RdEoSg
Well-known
I believe you gave the first sermon, but anyways it's my thread so you guys can bitch somewhere else if you would like 😉
I recovered a stolen camera today!
- Thread starter RdEoSg
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 98
- Views 5K
- Status
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Let's start getting all those tax-loopholers!Ash said:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I think they're busy shooting up steroids now.Plasmat said:
lmd91343
There's my Proctor-Silex!
RdEoSg said:
About 10 years ago when I worked in Brea, I bought some stuff from your store.
I visit Fullerton about every 6 weeks or so. Next time I cross the Orange Curtain, I'll stop by and say hello.
Mark J
Member
Thank-you, Chris. I had a stolen camera in my hands 30 years ago and could not find a rent a cop in the mall where I worked. It turned out the store it was stolen from did not know it was missing. I was able to inform them of about 5 pieces that were missing. Leicaflex, 180 Telyt and some other pieces. The other local stores were notified. Please continue your vigilance and follow your own guidance.
oscroft
Veteran
It's different in the UK - I've given witness statements in criminal cases here and I was assured that the perp did not get to know my name and address (Personal details were on the reverse of my witness statement, and I was told the defendant only gets a copy of the front)
Ash
Selflessly Self-involved
Alan - always make sure your details are written in pencil on thick paper then - or it might still go through the photocopy 😀
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Stephen23
Established
Well done Plasmat you have confirmed my initial opinon of you. I am sure the weather is lovely on your planet but I don't think I will be visiting.
Apologies to all the other contributors to this thread I was not intending to personalise this issue.
And for the record may I also add my "well done" Chris.
Apologies to all the other contributors to this thread I was not intending to personalise this issue.
And for the record may I also add my "well done" Chris.
Last edited:
P
Plasmat
Guest
The entire gist of everything I said was to be careful when you turn in a criminal, especially if he knows where you live/work.
You could put your own life or safety at risk, which might be a foolish thing to do over a camera. In this case, it turned out OK so far, but it could have easily gone another way.
Recovering a stolen camera is not analogous to the behavior of Winston Churchill (and there are many historical debates on exactly WHAT motivated Churchill) nor does it compare to coming to the aid of Kitty Genovese or someone being murdered.
Helping recovered stolen goods is a nice thing, and everyone feels good congratulating Chris for being the hero of this little drama.
A stolen camera seems to have hit a nerve with the readers here, but my advice is still very sound. One should think very hard and carefully, and evaluate the risks before putting yourself into a situation like this. If this makes you think I'm an immoral coward, maybe I am.
You could put your own life or safety at risk, which might be a foolish thing to do over a camera. In this case, it turned out OK so far, but it could have easily gone another way.
Recovering a stolen camera is not analogous to the behavior of Winston Churchill (and there are many historical debates on exactly WHAT motivated Churchill) nor does it compare to coming to the aid of Kitty Genovese or someone being murdered.
Helping recovered stolen goods is a nice thing, and everyone feels good congratulating Chris for being the hero of this little drama.
A stolen camera seems to have hit a nerve with the readers here, but my advice is still very sound. One should think very hard and carefully, and evaluate the risks before putting yourself into a situation like this. If this makes you think I'm an immoral coward, maybe I am.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
Last edited:
dazedgonebye
Veteran
We encourage good people to take the attitude of sheep, then we wonder at the exploding wolf population.
Never ceases to amaze me....
Never ceases to amaze me....
telenous
Well-known
Plasmat's dissent from the near universal agreement in what is the appropriate action (legaly and morally too) in this and related cases, brings in mind a game-theoretic dimension in rational decision making. I am personally intellectually intrigued by it although ultimately I do not agree with it. But my disagreement is based on an emotive, not rational, reaction.
Rationality, of course, is usually understood in terms of the chain of steps that lead to a desired effect, in this case 'the good'. The discussion here seems to revolve around that notion, without ever acknowledging it explicitly. Two competing strategies emerged, one which prescribes self-sacrifice for the general good and one which promotes self-interest even at the cost of the common good. The interesting thing about the 'self-sacrifice' strategy is that, tactically, it only makes sense if everybody adheres to it. If you further invest it with some sort of 'metaphysical' importance, well, that's an optional extra. But it makes very little sense to practice it in the absence of everyone's else approval. It certainly matters to persuade a critical mass of people that it is the optimal strategy because only after it has attained the critical mass approval rating it becomes optimal. How? By a process of mass reciprocation of acts of good faith. Everybody survives better and for longer in this agreed situation (that was Hobbes' point, I think). I believe that in game theoretic terms, one could say that this is the (Nash) equilibrium point.
But what happens if the social fabric is corrupt and worn beyond repair? Unfortunately this situation has a different equilibrium point - one where each fights for his own keep and where ultimately life is 'brutish, nasty, and short'. The only way to prolong it for a little longer is to bash some heads before someone bashes in yours. This is no different from the jungle but, what should be clear, is that, in the jungle the rational thing to do is to behave Darwinistically.
Now, I don't know how far gone some of our Western societies are - perhaps pretty far. In fact, so far gone, that Plasmat's stance does not strike me as strange (or uncowardly for that matter). It is always upon us to restore the confidence in the 'social contract', but my understanding of the human nature makes me an agnostic about our present prospects.
I said that I ultimately disagree with Plasmat on emotive grounds. There's this story of this cop who was about to brake in a crook's flat, for search of vital evidence, but without warrant. As he was about to break in, he remembered an incident from his childhood: his father was a strike breaker and some of his fellow workers who were strikers went around his home to look for him and give him a lesson. His mother opened the door and told them he was not in (and he really wasn't). The strikers didn't believe her and demanded that they come in to search. His mother said that they couldn't come in - for this was their home! They pushed her aside, went in, didn't find him, and broke everything. Now you see, his mother's plea didn't stop the strikers to come in, but it did stop the policeman fourty years later from breaking in the crook's home. He walked around and left. (The story is from Elmor Leonard's 'Riding the Rap'). Same here. Like all of us I have internalised certain moral attitudes towards theft but also a certain kind of empathy for people who appear to be less fortunate than we are. For this reason I find commendable Chris' action but I also feel a little queesy with some of the comments in this thread that hint of vindictiveness and punishment - a far cry from the ideal of restorative justice.
Rationality, of course, is usually understood in terms of the chain of steps that lead to a desired effect, in this case 'the good'. The discussion here seems to revolve around that notion, without ever acknowledging it explicitly. Two competing strategies emerged, one which prescribes self-sacrifice for the general good and one which promotes self-interest even at the cost of the common good. The interesting thing about the 'self-sacrifice' strategy is that, tactically, it only makes sense if everybody adheres to it. If you further invest it with some sort of 'metaphysical' importance, well, that's an optional extra. But it makes very little sense to practice it in the absence of everyone's else approval. It certainly matters to persuade a critical mass of people that it is the optimal strategy because only after it has attained the critical mass approval rating it becomes optimal. How? By a process of mass reciprocation of acts of good faith. Everybody survives better and for longer in this agreed situation (that was Hobbes' point, I think). I believe that in game theoretic terms, one could say that this is the (Nash) equilibrium point.
But what happens if the social fabric is corrupt and worn beyond repair? Unfortunately this situation has a different equilibrium point - one where each fights for his own keep and where ultimately life is 'brutish, nasty, and short'. The only way to prolong it for a little longer is to bash some heads before someone bashes in yours. This is no different from the jungle but, what should be clear, is that, in the jungle the rational thing to do is to behave Darwinistically.
Now, I don't know how far gone some of our Western societies are - perhaps pretty far. In fact, so far gone, that Plasmat's stance does not strike me as strange (or uncowardly for that matter). It is always upon us to restore the confidence in the 'social contract', but my understanding of the human nature makes me an agnostic about our present prospects.
I said that I ultimately disagree with Plasmat on emotive grounds. There's this story of this cop who was about to brake in a crook's flat, for search of vital evidence, but without warrant. As he was about to break in, he remembered an incident from his childhood: his father was a strike breaker and some of his fellow workers who were strikers went around his home to look for him and give him a lesson. His mother opened the door and told them he was not in (and he really wasn't). The strikers didn't believe her and demanded that they come in to search. His mother said that they couldn't come in - for this was their home! They pushed her aside, went in, didn't find him, and broke everything. Now you see, his mother's plea didn't stop the strikers to come in, but it did stop the policeman fourty years later from breaking in the crook's home. He walked around and left. (The story is from Elmor Leonard's 'Riding the Rap'). Same here. Like all of us I have internalised certain moral attitudes towards theft but also a certain kind of empathy for people who appear to be less fortunate than we are. For this reason I find commendable Chris' action but I also feel a little queesy with some of the comments in this thread that hint of vindictiveness and punishment - a far cry from the ideal of restorative justice.
Last edited:
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I'm pretty sure I can't agree with the idea that self-sacrifice only makes sense if everyone adheres to it.
Certainly it would all work better if everyone did, but to take the attitude that I'll only do what is right if everyone else is likely to do the same does not ring true. In fact, it sounds like the logic my 7 year old uses all the time. "Why should I do it if HE doesn't?" The answer being, because it's the right thing to do and although we can't control what others choose, we can make the right choices ourselves.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I don't need to tell you what happens, beyond what you've stated. To add anything more would be to open the floodgates for a descent into bitter ideology "pissing contests", to put it in "layman" terms. If only more of us had the eloquence to put forth our ideas as you have. Because when people can't express them properly, they resort to cursing and shouting. In the Internets age, where even spelling isn't considered necessary for expression, ideas (which require proper spelling) suffer, and humanity suffers. Of course, I'm übersimplifying.telenous said:
Unfortunately, when in Rome, do like the Romans. If you need to get through to some people, communicate to them like they do. If you need to understand them, you need to listen to them, rather than judge them first.
When people dissent, it's healthy. When they get on their high horse and cannot possibly see that there could be any other way but their way, well, that's why men invented the hand-held fighting gear when riding that high horse. When you think you're right, the only proper pat on the back is ultimately the invisible one, not the one handed by mobocracy.
Morality becomes utterly more complex the more people besides you you throw into the equation. In these times of "A Society of One", One is inclined to think of Oneself first, second and last, and our myopic actions are always justified on grounds of survival. This is what separates us regular humans from what some think of as saints.
Well, many are too busy surviving to try to get Saint of the Year Award, even less Not Jerk Of The Day Certificate. Does that justify immoral actions?
I agree with Telenous: calls for punishment; vindiction...a bit far. I guess this is why I don't vote for the Lynch'em Party. Anyway, all we know is what we've been told. For all I know, I'm grateful Chris handled it the way he said he did. I say let everything else fall into place; I don't know much beyond that.
On a lighter note, if you ever say "Wagner operettas" at the Bayreuth festival, you'll be singing a double-high C 😉
Last edited:
Max Power
Well-known
Chris,
BZ on a job well done.
BZ on a job well done.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Max Power said:
I haven't seen a Bravo Zulu in some years.
M
Magus
Guest
Post deleted by posters request
RdEoSg
Well-known
Oh is that what he was saying? 😀 um.. bz back at you.. I think?
Please don't tell me we are now going to discuss the legal/moral aspects of the British vs the Zulu's and whether Winston Churchill would hold the fabric of space together so the queen can take pictures of it with her Leica...
Please don't tell me we are now going to discuss the legal/moral aspects of the British vs the Zulu's and whether Winston Churchill would hold the fabric of space together so the queen can take pictures of it with her Leica...
Jamie123
Veteran
Gabriel M.A. said:
Not that it (i.e. my remark) has a whole lot to do with the discussion but (philosophically) this is quite a bold statement.
- Status
