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

[Vanyali]

Let's start with how your earlier claim of:

is not universal truth. There are some countries where breaking out of jail itself is not illegal. Kinda hard to pull it off without breaking other laws in practice, especially if you have help (and escaping without help sounds very implausible unless the prison staff is full of lazy and incompetent morons), but it is still the case.

Yet, from the start you argued from the position that they are wrong and even outright asked them to tell you what straw-man they want to talk about in an earlier post. Yet you went full straw-lord here yourself. Not punishing breaking out of prison doesn't encourage anything if you're hauled back to it and your sentence is suspended for the time you're out. As such, your comparisons make no sense. Then you mocked their claim that breaking out of prison is just expressing your right to freedom, when it's actually the justification used for such laws in countries that have them.

And then you attack their usage of "you" and accuse them of failure at reading. Sure, you may have attempted a reconciliation, but as you said, the way you chose to interpret it is only a general thing, not the be all end all of how "you" is used. Made perfect sense for me they were making examples. But the best part, is that despite even quoting the post in question to another user, you didn't notice the glaring failure in reading on your own part, even if you interpreted it your way. You see, the "If you threatening someone's life they'll use self-defense." bit didn't mention any murder. You conjured that out of thin air straw. And even if it was murder, being an escapee from prison doesn't magically void your legal rights. But that's beside the point.

I don't know if you had a bad day or something, but that exchange was just painful to read.

A legal judgement isn't always them adding more to your sentence - the judgement can also be that nothing else is required

And as others have noted, self defense *is* murder.. we just use it for justified killings. /shrug

I have been sick and feeling like shit all day though, so might have come off more meanly than I meant to

[NineSpine]

It'll never be outdated to have laws/rules against stealing. Plain and simple.

All kinds of property systems have become outdated. There were certain places where the King was the de facto owner of everything. That's outdated. In the U.S. humans used to be property. The property of a woman became her husband's by default upon marriage. The idea that "stealing" never becomes outdated presumes "stealing" always meant the same thing. That's an anachronism.

Are you ok with someone coming in your home or business that you own and taking food?

Would I fault a starving person for stealing from me? No, which is why I oppose the existing economic system.

And comparing stealing food vs human trafficking/sex trade is a bit...rash isn't it?

Spoken like someone who has never had to go hungry. Only to the most privileged is food such a trivial issue. In reality, it is MORE important than human trafficking and the sex trade.

And I can't speak to Italy but do they have shelters and churches and other such places that serve food to the homeless?

Pretty much every Western nation has that, but the idea that such things are very simple for everyone to access is not in line with reality.

[Hiricine]

You are begging the question. You are justifying an economic system by appealing to the tenets of the very same economic system, specifically the property arrangements of that economic system. Essentially that you are saying is "It's wrong to steal because it's my property, and it's my property because it's wrong to steal." That's circular logic.

Besides, it's very easy to describe a system where nobody explicitly takes food away from someone but is still an unjust economic system that starves them: Slavery.

Well I don't think I made either of the arguments in the first point but I do agree with at least one of them, that its wrong to steal because its my property. Unless I violate someone else's right to their property or well being then no one has the right to take my property or inflict harm upon me.

And I don't think anyone has brought up slavery at any point, if anything its being used as a buzzword because its a Sophistic argument thats meant to evoke emotion. Who is being forced to work against their will in a system supported by a state? There is no slavery by any logical definition of the word at any point here.

[Dextroden]

Are you in a crisis situation, or are you just being dense?

- - - Updated - - -



I boggle when people disregard past threads they've participated in, simply because acknowledging things they've said in the past makes them out to be a hypocrite.

So, you must boggle at yourself constantly with trying to pretend to be a sensible poster when you've admitted twice to being a shitposter.

[Mehrunes]

It's not justice to penalize someone harshly for trying to survive by stealing food.

To add to this, continental legal system usually operates with the concept of societal harm (direct translation from Polish so could be a bit imprecise) in the context of criminal matters. If the societal harm is insufficient, the prosecution is free to not issue proceedings altogether. Or the court may drop the case. Or extremely lower the punishment or even replace it with things like social work. And in case of crimes against property, one of the main factors would be the value of said property. And the motivation of the perpetrator also plays a role. This ruling is not really anything out of the ordinary in terms of practice. It only stops the prosecutors that have nothing else to do from starting crusades over a bagel.

[Hiricine]

A legal judgement isn't always them adding more to your sentence - the judgement can also be that nothing else is required

And as others have noted, self defense *is* murder.. we just use it for justified killings. /shrug

I have been sick and feeling like shit all day though, so might have come off more meanly than I meant to

It defends how you define murder. As an example, not an appeal to authority or tradition, the commandment "thou shalt not kill" is really not translated appropriately from "Thou shalt not murder". If I shoot a Rhino thats charging at me, I am killing it. If I sneak into an innocent person's house and strangle them, then its murder. Murder is an UNJUSTIFIED killing, making self defense not murder because its justified.

[NineSpine]

Evidence that an adult man has starved in Italy because he could not or would not steal food, yes, or that the specific man in question was in imminent danger of starving. You can't provide either so it doesn't exist, which means by extension you would advocate for stealing from someone out of necessity with no evidence that it was necessary.

Well this has been a fun game of goalpost moving, but I see it was now run clear off the reservation. Have fun with that.

[Mehrunes]

So, you must boggle at yourself constantly with trying to pretend to be a sensible poster when you've admitted twice to being a shitposter.

From what I understood from the second time he admitted it, he's an innocent victim in this and it's only an involuntary reaction to other people's shitposting.

[NineSpine]

It defends how you define murder. As an example, not an appeal to authority or tradition, the commandment "thou shalt not kill" is really not translated appropriately from "Thou shalt not murder". If I shoot a Rhino thats charging at me, I am killing it. If I sneak into an innocent person's house and strangle them, then its murder. Murder is an UNJUSTIFIED killing, making self defense not murder because its justified.

No. Murder is an unlawful killing. That's it. It is 100% contingent on the existing laws.

[Mormolyce]

Their constitution is all God and guns, the hungray don't figure there.

They apparently like the wrath bits of God, not so much the give the poor all your possessions bits.

[Hiricine]

To add to this, continental legal system usually operates with the concept of societal harm (direct translation from Polish so could be a bit imprecise) in the context of criminal matters. If the societal harm is insufficient, the prosecution is free to not issue proceedings altogether. Or the court may drop the case. Or extremely lower the punishment or even replace it with things like social work. And in case of crimes against property, one of the main factors would be the value of said property. And the motivation of the perpetrator also plays a role. This ruling is not really anything out of the ordinary in terms of practice. It only stops the prosecutors that have nothing else to do from starting crusades over a bagel.

The ruling really is out of the ordinary in that it completely justified a crime that provided no proof of necessity. The court did not argue that the days the man spent in jail already were appropriate or that some amount of community service, however small would be a fitting punishment, it argued that the man committed no crime at all.

[NineSpine]

Well I don't think I made either of the arguments in the first point but I do agree with at least one of them, that its wrong to steal because its my property. Unless I violate someone else's right to their property or well being then no one has the right to take my property or inflict harm upon me.

Still begging the question. You are appealing to the property system to justify the property system. Circular logic.

And I don't think anyone has brought up slavery at any point, if anything its being used as a buzzword because its a Sophistic argument thats meant to evoke emotion. Who is being forced to work against their will in a system supported by a state? There is no slavery by any logical definition of the word at any point here.

You keep appealing to existing property systems to justify the existing property systems. If that is logical, then it is logical to say that it would be wrong to steal a slave because a slave is, by definition, property under some property systems. See why you are begging the question now?

[Deleted]

The ruling really is out of the ordinary in that it completely justified a crime that provided no proof of necessity. The court did not argue that the days the man spent in jail already were appropriate or that some amount of community service, however small would be a fitting punishment, it argued that the man committed no crime at all.

I'm not really seeing the problem here.

[Blobfish]

No Wonder the Peoples Republic of China has sent Police to Italy

Chinese police are joining Italian officers on the streets of Rome and Milan in an experiment aimed at helping tourists from China feel safe, Italy’s interior ministry has announced.

The experiment is the first of its kind in Europe, China’s ambassador to Italy, Li Ruiyu, said at a meeting to announce the project, according to a statement from the Italian ministry.

The four Chinese officers, who were trained by Italians in Beijing, will wear the same uniforms they wear at home so their compatriots can recognise them easily.

More than 3 million Chinese tourists come to Italy every year, according to Liao Jinrong, the director general of the Chinese international co-operation bureau.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...treets-of-rome

[Hiricine]

No. Murder is an unlawful killing. That's it. It is 100% contingent on the existing laws.

Well unlawful and unjustified are two similar but distinct concepts. For example, if the country passed a law that said "execute all mmo champion forum users, who are also not allowed to defend themselves", and I killed someone acting as an agent to apprehend and execute me, it would be justified but unlawful, and be a killing. Simply because a law might CALL it a murder does not make it a murder, just as passing a law that defines my big toe as a computer monitor doesn't make it a computer monitor.

[NineSpine]

The ruling really is out of the ordinary in that it completely justified a crime that provided no proof of necessity. The court did not argue that the days the man spent in jail already were appropriate or that some amount of community service, however small would be a fitting punishment, it argued that the man committed no crime at all.

"a crime that provided no proof of necessity."

That's quite a definitive statement, and it is a positive assertion. Please prove it.

[Hiricine]

I'm not really seeing the problem here.

A man who provided no proof or even concept of necessity violated someone else's property and a court declared he committed no criminal act when said court has a duty to punish criminals who violate property rights. I've been in an argument the last few pages about whether or not the man was in a life or death or life-or-limb situation, which he clearly wasn't.

[Cthulhu 2020]

From what I understood from the second time he admitted it, he's an innocent victim in this and it's only an involuntary reaction to other people's shitposting.

Compartmentalization must be hard with you guys, considering I said I had been seriously posting at first in those threads then when people were very obviously just trolling I switched to shit posting.

I've found that people's reading comprehension skills are severely lacking on this forum. Either that or because they want to attack someone, they deliberately misunderstand what was said just to make their attack. Either way, it seems like you're the shit poster here.

My original point still stands, it's hilarious when you see people who welfare shame start saying "Well why didn't they ask for heeeeeeeeeeeelp?!"

[NineSpine]

Well unlawful and unjustified are two similar but distinct concepts. For example, if the country passed a law that said "execute all mmo champion forum users, who are also not allowed to defend themselves", and I killed someone acting as an agent to apprehend and execute me, it would be justified but unlawful, and be a killing. Simply because a law might CALL it a murder does not make it a murder, just as passing a law that defines my big toe as a computer monitor doesn't make it a computer monitor.

No, you are confusing the issue. A murder is very, very specifically an unlawful killing. It is a legal term. In fact, it doesn't even include many kinds of unlawful killing, only premeditated killing. This is kind of the whole point I am making: You can't appeal to the existing legal system to justify the existing legal system. A murder isn't wrong just because it is by definition illegal.

- - - Updated - - -

A man who provided no proof or even concept of necessity violated someone else's property and a court declared he committed no criminal act when said court has a duty to punish criminals who violate property rights. I've been in an argument the last few pages about whether or not the man was in a life or death or life-or-limb situation, which he clearly wasn't.

Prove it, please.

[Dextroden]

Compartmentalization must be hard with you guys, considering I said I had been seriously posting at first in those threads then when people were very obviously just trolling I switched to shit posting.

I've found that people's reading comprehension skills are severely lacking on this forum. Either that or because they want to attack someone, they deliberately misunderstand what was said just to make their attack. Either way, it seems like you're the shit poster here.

Which is why you came in here shitposting. Because you are a serious poster.