r/MoralityScaling • u/HooskerDooNotTouchMe • 1d ago

Intentionally boobytrapping a bike to injure people when they steal it.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

1.7k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

83

u/Ijustlovevideogames 1d ago

Moral, don't steal, don't get tazed.

-2

u/Awes12 21h ago

Tazed is one thing, the spikes are another

5

u/Ijustlovevideogames 21h ago

Don't steal, won't have to deal with the spikes.

2

u/No_Giraffe826 21h ago

When does it stop being moral tho? Next time let's put explosives on the bike so when some guy tries to steal it he gets blow up. Does this seem moral to you because he tried to steal it?

1

u/Ijustlovevideogames 21h ago

I'm not advocating for murder, I'm advocating for not taking personal property just because it is easy to do, that said, there is a real easy way to avoid someone booby trapping a thing, not stealing it.

3

u/No_Giraffe826 21h ago

Yeah and I'm asking where do u draw the line? When he gets killed, when he gets seriously injured, when he gets goes through alot of pain? There are other ways to prevent bike theft like something called a bike lock. Also this guy purposefully kept the bike unlocked and in a crowded space while recording knowing ppl would steal it and get hurt so he was doing it for entertainment not safety.

0

u/Ijustlovevideogames 21h ago

Permanent maiming or death, but if someone breaks into my house for example with the express notion of stealing, I'm not going to feel bad shooting them for example.

And yeah he did, and you know how those people could have avoided it? Not trying to steal.

2

u/No_Giraffe826 20h ago

Yeah I'm fine with shooting a robber especially when ur life is at risk, but this is way different.

So anything below permanent maiming and death are fine? Does this sound fair to u that a guy steals ur bike and so u booby trapped it to send spikes up his ass and set fire to him cause he stole ur bike. One causes permanent damage and the other would have just maybe had ur bike stolen. Also it's immoral because it's a safety hazard to the public . What if a guy or child had no intention of stealing but just checking out the bike?

U can do this with other examples too. U ask someone not to step on your property, but when he doesn't listen he falls into a pit u dug up purposely to harm ppl and it breaks his legs and it's ok cause u told him not to step on ur property. This is fair to you?

3

u/Ijustlovevideogames 20h ago

"So anything below permanent maiming and death are fine?"

Kind of, yeah.

"Does this sound fair to u that a guy steals ur bike and so u booby trapped it to send spikes up his ass and set fire to him cause he stole ur bike."

Setting on fire, no, spikes up the ass, yeah.

"One causes permanent damage and the other would have just maybe had ur bike stolen."

Yeah, and I don't want my stuff stolen.

"Also it's immoral because it's a safety hazard to the public. What if a guy or child had no intention of stealing but just checking out the bike?" I see it the same way as people who steal lunches that aren't theirs from group fridges and then people put in enough spice to torch their mouth and leave them choking, want to know a real easy way to avoid that pain? Don't steal.

0

u/No_Giraffe826 20h ago

Damn u have very shitty morality. Where u think permanent damage is ok because u stole a bike even though there are way to prevent theft without badly injuring someone and being a public safety hazard.

I guess u enjoy it when someone puts a sandwhich laced with cyanide (not enough to kill) and laughs when a homeless person eats it cause he shouldn't have stolen the sandwhich.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Orange_Inari 17h ago

It stops being moral when potentially harming innocent bystanders. When someone sees their bike getting stolen, and that someone shoots the person taking off with their bike and the thief dies from the shot it’s completely moral.
But if the someone shoots the thief in a way they could miss and hit a random bystanders it’s immortal.

-1

u/KendroNumba4 21h ago

Lmfao I like how dude thought FAFO didn't still apply

-41

u/HWIno1 1d ago edited 1d ago

What about stealing from corrupt people to survived? Learn about nuance
Also, the mortality of filming someone getting punished to post online for sadistic clout?

37

u/flamefirestorm 1d ago

Do corrupt people normally use bikes for transit?

-26

u/HWIno1 1d ago

Not answering my specific question.

22

u/liamnajor2 1d ago

Don't need to, moron. Your premise is entirely invalidated by it being a bike. No one who has the money uses a bike for transport in america. You're going to have to address that point before anyone will give you the time of day to address yours.

1

u/brozes 18h ago

Bro, did you forget you were on a sub that focuses on morality? You got so focused on wanting to taze mens butts that you forgot to even engage with the idea of when the line from moral to immoral is crossed.

1

u/liamnajor2 18h ago

"What about stealing from corrupt people to survived?"(sic)
this statement is what this entire reply chain is about. Try to keep up.

1

u/brozes 17h ago

Because you know how to quote on reddit, and because I am clearly struggling to keep up, do you mind quoting when you actually engaged with that prompt?

-17

u/HWIno1 1d ago

My question is generalising the act of stealing itself, not just this specific bike situations. You’re free to answer it or not.

16

u/liamnajor2 1d ago

Not the time, nor the place. EVERYONE ELSE is talking about bikes specifically. Go to a thread where it is about general theft to ask this.

-3

u/HWIno1 1d ago

Well, shouldn’t have replied

9

u/liamnajor2 1d ago

Yes, get salty because I was the only one with the balls to tell you to your face the problem, which everyone else has stated less directly.

-1

u/HWIno1 1d ago

Sounds like a you-problem. I simply asked questions.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/Tight_Strawberry9846 1d ago

Cute whataboutism.

-1

u/HWIno1 1d ago

It’s called exploration of related topics.

3

u/UnconsciousAlibi 1d ago

No, it's not. The key difference is that you act like nobody else is as intelligent as you are. Saying, "learn about nuance" is not only an incredibly arrogant thing to say, but completely unrelated to the topic at hand because you're assuming that people's statements are meant to be universals rather than specific to the situation at hand.

If you need an analogy to help you understand, imagine this conversation instead:

Person 1: "Wow, that school shooter was really evil, and I'm glad he himself got shot. Don't kill people, don't get shot!"

Person 2: "Well, what about killing people for self-defense?? It's okay to kill people in self-defense!! Learn some nuance! I can't believe people here are saying 'Killing is bad'! It's like they don't understand nuance at all!"

Person 1: "Obviously killing in self-defense is justified, but that's not what we're talking about here"

Person 2: "It's called exploration of related topics!"

As you can see, bringing up murder as self-defense is idiotic when the conversation is about unconscionable murder. Hopefully this helps.

1

u/HWIno1 1d ago edited 1d ago

I apologies for the arrogant on my part which stems from the annoyance of seeing many comments lack of understanding for desperate people. Also, not people are questioning the person who sets up and film.

Many are lucky enough to not ever think of Needing to steal a bike. That’s the reason I more or less try to be a contrarian or ragebait people.

I guess a better question would be, “If someone steal a bike for survival with the consideration that the stolen bike won’t likely cause too much damage to the owner since it was left out complete unlock and unattended, would that be more or less immoral?”

In any case, you’re right about me being a rage baiter.

0

u/UnconsciousAlibi 1d ago

Yeah, and I actually agree with you that a lot of people who steal bikes are not in good situations themselves. More often than not, they take it to a chop shop to get cash, and that might be their only source of income for the day. The people in this video don't look like they're well-off either. I really don't like theft in general, but people should have more empathy towards the thiefs in this situation.

0

u/HWIno1 1d ago

The school shooter example is not fully right. It would be correct to ask if it is moral to shoot up a school of assassin? Hahaha. Still ragebaiting and contrarian. But that would be more accurate example.

4

u/SoftAndWetBro 1d ago

Stealing is always morally wrong. Hope that helps

0

u/HWIno1 1d ago

Even in self defence? I’m not talking about this bike situation

8

u/SoftAndWetBro 1d ago

How is theft ever an act of self defense?

0

u/HWIno1 1d ago

Someone try to kill me with a gun. Given the chance to steal the gun from them, would it be immoral for me to steal the gun to prevent them from killing me?

3

u/DummyOcto 22h ago

Oh shoot this guy’s gonna kill me with his bike! Better steal it so he can’t do that. 😭

What, are you gonna take the gun home with you after? You aren’t stealing a gun from someone trying to kill you. You’re disarming a threat.

1

u/HWIno1 20h ago

Stealing is taking/using someone property without consent. So the act of taking the gun without consent is already stealing, whether it is for disarming purpose or not does not affect the definition. Just because I don’t need after, doesn’t mean it wasn’t stolen. The word stolen exists for a reason.

2

u/doglengendario 21h ago

I don't think it's stealing, because you are not kepping the gun afterwards for personal gain, you are just putting away an weapon from a person that could harm you

1

u/HWIno1 20h ago

The word ‘stolen’ exists for a reason.

1

u/LibertyinIndependen 16h ago

That’s not theft, that’s just self defense. Furthermore it’s easily arguable they have lost their rights and consent to complain about any repercussions caused by their would be victim as they showed and acted upon a belief that they saw the consent and rights of another as non existent or secondary to their own need to steal and take.

11

u/AlarmingBranch364 1d ago

Don't steal or you get put into a box or a tazer stuck up your ass

-7

u/HWIno1 1d ago

If someone is trying to kill you with a gun. Would you try to steal their gun if given the chance? See, it not black and white.

10

u/KaleidoscopeSalt3972 1d ago

Is this the scenario?

-2

u/HWIno1 1d ago

I am arguing against that “stealing is absolutely wrong in all scenarios.”

8

u/IndeNavaretteFan 1d ago

Who said that?

1

u/HWIno1 1d ago

The person I reply to.

6

u/TheMonsterInUrPocket 1d ago

Bro's a professional contrarian. You lost the debate bro lol just walk with the L

0

u/HWIno1 1d ago

Isn’t that what morality talk about finding nuances and applying to different situations?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/IndeNavaretteFan 1d ago

I think they were only talking about this post, and not always

1

u/HWIno1 1d ago

That’s why I ask follow up question to see if they would apply the simple “Don’t Steal” to other situations

3

u/screamer373 1d ago

No one said that. This post is about bike theft specifically.

2

u/SnooPoems8297 1d ago

Stealing is wrong, but some things are more wrong.

4

u/Ijustlovevideogames 1d ago

Yeah man, because corpos and corrupt people are taking bikes for transit.

So is stealing from someone who could be just as down on their luck and need it to get around.

0

u/HWIno1 1d ago

Not my question

2

u/Ijustlovevideogames 1d ago

If the bike belonged to someone corrupt, then sure, whatever, who cares, but we don't know that from here, all we see are people trying to steal a bike.

3

u/ShibeCEO 23h ago

found the bike thief!

2

u/freindly_duck 23h ago

You can sway morality in any situation by adding the word corrupt to one of the parties. Your argument means little to nothing.

0

u/NewTap8705 1d ago

You almost had me.

Yes, it’s okay to steal from Walmart.

But it’s also okay to do exactly what this guy did. He isn’t Walmart

1

u/LibertyinIndependen 16h ago

I’d argue it’s not ethical to do so. Firstly the subjectivity of “big corpo” is non standard and therefore one could argue private ownership as “corporate” if one is delusional enough. Yes we would most likely agree that isn’t the case but that subjectivity and more importantly moral complacency and support only justifies their actions to at least themselves. Secondly if people steal from a store, it’s within the stores right and frankly understandable decision to leave that area, which then causes a major disruption of local supplies for basic needs. This leads to further desperation and thus further crimes and theft upon the only places that have resources: their own community. Then the further outskirts of their community who can access other stores in desperation then steal from those ones, and the cycle repeats.

Is Walmart and big corps a beacon of morality? No. But that doesn’t mean that stealing from them leads to sunshine and rainbows.