|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
should poor people receive immunity for stealing goods?
Nobody wants to be poor. Nobody wants to make people poor. Nobody wants to lose money. Losing money is bad. Because it makes you poor and being poor is bad.
Should the poor recive immunity for stealing goods or services?
Even poor people want 68 inch LCD TVs with surround sound stereo. Even poor people want a new sports car every year. Even poor people want mobile phones.
I'm not talking about stealing sustinence.
Should the poor recive immunity for stealing goods or services?
Even poor people want 68 inch LCD TVs with surround sound stereo. Even poor people want a new sports car every year. Even poor people want mobile phones.
I'm not talking about stealing sustinence.
prepare for some nazi views:
HELL NO!!! why should poor people steal from rich people, who work hard for what they own? some people are simply better than others, for a rich person to work his way to sucess and riches and some lazy dropout to come in and steal it, is completely stupid!!
if this happened, everything would collapse. rioting, hyper inflation, collapse of society and the workplace
so i leave you with:
KILL COMMUNISM
HELL NO!!! why should poor people steal from rich people, who work hard for what they own? some people are simply better than others, for a rich person to work his way to sucess and riches and some lazy dropout to come in and steal it, is completely stupid!!
if this happened, everything would collapse. rioting, hyper inflation, collapse of society and the workplace
so i leave you with:
KILL COMMUNISM
NO! Poor people should not receive immunity for stealing things. But then again neither should rich people. Just because you are rich and happen to be a friend of a powerful politician should NOT be allowed to givve you immunity.
I have not discovered such a profound question in a long time. This sophisticated discourse is exactly what our society needs.
Should the poor recive immunity for stealing goods?
Yes, but only to steel food to feed family or love ones. The problem is not with the poor but with the government failure to help the poor.
Yes, but only to steel food to feed family or love ones. The problem is not with the poor but with the government failure to help the poor.
People that cannot afford to buy thier own meals and stuff should not be allowed to steal it. They should be able to obtain it another way...
They should not recieve immunity, but their sentences shouldn't be harsh.
From the state.........NO
From God............YES
From God............YES
For the random niceties, stealing has no excuse, whether the person commiting the crime is poor or not.
Stealing for a necessity such as food (and no candy/cakes/"junk food" don't count since they have little nutritional value anyway, nor does stealing then eating more of it than necessary to satiate yourself) I don't mind. It still isn't right but it's not something that would bother me (unless they stole a lot of it from me).
Stealing for a necessity such as food (and no candy/cakes/"junk food" don't count since they have little nutritional value anyway, nor does stealing then eating more of it than necessary to satiate yourself) I don't mind. It still isn't right but it's not something that would bother me (unless they stole a lot of it from me).
I voted No, because it is still wrong. Also, the owner of the stolen good would end up paying for it in the end, so it is unfair to retaillers.
no, but if they steal it should be more understood and reasonable than if a rich person steals. but it won't ever be, because a) that's not treating people equally, b) everyone has their own ideas of who is rich and who is not, c) the rich people are the ones who could organise this and the won't, because they generally [stereotyping, i know, i know] don't like poor people.
Stealing is the wrong thing to do, no matter if you are rich or poor.
But if you are given the choice either to die of starvation or steal something to eat, then I certainly would recommend stealing some food.
But I think a society that forces people to such a choice is not worth living in anyway. I mean I am no Socialist or even Communist, everybody should get what they work for. But for me the basic meaning of society is making sure that those with whatever disadvantage still have a chance to make a living. Maybe without CocaCola, TV and Internet but at least with a place to stay and something to eat.
But if you are given the choice either to die of starvation or steal something to eat, then I certainly would recommend stealing some food.
But I think a society that forces people to such a choice is not worth living in anyway. I mean I am no Socialist or even Communist, everybody should get what they work for. But for me the basic meaning of society is making sure that those with whatever disadvantage still have a chance to make a living. Maybe without CocaCola, TV and Internet but at least with a place to stay and something to eat.
First of all I did not even vote, because its futile and most would say NO! Definitions of crime: A crime is a violation of the law, of which the STATE may exact punishment (Gardiner and Lansdown) ; A crime is an act forbidden and made punishable by law (Donald Taft). SO by this you would see that even running a red light in the middle of the night with no other cars around is still a crime, even if it is victimless! People that are poor that steal to resell the items for foodARE still thieves!
 |