[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 213 KB, 1621x1080, PicsArt_05-19-03.41.14.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18273873 No.18273873 [Reply] [Original]

Is it moral to steal from large chain bookshops e.g. Barnes & Noble?
Why? Why not?

>> No.18273876

>>18273873
it's not moral because God said you shouldn't steal

>> No.18273916

>>18273873
Stealing is wrong no matter who you do it from. There's nothing I dislike more than idiot teenagers who try to rationalize theft.

>> No.18273942

>>18273916
Cool, why?

>> No.18274045

>>18273942
Do unto others as you would have undone to you.

I wouldn't like to be stolen from, so it's wrong of me to steal from someone else.

>> No.18274060

>>18273876
>>18274045
Get out of here, christcucks. Tao Lin is the true authority and he says it’s good.

>> No.18274093

>>18273873
If the author of the book you're stealing is dead then it's fine

>> No.18274108

>>18273916
Silly argument. Would a father be wrong, for stealing bread from a billionaire to feed his starving son? What about a spy, stealing intel from the Nazis in WW2? The obvious answer is no. Cases clearly exist in which stealing is morally acceptable, even right. The question is if making a few Penguins disappear can also be excused.

>> No.18274121

>>18274045
>I wouldn't like to be stolen from
If I owned B&N I wouldn't really mind if some bum stole one or two books.

>> No.18274125

>>18274060
I'm not Christian.

>>18274108
That's a false equivalency. A book from B&N will not feed your starving son, nor will it help the allies 80 years ago.

>> No.18274206

>>18274125
You haven't understood my post. You said that stealing was wrong, no matter the scenario. The two examples I gave were simply to show that stealing is, in some cases, not wrong. As I ended my last post, the question is whether or not the specific case of stealing from chain bookstores is wrong.

>> No.18274224
File: 77 KB, 933x700, Ex6xVJUVcAAGG_4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18274224

I think so, yeah. I wouldn't do it personally, but the authors are paid already and you're only hurting a gigantic corporation in a way that they don't even notice. Frankly, they should be giving books away for free with the amount of money they make as a sort of noblesse oblige concept, but they don't so we have to take them ourselves. Don't forget that printing books is cheap as fuck, but they charge you the cost of printing plus an inflation of 5000%. Steal books from them if you want to.

>> No.18274226

It’s fine but you are better off stealing digitally and cutting the publisher out of the revenue stream too

>> No.18274233

There is nothing wrong with stealing from corporations. There is also nothing wrong with guillotining CEO's.

>> No.18274557

Morality doesn't exist. Instead of worrying about morality, ask yourself this; "Will I get caught, and will I be able to deal with the paranoia and/or guilt if I don't?"

>> No.18274579

>>18273873
it depends what you do with the book afterwards

>> No.18274583
File: 58 KB, 200x354, latest[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
18274583

>>18274206
Is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family? Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them? And, what if your family don't like bread? They like... cigarettes? Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, anon?

>> No.18274584

>>18273873
As Bolaño said, stealing books is not a crime

>> No.18274622

the only real concern is what damage it could do to your freedom/reputation, and the stores budget. stealing from walmart is nothing, stealing from a independent comic shop is shitty
that being said you shouldnt steal, it shows bad moral character
>>18274108
>ooo stealing is bad?! well what if you were stealing from hitler!! checkmate xDDD
your just shit flinging at this point

>> No.18274732

>>18274622
I might have phrased my post wrong, although it reads pretty clear to me. The point I was replying to is:
>>18273916
>Stealing is wrong no matter who you do it from.

This is a blanket statement that puts forward the idea that every instance of stealing is bad. If this statement is taken to be true, stealing from Hitler is wrong, as it does not matter who is being stolen from, only that one is stealing. I made my post to disprove this statement, as it is stupid. Not once did I equalise either example with stuffing books in a bag and running.

To anyone watching from the side; is it my fault for sucking at writing? It kinda shakes me that I've been misinterpreted crazily twice now

>> No.18274996

>>18274732
Nah, they're just fags who are looking for the vaguest way to disagree with you while ignoring basic logic. It's not even a matter of being good at writing, since the content is by itself very simple and you can misunderstand it only out of laziness.

>> No.18275328

>>18274732
>>18274996
cmon now. using hitler or nazis in an argument is a sign that your losing
no fucking shit theres exceptions where stealing can be morally justified but ‘should i steal from barnes and nobles’ guy is not asking that question at all. this is like a highschool debate club where the devils advocate keeps bringing up ‘what if its baby hitler tho!’ or ‘what if your lying about hiding jews’ its not constructive or a catch 22 its at the edge of all edge cases and while its literally true it doesnt break my argument in 99.9% of cases.
its like trying to break the trolley problem by putting 99 innocents on one side and a serial killer on the other and saying ‘you’d HAVE to pull the lever then huh ‘,:^) ’

>> No.18275342

>>18273916
I didn't know that theft was an irrational---or extra-rational---thing

>> No.18275494

>>18275328
>using hitler or nazis in an argument is a sign that your losing
But he's not "losing an argument", the thread started by asking a question, "why or why not", not "it is so and so", "stealing books is good".
>no fucking shit theres exceptions
So the statement "Stealing is wrong no matter who you do it from" (>>18273916) is not true, ok.

>> No.18275514

>>18275328
Out of curiosity, what was the last book you read?

>> No.18275536

>>18273873
Who are you really stealing from?
The manager and wagecucks have to take care of inventory, just like every other business, but I doubt that one missing book will get anyone fired. Authors do not get the royalties when we buy the book, they received the royalties when the warehouse ordered the thousands of copies. So it's not very immoral. You steal from a small bookshop, you are the scum of the earth and should be hunt down like the dog you are.

>> No.18275862

>>18275514
taipei by tao lin, finished it yesterday
>>18275494
litterally yes but thats not how most people use the english language. if you wanna get into legalese there are a few exceptions but unless the OP has a time machine or is a world leader/spy/third worlder then it will always be morally incorrect

>> No.18275873

I stole war and peace from my rich aunt, so i dont see anything wrong with it