I’ll grant that good people won’t beat you to death over a loaf of bread, if you stipulate that desperate people who would otherwise never do such a thing are not good, which could be argued either way. However, when the choice is between a rich man not willing to spare anything and a father trying desperately to keep his children alive with nowhere else to go, the question becomes murkier.
But that an evil person might reluctantly murder you for a wad of cash to purchase non-fun things; I’m honestly befuddled. Despite the fact that crime rates (in America, at least) have generally been going down, people have been murdered for a couple of bills that may be in their wallets. The idea that someone would kill someone else for a pair of shoes has gotten so ubiquitous that it’s become a cliche! And these are from people that most would not consider evil. So why do you think an evil person would hesitate? Which doesn’t even cover the fact that more money spent on non-fun activities means more of the original amount of money could be spent on fun actions.
What does ‘evil’ mean to you that you think evil would kill so reluctantly?
You seem to have taken the wrong emphasis from my words. The grandparent was arguing that the things that good people won’t do but bad people will, are all fun-but-naughty stuff. My point was that there are lots of things that ‘bad’ people might do, that are not fun.
The idea that someone would kill someone else for a pair of shoes has gotten so ubiquitous that it’s become a cliche!
This supports my point, unless you think that people are stealing shoes because shoes are fun.
I think I see the disconnect here. If I’m correct, then you believe that I was referring to people who kill someone for shoes because they have none, which falls under the above situation of desperation. In fact, that was not what I was referring to.
In certain sub-cultures, shoes are status symbols. The “killing someone for their shoes” cliche that I was referring to is about killing someone so that you can remove their status as above you, appropriate their status as your own, or in response to their damaging of your own status (in which case they likely wouldn’t keep the shoes).
So killing over shoes is killing to maintain or improve your status, which is fun in the same way that getting a new car is to those who are obsessed with them; it may not be the classical definition of fun, but it certainly seems appropriate in this situation.
What on earth are you talking about?
I’ll grant that good people won’t beat you to death over a loaf of bread, if you stipulate that desperate people who would otherwise never do such a thing are not good, which could be argued either way. However, when the choice is between a rich man not willing to spare anything and a father trying desperately to keep his children alive with nowhere else to go, the question becomes murkier.
But that an evil person might reluctantly murder you for a wad of cash to purchase non-fun things; I’m honestly befuddled. Despite the fact that crime rates (in America, at least) have generally been going down, people have been murdered for a couple of bills that may be in their wallets. The idea that someone would kill someone else for a pair of shoes has gotten so ubiquitous that it’s become a cliche! And these are from people that most would not consider evil. So why do you think an evil person would hesitate? Which doesn’t even cover the fact that more money spent on non-fun activities means more of the original amount of money could be spent on fun actions.
What does ‘evil’ mean to you that you think evil would kill so reluctantly?
You seem to have taken the wrong emphasis from my words. The grandparent was arguing that the things that good people won’t do but bad people will, are all fun-but-naughty stuff. My point was that there are lots of things that ‘bad’ people might do, that are not fun.
This supports my point, unless you think that people are stealing shoes because shoes are fun.
I do, actually.
I think I see the disconnect here. If I’m correct, then you believe that I was referring to people who kill someone for shoes because they have none, which falls under the above situation of desperation. In fact, that was not what I was referring to.
In certain sub-cultures, shoes are status symbols. The “killing someone for their shoes” cliche that I was referring to is about killing someone so that you can remove their status as above you, appropriate their status as your own, or in response to their damaging of your own status (in which case they likely wouldn’t keep the shoes).
So killing over shoes is killing to maintain or improve your status, which is fun in the same way that getting a new car is to those who are obsessed with them; it may not be the classical definition of fun, but it certainly seems appropriate in this situation.