Catalan Man takes out 492,000€ in False Loans and Donates it all to Leftist Social Movements
35 replies, posted
[quote]BARCELONA - This so-called Robin-Hood pursuit, which appeared to come to a head in March 2009, is back on again.
...
Between 2006 and 2008, Durán had falsely identified himself and his intentions in obtaining 68 personal and commercial loans from 39 different banks for a total value of 492,000 euors. Before the judge, Durán confessed that a significant portion of the money had been donated to social movements that he refused to identify, and the rest he spent on the publication of 300,000 copies of two editions of a magazine called “Crisis,” denouncing the inner workings of the global financial system.
...
But when Durán failed to show up last Tuesday to the beginning of the trial, where the prosecutors are asking for an eight-year sentence, this latter-day Robin Hood was back to his fugitive life.[/quote]
Full article:
[url]http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/spain-039-s-robin-hood-of-banks-on-the-run-again/enric-giralt-anti-capitalism-robin-hood/c3s10936/#.USIoLaWsh8F[/url]
This isn't very "Robin hoodish", he's not helping the poor, just those he agrees with.
So you abused the inner workings of the financial system... to promote a magazine that denounces the inner workings of the financial system.
To gain what, exactly?
I'm thinking it would have been better if he donated it all to charities or something.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;39631486]So you abused the inner workings of the financial system... to promote a magazine that denounces the inner workings of the financial system.
To gain what, exactly?[/QUOTE]
Emphasizing everything that's currently wrong with the inner workings of the financial system??
Kind of like a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_hat"]grey-hat hacker[/URL]
[QUOTE=Zambies!;39631355]This isn't very "Robin hoodish", he's not helping the poor, just those he agrees with.[/QUOTE]
But the ones he agrees with stand with the poor and the people in general.
I don't see anything wrong with this.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39641410]I don't see anything wrong with this.[/QUOTE]
"stealing money is okay so long as it goes towards organizations i agree with"
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39644739]"stealing money is okay so long as it goes towards organizations i agree with"[/QUOTE]
If your ideology says that stealing is going to be wrong 100% of the time, then you're quite the pacifist. I think that your obviously sarcastic statement there is actually true, to an extent.
The reasons why someone may think that stealing is acceptable are:
1. The owner of the property does not deserve the property, or deserves it less than []
2. The rational for the stealing is effectively more just than []
3. Personal self-interest.
Now, since we can kind of get rid of 3, since it wasn't purely self-promotion here, we just have 1 and 2. Now, if you're going to tell me that you can ever see a situation where you are going to support these two points from your personal moral values, then I would call you a liar, sir.
Examples:
A German-Jewish resistance fighter or refugee steals food and resources from a German military base.
A member of the Underground Railroad "steals" the "property" of a slave from a slaveowner.
In both these instances, we could probably reasonably assume that, [I]stealing something from someone is acceptable, because we agree with the end result[/I]. Effectively, yes, your sarcastic snark remark is correct. If we agree with the organization/end result, and believe that the money/property was not held responsibly or morally, then we would have no problem with it being stolen. No one here, I don't think, would be so morally pure that they would argue that stealing money from the Nazis wasn't acceptable, or stealing machine guns from murderers, or whatever else.
The only difference between you, and this man, is that this mans ideology dictates that the money acquired by the banks was unjust, theft, or exploitation, and that the organizations are just, morally correct, or better. The only reason you disagree is because you see things the opposite way.
Essentially, "stealing money is wrong so long as it comes from organizations i agree with"
And of course I put a bunch of words in your mouth, but since you couldn't be bothered to apply some real argument and opted to make a fake twisting of words for someone else, I figured I didn't need to extend the courtesy to you either.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39644739]"stealing money is okay so long as it goes towards organizations i agree with"[/QUOTE]
who gives a shit about stealing from banks. have we forgotten about 2008 already which they were barely punished for?
[QUOTE=Van-man;39634652]Emphasizing everything that's currently wrong with the inner workings of the financial system??
Kind of like a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_hat"]grey-hat hacker[/URL][/QUOTE]
The fact you can get away with this in the first place is a huge problem with out banking system. It's an audacious way to show how broken the banking system while at the same time sending money to a cause that demands it's reform.
[QUOTE=Lazor;39646694]who gives a shit about stealing from banks. have we forgotten about 2008 already which they were barely punished for?[/QUOTE]
It's like stealing from a shop for the actions of a similar shop in another country doing immoral things.
I mean really, is stealing going to actually fix things or just make it worse?
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39645726']If your ideology says that stealing is going to be wrong 100% of the time, then you're quite the pacifist. I think that your obviously sarcastic statement there is actually true, to an extent.
The reasons why someone may think that stealing is acceptable are:
1. The owner of the property does not deserve the property, or deserves it less than []
2. The rational for the stealing is effectively more just than []
3. Personal self-interest.
Now, since we can kind of get rid of 3, since it wasn't purely self-promotion here, we just have 1 and 2. Now, if you're going to tell me that you can ever see a situation where you are going to support these two points from your personal moral values, then I would call you a liar, sir.
Examples:
A German-Jewish resistance fighter or refugee steals food and resources from a German military base.
A member of the Underground Railroad "steals" the "property" of a slave from a slaveowner.
In both these instances, we could probably reasonably assume that, [I]stealing something from someone is acceptable, because we agree with the end result[/I]. Effectively, yes, your sarcastic snark remark is correct. If we agree with the organization/end result, and believe that the money/property was not held responsibly or morally, then we would have no problem with it being stolen. No one here, I don't think, would be so morally pure that they would argue that stealing money from the Nazis wasn't acceptable, or stealing machine guns from murderers, or whatever else.
The only difference between you, and this man, is that this mans ideology dictates that the money acquired by the banks was unjust, theft, or exploitation, and that the organizations are just, morally correct, or better. The only reason you disagree is because you see things the opposite way.
Essentially, "stealing money is wrong so long as it comes from organizations i agree with"
And of course I put a bunch of words in your mouth, but since you couldn't be bothered to apply some real argument and opted to make a fake twisting of words for someone else, I figured I didn't need to extend the courtesy to you either.[/QUOTE]
look kid, utilitarianism is a lot more complicated than that
you have to look at the second-order effects, deontological injunctions, etc
[editline]19th February 2013[/editline]
"boop-beep i maximize utility beep-boop consequences are the only thing that matter"
you end up with a paperclip maximizer that way
the [I]only[/I] way your objection would make sense would be if it were a one-off type game rather than iterated. the examples you gave about the nazis and the confederates are all one-off scenarios whereas the banks are here to stay and we fucking need them in order to keep the economy going
[QUOTE=Lazor;39646694]who gives a shit about stealing from banks. have we forgotten about 2008 already which they were barely punished for?[/QUOTE]
Yeah those goddamn Spanish banks were behind it all!
Or maybe you would have realized that this is from Spain had you read the article.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39648212]look kid, utilitarianism is a lot more complicated than that
you have to look at the second-order effects, deontological injunctions, etc
[editline]19th February 2013[/editline]
"boop-beep i maximize utility beep-boop consequences are the only thing that matter"
you end up with a paperclip maximizer that way[/QUOTE]
I never argued for utilitarianism. I'm not even sure where you go that from. I'm saying that your sarcastic comment was bullshit.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];39648294']I never argued for utilitarianism. I'm not even sure where you go that from. I'm saying that your sarcastic comment was bullshit.[/QUOTE]
you might not have called it utilitarianism but your objection was like a cookie-cutter example of what naive utilitarians think
i mean fuck it's like you haven't even considered the knock-on effects of this sort of thing.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39648342]you might not have called it utilitarianism but your objection was like a cookie-cutter example of what naive utilitarians think
i mean fuck it's like you haven't even considered the knock-on effects of this sort of thing.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't even arguing anything, i was saying that
"YES- stealing is okay from everyone's moral standpoint when it goes from someone we don't like to someone we do. This likely includes your moral viewpoint. Therefore, your objection is bullshit."
I have no clue how you get an "objective" out of that other than that. I made it incredibly clear.
[QUOTE=Lazor;39646694]who gives a shit about stealing from banks. have we forgotten about 2008 already which they were barely punished for?[/QUOTE]
At the end of the day, part the bank's money is SOMEONE ELSE's money. If they steal from the banks, then they're stealing from more unwitting people.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39648212]the banks are here to stay and we fucking need them in order to keep the economy going[/QUOTE]
if we need oppressive institutions to keep the economy going then maybe our economy is dysfunctional to begin with.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39647941]It's like stealing from a shop for the actions of a similar shop in another country doing immoral things.
I mean really, is stealing going to actually fix things or just make it worse?[/QUOTE]
banks are inherently immoral and destroy societies. it isn't like there can be a "good bank", every profit driven financial institution should be shut down.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;39631355]This isn't very "Robin hoodish", he's not helping the poor, just those he agrees with.[/QUOTE]
if you believe that leftism ultimately liberates the poor and disenfranchised, then this totally helps the poor.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39644739]"stealing money is okay so long as it goes towards organizations i agree with"[/QUOTE]
aren't you the guy who thinks africans were better off when europeans were stealing their land and resources?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39650185]if we need oppressive institutions to keep the economy going then maybe our economy is dysfunctional to begin with.[/quote]
How are they oppressive?
[quote]banks are inherently immoral and destroy societies. it isn't like there can be a "good bank", every profit driven financial institution should be shut down.[/quote]
Banks hold capital, which lend money out to people. I don't get moral scruples here.
[quote]if you believe that leftism ultimately liberates the poor and disenfranchised, then this totally helps the poor.[/quote]
But he's just helping political parties, none of which ever come to a coherent agreement on how to make things better.
The Socialist Workers Party in Britain is a prime example. It's a collection of naive students led by tory party rejects.
[quote]aren't you the guy who thinks africans were better off when europeans were stealing their land and resources?[/QUOTE]
This is irrelevant.
By better, one of his arguments was that the imposition of the state, reduced violence. This is actually true.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39650353]How are they oppressive?
Banks hold capital, which lend money out to people. I don't get moral scruples here.[/quote]
let me put it this way. in this day and age you cannot find a place to live without either government assistance or using the banking system.
it is an inherently coercive institution and coercion is immoral.
[quote]But he's just helping political parties, none of which ever come to a coherent agreement on how to make things better.
The Socialist Workers Party in Britain is a prime example. It's a collection of naive students led by tory party rejects.[/quote]
this is irrelevant to what i said.
[quote]This is irrelevant.
By better, one of his arguments was that the imposition of the state, reduced violence. This is actually true.[/QUOTE]
violence? maybe. standard of living? mortality? not everywhere.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39650514]let me put it this way. in this day and age you cannot find a place to live without either government assistance or using the banking system.
it is an inherently coercive institution and coercion is immoral.[/quote]
Go live in a commune or something, no stopping you.
[quote]this is irrelevant to what i said.[/quote]
They don't help the poor as much as they look towards their own interests.
[quote]violence? maybe. standard of living? mortality? not everywhere.[/QUOTE]
Legal system meant that disputes were settled in courts rather than with knives or guns.
Standards of living and mortality started to improve once modern medicine was introduced.
Although they did get treated like shit a lot of the time too, at least it was more peaceful and more open to the outside world.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39650593]Go live in a commune or something, no stopping you.[/quote]
"don't like slavery? go live in a state that doesn't have slavery!"
[quote]They don't help the poor as much as they look towards their own interests.[/quote]
that's debateable.
[quote]Legal system meant that disputes were settled in courts rather than with knives or guns.
Standards of living and mortality started to improve once modern medicine was introduced.
Although they did get treated like shit a lot of the time too, at least it was more peaceful and more open to the outside world.[/QUOTE]
1) you are implying african societies and states prior to europeans were barbaric and had no legal systems. this is simply not true and in fact just plays into the racist ideas from the colonial times that justified the exploitation of these people.
2) is that why zimbabwe is such a bastion of civilization now? post-colonialism is a bitch, sobotnik. the europeans severely fucked up these countries and continue to fuck them up through globalization and capitalism.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39650629]"don't like slavery? go live in a state that doesn't have slavery!"[/quote]
Except social security and communes exist in most states.
[quote]that's debateable.[/quote]
So is everything.
[quote]1) you are implying african societies and states prior to europeans were barbaric and had no legal systems. this is simply not true and in fact just plays into the racist ideas from the colonial times that justified the exploitation of these people.[/quote]
The non-state ones didn't. The ones which were states were mostly Muslim ones.
[quote]2) is that why zimbabwe is such a bastion of civilization now? post-colonialism is a bitch, sobotnik. the europeans severely fucked up these countries and continue to fuck them up through globalization and capitalism.[/QUOTE]
But the reason for them being fucked up was because they fucked up decolonization.
They just drew lines over maps and expected stable states to form.
Wow, thanks for helping to not contribute to the fixing of Spain's economy. Dick.
can someone explain in detail how banks rob the people?
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39644739]"stealing money is okay so long as it goes towards organizations i agree with"[/QUOTE]
I thought it was quite obvious sarcasm.
[QUOTE=laserguided;39651030]I thought it was quite obvious sarcasm.[/QUOTE]
Didn't look like it.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39650828]Except social security and communes exist in most states.[/quote]
and?
[quote]The non-state ones didn't. The ones which were states were mostly Muslim ones.[/quote]
ok?
[quote]But the reason for them being fucked up was because they fucked up decolonization.
They just drew lines over maps and expected stable states to form.[/QUOTE]
not just decolonization but neo-liberalism which has continued to exploit africa in the name of multinational corporations instead of monarchies and republics.
What the fuck where's my part
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.