jaroslav123 saidI came from a family of 7 children..My father was a steel worker and lost his job...We also starved and with all this..we didn't steal.
mybud saidI'm still not convinced that merits stealing from your own people who are small business men trying to eek out a living..But I posted this to start a discussion...Continue...
You have to understand that people are different and haven't got the ideological perspective that you have.
Ideology as we all know is a series of ideas bound together to form a worldview - but what makes ideology more prominent is that it shapes the mechanics of our actions. You said you had a moral-upbringing from your parents, this explains why you're "not convinced". Thus you would never believe that stealing was morally correct. Whilst I'm not defending the actions of robbery, what I am saying is that people who steal from stores or who commit crimes have an entirely different perspective from you concerning the world due to situations they've experienced.
It may be difficult for you - and indeed, me - to grasp this, but we have to understand that individual's actions are motivated and controlled by their own unique experiences in life.
Again, this argument is always misconstrued and twisted by social-conservatives and people with Burkean-politics on the brain so I'll put this in bold for further bloody emphasis: this is not an excuse, this is an explanation.
As I have said: this is not an excuse, this is an explanation. It's a categorical fact that middle/upper classes don't steal in shops because they are not in poverty. Whilst not all working/lower classes steal, some do. (Again, where you grew up is only part of the life experience, there are other factors as well - including personality. Some people don't have the personality which would allow them to steal without any conscience).
The problem with this debate as always is when people discuss crime it just flounces from people saying "well, I never stole, I don't steal" as if this is somehow an explanation or a counter-argument. Then what I will predict will happen later on is someone will say "It's always about the criminal and never the victims", nobody said it wasn't about the victims, we were merely just analysing why people become criminals. In crime we should analyse the three sides: the victim, the perpetrator, society.
The debate around crime is always laden and filled with clichés and counter-arguments and everyone gets too anecdotal and emotional. It's fear. It's The Crucible. Fear stops people from understanding events (and no I'm not saying you're irrational, I'm saying that the way the media dissect this issue is so sensationalist and so driven by emotions that the only framework and dichotomy people can discuss this from is a subjective/personal one rather than an objective/rational one). It's also a debate totally about extremes, and is always presented as such, so it pretty much becomes utterly pointless to debate it.