Is it ever OK to steal? Katrina vs 8th commandment

[white_raven23]

How about a dark red? Which one?  ;-)

 

I didn't mean to derail your topic, TF. I felt that the mention of cannibalism was morally relative.

 

As for wine, a while back I asked my Anthropology professor about that. My curiosity about cannibalism did not rattle him at all. I have a good piece of bookshelf dedicated to cannibalism in culture, crime, and survival. Interesting stuff.

 

Anyway, my prof was the first to tell me about how the texture and consistency of human flesh was very close to pork. So for wine, you'd go for a nice blush.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

Anyway, my prof was the first to tell me about how the texture and consistency of human flesh was very close to pork.

I'm shocked. I was certain that, like any "exotic" meat, human would taste like chicken.

[white_raven23]

So I guess when biblegod said he'd cause women to to eat their children, that they were in effect breaking two taboos:  don't eat people, don't eat pork?  LOL

 

 

Funny enough, and I did read this somewhere, can't recall which book right this second.....but the ban on eating pork in the OT was not just because of trichonosis (sp). Another likely reason for the ban was because it's taste was very close to a delicacy (take a guess) often consumed in recently abandoned pagan beliefs.

 

Makes sense.....you don't want people reverting to former practices, you ban the ritual canibalism and any cuisine that might be a nostalgic "reminder".

[Guest Joseph]

It is never okay to steal. Not even in a disaster situation.

 

Just my two cents.

 

It is morons like this that run our country.

 

Their inability to function within a relative morality system due to circumstances beyond their control demonstrates that they are less likely to survive their environment...and thus they are the less evolved and will be less likely to breed within a given environment.

 

Either that or they were born with a silver spoon up their anal retentive assholes and do not know real need in the face of utter destruction of the civil way of life and thusly do not have the mental adaptability to function under such environments yet again leading to their exstinction.

 

The more I think about it, natural selection works quite well to get rid of utter morons every single day.

 

You stand back and starve and/or thirst to death in the name of some absolutist ideal...I'd shoot you and anyone else that got in my way of survival...and that include any supposed official to boot. In a time of survival you do not ask, you take mother fucker.

 

"Good, bad...I'm the one with the gun."

[Ms. K]

You can bet good money that were my family and I in a situation like Hurricane Katrina, I'd be stealing food, water, and necessary supplies. Especially in light of the ever so swift government response to tragedy...pardon my sarcasm.

[Guest Joseph]

That's a good poll topic too!

 

I'd have to say that I'm ok with cannibalism under necessary conditions (and with the right wine  )

 

In the right circumstance anyone would do anything in order to survive and anyone saying different is a liar.

 

I just hope they have some fava beans and a nice chianti around when the big one drops.

 

Now for our thought of the day:

 

In/under such circumstances, would it be racist to ask for white meat?

 

[spamandham]

Just putting in your six cents?

 

 

 

That's a good poll topic too!

 

I'd have to say that I'm ok with cannibalism under necessary conditions (and with the right wine  )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Preferably a nice Chianti ... and some fava beans.

 

 

drat, I just noticed the post right above mine

[Ouroboros]

Stealing or killing could be necessary for given situations, and I think the current law actually make a distinction about it too to some degree.

 

The constitution allows you to protect your property and family. And the idea was that you can do it with weapons too. (Nivek style)

 

When I was Christian my opinion was that it was never right to steal or kill.

[chefranden]

It is always ok to steal from the rich. But be careful, because the consequences are bad when the rich get pissed off. When the rich steal from the poor they generally get awards and good neighbor plaques. Funny no one notices that what is stolen from the poor is their lives which they sell for a pittance for some bread. I'm beginning to think that it may be a moral obligation to steal from the rich. It ought to be done for fun rather than profit though. Give the stuff to some poor guy that works 60+ hour weeks but will never have a plasma TV or a retirement for all his/her hard work.

 

UN Hits Back at US in Report Saying Parts of America Are as Poor as Third World

 

    By Paul Vallely

    The Independent UK

 

    Thursday 08 September 2005

 

    Parts of the United States are as poor as the Third World, according to a shocking United Nations report on global inequality.

 

    Claims that the New Orleans floods have laid bare a growing racial and economic divide in the US have, until now, been rejected by the American political establishment as emotional rhetoric. But yesterday's UN report provides statistical proof that for many - well beyond those affected by the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina - the great American Dream is an ongoing nightmare.

 

    The document constitutes a stinging attack on US policies at home and abroad in a fightback against moves by Washington to undermine next week's UN 60th anniversary conference which will be the biggest gathering of world leaders in history.

 

    The annual Human Development Report normally concerns itself with the Third World, but the 2005 edition scrutinises inequalities in health provision inside the US as part of a survey of how inequality worldwide is retarding the eradication of poverty.

 

    It reveals that the infant mortality rate has been rising in the US for the past five years - and is now the same as Malaysia. America's black children are twice as likely as whites to die before their first birthday.

 

    The report is bound to incense the Bush administration as it provides ammunition for critics who have claimed that the fiasco following Hurricane Katrina shows that Washington does not care about poor black Americans. But the 370-page document is critical of American policies towards poverty abroad as well as at home. And, in unusually outspoken language, it accuses the US of having "an overdeveloped military strategy and an under-developed strategy for human security".

 

    "There is an urgent need to develop a collective security framework that goes beyond military responses to terrorism," it continues. " Poverty and social breakdown are core components of the global security threat."

 

    The document, which was written by Kevin Watkins, the former head of research at Oxfam, will be seen as round two in the battle between the UN and the US, which regards the world body as an unnecessary constraint on its strategic interests and actions.

 

    Last month John Bolton, the new US ambassador to the UN, submitted 750 amendments to the draft declaration for next week's summit to strengthen the UN and review progress towards its Millennium Development Goals to halve world poverty by 2015.

 

    The report launched yesterday is a clear challenge to Washington. The Bush administration wants to replace multilateral solutions to international problems with a world order in which the US does as it likes on a bilateral basis.

 

    "This is the UN coming out all guns firing," said one UN insider. "It means that, even if we have a lame duck secretary general after the Volcker report (on the oil-for-food scandal), the rest of the organisation is not going to accept the US bilateralist agenda."

 

    The clash on world poverty centres on the US policy of promoting growth and trade liberalisation on the assumption that this will trickle down to the poor. But this will not stop children dying, the UN says. Growth alone will not reduce poverty so long as the poor are denied full access to health, education and other social provision. Among the world's poor, infant mortality is falling at less than half of the world average. To tackle that means tackling inequality - a message towards which John Bolton and his fellow US neocons are deeply hostile.

 

    India and China, the UN says, have been very successful in wealth creation but have not enabled the poor to share in the process. A rapid decline in child mortality has therefore not materialised. Indeed, when it comes to reducing infant deaths, India has now been overtaken by Bangladesh, which is only growing a third as fast.

 

    Poverty could be halved in just 17 years in Kenya if the poorest people were enabled to double the amount of economic growth they can achieve at present.

 

    Inequality within countries is as stark as the gaps between countries, the UN says. Poverty is not the only issue here. The death rate for girls in India is now 50 per cent higher than for boys. Gender bias means girls are not given the same food as boys and are not taken to clinics as often when they are ill. Foetal scanning has also reduced the number of girls born.

 

    The only way to eradicate poverty, it says, is to target inequalities. Unless that is done the Millennium Development Goals will never be met. And 41 million children will die unnecessarily over the next 10 years.

Decline in health care

 

    Child mortality is on the rise in the United States

 

    For half a century the US has seen a sustained decline in the number of children who die before their fifth birthday. But since 2000 this trend has been reversed.

 

    Although the US leads the world in healthcare spending - per head of population it spends twice what other rich OECD nations spend on average, 13 per cent of its national income - this high level goes disproportionately on the care of white Americans. It has not been targeted to eradicate large disparities in infant death rates based on race, wealth and state of residence.

 

    The infant mortality rate in the US is now the same as in Malaysia

 

    High levels of spending on personal health care reflect America's cutting-edge medical technology and treatment. But the paradox at the heart of the US health system is that, because of inequalities in health financing, countries that spend substantially less than the US have, on average, a healthier population. A baby boy from one of the top 5 per cent richest families in America will live 25 per cent longer than a boy born in the bottom 5 per cent and the infant mortality rate in the US is the same as Malaysia, which has a quarter of America's income.

 

    Blacks in Washington DC have a higher infant death rate than people in the Indian state of Kerala

 

    The health of US citizens is influenced by differences in insurance, income, language and education. Black mothers are twice as likely as white mothers to give birth to a low birthweight baby. And their children are more likely to become ill.

 

    Throughout the US black children are twice as likely to die before their first birthday.

 

    Hispanic Americans are more than twice as likely as white Americans to have no health cover

 

    The US is the only wealthy country with no universal health insurance system. Its mix of employer-based private insurance and public coverage does not reach all Americans. More than one in six people of working age lack insurance. One in three families living below the poverty line are uninsured. Just 13 per cent of white Americans are uninsured, compared with 21 per cent of blacks and 34 per cent of Hispanic Americans. Being born into an uninsured household increases the probability of death before the age of one by about 50 per cent.

 

    More than a third of the uninsured say that they went without medical care last year because of cost

 

    Uninsured Americans are less likely to have regular outpatient care, so they are more likely to be admitted to hospital for avoidable health problems.

 

    More than 40 per cent of the uninsured do not have a regular place to receive medical treatment. More than a third say that they or someone in their family went without needed medical care, including prescription drugs, in the past year because they lacked the money to pay.

 

    If the gap in health care between black and white Americans was eliminated it would save nearly 85,000 lives a year. Technological improvements in medicine save about 20,000 lives a year.

 

    Child poverty rates in the United States are now more than 20 per cent.

 

    Child poverty is a particularly sensitive indicator for income poverty in rich countries. It is defined as living in a family with an income below 50 per cent of the national average.

 

    The US - with Mexico - has the dubious distinction of seeing its child poverty rates increase to more than 20 per cent. In the UK - which at the end of the 1990s had one of the highest child poverty rates in Europe - the rise in child poverty, by contrast, has been reversed through increases in tax credits and benefits.

 

    Parts of the United States are as poor as the Third World, according to a shocking United Nations report on global inequality.

 

    Claims that the New Orleans floods have laid bare a growing racial and economic divide in the US have, until now, been rejected by the American political establishment as emotional rhetoric. But yesterday's UN report provides statistical proof that for many - well beyond those affected by the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina - the great American Dream is an ongoing nightmare.

 

    The document constitutes a stinging attack on US policies at home and abroad in a fightback against moves by Washington to undermine next week's UN 60th anniversary conference which will be the biggest gathering of world leaders in history.

 

    The annual Human Development Report normally concerns itself with the Third World, but the 2005 edition scrutinises inequalities in health provision inside the US as part of a survey of how inequality worldwide is retarding the eradication of poverty.

 

    It reveals that the infant mortality rate has been rising in the US for the past five years - and is now the same as Malaysia. America's black children are twice as likely as whites to die before their first birthday.

 

    The report is bound to incense the Bush administration as it provides ammunition for critics who have claimed that the fiasco following Hurricane Katrina shows that Washington does not care about poor black Americans. But the 370-page document is critical of American policies towards poverty abroad as well as at home. And, in unusually outspoken language, it accuses the US of having "an overdeveloped military strategy and an under-developed strategy for human security".

 

    "There is an urgent need to develop a collective security framework that goes beyond military responses to terrorism," it continues. " Poverty and social breakdown are core components of the global security threat."

 

    The document, which was written by Kevin Watkins, the former head of research at Oxfam, will be seen as round two in the battle between the UN and the US, which regards the world body as an unnecessary constraint on its strategic interests and actions.

 

    Last month John Bolton, the new US ambassador to the UN, submitted 750 amendments to the draft declaration for next week's summit to strengthen the UN and review progress towards its Millennium Development Goals to halve world poverty by 2015.

 

    The report launched yesterday is a clear challenge to Washington. The Bush administration wants to replace multilateral solutions to international problems with a world order in which the US does as it likes on a bilateral basis.

 

    "This is the UN coming out all guns firing," said one UN insider. "It means that, even if we have a lame duck secretary general after the Volcker report (on the oil-for-food scandal), the rest of the organisation is not going to accept the US bilateralist agenda."

 

    The clash on world poverty centres on the US policy of promoting growth and trade liberalisation on the assumption that this will trickle down to the poor. But this will not stop children dying, the UN says. Growth alone will not reduce poverty so long as the poor are denied full access to health, education and other social provision. Among the world's poor, infant mortality is falling at less than half of the world average. To tackle that means tackling inequality - a message towards which John Bolton and his fellow US neocons are deeply hostile.

 

    India and China, the UN says, have been very successful in wealth creation but have not enabled the poor to share in the process. A rapid decline in child mortality has therefore not materialised. Indeed, when it comes to reducing infant deaths, India has now been overtaken by Bangladesh, which is only growing a third as fast.

 

    Poverty could be halved in just 17 years in Kenya if the poorest people were enabled to double the amount of economic growth they can achieve at present.

 

    Inequality within countries is as stark as the gaps between countries, the UN says. Poverty is not the only issue here. The death rate for girls in India is now 50 per cent higher than for boys. Gender bias means girls are not given the same food as boys and are not taken to clinics as often when they are ill. Foetal scanning has also reduced the number of girls born.

 

    The only way to eradicate poverty, it says, is to target inequalities. Unless that is done the Millennium Development Goals will never be met. And 41 million children will die unnecessarily over the next 10 years.

Decline in health care

 

    Child mortality is on the rise in the United States.

 

    For half a century the US has seen a sustained decline in the number of children who die before their fifth birthday. But since 2000 this trend has been reversed.

 

    Although the US leads the world in healthcare spending - per head of population it spends twice what other rich OECD nations spend on average, 13 per cent of its national income - this high level goes disproportionately on the care of white Americans. It has not been targeted to eradicate large disparities in infant death rates based on race, wealth and state of residence.

 

    The infant mortality rate in the US is now the same as in Malaysia

 

    High levels of spending on personal health care reflect America's cutting-edge medical technology and treatment. But the paradox at the heart of the US health system is that, because of inequalities in health financing, countries that spend substantially less than the US have, on average, a healthier population. A baby boy from one of the top 5 per cent richest families in America will live 25 per cent longer than a boy born in the bottom 5 per cent and the infant mortality rate in the US is the same as Malaysia, which has a quarter of America's income.

 

    Blacks in Washington DC have a higher infant death rate than people in the Indian state of Kerala

 

    The health of US citizens is influenced by differences in insurance, income, language and education. Black mothers are twice as likely as white mothers to give birth to a low birthweight baby. And their children are more likely to become ill.

 

    Throughout the US black children are twice as likely to die before their first birthday.

 

    Hispanic Americans are more than twice as likely as white Americans to have no health cover

 

    The US is the only wealthy country with no universal health insurance system. Its mix of employer-based private insurance and public coverage does not reach all Americans. More than one in six people of working age lack insurance. One in three families living below the poverty line are uninsured. Just 13 per cent of white Americans are uninsured, compared with 21 per cent of blacks and 34 per cent of Hispanic Americans. Being born into an uninsured household increases the probability of death before the age of one by about 50 per cent.

 

    More than a third of the uninsured say that they went without medical care last year because of cost

 

    Uninsured Americans are less likely to have regular outpatient care, so they are more likely to be admitted to hospital for avoidable health problems.

 

    More than 40 per cent of the uninsured do not have a regular place to receive medical treatment. More than a third say that they or someone in their family went without needed medical care, including prescription drugs, in the past year because they lacked the money to pay.

 

    If the gap in health care between black and white Americans was eliminated it would save nearly 85,000 lives a year. Technological improvements in medicine save about 20,000 lives a year.

 

    Child poverty rates in the United States are now more than 20 per cent.

 

    Child poverty is a particularly sensitive indicator for income poverty in rich countries. It is defined as living in a family with an income below 50 per cent of the national average.

 

    The US - with Mexico - has the dubious distinction of seeing its child poverty rates increase to more than 20 per cent. In the UK - which at the end of the 1990s had one of the highest child poverty rates in Europe - the rise in child poverty, by contrast, has been reversed through increases in tax credits and benefits.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

It is always ok to steal from the rich. <snip> I'm beginning to think that it may be a moral obligation to steal from the rich.  <snip>  Give the stuff to some poor guy...

Dave, we need a Robin Hood emoticon for Chef!

[Amethyst]

Never thought of my husband and I as poor but that qualifies us right there :-)

 

Ditto. I make a decent wage but I'd never spend it on something like a $2,000 TV, and I'll probably be a greeter at Wal-fart when I"m 80.

 

I personally would NEVER commit cannibalism. I'd commit suicide first, if that was my only option. Luckily, I live in a well-populated area and don't have the money to travel to harsh, distant locales where I might be put into that situation.

[spamandham]

It's funny how moralistic some people get about theft, when almost every nation on earth has institutionalized theft, generally accepted as moral by the same people who say theft is wrong under all circumstances.

[Vigile]

It's funny how moralistic some people get about theft, when almost every nation on earth has institutionalized theft, generally accepted as moral by the same people who say theft is wrong under all circumstances.

 

Right. First define theft. Is it theft when the gas prices spike during a crisis only to stabilize much, much more slowly than they rose? Is it theft when a US Senator slips in pork barrel spending into a non related bill? Etc...

 

Trigger three strikes when you steal a pizza but if you artificially jack up electricity prices 500% during a power crisis and steal billions you get a golden parachute.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Until one is placed into a life and death, or worse, life without the necessities to sustain life situation, you don't know what the fuck you are capable of doing.

 

Quit the platitudes of "I'd NEVAH" do "something".

 

If it is a choice of having water and food to sustain life and there is none other to obtain for all the gold and guns you have stashed, "stealing" those items otherwise left unsecured is the prudent thing to do.

 

When action is over and you are safe, back on feet, and life is back to whatever may be normal, making amends and paying your "tab" with store management is always an option.

 

Gotta remember folks, its the best option to not to get caught in the disaster zone if at all possible.

 

Piss fucking poor timing to deside minutes into a disaster that your lack of planning needs to be fine tuned.

 

Have a plan, set aside the materials you need to bugout. Own a firearm that you KNOW how to use. Have a place to go. Have your 36-hour bag or box ready.

 

Be responsible for yourself, as the folks from emergency.gov.org don't give a flying fuck about you, save that if you live the disaster, you'll be a drain on their resources.

 

When it happens, be prepared to do what-the-fuck-ever-it-takes to ensure you and your immediate family and circle are able to viably survive.

 

Anything else is sophistry and philosphical whining and bullshit, things that can wait to be talked about long after you and family are safe.

 

A few hours of preparedness helps ensure that you aren't some sheep waiting and bleeeeeeating for rescue..

 

k, Freeman and wolf, L

[spamandham]

Right.  First define theft.

 

Taking from someone else without their permission. I'm not making distinctions between theft, robbery, etc.

 

Is it theft when the gas prices spike during a crisis only to stabilize much, much more slowly than they rose?

 

Not by this definition.

 

  Is it theft when a US Senator slips in pork barrel spending into a non related bill?

 

No, but the taxation used to get the funds is theft.

 

Trigger three strikes when you steal a pizza but if you artificially jack up electricity prices 500% during a power crisis and steal billions you get a golden parachute.

 

Unless you start with the assumption that energy is not privately owned, the latter is not theft.

 

However, the regulations that provide virtual monopoly status to energy producers is a form of theft.

[Vigile]

Be responsible for yourself, as the folks from emergency.gov.org don't give a flying fuck about you, save that if you live the disaster, you'll be a drain on their resources.

 

After September 11 the DHS, which the agency I worked for at the time fell under, created a coalition of agencies working with FEMA to create a website, which I believe has since morphed into the site: https://disasterhelp.gov/portal/jhtml/index.jhtml

 

As speech writer for my agency I was appointed representative to attend weekly meetings with the developer and about 25 other agency representatives. We met each week in the FEMA emergency response room you see on television - the one with the big screen monitors and important looking people mapping out emergency response to whatever disaster happens to be at hand.

 

Since I couldn't get the link cited to work I can't determine if the site has improved over the past 4 years (it would seem not), but at the time of release (at least a month past its one year 9/11 anniversary target) the site was a complete joke. I could have done better sitting in my living room with a laptop and MS FrontPage. The site's purpose was to provide a list of community resources in case of an emergency. No search mechanism was available. To find what you needed you had to manipulate a complicated file tree. I complained to the developer in private explaining that I could barely navigate the site much less the poor AOL user who actually found herself in need of the site during an emergency. He became irate.

 

As I said, the site could have been developed by one person with FrontPage in a matter of months and the result would have been astoundingly more user friendly. Instead, for a period of at least six months, at least 25 representatives from 25 separate DHS agencies and bureaus met every Wednesday afternoon for two hours and talked about and debated essentially nothing to the tune of - hold your hats - $1,000,000. And this does not include mine, and other representative's salaries including 2 hours of meeting time weekly, and at least one to two hours of commute time to and from FEMA plus metro or taxi fare.

[Vigile]

Taking from someone else without their permission.

 

LOL. I was actually agreeing with you. But you provided some interesting definitions nevertheless.

[Guest Joseph]

Emphasis added...

 

Until one is placed into a life and death, or worse, life without the necessities to sustain life situation, you don't know what the fuck you are capable of doing.

 

Quit the platitudes of "I'd NEVAH" do "something".

 

If it is a choice of having water and food to sustain life and there is none other to obtain for all the gold and guns you have stashed, "stealing" those items otherwise left unsecured is the prudent thing to do.

 

When action is over and you are safe, back on feet, and life is back to whatever may be normal, making amends and paying your "tab" with store management is always an option.

 

Gotta remember folks, its the best option to not to get caught in the disaster zone if at all possible.

 

Piss fucking poor timing to [decide] minutes into a disaster that your lack of planning needs to be fine tuned.

 

Have a plan, set aside the materials you need to bugout. Own a firearm that you KNOW how to use. Have a place to go. Have your 36-hour bag or box ready.

 

Be responsible for yourself, as the folks from emergency.gov.org don't give a flying fuck about you, save that if you live the disaster, you'll be a drain on their resources.

 

When it happens, be prepared to do what-the-fuck-ever-it-takes to ensure you and your immediate family and circle are able to viably survive.

 

Anything else is sophistry and philosphical whining and bullshit, things that can wait to be talked about long after you and family are safe.

 

A few hours of preparedness helps ensure that you aren't some sheep waiting and bleeeeeeating for rescue..

 

k, Freeman and wolf, L

 

FIRST PRIZE!

[Kalidasa]

It is never okay to steal. Not even in a disaster situation.

 

Just my two cents.

It is morons like this that run our country.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you're calling me a moron all because I was raised with some decent morals? That's rich. That's really fucking rich. Are you going to call the other person who voted the same as me a moron as well?

 

Asshole.

[Ms. K]

Nivek, I only take ONE issue with something you wrote.

 

You wrote, "Have your 36-hour bag ready."

 

Thirty-six hours?

 

Nope.

 

Try have supplies on hand for five to seven days. Or, at least you should out here in California. Why? The government doesn't give a shit about us out here. If we have a major, major earthquake, ain't nobody gonna show up to help any of us, especially any of us that live in somewhat suburban to very rural areas, for quite some time. 36 hours is a pipe dream....try at least 72, if not 120 hours.

 

Other than that, there's nothing else you've posted that I could possibly take issue with. Especially the part about arming yourself. You never know who will decide they need to help themselves to your home, and I don't mean asking for food and water.

[Kalidasa]

Why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do I think it's wrong to steal? It's against my morals. Believe it or not, I do have them - not stealing is the big one. It's the way I was raised. And being raised Christian has shit to do with it, so don't you dare go throwing that one at me.

 

What makes stealing different?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're taking something that doesn't belong to you - and believe it or not, that happens to be against the law. It doesn't matter what you nick, you've broken the law, and pretty much deserve everything you get in return.

 

Is it OK to kill to protect your family?  Is it OK to kill if your thrust into a war?  Is it OK to kill when your life is threatened with early termination by some assialent?  Just curious how far your adherence to law goes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, it goes a damn long way. I am so shit-scared of authority figures that I couldn't break the law even if I wanted to. I've been tempted to, but I've never been able to bring myself to do it. I could never kill someone, either - again, against the law, no matter the circumstances.

 

I repeat what I've already said: my morals are too important to me to even think about stealing or killing someone. Or breaking the law in any way for that matter. Not even to survive.

[Christopher Carrion]

A mother steals bread to feed her starving child.

 

In self defence, a Mother murders a man who is attempting to molest her starving child.

 

Both instances in which at least two commandments demonstrate themselves to be wholly simplistic, and lacking in the scope necessary for application to "Real Life"

[Vixentrox]

Why do I think it's wrong to steal? It's against my morals. Believe it or not, I do have them - not stealing is the big one. It's the way I was raised. And being raised Christian has shit to do with it, so don't you dare go throwing that one at me.

You're taking something that doesn't belong to you - and believe it or not, that happens to be against the law. It doesn't matter what you nick, you've broken the law, and pretty much deserve everything you get in return.

Oh, it goes a damn long way. I am so shit-scared of authority figures that I couldn't break the law even if I wanted to. I've been tempted to, but I've never been able to bring myself to do it. I could never kill someone, either - again, against the law, no matter the circumstances.

 

I repeat what I've already said: my morals are too important to me to even think about stealing or killing someone. Or breaking the law in any way for that matter. Not even to survive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ever speed? Ever go through the yellow light when you could have stopped?

[spamandham]

Why do I think it's wrong to steal? It's against my morals.

 

It's against mine too in general, but I was referring to the part about never stealing. Why should we not steal under any circumstance?

 

And being raised Christian has shit to do with it, so don't you dare go throwing that one at me.

 

 

You're taking something that doesn't belong to you - and believe it or not, that happens to be against the law. It doesn't matter what you nick, you've broken the law, and pretty much deserve everything you get in return.

 

Then do we agree it's all about the consequences? I would say that almost any consequence I'm likely to get is better than death by starvation/dehydration.

 

Oh, it goes a damn long way. I am so shit-scared of authority figures that I couldn't break the law even if I wanted to. I've been tempted to, but I've never been able to bring myself to do it.

 

Yes you do, you just don't know it. With 100,000+ laws and regulations in the US, each of us probably breaks at least 10 a day without even knowing it.

 

I repeat what I've already said: my morals are too important to me to even think about stealing or killing someone. Or breaking the law in any way for that matter. Not even to survive.

 

Well, good luck with that.

[Clergicide]

I repeat what I've already said: my morals are too important to me to even think about stealing or killing someone. Or breaking the law in any way for that matter. Not even to survive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you wouldn't steal food if it was the only way to save someone else that was starving, then you are not moral. Instead you are blinded by your own ignorant ethics. You are another product of Christianity, because you fear and respect sin over merit and human happiness(and apparrantly human life). Only Christian would allow someone to starve to avoid sin.

 

 

Matthew 12

 

1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. 3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? 6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. 7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

 

The disciples were hungry so they stole corn and ate it, even though it was unlawful to do so, being both theft and against the laws of the sabbath. Yet another example of where the teachings of Christ are lost, and only the teachings of the church are blindly followed.