Sure it might be nutty and we can argue that but does it negate the blameworthiness of the perpetrator. Can a nutty person also properly assign blame?

Fair enough but I guess I am trusting too much that most commenters understand everyone here agrees with the basic premises that you don't beat women ( or people) and people aren't property.

If you can't point out what relevant property of cars that negates the analogy then you are simply saying analogies as a class of expression is null and void.

Sure you may think its unnecessary but that is a separate issue... (and unnecessary for what end? every end? the relevant ends at the time? what? ) . Nonetheless no one is accusing SAS here of arguing an unnecessary point. That is not the crime here

In this case such a distinction is irrelevant. No one thinks stealing a car is okay because a car is an inanimate object. For purposes of the argument the analogy is useful.

Well what if I ask the question you suggest to the thief and still recommend to the victim that they not leave the door open would your head then explode?

You conclusions are not apparent from his words some amount of inference is required to get there but you are also most likely applying the wrong inference.

Sure you might say it is an insenstive response but do you think the person who says "Well, why are you provoking thieves by not locking the door?" as you put it is defending the thief? Is it possible to be 100% against car theft and also ask a variant of the above question.

So is the general consensus here that Steven A Smith is

No they're not and you're a idiot if you think that is what is says. The fine for littering is greater than the fine for drunk driving, this is probably not because anyone believes littering is worse than drunk driving. It just tells you that comparing punishment of different crimes is sometimes a bad way of judging…

So it seems like everyone has chosen to jump to the least likely explanation of these events because it allows us to throw eggs at an otherwise (deserving?) villain. This is what we laugh at the 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy theorists for.

The same argument can be made about restaurants. Obviously people like to leave the house to do things with other people. Its more a feature than a bug of the human condition.

I love him and I wish him the best and I'd love to say that to him.

You're forgetting the option of continuing to play the game even though it is not 100% safe. We do that all the time. Jumping in the ocean is more dangerous than lying on the beach. There is no reason to jump in the ocean, it actually doesn't pay that well. But we still choose to jump in the ocean even 15 minutes…

A basic tenant of futurism is that in the future all physical laws are negotiable. So in theory everything is possible in the future therefore everything should be pursued. Can't argue with you there, but we probably need narrower guidelines to determine which things we should seriously pursue given that we can't…

see fire resistant paint and volcano analogy. nice thought though

And Beyonce is very, very important to many black girls both in this country and around the world

Shut it down!

My bad. I was watching the world cup final and my friend looked up Neuer on his phone and found an article referring to Neuer coming out. I simply took it as gospel since it seemed plausible to me but after some google searching now I can't seem to find anything on that so my apologies Neuer NTTAWWT.

so losing is frustrating that's obvious but I get the impression that's not what he is referring to.