Is it wrong to pull this prank?

[Herador]

A prank should end with everyone having a good laugh, not some people having a laugh and someone nursing a probable concussion.

"Prank Video's" are only topped in how awful they are by those children's entertainment channels that more resembles a psychological horror film than Mr. Rogers. Everyone remembers Joey Salads and his "black people destroying a car because of Trump stickers" video, right? Or the millions of other examples of this dumb trend.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

That prank is, I believe, illegal. It is intended to entice people to commit an illegal act, which, if I’m not mistaken, illegal in certain countries.

If somebody steals it, it's their fault.

[Donut section]

Fuck it's your bike. Leave it electrocuted for all I care.
You do not have any right to so much as touch someone else's property.

[The Alma Mater]

Fuck it's your bike. Leave it electrocuted for all I care.
You do not have any right to so much as touch someone else's property.

Yesyes. So empty your shotgun into the 8 year old who dares to steal an apple from your appletree, slit the throat of the young lady who thought one of your roses would look pretty in her hair and remotely detonate your car that some punk stole.

Because crime and punishment do not need to be proportional.

[Donut section]

Fuck it's your bike. Leave it electrocuted for all I care.
You do not have any right to so much as touch someone else's property.

Yesyes. So empty your shotgun into the 8 year old who dares to steal an apple from your appletree, slit the throat of the young lady who thought one of your roses would look pretty in her hair and remotely detonate your car that some punk stole.

Because crime and punishment do not need to be proportional.

By golly that's a nice straw man.

Would you like to show the logic of how you got there?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Fuck it's your bike. Leave it electrocuted for all I care.
You do not have any right to so much as touch someone else's property.

Yesyes. So empty your shotgun into the 8 year old who dares to steal an apple from your appletree, slit the throat of the young lady who thought one of your roses would look pretty in her hair and remotely detonate your car that some punk stole.

Because crime and punishment do not need to be proportional.

The only person who said this was some edgy new guy and not Donut Section, so you're not making any point.

[Donut section]

Yesyes. So empty your shotgun into the 8 year old who dares to steal an apple from your appletree, slit the throat of the young lady who thought one of your roses would look pretty in her hair and remotely detonate your car that some punk stole.

Because crime and punishment do not need to be proportional.

The only person who said this was some edgy new guy and not Donut Section, so you're not making any point.

Wait I'm not the edgiest poster in thread?

I've lost my edge!

[The Alma Mater]

Yesyes. So empty your shotgun into the 8 year old who dares to steal an apple from your appletree, slit the throat of the young lady who thought one of your roses would look pretty in her hair and remotely detonate your car that some punk stole.

Because crime and punishment do not need to be proportional.

By golly that's a nice straw man.

Would you like to show the logic of how you got there?

According to you:
Prank explicitly designed to cause serious injury or death = fine, as long as only thieves (or touchers of your property) would be the victim. That said thieves could be kids does not matter.

So why not skip the whole trouble of devising a prank and do the damage directly ? Much easier.

[Kenmoria]

My country, back in the days of like 1500 AD, use to cut fingers based on how much crime someone committed. And I say that that is fair.

If you committed a crime on purpose, you should be punished. You do some bad shit then expect to get hit hard. Just trimming the ethical gene pool here after all.

There is no genetic understanding of property for things like bikes.

But there are genes that make a person more likely to have less sense of propoerty and thus be more likely to steal. If everyone with this gene was eliminated then theft would become less common. Of course, a significant portion of thefts are done by people without the gene who simply want to steal something but killing everyone with the gene would still have some effect. It would be something I would not support though as there would be millions of innocents who have the gene but have a strong enough sense of morals to not steal, or have the gene dormant.

[Petrolheadia]

There is no genetic understanding of property for things like bikes.

But there are genes that make a person more likely to have less sense of propoerty and thus be more likely to steal. If everyone with this gene was eliminated then theft would become less common. Of course, a significant portion of thefts are done by people without the gene who simply want to steal something but killing everyone with the gene would still have some effect. It would be something I would not support though as there would be millions of innocents who have the gene but have a strong enough sense of morals to not steal, or have the gene dormant.

Bring us some tasty sauce.

[Kenmoria]

But there are genes that make a person more likely to have less sense of propoerty and thus be more likely to steal. If everyone with this gene was eliminated then theft would become less common. Of course, a significant portion of thefts are done by people without the gene who simply want to steal something but killing everyone with the gene would still have some effect. It would be something I would not support though as there would be millions of innocents who have the gene but have a strong enough sense of morals to not steal, or have the gene dormant.

Bring us some tasty sauce.

I read it in a science magazine which I can't remember the name of so here's the best I could do: tasty sauce.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Nothing unethical about that. The thieving scumbag should have known better than to steal someone else's bike in the first place, and if he is also stupid and negligent enough to not check the brakes before riding off, then he doubly deserves what's coming for him.

[Reutoa]

Guy deserves it, no questions about that. But was it wrong to pull the prank, Sure, but you have to remember. If you do something bad, there are always be consequences. This guy stole a bike, he got hurt. Its his fault in the first place.

[Methodological Individualism]

Would you like to show the logic of how you got there?

Leave it electrocuted for all I care.

Where's the shrug emoticon?

[The Slightly Madlands]

I mean it's pretty disproportionate to the crime isn't it really? Still sort of on the fence to it though.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Would you like to show the logic of how you got there?

Leave it electrocuted for all I care.

Where's the shrug emoticon?

Electricity isn't a magical death crack in spacetime.

[The Alma Mater]

I mean it's pretty disproportionate to the crime isn't it really? Still sort of on the fence to it though.

I find it disturbing that so many people think it is perfectly fine to cause grievous bodily harm or even death as long as it is packaged as "a prank to punish thieves".

Happily, suggesting the "prank" aspect should be removed and you should just kill the thief directly is still met with apprehension and calls of strawmen

[Methodological Individualism]

Where's the shrug emoticon?

Electricity isn't a magical death crack in spacetime.

Electrocution is death caused by electric shock, electric current passing through the body. The word is derived from "electro" and "execution", but it is also used for accidental death.[1][2] The word is also used to describe non-fatal injuries due to electricity.[3]

(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrocution ; references included in article)

Death and/or serious injury are likely and obvious results of someone being "electrocuted." If the poster simply meant someone should be tickled, said poster should not use words that don't generally mean "tickled."

Are we done being wrong now?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Electricity isn't a magical death crack in spacetime.

Electrocution is death caused by electric shock, electric current passing through the body. The word is derived from "electro" and "execution", but it is also used for accidental death.[1][2] The word is also used to describe non-fatal injuries due to electricity.[3]

(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrocution ; references included in article)

Death and/or serious injury are likely and obvious results of someone being "electeocuted." If the poster simply meant someone should be tickled, said poster should not use words that don't generally mean "tickled."

Are we done being wrong now?

So he's killing the bike with electrocution?

Already, in the exact same paragraph:

The word is also used to describe non-fatal injuries due to electricity

You couldn't even bother to read your own source, could you? Are you done being wrong now?

[Bears Armed]

Consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractiv ... e_doctrine for a possible parallel to how the law might regard this...

[Methodological Individualism]

(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrocution ; references included in article)

Death and/or serious injury are likely and obvious results of someone being "electeocuted." If the poster simply meant someone should be tickled, said poster should not use words that don't generally mean "tickled."

Are we done being wrong now?

So he's killing the bike with electrocution?

Dunno, you'd have to ask them.

Reading that as "electrified," with the intention that the thief should be "electrocuted," given the context of the discussion, as you perfectly well know, is entirely reasonable.

Otherwise, going out of one's way to defend gibberish would be a little silly anyway.

[Methodological Individualism]

Consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractiv ... e_doctrine for a possible parallel to how the law might regard this...

But...but...muh edgy internet vengence!

[The Alma Mater]

(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrocution ; references included in article)

Death and/or serious injury are likely and obvious results of someone being "electeocuted." If the poster simply meant someone should be tickled, said poster should not use words that don't generally mean "tickled."

Are we done being wrong now?

So he's killing the bike with electrocution?

*sigh*
While linguistically you are correct, we are in a topic where the OP paints a scenario where a bike thief is seriously hurt by a prank (through deliberate sabotaging of the brakes). Considering this context the victim of electrocution is quite obviously meant to be any wannabe thief - who will then end up being a corpse.

I then suggested not bothering with the whole prank thing, and just killing thieves outright. And since stealing a bike is more a kids thing than a thing done by hardened adult criminals I also used examples that involved thieving kids, like a boy stealing an apple.

And that is how the comparison was reached

[Risottia]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GLBvXnGo8fw

THIS IS AN ETHICAL DISCUSSION, NOT A LEGAL ONE
There was a prank where somebody left a bike ready to be stolen, and removed the brakes from that bike, leaving the theift to tumble down the hill and get serverly injured. The their was left to tumble down the hill and get very injured in the process. Do you think it is unethical to pull such a prank. I do. I know the thieves have committed a crime, but no matter how harsh the crime committed Is, nobody deserves to cop that kind of injury. The riders of the stolen bikes could have potentionally gotten really injured and badly hurt themselves. Regardless of crime, no human being deserves such treatment. What do you think NSG?

Well, one thing I know for sure: It's fake.

This.
Also, no, if you look closely, the falls aren't caused by the lack of brakes but by the bike being tied to a steel wire.

Also, frankly, who fucking cares. Assuming it was real (and looks fake, a lot) Idiots who try and steal a bike without even checking if it can work or if it's tied to something deserve the full consequences of their actions. And leaving a bike that's apparently not tied to anything is about as bad as forgetting to lock your door.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

So he's killing the bike with electrocution?

Dunno, you'd have to ask them.

Reading that as "electrified," with the intention that the thief should be "electrocuted," given the context of the discussion, as you perfectly well know, is entirely reasonable.

Of course it is, but as I pointed out before, "electrocution" does not necessarily equate to killing.

Otherwise, going out of one's way to defend gibberish would be a little silly anyway.

It's hardly gibberish; what he meant was clear.

So he's killing the bike with electrocution?

*sigh*
While linguistically you are correct, we are in a topic where the OP paints a scenario where a bike thief is seriously hurt by a prank (through deliberate sabotaging of the brakes). Considering this context the victim of electrocution is quite obviously meant to be any wannabe thief - who will then end up being a corpse.

No, not as a corpse, as we can tell by Donut's reaction to your strawman.

I then suggested not bothering with the whole prank thing, and just killing thieves outright. And since stealing a bike is more a kids thing than a thing done by hardened adult criminals I also used examples that involved thieving kids, like a boy stealing an apple.

And that is how the comparison was reached

Your comparison falls flat though.