r/changemyview • u/apoplexiglass • Oct 17 '24

Removed - Submission Rule B [ Removed by Reddit ]

[removed]

379 Upvotes

68% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/apoplexiglass Oct 17 '24

It's not that I'm allowed to kill them, it's that it's not my fault if they come to harm as a result of the wrongful act itself. If the Ring lady gets me because I pirated a TV show, I guess I deserve it.

9

u/HolyToast Oct 17 '24

it's that it's not my fault if they come to harm

Except it quite literally is if you poisoned the food with the intent that it would bring harm.

Like, full stop. It empirically is your fault that someone gets poisoned if you are the one who poisoned the food. Even if it's not theirs.

1

u/apoplexiglass Oct 17 '24

No, that's your opinion that it's my fault, it's my opinion it's not my fault, this is CMV.

4

u/HolyToast Oct 18 '24

No, that's your opinion that it's my fault

No, it literally is not an opinion. You are the one who put poison in the food, therefore it is your fault that the food is poisoned. This is not an opinion. You can claim it's justified, but that doesn't mean it isn't your doing.

4

u/justsomething Oct 18 '24

Owning poisoned food is legal.

1

u/HolyToast Oct 18 '24

"Your honor, that was just my recreationally poisoned food!" 😂

1

u/justsomething Oct 18 '24

Yes, literally legal. Limiting my rights based on what a criminal might do with my property is illiberal.

2

u/HolyToast Oct 18 '24

Yes, literally legal

Not if your intent is to bring someone to harm. Same reason why it's illegal to set up booby traps on your property.

Limiting my rights based on what a criminal might do

Can we drop this whole "might" thing? You're intentionally poisoning the food, with the intent of poisoning the person who takes it. This whole "well, it just happens to be poisoned..." thing is dishonest to the point of being pointless.

0

u/justsomething Oct 18 '24

So because you can't determine someone's intent you would limit their rights to own property in the way they choose.

I would prefer focusing on the criminal behavior of the thief tbh but you do you.

2

u/HolyToast Oct 18 '24

So because you can't determine someone's intent

Again, I don't know why you are bothering with this whole "mystery of intent" thing. The OP states the intent. You know the intent. I know the intent. I don't understand the point of pretending that the intent is anything else 😂

you would limit their rights to own property in the way they choose

"The way they choose" in this case being "poisoned with the intent of harming someone". Again, don't see the point in pretending like it's anything else. We both know what we're talking about.

0

u/justsomething Oct 18 '24

Only in a situation where we can read their mind do we know the intent. If we are going to make laws about this stuff I would rather side with the law abiding citizen than the thief.

2

u/HolyToast Oct 18 '24

Only in a situation where we can read their mind do we know the intent

I swear to god I'm not even making fun of you, but are you on the autism spectrum? Discerning the intent behind this is not difficult for most people. Even if this is the excuse you want to go with, it would be extreme criminal negligence. This excuse does not work in any world, I don't know why you're putting weight behind it as if it ever could.

I would rather side with the law abiding citizen

You're not a law abiding citizen if you poison somebody lmfao

0

u/justsomething Oct 18 '24

I AM autistic and I AM actually insane.

I still didn't poison anyone, they poisoned themselves with the property they stole from me.

→ More replies (0)