• irmoz@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Where I live, the understanding is that “crime” means “unlawful behavior.” If that’s not what it means where you live, I suppose we’re never going to agree on this

    How slippery of you. Yes, crime literally does mean unlawful behaviour. But that’s just defining the word, begging the question. The understanding is that things are considered unlawful because they are immoral.

    Most laws have to do with property, so naturally most crimes would be property crimes. Another poster also brought up the very good point that killing or hurting someone doesn’t really benefit the criminal, whereas if you steal something you now have more stuff. This would incentivise property crimes over other types.

    Well… yeah??? That’s kinda the point. Our society is built on the principles of marketisation and competition. It’s all about acquiring property. And our society is run by property owners. So, what do you think their interests are?? Protecting their property from the hungry masses!!!

    This is what we call an ad hominem attack. It basically means you’re attacking your debate opponent instead of his argument. It’s not productive, doesn’t prove anything, and isn’t relevant to the discussion. Avoid these.

    Yawn. Teach me something I don’t know. I’m just bemoaning the fact that this ideology is clearly present within you, making this an uphill battle.

    • Spuddaccino@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Okay, so we agree that crimes are against the law, and we agree that most crimes are property crimes. It sounds like you agree with my entire opinion on this subject, why are you arguing with me?

      • irmoz@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Because I don’t agree with you. Go back to the start of this thread.

        You think the fact that most laws concern property is just some coincidence. It isn’t. It’s because our laws were written by EDIT PRIVATE property owners.

        • Spuddaccino@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I took a look back through my comments in this thread, and I suggest you do the same. At no point did I comment on the reason that the law is what it is. Of course our laws are written by property owners, everyone in the country is a property owner. Why do you think that matters?

          Let’s say there’s a magic world where there is no owned property. There is only stuff, and people can use or not use stuff as they see fit. Who gets to make the laws here? Answer: people who get to use the stuff.

          But wait, maybe we just can’t own the property, but the country can. It’s the country’s stuff, and we get to use it because we belong to the country. Who gets to make the laws now? Answer: the people running the country.

          You’re acting like “property owner” is some bourgeois upper-class term, when it literally just means you have a thing and can decide what happens with it.

          • irmoz@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh ffs I should have known you’d be this pedantic.

            Capitalists. The owners of private proerty.

            The average person has ZERO private property, even including owning their own homes.

            Jesus fucking christ that is such an insufferable attitude. You must have known this is what I was talking, and decided to ignore it anyway, to score debatebro points.

            • Spuddaccino@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Your definition of private property must differ from “a thing that a private individual owns”, then. Please enlighten me, so we can be on the same page.

              • irmoz@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Your definition of private property must differ from “a thing that a private individual owns”, then

                …But of course it does. I’m intrigued that’s what you think it means. Every individual is a private individual - that would make all property private property, even your own toilet paper. That’s absurd. That’s personal property.

                Private property is absentee ownership; property owned for profit. A house owned to rent out, a copper mine, a business. Property that is owned by someone despite others making use of it, and the owners’ presence being unnecessary.

                • Spuddaccino@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Ah, I see. No wonder we were butting heads. I will admit, then, that I had been operating under a misconception, then. Mine’s the legal definition, yours is the Marxist one. Given where we are, I suppose that makes more sense to use.

                  So with this new information, do I understand correctly that your stance is that police only exist to protect private, non-movable property?

                  • irmoz@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Mine’s the legal definition, yours is the Marxist one. Given where we are, I suppose that makes more sense to use.

                    Okay, i respect not raising the tone along with me. I got a bit flustered there but I’ve had some sleep since then so I can chat mote sanely.

                    Yes, I’ve been working under the Marxist definition - I believe it makes more sense. It delineates the class divide we are living within. Those without private property are working class, and those with it are largely capitalist, with some grey area where small business owners are concerned.

                    Capitalists are able to leverage their assets and wealth to exert untold influence on politics, and have done so across centuries to establish the world we are currently living in.

                    So with this new information, do I understand correctly that your stance is that police only exist to protect private, non-movable property?

                    That’s their distinct purpose, yes.