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

[Mehrunes]

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.

Well, I'm not sure about Italian criminal code (couldn't find an English version of the first half), but Polish criminal code defines a crime (among other aspects) as an act whose societal harm is higher than trifling. If an act is still harmful, but in a trifling way, it would not be a crime. Now, as I said, I have not read the Italian criminal code, but I have read their criminal procedure one, and there were many similarities and obvious influences from German law in the both Italian and Polish law. So chances are there are similarities here as well. If that's the case and Italy has a similar concept of crime, it would not be beyond the scope of the law for their Supreme Court to make this ruling. They would just make a clarification what the "trifling" or their equivalent of the concept entails more precisely.

[Hiricine]

"a crime that provided no proof of necessity."

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

If self-ownership and property ownership is a fundamental concept, and you are attempting to argue that someone has a right to violate said property out of necessity, it would be a positive assertion to prove that necessity. If you went into someone elses house and shot them in the head claiming that you were in danger, you would have a burden to prove said danger, the person's family wouldn't have to prove that you were NOT in danger.

[Cthulhu 2020]

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

And what part of what I said is shit posting?

I've pointed out your inconsistencies, and you seem mad that your past overzealous criticism of welfare is being pointed out.

[Mormolyce]

Where have I ever done this? I've been in here marveling at people justify theft because "it would cost more to prosecute him".

You realise that happens all the time yeah? The cops really don't want to bother prosecuting measly petty crimes to the value of a few bucks that would cost the justice system thousands of dollars. I've seen it personally.

[Hiricine]

Well, I'm not sure about Italian criminal code (couldn't find an English version of the first half), but Polish criminal code defines a crime (among other aspects) as an act whose societal harm is higher than trifling. If an act is still harmful, but in a trifling way, it would not be a crime. Now, as I said, I have not read the Italian criminal code, but I have read their criminal procedure one, and there were many similarities and obvious influences from German law in the both Italian and Polish law. So chances are there are similarities here as well. If that's the case and Italy has a similar concept of crime, it would not be beyond the scope of the law for their Supreme Court to make this ruling. They would just make a clarification what the "trifling" or their equivalent of the concept entails more precisely.

Assuming Italian law allowed it, it would still not justify the actions of the man from a moral standpoint, and the idea that there is a threshold before something immoral becomes a crime when the entire purpose of a legal system is to protect the property and prevent harm to the public is flawed.

[Deleted]

Assuming Italian law allowed it, it would still not justify the actions of the man from a moral standpoint, and the idea that there is a threshold before something immoral becomes a crime when the entire purpose of a legal system is to protect the property and prevent harm to the public is flawed.

If the people you are stealing food from don't suffer anything else than a minor economical loss, then yes, it would be justified from a moral standpoint. If you steal from someone else that's in a bad situation regarding food, then that's another situation.

[Dextroden]

You realise that happens all the time yeah? The cops really don't want to bother prosecuting measly petty crimes to the value of a few bucks that would cost the justice system thousands of dollars. I've seen it personally.

Did a court set precedent that this isn't a crime, keeping on the table for a legal defense for theft?

Again, I point to all the people in here justifying theft if it's less than the processing fees.

[NineSpine]

If self-ownership and property ownership is a fundamental concept, and you are attempting to argue that someone has a right to violate said property out of necessity, it would be a positive assertion to prove that necessity. If you went into someone elses house and shot them in the head claiming that you were in danger, you would have a burden to prove said danger, the person's family wouldn't have to prove that you were NOT in danger.

You are treating "property" as a singular concept, and it isn't. It encompasses literally infinite systems, including systems of slavery. It is not a fundamental concept by itself.

You made a positive assertion. Saying that something is definitively not true IS a positive assertion. In fact, you are even wrong legally depending on the state. In some states, a self defense argument actually does not shift the burden of proof to the defendant.

You said that he was definitely not in dire need of food. Prove it.

- - - Updated - - -

Assuming Italian law allowed it, it would still not justify the actions of the man from a moral standpoint, and the idea that there is a threshold before something immoral becomes a crime when the entire purpose of a legal system is to protect the property and prevent harm to the public is flawed.

So doesn't that mean that an economic system that doesn't prevent harm to the public is inherently immoral?

[Dextroden]

If the people you are stealing food from don't suffer anything else than a minor economical loss, then yes, it would be justified from a moral standpoint. If you steal from someone else that's in a bad situation regarding food, then that's another situation.

Because people don't get fired from stores they work at when shit gets stolen?

[Deleted]

Because people don't get fired from stores they work at when shit gets stolen?

Never heard of that happening unless it's the employee who steal themselves.

[Mehrunes]

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.

And yet you threw a fit immediately afterwards when it was brought up that you do indeed shitpost, per your own admission, and then tried to make your own shitposting to be less bad than the shitposting of the people that caused you to shitpost in the first place. Which is what I mocked just now. It may come of as a surprise to you, but I do *gasp* remember what was said in that thread. Quite fitting that you brought up compartmentalization though.

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.

I did not expect this level of self-awareness from you. Then again it's extremely unlikely it is that and my faith is most likely misplaced.

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?!"

I'm not sure why you're directing this at me.

Never heard of that happening unless it's the employee who steal themselves.

Well, it could be considered negligence. Especially depending on the circumstances.

[Hiricine]

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 - - -



Prove it, please.

Murder exists outside of a legal system. If I go out into space where there are no laws and kill someone without being justified, then its still a murder, though we are talking a mostly semantic argument at this point. A common ground I think we do have here is that unjustified killings do exist, if you want to say that it requires a law to define what is unjustified then you have a completely flawed concept of morality.

On the second note, the burden of proof would exist for those arguing that stealing is necessary, since stealing is universally wrong unless you're trying to argue that exception. If you want me to go out and prove that people AREN'T starving, I will burden you to first prove to me that Unicorns DON'T exist and that you AREN'T the second coming of Hitler.

[Mehrunes]

Assuming Italian law allowed it, it would still not justify the actions of the man from a moral standpoint, and the idea that there is a threshold before something immoral becomes a crime when the entire purpose of a legal system is to protect the property and prevent harm to the public is flawed.

But such thresholds exist in every criminal legal system in the world.

[Cthulhu 2020]

And yet you threw a fit immediately afterwards when it was brought up that you do indeed shitpost, per your own admission, and then tried to make your own shitposting to be less bad than the shitposting of the people that caused you to shitpost in the first place. Which is what I mocked just now. It may come of as a surprise to you, but I do *gasp* remember what was said in that thread. Quite fitting that you brought up compartmentalization though.

I admitted to shit posting in another thread when others were blatantly trolling, now whenever you see me you think "Oh man I'm totally not gonna take that guy seriously cause he shit posted once, even though I shit post all the time, even right now! I totally just brought up a completely irrelevant time from another completely different thread."

I did not expect this level of self-awareness from you. Then again it's extremely unlikely it is that and my faith is most likely misplaced.

It's an analysis of what you're doing at this very moment. You've brought up a completely irrelevant point from an entirely different thread that you're also wrong about just because you want to take a jab at me. At this point it would seem you're the shit poster here.

Did you actually have a point to what I was replying to Dextro in that he's blatantly criticized welfare recipients before, but now demands people seek help? Because it would seem you are dangerously off topic here bringing up an entirely irrelevant point from a completely different discussion just because you want to shit post.

[Dextroden]

Never heard of that happening unless it's the employee who steal themselves.

Friend, in addition to two people, got canned by Best Buy because a dude managed to swipe a bunch of usb drives while his associate kept them busy with customer chatter. A bag of chips isn't the same as technology, that's for sure, but I've even seen a guy at a convenience store get hardcore yelled at for three minutes straight in Haitian cause some teenagers swiped 4 bags. Underlings tend to catch shit for lost goods, even when they bear no responsibility.

But hey, that dude stuck it to Best Buy and those kids stuck it to the convenience store. Victimless crimes.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet you threw a fit immediately afterwards when it was brought up that you do indeed shitpost, per your own admission, and then tried to make your own shitposting to be less bad than the shitposting of the people that caused you to shitpost in the first place. Which is what I mocked just now. It may come of as a surprise to you, but I do *gasp* remember what was said in that thread. Quite fitting that you brought up compartmentalization though.




I did not expect this level of self-awareness from you. Then again it's extremely unlikely it is that and my faith is most likely misplaced.




I'm not sure why you're directing this at me.




Well, it could be considered negligence. Especially depending on the circumstances.

Because he has no evidence of me welfare hating and is now just swinging wildly.

[Klaiden Potugye]

So I can go into each shop and take $4-5 worth of food every day if I'm hungry? This opens the door to so much abuse. Of course all of the people saying it's ok never owned a store.

Everyone here dealing in hypothetical, and then you came and asked that question. Now lets imagine if 100 "hungry" people peruse the same store every other day.

No feelings for store owners whatsoever.

[Dextroden]

I admitted to shit posting in another thread when others were blatantly trolling, now whenever you see me you think "Oh man I'm totally not gonna take that guy seriously cause he shit posted once, even though I shit post all the time, even right now! I totally just brought up a completely irrelevant time from another completely different thread."






It's an analysis of what you're doing at this very moment. You've brought up a completely irrelevant point from an entirely different thread that you're also wrong about just because you want to take a jab at me. At this point it would seem you're the shit poster here.

Did you actually have a point to what I was replying to Dextro in that he's blatantly criticized welfare recipients before, but now demands people seek help? Because it would seem you are dangerously off topic here bringing up an entirely irrelevant point from a completely different discussion just because you want to shit post.

Actually, I brought it up. He commented on it and then you engaged us both.

So much for that reading comprehension.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Actually, I brought it up. He commented on it and then you engaged us both.

So much for that reading comprehension.

I'm just wondering if he actually had a point to his interjection, or if he himself is just shit posting, the very thing he's criticizing. Seems I've caught two hypocrites.

[Dextroden]

I'm just wondering if he actually had a point to his interjection, or if he himself is just shit posting, the very thing he's criticizing. Seems I've caught two hypocrites.

Man, your math must suck more than mine.

[NineSpine]

Murder exists outside of a legal system. If I go out into space where there are no laws and kill someone without being justified, then its still a murder, though we are talking a mostly semantic argument at this point. A common ground I think we do have here is that unjustified killings do exist, if you want to say that it requires a law to define what is unjustified then you have a completely flawed concept of morality.

What I'm telling you is that murder means an unlawful premeditated killing. That's the most basic definition of the term. That's why we don't convict every killer of murder. We have manslaughter, for example, when there is not premeditation. When someone is charged with murder and they argue self defense and win, they are found NOT GUILTY of murder, because the ruling is that the killing was not murder.

On the second note, the burden of proof would exist for those arguing that stealing is necessary, since stealing is universally wrong unless you're trying to argue that exception.

Jesus christ with the going around in circles here. Is it wrong for me to steal your slave because it is your property? No, so stealing is not universally wrong.

If you want me to go out and prove that people AREN'T starving, I will burden you to first prove to me that Unicorns DON'T exist and that you AREN'T the second coming of Hitler.

You are confused about how burden of proof works. If I say "There is a God", the burden of proof is on me. If you say "There is no God", the burden of proof is on YOU. That's a positive claim. Having a "no" or "not" in the phrase does not mean it is not a positive claim. You are arguing that this individual was not starving and in dire need of food. You have made this argument clearly and definitively, which means the burden of proof is on YOU.

Furthermore, the evidence has already been presented for the other side: The ruling of this judge. Since you so poorly understand logical fallacies and burden of proof, let me preempt your response of "That's an appeal to authority". An appeal to authority fallacy is when the authority is deemed infallible or when the authority being appealed to is not an authority. That applies in neither case here. The judge who actually heard the entire case IS a valid authority on the subject, and nobody is arguing that he is infallible.