4 ms·

I mean, imagine this. I walk up to a cashier, and he by accident drops $10 in my shopping cart (without me noticing). Then he proceeds to inconspicuously take

I mean, imagine this. I walk up to a cashier, and he by accident drops $10 in my shopping cart (without me noticing). Then he proceeds to inconspicuously take those $10, look at it, and silently put it back in the bag (again, without me noticing). I discover those $10 only when I get home. I had no idea it was even there, and the store employee definitely looked through every single item in my bag and saw those $10, but just decided to put it back there. Did I steal those $10? I struggle to even call it something like "theft by accident", which would be if the cashier forgets to scan an item because they didn't notice it. In my hypothetical scenario, the cashier noticed and picked up the item.

boomboomsubban 7y ago
>Did I steal those $10? Yes. You have acquired it without the intentional consent of the owner, who presumably thought it was your $10. I don't think it's a crime nor would I find you personally responsible.
- yibg 7y ago
  That’s a weird definition of theft. By this definition if I pick up a quarter off the sidewalk I’m stealing too.
  - boomboomsubban 7y ago
    If you picked up a hundred dollar bill in the same situation and didn't have any intention of returning it, would you consider that stealing? My definition of theft doesn't presume it was legally or morally wrong, so many innocent actions would still be theft.
    - veggieburglar 7y ago
      Return it to who? If you saw someone drop it, sure. If you know the owner of the hundred dollar bill, sure. But otherwise? I think you just have an odd definition of theft. From Merriam Webster: 1. a : the act of stealing specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it 1. b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property 2 : a stolen base in baseball 3 obsolete : something stolen
      - boomboomsubban 7y ago
        >If you saw someone drop it, sure. If you know the owner of the hundred dollar bill, sure. But otherwise? Presumably the owner would retrace their steps and try to find what was lost. Most people would do this for a hundred dollars, but you can also imagine a child doing it for a quarter. Is it theft if you say you haven't seen it? How about if you never run into the person but intended to say you haven't seen it? At what point it becomes "theft" is tenuous at best. I'd rather call many things "theft" and withhold judgment until I learn the details as it limits instantaneous judgments upon hearing of a thief. As for your definition, at what point something becomes unlawful is never clear, and nobody's actual definitions for concepts ever mirror a dictionary definition.
        yibg 7y ago
        I think you're just taking a word that already has a definition and redefining it. Or at least greatly stretching the definition. And assuming theft unless otherwise proven? That's weird to me too, especially combined with your follow up of limiting instantaneous judgement. How on earth is assuming someone committed theft limiting judgement?
        boomboomsubban 7y ago
        >think you're just taking a word that already has a definition and redefining it. Everybody does that all of the time, your definition for words are based on your own experiences. >And assuming theft unless otherwise proven? No, assuming theft. More things are called theft. >How on earth is assuming someone committed theft limiting judgement? You still think that a thief is a bad person. I assume basically everyone has committed theft, so withhold judgment until I have more information.
        yibg 7y ago
        There are common definitions of what words mean. If the meaning of words become arbitrary then we lose the ability to communicate effectively. An action was taken, e.g. picking up a quarter off the side walk. There is no need to put another label on it randomly, just call it what it is, picking up a quarter. By using a word that already has a commonly accepted meaning, and a negative one at that, and associate it with an innocent action you're already labeling it in a negative way for everyone else. Everyone (or at least majority of other people) thinks a thief is a bad person. If only you don't think so and label someone else doing nothing bad a thief, then you're labeling someone a bad person. It's like me calling you a rapist. But I don't mean rapist in the typical way, I just mean anyone that has sex. So to me a rapist is not a bad person and I'll withhold judgement until I have more information. So I can just go around calling you a rapist right?

boomboomsubban 7y ago

>Did I steal those $10? Yes. You have acquired it without the intentional consent of the owner, who presumably thought it was your $10. I don't think it's a crime nor would I find you personally responsible.

yibg 7y ago
That’s a weird definition of theft. By this definition if I pick up a quarter off the sidewalk I’m stealing too.
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  If you picked up a hundred dollar bill in the same situation and didn't have any intention of returning it, would you consider that stealing? My definition of theft doesn't presume it was legally or morally wrong, so many innocent actions would still be theft.
  - veggieburglar 7y ago
    Return it to who? If you saw someone drop it, sure. If you know the owner of the hundred dollar bill, sure. But otherwise? I think you just have an odd definition of theft. From Merriam Webster: 1. a : the act of stealing specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it 1. b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property 2 : a stolen base in baseball 3 obsolete : something stolen
    - boomboomsubban 7y ago
      >If you saw someone drop it, sure. If you know the owner of the hundred dollar bill, sure. But otherwise? Presumably the owner would retrace their steps and try to find what was lost. Most people would do this for a hundred dollars, but you can also imagine a child doing it for a quarter. Is it theft if you say you haven't seen it? How about if you never run into the person but intended to say you haven't seen it? At what point it becomes "theft" is tenuous at best. I'd rather call many things "theft" and withhold judgment until I learn the details as it limits instantaneous judgments upon hearing of a thief. As for your definition, at what point something becomes unlawful is never clear, and nobody's actual definitions for concepts ever mirror a dictionary definition.
      - yibg 7y ago
        I think you're just taking a word that already has a definition and redefining it. Or at least greatly stretching the definition. And assuming theft unless otherwise proven? That's weird to me too, especially combined with your follow up of limiting instantaneous judgement. How on earth is assuming someone committed theft limiting judgement?
        boomboomsubban 7y ago
        >think you're just taking a word that already has a definition and redefining it. Everybody does that all of the time, your definition for words are based on your own experiences. >And assuming theft unless otherwise proven? No, assuming theft. More things are called theft. >How on earth is assuming someone committed theft limiting judgement? You still think that a thief is a bad person. I assume basically everyone has committed theft, so withhold judgment until I have more information.
        yibg 7y ago
        There are common definitions of what words mean. If the meaning of words become arbitrary then we lose the ability to communicate effectively. An action was taken, e.g. picking up a quarter off the side walk. There is no need to put another label on it randomly, just call it what it is, picking up a quarter. By using a word that already has a commonly accepted meaning, and a negative one at that, and associate it with an innocent action you're already labeling it in a negative way for everyone else. Everyone (or at least majority of other people) thinks a thief is a bad person. If only you don't think so and label someone else doing nothing bad a thief, then you're labeling someone a bad person. It's like me calling you a rapist. But I don't mean rapist in the typical way, I just mean anyone that has sex. So to me a rapist is not a bad person and I'll withhold judgement until I have more information. So I can just go around calling you a rapist right?