3 ms·

PP said that it was _compared_ to an illegal act, which the author did. > (Theft by violent means is called robbery.) (Legally, that's not accurate.) _Morall

PP said that it was _compared_ to an illegal act, which the author did. > (Theft by violent means is called robbery.) (Legally, that's not accurate.) _Morally_, all theft is violence. Shoplifting a pack of chewing gum is extremely minor, almost zero but it's not zero. Shoplifting also includes the "flash mobs" which run in and steam items, or the folks who walk into stores (e.g. in California) with trash bags and loot as much as they can fit because they know the employees won't touch them and the legal punishment is almost zero.

maxbond 3y ago
I'm open to theft being violence (though skeptical, that seems to elevate property to the moral status of a person), but comparing something to theft isn't in the same universe as incitement to violence. When you say someone has implied that someone else is "inciting violence" I think the comparison has broken down and we're getting into accusation territory. That certainly wasn't what I meant by shoplifting but if I said, "we should all start going to big box stores with trash bags and stealing stuff, because the employees will not resist us and we won't have to fear a physical altercation" (again, don't do that, that's not my real position, you shouldn't steal shit) I don't think that is reasonable to call "inciting violence." Inciting violence is literally calling for people to be hurt or killed. I don't really want to quibble about the precise definition of words, my problem with that comment was that it seemed like an escalation from nowhere, disconnected from what the author was actually arguing for.
- brightlancer 3y ago
  > Inciting violence is literally calling for people to be hurt or killed. Is taking things that belong to someone else not hurting them? If people steal so much that the business has to close, have the owners been hurt? The employees are now out of jobs -- have they been hurt? Maybe it doesn't force the business to close, they just have to raise prices on everyone else. Or they have to lay one of their employees off. Petty theft is still theft. Small injuries are still injuries. Small violence is still violence.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    I feel like we're talking across purposes, I'm not here to debate deontology or the definition of violence.
  - haswell 3y ago
    > Petty theft is still theft. Small injuries are still injuries. Small violence is still violence. Agreed. But at no point does theft automatically equate to violence. Theft can be violent. Not all theft is violent. Equating everything to “violence” is just significantly lowering the resolution and intelligibility of the concept conveyed.
- darkerside 3y ago
  And when somebody does defend the store and the situation becomes violent, will you feel the same way? Maybe I just think theft is worse, and that violence is relatively less unacceptable than you do.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    How does this relate to the article and how does it support your assertion the author accused Newport of inciting violence? (To make my ethical position explicit, I believe in nonviolence and I don't believe in theft. But I don't think that's relevant to a discussion about a turn of phrase.)

maxbond 3y ago

I'm open to theft being violence (though skeptical, that seems to elevate property to the moral status of a person), but comparing something to theft isn't in the same universe as incitement to violence. When you say someone has implied that someone else is "inciting violence" I think the comparison has broken down and we're getting into accusation territory. That certainly wasn't what I meant by shoplifting but if I said, "we should all start going to big box stores with trash bags and stealing stuff, because the employees will not resist us and we won't have to fear a physical altercation" (again, don't do that, that's not my real position, you shouldn't steal shit) I don't think that is reasonable to call "inciting violence." Inciting violence is literally calling for people to be hurt or killed. I don't really want to quibble about the precise definition of words, my problem with that comment was that it seemed like an escalation from nowhere, disconnected from what the author was actually arguing for.

brightlancer 3y ago
> Inciting violence is literally calling for people to be hurt or killed. Is taking things that belong to someone else not hurting them? If people steal so much that the business has to close, have the owners been hurt? The employees are now out of jobs -- have they been hurt? Maybe it doesn't force the business to close, they just have to raise prices on everyone else. Or they have to lay one of their employees off. Petty theft is still theft. Small injuries are still injuries. Small violence is still violence.
- maxbond 3y ago
  I feel like we're talking across purposes, I'm not here to debate deontology or the definition of violence.
- haswell 3y ago
  > Petty theft is still theft. Small injuries are still injuries. Small violence is still violence. Agreed. But at no point does theft automatically equate to violence. Theft can be violent. Not all theft is violent. Equating everything to “violence” is just significantly lowering the resolution and intelligibility of the concept conveyed.
darkerside 3y ago
And when somebody does defend the store and the situation becomes violent, will you feel the same way? Maybe I just think theft is worse, and that violence is relatively less unacceptable than you do.
- maxbond 3y ago
  How does this relate to the article and how does it support your assertion the author accused Newport of inciting violence? (To make my ethical position explicit, I believe in nonviolence and I don't believe in theft. But I don't think that's relevant to a discussion about a turn of phrase.)