

The other thing is that some people aren't too keen on moving away from their homeland for any reason. They may not wish to move to a land where a different language is spoken or has a different culture.

Also, some people can still be patriotic and advocate for positive changes to be made to their homeland, not just for themselves, but for everyone.

So, this kind of "love it or leave it" argument doesn't seem logical or very well thought out.

It should also be noted that most of the countries in the world today are, in fact, capitalist to varying degrees. It's also noteworthy to point out that most of these capitalist countries are just as unlivable (probably more so) as any examples of countries which have ditched capitalism.

There are, of course, complex reasons for this. It's not simply a matter of plugging in a certain "system" and expecting the same results each time.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The analogy does work. The story outlines disparity in wealth and concludes that it is justifiable to steal from someone or some organization if it is rich and the thief is not. Where would it end? Would a thief whose income is different from his victim by 50% be absolved from the law?

You are arguing about punishment that you feel is unjust. I am discussing the law and how it should be applied.

Your analogy is disproportionate as stealing $100 worth of food from a family living on $40,000 a year versus stealing $100 worth of food from a mega-corporation are not equal in their impact.

 

[Cooky]

Your analogy is disproportionate as stealing $100 worth of food from a family living on $40,000 a year versus stealing $100 worth of food from a mega-corporation are not equal in their impact.

This is true. Though I don't condone theft of any kind, people should not view the world in such black and white contrast.

...There is a whole spectrum of colors between black and white that people are ignoring. We as a people can open our minds a little and acknowledge that.

 

[Revoltingest]

It doesn't prove anything of the sort. For one thing, it assumes that people can simply move at the drop of a hat, which isn't always feasible.

Oh, I'd never assume that.
I've moved, & know that it takes some time.

But are you saying that you couldn't, even after several hat droppings
(let's say 5 years of preparation) couldn't move to a non-capitalist country?
It can be done because I know immigrants who arrived with nothing
(from China, Iran, USSR, Poland & others).

The other thing is that some people aren't too keen on moving away from their homeland for any reason. They may not wish to move to a land where a different language is spoken or has a different culture.

Your description of capitalism makes it sound so devastating that
one would expect masses to flee it for the bounty of an alternative.
But border traffic suggests otherwise.

Also, some people can still be patriotic and advocate for positive changes to be made to their homeland, not just for themselves, but for everyone.

Do you remain here, sacrificing your emigrating to a better
(non-capitalist) country, in order to eliminate capitalism?
Such statue-worthy magnanimity!

So, this kind of "love it or leave it" argument doesn't seem logical or very well thought out.

You don't have to leave....I just asked which non-capitalist country would you move to.
An unanswered question.

I'm no country loving patriot.
Felonious draft dodger....despiser of both political parties...aghast at
the candidates they present...disgusted by our foreign policies....etc.
If I saw a better country for me, I'd name it, & consider moving there.
But I remain here simply because I see no better place to live.
(In the 70s, I almost moved to Canuckistan. But things here improved.)
I don't see why you evade that issue.
It should be easy to say....
"That non-capitalist country is better. I'd rather live there."

It should also be noted that most of the countries in the world today are, in fact, capitalist to varying degrees. It's also noteworthy to point out that most of these capitalist countries are just as unlivable (probably more so) as any examples of countries which have ditched capitalism.

Would you list & compare the best capitalist
countries with the best non-capitalist countries?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Your analogy is disproportionate as stealing $100 worth of food from a family living on $40,000 a year versus stealing $100 worth of food from a mega-corporation are not equal in their impact.

It was intentionally disproportionate to ask the question of where is the line drawn and why. If it is OK to steal from the MegaRich, then why would it not be OK to steal from me or you or anyone? We can just find some disparity and use that as an excuse. You're better looking than me, so I can rob you blind.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It was intentionally disproportionate to ask the question of where is the line drawn and why. If it is OK to steal from the MegaRich, then why would it not be OK to steal from me or you or anyone? We can just find some disparity and use that as an excuse. You're better looking than me, so I can rob you blind.

Because the impact of the same act on both would be wildly different. I'm not sure why you can't see that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are making up a more proportioned scenario to make your argument seem reasonable. Isn't that because you want us (and yourself) to ignore the unreasonableness of the extreme scenario at hand? No one here is justifying stealing from anyone making $40,000 a year and raising a family. We're talking about stealing from a giant corporation that is worth many BILLIONS of dollars, and that does everything it can to take as much as it can from everyone is does business with. It wouldn't exist at all except that we are all so stupid and greedy that we are willing to buy from them even though doing so destroyed thousands of small towns and millions of family livelihoods all across the United States. We care more about saving a few bucks than we do about the well being of our own communities, and neighbors.

My argument is reasonable and you are intentionally focusing on the scenario rather than the questions it was posed to ask. Apparently, you are completely OK with stealing when it fits some model that is emotionally appealing to you and fits your political beliefs. What else will be OK? What other laws can we find worst case scenarios to support ignoring? If a rich doctor makes an error that results in the death of my child, can I shoot him now? He's rich and part of the elite. I am not. You are giving me the basis for justifying that. You are supporting everyone being a law unto themselves. How is that caring about people and communities?

Maybe you do not care about the well being of people and communities, but you do not speak for me. I care. I also care about people that decide the laws can be subverted, just because there are instances where the breaking of them tugs at the emotions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because the impact of the same act on both would be wildly different. I'm not sure why you can't see that.

I do see that. It was the basis of the story. I am confused. My story was completely and intentionally contrived to extend this into directions that were posed in the original story.

No one seems to be able to look passed that story and see the points it is making or they choose not to out of an inability to address the questions and an ease of just attacking the story.