An iPhone was Stolen from a Baby!

[nryn99]

also, thanks. i'd use that as my reason to justify stealing from a store.

Did I say that it would justify stealing from a store? No.

You can justify stealing all you want, but you're still going to pay the price if you get caught, and it is still immoral.

and you say it's the mother's fault 100%.
okay well, i'll just look for someone who leaves their stuff unattended.

In a store? Then they're idiots. In their home? Breaking and entering/Robbery.

It is still wrong and immoral.

Can you truly not see the point I'm trying to make? Or are you at the point where you're disagreeing with me simply because you're upset with me?

erm, just a guess. you're saying that it's the mother's fault. 100%. but what of the thief? it's not his fault for stealing, but what he did was wrong?

though i say, both are at fault and is wrong. think of the saying it takes 2 to tango. you're using it one way. but because there are 2 dancers, it can also be used another way.
nothing can be stolen if there wasn't a thief. non-thief would just simply ignore the baby and the iphone.
or would you have stolen the iphone yourself?

@JustAnotherGamer
i'm not saying the thief is faultless. yes it could have been lower. and the thief could have been avoided.
but why was there a thief then.

to elaborate my disgust in this argument.
1. it could have been avoided if the mother was watching/keeping her child close.
2. it could have been avoided if the thief wasn't in need of stealing.
3. it could be avoided if there was no iphone.
4. it could have been avoided if they didn't go shopping.
5 it could have been avoided if the thief found something else to steal.

too many possibilities don't you think. what i don't like is all the "blame the mother" stuff that's going on. even though i agree she was at fault.
she could have
she could have
she could have.

 

[Haloman800]

The people who disagree with this is i'm gonna assume the people who will say that its entirely the thief's fault for stealing something from a baby that has ignored by the mother because the mother wanted a peaceful time shopping, I mean did anyone actually watch the video.

First of all, no one is saying it's entirely the thief's fault. Castiel claimed that it was equally the mother and the thiefs fault for the crime being committed, I disagreed with him and that's how this whole thing got started.

Second of all, it's entirely the mother's fault that the crime was committed. The thief could not have committed the crime if the mother did not leave the child (and iPhone) unattended. You should never leave a child unattended in a public setting. Much less a $500 phone.

For the eighth time, this does NOT justify the thief's actions, he still committed a crime and will have to pay the penalty if he is caught regardless.

Why don't we look at this another way, even if the thief was gonna steal something in the first place and thats an assumption it could've been something harmless like clothes based on the video location. Now if the mother was carrying the baby or had the pram at least in from of her then chances of this event occuring is a whole lot lower but in the video she was around the other side looking at pants.

We have no idea if the person was going to steal anything else or not if he didn't steal the iPhone. I highly doubt it. It's much riskier and there's less of an incentive to steal pants.

Sadly, a lot of people in that situation would have stolen the iPhone, for whatever reason.

 

[Castiel]

Please, please look up the definitions of 1. Speculation, and 2. Assumption.
I'll give you this one

First of all, no one is saying it's entirely the thief's fault. Castiel claimed that it was equally the mother and the thiefs fault for the crime being committed, I disagreed with him and that's how this whole thing got started.

No I didn't, and I pointed that out earlier.

I think where you're getting me wrong is that you think I'm saying the people should all be equally at fault, and reading back it does sound that way from what I'm typing. They may not all be equally at fault, but they are all at fault in some way or another.

 

[Haloman800]

erm, just a guess. you're saying that it's the mother's fault. 100%. but what of the thief? it's not his fault for stealing, but what he did was wrong?

Yes, I agree that what he did was wrong. Yes, if the mother hadn't of left the child unattended (and iPhone..), the crime (of iPhone theft) would not have been committed.

There is a clear distinction here between something immoral and the cause of something. If you can't see it by now, that's just sad, because I'm not going to explain it again.

or would you have stolen the iphone yourself?

No.

to elaborate my disgust in this argument.
1. it could have been avoided if the mother was watching/keeping her child close.
2. it could have been avoided if the thief wasn't in need of stealing.

Point 1 I agree with.

Point 2, I do not. A thief doesn't need a reason to steal other than the fact that he wants something for nothing.

I won't address the other points as they are obviously satirical.

 

[JoostinOnline]

Babies are better off being away from Apple products anyway, so I call this a win.

 

[Haloman800]

I'll give you this one

But you won't admit that the cause of crime and a thief's immoral actions are two different things? Have I not explained it clear enough? Are you just deliberately avoiding my question because you don't want to agree with me?

No I didn't, and I pointed that out earlier.

You also pointed out earlier that your posts appeared that way, and regardless of whether or not you meant it to be so, that is how this argument got started.

 

[nryn99]

There is a clear distinction here between something immoral and the cause of something. If you can't see it by now, that's just sad, because I'm not going to explain it again.

or would you have stolen the iphone yourself?

No.

yes. there is a distinction. but there's no reason to put stress on only one thing like the mother leaving her baby. it is only 1 of the causes.
what you're doing is putting every fault on the mother. and in some way relieves the thief from the blame simply because he is a thief and is expected to commit immoral acts.

 

[Castiel]

But you won't admit that the cause of crime and a thief's immoral actions are two different things? Have I not explained it clear enough? Are you just deliberately avoiding my question because you don't want to agree with me?

Never did I say they were the same thing. I have been saying that the main issue here was not 100% the mother's fault.

Point 2, I do not. A thief doesn't need a reason to steal other than the fact that he wants something for nothing.

Here I know that I can use my hypotheticals as this is not always the case (which is what you make it sound like). We don't know the extenuating circumstances that led to this action.

Think of it like this. Take the thief out of the equation. You now have a mother shopping with her baby, which is using the iPhone. We assume that since there is no robber, they have a nice day shopping, go home, etc. But, if you put the robber into the equation, GASP! There is a conflict that emerged! Now, let's try taking the mother and her child out of this. There is this guy who may or may not have stolen something (for this sake we are going to say he wouldn't). Oh, look. No incident. But if you add the mother and her child with the iPhone into this, BAM! Conflict.

The thief plays into this, and so does the mother leaving her child with the iPhone does. If the robber wasn't there, none of this would have happened. If the mother wasn't there with her child that she gave the iPhone to, none of this would have happened.The two work hand in hand to cause the conflict. See what we're getting at? It couldn't have been 100% the mother's fault. Without the robber, none of this would have happened, without the mother and her child having the iPhone, none of this would have happened.
I'm going to bed, I was about to before this debate started. I have to go to school in 5 hours, I would like to get some sleep

 

[Law]

why the hell was a baby unattended. she is lucky the guy didn't steal the kid.

-another world

Ah, but they don't sell as well on the market.

yes they do.

It depends on the skin colour. White babies just don't sell.

I'd like to take a moment to remind you that we're not currently in the EoF.

Just commenting on the market trends bro. White babies just don't sell, Hispanic babies are what the market wants right now.

 

[nando]

so every time i leave my house for work, in the chance that someone breaks in and steals all my shit, it is my fault for leaving the house unattended?

next up, women deserve to be violated for dressing sexy.

 

[Just Another Gamer]

so every time i leave my house for work, in the chance that someone breaks in and steals all my shit, it is my fault for leaving the house unattended?

next up, women deserve to be violated for dressing sexy.

Leaving your house for work =/= ignoring your child so you can enjoy shopping in peace,

One is hopefully covered with insurance while the other is shit parenting.

 

[indask8]

so every time i leave my house for work, in the chance that someone breaks in and steals all my shit, it is my fault for leaving the house unattended?

Yes... if you leave it unlocked.

Leaving your iPhone with your baby unattended is not a proper way to secure your precious smartphone.

She should be grateful nothing happened to her baby, a phone is replaceable, an human life... not so much.

 

[nando]

you guys have a very warped view on life.

next up. if you don't wear a bullet proof vest you set yourself up to be a drive by victim. difficulty doesn't shift the blame on a crime. but that's expected of this place

 

[Haloman800]

you guys have a very warped view on life.

next up. if you don't wear a bullet proof vest you set yourself up to be a drive by victim. difficulty doesn't shift the blame on a crime. but that's expected of this place

Not wearing a bullet proof vest is not invitation to be shot. However, leaving a $500 device in the hands of an unattended infant is an invitation for it to be stolen

 

[The Catboy]

you guys have a very warped view on life.

next up. if you don't wear a bullet proof vest you set yourself up to be a drive by victim. difficulty doesn't shift the blame on a crime. but that's expected of this place

Not wearing a bullet proof vest is not invitation to be shot. However, leaving a $500 device in the hands of an unattended infant is an invitation for it to be stolen

Who cares about the iPhone, what about the baby who was being left unattended? These people are damn lucky they only lost their iPhone and not their child.

 

[gamefan5]

you guys have a very warped view on life.

next up. if you don't wear a bullet proof vest you set yourself up to be a drive by victim. difficulty doesn't shift the blame on a crime. but that's expected of this place

Not wearing a bullet proof vest is not invitation to be shot. However, leaving a $500 device in the hands of an unattended infant is an invitation for it to be stolen

Who cares about the iPhone, what about the baby who was being left unattended? These people are damn lucky they only lost their iPhone and not their child.

Bitch plz, I WANT MAH IPHONE BACK!

All kiddiing aside, it would appear an Iphone is worth more than a baby in more than 50% of the world's population.

 

[nando]

you guys have a very warped view on life.

next up. if you don't wear a bullet proof vest you set yourself up to be a drive by victim. difficulty doesn't shift the blame on a crime. but that's expected of this place

Not wearing a bullet proof vest is not invitation to be shot. However, leaving a $500 device in the hands of an unattended infant is an invitation for it to be stolen

Who cares about the iPhone, what about the baby who was being left unattended? These people are damn lucky they only lost their iPhone and not their child.

yes. an unattended baby is bad and that could be a crime on it's own and maybe social services should look into it, but it doesn't excuse another crime.

 

[The Catboy]

you guys have a very warped view on life.

next up. if you don't wear a bullet proof vest you set yourself up to be a drive by victim. difficulty doesn't shift the blame on a crime. but that's expected of this place

Not wearing a bullet proof vest is not invitation to be shot. However, leaving a $500 device in the hands of an unattended infant is an invitation for it to be stolen

Who cares about the iPhone, what about the baby who was being left unattended? These people are damn lucky they only lost their iPhone and not their child.

yes. an unattended baby is bad and that could be a crime on it's own and maybe social services should look into it, but it doesn't excuse another crime.

This is a crime that has brought attention to another crime, not unheard of, but honestly the bigger crime here isn't the iPhone theft.

 

[nryn99]

This is a crime that has brought attention to another crime, not unheard of, but honestly the bigger crime here isn't the iPhone theft.

i'm not saying you're wrong, nor am i disagreeing with you.

it's kinda different but this just reminds me why i never tell my parents anything. like when i climb a tree when i was young. i was up and proud that i climbed the tree, but i got scolded coz i climbed and they were worried that i would fall.
;O;

 

[Just Another Gamer]

you guys have a very warped view on life.

next up. if you don't wear a bullet proof vest you set yourself up to be a drive by victim. difficulty doesn't shift the blame on a crime. but that's expected of this place

Getting shot =/= leaving your kid to go shopping in peace

One rarely happens if your not someone involved with criminals while the other is again shit parenting, somehow your brain isn't capable of understanding the difference.