Legality Question - Page 6

On February 21 2007 16:32 CharlieMurphy wrote:


If the law doesn't say its wrong why do you say its wrong? Thats my point 'douchebag'.

On February 21 2007 16:33 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


how about next time you see something on the ground you pick it up and try to give it back to the person who owns it. Especially if its a fucking phone, its really easy to find out who owns it.

I guess you could do that or make a thread on a gaming site asking if its illegal to use other peoples things without their consent.

On February 21 2007 16:36 CharlieMurphy wrote:


Actually its not, The screen is cracked and I can't see anything at all of who it belonged to. There is no way find out who owns it.

On February 21 2007 16:36 CharlieMurphy wrote:


Actually its not, The screen is cracked and I can't see anything at all of who it belonged to. There is no way find out who owns it.

On February 21 2007 16:41 MarcX wrote:
Although my personal view on this matter is different from CharlieMurphy's, I believe strongly that everyone is entitled to their own morals. Do not try to force your morals upon another! If you wish to effect a change in somebody's morals, try a more convincing argument than "you are a douchebag."

This kind of social attitude (I don't agree with you, so you are a douchebag) generally does more harm than good. Not that many of you self-righteous bastards give a shit what does harm and what does good, which shows the hipocrisy of some of you people's criticism.

Futhermore, I don't believe that anybody ever has a moral "obligation" to help others. I used to believe this myself, and I have often tried arguing for it, but it simply doesn't work. Such an "obligation" kind of ruins the point, doesn't it? Let us collaborate and gain advantage over those who refuse to, but allow each individual a personal choice to work for or against your cause as they see fit.

Obviously such unbounded freedom as I idealize here is not going to work. People tend to disagree. Sometimes, disagreement causes conflict, and allowing conflict to freely rage across the world can't be good. That's why we have laws. Laws provide a framework that theoretically allows maximum freedom with minimum conflict.

I can understand CharlieMurphy's legal concerns. I don't think he is out to cause a conflict with anyone (disregarding, for the moment, his virtual life, that sometimes consists of trolling internet forums). His morals are none of your business. If you wish, and he doesn't mind, you may debate those with him, but I think you are out of line to start swearing simply because he has an unusual viewpoint.

To answer the original question, yes, it is probably illegal, and you could probably get into trouble. Your utility argument (I need it more than they do) doesn't work in court: in our society, needing something doesn't give you the right to take it. Buying stuff (phone service), with dollars that belong to somebody else, - without that somebody's permission - is larceny.

To answer your other question, why people sometimes go out of their way to help others: because, someday, they might find themselves in a position to need help, and then someone they have helped in the past might offer it. Sure, you might never hear from these people again, but then again, you might need them someday. Whether you believe in karma or not, the way you treat other people tends to come back to you. That's why.

And, besides that (and I think this goes for many of us) I'd give you a few respect points too, if you grew some balls and stuck up for friend and neighbour. Especially since you or people close to you seem to have been wronged in the past.

On February 21 2007 16:49 Cpt Obvious wrote:
i want him to lose his cellphone and me to find it.

On February 21 2007 16:52 CharlieMurphy wrote:


nice morals. You're all hypocrites. I'm done with this dsicussion


I'M NOT GOING TO USE THE PHONE. WHO CARES WHAT I DO WITH IT THERE AFTER.

On February 21 2007 16:41 MarcX wrote:
Although my personal view on this matter is different from CharlieMurphy's, I believe strongly that everyone is entitled to their own morals. Do not try to force your morals upon another! If you wish to effect a change in somebody's morals, try a more convincing argument than "you are a douchebag."

This kind of social attitude (I don't agree with you, so you are a douchebag) generally does more harm than good. Not that many of you self-righteous bastards give a shit what does harm and what does good, which shows the hipocrisy of some of you people's criticism.

Futhermore, I don't believe that anybody ever has a moral "obligation" to help others. I used to believe this myself, and I have often tried arguing for it, but it simply doesn't work. Such an "obligation" kind of ruins the point, doesn't it? Let us collaborate and gain advantage over those who refuse to, but allow each individual a personal choice to work for or against your cause as they see fit.

Obviously such unbounded freedom as I idealize here is not going to work. People tend to disagree. Sometimes, disagreement causes conflict, and allowing conflict to freely rage across the world can't be good. That's why we have laws. Laws provide a framework that theoretically allows maximum freedom with minimum conflict.

I can understand CharlieMurphy's legal concerns. I don't think he is out to cause a conflict with anyone (disregarding, for the moment, his virtual life, that sometimes consists of trolling internet forums). His morals are none of your business. If you wish, and he doesn't mind, you may debate those with him, but I think you are out of line to start swearing simply because he has an unusual viewpoint.