The hypothetical situation wasn't "someone who needs it more", it was someone who is literally starving to death.
A contrived situation, no doubt (though not mine). But despite HNers claims to the contrary, some people actually do starve to death because they can't earn for a variety of reasons. And, rather than take care of those people, the US vilifies them.
This leads to a society where tech-bubbled freaks get slightly rabid at the notion that it's morally ok to steal to survive - even going so far as to flag such comments.
I laugh, but the tech community keeps putting up these red flags the last few decades, and it's actually worrying. The disconnect from reality is unfathomable. There's people here claiming that stealing bread to save your life is just as bad as stealing 8 billion dollars - that's unhinged on a level that's hard to imagine.
You think the sanctity of your home and peace of mind is worth another man dying, rather than eating, when your bike could have saved him?
... You and I both know that your bike wasn't robbed to prevent starvation, making your example completely beside the point. If it had been robbed to prevent the starvation of a human, you ought to feel happy rather than violated - your small sacrifice saved a whole life!
America has more than enough wealth to feed everyone on the planet, but 10 million kids are hungry in the US right now. Someone is stealing that wealth, and it isn't muggers. Try to gain some perspective, despite the daily news telling you to be scared of the poor.
I said "stealing to eat". Because the claim was "stealing is never moral and is just as bad no matter the amount".
You heard "point a weapon at a stranger and demand the contents of his pockets".
And, since this seems to be really confusing to a lot of people here for some reason, stealing tens/hundreds of millions of dollars from people is in fact unambiguously worse than mugging someone for their wallet. It's far more violent, and causes far more suffering.
Do you think no one irl ever stole bread to feed their family only to be extremely punished? ...
> No one needs to steal to eat, some people choose to steal rather than earn.
You're wrong. You're a hundred kinds of wrong. That mindset is a deep, deep sickness.
> Stealing is immoral regardless of the circumstance
If the choice is between stealing and starvation, the moral thing to do is steal. Which is, in fact, the scenario we are talking about.
Not everyone can earn - and in a society where wages have become untethered from productivity for over 50 fucking years, where the social contract is broken and ground into dust, where healthcare and housing are seen as privileges rather than rights, you might start to expect getting pushback on such untethered and inhuman views.
> don’t take your moral philosophy from Disney movies and broadway.
Better than taking it from literal comicbook villains.
I don't know what the gaps in your knowledge are to not see Worldcoin as a scam. And I'm not being paid to find out.
But it's a fuckin scam. It's exploitative, and sleazy as fuck. It uses crappy blockchain tech, the orbs are proprietary, and you really ought to think twice before condescending at people who try to help you out on this.
... Are you implying all biometric data is equal? Strange take.
If fingerprints and faces are the same as retinas, where do you draw the line - or is there just no privacy line for you anywhere, as long as a billionaire somewhere is making lots of money?
Worldcoin alone is so, so damning of his character. Cartoon villain shit.
It's hard to square that whole thing with the way people talk about him here. But every once in a while it hits; this is the guy who wanted to collect everyone's bloody retina pattern, all for a crypto so obviously bad in nearly every fundamental aspect.
You're right, I think, and it's a little scary that this angle is being downvoted.
Yes, it's erasure. Literally and figuratively. It's harmful.
Yes, it removes incentive to create, and learn, and be challenged. It blurs truth and enables very real horrors of control. It's dangerous.
No creative person wants any of this for their work. It's demoralizing.
Only greedy publishers and rights-holders have pushed for this, and it's entirely out of short-sighted self-interest. The pretense that this is to protect the public is sooo thin.
If you're a parent who feels the need to buy a sanitized Dahl, I have to wonder what you're hoping to accomplish. Sanitized Dahl isn't Dahl, so what's the point?
So, if the originals are technically still available, then it's fine for the version that goes into the vast majority of people's minds to be altered as any rights-holder sees fit?
Er, what about our cultural heritage? Historical accuracy? Creative intent? The possibility for abuse?
Was 1984 just about a guy with a nice job "keeping things in print?" I mean, sure the guy made a lot of edits, with the express intent of manipulating people - but the originals were all around somewhere, so it's fine?
Not sure if the "also" is necessary there, considering the above example was already religion based.
Also, the West interferes with the rest of the world quite enough - I'd suggest we try to stop exploiting the rest of the world before we 'save them from their backwards religions' or whatever.
That's not what Spielberg is talking about at all. These rewritings and revision are quite different; in scope, in manner, in presentation and in purpose.
What happened to Dahl, or the 1984 audiobook, etc, are nothing like a Reader's Digest regurgitation.
You said "I don't mind the alternative moralist edits".
I do mind, and my point is that basically every creative would also mind having their work subjected to "alternative moralist edits", especially without their consent and/or after their death.
That's not the same thing as George Lucas adding random CG crap; false equivalence.
If I understand what you're saying, it's that as long as the original is available it's fine, if annoying, for publishers to re-edit and profit from bastardized, censored, altered versions of creators work.
That's why I ask if you're a creator - because no creator, ever, anywhere, at any time, has expressed a preference - or even a tolerance - for having their work fucked with like this.
Are you a creator? A writer, or an artist, or a director? ... Are you a very good one?
Because to the best of my knowledge, no world-class author or director has ever said "Feel free to change my words, images, and choices after I die, however you see fit to make the most money or appease the current narrative".
... And if a creator ever did say that, it would be the exception that proves the rule.
Not really the point though, is it.