Go, Argentina!

[Madrigal]

:)


November 22, 2006
Bush's Daughter Robbed in Argentina
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 6:47 a.m. ET

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) -- U.S. and Argentine media reported that one of President Bush's 24-year-old twin daughters had her purse stolen while being guarded by the Secret Service during a visit here.

ABC News, citing unidentified law enforcement reports, reported on its Web site Tuesday that Barbara Bush's purse and cell phone were taken while she was dining in a Buenos Aires restaurant.

La Nacion newspaper, citing anonymous government sources, said in its online edition early Wednesday that one of Bush's daughters had her purse taken Sunday afternoon in the popular tourist district of San Telmo.

A pair of thieves removed the purse from under a table while Secret Service agents stood guard at a distance, La Nacion reported. La Nacion said its sources did not reveal which of the Bush daughters had her purse stolen.
(...)

Story (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Argentina-Bush-Daughter-Purse.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)

[dubbeltop]

:sadbanana: ;)

[MacGuffin]

What did that poor woman do to you filthy Argentines?

[Rhu]

So... what did she have in her purse, Madrigal?

[Madrigal]

What did that poor woman do to you filthy Argentines?

Why you little... let's hope they're so terrified they never come back, the bitches. No-one even knew they were here, heh.


So... what did she have in her purse, Madrigal?

lol :) I wish.

If only those lumpens would socialize the numbers on her cell phone.

[MacGuffin]

Why you little... let's hope they're so terrified they never come back, the bitches. No-one even knew they were here, heh.
So unwelcoming! I am never going there!












Unless it's on a tank.

http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~pre2tas/m1-tank-12.jpeg

[Madrigal]

So unwelcoming! I am never going there!


Buenos Aires is obviously the place to be, even Bush's daughters come here. San Telmo is a sorta trendy "bohemian" place here, lots of musicians, hippies and lumpens there too. And tourists. It's a traditional part of Buenos Aires. I guess they just looked too obviously like filthy rich American girls.

[MacGuffin]

Buenos Aires is obviously the place to be, even Bush's daughters come here. San Telmo is a sorta trendy "bohemian" place here, lots of musicians, hippies and lumpens there too. And tourists. It's a traditional part of Buenos Aires. I guess they just looked too obviously like filthy rich American girls.
Are the streets wide enough for tanks?

[Google Monster]

Buenos Aires is obviously the place to be, even Bush's daughters come here. San Telmo is a sorta trendy "bohemian" place here, lots of musicians, hippies and lumpens there too. And tourists. It's a traditional part of Buenos Aires. I guess they just looked too obviously like filthy rich American girls.

I read a travel guide on one of my magazines saying if your going to visit a new place, don't do it as a tourist. Dress the same as the locals and eat at the same places. No fancy tourism shops or resturants, do as the locals do. That's the best way to have a vacation.

[Hustler]

This thread contains several more reasons not to visit Buenos Aires.

[C.J.Woolf]

I guess they just looked too obviously like filthy rich American girls.
The Secret Service bodyguards are something of a giveaway.

Man, what a ballsy purse-snatcher. Huevos grandes!

[Google Monster]

The Secret Service bodyguards are something of a giveaway.

Man, what a ballsy purse-snatcher. Huevos grandes!

Not really, the purse snatcher knew they wouldn't be chased because the person being guarded is more valuable then the purse being snatched.

[ApeTheDog]

It wasn't robbed for political reasons. It was robbed because it contained money. This isn't a political victory.

It's a crime, and thus, condemnable. It's no more fair for her to get her money stolen as it is for the american public to get their money taken away from them through a "rebuild Iraq program" for which the fundings go entirely to Texas-based political contributors. A crime. Not good.

[Madrigal]

It's a crime, and thus, condemnable. It's no more fair for her to get her money stolen as it is for the american public to get their money taken away from them through a "rebuild Iraq program" for which the fundings go entirely to Texas-based political contributors. A crime. Not good.

You're joking, right? :confused:

[ApeTheDog]

No. Why would I be joking? Thefth is thefth.

[MacGuffin]

With the out of control crime, no wonder it is so cheap to live there (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=10391).

[Madrigal]

No. Why would I be joking? Thefth is thefth.

There's a proverb that goes, "a thief that robs a thief is pardoned for 100 years." Or something. They live off unearned and illegitimate wealth. They campaign for their father... bah, why am I even explaining this.

[Madrigal]

With the out of control crime, no wonder it is so cheap to live there (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=10391).

Crime has gone down ok :P

[MacGuffin]

Crime has gone down ok :P
I'll bring the tanks!

[Dunearhp]

There's a proverb that goes, "a thief that robs a thief is pardoned for 100 years." Or something. They live off unearned and illegitimate wealth. They campaign for their father... bah, why am I even explaining this.

A frog in a well shaft seeing the sky.
Chinese Proverb

[Ferrus]

However, this proves a flaw in your arguement. How is the CIA supposed to be behind every conspiracy on the globe if it can't even stop a petty thief?

[MacGuffin]

However, this proves a flaw in your arguement. How is the CIA supposed to be behind every conspiracy on the globe if it can't even stop a petty thief?
Maybe the CIA orchestrated it to show what a rotten idea putting Democrats in charge was!

Yeah!

[Ferrus]

Or that Argentina is a nation rife with evil-doers! I mean, there's Maradona for a start.

[charred_heart]

GO AREGENTINA!! :whoop::banana::theclap:

[demagogic_schizoid]

it shouldn't be go argentina it should be vamos vamos argentina, vamos vamos a robar

[demagogic_schizoid]

However, this proves a flaw in your arguement. How is the CIA supposed to be behind every conspiracy on the globe if it can't even stop a petty thief?

That doesn't make sense. There is lots of evidence of CIA involvement in Latin America. That doesn't mean that every single person they employ is competent in every single situation or that they can't be caught out in a situation where the "enemy" is completely anyonymous and has no plans which they can discover. It's easier to rob a purse than to overthrow a government, after all.

[sbw]

There's a proverb that goes, "a thief that robs a thief is pardoned for 100 years." Or something. They live off unearned and illegitimate wealth. They campaign for their father... bah, why am I even explaining this.

I'm with ape--your sour grapes response to this petty event is unbecoming.

Scott

[ajblaise]

They could have at least kidnapped her. Maybe next time, Argentina. I won't cry for you.

[Conan]

I just emailed my dad about this and his response was that's Buenos Aires, the thieves there having robbing people down to art.

[Madrigal]

I'm with ape--your sour grapes response to this petty event is unbecoming.

Scott

I don't demonize purse-snatchers and pick-pockets - especially not when the Bush twins are the victims of it in a third world country that followed IMF indications to the letter, only to result in a popular explosion over the appalling impoverishment that these policies caused. The dramatic increase in theft and crime in general happened right after that explosion. Why should I care in the least if it bites one of them in the ass? I find first-worldy middle-classy "everyone should be respected" BS unbecoming.

It's amusing that some nobody took her purse, and doubly amusing while under Secret Service supervision. You needn't feel bad for her - I'm sure she didn't sleep under a bridge that night. She's got a lot more money where that came from, none of which she earned, I'm sure. :rolleyes:

[MacGuffin]

a lot more money where that came from, none of which she earned, I'm sure. :rolleyes:
You just summed up my entire objection to Marxism! Yay! :llama:

[ApeTheDog]

There's a proverb that goes, "a thief that robs a thief is pardoned for 100 years." Or something. They live off unearned and illegitimate wealth. They campaign for their father... bah, why am I even explaining this.

There's one by Ghandi that goes: "an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind". You can't seriously be thinking that this thief is a good person.

[ajblaise]

You just summed up my entire objection to Marxism! Yay! :llama:

Sounds like survival of the fittest to me.

[Madrigal]

There's one by Ghandi that goes: "an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind". You can't seriously be thinking that this thief is a good person.

I don't really try to crucify thieves unless they're actually hurting innocent people and taking something the system is already providing for them. Not everyone can be in the system sometimes. Some people block roads, stage protests and demonstrations, because they can't find a job or their wages don't cover their basic needs, they can't support their families, while multinationals make obscene profits from exploiting them. Other people just go ahead and pick pockets, engage in petty theft. It's not the worst thing you can do.

I don't know if that thief was a good person; maybe he was bad, or not. It doesn't matter to me.

[ApeTheDog]

As long as the victim is a bad person, the crime is something you can cheer about?

[Google Monster]

You need to change the point of view to clearly point out what your saying.

Ape is a man against any crime against any human. Do onto other as you would want them to do onto you.

Madrigal supports the sticking it to the man view. Fight the oppressors!

[Madrigal]

As long as the victim is a bad person, the crime is something you can cheer about?

Yeah, pretty much. Depends on the severity of the crime and the assholery of the person. Little rich republican girl that campaigned for Daddy got her purse stolen when she wasn't looking. And I'm supposed to frown on it? Why are you so generous with your sympathy? Do you think she is?

[ApeTheDog]

So you're in favor of the IRAQ occupation, then. Saddam was a bad person. It doesn't matter if Bush's reasons for the invasion were less than honourable. Neither were those of the pickpocket.

[ajblaise]

So you're in favor of the IRAQ occupation, then. Saddam was a bad person. It doesn't matter if Bush's reasons for the invasion were less than honourable. Neither were those of the pickpocket.

Reachin...

[demagogic_schizoid]

So you're in favor of the IRAQ occupation, then. Saddam was a bad person. It doesn't matter if Bush's reasons for the invasion were less than honourable. Neither were those of the pickpocket.


Well no because in the Iraq occupation other people were directly harmed, not just Saddam. A lot of people might have supported an assassination of Saddam who didn't support the war.

Anyway what's the big deal - if I hate someone I will sure as hell laugh if they get robbed. Who cares if the motives of the thief are honourable.

[Madrigal]

So you're in favor of the IRAQ occupation, then. Saddam was a bad person. It doesn't matter if Bush's reasons for the invasion were less than honourable. Neither were those of the pickpocket.

You're mixing everything, Ape. While I do support the removal of Saddam (not by an imperialist oppressor though), I don't support the massacre of innocent people and their resources being stolen, which is what is happening. I never said, "the end justifies the means", which is what you're implying. I implied that I don't care for the "suffering" of people who live off other people's misery. If you can even call this incident "suffering".

[ptGatsby]

I'm with ape. Until the daughter is more than a spoiled brat and has actively hurt someone, the argument - as bad as it is - holds no weight.

However, I find it utterly hillarious. Not because of who got robbed, or who did it... but because of the level of security that Bushes push around. To have it happen under their eye is... incredibly great.

Sure inspires confidence, doesn't it?

[Madrigal]

I'm with ape. Until the daughter is more than a spoiled brat and has actively hurt someone, the argument - as bad as it is - holds no weight.


Did she or did she not campaign for her father's reelection? Yes. Were his policies hurting anyone? Yes. Did she support them actively? Yes.

[ApeTheDog]

But you would be okay with Bush having Saddam Hussain killed with a sniper rifle. He can do that without a problem.

You cannot morally justify doing bad things to others because they've done them too. That just leads to a complete collapse of morality. What you propose is a justification for a spiral of violence. It is the very thing that caused the escalation in the war between palestine and israel.

[ajblaise]

But you would be okay with Bush having Saddam Hussain killed with a sniper rifle.

A spoiled brat got her shit stolen, big deal. Right?

And the Saddam issue is more complex. Ousting him has caused more death and destruction than he could ever hope to accomplish.

[ptGatsby]

Did she or did she not campaign for her father's reelection? Yes. Were his policies hurting anyone? Yes. Did she support them actively? Yes.


Does that mean that the millions of people who voted for Bush are now free targets for theft? What value life, under that kind of an attitude?

[Madrigal]

But you would be okay with Bush having Saddam Hussain killed with a sniper rifle. He can do that without a problem.

Not really, I'd prefer the people of Iraq to kill him.


You cannot morally justify doing bad things to others because they've done them too.

What are "bad" things? Is stealing a purse "bad"? Not always. You think there are actions that are always bad. I think that superficially an action can be the same, while it's meaning may be absolutely opposed in one situation or the other. For example: killing. Bad or good? Neither. Depends on the situation.


That just leads to a complete collapse of morality. What you propose is a justification for a spiral of violence.

No it isn't. This is just a purse-snatching. It's nothing compared to campaining for a warmonger. What are you talking about?


It is the very thing that caused the escalation in the war between palestine and israel.

I disagree, and it's far from the subject of this girl's purse.

[Madrigal]

Does that mean that the millions of people who voted for Bush are now free targets for theft?

Well, they litterally are being robbed of many freedoms... :)

Seriously though, the difference is in their awareness. The vote of an educated Republican militant is not the same as the vote of a scared old ignorant lady.

[ApeTheDog]

The word 'just' is plain wrong when it comes to morality. You can say it's 'just' a purse snatching. Back in slavery times, land-owners defended the flogging and killing of slaves by saying: "it's just a black slave". Morality isn't subjective. Something is either bad, or it isn't. If you start making excuses, you're greenlighting other people to make mistakes as well.

You said you have no problem with something like this being done to somebody if they're bad people. So you're in favor of Bush killing Saddam.

It can only be done to heads of state that are doing horrible things, according to your theory - but who makes up when somebody is a bad person, and who isn't. It's all relative. If Bush decides somebody is a criminal, and really believes that - even if he is mistaken - it's okay. Hitler believed the jews were horrible, and responsable for all the bad things in the world. The holocaust was justified following your subjective moral code.

People make mistakes. The only way not to make them is to be ardent when it comes to morality. Hitler knew murdering people was a bad thing. He went on to do it anyway, because he thought his judgement transcended it. That he could do a bad thing to rid the world of an even worse evil. It doesn't work that way.

There should and can be no exceptions.

[Madrigal]

I'm addressing the only part of your post that gets to the heart of our disagreement:


but who makes up when somebody is a bad person, and who isn't. It's all relative.
Yeah, so what? History has been advancing by means of the struggles waged by classes in conflict for ages, each of them with their own concepts of right and wrong. Just because morality is in fact subjective does not mean you have to throw your hands up in desperation and then cling to the existing official and government-approved moral codes at any given time. Which is what you're doing.

You say morality should not be relative, so you defend the morality instilled by the current system and defended by it's laws - "theft is wrong", "killing is wrong" - codes which, by the way, the system itself is entitled to break on a massive scale whenever it serves its own goals. That's the kind of thinking that makes mere murderers out of revolutionaries, rioters out of protesters, and thieves out of workers who put abandoned factories under worker control to keep supporting their families.

By accepting the official codes of your time and refusing to break them, you perpetuate your own disempowerment.

About the purse now: I don't know if those were professional lumpens or some desperate guy who needed to eat. But I won't be the slightest bit sorry for Miss Bush. Did the theif take what wasn't his? Yeah, a purse. Does her family take what isn't theirs? Yeah, a country or two.

[Carebear]

Ousting him has caused more death and destruction than he could ever hope to accomplish.

More death and destruction than he'd ever be interested in accomplishing anyways. Saddam was interested in creating a strong, stable Iraq (and staying in power of said strong, stable nation); a goal that could only be achieved by ruling with an iron fist. The reason why he wasn't ousted in the first war, was that the west predicted a civil war and dissolusion of the artificial construct called Iraq if he went. Saddam was a convenient iron fist, in much the same way as Tito was in Yugoslavia.


As for Ape's sentiments: I do agree in principle, but I'd hate him reading Robin Hood for me as a child.

[demagogic_schizoid]

More death and destruction than he'd ever be interested in accomplishing anyways. Saddam was interested in creating a strong, stable Iraq (and staying in power of said strong, stable nation); a goal that could only be achieved by ruling with an iron fist. The reason why he wasn't ousted in the first war, was that the west predicted a civil war and dissolusion of the artificial construct called Iraq if he went.

But surely this tells you that the construct called Iraq should not exist? Now don't get me wrong, I know Britain is to blame for creating, but I don't think we should be justifying a leader who divided his people on racial lines, placing one group above another and basing his power on tribalism, just because the alternative is the country falling apart. I'm not arguing in favour of this war, but neither in favour of a dictatorship just to preserve a more subtle, hidden violence inflicted day to day on the Iraqis in the name of order and stability.

[Carebear]

The construct called Iraq should not exist (and cannot keep existing without a strong military force holding it together). And I agree that Saddam shouldn't be justified. I'm merely pointing out that he was for a long time and that he was the lesser evil as long as one insist on keeping the construct called Iraq.

Personally I think that the best solution would be a peaceful process where a loose confederacy of self governed states (or something resembling the EU) is worked out, possibly consisting of both Kurdish, Shiite and Sunny former Iraqui states, + Syria and Jordan. Israel, Lebanon and Palestine could join when the construct became stable.

Palestine and Israel would probably do best if they first created a Israeli-Palestinian state, subdivided into several palestinian and israeli regions with high autonomy. (Christian palestinian, orthodox muslim, orthodox jew, secular muslim, secular jew etc.)

Sure this wouldn't be a pain free or easy process, but it could be done without war breaking out. The nation state is becoming arcaic. Confederacies and mutual economic goals could solve a lot of problems in the region.

[Hustler]

I think being a professional pickpocket could be a good alternative to a job for an INTP. You really get to be your own boss and set your own schedule, and you get to think strategically all the time as to how you're going to go about your business. You can push yourself to greater and greater excellence through surviving on your wits.

[cjs55]

View Post
but who makes up when somebody is a bad person, and who isn't. It's all relative.

Newsflash! Morality is subjective. Minus all the marxist crap that Madrigal has to say of course. Best to live results oriented. Extending morality onto others is an evolutionary relic that seriously clouds judgement and is not for any human being with a desire to see things how they are.



There should and can be no exceptions.

I hope you never get a painful surgery in order to fix something life-threatening that is wrong with you then. Because it is wrong to hurt people.

[cjs55]

I think being a professional pickpocket could be a good alternative to a job for an INTP. You really get to be your own boss and set your own schedule, and you get to think strategically all the time as to how you're going to go about your business. You can push yourself to greater and greater excellence through surviving on your wits.

I have sincerly considered this. Pickpocketing seems a bit tough to practice however, and the consequences for failure are bad enough in my opinion to make it tough to start.

[Hustler]

I have sincerly considered this. Pickpocketing seems a bit tough to practice however, and the consequences for failure are bad enough in my opinion to make it tough to start.

The consequences for failure are actually not so bad. It's generally just a misdemeanor, so you can get caught a few times before there are any serious repercussions. Also, this implies that you get caught and are somehow turned over to the authorities, which is very unlikely. It's possible that you could pick some guy's pocket who happens to be some sort of scrapper, and that he catches you and wants to punch your lights out, but you are going to have the advantage of situational awareness, meaning you can make a break for it while he's still trying to figure out what's going on. That, and you can try to select your targets carefully, so that you're unlikely to get an ass-beating and unlikely to get run down if you have to jet.

There are so many places in the United States where you could be a pickpocket, that as soon as you start to get a little heat in one place, you can skip town and start fresh again. Having lived in Las Vegas, I think gambling locales are great places to work in the pickpocketing trade, because people are often inebriated and carrying around a large amount of cash. Tourist-heavy places are also great, because people will be out of their element, less aware (more distracted), and will be less able to make use of the local law enforcement to find and catch anyone who has robbed them.

Your concern about training is also only marginally valid. It is easy to learn the trade of stealing watches and lifting wallets or other items from someone's pocket by training with a magician. Most magicians learn these tricks. If you've ever had the misfortune of seeing a David Blaine special on television, one where he's walking around doing card tricks for people, he invariably throws in the watch move here and there. Magicians are generally easy to find and are relatively unscrupulous, so learning how to pickpocket from one shouldn't be too hard.

Pickpocketing is, sadly, something of a lost art in America. The move of lifting a person's wallet, only to have him discover it is missing 30 minutes later, is so elegant compared to the American tradition of mugging someone at knife or gunpoint (a friend of mine's father did get mugged a nunchuckpoint, but that's a rare treat), but any unskilled hooligan can do the latter, so it remains the more common practice. This is why I think pickpocketing here has a great chance of being an exploitable niche. Muggers generally aren't willing to work a crowd, but rely on isolating their victims. The American pickpocket can work out in the open and never risk moving into the territory of other types of thieves.

The lingering questions on the matter are, how much can you really earn, and, once you've gotten the technical skills down, how frequently can you expect to get caught. I don't know the answers to these, but my intuition tells me that, with good intelligence-gathering and a strong work ethic, the industrious pickpocket can easily make six figures (and that's after taxes), and given the general incompetence of average people and of law enforcement and the judicial system, getting caught will be rare, and the consequences will be small.

I hope to one day see a thread here about someone's successful experiments with or career in pickpocketing.

[C.J.Woolf]

I don't know a thing about pickpocketing, but I found the film Harry In Your Pocket fascinating.

[Zephyrus055]

Umm...

Morals are normative statements that control and regulate human behavior, and are enforced by social or physical coercion. I am not saying morals aren't useful, but that's what they are. We do not "feel" morality, we arrive with a set of moral statements by social conditioning or reason or both, and feel emotional pleasure or pain when the morals we recognize are practiced or not.

Personally, I think it is delusional to have morals. They even control and regulate your perception of your circumstances, because you are emotionally attached to a false sense of how things ought to be - not how they are and what you can do to change them.

[slacker]

tells me that, with good intelligence-gathering and a strong work ethic, the industrious pickpocket can easily make six figures (and that's after taxes),

Muggers are most likely to be desperate and dumb. If you're smart enough to be a successful pickpocket, you're most likely to be spending your time on better crimes.

The time/effort/risk vs. reward trade-off is probably the main reason that other crimes are more popular. I'd probably design a plan with many safeguards, which really eats up your time and effort.

Pickpocketing's just not as effective as something like this: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/22/MNGA1MI1441.DTL. With globalization, there are better opportunities available for committing rewarding crimes, so pickpocketing is a less likely choice unless you're trapped in a small town.

INTPs can become successful pickpockets, but the work is way too tedious - it's a job more suitable for adventurous ISTPs. Of course, the enterprising pickpocket would be wise to consult with an INTP, who would most likely be quite willing to design a general plan of attack. Perhaps INTPs should start consulting businesses for aspiring criminals.

[Hustler]

The time/effort/risk vs. reward trade-off is probably the main reason that other crimes are more popular. I'd probably design a plan with many safeguards, which really eats up your time and effort.

Pickpocketing's just not as effective as something like this: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/11/22/MNGA1MI1441.DTL. With globalization, there are better opportunities available for committing rewarding crimes, so pickpocketing is a less likely choice unless you're trapped in a small town.

This is an extremely poor counterexample to cite in the case against pickpocketing. Stealing 14 truckloads of almonds or picking clean a field of avocados is not something an INTP can go out and do single-handedly. Earning six figures a year picking pockets is. You have to figure that the $2 million in stolen almonds which was taken over the course of 18 months required a lot of labor, and it required a relatively large network of people in key positions in the smuggling world to pull off. That pie got chopped up a lot of ways. Not to mention, it is unlikely black market almonds will not sell for full retail value. I have no doubt that the mastermind of that operation got a big chunk of the overall take, but it wasn't some young INTP looking for an alternative to a traditional career path. It was someone who was established in the smuggling underworld, perhaps someone who started his life of crime long ago as a pickpocket.

Picking a field clean of avocados would require a similarly large amount of labor. The risk vs. reward argument is also questionable, because getting involved in large scale, organized crime is far more likely to lead to felony charges than picking pockets is.


INTPs can become successful pickpockets, but the work is way too tedious - it's a job more suitable for adventurous ISTPs. Of course, the enterprising pickpocket would be wise to consult with an INTP, who would most likely be quite willing to design a general plan of attack. Perhaps INTPs should start consulting businesses for aspiring criminals.

There's no way you'll get that consulting gig without having some credibility first. You have to get actual experience in the field. Only then would those looking to organize a pickpocket syndicate come to you for help with their strategic development. The work is only tedious if you aren't consistently trying to improve your efficiency or build on your skillset to find new opportunities. Figuring out new ways to optimize your pickpocketing operation will always prove challenging. Eventually, you may wish to train others to work with (or for) you, and this presents managerial challenges on top of the intellectual challenges of optimizing strategy. You can be a lone wolf and become a master of your trade, or you can look at the pickpocketing enterprise as a business and try to develop a strategy to turn it into an operation as such. The key point to consider is the autonomy. You can always do things on your own terms, and that is something which is very rewarding to an INTP. You will always find new challenges to meet, or, if you're not the type, you'll find a way to become complacent on your own terms as opposed to the workaday, SJ terms.

[Ferrus]

That doesn't make sense.
I wasn't meant to. I was using a complex and little know tactic of 'sarcasm'.

[ApeTheDog]

Yeah, so what? History has been advancing by means of the struggles waged by classes in conflict for ages, each of them with their own concepts of right and wrong. Just because morality is in fact subjective does not mean you have to throw your hands up in desperation and then cling to the existing official and government-approved moral codes at any given time. Which is what you're doing.

This is not at all what I'm doing. I'm not going to reject morality BECAUSE it is government-approved, in an act of subordination, and I'll not support it because it is government-approved. I make up my own mind as for what I consider moral, and what not. And that is, in my opinion, the only correct way to go about it. Don't listen to what others say, and simply think about it for yourself. If you let another person decide what you should, and should not, consider appropriate behavior towards other people, you've lost.


You say morality should not be relative, so you defend the morality instilled by the current system and defended by it's laws - "theft is wrong", "killing is wrong" - codes which, by the way, the system itself is entitled to break on a massive scale whenever it serves its own goals. That's the kind of thinking that makes mere murderers out of revolutionaries, rioters out of protesters, and thieves out of workers who put abandoned factories under worker control to keep supporting their families.

Let's get one thing cleared up. I do not think theft is wrong because the government says it is. I think theft is wrong because I do not consider being robbed by another person would be a fair thing to have happen to me. Would you think it was if it happened to you?

That is the basis for my morality. As somebody before mentioned - do unto others what you want done unto yourself. It's not a slogan, even though it has become something of a cliche. It's quite simply the best way to figure out what you can, and cannot, get away with. It is still relative, but if you try to apply it you'll find it's a lot stricter than what you're used to - and a lot harder to stick to than simply doing what the government tells you not to do (because in my moral system, legal loopholes aren't allowed, even if you can get away with them).


By accepting the official codes of your time and refusing to break them, you perpetuate your own disempowerment.

Right. Just because I want to go someplace that just happens to be the place a lot of other people are going right now, I'm disempowered? If at any point my opinion diverts from this large group of people, which are all following the same code I am following (or, superficially so) I'm moving away from them. Why do you think I would be powerless to do so? To be free from public influence doesn't mean you have to either do what everybody does, or specifically do the opposite of what other people do - it means doing what YOU think is right. Even if that happens to coincide with what others are doing. Regardless of it.

Think about it. Who is letting other people influence their behavior? What other people are doing is not even something I consider, and you obviously do. Can you claim to be free from what others are thinking if it's at the very basis of your way of thinking about this issue? Reversing something doesn't mean you're free from it.


About the purse now: I don't know if those were professional lumpens or some desperate guy who needed to eat. But I won't be the slightest bit sorry for Miss Bush. Did the theif take what wasn't his? Yeah, a purse. Does her family take what isn't theirs? Yeah, a country or two.

I am not sorry for her either. I do think she has been wronged, and do not think this kind of behavior was justifiable.

[ApeTheDog]

Newsflash! Morality is subjective. Minus all the marxist crap that Madrigal has to say of course. Best to live results oriented. Extending morality onto others is an evolutionary relic that seriously clouds judgement and is not for any human being with a desire to see things how they are.

It is personal, and something that everybody should think about. If all people behave in a moral way, there would be no need for a legal system. The legal system, in fact, creates a need for a legal system. If people aren't supposed to think for themselves anymore about what is right and wrong, they can start abusing the system (morality is no longer a concern. Legality is) - thus fueling the need to adapt the legal system, resulting again in other loopholes being found, people becoming even less motivated to think for themselves about what they can and cannot do to other people (because we have such an impressive legal system going on people give it more and more credit because of that). Morality is subjective in this way. But that isn't an excuse for it to be one-directional. What goes for you should go for another person. In this way, it is not subjective but objective. And that's the bit that a lot of people don't follow. What goes for you, goes for everybody. What you don't wishdone unto yourself, you don't wish unto Bush's daughter either.


I hope you never get a painful surgery in order to fix something life-threatening that is wrong with you then. Because it is wrong to hurt people.

Very funny. It would be wrong if they didn't give me anaesthetics. As it is, the surgery is going to keep me from experiencing further pain in the future, and is thus a correct kind of behavior. Just because people should be moral doesn't mean the world is as well. A disease doesn't follow morality - and thus creates an element of chaos into our moral code. It would be wrong to give cancer to somebody. But if it just happens to spawn from a random occurance, then this element of chaos extends into our morality as well, and it can become necesary to hurt somebody in order to cure them. Unavoidable.

[demagogic_schizoid]

I wasn't meant to. I was using a complex and little know tactic of 'sarcasm'.

I thought it was called misrepresentation.

[Ferrus]

I thought it was called misrepresentation.
Wateva.

Anyway the title reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x7CatMaINE

Yay.

[ajblaise]

Recap: Madrigal's right.

[Stoned_Rider]

The only Argentinian that I think had every justification to break the rules was La Mano De Dios! :worthy:

http://www.acromedia.com/blog/images/maradonna_thin_hand_of_God.jpg

[ApeTheDog]

Recap: Madrigal's right.

Why?

[ajblaise]

Why?

Why and how should we legislate your own personal morality, that is unique to you and only you? Or, why should we follow rules that we we personally think our unjust> (If that is the concept you are defending).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that is basically the concept you and Madrigal are arguing over.

[ApeTheDog]

Madrigal is arguing that when a person steals from a bastard, that person is not committing a crime. He is, legally, but the law is wrong in this case.

I'm arguing that, no matter who the target is, theft is wrong.

The whole subjective/objective morality thing is cannon fodder from this that if you want to know what they about, you should read the posts about them - which I think is the intellectually integer thing to do if you want to cast a judgement about it.

[ajblaise]

Madrigal is arguing that when a person steals from a bastard, that person is not committing a crime. He is, legally, but the law is wrong in this case.

I'm arguing that, no matter who the target is, theft is wrong.

The whole subjective/objective morality thing is cannon fodder from this that if you want to know what they about, you should read the posts about them - which I think is the intellectually integer thing to do if you want to cast a judgement about it.

I don't think Madrigal was saying stealing isn't legally a crime.

And do you think it's objective?

[ApeTheDog]

She said it was okay to steal from Bush's daughter.

Morality is subjective. Application of it should be objective. You have to decide for yourself what is moral and what isn't - you shouldn't let the responsability for your actions rest with an external organ. Application should be objective - what you don't want done onto yourself, you should not allow to happen to anybody else either, regardless of who they are.

[ajblaise]

She said it was okay to steal from Bush's daughter.

That's her own personal morality choice, says nothing about the law.


She said it was okay to steal from Bush's daughter.

Morality is subjective. Application of it should be objective. You have to decide for yourself what is moral and what isn't - you shouldn't let the responsability for your actions rest with an external organ. Application should be objective - what you don't want done onto yourself, you should not allow to happen to anybody else either, regardless of who they are.

Application should be objective? How should it be legislated?

[Madrigal]

I make up my own mind as for what I consider moral, and what not.

Let's imagine that legality has nothing to do with your opinion, then.


Let's get one thing cleared up. I do not think theft is wrong because the government says it is. I think theft is wrong because I do not consider being robbed by another person would be a fair thing to have happen to me.

Ah-ha... not a fair thing to happen, to you. Not a fair thing to happen to me either. If someone steals my purse, they might take a weeks worth of hard-earned work that I have done. Work which I'm being underpaid for, at that. But if it's Bush's daughter having her purse snatched, it's nothing. Just a minor inconvenience. She and her family will continue getting obscenely wealthy and promoting the plundering of nations at the same time. I'm asking you again, why are you so generous with your sympathy?


That is the basis for my morality. As somebody before mentioned - do unto others what you want done unto yourself.

Imagine this. I would prefer a strawberry ice-cream before a slap in the face. Say someone comes by and slaps me in the face. I give them, in return, a strawberry icecream, because that's what I would like done unto me. Utter BS, you see? Actually "do unto others what you'd like them to do unto you" is absolutely impractical and just plain naive in a world where one must co-exist with corrupt and evil people. All it does is disarm you.


It's not a slogan, even though it has become something of a cliche.

I'll tell you why it's such a huge cliche - it benefits the system. Because as long as there is a minority of empowered people oppressing a majority of disempowered people, they'll do unto us whatever they want and expect us to do unto them what the very morality they trample on dictates. Someone's getting screwed, guess who that is.


To be free from public influence doesn't mean you have to either do what everybody does, or specifically do the opposite of what other people do - it means doing what YOU think is right. Even if that happens to coincide with what others are doing. Regardless of it.

And I've just explained why - whether you like it or not - you're thinking and doing what the system wants you to think and do.


I am not sorry for her either. I do think she has been wronged, and do not think this kind of behavior was justifiable.

You give her more respect than she deserves. You can't assign the same value to every human being. This human being happens to be justifying and promoting occupation. Who do you think is making money off of that, the citizens of Iraq? And you're offended that she got her purse stolen? I don't think there would have been a French Revolution if people had thought that way back then.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Basically all someone has to explain to Ape is that Maddrigal is a communist who doesn't think that the contents of the Bush girls purse should belong to her anyway, and that she, as a member of the ruling class, in fact lives off stolen wealth which she has stolen from poor people like the one who probably stole her purse.

Well maybe Madrigal doesn't think that, but it would be simpler.

[ptGatsby]

Well maybe Madrigal doesn't think that, but it would be simpler.


I think its close enough. The crux of the matter is that one side thing morality has do with actions, while the other thinks it is relative to how little it affects the other person.

IOW... If you have lots, then stealing from you is ok;


Ah-ha... not a fair thing to happen, to you. Not a fair thing to happen to me either. If someone steals my purse, they might take a weeks worth of hard-earned work that I have done. Work which I'm being underpaid for, at that. But if it's Bush's daughter having her purse snatched, it's nothing.


And this comes from knowing that if you have stuff, it has to have come badly (ie: you didn't work for it). If you didn't work for it, you have no moral basis to claim it as yours.

Or something along those lines.

[Zephyrus055]

Actually, I think it's funny that her purse was snatched. I feel good that something negative happened to someone who I have very little respect for.

And I have been planning on moving to Argentina for a while, hehe. I just don't want to get robbed though.

[ajblaise]

Basically all someone has to explain to Ape is that Maddrigal is a communist who doesn't think that the contents of the Bush girls purse should belong to her anyway...

Inaccurate, it's not that simple and I think you know that.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Inaccurate, it's not that simple and I think you know that.

well I was simplifying, but you do realise that Madrigal is a self-proclaimed communist...

[ajblaise]

well I was simplifying, but you do realise that Madrigal is a self-proclaimed communist...

I wouldn't mind communism, what's so bad about it?

Sharing recourses, what a nightmare!

[demagogic_schizoid]

I wouldn't mind communism, what's so bad about it?

Sharing recourses, what a nightmare!

I didn't pass judgement.

[ajblaise]

I didn't pass judgement.

...just so you wouldn't have to answer these kinds of questions, good call.

[demagogic_schizoid]

...just so you wouldn't have to answer these kinds of questions, good call.

No, just because I don't always feel the need to pass judgement.

[ajblaise]

No, just because I don't always feel the need to pass judgement.

Sounds like you're itchin to.

[zhang_bob]

The only Argentinian that I think had every justification to break the rules was La Mano De Dios! :worthy: :referee: :laser: :wahmbulance:

This is proof we have to strengthen our borders, first we let Prolific in, then we let in demagogic_schizoid. But we came to our senses and only let you (Stoned_Rider the mini-Maradona ) in temporary. We must treat Nazi's better than Maradona sympathizers/supporters. ;)

Edit: I am just joking about everyone, so don't take this statement literally.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Sounds like you're itchin to.

Look this is silly. I agree that the wealth of the Bush family is effectively stolen. Happy?

[ajblaise]

Look this is silly. I agree that the wealth of the Bush family is effectively stolen. Happy?

No one's questioning the skill of Argentinean pickpocketers, but yeah.

[demagogic_schizoid]

No one's questioning the skill of Argentinean pickpocketers, but yeah.


No that joke would only work if I had said "was" effectively stolen. "Is" is not continuous and could not refer to a one-off event such as a pickpocketing.:nono:

[Hustler]

1)A folk saying says: "every rich family has a thief in its past"

Yeah, but doesn't, "Behind every fortune there's a crime," sound better?

[Stoned_Rider]

:referee: :laser: :wahmbulance:
This is proof we have to strengthen our borders, first we let Prolific in, then we let in demagogic_schizoid. But we came to our senses and only let you (Stoned_Rider the mini-Maradona ) in temporary. We must treat Nazi's better than Maradona sympathizers/supporters. ;)

Oh now you're just asking for it!

Ladies and gentlemen, here is why the English hate Maradona so much. The greatest ever goal in the history of soccer, scored by Maradona against ENGLAND! Enjoy ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg3uS4ZBHtM

Go, Argentina! :rocker:

[demagogic_schizoid]

And here is what the Bush girl feels for her purse: nostalgia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtYmYxNPVdg&mode=related&search=)

[venerationOFrabbits]

The consequences for failure are actually not so bad. It's generally just a misdemeanor, so you can get caught a few times before there are any serious repercussions. Also, this implies that you get caught and are somehow turned over to the authorities, which is very unlikely. It's possible that you could pick some guy's pocket who happens to be some sort of scrapper, and that he catches you and wants to punch your lights out, but you are going to have the advantage of situational awareness, meaning you can make a break for it while he's still trying to figure out what's going on. That, and you can try to select your targets carefully, so that you're unlikely to get an ass-beating and unlikely to get run down if you have to jet.

There are so many places in the United States where you could be a pickpocket, that as soon as you start to get a little heat in one place, you can skip town and start fresh again. Having lived in Las Vegas, I think gambling locales are great places to work in the pickpocketing trade, because people are often inebriated and carrying around a large amount of cash. Tourist-heavy places are also great, because people will be out of their element, less aware (more distracted), and will be less able to make use of the local law enforcement to find and catch anyone who has robbed them.

Your concern about training is also only marginally valid. It is easy to learn the trade of stealing watches and lifting wallets or other items from someone's pocket by training with a magician. Most magicians learn these tricks. If you've ever had the misfortune of seeing a David Blaine special on television, one where he's walking around doing card tricks for people, he invariably throws in the watch move here and there. Magicians are generally easy to find and are relatively unscrupulous, so learning how to pickpocket from one shouldn't be too hard.

Pickpocketing is, sadly, something of a lost art in America. The move of lifting a person's wallet, only to have him discover it is missing 30 minutes later, is so elegant compared to the American tradition of mugging someone at knife or gunpoint (a friend of mine's father did get mugged a nunchuckpoint, but that's a rare treat), but any unskilled hooligan can do the latter, so it remains the more common practice. This is why I think pickpocketing here has a great chance of being an exploitable niche. Muggers generally aren't willing to work a crowd, but rely on isolating their victims. The American pickpocket can work out in the open and never risk moving into the territory of other types of thieves.

The lingering questions on the matter are, how much can you really earn, and, once you've gotten the technical skills down, how frequently can you expect to get caught. I don't know the answers to these, but my intuition tells me that, with good intelligence-gathering and a strong work ethic, the industrious pickpocket can easily make six figures (and that's after taxes), and given the general incompetence of average people and of law enforcement and the judicial system, getting caught will be rare, and the consequences will be small.

I hope to one day see a thread here about someone's successful experiments with or career in pickpocketing.

I would think the ubiquity of security cameras in public would seriously inhibit the possibilities. If an INTP were to target drunks in a bar, for example, the INTP would have to keep moving from bar to bar, and after so much pockets picked, city to city.

Also, would this type of career provide satisfaction? I think not.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Also, would this type of career provide satisfaction? I think not.

Do it in your spare time.

[venerationOFrabbits]

Would the INTP ever wonder if they picked the pockets of someone nice? Granted most people are slobs, some people are not, and to think of stealing from those types of people would suck. Then again, those types wouldn't be all unbecoming and spitty drunk in a bar.

[ajblaise]

I hope to one day see a thread here about someone's successful experiments with or career in pickpocketing.

Yeah but are white INTPs smooth enough? Asians and latinos are one thing....

[Hustler]

I would think the ubiquity of security cameras in public would seriously inhibit the possibilities. If an INTP were to target drunks in a bar, for example, the INTP would have to keep moving from bar to bar, and after so much pockets picked, city to city.

You would be surprised at how incompetent the people in charge of those security cameras really are. I mean, take your lowest expectations for what surveillance and security personnel are capable of accomplishing, and then reduce it by about 80%. Now you're getting close to reality. Beyond that, it is impossible for a security person to monitor a large crowd of people and to notice every last little thing. A pickpocket could move around the crowd, lift a few wallets, and be gone very quickly. For the security cameras to be of any effect, the victims would first have to notice the event, know exactly when and where it happened, and then find out who runs the cameras and report it. Then there's a tiny fraction of a chance they get a clear enough picture of you to put you on some sort of law enforcement or surveillance bulletin for the local area.

Part of the fun of the trade is learning to beat the opposition, not just learning to master the moves and strategy behind getting the money.


Also, would this type of career provide satisfaction? I think not.
Well, I don't expect you to understand, INFP. I wasn't making the suggestion for you.

[Hustler]

Yeah but are white INTPs smooth enough? Asians and latinos are one thing....

Just take a look at the Roxorloops link in Vocal Gymnastics thread in the Music forum, and consider how silly racial stereotyping is.

[venerationOFrabbits]

Well, I don't expect you to understand, INFP. I wasn't making the suggestion for you.

Gottcha, but we all do have Fi, you know, even if it's tiny.

I was telling my INTP friend how I felt bad about so and so, he lied and said he did too. Didn't believe him in the least.

[Hustler]

I was telling my INTP friend how I felt bad about so and so, he lied and said he did too. Didn't believe him in the least.

Yeah, next time just ask him if he's annoyed that you're talking about feelings. I wonder if he'll give you a straight answer then. If he lies and says he isn't, pick his pocket and maybe you won't get all Fi-guilty about it because he's a liar and deserves it. Then think, that's your friend, so just imagine how deserving all of these non-friends of yours are of getting their pockets picked.

[ajblaise]

Just take a look at the Roxorloops link in Vocal Gymnastics thread in the Music forum, and consider how silly racial stereotyping is.

Yeah, you hate gross generalities.

[Hustler]

Yeah, you hate gross generalities.

That's right, I prefer the ones that are measured, poignant and accurate. Not stuff like wondering out loud if white INTP pickpockets wouldn't be smooth enough for the job.

[ajblaise]

That's right, I prefer the ones that are measured, poignant and accurate. Not stuff like wondering out loud if white INTP pickpockets wouldn't be smooth enough for the job.

A white person, or an asian, which would you pick to do the job having only known their color?

[Hustler]

A white person, or an asian, which would you pick to do the job having only known their color?

In Tokyo? Probably the Asian, as he won't stick out as much. In Vermont? Probably the white person. In Los Angeles? Might as well flip a coin.

[ajblaise]

In Tokyo? Probably the Asian, as he won't stick out as much. In Vermont? Probably the white person. In Los Angeles? Might as well flip a coin.

Flip a coin? I don't believe you.

Picture a creepy white INTP lurking around LA for pockets to pick, we don't exactly blend in.

[Hustler]

Picture a creepy white INTP lurking around LA for pockets to pick, we don't exactly blend in.

So now all INTP guys are creepy? Come on, man, quit resorting to such nonsense. I invite you to look over the various 'What we look like' threads to see how uncreepy so many of us are. An INTP can learn all the tricks necessary for blending in. Many of us are accomplished social chameleons, afterall, and this is certainly in the same area as that. Mastering the art of blending in in a wide variety of scenarios would be part of the fun and part of the metagame of the pickpocket. There's a lot to Ne and Ti about there.

[venerationOFrabbits]

Yeah, next time just ask him if he's annoyed that you're talking about feelings. I wonder if he'll give you a straight answer then. If he lies and says he isn't, pick his pocket and maybe you won't get all Fi-guilty about it because he's a liar and deserves it. Then think, that's your friend, so just imagine how deserving all of these non-friends of yours are of getting their pockets picked.
Funny.

Actually, I have more satisfying ways of exacting revenge. Cold hard cash is nice, but a person only need so much of it.

To each their own, I say.

[ajblaise]

So now all INTP guys are creepy? Come on, man, quit resorting to such nonsense. I invite you to look over the various 'What we look like' threads to see how uncreepy so many of us are. An INTP can learn all the tricks necessary for blending in. Many of us are accomplished social chameleons, afterall, and this is certainly in the same area as that. Mastering the art of blending in in a wide variety of scenarios would be part of the fun and part of the metagame of the pickpocket. There's a lot to Ne and Ti about there.

Not saying an INTP would be bad at this, although I might consider an INTJ for the job instead. I was being tongue-and-cheek about the creep thing, although...

Me, I'll stick to easier ways of making bank. I'm telling you, move web development up a couple notches in your money making scheme list, you won't give pickpocketing a second thought.

[Ferrus]

uncreepy so many of us are
I can only think of the Claverhouse picture. You usurped a TRUE creepy INTP.

[bergenski]

I have really enjoyed the above discussion.