I didn't originally say your statement was incorrect. I wanted to know how you knew that. You responded by attacking me and effectively noting that you have nothing to back up your response. So, to me, it falls into the realm of "I don't know the answer". I'm not saying your statement is necessarily incorrect. But unless you can prove it scientifically, it's a supposition based on flimsy, at best, evidence. I have no ideal opinion in this matter. I don't know why poor people do what they do. If someone showed me a study that showed what you said was true, it wouldn't be hard for me to believe it all. But, all you've got is you very limited experience (and unless you've dealt with a representative sample, your experience isn't necessarily valid for the whole of the population), and that means you've essentially made it up. And it offended you that someone would dare ask for proof that what you say is fact. That's all there is to this entire thing. You said something you can't back up. You got offended when someone called you on it. There's no argument about morals being made here. This is entirely about you making something up and being upset that people don't fall into line and believe what you say even though you have nothing to back it up (and continue to offer nothing to back it up). If you had said, "In my experience, blah, blah, blah", there wouldn't have been a problem because I would've known you were making a generalization based on a very limited group that you've personally dealt with (i.e. you were making it up). Since you made the claim in a way that implied it was a "fact", that made me curious as to how you knew that. But even to this point, you continue to argue that your opinion based on your experience is "fact", and that's simply not the case. To become a fact, it really does need some sort of objective measure, something which you have some sort of objection to. In the end, you may well be right about poor people and their motivation.
I'd still like to know what, in your opinion, is different about why rich people don't steal (unless your argument is that all rich people steal). I'm curious to hear it, and will treat it as nothing more than your opinion based on your limited experience which may or may not be representative of the population as a whole.
Generally, one assumes that within a certain sphere of argument that there will be a nebulous area between fact and opinion. Example; If civil liberties are a vagina, George W. Bush is a yeast infection. I can't prove that statment. I believe it is true though. I have not explicitly stated that George W. Bush being a yeast infection is a fact - but neither have I said it is not a fact. I assume, by the nature of the statement itself and the scope of what it represents, that most people will realize that this is, in fact, an observation and not a statement with the same degree of factuality as "2+2=4." Another point; If a person was to argue that George W. Bush is NOT a yeast infection, would they be doing so solely out of a purely objective position? Would their response be disinterested? It's unlikely. If they were truly disinterested, they wouldn't respond at all. So, I said what I said and I still believe it is true - and you responded to what I said for very much the same reasons that I typed it in the first place. This has less to do with objectivity on either of our part than it has to do with making a statement that, for whatever reason, represents our own beliefs.
I should have clarified and said that "most rich people don't steal from Wal-Mart." And that's because they don't need to. Buying new underwear is not going to mean losing a significant part of their paycheck. But, if you're living below the poverty line, new underwear may be a luxury that is easier to steal than it is to pay for. And, as for my experience (though it doesn't include the totality of everything that has ever happened in the universe) I will say that I have spent most of my life living below the poverty level in a single parent home, or in the "institutions" where people who grow up below the poverty level usually end up at. I know reasonably well what it's like to be dirt poor in the United States, and have spent most of my life around other people who are poor.
(After returning from yet another of Manny's music threads ) This is the crux of the argument right here, I think. (At least the mechanics of the argument - which is what this argument seems to be turning into - an argument on the methods of evaluating arguments). True, you did not say that my statment was incorrect, but sarcastically asking if there was "some sort of poll that I missed on that topic" is not the blameless request for evidence that you have decided to portray it as. You and I and anyone else who read my statment knows full well that there is no way to make an scientifically objective poll on the subject. It's not possible. And again - the statment cannot be proven scientifically, and no amount of quantifiable evidence can be collected in its support unless someone invents a moral-O-scope® that will give precise readings. I assumed this would be obvious (as I stated earlier), and interpreted your response (correctly, I believe) as condescension - and then responded accordingly. ...and I need to start paying more attention to my own signature. Time to go read a book.
Dang, I need to go to your Wal-Mart...My checkers usually reject my coupons...HEB is pretty leanient as well...coupon for 2 but will scan for 1...
