This is for topical issues effecting our fair world... you can quit snickering anytime. Note: It is the desire of the leadership of SFDebris Conglomerate that all posters maintain a civil and polite bearing in this forum, regardless of how you feel about any particular issue. Violators will be turned over to Captain Janeway for experimentation.
TGLS wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 9:41 pm
Well, I suppose that's the thing. You commit wire fraud and you could get indicted and perhaps tossed in federal prison. You commit employment fraud and you might get sued by the guy you stiffed.
As far as the wiki that Wdgs posted, it ramps up. Pretty consistent with how basic forms of stealing. It depends on the value and recurrence.
"Willful violators can face fines up to $10,000 upon their first conviction with imprisonment resulting from future convictions. "
Riedquat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 9:35 pm
The purpose is because it was labelled as theft, which makes the very question one of semantics. It sounds closer to fraud than theft to me, which can also have the same outcome and be just as reprehensible but is a thing in its own right.
Fraud, mugging, robbery, all are specific acts of thievery that one does in gaining financial gain. Thievery is probably the broadest of definitions, especially as far as the point of the thread; that being the displacing of people's money, by possession or contract, which qualifies wage manipulation as thievery.
I don't think so - you can get tried for theft specifically, rather than it being a general catch-all for depriving someone of something either by witholding it or taking it off them.
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2020 12:49 am
that doesn't change anything that I said.
You really haven't said anything beyond being contrarian.
I'm not sure what to make of this. His first comment was contrarian saying that they aren't comparable crimes or whatever. I was arguing on the basis that what he said implied that it isn't theft.
I made the point that it isn't different enough to not be considered theft and you replied with some stuff about litigation dynamics more suitable for a sociological breakdown. I'm not sure if you're so far into your manifesto that legally binding property is just exploitation of the proletariat, but it has bearing on the matter.
My first comment wasn't contrarian - being contrarian usually seems to suggest the opposite for the sake of being argumentative. I'm not doing that because I genuinely believe that you're taking a wide area of different crimes, albeit with quite a lot of similar features, and deciding to lump them all together as "theft." There may be a common coverall for theft, fraud, robbery etc., but it isn't "theft." I also didn't quite say they aren't comparable - I pointed out some similarities, but theft and fraud certainly aren't identical.
Simplifying language to remove subtleties is a dangerous game.
It's not about having "quite a lot of similarities," it's based on one specific thing. Theft is a very simple thing. There's not much room for it as a theoretical legacy foundation, like racism. EG racism can involve individual treatment but also describes cultural systems and what not with pocketed legal studies delving into it. Theft is easily understood as simply taking money that doesn't belong to you.
There's nothing toxically reductive about using the term like that. You sound ridiculous.
"You sound ridiculous." If you can't have a difference of opinion politely then you should keep quiet.
Yes, that is what theft is. Taking money (or anything else of value). Not withholding it when you've got no grounds to do so. AFAIK all legal systems recognise the difference. Those are two different things no matter how much you try to over-simplify them not to be. There's a damned good reason for acknowledging the differences and not lumping them all together; you don't have to look far to see the results of "it's all really the same, everything in black and white and straightforward wide-reaching terms".
Riedquat wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 5:37 pm
"You sound ridiculous." If you can't have a difference of opinion politely then you should keep quiet.
Yes, that is what theft is. Taking money (or anything else of value). Not withholding it when you've got no grounds to do so. AFAIK all legal systems recognise the difference. Those are two different things no matter how much you try to over-simplify them not to be. There's a damned good reason for acknowledging the differences and not lumping them all together; you don't have to look far to see the results of "it's all really the same, everything in black and white and straightforward wide-reaching terms".
And yet you have embarked upon none of those reasons.
The subject of the thread is obviously about depriving someone of their welfare, and you're over particularizing theft to make it to have a nebulous incompatibility with wage theft. Theft broadly describes all of the "other legal differences" and isn't some particular constraint.
