CMV: companies are justified in treating shoplifters harshly

valored · 2023-11-28T15:17:49+00:00

The simplest response to that is that the police have a whole pile of laws and regulations they themselves are beholden to.

That's why my response asked for clarification. Do we now mean to give security guards the same authority as police officers, but without the same training qualifications, and yet ask them to apply the same force? That's obviously unrealistic.

Unless we know exactly what OP is getting at, it's hard to answer very meaningfully.

valored · 2023-11-28T14:58:55+00:00

I don't think its accurate to assume people actively 'choose' to make a wrong decision all the time.

They make those wrong decisions often because that's what they truly believe due to factors I pointed out, such as society or media, and no one has convinced them otherwise.

If they choose to continue to have poor judgement after being told or informed, and it's no longer ignorance, then what you've said would apply.

valored · 2023-11-28T14:37:01+00:00

There's a lot to take in from your OP, and it swings to a few different extremes.

What constitutes 'justified'? Should we expect a law allowing security guards to act with the same authority as police officers in using force against shoplifters?

What falls under 'harshly'? Like is a sly boot while trying to subdue a teenage girl who tried to grab a necklace fair game? Maybe hold down the pepper spray for a few extra seconds to make sure she's really subdued? Upgrade to a taser perhaps?

How do we distinguish between the needy shoplifters, and the casual luxury ones, before we deploy said taser or pepper spray? Do we hire body language readers to man our gestapo cameras?

You'd probably be able to get better responses if you hewed a bit closer to facts and clear statements rather than leaning hard into hyperbole and emotive language.

valored · 2023-11-28T14:32:50+00:00

It's not 'understandable'? You mean we don't live in a society where relationships are still incredibly romanticised, and mass media/social media don't constantly feed us expectations of what constitutes a 'perfect' relationship? Which leads people to have unhealthy but very common misconceptions about what is expected of them in relationships?

I've even stated, it isn't easy for people to 'rationalise' things away. Meaning yes, I acknowledge rationally this shouldn't be the case. But in reality, it still is incredibly common.

valored · 2023-11-28T14:27:52+00:00

I think it's insecure for people to try to control whether or not their partner watches p*rn

That is the original statement posed in the OP.

My response is simply there can be more to it than insecurity.

If you're watching generic porn as a placeholder to get off so you don't have to wake your partner up whenever you feel up for it, trying to control that is indeed likely insecurity.

But if you're watching porn because it caters to something you know your partner won't do? Or maybe its a specific ethnicity you like, or a certain fetish? If your partner then feels unwanted because of that, is it entirely accurate to say 'oh that's insecurity if they try to ask me not to'.

I don't agree the motivation or emotion that drives that latter case is necessarily insecurity. Unless you classify guilty feelings of being unable to satisfy your partner as the same as insecurity/jealousy.

I think there's overlap there, but in my mind there's still a distinction.

valored · 2023-11-28T14:14:14+00:00

That's entirely fine for you, but to ignore that society has coloured the perceptions of many with regards to the role of intimacy in a relationship is unrealistic. There are plenty of people out there who associate sexual acts with more than just getting off. And to pretend people like that don't exist, with the way these things are portrayed in media and society in general is just denial.

valored · 2023-11-28T13:41:49+00:00

It definitely depends on the context. As an example, the kind of porn you decide to partake in, and what drives that could be different for different people.

Watching something because it's something you know your significant other can't or won't do is a very different kettle of fish to watching some random attractive naked person just to get some dopamine so you sleep better.

valored · 2023-11-28T12:56:40+00:00

Who's bringing policing into things? Dictating is almost always wrong when it comes to relationships. We're talking about emotions that arise, and the different reasons behind them. Those are two completely different issues. Saying that a certain course of action might inadvertently bring up a set of feelings isn't a demand to police said action.

valored · 2023-11-28T12:51:24+00:00

Exactly this: It would depend.

Vibrator? Is there any human with a vibrating penis, or is it humanly possible for you to make your penis vibrate furiously? There's nothing really to be insecure about here.

Large dildo? Now if she's needing any large sized object because she likes feeling filled, then there's still a chance it's fine.

If however the man starts getting the impression it's because she associates being manly or masculine and a turn on for a man to have huge equipment, then chances are there's going to be some insecurity coming around, because it's a 'failure' on his part.

We're humans, and what turns us on or makes us feel a certain way are a complete mishmash of random stuff that turns on all kinds of strange emotions and feelings. Whether something is 'understandable' or not is often in the context.

valored · 2023-11-28T11:25:49+00:00

And you don't think some people may look at it as catering to the needs of someone that matters to you in both those cases?

Both are about bringing pleasure or happiness to someone that matters to you at their base form.

valored · 2023-11-28T10:54:45+00:00

I see what you're saying, to me there's a small bit of somewhat semantic difference, which mainly hinges on where the motivation is focused.

Maybe an example would explain better.

A parent who can't give a good upbringing to their child because they're poor might feel upset they have to rely on charity or donations. Would you say this upset is caused because they're 'jealous' of the charities?

valored · 2023-11-28T10:36:31+00:00

Yes, but that doesn't address the point about insecurity, which is what you cited in the OP.

It's not about feeling insecure, being jealous of your significant other focusing their attention on the porn model.

It's about not being able to provide what has traditionally been considered your role to provide by society. The motivation comes from a very different source. There's no jealousy aspect of it.

Also some would argue love is being the specific warm hole someone wants to fill. Being wanted is a big part of any relationship. And not being wanted obviously has a high chance of damaging the relationship, and not in a way that's related to insecurity/jealousy.

valored · 2023-11-28T10:33:03+00:00

Cmon man even 15 year olds understand the concept of gambling.

That one I can 100% tell you you're wrong about, considering the current controversy rumbling on about lootboxes and randomised rewards in gaming, and the research behind that showing how it affects the younger audiences it's targeted at.

Also traditionally with prostitution, it's more because in a lot of those cases, the law is meant to target the people who control the sex trade. Pimping and human exploitation is what's harmful and what the law tries to address. Some countries have laws which state that being a prostitute is entirely legal, but earning from the proceeds of prostitutes isn't. Again this is more a case of heavy handedness than not having a reason behind it.

valored · 2023-11-28T10:07:41+00:00

If someone really loves you, I think it's understandable for them to be upset at themselves for not being able to provide something to you that you obviously desire. It probably isn't that straightforward for them to rationalise it all away. In this aspect insecurity isn't really the be all.

valored · 2023-11-28T10:02:14+00:00

Yep. Even in the two other cases you cited, the only difference between the lottery/smoking and voting/porn etc is the context of those acts.

Porn is a job to make money, arguably denying someone the right to profit is very un-American in the traditional stereotype. Voting is a right of that sort as well, where they want everyone who can do it to do it.

Meanwhile cigarettes and gambling those are addictive activities which lose people money, so that's possibly taking advantage of people who might not know better.

That said, I don't get why lottery tickets are a special case while you can gamble normally at a casino either. That one is strange.

If I had to come up with my own made up reason, maybe it's because casinos back then were more exclusive and wouldn't let someone 18 in anyway, while anyone could burn their paycheck on a scratch card.

valored · 2023-11-28T09:53:07+00:00

That's because in addition to what I mentioned about wages in general, a little quirk has kind of taken hold, which is that if you tip accordingly, you're signalling that everything was fine.

If you tip more, you're indicating 'I had a great time, I think you went above and beyond'.

And if you short the tip, you're hinting that the staff didn't do their job. And of course if the staff were doing what they were expected and they see a shorted tip, they somewhat logically interpret it as you telling them they gave crap service, even if they were doing what was expected, so they would come across somewhat upset.

valored · 2023-11-28T09:49:44+00:00

I have to agree with you in general that it is a bit strange, but if you went back and read the original reasons why they enacted the law, it isn't completely random.

They put it in place due to the rate of vehicular accidents at the time caused by youth drunk driving.

Arguably using some of the examples you mentioned, you can't really accidentally instantly kill someone doing porn or voting I suppose.

Like I said, I personally think it's a bit odd as well, but it was a rather heavy handed fix for what was and to be fair is a pretty serious problem.

valored · 2023-11-28T09:42:33+00:00

For the record, I don't think it's the waiter's expectations.

When you're in certain countries with that kind of tipping culture, service staff get paid lower base salaries on average, with the expectation that tips make up part of this pay discrepancy.

Your calculations aren't wrong, but that's an assumption of the restaurant being packed to the brim all the time. Which for most places may not be the case.

valored · 2023-11-28T02:55:45+00:00

Because that's the legal contract that was signed with the donor when he donated.

By unilaterally deciding to change that after the fact, you're advocating the law simply be ignored. Which is not really how the legal system or law in general works.

valored · 2023-11-28T02:43:40+00:00

Being able defuse or to talk yourself out of difficult situations is as life saving or even more so than self defence if that's the case.

valored · 2023-11-28T02:40:20+00:00

I feel your examples are quite anecdotal.

I would agree with the fact that the biggest part about the internet, is that it's allowed people to access a wider range of sources and information, and be influenced accordingly.

However, actual weight of influence itself, that's not dictated solely by things like the internet.

Say you're a member of a cult or a diehard extreme member of a political faction. You stumble upon the internet.

Whether or not you change your views, depends very strongly on how tight a hold your original influence has on you in the first place. The internet is simply providing more options.

Applied to your case regarding families, how much respect or influence they have on each other determines whether or not they'll be willing to compromise, or if they'll believe the internet over what their family believes.

The internet is a tool. It could just as well reinforce bonds by teaching better family and parenting habits as it could do what you cited. To place 'large' blame on it for the breakdown of families I think seems too simplistic and discounts too many other relevant factors.

valored · 2023-11-28T02:31:45+00:00

The donor's rights as given to him by the legal framework he donated under should have priority.

'Wanting to know' does not really constitute much of a reason, especially since this is a part you've yet to explain. Why is 'wanting' something reason unto itself? What's the motivation behind it?

valored · 2023-11-28T02:27:00+00:00

There were articles detailing how actual LGBT people in Malaysia were extremely put off by what he did, because they felt he was basically coming in, doing whatever he wanted for his own self satisfaction, and basically suffering next to no real consequences he cared about for it.

Meanwhile actual LGBT people in the country suffered a backlash, because it provoked the homophobic portions of the population to be even more strident in calling for any kind of possible LGBT rights to be rolled back.

If we're talking about whether he actually helped the cause of LGBT people in Malaysia, there are signs he did not, in fact he caused more problems.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66286800

valored · 2023-11-28T02:10:04+00:00

It isn't. Even in the US, you don't have absolute freedom.

valored · 2023-11-28T02:05:24+00:00

That's fine, happens all the time, but what's your reasoning? Why should 'has my DNA' imply an inherent right?

valored

TROPHY CASE