A Short Thought on Respecting Property

The other evening, while returning home from my walk with the Iz, a bag of her scat in my hand, I strolled by the Catholic school not too distant from my house.  A local roofing company, in the course of repairing the school’s roof, had set up a 20 yard refuse container for, of course, the remains of old materiels stripped away in preparation for the new.

As I passed by the 20 yard container, I nonchalantly tossed the bag of Iz’s scat into the container.  No one witnessed this, and the scat, which wouldn’t have filled a sandwich bag, consumed an insignificant portion of the 20 yard container’s volume.

I’ve been considering this action, over the last few days, because when I nonchalantly tossed the bag into the roofing company’s 20 yard refuse container, I immediately knew that I shouldn’t have.  The container was not mine to utilize as I saw fit, even though my contribution to its contents was insignificant.

Posted by on 08/30 at 03:28 PM

  1. Imagine that it was your construction company and your container and the roles were reversed. Do you imagine that you would be upset with this “unauthorized” use of your property?

    Posted by  on  08/31  at  06:54 AM

  2. The Creep implicitly asserts that wrong is only wrong when the perp gets caught.

    Nothing surprising.

    Posted by Billy Beck  on  08/31  at  08:00 AM

  3. Creep? You should send Billy Beck a bag of Iz’s scat. Ha!

    Posted by  on  08/31  at  08:44 AM

  4. I believe Beck was referring to The Serpent.  Serpents creep on their bellies, don’cha know?

    Posted by Andy Stedman  on  08/31  at  01:50 PM

  5. As Billy states, “The Creep,” just doesn’t get it.

    Posted by  on  08/31  at  03:13 PM

  6. Hmmm … I didn’t realize Mr. beck was talking to me.

    Billy Beck: The Creep implicitly asserts that wrong is only wrong when the perp gets caught.

    I am merely asking a question for purposes of clarification. I am not sure I comprehended your original moral dilemma, Mr. Venlet.

    John Venlet: … a sandwich bag, consumed an insignificant portion of the 20 yard container’s volume.

    John Venlet: … my contribution to its contents was insignificant.

    If you concede that your action was “insignificant”, then why would you go on to assert your action was not actually insignificant?

    Was your action significant, insignificant, or BOTH simultaneously?

    John Venlet: As Billy states, “The Creep,” just doesn’t get it.

    You’re right. But that’s because you appear to be contradicting yourself again.

    Posted by  on  09/01  at  07:16 AM

  7. Serpent, your grasp of the written word is less than stellar.

    Posted by  on  09/01  at  04:07 PM

  8. John Venlet: Serpent, your grasp of the written word is less than stellar.

    Well here is an excellent opportunity for you to enlighten me with your grasp of semantics and the nuances of langauge.

    Of course I guess it is possible that clearly articulating the reasoning behind your views is less of a priority for you than merely expounding them as facts?

    Posted by  on  09/02  at  07:04 AM

  9. The Serpent: "If you concede that your action was “insignificant”, then why would you go on to assert your action was not actually insignificant?

    Was your action significant, insignificant, or BOTH simultaneously?"

    Switching definitions.  Physically insignificant and morally insignificant are two different concepts you’re conflating here.

    If I steal your car occasionally, but only when you’re sleeping, and I top it up with fuel and only drive a few hundred miles a year, the net cost I am imposing on you is insignificant.  This is not a moral judgement.

    However, it’s still your car, and what I’m doing is still wrong.

    Posted by Andy Stedman  on  09/02  at  07:41 AM

  10. Sorry Mr. Beck, Plaese forward that sack of shit to Serpent so he can ad it to the pile he already slithers in.

    Posted by  on  09/02  at  08:56 AM

  11. Andy Stedman: Switching definitions.

    I’m not switching definitions. I am merely trying to interpret what Mr. Venlet was trying to say.

    Andy Stedman: Physically insignificant and morally insignificant are two different concepts you’re conflating here.

    So when Mr. Venlet said his action was “insignificant” what he actually meant was that his action was Physically Insignificant, but morally it was not “Insignificant”?

    The point I was trying to make to Mr. Venlet is that I was under the impression that “the victim” had to actually consider themselves a “victim” in order for the claim of moral harm to be made. In other words, the victim has to feel that some sort of transgression (immoral/harmful entanglement/interaction) occurred.

    Andy Stedman: If I steal your car occasionally, but only when you’re sleeping, and I top it up with fuel and only drive a few hundred miles a year, the net cost I am imposing on you is insignificant.  This is not a moral judgement.

    I’d say that you were putting wear and tear on my car against my wishes, which is a form of harm against me.

    But suppose that you and I are good friends though, and I had told you that you could borrow my vehicle whenever you needed too. Would I still be in a position to accuse you of immorality (harm) for using my car while I was asleep?

    Andy Stedman: However, it’s still your car, and what I’m doing is still wrong.

    Returning to the original situation, I would say that unless the owner of the dumpster (i.e. the community church for all intent and purpose) felt harmed by Mr. Venlet’s “unauthorized” use of their rubbish container then I don’t see where any harm was done?

    Of course if Mr. Venlet really does feel that he did something morally wrong, one wonders why he hasn’t simply gone to the head priest of the church in question and confessed his “sin”. I have little doubt that the priest could determine a suitable penance (price/cost) for Mr. Venlet’s actions.

    Posted by  on  09/02  at  09:58 AM

  12. The Serpent: "But suppose that you and I are good friends though, and I had told you that you could borrow my vehicle whenever you needed too. Would I still be in a position to accuse you of immorality (harm) for using my car while I was asleep?"

    Riiiiight.  I can easily see where you could think I might have been talking about a voluntary interaction agreeable to both parties.  Not.

    Posted by Andy Stedman  on  09/02  at  10:06 AM

  13. Okay here is my answer to Mr. Venlet’s story.

    Even though the events are different, as analogies the circumstances are logically equivalent.

    Lets say you have a young couple in love, and one night they are having sex, and they are both very much into the act, when suddenly the male starts to spank the female on her bare ass. This excites the female very much and she immediately has a massive, earth-trembling organism.

    Now according to You and Mr. Venlet’s logic I would assume that while there was no “physically significant” damage/harm (she enjoyed the spanking after all) that there was never-the-less “morally significant” damage/harm done.

    I immediately knew that I shouldn’t have spanked that ass.  The ass was not mine to utilize as I saw fit, even though my contribution to its contents was insignificant.

    In other words, the next day that young man had better wake up and march himself straight down to the police station and turn himself in for heinous crime of assault and battery (wifebeating).

    Because according to what you and Mr. Venlet (and Mr. Beck?) appear to be saying, perceived harm by the “victim” is not the indicator/hallmark of a crime/transgression/immorality.

    Posted by  on  09/02  at  12:23 PM

  14. What is going on here?  John, you seem to be a smart enough man to have already run all of the given thoughts through your mind.  If possibly, you think that this is such a wrong act, why not follow up with a letter to the company containing your confessions?  Or further ideas to prevent other public “offenders” from doing the same thing?

    This is obviously a topic that you would like related comments on, and I’m hoping that you see (from my perspective) that you could have done much worse, like taking a bag of your daily trash to this 20 yard container.  If you knew right away that you should not have followed through with such an action, then there is no debate or question here.  Correct?

    Posted by  on  09/02  at  07:57 PM

  15. Izie can be proud that her scat generated this much discussion!

    Posted by  on  09/04  at  01:58 PM

  16. Jonson - Correct, and, if you read through the comments, you’ll notice that I have not debated, I have simply stated.

    Posted by  on  09/05  at  03:38 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Cryo-Ablation

Previous entry: Bastard Sword

<< Back to main