5 ms·

Property can be replaced. Lives can't. property < life at all times.

by Nursie 5y ago

bluesnowmonkey 5y ago
We make new people all the time.
- kleer001 5y ago
  some of it not even on purpose
- Nursie 5y ago
  You can't replace the life of the dead person though, you've taken that forever.
  - Eelongate 5y ago
    That's something for would-be thieves in Texas to keep in mind, isn't it? Is the catalytic converter worth your life?
  - 0x0nyandesu 5y ago
    Who cares?
  - bluesnowmonkey 5y ago
    Well you can’t replace anything, exactly. If your house burns down, and insurance builds a new one, it’s still a different house. Your dog dies and you get a new dog, it’s a different dog. If you say, people can’t be replaced because they’re just inherently irreplaceable, that’s a tautology.
    - Nursie 5y ago
      > If you say, people can’t be replaced because they’re just inherently irreplaceable, that’s a tautology. This line of argument is entirely disingenuous. My life, once taken, cannot be given back to me. Neither can any substitute life.
Mirioron 5y ago
But I don't get back the time I spent acquiring the property. I can't replace the two weeks of work it would take to buy a new one. And what if it gets stolen again?
- tikhonj 5y ago
  It sounds like you're saying that anybody who wastes my time deserves death? Pretty sure busybody neighbors would be far ahead of thieves in that line...
- Nursie 5y ago
  But you can get the property back or be financially made whole in a variety of ways. This really is a bizarre line of reasoning.
  - 0x0nyandesu 5y ago
    I actually think your reasoning is bizarre. Not all life is equal.
    - Nursie 5y ago
      > Not all life is equal. That's not relevant to the argument at hand, nor is it a claim I have made.
      - 0x0nyandesu 5y ago
        You keep talking about how you can't take back killing. The thing is I don't want to take it back. The kind of person that would steal things that people rely on to survive has ceded their equal protection under the law.
        Nursie 5y ago
        > You keep talking about how you can't take back killing. Yes, which is one of the things that makes killing different from property theft. > The thing is I don't want to take it back. That's not relevant to the discussion here, which was one in which posters were claiming that their property represents part of their life, time they cannot get back, and thus taking it is somehow equivalent to taking a life. My point was that this is a false equivalence. You do not appear to be making such an equivalence argument, so it's hardly a surprise that my counterpoint doesn't apply to whatever your reasoning is. It's like jumping into an argument about which shade of green is better and saying "My favourite colour is red". Uh, good for you I guess.
alex_sf 5y ago
By that logic it should be legal to kill people stealing things that are irreplaceable. Mona Lisa, Faberge Eggs, Mom's ashes?
- Nursie 5y ago
  That logic wasn't meant to be exhaustive. Even an irreplaceable thing can be recovered from a thief. A life taken cannot be. FWIW I don't believe that even making the comparison is valid. By the time you're weighing up stuff against literal human life, you've already gone wrong.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - pclmulqdq 5y ago
    We weigh stuff against human lives all the time. Cars, bridges, buildings, and industrial machines all make tradeoffs between safety and cost. We generally value a random life at about $7-10 million - much less than a faberge egg. In reality, adding up all the grief of loved ones, $7 million might be about right. Treating life as some sort of priceless treasure really is divorced from reality too. I think most people would choose to shoot an arsonist before they could burn the Mona Lisa, and that's totally rational.
    - Nursie 5y ago
      We tend to evaluate risk like that. We don't directly talk about buying a death for a certain amount of money. > I think most people would choose to shoot an arsonist before they could burn the Mona Lisa, and that's totally rational. I think you might be surprised at how many didn't think that was all that reasonable.
      - alex_sf 5y ago
        This modern softness is absurd. Let the Mona Lisa burn, let the Library of Alexandria burn, bomb the Louvre. It's ok, it's never worth harming someone to prevent. We'll be polite and refer to it as pacifism, but the truth is it's cowardice. This extreme pacifism, if actually practiced by anyone not so absurdly privileged to be able to take that stance, would lead to the downfall of civilization. > I think you might be surprised at how many didn't think that was all that reasonable. The magnitude of my disgust would seem to be growing, yes.
xboxnolifes 5y ago
irreplaceable does not imply valuable. Every rock is completely unique, and thus irreplaceable.

Property can be replaced. Lives can't. property < life at all times.

by Nursie 5y ago

Property can be replaced. Lives can't. property < life at all times.

bluesnowmonkey 5y ago

We make new people all the time.

kleer001 5y ago
some of it not even on purpose
Nursie 5y ago
You can't replace the life of the dead person though, you've taken that forever.
- Eelongate 5y ago
  That's something for would-be thieves in Texas to keep in mind, isn't it? Is the catalytic converter worth your life?
- 0x0nyandesu 5y ago
  Who cares?
- bluesnowmonkey 5y ago
  Well you can’t replace anything, exactly. If your house burns down, and insurance builds a new one, it’s still a different house. Your dog dies and you get a new dog, it’s a different dog. If you say, people can’t be replaced because they’re just inherently irreplaceable, that’s a tautology.
  - Nursie 5y ago
    > If you say, people can’t be replaced because they’re just inherently irreplaceable, that’s a tautology. This line of argument is entirely disingenuous. My life, once taken, cannot be given back to me. Neither can any substitute life.

Mirioron 5y ago

But I don't get back the time I spent acquiring the property. I can't replace the two weeks of work it would take to buy a new one. And what if it gets stolen again?

tikhonj 5y ago
It sounds like you're saying that anybody who wastes my time deserves death? Pretty sure busybody neighbors would be far ahead of thieves in that line...
Nursie 5y ago
But you can get the property back or be financially made whole in a variety of ways. This really is a bizarre line of reasoning.
- 0x0nyandesu 5y ago
  I actually think your reasoning is bizarre. Not all life is equal.
  - Nursie 5y ago
    > Not all life is equal. That's not relevant to the argument at hand, nor is it a claim I have made.
    - 0x0nyandesu 5y ago
      You keep talking about how you can't take back killing. The thing is I don't want to take it back. The kind of person that would steal things that people rely on to survive has ceded their equal protection under the law.
      - Nursie 5y ago
        > You keep talking about how you can't take back killing. Yes, which is one of the things that makes killing different from property theft. > The thing is I don't want to take it back. That's not relevant to the discussion here, which was one in which posters were claiming that their property represents part of their life, time they cannot get back, and thus taking it is somehow equivalent to taking a life. My point was that this is a false equivalence. You do not appear to be making such an equivalence argument, so it's hardly a surprise that my counterpoint doesn't apply to whatever your reasoning is. It's like jumping into an argument about which shade of green is better and saying "My favourite colour is red". Uh, good for you I guess.

alex_sf 5y ago

By that logic it should be legal to kill people stealing things that are irreplaceable. Mona Lisa, Faberge Eggs, Mom's ashes?

Nursie 5y ago
That logic wasn't meant to be exhaustive. Even an irreplaceable thing can be recovered from a thief. A life taken cannot be. FWIW I don't believe that even making the comparison is valid. By the time you're weighing up stuff against literal human life, you've already gone wrong.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- pclmulqdq 5y ago
  We weigh stuff against human lives all the time. Cars, bridges, buildings, and industrial machines all make tradeoffs between safety and cost. We generally value a random life at about $7-10 million - much less than a faberge egg. In reality, adding up all the grief of loved ones, $7 million might be about right. Treating life as some sort of priceless treasure really is divorced from reality too. I think most people would choose to shoot an arsonist before they could burn the Mona Lisa, and that's totally rational.
  - Nursie 5y ago
    We tend to evaluate risk like that. We don't directly talk about buying a death for a certain amount of money. > I think most people would choose to shoot an arsonist before they could burn the Mona Lisa, and that's totally rational. I think you might be surprised at how many didn't think that was all that reasonable.
    - alex_sf 5y ago
      This modern softness is absurd. Let the Mona Lisa burn, let the Library of Alexandria burn, bomb the Louvre. It's ok, it's never worth harming someone to prevent. We'll be polite and refer to it as pacifism, but the truth is it's cowardice. This extreme pacifism, if actually practiced by anyone not so absurdly privileged to be able to take that stance, would lead to the downfall of civilization. > I think you might be surprised at how many didn't think that was all that reasonable. The magnitude of my disgust would seem to be growing, yes.

xboxnolifes 5y ago

irreplaceable does not imply valuable. Every rock is completely unique, and thus irreplaceable.