There you go making wild assumptions again. I agree with you that everything you mentioned is thievery.
What on God's green earth does that have to do with my calling the particular person you brought up, a thief?
Most people don't recognize taxation as theft. Most people don't recognize the Federal Reserve as institutionalized theft. Most people aren't even aware that asset forfeiture is a thing. My "wild ass assumptions (that I somehow made "again") were based on a general understanding of the public's perception on this issues. I'd say if I saw a random stranger on the street, and assumed they didn't think taxation was theft, I'd have about a 90% chance of being correct.
So I was just playing the odds. I apologize if my assumptions offended you.
This is PRECISELY how women think and what we men lament on this site. Emotional, reactive straw man "logic" that has no basis in the point at hand. It's an argument designed specifically to deflect.
Perhaps.
I was explaining why I don't see his theft as problematic. He didn't plan it. He was an opportunist. He didn't kill anybody. Compared to the rampant institutionalized theft happening on a daily basis, baked deeply into our society, I just don't see his theft as a big deal. Our goddamn currency that we use every day is based on our military killing people and destroying countries who don't play along.
It's kind of hard for me to become morally outraged at something as "petty" as this, in the grand scheme of things.
If you do, and are morally outraged, I accept your position as being AS VALID as mine.
Stealing and morality are "subjective" until we are the victims of another's decision to invade our lives with actions that they decide are ok to do. Suddenly things aren't so subjective anymore.
Here's a reframe for you to consider.
It is YOU who have taken the blue pill to believe in morality. There are no morals, there never were. Only instincts that served a society. Politicians get elected by promising us stuff we couldn't get on our own. One of those things is "Justice."
By creating the idea of "morality" they've convinced us that the law of the jungle "might makes right" is no longer valid, and we live in a moral society. It is therefore the job of the STATE to uphold these morals. So if somebody violates our "safe space" we can turn to the STATE to make it right.
However, it is something they can never provide. There will always be criminals. There will always be murder. There will always be theft.
Who "defines" morals? The person stealing? The person catching the thief? The person who is stolen from?
I suggest that whoever has the most POWER in society gets to "define" morals.
Even going back to the ten commandments, those "morals" were created / evolved to keep a society functioning. They were the most EXPEDIENT laws to do that.
Do you believe that somebody who is not HONORING their father and mother is "IMMORAL"?
Do you believe that somebody who doesn't keep the Sabbath IMMORAL?
Do you believe that somebody who says "God Mother Fvcking Damn it" is IMMORAL?
They were to the Hebrews, why not to SoSuavers?
Was Moses "Blue Pill?"
If Hebrew MORALS are different than AMERICAN morals, whose is "More" correct?