They Continue To Walk Among Us ...
Film, Media & TV9 mins ago
Ricky Gervais
He makes valid point - these celebrities only have themselves to blame
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by joeluke. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jomifl - "Andy, in an ideal world... but we know that there are dishonest and incompetent people and that systems occasionaly malfunction so it would be foolish and naive to base your actions on a perfect world that doesn't exist."
That is not actually what you said.
Your statement specifically absolves thieves of their responsibilitiy because the facility exists for them to comit that theft.
What next - agreeing with a judge who famously admonished a young woman who spent the evening talking to a man in a pub, and was then followed home, had her front door smashed in, and was raped - and in court the judge advised her that she had given the rapist, quote, "... a reasonable expectation that sexual intercourse was being offered ..."
Yes that is an extreme example - but your thinking is the start of that slippery slope - in your scheme of things, any criminal can offer 'mitigating circumstances' to excuse his or her repellant actions.
That is not actually what you said.
Your statement specifically absolves thieves of their responsibilitiy because the facility exists for them to comit that theft.
What next - agreeing with a judge who famously admonished a young woman who spent the evening talking to a man in a pub, and was then followed home, had her front door smashed in, and was raped - and in court the judge advised her that she had given the rapist, quote, "... a reasonable expectation that sexual intercourse was being offered ..."
Yes that is an extreme example - but your thinking is the start of that slippery slope - in your scheme of things, any criminal can offer 'mitigating circumstances' to excuse his or her repellant actions.
OK retro, I see from where you are coming. Obviously the thieves were prepared to put more effort into stealing your quad than you were in securing it. How did they get into a secure building and free a quad that was chained to a post set in concrete? Could you not have made it just a little more difficult?
jomifl - "... Could you not have made it just a little more difficult? "
I can't believe you are pursuing this line of argument.
You are persistently arguing that anyone guilty of a theft is culpable because they did not make sufficient effort to secure their property - be it photos on a storage system, or a quad bike in a locked building.
Can you not see that to place any blame on a crime victim is to automatically give creedence to the criminal activitiy involved?
If you were walking down the street and you were punched in the face without provocation because you were wearing a football shirt and someone took exception to it, would you admonish yourself for your carelessness in wearing such a garment in public, where it could potentially upset some mindless thug in the vicinity - and therefore excuse his behaviour because it was your fault?
Somehow I doubt it.
You must see that your argument is seriously flawed.
People are entitled to have their property and person protected in a free society - without any add-ons that mean they were in any way to blame.
I can't believe you are pursuing this line of argument.
You are persistently arguing that anyone guilty of a theft is culpable because they did not make sufficient effort to secure their property - be it photos on a storage system, or a quad bike in a locked building.
Can you not see that to place any blame on a crime victim is to automatically give creedence to the criminal activitiy involved?
If you were walking down the street and you were punched in the face without provocation because you were wearing a football shirt and someone took exception to it, would you admonish yourself for your carelessness in wearing such a garment in public, where it could potentially upset some mindless thug in the vicinity - and therefore excuse his behaviour because it was your fault?
Somehow I doubt it.
You must see that your argument is seriously flawed.
People are entitled to have their property and person protected in a free society - without any add-ons that mean they were in any way to blame.
Andy you said ,
/Your statement specifically absolves thieves of their responsibilitiy because the facility exists for them to comit that theft/
No it doesn't, at no point have I absolved thieves of responibility for their actions. I have just pointed out that responibility can be shared. You may leave your personal fortune in a box on the pavement and anybody that took it would be dishonest. However you would have to accept some responibility for making the theft easy.
/Your statement specifically absolves thieves of their responsibilitiy because the facility exists for them to comit that theft/
No it doesn't, at no point have I absolved thieves of responibility for their actions. I have just pointed out that responibility can be shared. You may leave your personal fortune in a box on the pavement and anybody that took it would be dishonest. However you would have to accept some responibility for making the theft easy.
jomilf said: ''how did they get into a secure building and free a quad that was chained to a post set in concrete? Could you not have made it just a little more difficult? ''
yes -I could have electrified the building and had a shotgun pointed at the quad that went off if anyone tried to take it '' and would now be in prison for manslaughter
yes -I could have electrified the building and had a shotgun pointed at the quad that went off if anyone tried to take it '' and would now be in prison for manslaughter
jomifl - "andy,
/You are persistently arguing that anyone guilty of a theft is culpable/
I'm sure you didn't really mean that."
Did I mean that this is your stance?
Absolutely I meant it.
The entire thrust of your argument is that people who are victims of theft are, to a greater or lesser degree, partners in the crime because they did not take sufficient precautions.
My point is that people should reasonably expect their property and person to be safe regardless of what you perceive as their personal failings in facilitating a crime against them.
I repeat - if you are going to suggest that people are negilgent, and therefore responsible for a crime against them, then you are offering mitigating circumstances in the defence of the criminal.
'I didn;t oughta 'ave taken it guv, but it was sorta there, lookin' at me, beggin' to be nicked ...'
I don't think that's going to fly as a defence - even you you apparently do.
/You are persistently arguing that anyone guilty of a theft is culpable/
I'm sure you didn't really mean that."
Did I mean that this is your stance?
Absolutely I meant it.
The entire thrust of your argument is that people who are victims of theft are, to a greater or lesser degree, partners in the crime because they did not take sufficient precautions.
My point is that people should reasonably expect their property and person to be safe regardless of what you perceive as their personal failings in facilitating a crime against them.
I repeat - if you are going to suggest that people are negilgent, and therefore responsible for a crime against them, then you are offering mitigating circumstances in the defence of the criminal.
'I didn;t oughta 'ave taken it guv, but it was sorta there, lookin' at me, beggin' to be nicked ...'
I don't think that's going to fly as a defence - even you you apparently do.
retro, You should try not to see meanings that aren't there.
I have been a victim of petty crime on several occasions and I blame myself for not having taken better precautions. The person that committed the crime was 100% responsible for their actions as they had the choice to be honest or dishonest. I on the other hand was 100% responsible for ensuring security, which is something completely different. The first is a moral issue whilst the second is a matter of competence. You cannot mix them together.
I have been a victim of petty crime on several occasions and I blame myself for not having taken better precautions. The person that committed the crime was 100% responsible for their actions as they had the choice to be honest or dishonest. I on the other hand was 100% responsible for ensuring security, which is something completely different. The first is a moral issue whilst the second is a matter of competence. You cannot mix them together.
jomifl - "I have just pointed out that responibility can be shared. You may leave your personal fortune in a box on the pavement and anybody that took it would be dishonest. However you would have to accept some responibility for making the theft easy."
Yet again you are defending the indefensible.
I am not naive enough to think that we live in a perfect world, far from it, but again your example is flawed.
Who would leave a fortune in a box on the pavement?
But even if I did - and this is the point I appear to be failing to get across - the theft of such an item is not excused by the perceived willingness of the individual to place their proerty at risk.
It is a basic principle of protection and law we are discussing here - and your argument that theft is in any way the responsibility of the victim remains, as I have already said - morally bankrupt.
Yet again you are defending the indefensible.
I am not naive enough to think that we live in a perfect world, far from it, but again your example is flawed.
Who would leave a fortune in a box on the pavement?
But even if I did - and this is the point I appear to be failing to get across - the theft of such an item is not excused by the perceived willingness of the individual to place their proerty at risk.
It is a basic principle of protection and law we are discussing here - and your argument that theft is in any way the responsibility of the victim remains, as I have already said - morally bankrupt.
jomilf -Its not only me seeing 'different meanings' in your posts! If I put a box of jewelry in a busy street and retreated it would be partly my fault if someone came and took the lot. If I secured the box in a safe in a locked property which was subsequently 'cracked' and the contents stolen - am I still partially culpable?
jomifl - "Andy, Read what you wrote then read what I wrote and don't put words into my mouth."
I have done, and I fail to see that I am putting words in your mouth, Your argument seems perfectly clear - I simply disagree with it entirely.
"I am sorry that you are unable to see that their are two issues here, until you can, further discussion is pointless."
Now who is putting words in whose mouth? I have pointed out that there is only one issue here - the notion of a crime victim taking responsibility - in whole or in part - for the action against them.
If you regard further discussion as pointless, that is your choice.
"By the way a person guiltyof a crime is usually culpable too. :o)"
Is that an attempt at humour? It seems that your sense of humour equates with your sense of responsibility - misplaced.
I have done, and I fail to see that I am putting words in your mouth, Your argument seems perfectly clear - I simply disagree with it entirely.
"I am sorry that you are unable to see that their are two issues here, until you can, further discussion is pointless."
Now who is putting words in whose mouth? I have pointed out that there is only one issue here - the notion of a crime victim taking responsibility - in whole or in part - for the action against them.
If you regard further discussion as pointless, that is your choice.
"By the way a person guiltyof a crime is usually culpable too. :o)"
Is that an attempt at humour? It seems that your sense of humour equates with your sense of responsibility - misplaced.
Andy, this is what you wrote.
/You are persistently arguing that anyone guilty of a theft is culpable because they did not make sufficient effort to secure their property/
If you carefully read what you wrote you will see that it does not make sense. I would like to think that you meant 'victim' instead of 'guilty' but I can't be sure.
I have not made the argument that you claim, please show me an example.
In fact to be plain theft is theft and a thief is 100% responsible for their actions. A thief will always go for things that give the best return whether beacause of value or ease of theft.
I resent your unfounded statement that I in any way condone theft and if you are able to understand what I have written without imposing your assumptions on it then you will see that I have never condoned theft.
You are being intellectually dishonest in implying that I have said things that I have not said....which is little better than theft itself.
/You are persistently arguing that anyone guilty of a theft is culpable because they did not make sufficient effort to secure their property/
If you carefully read what you wrote you will see that it does not make sense. I would like to think that you meant 'victim' instead of 'guilty' but I can't be sure.
I have not made the argument that you claim, please show me an example.
In fact to be plain theft is theft and a thief is 100% responsible for their actions. A thief will always go for things that give the best return whether beacause of value or ease of theft.
I resent your unfounded statement that I in any way condone theft and if you are able to understand what I have written without imposing your assumptions on it then you will see that I have never condoned theft.
You are being intellectually dishonest in implying that I have said things that I have not said....which is little better than theft itself.
Latest Posts
The Post Office Horizon Enquiry
News13 mins ago
ChatterBank23 mins ago
Crosswords28 mins ago
Society & Culture30 mins ago
