JUST A THOUGHT - Page 2

Hey how bout this?

--->If a man speaks in a forest and nobody is around to hear him, is he still wrong?

Hehehe, sorry guys, I couldnt resist.

BTW, I dont expect an answer for that

Interesting this thread already exist?
[Question asked & answered previously]
While considerations of the need of someone to hear for the tree falling to make a sound. Sound is pressure waves which would form with or without any presence to hear them.

.

Interesting point, in fact I just used a variation of it in another thread.

word sleep wri... i was just going to post something like that..

its not stealing if the guy never notived it, just like the tree doesnt make a sound if no ones there to hear it... if the guy sees you or no, ifhe realises somethings been stolen (and therefore is effected) then yea its stealing.. but if he/she doesnt notice then that means they had too much of whatever was stolen or wasnt attached to it enough to notice...

whoever said "every action has a consequence".. yea of some sort but not neccesarly negative in direct with the action (if you "steal" something that nobody notivced thefroe not effected by that)

"only a crime if you get caught" well thats true but i would expand oin it and say 'only a crime if someone effected ("noticed it) by it)

natives can say your stealing there land.. a building "owner" can get mad if his building is defaced with graffiti, a graffiti writer can get mad when "his" graffiti is crossed out or erased...

point being we have sense of owner ship to whatever we come acrioss or born with/on... but no one "owns" anything in a pure way

Here's a thought that I don't know if it was at all meant by astarte but inspired it none the less.

Its stealing unless you take away the accepted concept of ownership as mentioned by others, however, the right and wrong aspect can differ independantly.

What if the possitive gain of the act outweighs the negative loss? ie. a hungry child is fed though an overstock or even possibly tossed "outdated" or unfresh apple is stolen.

What kind of crime would we call it when ALL resteraunts and food manufacturers THROW AWAY food daily, DAILY? And tell others they may not eat it.

I think this to be a greater crime than any.

Heh, it just occured to me, with the understanding death and consequences point, that was indeed an apple from the tree of knowledge right? Wow, and I just when I didn't think it could contradict itself anymore.

Anyone getting this?

quote:

---

an apple from the tree of knowledge right?

---

I am not a language major so the eact meaning or word used in ancient hebrew(?) language, but most translations I have read use the 'fruit of the tree'. The perception of an apple is something implied (ie; adam's apple), not particularly stated?

quote:

---

natives can say your stealing there land..

---

Native Traditions consider the people as belonging to the land rather than the land belonging to someone. The reasoning behind the accusation is indigenous people would have thought they were selling territorial hunting/ foriging rights on the land, not exclusive & perpetual ownership.

apple, fruit, whatever

Actually, Angel of Death is on to the answer. It is how Hume and Russell would answer, anyway. If you've seen a tree fall enough times and all those times that those trees have fallen the trees made noise, then the probability is high that even if no one is around when a tree falls, then it makes a sound nonetheless. As for a person stealing: an object becomes missing and our minds may conclude that someone stole the object when the object may have simply fallen and rolled beneath something. However, we may mount circumstantial evidence against a particular person so as to attempt to prove that the individual stole the object. However, circumstantial evidence cannot amount to factual proof that the individual stole the object at all. If the individual is convicted on circumstantial evidence when the object was simply lost, then is that just? Or is it the case that the individual did in fact steal the object simply because the evidence proves the individual guilty of theft?

stealing isn't a matter of what can be proven, it either happens or it doesn't.

accusations and assumptions are another matter, as well as proof for punishment.

If accusations and assumptions are different than whether a theft actually occurs, then how can a person be convicted on an accussation and assumption and not on the basis of an actual theft?

It would seem that either the accusation and assumption amounts to the actual theft, or the accusation and assumption alone is sufficient to convict a person for theft. Which is it?

I already covered this, the theft itself has nothing to do with a prosecution, the verb is acted, the theft is done.

Well, juries must use some standard by which to prosecute someone. Is it by the act, by the assumption of the act, or does the assumption of the act imply the act itself? You have yet to answer the question as to what criteria the jury uses.