ReadyOrNot

Here I come...

So, putting the smiley face at the end of your post makes disrespecting an entire group and their beliefs "OK" ? Thanks for that. By the way, your baby is ugly

And the agenda becomes clear

Thank you so much for protecting us. Your service to the Geocaching community should be recognized. How about someone out there make some wooden coins she can use as trade items? Bravo Silver.Girl! Bravo!

There are no more facts. What more do we need to know? He got his slap on the wrist. He's probably not ever going to do this again. fin

I have an update on Bittsen's garden gnome. I would appreciate it if everyone would stop the pointless banter so we can focus on the facts of the case. At 2am last night, several Geocachers, who will remain anonymous, infiltrated Bittsen's front yard and sent a very clear message to the scofflaw gnome and his owner.

If any garden gnome deserves it, Bittsen's does.... Right before he did this, he said, "Here's what I think of Geocaching!"

Not knowing Repaks motivation, I can't see whether or not I am "better" than him is relevnt. Again, for those who try to read more into what I am saying than the actual words I am saying... I am not encouraging anyone to do anything. Saying I am "condoning" is saying I am encouraging. I am not. As I said, I would watch. I watch people all of the time. I know many people who enjoy "people watching" as a form of entertainment. People are interesting. But, I digress. You are being disingenious.. Don't make me go back to the beginning of this thread and dig up your quotes.. I'll turn this car around right now! Go for it... I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful, one hundred percent. I don't doubt for a second that you meant what you said.. We know that you aren't going to fly over there and "tap dance on his face". The point is that saying the things you've said is irresponsible at best and incites violence at worst. If I were to post your address and then say, "Here is Bittsen's address. I'm only posting it for informational purposes, but if you were to go to his house and violate his lawn gnome, I'm not going to stop you. In fact, I think Bittsen deserves to have his lawn gnome violated."... That would most definitely be "Inciting lawn gnome violence"..

Not knowing Repaks motivation, I can't see whether or not I am "better" than him is relevnt. Again, for those who try to read more into what I am saying than the actual words I am saying... I am not encouraging anyone to do anything. Saying I am "condoning" is saying I am encouraging. I am not. As I said, I would watch. I watch people all of the time. I know many people who enjoy "people watching" as a form of entertainment. People are interesting. But, I digress. You are being disingenious.. Don't make me go back to the beginning of this thread and dig up your quotes.. I'll turn this car around right now!

Oh bittsen.... Do you not see that you are no better than Mr. Repak? In my opinion, your condoning violence as retribution for a property crime is far worse than the actions of Mr. Repak. I'm sure Mr. Repak has spent a fair amount of money defending himself and will probably not be stealing caches anymore. Perhaps you should consider forgiving Mr. Repak for what he has done? Remember, forgiveness has more to do with you than it has to do with him. Free yourself from this burden of anger that you have given yourself.

Excellent. We're making progress. So, in the RoN world, someone stealing a $0.25 piece of peppermint candy has committed a crime. In your world, is there a particular dollar amount where law enforcement should refuse to take action when answering a citizen's complaint of theft? *YOUR* job as a law enforcement officer is to address a complaint. But noone has said that the officer should not have issued a citation/arrested this individual (nowhere that I can find at least). You still haven't answered my question... You know it's not always black and white, because you know that you have a bit of flexibility in how you do your job. Teenage girl (crying): Please officer, my parents will kill me! Offier Riffster: I'll give you a warning this time maam. Slow down and have a nice evening. Teenage girl [CR's logic]: Sucker! I got away with it! I'm going to speed more now! Teenage girl [in reality]: Thank you so much officer Riffster. I will slow down.

Clear as mud. Are you still dodging the question? It was a pretty simple one. "At what monetary point should theft be decriminalized?" I already answered it!!! Theft is theft regardless of the amount. It should not be decriminalized. Egads Chuck! How about you answer my question to you: Have you ever let a speeder off without a ticket?

Hope this helps: http://www.gpsfaqs.org/faqs/garmin/xseries.../waypoints.html

He already believes that what he did was perfectly justified, (AKA: OK), or he would not have done it. That's an odd statement from someone who believes that theft of something with a value of less than $20 should not be criminal. Doesn't the 8th Commandment say something about not stealing? I would certainly see that as a moral issue. Should the law be based upon those morals? Or should the Commandment be altered to fit the times? Thou Shalt Not Steal Anything That RoN Says Is Valuable? I'm assuming that "someone" would be referring to me, no? Just wanted to make sure the record was clear on this one.

As one of the sons of Homer once said: Vescere bracis meis...

CR claimed that I believe theft is ok under a certain dollar amount. CR then made the claim that he believes theft is wrong, regardless of the dollar amount. A&T then chimed in, stating that in some circumstances, theft is acceptable. There was a topic quite a while ago and it turned into morality and lying. I believe someone made the comment that lying is ok sometimes and then used an example of the Nazi's knocking on doors and asking if there were any Jews at the location. Of course, telling the truth would lead to innocent people dying. Just because lying (or theft) can be justified in one situation does not make it relevent to the discussion at hand. You are acting like the question was not relevent. He quoted CR's comment and it was clearly related to the topic at hand. It was not a new topic started about morality, so bringing up starving children eating other people's apples may be a justification, but is has nothing to do with the topic, except to stir up an emotional response.

I fully understand what it means to appeal to someone's emotions in an attempt to win an argument. Perhaps you don't understand what it means?

If you go back and read the comment, it was suppose to be funny. Did you not read it? notice the smiley and obvious silly comment? Your missing the point anyways. He was obviously trying to appeal to emotions to make the point that lying is ok in some situations. Just because a father stealing an apple to feed his son is justifiable (not necessarily morally acceptable) doesn't mean that it's ok to steal something else under different circumstances.

Careful, he's speaking Latin. Latin. Perhaps if he really understood what the Latin meant then he wouldn't misuse the terms. So instead of calling out other people's stupid arguments, I should just sit back and be accused of advocating theft.. Great idea By the way, your resorting to attacking me, versus my argument tells me that I am probably right.. Thanks! *edit to add latin - ad hominem

To me, morality is a huge grey area. There are certain instances where theft is acceptable. Just saying. You going to leave us hanging? What instances? Morality is black and white for me, but I also understand that others can have incorrect views that do not coincide with my correct views Can I answer that? Your child is starving and nobody will give you a job. You see apples in an orchard and, in an effort to feed your child, you go in the orchard and steal some apples. It's justified. Argumentum ad misericordiam Red herring/argumentum ad logicam Red herring/argumentum ad logicam You asked for examples where stealing would be morally acceptable. You were given those examples. The opinion was given that theft is wrong regardless of the dollar amount. The original topic was regarding someone stealing $10 that was left behind. The motives of the thief of not applicable, because regardless of the motives, there is still a victim, whether it be someone having $10 stolen, apples stolen, or water stolen. Using the argument of a starving child is clearly trying to appeal to emotions instead of focusing on the facts of this debate.

To me, morality is a huge grey area. There are certain instances where theft is acceptable. Just saying. You going to leave us hanging? What instances? Morality is black and white for me, but I also understand that others can have incorrect views that do not coincide with my correct views Can I answer that? Your child is starving and nobody will give you a job. You see apples in an orchard and, in an effort to feed your child, you go in the orchard and steal some apples. It's justified. Argumentum ad misericordiam You are in a desert and will die of thirst in a matter of hours. You see a crate of bottled water that says "property of ME. Do not take". You take a bottle or two. It's justified. Red herring/argumentum ad logicam You are part of a villiage where the villiage leader is taking all the food for himself. The rest of the villiage is suffering from starvation... Heck, even killing the leader is justified in that case. Forget the theft. Red herring/argumentum ad logicam

I can't make my position any more clear to you. Yet you keep on mischaracterizing my position.

To me, morality is a huge grey area. There are certain instances where theft is acceptable. Just saying. You going to leave us hanging? What instances? Morality is black and white for me, but I also understand that others can have incorrect views that do not coincide with my correct views

Tell me with a straight face that you've arrested everyone for every crime they have committed. Tell me that every time you've pulled over a speeder, you've given them a ticket. If so, I shall refer to you from now on as "Clan Riffster - Enforcer of justice"

The authorities are condoning theft because they didn't gather enough evidence. Aren't they sending a message that you can steal hundreds of Geocaches and not suffer any substantial punishment? The authorities in New York are destroying Geocaching because of their handling of this case. (just trying to sum up all the bad debate methods that have been used up to this point)