|
|
Post by swankivy on Jul 8, 2011 22:23:55 GMT -5
Finders Keepers
Weaver seems to view the unattended belongings of others as free for the taking. Do you think what he's doing is more of a gray area, or do you think someone like Dax would consider this stealing? Does the monetary value of the purloined items affect whether you think he should be allowed to take them?
|
|
|
|
Post by SHO! on Jul 9, 2011 0:16:31 GMT -5
I believe it is definitely a gray area AND that there are monetary value aspects involved (but they can be circumstantial). It's almost like... hmm, how to explain? It's almost like the "wrongness" of taking things could be dictated by the amount of time someone else would spend looking for that thing and thinking about it.
If you lost your pack of gum you might pat your pockets down, check your coat, but quite quickly you'd shrug it off and make a note to yourself to go buy another pack. If however you lost your cell phone or wallet you might spend days looking for it, weeks even, and even if you eventually had to replace the item you still might wonder about whatever happened to it. If years later you stumbled over the cell phone or wallet you'd pick it up and spend more time thinking about when you lost it and how it got to where you found it. If you saw the pack of gum later you might not even think about it.
Now that could be chalked up to monetary value, possibly. If you had a lucky quarter, say a quarter minted in your birth year with a groove on the back from that one time that mugger tried to stab you and his knife got blocked by the quarter and say a five dollar bill and you dropped them both. One is blowing away in the wind and one is rolling toward a sewer grate in the opposite direction, which one do you chase? Which one would you be more upset if someone took off of your nightstand next to an open window? In other words, which would be more wrong for Weaver to take?
I think Weaver sort of has a sense that humans are litter bugs. They will leave behind what they don't care about. Sometimes we accidentally leave behind things we value, but most of the time it's something we wouldn't bother going back for if we realized we'd left it somewhere. I would wager that MOST of what Weaver claims are things like that, and the rarity of finding and taking something someone wanted is like finding five bucks in a storm of blowing litter.
|
|
|
|
Post by blondiviolette on Jul 9, 2011 19:50:04 GMT -5
It seems like the strong word here is 'unattended' - so if something's unattended then that may mean the person just isn't keeping an eye on the item but still wants it or is going to come back for it or on the other hand they could have abandoned the items cause they didn't want them/forgot/lost them - never gonna get them again, but the thing is that unless you know for certain that the items are abandoned, no matter how much they cost and not wanted then it really seems like stealing. It's like most people wouldn't just climb into someone's window of a house that's not theirs in a suburb or city just because the people are at work or on holiday; because the setting is rural and country maybe it seems more desolate and more likely to be not kept by someone to Weaver, but items don't just end up in any place without someone having put them there so it's not right to take them and you have to be careful.
|
|
|
|
Post by SHO! on Jul 24, 2011 6:46:29 GMT -5
The thing is, blondiviolette, in day trip places like beaches, picnic areas, woods, etc. people are always leaving stuff that they can't justify a second trip to go back for... and if a kid left it it's almost doubly certain an adult won't take them back to get it. If someone else doesn't pick it up then eventually it just becomes litter. Even something huge like a bike eventually becomes litter if no one claims it. I'd rather these things went on to new owners than just sat unappreciated and gathering dirt and rust.
|
|
