It feels like it’s the other way around, from my end. Natural disasters don’t stop happening, and crime doesn’t stop happening, ergo, having insurance for both is reasonable.
No individual should be expected to use insurance to protect themselves from theft as a solution to it. That’s a crazy take.
Then I really don’t understand what you’re saying here. Insurance coupled with wiping your device remotely makes you whole and renders your device unusable to the person who stole it (sometimes it even leaves you with a nicer, more current device). It’s not like the police do much more to help an individual with theft, even when you can show them where your device is with Find My Device enabled. Sometimes you might get lucky and they’ll go retrieve it and allow you to press charges, but that’s pretty rare, frankly.
I still maintain this a better solution than trying to beat the shit out of someone, possibly failing and ending up hospitalized or dead yourself.
We frankly are just going to continue to disagree on that point. Say you punch the assailant and they go down in one blow, cracking their head on the pavement and dying. Did they really deserve a death penalty for petty theft? An extrajudicial death penalty no less. I don’t think so. Thus, I don’t think it’s reasonably moral to risk it.
The difference could lie in the viewpoint that I believe it is their fault in that case. Deserve? No, absolutely not, but I would see it as suicide, rather than an extra judicial punishment. Like falling off a cliff when rock climbing, it’s a risk they took when stealing.
The difference is the rock climbing involves an inanimate object, the rock face. You are a thinking being that can make decisions and are choosing to risk their life over a petty crime.
Yet insurance for theft exists because it continues to be a thing that happens. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Are you intentionally ignoring what I’m trying to say?
It feels like it’s the other way around, from my end. Natural disasters don’t stop happening, and crime doesn’t stop happening, ergo, having insurance for both is reasonable.
I never said it wasn’t. So you misunderstood. Having insurance is reasonable.
Then I really don’t understand what you’re saying here. Insurance coupled with wiping your device remotely makes you whole and renders your device unusable to the person who stole it (sometimes it even leaves you with a nicer, more current device). It’s not like the police do much more to help an individual with theft, even when you can show them where your device is with Find My Device enabled. Sometimes you might get lucky and they’ll go retrieve it and allow you to press charges, but that’s pretty rare, frankly.
I still maintain this a better solution than trying to beat the shit out of someone, possibly failing and ending up hospitalized or dead yourself.
I believe it’s a reasonable thing morally to do. Maybe not smart. Not going to argue it’s the best idea. But, reasonable moral thing to do.
There’s games with offline accounts, pictures that don’t sync properly – age of a phone is not the only thing that matters.
I don’t think insurance is a bad idea to have, I think the standpoint that insurance should be the only recourse is what’s bad
Yes, police will do nothing.
We frankly are just going to continue to disagree on that point. Say you punch the assailant and they go down in one blow, cracking their head on the pavement and dying. Did they really deserve a death penalty for petty theft? An extrajudicial death penalty no less. I don’t think so. Thus, I don’t think it’s reasonably moral to risk it.
The difference could lie in the viewpoint that I believe it is their fault in that case. Deserve? No, absolutely not, but I would see it as suicide, rather than an extra judicial punishment. Like falling off a cliff when rock climbing, it’s a risk they took when stealing.
The difference is the rock climbing involves an inanimate object, the rock face. You are a thinking being that can make decisions and are choosing to risk their life over a petty crime.