3 ms·

Society actually works a lot better if every possible way to steal from your neighbor isn't considered fair game.

by justrealist 3y ago

JKCalhoun 3y ago
At what point is it negligence on the part of the manufacturer?
- justrealist 3y ago
  Society works better if every exploitable loophole is not considered a valid excuse to steal from your neighbor.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    You're talking past each other.
    - justrealist 3y ago
      Through, not past.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        I have no idea what that means. Unless you mean "talking through" in the sense of teaching a lesson, because you're not. Your argument does not invalidate what they are saying, or bring any notable information to light. You merely started a waste-of-time tangent. Theft bad, everyone knows that.
        justrealist 3y ago
        They are are trying to weaken the societal obligation of not stealing by punting the obligation on equipment manufacturers to make things hard to steal. It is cowardly and weak to abuse the legal system to compensate for societal problems by shifting blame onto easy targets. I have no interest in entertaining that line of reasoning.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        It's not punting to go after negligence. And saying the goal is to weaken obligations against stealing, not even a side effect? You're throwing up quite a strawman there. And a manufacturer is not an "easy target" at all. If suing a big manufacturer is easy in some circumstance, it means they screwed up badly.
        justrealist 3y ago
        It's shifting responsibility. And yes, it is an easy target, because the goal is to find someone to yell at; nobody cares about winning lawsuits. It's about DAs finding a scapegoat to yell at, to avoid the fact that they have failed to disincentivize crime. It's not negligence because nobody should be under any obligation to defend their property against theft. It's the job of the state to punish crime.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        > It's shifting responsibility. If you design a dispenser that dispenses at the wrong time, you have some responsibility. > And yes, it is an easy target, because the goal is to find someone to yell at; nobody cares about winning lawsuits. If you're not going to win, you lose even more money. Why would you file it? > It's about DAs finding a scapegoat to yell at, That has nothing to do with lawsuits. > to avoid the fact that they have failed to disincentivize crime. It's not possible to go after every little thing. > It's not negligence because nobody should be under any obligation to defend their property against theft. I'd better never have you watch my property, if you think there's no obligation at all to defend things. Leaving valuable items in the middle of the sidewalk is negligent, even though it's a crime to take it.
        justrealist 3y ago
        Do you believe women bear responsibility as victims of sexual violence if they put themselves in unsafe circumstances?

Society actually works a lot better if every possible way to steal from your neighbor isn't considered fair game.

JKCalhoun 3y ago

At what point is it negligence on the part of the manufacturer?

justrealist 3y ago
Society works better if every exploitable loophole is not considered a valid excuse to steal from your neighbor.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  You're talking past each other.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    Through, not past.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      I have no idea what that means. Unless you mean "talking through" in the sense of teaching a lesson, because you're not. Your argument does not invalidate what they are saying, or bring any notable information to light. You merely started a waste-of-time tangent. Theft bad, everyone knows that.
      - justrealist 3y ago
        They are are trying to weaken the societal obligation of not stealing by punting the obligation on equipment manufacturers to make things hard to steal. It is cowardly and weak to abuse the legal system to compensate for societal problems by shifting blame onto easy targets. I have no interest in entertaining that line of reasoning.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        It's not punting to go after negligence. And saying the goal is to weaken obligations against stealing, not even a side effect? You're throwing up quite a strawman there. And a manufacturer is not an "easy target" at all. If suing a big manufacturer is easy in some circumstance, it means they screwed up badly.
        justrealist 3y ago
        It's shifting responsibility. And yes, it is an easy target, because the goal is to find someone to yell at; nobody cares about winning lawsuits. It's about DAs finding a scapegoat to yell at, to avoid the fact that they have failed to disincentivize crime. It's not negligence because nobody should be under any obligation to defend their property against theft. It's the job of the state to punish crime.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        > It's shifting responsibility. If you design a dispenser that dispenses at the wrong time, you have some responsibility. > And yes, it is an easy target, because the goal is to find someone to yell at; nobody cares about winning lawsuits. If you're not going to win, you lose even more money. Why would you file it? > It's about DAs finding a scapegoat to yell at, That has nothing to do with lawsuits. > to avoid the fact that they have failed to disincentivize crime. It's not possible to go after every little thing. > It's not negligence because nobody should be under any obligation to defend their property against theft. I'd better never have you watch my property, if you think there's no obligation at all to defend things. Leaving valuable items in the middle of the sidewalk is negligent, even though it's a crime to take it.
        justrealist 3y ago
        Do you believe women bear responsibility as victims of sexual violence if they put themselves in unsafe circumstances?