Food Is Now Free In Italy If You Are Hungry, Preposterous!!!

[Cthulhu 2020]

So what if they do I guess is my question? Ultimately those people have no say if they get it or not anyhow. Right?

Many have gone to shopping late at night, since they get nasty looks and comments when they use a SNAP card to buy food.

This is no excuse to steal, but let's not kid ourselves. People are really nasty to those who ask for help.

[Powerogue]

In all fairness, the specificity of that implies that, if you steal food and are visibly not starving at the time, you're still prosecuted. It's not like you can just walk into the bakery and steal their entire cake stockpile, cackling maniacally all the way.

[Dextroden]

Many have gone to shopping late at night, since they get nasty looks and comments when they use a SNAP card to buy food.

This is no excuse to steal, but let's not kid ourselves. People are really nasty to those who ask for help.

So steal from everyone! Including the people that would have helped if you asked!

Because, unlike Batman wants to paint, not everyone hates the poor.

[Twix]

But if you go to jail, you will have free food.

[Cthulhu 2020]

So steal from everyone! Including the people that would have helped if you asked!

Because, unlike Batman wants to paint, not everyone hates the poor.

Wow you're REALLY bad at reading.

[Blur4stuff]

at some point basic needs will have to be free to everyone. automation and efficiency will force the issue.

[NineSpine]

Well what did happen is that a court made an insane, illogical decision that has no grounding in fact. You can appeal to the authority of an Italian court if you like, but it doesn't make the argument that allowing stealing because some are hungry is practical or moral. No where in the article does it mention that the man was going to starve or would have suffered injury, and no one yet has attempted to support that claim with any data or even an ANECDOTE. If you were going to make that case, you have to provide significant amounts of data that showed that people who were hungry and didn't steal suffered some sort of injury, and if you were going to make it poorly, you have to provide ONE case where it has happened, not where someone MIGHT have been harmed if they didn't.

No, the court made a very simple and reasonable decision: Minor infractions in emergency situations should not be prosecutable. This is really no different from saying that it's alright to speed if a woman in labor is in the car, or jaywalk to grab a child out of the road.

There has already been a case and you just keep pretending it doesn't exist. The case is RIGHT THERE. It's the whole point of this thread, and your willful ignorance about the ruling is becoming very silly.

[Orlong]

Hey, considering that the law ''ize duh lawe'', why not sending people stealing the music industry by illicit downloading for 20 years of back breaking labor, to teach those leeches (ZING !) a lesson ?

What ? You don't find this a good idea ? Who are you, kommies ? Betas ? SJWs ? You are not Internet Tough Guys, the proud manly heroes that advocate ''ur ur ur, a bullet in tah head to save muh money'' when it's about people that steal liquor in stores ?

Ive always advocated for throwing pirates in jail. Perhaps people would think twice before they visit kickasstorrents

[NineSpine]

Ive always advocated for throwing pirates in jail. Perhaps people would think twice before they visit kickasstorrents

Nice, you want to turn the government into the stormtroopers of corporations. I can't say I'm surprised to see you support outright literal fascism.

[sarahtasher]

Ive always advocated for throwing pirates in jail. Perhaps people would think twice before they visit kickasstorrents

Also, people going to pornographic sites below eighteen or drink alcool without being of the legal age, while being at it.

[Orlong]

What western country actually locks up people for stealing items worth 4 bucks?

It wasnt 4 bucks, it was over 4 Euros.

[Hiricine]

No, the court made a very simple and reasonable decision: Minor infractions in emergency situations should not be prosecutable. This is really no different from saying that it's alright to speed if a woman in labor is in the car, or jaywalk to grab a child out of the road.

There has already been a case and you just keep pretending it doesn't exist. The case is RIGHT THERE. It's the whole point of this thread, and your willful ignorance about the ruling is becoming very silly.

To your first point, the notion that a minor infraction in an emergency is acceptable is basically fact. What I'm arguing is that no one has proved that an emergency existed, and essentially has never existed in a specific case such at this one. If you're going to use a ruling as evidence for something other than the decision making capabilities of a court, its really just an appeal to authority at best and the worst kind of ignorance otherwise.

[NineSpine]

To your first point, the notion that a minor infraction in an emergency is acceptable is basically fact. What I'm arguing is that no one has proved that an emergency existed, and essentially has never existed in a specific case such at this one. If you're going to use a ruling as evidence for something other than the decision making capabilities of a court, its really just an appeal to authority at best and the worst kind of ignorance otherwise.

Again, we have an example... it's this court case... and the fact that you keep pretending it doesn't exist is just getting more bizarre with each post.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It wasnt 4 bucks, it was over 4 Euros.

4 euros, 30k euros per year to jail them.

So much for being a fiscal conservative.

[Hiricine]

Again, we have an example... it's this court case... and the fact that you keep pretending it doesn't exist is just getting more bizarre with each post.

The court case is NOT an example of someone suffering injury from not eating, its an example of someone arguing that they would have. If someone claimed they stole from a store to feed a unicorn and the court accepted the argument, it does not serve to prove the existence of unicorns.

[NineSpine]

The court case is NOT an example of someone suffering injury from not eating, its an example of someone arguing that they would have. If someone claimed they stole from a store to feed a unicorn and the court accepted the argument, it does not serve to prove the existence of unicorns.

Wait, so you want evidence that human beings starve to death? For real? Is this real?

[Dextroden]

Wow you're REALLY bad at reading.

Still haven't told me what my type is.

Also, you can claim you didn't justify it. But you still essentially asked why ask for it when you can just take it?

[TwoNineMarine]

I understand the logic.

But all it's gonna do is encourage folks to steal food.

This is going to end well.

[NineSpine]

I understand the logic.

But all it's gonna do is encourage folks to steal food.

This is going to end well.

It's almost as if it may be fundamentally morally wrong to erect an economic system that requires some people to starve, isn't it? Weird.

[ComputerNerd]

We had a small market in the town a grew up. One time a man walked in, grabbed a sandwich and bolted out the door. The owner was behind the counter and someone asked him, "aren't you going to do something? Call the cops or chase after him?" the owner replied " the man stole a sandwich, he didn't steal liquor or candy or soda. He is obviously hungry and needed the sandwich more than I needed the $3 I would have sold it for. I'm not calling the cops on someone that is so hungry they had to steal food from me" I was like 13 when this happened and it has stuck with me to this day.

I can see where this can get out of hand if you have a mass amount of people doing it. But one man stealing one sandwhich shouldn't be an issue.

True enough, but will some people see that as an open invitation and then claim "hunger" as an excuse.
This sort of thing has the potential to go very badly, as much as the intent is good.