Leaving the community

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:Agomd.413413$D%.3751@attbi_s51...
So, just for starters, who again owned that land you now live on before
your
ancestors STOLE it from them? And during building that oh so great
country,
whose labor did they STEAL by enslaving a whole race? Let me quote you
again:

That's crazy. By your definition of "stolen" there isn't a race of people
on this planet that "should" be where they are today.

How do you steal something from someone who didn't own it in the first
place?


And slave-owners WERE scum, BTW.

Easily said with a hundred and some years of hindsight.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

The world isn't simple. Anyone trying to make it so is dumb or trying to
trick
you. And there is certainly no ultimate authority on what is right or
wrong.
BTW, ironically your view would probably be shared by islamic
fundamentalists.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas,

You are correct that the world isn't simple and you have to examine
mitigating circumstances when making a judgement. The point I was trying to
make is this: to say that poverty causes crime is a huge insult to poor
people who don't commit crimes.

Also, "poor" can be a relative term (poverty level notwithstanding). I'm
poor compared to lots of people, rich to others. If I wandered onto Bill
Gates' estate and stole something, would it be alright?

By the way, what does (EDDH) mean? Is it the airport in Hamburg?

-Trent
PP-ASEL

Trent,

to say that poverty causes crime is a huge insult to poor
people who don't commit crimes.

And you're right.


By the way, what does (EDDH) mean? Is it the airport in Hamburg?


Yes, it is.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Trent Moorehead wrote:



Also, "poor" can be a relative term (poverty level notwithstanding).

No kidding. We have the richest poor people in the world.

"Trent Moorehead" wrote in message
...
You are correct that the world isn't simple and you have to examine
mitigating circumstances when making a judgement. The point I was trying
to
make is this: to say that poverty causes crime is a huge insult to poor
people who don't commit crimes.

IMHO, scandals like those regarding Enron, Worldcom, and the Iraq War are
proof enough that you don't need to be poor to be a criminal.

But to suggest that there's NO statistical correlation between poverty and
crime, and *especially* between poverty and property crimes (like theft), is
just plain incorrect.

Perhaps saying it out loud is an insult to the poor people who don't commit
crimes. But that's a matter for the PC police, not people who are
interested in factual statements.

Pete

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:Ctfmd.101119$R05.21179@attbi_s53...
Theft and other crimes occur for a wide variety of reasons, even here in
the US. You'd have to be a blockhead to actually *condone* crime, but a
person who is as ignorant as to the reasons for it as Jay is has no hope
of ever contributing to reducing or eliminating crime.

There are, in fact, plenty of thefts that happen every day in this
country
motivated strictly by survival.

What a load of crap.

If you steal, you are scum. There is no justification for stealing, and
society should extend no forgiveness.

It's attitudes like yours that continue to screw up our world.
--
Well, let's see here. The court didn't find these people to be scum:

There was a shipwreck and a crowded lifeboat and no food or water. The
passengers stole the life of one of their fellow passengers in order to
survive. The case came before a judge on the charge of murder and
cannibalism but was dismissed. Defense of necessity.

You can read about it in Holmes, _The Common Law_ although I doubt you do
much reading or thinking and maybe are a little hotheaded.

There have been other cases in which someone stole food in order to survive.
That someone was neither scum nor criminal. Did someone steal a towel or
silverware from your inn? Now *that* thief would in my opinion be, well,
maybe not scum but a little slimy. I kinda get the feeling you would cut
off his hand like the moozle-ums do, but that would be a little harsh and
our Constitution forbids cruel and inhuman punishment.

Well, let's see here. The court didn't find these people to be scum:

There was a shipwreck and a crowded lifeboat and no food or water. The
passengers stole the life of one of their fellow passengers in order to
survive. The case came before a judge on the charge of murder and
cannibalism but was dismissed. Defense of necessity.

If they actually killed the guy in order to eat him, they were guilty of
murder. It would seem that they apparently had the jury from the OJ Simpson
trial judge this case?

If they ate the guy *after* he died, they were guilty of nothing -- although
I suspect they might be warped for life after such an incident?

You can read about it in Holmes, _The Common Law_ although I doubt you do
much reading or thinking and maybe are a little hotheaded.

You must be new here. Do some googling if you'd like to know my educational
background.

There have been other cases in which someone stole food in order to
survive.
That someone was neither scum nor criminal. Did someone steal a towel or
silverware from your inn? Now *that* thief would in my opinion be, well,
maybe not scum but a little slimy. I kinda get the feeling you would cut
off his hand like the moozle-ums do, but that would be a little harsh and
our Constitution forbids cruel and inhuman punishment.

You obviously haven't lived or worked in a lawless environment. I spent
seven years working in the inner city, doing (among other things)
collections. Until you've seen the way people live (and die) in an utterly
immoral, nearly lawless society, you are in no way qualified to discuss this
issue.

I can't comment about the desperately poor corners of the world, but in
America there is NO excuse for being a thief. Americans who steal are scum,
and deserve whatever maximum punishment society can arrange for them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"