231–240 of 406 posts
Ci hanno insegnato la meraviglia
verso la gente che ruba il pane
ora sappiamo che è un delitto
il non rubare quando si ha fame
They taught us the wonder
for the people who steal bread.
Now we know that it’s a crime,
not stealing when one is hungry.
I'm apparently in the minority, but, after reading the article, I still maintain that there is never a reason to steal from your fellow man. The potential for abuse due to hunger being subjective notwithstanding, there are social programs in place to accommodate the needy. Do they not have these programs in Italy? I am a very compassionate, empathetic (to a fault) person, but I just don't see the justification for th…
I think you are right! We should provide aid for people who are in danger of starvation, but it does not give anybody right to steal from fellow human. I have a personal experience with possible abuse. I saw a man, probably a foreign (so he is probably not supposed to be familiar with local aid system), with a sign that he needs money for food because he is starving and he indeed did not look alright. After consideri…
Not much experience with being poor/homeless, have we?
For those not faking it (which can happen too), a "starving" sign doesn't mean "I'm literally starving right now, I just need a few dollars for a burger and I'll be on my way".
It means I can't support myself, I'm dead-poor, and probably homeless, and can use all the money thrown at me to get by for a few days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bet you've been pretty privileged in grand scheme of things, university, regular jobs, maybe the lowest point has been backpacking etc... Parent have at least one car, yawn yawn yawn.. No one is stealing from you, they are stealing from a supermarket. Privileged people always seem to think in black and white, theft is theft never an excuse blah blah, quite often making the cliche mistake of associating morality wit…
I think the reason why people have a hard time understanding what you're saying is because unless you've experienced _systemic_ difficulty in your life it's very hard to differentiate it from _personal_ difficulty. Put in a less rigorous way, if you've never truly had to fight against a system that seems constructed to see you fail it would be hard to understand how this is different from, and much worse than, diffic…
For the sake of my blood pressure I won't go into the similarly strange attempts to solve what systemic failures (almost always the ones that minorly inconvenience the privileged, isn't that strange?) folks of this mindset do deign to recognize, but...yeah.
As the bible says http://www.bibleserver.com/text/ESV/Deuteronomy23%2C25 > If you go into your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat your fill of grapes, as many as you wish, but you shall not put any in your bag. 25 If you go into your neighbor’s standing grain, you may pluck the ears with your hand, but you shall not put a sickle to your neighbor’s standing grain. Stealing food is okay sometimes. There's even a word in…
"For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."" -- 2 Thessalonians 3:10 http://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/3-10.htm
It's a little hard to understand how this ruling won't cause a certain degree of chaos. Can any hungry, homeless person now steal food from any store in Italy without repercussion? Certainly as a matter of compassion, this ruling can be argued as being reasonable, but how can it work as a practical matter?
I think there is a fundamental difference between different law systems - I'm assuming Italy is roman-style civil law, while you are probably expecting Anglo-Saxon style common law. This means that that case is not setting a precedent, it is merely ruling that the particular case is not going to be penalized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've not been privileged all my life. I have a dislike for fish because of some of things and situations we were in. It is never, ever ok to steal. Stealing from a supermarket is stealing from a person or people. Just because you cannot name who is affected doesn't mean it isn't people. It is black and white. The morality and legality are in alignment in this regard. This whole "shades of grey" leads to the blackness…
It's really not black and white at all. Stealing addresses the immediate present concerns. Government programs address the systematic problems and may not be able to help in time. This is somewhat like telling someone to wait til the next presidential election to vote to solve the problems they are having today. Makes sense when it's not you, but until then you have needs.
It's a little hard to understand how this ruling won't cause a certain degree of chaos. Can any hungry, homeless person now steal food from any store in Italy without repercussion? Certainly as a matter of compassion, this ruling can be argued as being reasonable, but how can it work as a practical matter?
It could work without causing chaos. We already accept that some special circumstances can make you innocent of a crime (e.g. killing in self-defence). But if you stab someone in self-defence you can still expect to be arrested and possibly put on trial. The onus is on you to prove you did it in self-defence. Surely this could be treated the same? It doesn't mean that stealing food has been decriminalised. You'll sti…
How in the world would that work? The amount stolen would have to be only sufficient satisfy your hunger, and presumably they would need to not have obvious other means. Such as funds for a lawyer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That you believe this makes it absolutely impossible for me to think you're not in a privileged position. Believe what you want, but I sure as hell didn't grow up in a privileged position. > Great when you know where to go, and they work as they should. They are not perfect. And people are not perfect. Especially not when starving. Churches will give food, its part of many faiths. Stealing is wrong, and brings mise…
> Believe what you want, but I sure as hell didn't grow up in a privileged position. I think the disconnect there is that we appear to have very different ideas of what is required to be privileged. Have you ever starved? (And going hungry is not starvation). > Churches will give food, its part of many faiths. Again, have you ever starved, and tried to think clearly enough to find someone willing to give you food? >…
I've gone hungry and I know my Dad did. There was choices made by this person before they hit starve. They were hungry first.
Why is visiting a church or other organization unacceptable to you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm apparently in the minority, but, after reading the article, I still maintain that there is never a reason to steal from your fellow man. The Catholic Church would agree: stealing is intrinsically evil, and thus wrong always and everywhere. The way they handle situations like this is by defining "stealing when starving" as "not stealing at all, but reappropriating things according to God's design for them." They…
> The Catholic Church... are in no position to lecture anyone on morals. Read "The God Delusion" if this isn't abundantly apparent to you from studying history and/or reading the news.
"Organization X is wrong about A, therefore they are wrong about B," is never a logically valid proposition. In fact, nothing about organization X is relevant when determining if their propositions are correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some context from the article: > Judges overturned a theft conviction against Roman Ostriakov after he stole cheese and sausages worth €4.07 (£3; $4.50) from a supermarket. > Mr Ostriakov, a homeless man of Ukrainian background, had taken the food "in the face of the immediate and essential need for nourishment", the court of cassation decided. > Therefore it was not a crime, it said. (...) > In 2015, Mr Ostriakov wa…
That makes no sense for me. It IS a crime, however one that court could rule to not punish the convicted. At least that is how it would probably work in my country.
So, this isn't that odd.