Did this woman steal the garlic tablets?

  • Thread starter Thread starter atassina
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HI otjm, Do i think you are sneaky? That you would purposely obfuscate the meaning of this thread? “You could be on to something”👍 Love of Christ Nancy
 
Think of it this way: If somebody gouged that woman’s car with a screwdriver, they not only damaged the car but also stole some of its value. Do you think the woman would have said, “No problem. You didn’t steal it.” The woman stole the garlic tablets.
 
atassina said:
Think of it this way: If somebody gouged that woman’s car with a screwdriver, they not only damaged the car but also stole some of its value. Do you think the woman would have said, “No problem. You didn’t steal it.” The woman stole the garlic tablets.
Click to expand...
AMEN!!!:p:p:p:p:thumbsup:Love of Christ Nancy
 
atassina said:
Think of it this way: If somebody gouged that woman’s car with a screwdriver, they not only damaged the car but also stole some of its value. Do you think the woman would have said, “No problem. You didn’t steal it.” The woman stole the garlic tablets.
Click to expand...
Stealing is so well defined in law that I fail to see whay we are having the conversation, except for the fact that people have lost the art of logic and clear thinking.

One cannot steal value. One can steal an object, and given that the pills were still on the shelf when she left, she could not have stolen the pills.

She damaged the bottle by breaking the seal, but there is no definition in law that equates that with stealing; the short of it is that it is the equivalent of people saying “my house was robbed”; they know something was wrong, but don’t realize that it was burglarized instead of robbed. People are robbed; buildings are burglarized. It does ont mean the same thing, and for those who insist that it does, they need to go back and take logic 101. The woman damaged the bottle and caused loss of value; that does not equate with stealing.

Your comment about gouging a car is not a similar issue; gouging the car is intentional damage to the car. Breaking a seal to see what is inside is not the same act as breaking the seal simply for the purpose of causing damage. Both acts result in the same, but they have different causation.

The woman was obviously curious about the pills. We can all agree she should have found another way to satisfy her curiosity; we can all agree she caused economic damage. Go back and read the OP; she did not steal the tablets. They were still there when she left; to have stolen them, she would have had to have taken them with her.
 
nancy_dalrymple said:
HI otjm, Do i think you are sneaky? That you would purposely obfuscate the meaning of this thread? “You could be on to something”👍 Love of Christ Nancy
Click to expand...
I have not obfuscated anything - I would suggest that you get out your dictionary and look up the definiton of the term. And while you are at it, look up the term “steal”.

It is called logic, and following the definition of a term. Some people do not follow logical discussions well. The thread is reasonably clear; the OP asked a question and it has been answered. The only people who are obfuscating anything are those who are sloppy with definitions.

Theft: the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.

She did not take and carry away. It helps to be proficient in a language; that includes understanding the definitions of words. I was taught in high school - by several very bright Jesuits - to define my terms; they were insistent that an intelligent conversation could not occur when the parties were misusing words or could not clearly define their terms.

Sneaky? Not in the least; I am simply trying to show that those who consider this woman to have stolen the pills - or the value, as at least one has proposed - do not know the definition of the terms they are using. That makes it hard to have an intelligent conversation about the matter. and that is not being sneaky, nor is it obfuscating the thread.
 
otjm said:
Stealing is so well defined in law that I fail to see whay we are having the conversation, except for the fact that people have lost the art of logic and clear thinking.

I agree. Learning to distinguish subtle details has been obscured by too much electronic entertainment.

One cannot steal value. One can steal an object, and given that the pills were still on the shelf when she left, she could not have stolen the pills.

Somebody goes to your house, takes a sledge hammer and breaks in all the windows on your car, fills it with bleach, pounds in the sides, hood, top and trunk of your car, cuts all the wiring into small pieces, have they stolen the value of your car or merely damaged it? The car is still in your driveway. They did not remove it.

She damaged the bottle by breaking the seal, but there is no definition in law that equates that with stealing;

We are not dealing with civil law here. Rather, we are defining reality according to what God has taught us. She stole the garlic pills.

the short of it is that it is the equivalent of people saying “my house was robbed”; they know something was wrong, but don’t realize that it was burglarized instead of robbed. People are robbed; buildings are burglarized. It does ont mean the same thing, and for those who insist that it does, they need to go back and take logic 101.

I agree. Distinction of terms is important because it affords clarity of thought.

The woman damaged the bottle and caused loss of value; that does not equate with stealing.

How is the merchant going to sell that bottle of garlic tablets?

Your comment about gouging a car is not a similar issue; gouging the car is intentional damage to the car. Breaking a seal to see what is inside is not the same act as breaking the seal simply for the purpose of causing damage. Both acts result in the same, but they have different causation.

Once you break the seal, you are committing to purchase it. You break it, you buy it.

The woman was obviously curious about the pills. We can all agree she should have found another way to satisfy her curiosity; we can all agree she caused economic damage. Go back and read the OP; she did not steal the tablets. They were still there when she left; to have stolen them, she would have had to have taken them with her.
Click to expand...
I see this as a distinction without a difference. The pills were now trash, no value. Just the same as if she had put them in her purse and walked out.

You truly are a worthy person to dialogue with. Thanks for your clear thinking.
 
I must be missing something? You said "YOU CANNOT STEAL VALUE"I If you take a life you most certaintly have stloe value(Most precious value) You can leave the body there on the floor so you did not take anything but inreality you did, Why?? I’m glad you asked Because you no longer can use it!!! The value is gone! GET IT?:confused: You are Loved Nancy
 
atassina said:
If a merchant cannot sell a new product because of something something you have done to it, you have stolen his ownership of the product. Who want to buy warm bologna? Why is it warm? Somebody was too lazy to put it back in the refrigerated section, and instead left it with the towels, nice and warm, nice and full of bacteria. Do you agree? 🤷
Click to expand...
One day while I was in line, a young woman gave her fussy toddler a sealed basket of cherry tomatoes to play with. The child of course threw them on the floor, where the basket burst open and they flew in every direction. The mother picked them up, put them back in the basket, looked around and shoved the basket in the magazine rack. I called the clerks attention to this, because product that has been rolling around on dirty floors cannot be returned to the shelf where some trusting patron may take it home and catch God knows what from bruised and dirty fruit. The mother got mad at me for reporting her on the spot. I pointed out that she was setting a really terrible example for the (approximately) five year old daughter looking on, by not taking responsibility for what she had done and paying for the product she had ruined.

Another day I saw a young child ripping open Hot Wheels packages and shoving the cars in his pockets; he was preschool age, so I went to him and said Dont tear up the packages, those are not your cars in a low voice without laying a finger on him – naturally his absent mother came shooting up at the speed of light to shriek DONT YOU TOUCH MY CHILD! and I explained that her child was stealing toys. She angrily called me a liar. I asked the child Did you take those cars and put them in your pockets? He was crying by then, but he nodded and produced the evidence from his pockets and put them back on the shelf. I said Thank you, dear. Dont do that anymore. and he nodded. His mother, of course, shouted at ME, and stormed off with Junior in tow. I took the packages and the cars up to Customer Service and said that I had found them, but I wondered what Mommy Dearest had in HER pockets that did not belong to her.

There are an increasing number of people in the world who cannot draw a line between Mine and Thine. The fact that they want it is good enough to prove that they deserve to have it. We were taught IF IT IS NOT YOURS, DO NOT TOUCH IT. Are there loopholes in this statement nowadays?
 
HI Applebe, A long time back when i was working in a department store in Oklahoma, they had a funny habit of leaving their children at the store (in the toy section) and i had that section to do and 5 children that were left there and the store manager was not surprised whne i told him but those kids ripped up packages and wound up toys and i was non stop fixing shelves ETC. Those kids left a mess, the parents did not care, i did not get paid to baby sit or pick up after them, and the manager said that happens alot,he was discusted but felt what can you do? I did something, I QUIT! Love of Christ!
 
Appleby said:
One day while I was in line, a young woman gave her fussy toddler a sealed basket of cherry tomatoes to play with. The child of course threw them on the floor, where the basket burst open and they flew in every direction. The mother picked them up, put them back in the basket, looked around and shoved the basket in the magazine rack. I called the clerks attention to this, because product that has been rolling around on dirty floors cannot be returned to the shelf where some trusting patron may take it home and catch God knows what from bruised and dirty fruit. The mother got mad at me for reporting her on the spot. I pointed out that she was setting a really terrible example for the (approximately) five year old daughter looking on, by not taking responsibility for what she had done and paying for the product she had ruined.

Another day I saw a young child ripping open Hot Wheels packages and shoving the cars in his pockets; he was preschool age, so I went to him and said Dont tear up the packages, those are not your cars in a low voice without laying a finger on him – naturally his absent mother came shooting up at the speed of light to shriek DONT YOU TOUCH MY CHILD! and I explained that her child was stealing toys. She angrily called me a liar. I asked the child Did you take those cars and put them in your pockets? He was crying by then, but he nodded and produced the evidence from his pockets and put them back on the shelf. I said Thank you, dear. Dont do that anymore. and he nodded. His mother, of course, shouted at ME, and stormed off with Junior in tow. I took the packages and the cars up to Customer Service and said that I had found them, but I wondered what Mommy Dearest had in HER pockets that did not belong to her.

There are an increasing number of people in the world who cannot draw a line between Mine and Thine. The fact that they want it is good enough to prove that they deserve to have it. We were taught IF IT IS NOT YOURS, DO NOT TOUCH IT. Are there loopholes in this statement nowadays?
Click to expand...
Appleby:
Thank you for seeing past my thinly disguised question. The question about the garlic tablets was simple, but the real issues behind it are enormous. Sure the woman put the tomatoes back, but her child innocently made them beyond being sold. The woman was responsible. The mother whose child put the cars in her pockets was responsible. Everywhere I go, I see people acting immorally in stores: they leave cold cuts in the magazine rack, they leave soap in the vegetable isle, they leave the wrong size screws in the wrong bin etc. Our sense of boundaries, right order and personal responsibility has diminished greatly. The is why the woman stole the garlic pills
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top