5 ms·

Its a much better idea to fix the fact that so many people are in such a shitty situation that they are willing to steal a worthless radio.

PopeDotNinja 8y ago
> a worthless radio In 1999, I sold the stock radio from my 2000 Dodge Neon on eBay for $40!
- OldManAndTheCpp 8y ago
  A time traveling radio does seem pretty novel, to be fair.
  - shrikant 8y ago
    Weirdly enough, the 2000 Dodge Neon was available for sale from early-to-mid 1999, so parent commenter may not be mistaken!
    - PopeDotNinja 8y ago
      > Weirdly enough, the 2000 Dodge Neon was available for sale from early-to-mid 1999, so parent commenter may not be mistaken! This is correct :) I bought the 2000 model in October or November of '99.
AckSyn 8y ago
It's a much better idea for people to have instilled into them decent morals and standards, than to hand them what they want as a justification for their thievery.
doctorpangloss 8y ago
I really don’t think the people breaking into cars can ever be spun into protagonists, of any story. Advocating for them harms the message of helping the downtrodden and treating them humanely, because it seems totally out of touch with the emotional impact of totally gratuitous property crime on its victims.
- djrobstep 8y ago
  Wrong, if you're struggling to survive, "stealing" from the comfortable is absolutely morally right. The fact that people are forced into such awful situations strengthens the message of helping the downtrodden: Everybody is entitled to the necessities of life, so as to never be placed in such a predicament.
  - throwawaysea 8y ago
    A lot of those folks who are committing petty crimes aren’t downtrodden struggling to survive though. Many are junkies and a class of permanently homeless that refuse help/services and refuse to rejoin society. Why should law abiding citizens have to bear their costs?
    - djrobstep 8y ago
      Dealing with drug addiction isn't a struggle?
      - throwawaysea 8y ago
        It might be a struggle at some stage of addiction, where personal choice is less accessible. But at some earlier stage, it is a personal choice to experiment with hard drugs in the first place, and there is individual agency and responsibility associated with that choice. Coddling addicts (by possibly excusing/overlooking any associated criminal actions) because it is a struggle in a later stage of addiction seems like a removal of the disincentives that keep people from going down that path in the first place. Also, I really am not for social support or a different (relaxed) enforcement of the law for addicts _above_ the protection of law-abiding citizens and their property.
    - renholder 8y ago
      >Why should law-abiding citizens have to bear their costs? You seem to negate the fact that the costs are burdened by law-abiding citizens to have them in jail/prison, anyway. Certainly, the costs of social structures for those people are far less than a for-profit system of incarceration; which, as it is currently structured, only benefits from a minimum volume of people being maintained in the incarceration system, itself? You admit that there's different classes of people who commit the petty crimes, so that - in and of itself - demonstrates that each class would require specific redress for their situation. Finally, since they are petty crimes, in and of themselves, wouldn't facial recognition be rough the equivalent of dropping a bomb on an ant hill? The scope of the effect far-outweighs the supposed benefits.

PopeDotNinja 8y ago

> a worthless radio In 1999, I sold the stock radio from my 2000 Dodge Neon on eBay for $40!

OldManAndTheCpp 8y ago
A time traveling radio does seem pretty novel, to be fair.
- shrikant 8y ago
  Weirdly enough, the 2000 Dodge Neon was available for sale from early-to-mid 1999, so parent commenter may not be mistaken!
  - PopeDotNinja 8y ago
    > Weirdly enough, the 2000 Dodge Neon was available for sale from early-to-mid 1999, so parent commenter may not be mistaken! This is correct :) I bought the 2000 model in October or November of '99.

AckSyn 8y ago

It's a much better idea for people to have instilled into them decent morals and standards, than to hand them what they want as a justification for their thievery.

doctorpangloss 8y ago

I really don’t think the people breaking into cars can ever be spun into protagonists, of any story. Advocating for them harms the message of helping the downtrodden and treating them humanely, because it seems totally out of touch with the emotional impact of totally gratuitous property crime on its victims.

djrobstep 8y ago
Wrong, if you're struggling to survive, "stealing" from the comfortable is absolutely morally right. The fact that people are forced into such awful situations strengthens the message of helping the downtrodden: Everybody is entitled to the necessities of life, so as to never be placed in such a predicament.
- throwawaysea 8y ago
  A lot of those folks who are committing petty crimes aren’t downtrodden struggling to survive though. Many are junkies and a class of permanently homeless that refuse help/services and refuse to rejoin society. Why should law abiding citizens have to bear their costs?
  - djrobstep 8y ago
    Dealing with drug addiction isn't a struggle?
    - throwawaysea 8y ago
      It might be a struggle at some stage of addiction, where personal choice is less accessible. But at some earlier stage, it is a personal choice to experiment with hard drugs in the first place, and there is individual agency and responsibility associated with that choice. Coddling addicts (by possibly excusing/overlooking any associated criminal actions) because it is a struggle in a later stage of addiction seems like a removal of the disincentives that keep people from going down that path in the first place. Also, I really am not for social support or a different (relaxed) enforcement of the law for addicts _above_ the protection of law-abiding citizens and their property.
  - renholder 8y ago
    >Why should law-abiding citizens have to bear their costs? You seem to negate the fact that the costs are burdened by law-abiding citizens to have them in jail/prison, anyway. Certainly, the costs of social structures for those people are far less than a for-profit system of incarceration; which, as it is currently structured, only benefits from a minimum volume of people being maintained in the incarceration system, itself? You admit that there's different classes of people who commit the petty crimes, so that - in and of itself - demonstrates that each class would require specific redress for their situation. Finally, since they are petty crimes, in and of themselves, wouldn't facial recognition be rough the equivalent of dropping a bomb on an ant hill? The scope of the effect far-outweighs the supposed benefits.