that was a clever piece of editorial. Very well thought out. I have to say I agree with her. I can't blame anyone for looting.
OK, maybe I can blame people for stealing watched and electronics, but how much? If you're already taking groceries, why not grab something else while you're at it? It's not as if you're harming anyone. The stores are going to be reimbursed via insurance for every single thing currently on their shelves (and if they're not, I'd think the average person would be surprised to learn that).
Further, when you just lost your car, your house, your furnature, and everyhting else within nine feet of the ground, I think you're entitled to a stereo. At least in the looter's mind. it's not your fault your stuff is trashed and there's no reason for you to suffer for it. So you take stuff to replace the stuff you lost. Big deal. in the grand scene of things this is so minor that it shouldn't even be thought about. If I were a caring and compassionate individual (I'm not, but if I were) I'd be way more concerned with the dead and dying than with the stupid watches and microwaves.
> OK, maybe I can blame people for stealing watched and electronics, but how > much? If you're already taking groceries, why not grab something else > while you're at it?
Gee, I dunno. What possible difference is there between necessities and luxuries?
Christ, even she makes the distinction between opportunistic shitheads and desperate people.
> Further, when you just lost your car, your house, your furnature, and > everyhting else within nine feet of the ground, I think you're entitled to > a stereo. At least in the looter's mind.
I don't. Which is to say, while I can see how you'd really want the damn thing, and I appreciate the usefulness of luxuries in helping you cope (although really, what the hell are you going to do with a stereo, plug it into the second-floor outlet with an extension cord so you can take it out onto the roof with you while you wait?), and I understand the perception that the owner's going to get recompensed for it anyway, it is a *huge* leap from that to the world *owing* you the damn thing.
I can understand wanting it. I can understand taking it. I can understand the justification of how little harm it does. But that's not the same thing as saying you're entitled to it, and I'd hesitate to accuse anyone of such sloppy thinking.
Look at it like this. You just broke into a wal mart to take groceries and medicine. At that point the cell phone cards and watched don't seem quite so off limits. it's not like if wal mart employees were around they'd be making the distinction. And from a legal standpoint there is no difference between the cough syrup and bread and the rolex.
They're certainly NOT entitled to it, you're right. they're not entitled to food and medicine they didn't pay for either.
Now, I see the difference, of course. They can't live without food and things while they can certainly do without watched and ipods. But I'm not sure they see the difference where they are. When the world has gone away and there's not only nobody to hold you accountable or see you, but no good chance that the things you're taking will be missed then morality becomes hazier for most people.
Really the point was that nessieity and moral are points of view. Legal, however, is very concrete and stealing "nessessities" is just as illegal as stealing "luxuries".
In fact, moreso in some cases. A case could be made, for example, for gasoline being more important than a lot of food items or medicine that many consider nessesities. And in Ohio if you steal food or nyquil or a porno DVD they fine you and possibly jail you. if you steal gas they do all those things and they also take your liscence.
Odd, because if I steal a DVD they don't take my cable televition.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-31 05:11 pm (UTC)OK, maybe I can blame people for stealing watched and electronics, but how much? If you're already taking groceries, why not grab something else while you're at it? It's not as if you're harming anyone. The stores are going to be reimbursed via insurance for every single thing currently on their shelves (and if they're not, I'd think the average person would be surprised to learn that).
Further, when you just lost your car, your house, your furnature, and everyhting else within nine feet of the ground, I think you're entitled to a stereo. At least in the looter's mind. it's not your fault your stuff is trashed and there's no reason for you to suffer for it. So you take stuff to replace the stuff you lost. Big deal. in the grand scene of things this is so minor that it shouldn't even be thought about. If I were a caring and compassionate individual (I'm not, but if I were) I'd be way more concerned with the dead and dying than with the stupid watches and microwaves.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-31 05:54 pm (UTC)> much? If you're already taking groceries, why not grab something else
> while you're at it?
Gee, I dunno. What possible difference is there between necessities and luxuries?
Christ, even she makes the distinction between opportunistic shitheads and desperate people.
> Further, when you just lost your car, your house, your furnature, and
> everyhting else within nine feet of the ground, I think you're entitled to
> a stereo. At least in the looter's mind.
I don't. Which is to say, while I can see how you'd really want the damn thing, and I appreciate the usefulness of luxuries in helping you cope (although really, what the hell are you going to do with a stereo, plug it into the second-floor outlet with an extension cord so you can take it out onto the roof with you while you wait?), and I understand the perception that the owner's going to get recompensed for it anyway, it is a *huge* leap from that to the world *owing* you the damn thing.
I can understand wanting it. I can understand taking it. I can understand the justification of how little harm it does. But that's not the same thing as saying you're entitled to it, and I'd hesitate to accuse anyone of such sloppy thinking.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-31 06:03 pm (UTC)They're certainly NOT entitled to it, you're right. they're not entitled to food and medicine they didn't pay for either.
Now, I see the difference, of course. They can't live without food and things while they can certainly do without watched and ipods. But I'm not sure they see the difference where they are. When the world has gone away and there's not only nobody to hold you accountable or see you, but no good chance that the things you're taking will be missed then morality becomes hazier for most people.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-31 06:08 pm (UTC)But that's not the point.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-31 07:05 pm (UTC)Really the point was that nessieity and moral are points of view. Legal, however, is very concrete and stealing "nessessities" is just as illegal as stealing "luxuries".
In fact, moreso in some cases. A case could be made, for example, for gasoline being more important than a lot of food items or medicine that many consider nessesities. And in Ohio if you steal food or nyquil or a porno DVD they fine you and possibly jail you. if you steal gas they do all those things and they also take your liscence.
Odd, because if I steal a DVD they don't take my cable televition.
Same crime, different punishment.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-31 05:47 pm (UTC)Thanking my lucky stars and crying a little.
Red Cross takes credit cards, even if the site is slow at the moment.