Drug Dealers vs Fraudsters/Thieves

[SLEAZE BALL]

Bro

I don't need to watch the movies

I have lived the movie

[dub]

 

 

 

Exactly

Capitalism has no moral base

 

What do you mean when you say this?

It's self explanatory

Operating for profit and operating based on what's fair, just or for the greater good are two totally different (and seperate) things

 

 

But we don't live under pure capitalism, that's why I was asking. Under the system we live in the two things (fortunately) aren't two separate things.

 

 

They wouldn't be two completely different things anyway. 

Simple ideas like: pay a worker fairly -> worker is happy -> happy worker makes a good product -> product can sell for more because it was made well.

Obviously you can tip the weight.

 

"Capitalism has no moral base" is correct, but just because it lacks morals at the base doesn't mean you don't see them involved elsewhere.

[Yung bawse]

.

[Yung bawse]

 

it does because the person purchasing drugs is a victim at his own expense, he can't push blame onto the dealer

 

Fraud is completely different in terms of morality

What about his kids? Are they victims at their own expense?

 

IF it even affects them..theyre victims at their legal guardians expense, not the dealers

[dom dom bullets]

But capitalising off of that doesn't speak about your morality?

[Yung bawse]

how do i know if a punters got kids fam?

 

its irrelevant, he rings because he wants a product..he receives what he wants and likes it enough that he rings again..

 

HIS CHOICE

[SLEAZE BALL]

But capitalising off of that doesn't speak about your morality?

Course not

Same way glens vodkas morality is not brought into question

[dom dom bullets]

you aren't stupid are you? people have kids. If you live in that world you should know the effects it can have

[dom dom bullets]

Course not

Same way glens vodkas morality is not brought into question

 

The question was about drugs and theft.

[dub]

but its also your choice to put drugs into the community

you can't say drug dealers have 0% blame

just because: if you didn't exist, there'd still be a problem - does not mean you're not part of the problem

[SLEAZE BALL]

Do you question the morality of the sainsburys worker who sells cigarettes at the tills?

[Yung bawse]

lol lets take cocaine for example...

 

you aren't stupid are you? people have kids. If you live in that world you should know the effects it can have

 

The CEO of your company probably sniffs lines on his days off

 

dunno why you're always thinking worse case scenario

[Yung bawse]

but its also your choice to put drugs into the community

you can't say drug dealers have 0% blame

just because: if you didn't exist, there'd still be a problem - does not mean you're not part of the problem

 

0% no... but the majority of the blame lies with the person buying the drugs

 

now tell me where the blame lies (in percentages) when it comes to fraud

[dub]

yeah but that's fine, we've already established that fraud victims aren't willing and drug abuse victims are

but that doesn't make fraudsters worse than drug dealers

because the argument doesn't boil down to that single arguing point

[dom dom bullets]

lol lets take cocaine for example...

 

you aren't stupid are you? people have kids. If you live in that world you should know the effects it can have

 

The CEO of your company probably sniffs lines on his days off

 

dunno why you're always thinking worse case scenario

 

I mentioned before my view. It is a case vs case situation. I'm using the worse cases to show you that "a willing transaction" is not an argument for theft being morally worse than selling drugs.

 

Basic economics does not come into morality (which is what the question is based on)

[dom dom bullets]

Do you question the morality of the sainsburys worker who sells cigarettes at the tills?

 

No but I don't generally question the morality of selling drugs per se. I am now because there is a topic about it.

[Mame Biram Diouf]

 

but its also your choice to put drugs into the community

you can't say drug dealers have 0% blame

just because: if you didn't exist, there'd still be a problem - does not mean you're not part of the problem

 

0% no... but the majority of the blame lies with the person buying the drugs

 

now tell me where the blame lies (in percentages) when it comes to fraud

 

 

I take out in insurance with a global company worth hundreds of millions of pounds

 

I put in a relatives address in an area which has lower car break ins so I get a cheaper premium

 

Thats fraud

 

Is that morally wrong in your opinion?

[Yung bawse]

yeah but that's fine, we've already established that fraud victims aren't willing and drug abuse victims are

but that doesn't make fraudsters worse than drug dealers

because the argument doesn't boil down to that single arguing point

 

what other arguing points does it boil down to then

 

even someone who hates all violence will agree that 2 consenting fighters is better than 1 person beating up another person who doesnt want to fight.

[Yung bawse]

 

 

but its also your choice to put drugs into the community

you can't say drug dealers have 0% blame

just because: if you didn't exist, there'd still be a problem - does not mean you're not part of the problem

 

0% no... but the majority of the blame lies with the person buying the drugs

 

now tell me where the blame lies (in percentages) when it comes to fraud

 

 

I take out in insurance with a global company worth hundreds of millions of pounds

 

I put in a relatives address in an area which has lower car break ins so I get a cheaper premium

 

Thats fraud

 

Is that morally wrong in your opinion?

 

No but thats on a level similar to someone selling weed in draws to recreational smokers

 

neither are worse than the other

 

but on a personal scale where it affects individuals, fraud is worse imo

[dom dom bullets]

I would say morality boils down to what you're capitalising on/effects of your actions. You can't really say one is always worse than the other. Case vs case

[Yung bawse]

i agree but it still boils down to consent..

 

consenting sex is just sex

 

non consenting sex is rape.

 

consent makes a big difference

 

therefore drug dealing = sex

 

fraud = rape

 

which is worse?

 

[dub]

but its not the same fight is it?

 

so we've got 2 identical families, lets say, single parent: mother and child

 

family 1 becomes a victim of fraud, looses all their money - ends up either having to rely on friends and family or the state

family 2 becomes a victim of drug abuse, child grows up damaged because its mother was a drug addict

 

obviously there could be multiple ways both things play out, but in these particular outcomes I'd see that family 2 situation as a worse turnout - now just because mother in family 2 was willing to take those drugs, doesn't mean I should be less pissed at the drug dealer than the fraudster

 

yes -  this doesn't apply to the general sense of things, I'm just trying to establish the idea that it is not a simple, straight forward argument that you seem to be putting it down to

[dom dom bullets]

Like I said, does a child of an addict give consent? Like it or not as a dealer you are also responsible. This consent argument is very weak.

[dom dom bullets]

Can't take you seriously with that rape/sex comparison. I'm out

[Mame Biram Diouf]

Can't take you seriously with that rape/sex comparison. I'm out