Re: Thieves Philosophy 101

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Quantum_Cat wrote:

> Hiya, Cooter.
>
>  *>> And the one example you presented fell flat and discredited your assertion
>  *>when I
>  *>> pointed out that it had the conditional OR, which invalidated your claim
>  *>that
>  *>> theft required value.  That was sweet.  ;)
>
>  *>It was not a conditional OR, it was a conditional AND,
>
> Odd... Conditional AND's generally have the word AND in them.  ;)  Let's see:

In Math books YES, in Law Books No...
In Law Books the conditional AND is by recursive
specification. Since the word Property is explicitly
defined as a thing of value, and every example
of the crime of theft, includes (and requires) the word
property, then the conditional AND is included by the
recursive specification of this crime...

>
> "To withhold property of another permanently or for so extended a period"
>
> Nope.  No AND.  Boy, when you're wrong, you go all the way.  ;)
>
>  *>here is another conditional AND Property shall mean anything of value...
>
> And?  That's a boolean operator, Cooter.  It needs another symbol to work.  ;)
>
>  *>> What can I say?  Theft usually DOES involve things of value. Value is not
>  *>> necessarily monetary.  Authors, painters, musicians, computer programmers
>  *>may
>  *>> value their work, even if others don't.
>
>  *>So you concede this micro point?
>
> While theft involves stealing someones property or depriving of their rights,
> that doesn't mean they value that property or their rights.  Still this doesn't
> support your assertion that theft REQUIRES an object of value to be stolen.
>

When the law explicitly defines property as a {thing of value},
then this becomes a necessary condition throughout...

>
>  *>>  *>thus can construct the next micro point,
>  *>>  *>and eventually (after many micro points have been fully considered) my
>  *>full
>  *>>  *>reasoning will be completely elaborated...
>  *>>
>  *>> Heh heh!  Earlier you state "In order for a case to to made every micro
>  *>point
>  *>> must be fully considered" and now you claim "(after many micro points have
>  *>been
>  *>> fully considered) my full reasoning will be completely elaborated..."
>  *>>
>
>  *>The line-of-reasoning is constructed entirely from the set of micro points.
>
> That says nothing, and didn't answer my question.  The question could be
> rephrased as "Does your line-of-reasoning consist of "every micro point", or
> "many micro points".  You claimed both.  You're inconsistent. ;)
>

The sum total of all of my micro points is one-and-the-same
thing as my full and complete line-of-reasoning.

>
>  *>> So... How many micro points are required to make a case?  "

ALL of them, no less, and no more...


>
>  *>yet "given" that there is no value, theft can not occur...
>
> To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
>
> Suppose I write a poem.  It sucks.  It has no value, but it's my property.  I
> don't want anyone else to read it.  You steal it.  Without my permission.
>

In this case there would be a value, the value of your
dignity. If I "stole" it and claimed that you wrote it you
would be injured by humiliation. If I "stole" it and
claimed it as my own, and received this humiliation
upon myself, then you suffered no loss, thus a harmful
effect did not occur to you, and since there was no
harmful effect to you, there was no wrong to you of
any kind, including the wrong of theft.

>
> That is indeed theft.  ;)
>
>  *>Whether or not in any particular case there is or is not value, is a whole
>  *>other Micro Point entirely... This Micro Point merely asserts that Theft
>  *>REQUIRES {Value}... No Value, therefore No Theft...
>
> But of course, you'll ignore my point yet again and repeat your assertion ad
> nauseum.  ;)
>
> Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!
>
> Quantum_Cat