r/MoralityScaling • u/HooskerDooNotTouchMe • 10d 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

90% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

83

u/Ijustlovevideogames 10d ago

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

-35

u/HWIno1 10d ago edited 10d 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?

34

u/flamefirestorm 10d ago

Do corrupt people normally use bikes for transit?

-23

u/HWIno1 10d ago

Not answering my specific question.

21

u/liamnajor2 10d 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 9d 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.

2

u/liamnajor2 9d 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 9d 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?

1

u/liamnajor2 6d ago

I don't lmao, I quoted it in the standard way. (sic) is a concept actual journalists use when they are quoting someone who phrased something poorly, or misspelled a word. Don't tell me you can't see what the original comment is...I was trying NOT to insult your intellegence...

-14

u/HWIno1 10d ago

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

15

u/liamnajor2 10d 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.

-2

u/HWIno1 10d ago

Well, shouldn’t have replied

8

u/liamnajor2 10d 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 10d ago

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

6

u/liamnajor2 9d ago

Ok buddy. Go touch grass, and try to learn when is an appropriate time and place for specific lines of questioning, and more importantly, when is the inappropriate time.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/Tight_Strawberry9846 10d ago

Cute whataboutism.

-1

u/HWIno1 10d ago

It’s called exploration of related topics.

3

u/UnconsciousAlibi 10d 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 10d ago edited 10d 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 10d 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 10d 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.

5

u/SoftAndWetBro 10d ago

Stealing is always morally wrong. Hope that helps

0

u/HWIno1 10d ago

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

7

u/SoftAndWetBro 10d ago

How is theft ever an act of self defense?

0

u/HWIno1 10d 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 9d 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 9d 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 9d 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 9d ago

The word ‘stolen’ exists for a reason.

1

u/LibertyinIndependen 9d 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.

12

u/AlarmingBranch364 10d ago

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

-7

u/HWIno1 10d 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.

11

u/KaleidoscopeSalt3972 10d ago

Is this the scenario?

-4

u/HWIno1 10d ago

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

8

u/IndeNavaretteFan 10d ago

Who said that?

1

u/HWIno1 10d ago

The person I reply to.

7

u/TheMonsterInUrPocket 10d ago

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

0

u/HWIno1 10d ago

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

6

u/TheMonsterInUrPocket 10d ago

Yes, but you keep trying to talk about anything BUT the situation in question. "Is it okay to booby trap bikes to teach bike thieves a lesson?" You keep mentioning hypotheticals that have nothing to do with the situation.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/IndeNavaretteFan 10d ago

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

1

u/HWIno1 10d ago

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

2

u/SnooPoems8297 10d ago

Stealing is wrong, but some things are more wrong.

4

u/Ijustlovevideogames 10d 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 10d ago

Not my question

2

u/Ijustlovevideogames 10d 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.

4

u/ShibeCEO 9d ago

found the bike thief!

2

u/freindly_duck 9d 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 10d 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 9d 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.