The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
Well, the reason I avoid the kids on the train is because they are annoying. When they for a group, the take the seats near the door (since those seats face each other) and block the passage. They make a bunch of noise, and they can get pretty belligerent (I'm guessing this is some sort of peer respect thing?)
This isn't me ascribing some special powers to them. This is me seeing how they act, and choosing that I'd rather not participate. As an fyi, I also avoid the drunk train cars after a rugby match (That's based purely on conjecture, I haven't them doing anything)
As for the car thing, is anybody actually worried that their car is going to be stolen? I mean like actively worried? There's such a small group of people that locking your car actually prevents from doing anything. It's probably even a smaller % of the population than teenagers hassling you.
And yet you do it anyway, because it costs you nothing, and prevents a small chance of harm.
Edit: @lonelyahava Missed your post earlier, so I sent you a PM. Which will appear in the same place as a @ notification. So sending an @ notification is redundant.
The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).
The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are often be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I just want a quiet train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).
The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
Well, the reason I avoid the kids on the train is because they are annoying. When they for a group, the take the seats near the door (since those seats face each other) and block the passage. They make a bunch of noise, and they can get pretty belligerent (I'm guessing this is some sort of peer respect thing?)
This isn't me ascribing some special powers to them. This is me seeing how they act, and choosing that I'd rather not participate. As an fyi, I also avoid the drunk train cars after a rugby match (That's based purely on conjecture, I haven't them doing anything)
As for the car thing, is anybody actually worried that their car is going to be stolen? I mean like actively worried? There's such a small group of people that locking your car actually prevents from doing anything. It's probably even a smaller % of the population than teenagers hassling you.
And yet you do it anyway, because it costs you nothing, and prevents a small chance of harm.
Edit: @lonelyahava Missed your post earlier, so I sent you a PM. Which will appear in the same place as a @ notification. So sending an @ notification is redundant.
The reason you avoid an entire group of people is that you believe every one in that group of people will do something to antagonize you. You can minimize it as much as you like, but you keep repeating the same thing I've been criticizing as though it's somehow a response. How is it reasonable or logical to assume that teenagers in a group are going to do things that annoy you? How is this not prejudice?
If you weren't worried your car might be stolen, why would you lock the door? Peer pressure? Tradition?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
Well, the reason I avoid the kids on the train is because they are annoying. When they for a group, the take the seats near the door (since those seats face each other) and block the passage. They make a bunch of noise, and they can get pretty belligerent (I'm guessing this is some sort of peer respect thing?)
This isn't me ascribing some special powers to them. This is me seeing how they act, and choosing that I'd rather not participate. As an fyi, I also avoid the drunk train cars after a rugby match (That's based purely on conjecture, I haven't them doing anything)
As for the car thing, is anybody actually worried that their car is going to be stolen? I mean like actively worried? There's such a small group of people that locking your car actually prevents from doing anything. It's probably even a smaller % of the population than teenagers hassling you.
And yet you do it anyway, because it costs you nothing, and prevents a small chance of harm.
Edit: @lonelyahava Missed your post earlier, so I sent you a PM. Which will appear in the same place as a @ notification. So sending an @ notification is redundant.
The reason you avoid an entire group of people is that you believe every one in that group of people will do something to antagonize you. You can minimize it as much as you like, but you keep repeating the same thing I've been criticizing as though it's somehow a response. How is it reasonable or logical to assume that teenagers in a group are going to do things that annoy you? How is this not prejudice?
If you weren't worried your car might be stolen, why would you lock the door? Peer pressure? Tradition?
Avoiding large groups on a train if you want peace and quiet is just common sense. Kids are loud because kids are loud, when they talk on a train it can get on my nerves. I also avoided cars full of kids because I don't really give a shit about teen pop culture or who is banging who in the Southie Brat Pack.
You lock your door because it might get stolen. This is a thing which happens to cars.
Idk man, you seem to be having a problem with a lot of basic "learn how to live in a city" type stuff.
The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).
The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are pileup be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I jus want a quite train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).
If you don't think it's likely they will do something bad, why do you distrust them? Because you think they'll do something bad and you want to stop them from doing so before they can.
It absolutely does make you both misogynist and racist, because the first thing out of your mind here is the assumption that black women are going to talk loudly amongst themselves.
Living in a world where you're constantly trying to prevent other people from doing things that you imagine they might do is neurotic at best.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
Well, the reason I avoid the kids on the train is because they are annoying. When they for a group, the take the seats near the door (since those seats face each other) and block the passage. They make a bunch of noise, and they can get pretty belligerent (I'm guessing this is some sort of peer respect thing?)
This isn't me ascribing some special powers to them. This is me seeing how they act, and choosing that I'd rather not participate. As an fyi, I also avoid the drunk train cars after a rugby match (That's based purely on conjecture, I haven't them doing anything)
As for the car thing, is anybody actually worried that their car is going to be stolen? I mean like actively worried? There's such a small group of people that locking your car actually prevents from doing anything. It's probably even a smaller % of the population than teenagers hassling you.
And yet you do it anyway, because it costs you nothing, and prevents a small chance of harm.
Edit: @lonelyahava Missed your post earlier, so I sent you a PM. Which will appear in the same place as a @ notification. So sending an @ notification is redundant.
The reason you avoid an entire group of people is that you believe every one in that group of people will do something to antagonize you. You can minimize it as much as you like, but you keep repeating the same thing I've been criticizing as though it's somehow a response. How is it reasonable or logical to assume that teenagers in a group are going to do things that annoy you? How is this not prejudice?
If you weren't worried your car might be stolen, why would you lock the door? Peer pressure? Tradition?
Because they're doing things that annoy me? I mean I can see them doing it. I can hear them doing it. And it annoys me.
I mean like actively worried?
Do you lock your car? Are you actively worried that it's going to be stolen?
The % of people who would actually steal your car is tiny based on the total population. From that % of car thieves, only a subset will actually be put off by you locking your car. Actually actively being worried that your car is going to be stolen is silly. And yet, you do it anyway. Does that mean that you suddenly trust no one in your area?
It feels weird to agree with SKFM, but yep, I will generally not go into a store that has a bunch of teenagers hanging out in front of it. Too much chance for trouble.
I feel like I live on a totally different planet than you. I have never once based my decision to go into a store or not based on if there are people out in front of it or not, or who those people are.
I have pretty much decided where I am going to before I even step out my front door, and then I go there. Other people don't really factor in.
You never just walk and go into random places that catch your eye?
Sorry, this is from a while back but, no, pretty much never.
I will take walks to take a walk and take in some sights, or whatever, but not to shop. Window shopping has no appeal to me. When I go shopping I am pretty much a man on a mission, and the less time I spend in a shop generally the happier I am with my shopping experience.
I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.
I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.
You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.
Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.
There it is again. This is a totally unsubstantiated claim. It's not even remotely true.
Women are often weepy and emotional in public.
Blacks are often aggressive and impulsive in public.
Rich people are often racist and incapable of connecting with lower classes.
These are not things you can just say about big broad sections of people. Teenagers aren't somehow the magical exception to this rule.
Actually they are.
Rich people are often possessing of expensive clothing is a generalization that is also true. Many ways of grouping people are perfect for making generalized statements. Because those people are grouped based on a criteria that makes that makes those generalizations relevant. Rich people own expensive clothing because, by virtue of being rich, they have the money to do so.
The problem with saying "Black people generally do X" is not that you are generalizing, it's that you are generalizing behaviour based on a criteria (racial ancestry) that isn't relevant to the generalization. Even with this specific formulation, small changes make it a perfectly valid statement. There 100% exists a rich and historic "black culture" in the US.
But to get back to the point, you can very much make some inferences about average teenage behaviour. They are pre-adults, both physically and societally. And that means, on average, there exists a tendency towards certain behaviours you wouldn't see in other groups.
Add in the large group social dynamics and you get a situation that it's perfectly valid to feel uncomfortable about.
Also, in my experience teenagers hang out in large groups in parking lots, rather then somewhere else, because they are wiggers or ginos or something and the larger purpose is to show off their cars and/or play loud music and a parking lot is, honestly, the only place really suited to that.
And I can't blame the parents for wanting their kids out of the fucking house for that kind of thing.
I mean, really, would you want to be reminded, every second, that you raised a wigger? That's shameful, you need some respite from that.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).
The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are pileup be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I jus want a quite train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).
If you don't think it's likely they will do something bad, why do you distrust them? Because you think they'll do something bad and you want to stop them from doing so before they can.
It absolutely does make you both misogynist and racist, because the first thing out of your mind here is the assumption that black women are going to talk loudly amongst themselves.
Living in a world where you're constantly trying to prevent other people from doing things that you imagine they might do is neurotic at best.
Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life. Based on this, I try not to sit near these groups when I can avoid it, because I want a quiet train ride. Do I think all women will talk the whole time and all black women will do so loudly? Of course not. But my goal is just to have a quiet, relaxing train ride, and so yes, I will try to avoid any group on the train, with special pains to avoid groups of women (especially black women) because experience tells me that if someone is going to be particularly loud, it is them. I also try to sit between two women on a crowded train because I find that they will move over more than men to give you some space. The ideal is two Asian women, and Asian men are preferred over other types of men because I find that Asians also move over more. If I had some overarching explanation for this, like "women are loud because they lack self control, and doubly so for black women. Asians are meek and so retreat when you sit between them" maybe that would be racist, but I draw no such conclusions. I am just going based on my experience of riding on the train every day, and trends or patterns I have noticed that help me to have a better ride.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.
I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.
You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.
Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.
If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?
Yes, also, I lock my car when I'm driving. Well, really, my car does it for me automatically.
I've also been stolen from by either a really retarded adult, or a teenager, because I've left my car unlocked. I'd feel an adult would realize the valuables of the shit that was in my car, but nope, the only thing taken was my fucking phone charger and about $3 in change.
Avoiding the $500 worth of school textbooks on the floor of the car.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.
I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.
You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.
Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.
If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?
See the above re: trains.
They aren't depriving you of your use of the train. You are still on the train, going where you need to go.
I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.
I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.
You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.
Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.
If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?
See the above re: trains.
They aren't depriving you of your use of the train. You are still on the train, going where you need to go.
I was referencing the post above this one. Not that paragraph, which was in response to the "someone on my lawn doesn't make me a slave" argument.
I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.
I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.
You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.
Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.
If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?
See the above re: trains.
People can't steal your time, only objects. Your farmer analogy doesn't work since their crops are objects that can be stolen (thieves aren't stealing the time they had to use to make a crop), not quiet time on a train. You're confusing abstract and solid concepts again.
The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).
The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are pileup be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I jus want a quite train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).
If you don't think it's likely they will do something bad, why do you distrust them? Because you think they'll do something bad and you want to stop them from doing so before they can.
It absolutely does make you both misogynist and racist, because the first thing out of your mind here is the assumption that black women are going to talk loudly amongst themselves.
Living in a world where you're constantly trying to prevent other people from doing things that you imagine they might do is neurotic at best.
Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life. Based on this, I try not to sit near these groups when I can avoid it, because I want a quiet train ride. Do I think all women will talk the whole time and all black women will do so loudly? Of course not. But my goal is just to have a quiet, relaxing train ride, and so yes, I will try to avoid any group on the train, with special pains to avoid groups of women (especially black women) because experience tells me that if someone is going to be particularly loud, it is them. I also try to sit between two women on a crowded train because I find that they will move over more than men to give you some space. The ideal is two Asian women, and Asian men are preferred over other types of men because I find that Asians also move over more. If I had some overarching explanation for this, like "women are loud because they lack self control, and doubly so for black women. Asians are meek and so retreat when you sit between them" maybe that would be racist, but I draw no such conclusions. I am just going based on my experience of riding on the train every day, and trends or patterns I have noticed that help me to have a better ride.
I've never had that issue with women on a train or bus. Not all women do that or Asians are quiet on public transportation. Generalization doesn't work 100%, which is what you're doing. Just because someone is a stranger doesn't mean they're a threat or annoyance to you by existing.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.
I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.
You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.
Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.
If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?
See the above re: trains.
People can't steal your time, only objects. Your farmer analogy doesn't work since their crops are objects that can be stolen (thieves aren't stealing the time they had to use to make a crop), not quiet time on a train. You're confusing abstract and solid concepts again.
The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).
The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are pileup be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I jus want a quite train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).
If you don't think it's likely they will do something bad, why do you distrust them? Because you think they'll do something bad and you want to stop them from doing so before they can.
It absolutely does make you both misogynist and racist, because the first thing out of your mind here is the assumption that black women are going to talk loudly amongst themselves.
Living in a world where you're constantly trying to prevent other people from doing things that you imagine they might do is neurotic at best.
Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life. Based on this, I try not to sit near these groups when I can avoid it, because I want a quiet train ride. Do I think all women will talk the whole time and all black women will do so loudly? Of course not. But my goal is just to have a quiet, relaxing train ride, and so yes, I will try to avoid any group on the train, with special pains to avoid groups of women (especially black women) because experience tells me that if someone is going to be particularly loud, it is them. I also try to sit between two women on a crowded train because I find that they will move over more than men to give you some space. The ideal is two Asian women, and Asian men are preferred over other types of men because I find that Asians also move over more. If I had some overarching explanation for this, like "women are loud because they lack self control, and doubly so for black women. Asians are meek and so retreat when you sit between them" maybe that would be racist, but I draw no such conclusions. I am just going based on my experience of riding on the train every day, and trends or patterns I have noticed that help me to have a better ride.
I've never had that issue with women on a train or bus. Not all women do that or Asians are quiet on public transportation. Generalization doesn't work 100%, which is what you're doing. Just because someone is a stranger doesn't mean they're a threat or annoyance to you by existing.
I have choices about how to spend my time. I can choose to spend it working to make money which I will then use to buy something I want. I would not spend time working if I was not given money, or if I could not buy the things that I want. If you destroy my money or my things, then you have invalidated my choice to work, because I have now done so without the reward the motivated me to do so. If you take my money or my things, it is even worse, because now I have chosen to devote my time to work instead of leisure, and you reap the reward. Both are forms of time theft, and what is the inability to determine how your time will be spent other than slavery?
Despite being white and dressing relatively nicely (not in a suit sense, but in a "clothes aren't all baggy" sense), I actually tend to avoid groups of people in suits more than groups of people dressed in streetwear. The suits are usually rude and obnoxious because they have a heightened sense of self-worth, and often, if I'm on the subway, the crowd of people in streetwear are going to be nicer and more "yep, we're all in this together" than the businesspeople who talk and complain loudly about how the subway may be smelly, or slow, or whatever.
I don't feel included in the often-loud conversations of puerto rican women on the subway, but often their conversations are animated and entertaining. I'd rather listen to them than white tourists complain about the subway, or suits comparing commuting tips.
As for teenagers, the problem isn't really teenagers but rather the acceptance-based mentality of these groups. A teenager by his or herself is typically fine, but if you get a group of them together, they'll either show off in some dumb way or try to dare each other to do things as a test. In Baltimore, there was this teenage hazing thing going on where 8-10 year olds were rushing up on people walking by and whacking them on the back of the head, and then running off. The police didn't know what it was but assumed it was some hazing thing -- a "you have to whack someone on the head in order to be in our group of friends" stunt. Personally? I'd rather have kids hanging out somewhere where kids usually hang out compared to have them figure out some other way of getting around the system. If I see a group of teens hanging out in front of Hot Topic at the mall, or in the back of a parking lot at the mall? Great! That means they're not roving the mall trying to pull dumb shit in an impromptu game of Mall Capture The Flag or something.
I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.
I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.
You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.
Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.
If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?
See the above re: trains.
People can't steal your time, only objects. Your farmer analogy doesn't work since their crops are objects that can be stolen (thieves aren't stealing the time they had to use to make a crop), not quiet time on a train. You're confusing abstract and solid concepts again.
The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).
The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are pileup be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I jus want a quite train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).
If you don't think it's likely they will do something bad, why do you distrust them? Because you think they'll do something bad and you want to stop them from doing so before they can.
It absolutely does make you both misogynist and racist, because the first thing out of your mind here is the assumption that black women are going to talk loudly amongst themselves.
Living in a world where you're constantly trying to prevent other people from doing things that you imagine they might do is neurotic at best.
Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life. Based on this, I try not to sit near these groups when I can avoid it, because I want a quiet train ride. Do I think all women will talk the whole time and all black women will do so loudly? Of course not. But my goal is just to have a quiet, relaxing train ride, and so yes, I will try to avoid any group on the train, with special pains to avoid groups of women (especially black women) because experience tells me that if someone is going to be particularly loud, it is them. I also try to sit between two women on a crowded train because I find that they will move over more than men to give you some space. The ideal is two Asian women, and Asian men are preferred over other types of men because I find that Asians also move over more. If I had some overarching explanation for this, like "women are loud because they lack self control, and doubly so for black women. Asians are meek and so retreat when you sit between them" maybe that would be racist, but I draw no such conclusions. I am just going based on my experience of riding on the train every day, and trends or patterns I have noticed that help me to have a better ride.
I've never had that issue with women on a train or bus. Not all women do that or Asians are quiet on public transportation. Generalization doesn't work 100%, which is what you're doing. Just because someone is a stranger doesn't mean they're a threat or annoyance to you by existing.
I have choices about how to spend my time. I can choose to spend it working to make money which I will then use to buy something I want. I would not spend time working if I was not given money, or if I could not buy the things that I want. If you destroy my money or my things, then you have invalidated my choice to work, because I have now done so without the reward the motivated me to do so. If you take my money or my things, it is even worse, because now I have chosen to devote my time to work instead of leisure, and you reap the reward. Both are forms of time theft, and what is the inability to determine how your time will be spent other than slavery?
Because time theft doesn't exist. People stealing your stuff isn't touching the time spent making them, it's that someone stole an object that was your's. Slavery doesn't enter into the equation. They're stealing items from you, not making you a literal slave. It's not even similar indentured servitude. This is a bizarre form of though I've rarely seen before. Certainly not with the middle class or poor people I've met. I've met wealthy people as well and none have said anything resembling what you're going on about. Comparing abstract and solid subjects can be done but your examples don't sound logical to me at all.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.
I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.
You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.
Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.
If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?
See the above re: trains.
People can't steal your time, only objects. Your farmer analogy doesn't work since their crops are objects that can be stolen (thieves aren't stealing the time they had to use to make a crop), not quiet time on a train. You're confusing abstract and solid concepts again.
The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).
The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are pileup be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I jus want a quite train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).
If you don't think it's likely they will do something bad, why do you distrust them? Because you think they'll do something bad and you want to stop them from doing so before they can.
It absolutely does make you both misogynist and racist, because the first thing out of your mind here is the assumption that black women are going to talk loudly amongst themselves.
Living in a world where you're constantly trying to prevent other people from doing things that you imagine they might do is neurotic at best.
Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life. Based on this, I try not to sit near these groups when I can avoid it, because I want a quiet train ride. Do I think all women will talk the whole time and all black women will do so loudly? Of course not. But my goal is just to have a quiet, relaxing train ride, and so yes, I will try to avoid any group on the train, with special pains to avoid groups of women (especially black women) because experience tells me that if someone is going to be particularly loud, it is them. I also try to sit between two women on a crowded train because I find that they will move over more than men to give you some space. The ideal is two Asian women, and Asian men are preferred over other types of men because I find that Asians also move over more. If I had some overarching explanation for this, like "women are loud because they lack self control, and doubly so for black women. Asians are meek and so retreat when you sit between them" maybe that would be racist, but I draw no such conclusions. I am just going based on my experience of riding on the train every day, and trends or patterns I have noticed that help me to have a better ride.
I've never had that issue with women on a train or bus. Not all women do that or Asians are quiet on public transportation. Generalization doesn't work 100%, which is what you're doing. Just because someone is a stranger doesn't mean they're a threat or annoyance to you by existing.
I have choices about how to spend my time. I can choose to spend it working to make money which I will then use to buy something I want. I would not spend time working if I was not given money, or if I could not buy the things that I want. If you destroy my money or my things, then you have invalidated my choice to work, because I have now done so without the reward the motivated me to do so. If you take my money or my things, it is even worse, because now I have chosen to devote my time to work instead of leisure, and you reap the reward. Both are forms of time theft, and what is the inability to determine how your time will be spent other than slavery?
Because time theft doesn't exist. People stealing your stuff isn't touching the time spent making them, it's that someone stole an object that was your's. Slavery doesn't enter into the equation. They're stealing items from you, not making you a literal slave. It's not even similar indentured servitude. This is a bizarre form of though I've rarely seen before. Certainly not with the middle class or poor people I've met. I've met wealthy people as well and none have said anything resembling what you're going on about. Comparing abstract and solid subjects can be done but your examples don't sound logical to me at all.
I think it follows naturally from Locke and labor theories of value. If the value of a thing is the labor expended to produce or acquire it, then the labor is what you are taking when you steal or destroy that object.
I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.
I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.
You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.
Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.
If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?
See the above re: trains.
People can't steal your time, only objects. Your farmer analogy doesn't work since their crops are objects that can be stolen (thieves aren't stealing the time they had to use to make a crop), not quiet time on a train. You're confusing abstract and solid concepts again.
The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).
The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are pileup be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I jus want a quite train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).
If you don't think it's likely they will do something bad, why do you distrust them? Because you think they'll do something bad and you want to stop them from doing so before they can.
It absolutely does make you both misogynist and racist, because the first thing out of your mind here is the assumption that black women are going to talk loudly amongst themselves.
Living in a world where you're constantly trying to prevent other people from doing things that you imagine they might do is neurotic at best.
Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life. Based on this, I try not to sit near these groups when I can avoid it, because I want a quiet train ride. Do I think all women will talk the whole time and all black women will do so loudly? Of course not. But my goal is just to have a quiet, relaxing train ride, and so yes, I will try to avoid any group on the train, with special pains to avoid groups of women (especially black women) because experience tells me that if someone is going to be particularly loud, it is them. I also try to sit between two women on a crowded train because I find that they will move over more than men to give you some space. The ideal is two Asian women, and Asian men are preferred over other types of men because I find that Asians also move over more. If I had some overarching explanation for this, like "women are loud because they lack self control, and doubly so for black women. Asians are meek and so retreat when you sit between them" maybe that would be racist, but I draw no such conclusions. I am just going based on my experience of riding on the train every day, and trends or patterns I have noticed that help me to have a better ride.
I've never had that issue with women on a train or bus. Not all women do that or Asians are quiet on public transportation. Generalization doesn't work 100%, which is what you're doing. Just because someone is a stranger doesn't mean they're a threat or annoyance to you by existing.
I have choices about how to spend my time. I can choose to spend it working to make money which I will then use to buy something I want. I would not spend time working if I was not given money, or if I could not buy the things that I want. If you destroy my money or my things, then you have invalidated my choice to work, because I have now done so without the reward the motivated me to do so. If you take my money or my things, it is even worse, because now I have chosen to devote my time to work instead of leisure, and you reap the reward. Both are forms of time theft, and what is the inability to determine how your time will be spent other than slavery?
Because time theft doesn't exist. People stealing your stuff isn't touching the time spent making them, it's that someone stole an object that was your's. Slavery doesn't enter into the equation. They're stealing items from you, not making you a literal slave. It's not even similar indentured servitude. This is a bizarre form of though I've rarely seen before. Certainly not with the middle class or poor people I've met. I've met wealthy people as well and none have said anything resembling what you're going on about. Comparing abstract and solid subjects can be done but your examples don't sound logical to me at all.
I think it follows naturally from Locke and labor theories of value. If the value of a thing is the labor expended to produce or acquire it, then the labor is what you are taking when you steal or destroy that object.
How is the value of labor calculated in this context?
If it's by the time expended, wouldn't that mean that stealing $100 from you should be less of a crime than stealing $100 from the person that cleans your office.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.
I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.
You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.
Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.
If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?
See the above re: trains.
People can't steal your time, only objects. Your farmer analogy doesn't work since their crops are objects that can be stolen (thieves aren't stealing the time they had to use to make a crop), not quiet time on a train. You're confusing abstract and solid concepts again.
The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).
The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are pileup be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I jus want a quite train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).
If you don't think it's likely they will do something bad, why do you distrust them? Because you think they'll do something bad and you want to stop them from doing so before they can.
It absolutely does make you both misogynist and racist, because the first thing out of your mind here is the assumption that black women are going to talk loudly amongst themselves.
Living in a world where you're constantly trying to prevent other people from doing things that you imagine they might do is neurotic at best.
Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life. Based on this, I try not to sit near these groups when I can avoid it, because I want a quiet train ride. Do I think all women will talk the whole time and all black women will do so loudly? Of course not. But my goal is just to have a quiet, relaxing train ride, and so yes, I will try to avoid any group on the train, with special pains to avoid groups of women (especially black women) because experience tells me that if someone is going to be particularly loud, it is them. I also try to sit between two women on a crowded train because I find that they will move over more than men to give you some space. The ideal is two Asian women, and Asian men are preferred over other types of men because I find that Asians also move over more. If I had some overarching explanation for this, like "women are loud because they lack self control, and doubly so for black women. Asians are meek and so retreat when you sit between them" maybe that would be racist, but I draw no such conclusions. I am just going based on my experience of riding on the train every day, and trends or patterns I have noticed that help me to have a better ride.
I've never had that issue with women on a train or bus. Not all women do that or Asians are quiet on public transportation. Generalization doesn't work 100%, which is what you're doing. Just because someone is a stranger doesn't mean they're a threat or annoyance to you by existing.
I have choices about how to spend my time. I can choose to spend it working to make money which I will then use to buy something I want. I would not spend time working if I was not given money, or if I could not buy the things that I want. If you destroy my money or my things, then you have invalidated my choice to work, because I have now done so without the reward the motivated me to do so. If you take my money or my things, it is even worse, because now I have chosen to devote my time to work instead of leisure, and you reap the reward. Both are forms of time theft, and what is the inability to determine how your time will be spent other than slavery?
Because time theft doesn't exist. People stealing your stuff isn't touching the time spent making them, it's that someone stole an object that was your's. Slavery doesn't enter into the equation. They're stealing items from you, not making you a literal slave. It's not even similar indentured servitude. This is a bizarre form of though I've rarely seen before. Certainly not with the middle class or poor people I've met. I've met wealthy people as well and none have said anything resembling what you're going on about. Comparing abstract and solid subjects can be done but your examples don't sound logical to me at all.
I think it follows naturally from Locke and labor theories of value. If the value of a thing is the labor expended to produce or acquire it, then the labor is what you are taking when you steal or destroy that object.
How is the value of labor calculated in this context?
If it's by the time expended, wouldn't that mean that stealing $100 from you should be less of a crime than stealing $100 from the person that cleans your office.
Yes, but only to the extent that there are degrees of wrongness based on enslaving someone "a little." I would contend that there is no such distinction. This is also why I don't recognize a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property, and I think both deserve substantial punishment.
0
Options
Clown ShoesGive me hay or give me death.Registered Userregular
I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.
I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.
You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.
Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.
If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?
See the above re: trains.
People can't steal your time, only objects. Your farmer analogy doesn't work since their crops are objects that can be stolen (thieves aren't stealing the time they had to use to make a crop), not quiet time on a train. You're confusing abstract and solid concepts again.
The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).
The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are pileup be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I jus want a quite train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).
If you don't think it's likely they will do something bad, why do you distrust them? Because you think they'll do something bad and you want to stop them from doing so before they can.
It absolutely does make you both misogynist and racist, because the first thing out of your mind here is the assumption that black women are going to talk loudly amongst themselves.
Living in a world where you're constantly trying to prevent other people from doing things that you imagine they might do is neurotic at best.
Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life. Based on this, I try not to sit near these groups when I can avoid it, because I want a quiet train ride. Do I think all women will talk the whole time and all black women will do so loudly? Of course not. But my goal is just to have a quiet, relaxing train ride, and so yes, I will try to avoid any group on the train, with special pains to avoid groups of women (especially black women) because experience tells me that if someone is going to be particularly loud, it is them. I also try to sit between two women on a crowded train because I find that they will move over more than men to give you some space. The ideal is two Asian women, and Asian men are preferred over other types of men because I find that Asians also move over more. If I had some overarching explanation for this, like "women are loud because they lack self control, and doubly so for black women. Asians are meek and so retreat when you sit between them" maybe that would be racist, but I draw no such conclusions. I am just going based on my experience of riding on the train every day, and trends or patterns I have noticed that help me to have a better ride.
I've never had that issue with women on a train or bus. Not all women do that or Asians are quiet on public transportation. Generalization doesn't work 100%, which is what you're doing. Just because someone is a stranger doesn't mean they're a threat or annoyance to you by existing.
I have choices about how to spend my time. I can choose to spend it working to make money which I will then use to buy something I want. I would not spend time working if I was not given money, or if I could not buy the things that I want. If you destroy my money or my things, then you have invalidated my choice to work, because I have now done so without the reward the motivated me to do so. If you take my money or my things, it is even worse, because now I have chosen to devote my time to work instead of leisure, and you reap the reward. Both are forms of time theft, and what is the inability to determine how your time will be spent other than slavery?
Because time theft doesn't exist. People stealing your stuff isn't touching the time spent making them, it's that someone stole an object that was your's. Slavery doesn't enter into the equation. They're stealing items from you, not making you a literal slave. It's not even similar indentured servitude. This is a bizarre form of though I've rarely seen before. Certainly not with the middle class or poor people I've met. I've met wealthy people as well and none have said anything resembling what you're going on about. Comparing abstract and solid subjects can be done but your examples don't sound logical to me at all.
I think it follows naturally from Locke and labor theories of value. If the value of a thing is the labor expended to produce or acquire it, then the labor is what you are taking when you steal or destroy that object.
How is the value of labor calculated in this context?
If it's by the time expended, wouldn't that mean that stealing $100 from you should be less of a crime than stealing $100 from the person that cleans your office.
Yes, but only to the extent that there are degrees of wrongness based on enslaving someone "a little." I would contend that there is no such distinction. This is also why I don't recognize a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property, and I think both deserve substantial punishment.
Does that mean you wouldn't make a distinction between someone who knocks the wing mirror off your car and someone who steals the entire car? That they should both receive the same punishment?
I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.
I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.
You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.
Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.
If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?
See the above re: trains.
People can't steal your time, only objects. Your farmer analogy doesn't work since their crops are objects that can be stolen (thieves aren't stealing the time they had to use to make a crop), not quiet time on a train. You're confusing abstract and solid concepts again.
The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).
The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are pileup be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I jus want a quite train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).
If you don't think it's likely they will do something bad, why do you distrust them? Because you think they'll do something bad and you want to stop them from doing so before they can.
It absolutely does make you both misogynist and racist, because the first thing out of your mind here is the assumption that black women are going to talk loudly amongst themselves.
Living in a world where you're constantly trying to prevent other people from doing things that you imagine they might do is neurotic at best.
Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life. Based on this, I try not to sit near these groups when I can avoid it, because I want a quiet train ride. Do I think all women will talk the whole time and all black women will do so loudly? Of course not. But my goal is just to have a quiet, relaxing train ride, and so yes, I will try to avoid any group on the train, with special pains to avoid groups of women (especially black women) because experience tells me that if someone is going to be particularly loud, it is them. I also try to sit between two women on a crowded train because I find that they will move over more than men to give you some space. The ideal is two Asian women, and Asian men are preferred over other types of men because I find that Asians also move over more. If I had some overarching explanation for this, like "women are loud because they lack self control, and doubly so for black women. Asians are meek and so retreat when you sit between them" maybe that would be racist, but I draw no such conclusions. I am just going based on my experience of riding on the train every day, and trends or patterns I have noticed that help me to have a better ride.
I've never had that issue with women on a train or bus. Not all women do that or Asians are quiet on public transportation. Generalization doesn't work 100%, which is what you're doing. Just because someone is a stranger doesn't mean they're a threat or annoyance to you by existing.
I have choices about how to spend my time. I can choose to spend it working to make money which I will then use to buy something I want. I would not spend time working if I was not given money, or if I could not buy the things that I want. If you destroy my money or my things, then you have invalidated my choice to work, because I have now done so without the reward the motivated me to do so. If you take my money or my things, it is even worse, because now I have chosen to devote my time to work instead of leisure, and you reap the reward. Both are forms of time theft, and what is the inability to determine how your time will be spent other than slavery?
Because time theft doesn't exist. People stealing your stuff isn't touching the time spent making them, it's that someone stole an object that was your's. Slavery doesn't enter into the equation. They're stealing items from you, not making you a literal slave. It's not even similar indentured servitude. This is a bizarre form of though I've rarely seen before. Certainly not with the middle class or poor people I've met. I've met wealthy people as well and none have said anything resembling what you're going on about. Comparing abstract and solid subjects can be done but your examples don't sound logical to me at all.
I think it follows naturally from Locke and labor theories of value. If the value of a thing is the labor expended to produce or acquire it, then the labor is what you are taking when you steal or destroy that object.
How is the value of labor calculated in this context?
If it's by the time expended, wouldn't that mean that stealing $100 from you should be less of a crime than stealing $100 from the person that cleans your office.
Yes, but only to the extent that there are degrees of wrongness based on enslaving someone "a little." I would contend that there is no such distinction. This is also why I don't recognize a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property, and I think both deserve substantial punishment.
Does that mean you wouldn't make a distinction between someone who knocks the wing mirror off your car and someone who steals the entire car? That they should both receive the same punishment?
If done intentionally? No, I would not. I would require that compensation be paid to the aggrieved party, and that would be less, but the actual fines imposed should be large for any property crime imo.
Edit: I have no problem imposing ruinous penalties one someone who intentionally knocks the mirror off your car, does graffiti on your building, etc, because all people need to do is NOT DO THESE THINGS and they will be fine.
spacekungfuman on
0
Options
Clown ShoesGive me hay or give me death.Registered Userregular
I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.
I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.
You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.
Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.
If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?
See the above re: trains.
People can't steal your time, only objects. Your farmer analogy doesn't work since their crops are objects that can be stolen (thieves aren't stealing the time they had to use to make a crop), not quiet time on a train. You're confusing abstract and solid concepts again.
The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).
The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are pileup be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I jus want a quite train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).
If you don't think it's likely they will do something bad, why do you distrust them? Because you think they'll do something bad and you want to stop them from doing so before they can.
It absolutely does make you both misogynist and racist, because the first thing out of your mind here is the assumption that black women are going to talk loudly amongst themselves.
Living in a world where you're constantly trying to prevent other people from doing things that you imagine they might do is neurotic at best.
Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life. Based on this, I try not to sit near these groups when I can avoid it, because I want a quiet train ride. Do I think all women will talk the whole time and all black women will do so loudly? Of course not. But my goal is just to have a quiet, relaxing train ride, and so yes, I will try to avoid any group on the train, with special pains to avoid groups of women (especially black women) because experience tells me that if someone is going to be particularly loud, it is them. I also try to sit between two women on a crowded train because I find that they will move over more than men to give you some space. The ideal is two Asian women, and Asian men are preferred over other types of men because I find that Asians also move over more. If I had some overarching explanation for this, like "women are loud because they lack self control, and doubly so for black women. Asians are meek and so retreat when you sit between them" maybe that would be racist, but I draw no such conclusions. I am just going based on my experience of riding on the train every day, and trends or patterns I have noticed that help me to have a better ride.
I've never had that issue with women on a train or bus. Not all women do that or Asians are quiet on public transportation. Generalization doesn't work 100%, which is what you're doing. Just because someone is a stranger doesn't mean they're a threat or annoyance to you by existing.
I have choices about how to spend my time. I can choose to spend it working to make money which I will then use to buy something I want. I would not spend time working if I was not given money, or if I could not buy the things that I want. If you destroy my money or my things, then you have invalidated my choice to work, because I have now done so without the reward the motivated me to do so. If you take my money or my things, it is even worse, because now I have chosen to devote my time to work instead of leisure, and you reap the reward. Both are forms of time theft, and what is the inability to determine how your time will be spent other than slavery?
Because time theft doesn't exist. People stealing your stuff isn't touching the time spent making them, it's that someone stole an object that was your's. Slavery doesn't enter into the equation. They're stealing items from you, not making you a literal slave. It's not even similar indentured servitude. This is a bizarre form of though I've rarely seen before. Certainly not with the middle class or poor people I've met. I've met wealthy people as well and none have said anything resembling what you're going on about. Comparing abstract and solid subjects can be done but your examples don't sound logical to me at all.
I think it follows naturally from Locke and labor theories of value. If the value of a thing is the labor expended to produce or acquire it, then the labor is what you are taking when you steal or destroy that object.
How is the value of labor calculated in this context?
If it's by the time expended, wouldn't that mean that stealing $100 from you should be less of a crime than stealing $100 from the person that cleans your office.
Yes, but only to the extent that there are degrees of wrongness based on enslaving someone "a little." I would contend that there is no such distinction. This is also why I don't recognize a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property, and I think both deserve substantial punishment.
Does that mean you wouldn't make a distinction between someone who knocks the wing mirror off your car and someone who steals the entire car? That they should both receive the same punishment?
If done intentionally? No, I would not. I would require that compensation be paid to the aggrieved party, and that would be less, but the actual fines imposed should be large for any property crime imo.
I'm assuming both are intentional. If the compensation is less for taking out the wing mirror than stealing the car, you are recognizing "a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property".
Out of interest, how large do you think the large fines should be?
I ask because (to pull some numbers out of my arse) if the fine is $100k+compensation, then there is no real difference between the deterrent for causing $1 of damage than for causing $1000.
I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.
I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.
You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.
Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.
If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?
See the above re: trains.
The wiki link I posted is to a legal tradition that essentially notes that someone else being "on your lawn" does not necessarily imply you are being deprived of that land. Freedom to roam laws would not allow stealing crops, because that would definitely be depriving you of something, but mere presence?
Nah.
(Not that I'm particularly impressed by the idea that possession of property necessarily implies labour in a capitalist system, especially not when it comes to land. )
Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life.
Just like when you suggest that people who dress "outside the mainstream" are more likely to violate other social norms, you overestimate the accuracy of your observations and the validity of your inferences based on those observations, marry it to confirmation bias and then treat it with more gravity than it deserves.
Humans are ridicolously unreliable for "simple data collection" unless you employ extensive documentation - which obviously tends to turn it to not-quite-so-simple data collection. Generally, this isn't a problem - but it is when you're not aware of it, because you end up basing actions on things that are not actually true.
-This message was deviously brought to you by:
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.
I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.
You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.
Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.
If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?
See the above re: trains.
People can't steal your time, only objects. Your farmer analogy doesn't work since their crops are objects that can be stolen (thieves aren't stealing the time they had to use to make a crop), not quiet time on a train. You're confusing abstract and solid concepts again.
The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).
The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are pileup be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I jus want a quite train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).
If you don't think it's likely they will do something bad, why do you distrust them? Because you think they'll do something bad and you want to stop them from doing so before they can.
It absolutely does make you both misogynist and racist, because the first thing out of your mind here is the assumption that black women are going to talk loudly amongst themselves.
Living in a world where you're constantly trying to prevent other people from doing things that you imagine they might do is neurotic at best.
Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life. Based on this, I try not to sit near these groups when I can avoid it, because I want a quiet train ride. Do I think all women will talk the whole time and all black women will do so loudly? Of course not. But my goal is just to have a quiet, relaxing train ride, and so yes, I will try to avoid any group on the train, with special pains to avoid groups of women (especially black women) because experience tells me that if someone is going to be particularly loud, it is them. I also try to sit between two women on a crowded train because I find that they will move over more than men to give you some space. The ideal is two Asian women, and Asian men are preferred over other types of men because I find that Asians also move over more. If I had some overarching explanation for this, like "women are loud because they lack self control, and doubly so for black women. Asians are meek and so retreat when you sit between them" maybe that would be racist, but I draw no such conclusions. I am just going based on my experience of riding on the train every day, and trends or patterns I have noticed that help me to have a better ride.
I've never had that issue with women on a train or bus. Not all women do that or Asians are quiet on public transportation. Generalization doesn't work 100%, which is what you're doing. Just because someone is a stranger doesn't mean they're a threat or annoyance to you by existing.
I have choices about how to spend my time. I can choose to spend it working to make money which I will then use to buy something I want. I would not spend time working if I was not given money, or if I could not buy the things that I want. If you destroy my money or my things, then you have invalidated my choice to work, because I have now done so without the reward the motivated me to do so. If you take my money or my things, it is even worse, because now I have chosen to devote my time to work instead of leisure, and you reap the reward. Both are forms of time theft, and what is the inability to determine how your time will be spent other than slavery?
Because time theft doesn't exist. People stealing your stuff isn't touching the time spent making them, it's that someone stole an object that was your's. Slavery doesn't enter into the equation. They're stealing items from you, not making you a literal slave. It's not even similar indentured servitude. This is a bizarre form of though I've rarely seen before. Certainly not with the middle class or poor people I've met. I've met wealthy people as well and none have said anything resembling what you're going on about. Comparing abstract and solid subjects can be done but your examples don't sound logical to me at all.
I think it follows naturally from Locke and labor theories of value. If the value of a thing is the labor expended to produce or acquire it, then the labor is what you are taking when you steal or destroy that object.
How is the value of labor calculated in this context?
If it's by the time expended, wouldn't that mean that stealing $100 from you should be less of a crime than stealing $100 from the person that cleans your office.
Yes, but only to the extent that there are degrees of wrongness based on enslaving someone "a little." I would contend that there is no such distinction. This is also why I don't recognize a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property, and I think both deserve substantial punishment.
Does that mean you wouldn't make a distinction between someone who knocks the wing mirror off your car and someone who steals the entire car? That they should both receive the same punishment?
If done intentionally? No, I would not. I would require that compensation be paid to the aggrieved party, and that would be less, but the actual fines imposed should be large for any property crime imo.
I'm assuming both are intentional. If the compensation is less for taking out the wing mirror than stealing the car, you are recognizing "a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property".
Out of interest, how large do you think the large fines should be?
I ask because (to pull some numbers out of my arse) if the fine is $100k+compensation, then there is no real difference between the deterrent for causing $1 of damage than for causing $1000.
I'm not sure what it should be, but probably not that high. But why exactly would we think that our goal in deterrence is to deter larger property crimes and not smaller property crimes? Shouldn't we want to just deter property crimes from occuring at all?
I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.
I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.
You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.
Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.
If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?
See the above re: trains.
The wiki link I posted is to a legal tradition that essentially notes that someone else being "on your lawn" does not necessarily imply you are being deprived of that land. Freedom to roam laws would not allow stealing crops, because that would definitely be depriving you of something, but mere presence?
Nah.
(Not that I'm particularly impressed by the idea that possession of property necessarily implies labour in a capitalist system, especially not when it comes to land. )
Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life.
Just like when you suggest that people who dress "outside the mainstream" are more likely to violate other social norms, you overestimate the accuracy of your observations and the validity of your inferences based on those observations, marry it to confirmation bias and then treat it with more gravity than it deserves.
Humans are ridicolously unreliable for "simple data collection" unless you employ extensive documentation - which obviously tends to turn it to not-quite-so-simple data collection. Generally, this isn't a problem - but it is when you're not aware of it, because you end up basing actions on things that are not actually true.
If I am told that this tiny rock which is no inconvenience to me will protect me from tigers, and I want to avoid tiger attacks, I am perfectly happy to continue carrying the rock instead of experimenting, because tiger attacks come at a terrible cost.
0
Options
Clown ShoesGive me hay or give me death.Registered Userregular
I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.
I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.
You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.
Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.
If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?
See the above re: trains.
People can't steal your time, only objects. Your farmer analogy doesn't work since their crops are objects that can be stolen (thieves aren't stealing the time they had to use to make a crop), not quiet time on a train. You're confusing abstract and solid concepts again.
The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).
The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are pileup be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I jus want a quite train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).
If you don't think it's likely they will do something bad, why do you distrust them? Because you think they'll do something bad and you want to stop them from doing so before they can.
It absolutely does make you both misogynist and racist, because the first thing out of your mind here is the assumption that black women are going to talk loudly amongst themselves.
Living in a world where you're constantly trying to prevent other people from doing things that you imagine they might do is neurotic at best.
Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life. Based on this, I try not to sit near these groups when I can avoid it, because I want a quiet train ride. Do I think all women will talk the whole time and all black women will do so loudly? Of course not. But my goal is just to have a quiet, relaxing train ride, and so yes, I will try to avoid any group on the train, with special pains to avoid groups of women (especially black women) because experience tells me that if someone is going to be particularly loud, it is them. I also try to sit between two women on a crowded train because I find that they will move over more than men to give you some space. The ideal is two Asian women, and Asian men are preferred over other types of men because I find that Asians also move over more. If I had some overarching explanation for this, like "women are loud because they lack self control, and doubly so for black women. Asians are meek and so retreat when you sit between them" maybe that would be racist, but I draw no such conclusions. I am just going based on my experience of riding on the train every day, and trends or patterns I have noticed that help me to have a better ride.
I've never had that issue with women on a train or bus. Not all women do that or Asians are quiet on public transportation. Generalization doesn't work 100%, which is what you're doing. Just because someone is a stranger doesn't mean they're a threat or annoyance to you by existing.
I have choices about how to spend my time. I can choose to spend it working to make money which I will then use to buy something I want. I would not spend time working if I was not given money, or if I could not buy the things that I want. If you destroy my money or my things, then you have invalidated my choice to work, because I have now done so without the reward the motivated me to do so. If you take my money or my things, it is even worse, because now I have chosen to devote my time to work instead of leisure, and you reap the reward. Both are forms of time theft, and what is the inability to determine how your time will be spent other than slavery?
Because time theft doesn't exist. People stealing your stuff isn't touching the time spent making them, it's that someone stole an object that was your's. Slavery doesn't enter into the equation. They're stealing items from you, not making you a literal slave. It's not even similar indentured servitude. This is a bizarre form of though I've rarely seen before. Certainly not with the middle class or poor people I've met. I've met wealthy people as well and none have said anything resembling what you're going on about. Comparing abstract and solid subjects can be done but your examples don't sound logical to me at all.
I think it follows naturally from Locke and labor theories of value. If the value of a thing is the labor expended to produce or acquire it, then the labor is what you are taking when you steal or destroy that object.
How is the value of labor calculated in this context?
If it's by the time expended, wouldn't that mean that stealing $100 from you should be less of a crime than stealing $100 from the person that cleans your office.
Yes, but only to the extent that there are degrees of wrongness based on enslaving someone "a little." I would contend that there is no such distinction. This is also why I don't recognize a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property, and I think both deserve substantial punishment.
Does that mean you wouldn't make a distinction between someone who knocks the wing mirror off your car and someone who steals the entire car? That they should both receive the same punishment?
If done intentionally? No, I would not. I would require that compensation be paid to the aggrieved party, and that would be less, but the actual fines imposed should be large for any property crime imo.
I'm assuming both are intentional. If the compensation is less for taking out the wing mirror than stealing the car, you are recognizing "a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property".
Out of interest, how large do you think the large fines should be?
I ask because (to pull some numbers out of my arse) if the fine is $100k+compensation, then there is no real difference between the deterrent for causing $1 of damage than for causing $1000.
I'm not sure what it should be, but probably not that high. But why exactly would we think that our goal in deterrence is to deter larger property crimes and not smaller property crimes? Shouldn't we want to just deter property crimes from occuring at all?
Of course we should, but if the punishment doesn't fit the crime, it doesn't have the same deterrent effect. Excessive punishment leads people to decide that the law is unjust and they don't feel that the law needs to be followed. It's the justice equivalent of the Laffer curve.
A better analogy might be drug laws/classifications. If the government says that cannabis is as bad as crack and the schools just say "drug are bad, mmmkay", when a kid inevitably gets handed a joint at a party, they start to distrust everything they've been told about other drugs.
If I am told that this tiny rock which is no inconvenience to me will protect me from tigers, and I want to avoid tiger attacks, I am perfectly happy to continue carrying the rock instead of experimenting, because tiger attacks come at a terrible cost.
I have a slightly larger rock that will also protect you from crocodiles. Up until know I've been extending it's powers to you as a courtesy, but I'm afraid that I'll need you to pay a $10 per day license fee to continue. Still too scared to experiment?
Clown Shoes on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.
I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.
You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.
Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.
If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?
See the above re: trains.
People can't steal your time, only objects. Your farmer analogy doesn't work since their crops are objects that can be stolen (thieves aren't stealing the time they had to use to make a crop), not quiet time on a train. You're confusing abstract and solid concepts again.
The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).
The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are pileup be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I jus want a quite train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).
If you don't think it's likely they will do something bad, why do you distrust them? Because you think they'll do something bad and you want to stop them from doing so before they can.
It absolutely does make you both misogynist and racist, because the first thing out of your mind here is the assumption that black women are going to talk loudly amongst themselves.
Living in a world where you're constantly trying to prevent other people from doing things that you imagine they might do is neurotic at best.
Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life. Based on this, I try not to sit near these groups when I can avoid it, because I want a quiet train ride. Do I think all women will talk the whole time and all black women will do so loudly? Of course not. But my goal is just to have a quiet, relaxing train ride, and so yes, I will try to avoid any group on the train, with special pains to avoid groups of women (especially black women) because experience tells me that if someone is going to be particularly loud, it is them. I also try to sit between two women on a crowded train because I find that they will move over more than men to give you some space. The ideal is two Asian women, and Asian men are preferred over other types of men because I find that Asians also move over more. If I had some overarching explanation for this, like "women are loud because they lack self control, and doubly so for black women. Asians are meek and so retreat when you sit between them" maybe that would be racist, but I draw no such conclusions. I am just going based on my experience of riding on the train every day, and trends or patterns I have noticed that help me to have a better ride.
I've never had that issue with women on a train or bus. Not all women do that or Asians are quiet on public transportation. Generalization doesn't work 100%, which is what you're doing. Just because someone is a stranger doesn't mean they're a threat or annoyance to you by existing.
I have choices about how to spend my time. I can choose to spend it working to make money which I will then use to buy something I want. I would not spend time working if I was not given money, or if I could not buy the things that I want. If you destroy my money or my things, then you have invalidated my choice to work, because I have now done so without the reward the motivated me to do so. If you take my money or my things, it is even worse, because now I have chosen to devote my time to work instead of leisure, and you reap the reward. Both are forms of time theft, and what is the inability to determine how your time will be spent other than slavery?
Because time theft doesn't exist. People stealing your stuff isn't touching the time spent making them, it's that someone stole an object that was your's. Slavery doesn't enter into the equation. They're stealing items from you, not making you a literal slave. It's not even similar indentured servitude. This is a bizarre form of though I've rarely seen before. Certainly not with the middle class or poor people I've met. I've met wealthy people as well and none have said anything resembling what you're going on about. Comparing abstract and solid subjects can be done but your examples don't sound logical to me at all.
I think it follows naturally from Locke and labor theories of value. If the value of a thing is the labor expended to produce or acquire it, then the labor is what you are taking when you steal or destroy that object.
How is the value of labor calculated in this context?
If it's by the time expended, wouldn't that mean that stealing $100 from you should be less of a crime than stealing $100 from the person that cleans your office.
Yes, but only to the extent that there are degrees of wrongness based on enslaving someone "a little." I would contend that there is no such distinction. This is also why I don't recognize a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property, and I think both deserve substantial punishment.
Does that mean you wouldn't make a distinction between someone who knocks the wing mirror off your car and someone who steals the entire car? That they should both receive the same punishment?
If done intentionally? No, I would not. I would require that compensation be paid to the aggrieved party, and that would be less, but the actual fines imposed should be large for any property crime imo.
I'm assuming both are intentional. If the compensation is less for taking out the wing mirror than stealing the car, you are recognizing "a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property".
Out of interest, how large do you think the large fines should be?
I ask because (to pull some numbers out of my arse) if the fine is $100k+compensation, then there is no real difference between the deterrent for causing $1 of damage than for causing $1000.
I'm not sure what it should be, but probably not that high. But why exactly would we think that our goal in deterrence is to deter larger property crimes and not smaller property crimes? Shouldn't we want to just deter property crimes from occuring at all?
Of course we should, but if the punishment doesn't fit the crime, it doesn't have the same deterrent effect. Excessive punishment leads people to decide that the law is unjust and they don't feel that the law needs to be followed. It's the justice equivalent of the Laffer curve.
A better analogy might be drug laws/classifications. If the government says that cannabis is as bad as crack and the schools just say "drug are bad, mmmkay", when a kid inevitably gets handed a joint at a party, they start to distrust everything they've been told about other drugs.
With rigorous enforcement (a la Singapore), deciding not to follow the law because the punishment is too harsh will just result in irrational actors being punished. I don't see the problem here.
0
Options
Clown ShoesGive me hay or give me death.Registered Userregular
I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.
I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.
You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.
Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.
If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?
See the above re: trains.
People can't steal your time, only objects. Your farmer analogy doesn't work since their crops are objects that can be stolen (thieves aren't stealing the time they had to use to make a crop), not quiet time on a train. You're confusing abstract and solid concepts again.
The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).
The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are pileup be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I jus want a quite train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).
If you don't think it's likely they will do something bad, why do you distrust them? Because you think they'll do something bad and you want to stop them from doing so before they can.
It absolutely does make you both misogynist and racist, because the first thing out of your mind here is the assumption that black women are going to talk loudly amongst themselves.
Living in a world where you're constantly trying to prevent other people from doing things that you imagine they might do is neurotic at best.
Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life. Based on this, I try not to sit near these groups when I can avoid it, because I want a quiet train ride. Do I think all women will talk the whole time and all black women will do so loudly? Of course not. But my goal is just to have a quiet, relaxing train ride, and so yes, I will try to avoid any group on the train, with special pains to avoid groups of women (especially black women) because experience tells me that if someone is going to be particularly loud, it is them. I also try to sit between two women on a crowded train because I find that they will move over more than men to give you some space. The ideal is two Asian women, and Asian men are preferred over other types of men because I find that Asians also move over more. If I had some overarching explanation for this, like "women are loud because they lack self control, and doubly so for black women. Asians are meek and so retreat when you sit between them" maybe that would be racist, but I draw no such conclusions. I am just going based on my experience of riding on the train every day, and trends or patterns I have noticed that help me to have a better ride.
I've never had that issue with women on a train or bus. Not all women do that or Asians are quiet on public transportation. Generalization doesn't work 100%, which is what you're doing. Just because someone is a stranger doesn't mean they're a threat or annoyance to you by existing.
I have choices about how to spend my time. I can choose to spend it working to make money which I will then use to buy something I want. I would not spend time working if I was not given money, or if I could not buy the things that I want. If you destroy my money or my things, then you have invalidated my choice to work, because I have now done so without the reward the motivated me to do so. If you take my money or my things, it is even worse, because now I have chosen to devote my time to work instead of leisure, and you reap the reward. Both are forms of time theft, and what is the inability to determine how your time will be spent other than slavery?
Because time theft doesn't exist. People stealing your stuff isn't touching the time spent making them, it's that someone stole an object that was your's. Slavery doesn't enter into the equation. They're stealing items from you, not making you a literal slave. It's not even similar indentured servitude. This is a bizarre form of though I've rarely seen before. Certainly not with the middle class or poor people I've met. I've met wealthy people as well and none have said anything resembling what you're going on about. Comparing abstract and solid subjects can be done but your examples don't sound logical to me at all.
I think it follows naturally from Locke and labor theories of value. If the value of a thing is the labor expended to produce or acquire it, then the labor is what you are taking when you steal or destroy that object.
How is the value of labor calculated in this context?
If it's by the time expended, wouldn't that mean that stealing $100 from you should be less of a crime than stealing $100 from the person that cleans your office.
Yes, but only to the extent that there are degrees of wrongness based on enslaving someone "a little." I would contend that there is no such distinction. This is also why I don't recognize a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property, and I think both deserve substantial punishment.
Does that mean you wouldn't make a distinction between someone who knocks the wing mirror off your car and someone who steals the entire car? That they should both receive the same punishment?
If done intentionally? No, I would not. I would require that compensation be paid to the aggrieved party, and that would be less, but the actual fines imposed should be large for any property crime imo.
I'm assuming both are intentional. If the compensation is less for taking out the wing mirror than stealing the car, you are recognizing "a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property".
Out of interest, how large do you think the large fines should be?
I ask because (to pull some numbers out of my arse) if the fine is $100k+compensation, then there is no real difference between the deterrent for causing $1 of damage than for causing $1000.
I'm not sure what it should be, but probably not that high. But why exactly would we think that our goal in deterrence is to deter larger property crimes and not smaller property crimes? Shouldn't we want to just deter property crimes from occuring at all?
Of course we should, but if the punishment doesn't fit the crime, it doesn't have the same deterrent effect. Excessive punishment leads people to decide that the law is unjust and they don't feel that the law needs to be followed. It's the justice equivalent of the Laffer curve.
A better analogy might be drug laws/classifications. If the government says that cannabis is as bad as crack and the schools just say "drug are bad, mmmkay", when a kid inevitably gets handed a joint at a party, they start to distrust everything they've been told about other drugs.
With rigorous enforcement (a la Singapore), deciding not to follow the law because the punishment is too harsh will just result in irrational actors being punished. I don't see the problem here.
So you agree that it's a good idea to have the death penalty for dropping litter - I mean, we all like clean streets, don't we?
Given you used the phrase "irrational actors", I've this horrible feeling that you've been reading economics. You know it's more voodoo than science, right? People who always behave as "rational actors" in economics terms would be considered as deeply disturbed individuals in most other contexts.
I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.
I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.
You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.
Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.
If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?
See the above re: trains.
The wiki link I posted is to a legal tradition that essentially notes that someone else being "on your lawn" does not necessarily imply you are being deprived of that land. Freedom to roam laws would not allow stealing crops, because that would definitely be depriving you of something, but mere presence?
Nah.
(Not that I'm particularly impressed by the idea that possession of property necessarily implies labour in a capitalist system, especially not when it comes to land. )
Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life.
Just like when you suggest that people who dress "outside the mainstream" are more likely to violate other social norms, you overestimate the accuracy of your observations and the validity of your inferences based on those observations, marry it to confirmation bias and then treat it with more gravity than it deserves.
Humans are ridicolously unreliable for "simple data collection" unless you employ extensive documentation - which obviously tends to turn it to not-quite-so-simple data collection. Generally, this isn't a problem - but it is when you're not aware of it, because you end up basing actions on things that are not actually true.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but after looking at that link, Right to Roam - in most cases - specifically excludes private property/a persons yard. What it does include is the countryside or uncultivated land, like forests and places in the middle of nowhere with no one living nearby.
Even in the countries it lists as the most respectful of Right to Roam - Norway, Sweden, Finland - you still cant go trouncing around on someones lawn without permission and call it Right to Roam. In fact, I don't see a single country listed on here where someones lawn, and in most cases private property (farms included), is applicable to Right to Roam.
PSN: the-K-flash
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.
I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.
You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.
Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.
If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?
See the above re: trains.
People can't steal your time, only objects. Your farmer analogy doesn't work since their crops are objects that can be stolen (thieves aren't stealing the time they had to use to make a crop), not quiet time on a train. You're confusing abstract and solid concepts again.
The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).
The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are pileup be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I jus want a quite train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).
If you don't think it's likely they will do something bad, why do you distrust them? Because you think they'll do something bad and you want to stop them from doing so before they can.
It absolutely does make you both misogynist and racist, because the first thing out of your mind here is the assumption that black women are going to talk loudly amongst themselves.
Living in a world where you're constantly trying to prevent other people from doing things that you imagine they might do is neurotic at best.
Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life. Based on this, I try not to sit near these groups when I can avoid it, because I want a quiet train ride. Do I think all women will talk the whole time and all black women will do so loudly? Of course not. But my goal is just to have a quiet, relaxing train ride, and so yes, I will try to avoid any group on the train, with special pains to avoid groups of women (especially black women) because experience tells me that if someone is going to be particularly loud, it is them. I also try to sit between two women on a crowded train because I find that they will move over more than men to give you some space. The ideal is two Asian women, and Asian men are preferred over other types of men because I find that Asians also move over more. If I had some overarching explanation for this, like "women are loud because they lack self control, and doubly so for black women. Asians are meek and so retreat when you sit between them" maybe that would be racist, but I draw no such conclusions. I am just going based on my experience of riding on the train every day, and trends or patterns I have noticed that help me to have a better ride.
I've never had that issue with women on a train or bus. Not all women do that or Asians are quiet on public transportation. Generalization doesn't work 100%, which is what you're doing. Just because someone is a stranger doesn't mean they're a threat or annoyance to you by existing.
I have choices about how to spend my time. I can choose to spend it working to make money which I will then use to buy something I want. I would not spend time working if I was not given money, or if I could not buy the things that I want. If you destroy my money or my things, then you have invalidated my choice to work, because I have now done so without the reward the motivated me to do so. If you take my money or my things, it is even worse, because now I have chosen to devote my time to work instead of leisure, and you reap the reward. Both are forms of time theft, and what is the inability to determine how your time will be spent other than slavery?
Because time theft doesn't exist. People stealing your stuff isn't touching the time spent making them, it's that someone stole an object that was your's. Slavery doesn't enter into the equation. They're stealing items from you, not making you a literal slave. It's not even similar indentured servitude. This is a bizarre form of though I've rarely seen before. Certainly not with the middle class or poor people I've met. I've met wealthy people as well and none have said anything resembling what you're going on about. Comparing abstract and solid subjects can be done but your examples don't sound logical to me at all.
I think it follows naturally from Locke and labor theories of value. If the value of a thing is the labor expended to produce or acquire it, then the labor is what you are taking when you steal or destroy that object.
How is the value of labor calculated in this context?
If it's by the time expended, wouldn't that mean that stealing $100 from you should be less of a crime than stealing $100 from the person that cleans your office.
Yes, but only to the extent that there are degrees of wrongness based on enslaving someone "a little." I would contend that there is no such distinction. This is also why I don't recognize a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property, and I think both deserve substantial punishment.
Does that mean you wouldn't make a distinction between someone who knocks the wing mirror off your car and someone who steals the entire car? That they should both receive the same punishment?
If done intentionally? No, I would not. I would require that compensation be paid to the aggrieved party, and that would be less, but the actual fines imposed should be large for any property crime imo.
I'm assuming both are intentional. If the compensation is less for taking out the wing mirror than stealing the car, you are recognizing "a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property".
Out of interest, how large do you think the large fines should be?
I ask because (to pull some numbers out of my arse) if the fine is $100k+compensation, then there is no real difference between the deterrent for causing $1 of damage than for causing $1000.
I'm not sure what it should be, but probably not that high. But why exactly would we think that our goal in deterrence is to deter larger property crimes and not smaller property crimes? Shouldn't we want to just deter property crimes from occuring at all?
Of course we should, but if the punishment doesn't fit the crime, it doesn't have the same deterrent effect. Excessive punishment leads people to decide that the law is unjust and they don't feel that the law needs to be followed. It's the justice equivalent of the Laffer curve.
A better analogy might be drug laws/classifications. If the government says that cannabis is as bad as crack and the schools just say "drug are bad, mmmkay", when a kid inevitably gets handed a joint at a party, they start to distrust everything they've been told about other drugs.
With rigorous enforcement (a la Singapore), deciding not to follow the law because the punishment is too harsh will just result in irrational actors being punished. I don't see the problem here.
So you agree that it's a good idea to have the death penalty for dropping litter - I mean, we all like clean streets, don't we?
Given you used the phrase "irrational actors", I've this horrible feeling that you've been reading economics. You know it's more voodoo than science, right? People who always behave as "rational actors" in economics terms would be considered as deeply disturbed individuals in most other contexts.
If we somehow had perfect enforcement and perfectly drafted laws which accounted for every possible justification for dropping litter, I would be fine with that, but neither of those preconditions can be satisfied. But as a general matter, my answer the any complaint that a punishment doesn't match the crime is "if you don't commit the crime, it doesn't matter." I don't see a problem with expecting people to follow the rules.
0
Options
Clown ShoesGive me hay or give me death.Registered Userregular
I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist.
And here I thought the most brilliant thing this thread was going to generate this week was equating something like this to slavery.
I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.
You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.
Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.
If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?
See the above re: trains.
People can't steal your time, only objects. Your farmer analogy doesn't work since their crops are objects that can be stolen (thieves aren't stealing the time they had to use to make a crop), not quiet time on a train. You're confusing abstract and solid concepts again.
The reason you lock your car is because you're afraid it will get stolen. The reason you (or they, dunno if you described yourself as this) avoid groups is because you're afraid they'll do some bad thing to you. So I don't know if you antagonistically hate those people or are just subscribing to the low-level resentment of "geez I wish these people weren't around and making my life inconvenient for me" but either way you're hating them (because you're afraid of them) by ascribing them special antagonistic powers.
If it really wasn't a big deal, you'd just get on the train that is closest to you.
I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).
The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are pileup be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I jus want a quite train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).
If you don't think it's likely they will do something bad, why do you distrust them? Because you think they'll do something bad and you want to stop them from doing so before they can.
It absolutely does make you both misogynist and racist, because the first thing out of your mind here is the assumption that black women are going to talk loudly amongst themselves.
Living in a world where you're constantly trying to prevent other people from doing things that you imagine they might do is neurotic at best.
Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life. Based on this, I try not to sit near these groups when I can avoid it, because I want a quiet train ride. Do I think all women will talk the whole time and all black women will do so loudly? Of course not. But my goal is just to have a quiet, relaxing train ride, and so yes, I will try to avoid any group on the train, with special pains to avoid groups of women (especially black women) because experience tells me that if someone is going to be particularly loud, it is them. I also try to sit between two women on a crowded train because I find that they will move over more than men to give you some space. The ideal is two Asian women, and Asian men are preferred over other types of men because I find that Asians also move over more. If I had some overarching explanation for this, like "women are loud because they lack self control, and doubly so for black women. Asians are meek and so retreat when you sit between them" maybe that would be racist, but I draw no such conclusions. I am just going based on my experience of riding on the train every day, and trends or patterns I have noticed that help me to have a better ride.
I've never had that issue with women on a train or bus. Not all women do that or Asians are quiet on public transportation. Generalization doesn't work 100%, which is what you're doing. Just because someone is a stranger doesn't mean they're a threat or annoyance to you by existing.
I have choices about how to spend my time. I can choose to spend it working to make money which I will then use to buy something I want. I would not spend time working if I was not given money, or if I could not buy the things that I want. If you destroy my money or my things, then you have invalidated my choice to work, because I have now done so without the reward the motivated me to do so. If you take my money or my things, it is even worse, because now I have chosen to devote my time to work instead of leisure, and you reap the reward. Both are forms of time theft, and what is the inability to determine how your time will be spent other than slavery?
Because time theft doesn't exist. People stealing your stuff isn't touching the time spent making them, it's that someone stole an object that was your's. Slavery doesn't enter into the equation. They're stealing items from you, not making you a literal slave. It's not even similar indentured servitude. This is a bizarre form of though I've rarely seen before. Certainly not with the middle class or poor people I've met. I've met wealthy people as well and none have said anything resembling what you're going on about. Comparing abstract and solid subjects can be done but your examples don't sound logical to me at all.
I think it follows naturally from Locke and labor theories of value. If the value of a thing is the labor expended to produce or acquire it, then the labor is what you are taking when you steal or destroy that object.
How is the value of labor calculated in this context?
If it's by the time expended, wouldn't that mean that stealing $100 from you should be less of a crime than stealing $100 from the person that cleans your office.
Yes, but only to the extent that there are degrees of wrongness based on enslaving someone "a little." I would contend that there is no such distinction. This is also why I don't recognize a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property, and I think both deserve substantial punishment.
Does that mean you wouldn't make a distinction between someone who knocks the wing mirror off your car and someone who steals the entire car? That they should both receive the same punishment?
If done intentionally? No, I would not. I would require that compensation be paid to the aggrieved party, and that would be less, but the actual fines imposed should be large for any property crime imo.
I'm assuming both are intentional. If the compensation is less for taking out the wing mirror than stealing the car, you are recognizing "a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property".
Out of interest, how large do you think the large fines should be?
I ask because (to pull some numbers out of my arse) if the fine is $100k+compensation, then there is no real difference between the deterrent for causing $1 of damage than for causing $1000.
I'm not sure what it should be, but probably not that high. But why exactly would we think that our goal in deterrence is to deter larger property crimes and not smaller property crimes? Shouldn't we want to just deter property crimes from occuring at all?
Of course we should, but if the punishment doesn't fit the crime, it doesn't have the same deterrent effect. Excessive punishment leads people to decide that the law is unjust and they don't feel that the law needs to be followed. It's the justice equivalent of the Laffer curve.
A better analogy might be drug laws/classifications. If the government says that cannabis is as bad as crack and the schools just say "drug are bad, mmmkay", when a kid inevitably gets handed a joint at a party, they start to distrust everything they've been told about other drugs.
With rigorous enforcement (a la Singapore), deciding not to follow the law because the punishment is too harsh will just result in irrational actors being punished. I don't see the problem here.
So you agree that it's a good idea to have the death penalty for dropping litter - I mean, we all like clean streets, don't we?
Given you used the phrase "irrational actors", I've this horrible feeling that you've been reading economics. You know it's more voodoo than science, right? People who always behave as "rational actors" in economics terms would be considered as deeply disturbed individuals in most other contexts.
If we somehow had perfect enforcement and perfectly drafted laws which accounted for every possible justification for dropping litter, I would be fine with that, but neither of those preconditions can be satisfied. But as a general matter, my answer the any complaint that a punishment doesn't match the crime is "if you don't commit the crime, it doesn't matter." I don't see a problem with expecting people to follow the rules.
You knew the rules, you believe following the rules is important and yet you're currently jailed.
"Don't commit the crime" is not an answer to a complaint that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. It's just putting your hands over your ears and saying "la la la, I'm not listening".
Posts
Well, the reason I avoid the kids on the train is because they are annoying. When they for a group, the take the seats near the door (since those seats face each other) and block the passage. They make a bunch of noise, and they can get pretty belligerent (I'm guessing this is some sort of peer respect thing?)
This isn't me ascribing some special powers to them. This is me seeing how they act, and choosing that I'd rather not participate. As an fyi, I also avoid the drunk train cars after a rugby match (That's based purely on conjecture, I haven't them doing anything)
As for the car thing, is anybody actually worried that their car is going to be stolen? I mean like actively worried? There's such a small group of people that locking your car actually prevents from doing anything. It's probably even a smaller % of the population than teenagers hassling you.
And yet you do it anyway, because it costs you nothing, and prevents a small chance of harm.
Edit: @lonelyahava Missed your post earlier, so I sent you a PM. Which will appear in the same place as a @ notification. So sending an @ notification is redundant.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I think distrust is a better way to put it. I don't think it is likely that they will do something bad, but I don't trust in their judgement or maturity, so I'd rather not leave myself in a position where they are making decisions that effect me. My concern is much more so about property rights (like them skateboarding in a parking lot, bumping into my car with the skateboard and running away) than personal safety (I don't worry that a pack of teenagers is going to mug or attack me or something).
The other side of it is avoidance because past experience has shown me that these groups are often be loud. I don't like sitting near any groups on the train, but groups of teenagers are consistently louder than anyone other than crying children, in my experience. I also don't like sitting near groups of women (especially black women) because in my experience they talk to each other loudly the whole time, but I don't think that makes me misogynistic or racist. I just want a quiet train ride, and value certainty over giving people the chance to not be loud, since the cost of my choice is so incredibly low (just sitting somewhere away from them).
The reason you avoid an entire group of people is that you believe every one in that group of people will do something to antagonize you. You can minimize it as much as you like, but you keep repeating the same thing I've been criticizing as though it's somehow a response. How is it reasonable or logical to assume that teenagers in a group are going to do things that annoy you? How is this not prejudice?
If you weren't worried your car might be stolen, why would you lock the door? Peer pressure? Tradition?
Avoiding large groups on a train if you want peace and quiet is just common sense. Kids are loud because kids are loud, when they talk on a train it can get on my nerves. I also avoided cars full of kids because I don't really give a shit about teen pop culture or who is banging who in the Southie Brat Pack.
You lock your door because it might get stolen. This is a thing which happens to cars.
Idk man, you seem to be having a problem with a lot of basic "learn how to live in a city" type stuff.
If you don't think it's likely they will do something bad, why do you distrust them? Because you think they'll do something bad and you want to stop them from doing so before they can.
It absolutely does make you both misogynist and racist, because the first thing out of your mind here is the assumption that black women are going to talk loudly amongst themselves.
Living in a world where you're constantly trying to prevent other people from doing things that you imagine they might do is neurotic at best.
Because they're doing things that annoy me? I mean I can see them doing it. I can hear them doing it. And it annoys me.
Do you lock your car? Are you actively worried that it's going to be stolen?
The % of people who would actually steal your car is tiny based on the total population. From that % of car thieves, only a subset will actually be put off by you locking your car. Actually actively being worried that your car is going to be stolen is silly. And yet, you do it anyway. Does that mean that you suddenly trust no one in your area?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Sorry, this is from a while back but, no, pretty much never.
I will take walks to take a walk and take in some sights, or whatever, but not to shop. Window shopping has no appeal to me. When I go shopping I am pretty much a man on a mission, and the less time I spend in a shop generally the happier I am with my shopping experience.
I stand corrected, and wonder just how often you guys actually use the public transportation system in your respective locales? 'cause while the local establishments aren't exactly the Tokoy metro, they tend to be filled with people to a degree where actively avoiding subsets of them would be a pain in the ass (I don't think you could even see shit like teenagers in time to actively avoid them), and during rush hour possibly hazardous to your health because in, out or in between, the doors are fucking a-closing.
You turn the volume on your headphones up if someone gets obnoxiously loud, but that's pretty much it. It's a public transportation system - it's filled with the public.
Not particularly unexpected, nor a massive cause for concern amongst normal people.
Actually they are.
Rich people are often possessing of expensive clothing is a generalization that is also true. Many ways of grouping people are perfect for making generalized statements. Because those people are grouped based on a criteria that makes that makes those generalizations relevant. Rich people own expensive clothing because, by virtue of being rich, they have the money to do so.
The problem with saying "Black people generally do X" is not that you are generalizing, it's that you are generalizing behaviour based on a criteria (racial ancestry) that isn't relevant to the generalization. Even with this specific formulation, small changes make it a perfectly valid statement. There 100% exists a rich and historic "black culture" in the US.
But to get back to the point, you can very much make some inferences about average teenage behaviour. They are pre-adults, both physically and societally. And that means, on average, there exists a tendency towards certain behaviours you wouldn't see in other groups.
Add in the large group social dynamics and you get a situation that it's perfectly valid to feel uncomfortable about.
And I can't blame the parents for wanting their kids out of the fucking house for that kind of thing.
I mean, really, would you want to be reminded, every second, that you raised a wigger? That's shameful, you need some respite from that.
Observation has taught me that women are more likely to spend an entire train ride talking to each other than men, and that black women often do so at a louder volume. This is just simple data collection from my life. Based on this, I try not to sit near these groups when I can avoid it, because I want a quiet train ride. Do I think all women will talk the whole time and all black women will do so loudly? Of course not. But my goal is just to have a quiet, relaxing train ride, and so yes, I will try to avoid any group on the train, with special pains to avoid groups of women (especially black women) because experience tells me that if someone is going to be particularly loud, it is them. I also try to sit between two women on a crowded train because I find that they will move over more than men to give you some space. The ideal is two Asian women, and Asian men are preferred over other types of men because I find that Asians also move over more. If I had some overarching explanation for this, like "women are loud because they lack self control, and doubly so for black women. Asians are meek and so retreat when you sit between them" maybe that would be racist, but I draw no such conclusions. I am just going based on my experience of riding on the train every day, and trends or patterns I have noticed that help me to have a better ride.
If I devote my time to making money to buy something (or to buolding something) and you deprive me of its use against my will, what else can you call that but a theft of the time I spent acquiring or making it? Let's say I was a farmer and tilled the soil, then every year you snuck in at night and stole 20% of my crop, or occupied part of my land and stayed there until the crops withered on the vine. You have now taken 20% of my labor, without my permission and without compensation. What other name for that?
See the above re: trains.
I've also been stolen from by either a really retarded adult, or a teenager, because I've left my car unlocked. I'd feel an adult would realize the valuables of the shit that was in my car, but nope, the only thing taken was my fucking phone charger and about $3 in change.
Avoiding the $500 worth of school textbooks on the floor of the car.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
Maybe not murder, but by failing to deliver the papers, they effectively stole the labor of the producers of the paper.
So, that counts as slavery, right?
They aren't depriving you of your use of the train. You are still on the train, going where you need to go.
I was referencing the post above this one. Not that paragraph, which was in response to the "someone on my lawn doesn't make me a slave" argument.
My friend had the same thing happen, minus anything being left behind.
He was insulted. I mean, really, what does it say about your car and your stuff when it's not even worth stealing?
People can't steal your time, only objects. Your farmer analogy doesn't work since their crops are objects that can be stolen (thieves aren't stealing the time they had to use to make a crop), not quiet time on a train. You're confusing abstract and solid concepts again.
I've never had that issue with women on a train or bus. Not all women do that or Asians are quiet on public transportation. Generalization doesn't work 100%, which is what you're doing. Just because someone is a stranger doesn't mean they're a threat or annoyance to you by existing.
I have choices about how to spend my time. I can choose to spend it working to make money which I will then use to buy something I want. I would not spend time working if I was not given money, or if I could not buy the things that I want. If you destroy my money or my things, then you have invalidated my choice to work, because I have now done so without the reward the motivated me to do so. If you take my money or my things, it is even worse, because now I have chosen to devote my time to work instead of leisure, and you reap the reward. Both are forms of time theft, and what is the inability to determine how your time will be spent other than slavery?
I don't feel included in the often-loud conversations of puerto rican women on the subway, but often their conversations are animated and entertaining. I'd rather listen to them than white tourists complain about the subway, or suits comparing commuting tips.
As for teenagers, the problem isn't really teenagers but rather the acceptance-based mentality of these groups. A teenager by his or herself is typically fine, but if you get a group of them together, they'll either show off in some dumb way or try to dare each other to do things as a test. In Baltimore, there was this teenage hazing thing going on where 8-10 year olds were rushing up on people walking by and whacking them on the back of the head, and then running off. The police didn't know what it was but assumed it was some hazing thing -- a "you have to whack someone on the head in order to be in our group of friends" stunt. Personally? I'd rather have kids hanging out somewhere where kids usually hang out compared to have them figure out some other way of getting around the system. If I see a group of teens hanging out in front of Hot Topic at the mall, or in the back of a parking lot at the mall? Great! That means they're not roving the mall trying to pull dumb shit in an impromptu game of Mall Capture The Flag or something.
Because time theft doesn't exist. People stealing your stuff isn't touching the time spent making them, it's that someone stole an object that was your's. Slavery doesn't enter into the equation. They're stealing items from you, not making you a literal slave. It's not even similar indentured servitude. This is a bizarre form of though I've rarely seen before. Certainly not with the middle class or poor people I've met. I've met wealthy people as well and none have said anything resembling what you're going on about. Comparing abstract and solid subjects can be done but your examples don't sound logical to me at all.
I think it follows naturally from Locke and labor theories of value. If the value of a thing is the labor expended to produce or acquire it, then the labor is what you are taking when you steal or destroy that object.
@ronya
How is the value of labor calculated in this context?
If it's by the time expended, wouldn't that mean that stealing $100 from you should be less of a crime than stealing $100 from the person that cleans your office.
Yes, but only to the extent that there are degrees of wrongness based on enslaving someone "a little." I would contend that there is no such distinction. This is also why I don't recognize a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property, and I think both deserve substantial punishment.
Does that mean you wouldn't make a distinction between someone who knocks the wing mirror off your car and someone who steals the entire car? That they should both receive the same punishment?
If done intentionally? No, I would not. I would require that compensation be paid to the aggrieved party, and that would be less, but the actual fines imposed should be large for any property crime imo.
Edit: I have no problem imposing ruinous penalties one someone who intentionally knocks the mirror off your car, does graffiti on your building, etc, because all people need to do is NOT DO THESE THINGS and they will be fine.
I'm assuming both are intentional. If the compensation is less for taking out the wing mirror than stealing the car, you are recognizing "a difference between "petty vandalism" and full on crimes against property".
Out of interest, how large do you think the large fines should be?
I ask because (to pull some numbers out of my arse) if the fine is $100k+compensation, then there is no real difference between the deterrent for causing $1 of damage than for causing $1000.
Nah.
(Not that I'm particularly impressed by the idea that possession of property necessarily implies labour in a capitalist system, especially not when it comes to land. )
Just like when you suggest that people who dress "outside the mainstream" are more likely to violate other social norms, you overestimate the accuracy of your observations and the validity of your inferences based on those observations, marry it to confirmation bias and then treat it with more gravity than it deserves.
Humans are ridicolously unreliable for "simple data collection" unless you employ extensive documentation - which obviously tends to turn it to not-quite-so-simple data collection. Generally, this isn't a problem - but it is when you're not aware of it, because you end up basing actions on things that are not actually true.
I'm not sure what it should be, but probably not that high. But why exactly would we think that our goal in deterrence is to deter larger property crimes and not smaller property crimes? Shouldn't we want to just deter property crimes from occuring at all?
If I am told that this tiny rock which is no inconvenience to me will protect me from tigers, and I want to avoid tiger attacks, I am perfectly happy to continue carrying the rock instead of experimenting, because tiger attacks come at a terrible cost.
Of course we should, but if the punishment doesn't fit the crime, it doesn't have the same deterrent effect. Excessive punishment leads people to decide that the law is unjust and they don't feel that the law needs to be followed. It's the justice equivalent of the Laffer curve.
A better analogy might be drug laws/classifications. If the government says that cannabis is as bad as crack and the schools just say "drug are bad, mmmkay", when a kid inevitably gets handed a joint at a party, they start to distrust everything they've been told about other drugs.
I have a slightly larger rock that will also protect you from crocodiles. Up until know I've been extending it's powers to you as a courtesy, but I'm afraid that I'll need you to pay a $10 per day license fee to continue. Still too scared to experiment?
With rigorous enforcement (a la Singapore), deciding not to follow the law because the punishment is too harsh will just result in irrational actors being punished. I don't see the problem here.
So you agree that it's a good idea to have the death penalty for dropping litter - I mean, we all like clean streets, don't we?
Given you used the phrase "irrational actors", I've this horrible feeling that you've been reading economics. You know it's more voodoo than science, right? People who always behave as "rational actors" in economics terms would be considered as deeply disturbed individuals in most other contexts.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but after looking at that link, Right to Roam - in most cases - specifically excludes private property/a persons yard. What it does include is the countryside or uncultivated land, like forests and places in the middle of nowhere with no one living nearby.
Even in the countries it lists as the most respectful of Right to Roam - Norway, Sweden, Finland - you still cant go trouncing around on someones lawn without permission and call it Right to Roam. In fact, I don't see a single country listed on here where someones lawn, and in most cases private property (farms included), is applicable to Right to Roam.
If we somehow had perfect enforcement and perfectly drafted laws which accounted for every possible justification for dropping litter, I would be fine with that, but neither of those preconditions can be satisfied. But as a general matter, my answer the any complaint that a punishment doesn't match the crime is "if you don't commit the crime, it doesn't matter." I don't see a problem with expecting people to follow the rules.
You knew the rules, you believe following the rules is important and yet you're currently jailed.
"Don't commit the crime" is not an answer to a complaint that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. It's just putting your hands over your ears and saying "la la la, I'm not listening".