you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 57 points 1 month ago (39 children)

I watched a video on him. Great and very unique story. Sure he stole, but he was harmless and just wanted to live alone. Crazy how he survived some of those winters.

  • source
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Yeah but apparently he was a terror to those living in the area. They swore it was a ghost because it hard to prove that they were not losing their minds.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Can you imagine? "Um... where tf is that giant tub of peanut butter we just bought? And half of my underwear is missing..."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    Yeah read articles about this man he was the ghost of the woods or something. He never broke in that could proven. But books amd food comes up missing and clothing. It drove the locals nuts. But they never imagined it was a person. I totally believe he still be out there but he wanted to get caught.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Is that the guy who survived sub-zero winter nights with no fire (for maximum stealth) by just staying awake all night?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago

    I don’t think I’ve ever wanted to be alone that badly, but I lived alone during the pandemic and went about eight months without seeing another human in person and I already started getting weird. After a certain point, you have to readjust to having people around. I can’t imagine how it would be after that long.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -33 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (29 children)

    Sure he stole, but he was harmless

    Those two statements are in direct conflict. Both cannot be true.

    Edit: wow, you all had some pretty shitty parents

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Food, shelter and hygiene should all be basic human rights. If they were, this wouldn't be a debate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 1 month ago* (4 children)

    But they aren’t. And it is.

    You can’t just dismiss reality when it becomes inconvenient, and if your morals are so “flexible”, you might as well not have any at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    If I had a vacation home and someone stole my snacks I would be like. Thank god. Imagine if someone starved to death in the woods near my vacation home? That would be terrible, right? ...Right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago* (1 child)

    If you are forced to resort to imaginary scenarios just to try to prove your point, that should be enough of an indication that it doesn’t hold up to reality.

    And if they stole your vacation home instead of just a few cherries? How would you feel about it then?

    A bit different, I suspect

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    Not so.

    Theft in and of itself isn't a certain harm.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -23 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    Theft is the ONLY harm. Taking a life, taking another’s liberty, taking the fruits of another’s labor, taking what you have no right to.. it all boils down to theft.

    I agree that this guy’s thefts were mostly harmless, but to say theft isn’t a harm is ridiculous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    I said it wasn't inherently harmful.

    Second, if you're going to stretch the word Theft to include murder and kidnapping/imprisonment, we're both wasting time because we aren't using the same language at all. Just let me know you're standing on that principle and I won't bother you again.

    That being said, with the normal usage of Theft, it really depends on what you take from whom, and how much as to whether harm is done.

    Secondary to that, even when there is harm from theft, it can still be justified. Me stealing a medication from a pharmacy certainly costs someone something, but if that's the last ditch option when all else has failed, is it really a situation where the harm of the theft outweighs the harm of the broken society that made it necessary? While two wrongs don't make a right, some wrongs preclude right in the first place.

    In that scenario, the harm is so heavily distributed via tax breaks and insurances that it might even be a benefit overall since without some theft as a reason to exist, there's entire industries that wouldn't exist. The individual theft is still a harm tp some link in the chain, but the chain itself is not harmed at all.

    Stepping back even further, what about stealing back? I paid taxes and monies into a broken system, thus me stealing necessary medication could be simply taking back what was taken from me in bad faith. Restitutional theft ain't really theft, in other words.

    Again, I never said theft was never harmful, I said it isn't inherently harmful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    The way you twist the meaning of the word in order to rationalize your offense is pretty disgusting

    If you can rationalize that, you could rationalize anything

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 month ago

    His take on the broken window fallacy is pretty hilarious. “Theft can be good because it might create jobs in the woefully underfunded insurance industry! Won’t somebody please think of the insurers?!”

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I said it wasn't inherently harmful

    No, you said theft wasn’t “a certain harm” (which is weird phrasing by the way).

    Inherently, certainly, or whatever qualification you want to put on it, it doesn’t matter because the rest of your novella is just a bunch of bullshit wherein you try to convince me that a small amount of harm, or justifiable harm, isn’t actually harm. Get real.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (8 children)
  • [+] -15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (7 children)

    Sure, attack me because you have no better argument than a personal insult.

    Thanks for proving my claim about your shitty parents— and your incapability of understanding how theft is both injurious and morally despicable is a sign of sociopathy.

    Try thinking of someone other than yourself for once

    Also, definitely not a conservative. So you’re wrong about multiple things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    No, calling someone a conservative, or MAGA, is a complete argument. At this point, we all know what being a conservative includes, so all you need to do is say the word Conservative or MAGA, and you've made an efficient argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Every time I encounter you in the wild, you are espousing conservative views or defending conservatives. Stop being so conservative and people will stop calling you conservative.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    Conservatives are always claiming they aren't conservative or Maga, but Conservatives/ MAGAs lie. They are convinced that the rest of us are blind, so they think they can SAY one thing, and do something totally different, and we won't notice.

    You can't trust what a MAGA says, you have to watch what they do.

  • source
  • parent