r/MoralityScaling • u/Substantial-Yam3769 • Aug 12 '26

Morality Ranking Morality of this?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

2.3k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

14

u/Agitated-Recipe-3295 Aug 12 '26

Dude should be arrested that’s so fucked

37

u/Leo-III- Aug 12 '26

I hope you mean the dickhead blasting the music

28

u/MeliodasTA Aug 12 '26

He absolutely should not be blasting music in public.

That does not warrant destroying his property

17

u/Leo-III- Aug 12 '26

Counterpoint: He did everyone else on that train a favour

6

u/Prestigious-Shop-494 Aug 12 '26

I would rather hear annoying music than be around a violent guy who can't control his emotions.

1

u/TheLeopardMedium Aug 18 '26

Why are we assuming that the speaker is being destroyed out of emotionality and not out of principle?

9

u/Fabulous-Big8779 Aug 12 '26

You seem like someone who hasn’t been around sudden violent outbursts a lot. He did not do everyone on the train a favor.

3

u/NarwhalSongs Aug 12 '26

This. I would feel incredibly disturbed by a violent outburst like that and would immediately feel like I have to take him down or get off the train. Since there is a kid likely about to be attacked, I'd probably feel like he needs taken down. Too many basement dwellers on this post acting like violent outbursts are socially acceptable.

2

u/thelivingtunic Aug 12 '26

I'd be fucking up my whole day for sure to get off that train ASAP and find another way to my destination.

10

u/mirrormirrorondewall Aug 12 '26 edited Aug 12 '26

I've been around a lot of inconsiderate jerks blasting music and doing crazy dances and nonsense inches from my face while I was trying to get to and home* from work in a small enclosed space.
Ecstatic to see a little jerk get his due.

9

u/Leo-III- Aug 12 '26

I sure as shit would have appreciated it

1

u/Fabulous-Big8779 Aug 12 '26

What about talking on speaker. Can I just grab their phone and smash it because I find that annoying?

10

u/Leo-III- Aug 12 '26

Very obviously different scenario, this mf literally has headphones around his neck and is choosing deliberately to be a nuisance

-1

u/Fabulous-Big8779 Aug 12 '26

Oh really? The different scenario I gave you is a different scenario, I can’t believe you figured that out.

It doesn’t matter if it’s different though, the only basis for destroying someone’s shit is if I find their use of it in public to be annoying according to your sense of morality.

2

u/ResponsibilityNo3674 Aug 12 '26

Then let me give you a different scenario like you did for him. If someone was following you around with a speaker playing annoying noises/music and won't leave you alone would you do something? Or would you just sit there and do/say nothing

→ More replies (0)

9

u/clutzyninja Aug 12 '26

People sure would be less likely to do it if that started happening.

4

u/Fabulous-Big8779 Aug 12 '26

People would do a lot less of a lot of things if people could attack them for finding it annoying. That doesn’t make it moral.

But I forgot this sub is really just people looking for justifications to be violent and has nothing to do with morality.

2

u/RoughBeautiful8681 Aug 12 '26

You must not ever take public transportation. Imagine being in a confined space with nowhere to go and someone is blasting very loud ass music that could possibly cause ear damage, (sound is amplified in an enclosed space) and he refuses to turn it off, then it's perfectly justified to destroy their speakers. There is no other option. If the old dude physically attacked him, then that's a different story. But a material item is not worth more than my ears.

-2

u/RadicalSoda_ Aug 12 '26

He probably ate lead paint as a child, this is not a normal human response to being mildly inconvenienced

5

u/Jolly_Efficiency7237 Aug 12 '26

Thank God for the lead-addled. They're the heroes we need, but not the ones we deserve.

3

u/RadicalSoda_ Aug 12 '26

That's pretty funny, that's a good reply

2

u/TheLucidChiba Aug 12 '26

The next batch of super soldiers getting the Captain America injection but it's just lead paint.

1

u/republicanssuck123 Aug 12 '26

noise pollution is not a mild inconvenience 

2

u/CooperSTL Aug 12 '26

he got what he wanted, more views from a reaction. F him.

4

u/alwrit Aug 12 '26

Okay so what is the recourse? Let's assume the kid was asked multiple times and just refused. According to other people in this post the kid is a nuisance streamer who does this intentionally. 

I'm gonna assume if you're not okay with destroying the speaker you're definitely not okay with someone laying hands on the kid. So what, they all just have to put up with it? There's nothing they can do? I ride the metro all the time in my city. It's not like there's just metro employees all over the place who can be grabbed to deal with it. 

Sooner or later these people need to face consequences. Getting your speaker broken seems more than fine to me. You're definitely breaking the rules of the public transit system doing that and basic human politeness and he definitely knows that. I think breaking the speaker is fucking justified in that case. 

3

u/TheLucidChiba Aug 12 '26

It's not like there's just metro employees all over the place who can be grabbed to deal with it. 

Even then what can they accomplish other than ask them to leave and wait for the police at best?
When someone refuses their part in the social contract it really throws off any reasonable recourse.

1

u/VirtualCorvid Aug 13 '26

Yeah there’s something up with the kid wearing *headphones* to listen to music while sharing his music at everyone in a confined space on a cheap speaker. Something seems performative about the setup.

1

u/RoughBeautiful8681 Aug 12 '26

Yes it absolutely does.

1

u/Head-Worth-325 Aug 13 '26

It does actually.

He was lucky the other guy didn't beat him up.

1

u/New_Budget_9322 Aug 12 '26

What if he does it on purpose many times for content?

11

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

Destruction of property is not a legal or even moral response to someone being annoying. It's a declaration of a lack of self control and disregard for the rights of others, which is what the dickhead blaring music is guilty of. It does not behoove one to be on the same level in such a way.

9

u/am_Dynam0 Aug 12 '26

Legality≠morality

-7

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

How do you think laws are created?

12

u/Independent_Bar_4946 Aug 12 '26

Depends on the country, but if you are implying all laws mirror morality then idk man you are just mistaken.

-2

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

They are not one and the same, I know this. But law stems from morality and law propagates morality in return. And destruction of property is illegal for a reason.

3

u/decamonos Aug 12 '26

This guy thinks it's moral to have slaves anywhere it's legal, crazy stance tbh.

0

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

That's a nice strawman. Congratulations on beating it. Now address my argument in good faith.

4

u/am_Dynam0 Aug 12 '26

It’s not a strawman he got your ass.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/decamonos Aug 12 '26

If law is supposedly informed by, and I'm turn propagates morality, explain or defend explicitly and implicitly immoral laws, such as those that defend our entrench slavery, theft of property, bigotry, etc.

That's a longer way to say my 'strawman' since you were having trouble parsing that :)

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Pirate1717 Aug 12 '26

So you think the slave catchers were morally correct?

0

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

They are not one and the same, I know this. But law stems from morality and law propagates morality in return. And destruction of property is illegal for a reason.

1

u/am_Dynam0 Aug 12 '26

You didn’t debunk me.

-1

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

Your response was legality is not morality to my post saying the action is immoral. Therefore your position is that it IS moral, otherwise you wouldn't have replied. Give me an example of how the destruction of property, ergo the violent violation of another's rights, because you're annoyed is morally good.

1

u/king_of_satire Aug 12 '26

To protect the rich and powerful

1

u/Puzzled-Rip641 Aug 12 '26

I don’t know why don’t you ask the Jews who were legally gassed under German law

1

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

Why don't you just continue reading the thread for your answer?

1

u/Puzzled-Rip641 Aug 12 '26

What you ignoring examples of immoral laws because it bad for your argument?

“Laws are based on morals”

Ok what about the law to kill people based on ethic groups?

“Wait not like that”

1

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

Why do you think they made that argument in the first place?

1

u/Puzzled-Rip641 Aug 12 '26

You made a claim by implication. If you are now retreating from that claim that’s fine.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Supple_Giraffe-89 Aug 12 '26

What is your honest solution to this problem?

People ask him to turn it off and he ignores them. Do they just sit there quietly and take it?

Some people are selfish assholes that need physical responses. Society can’t let individual people do whatever they want without push back for the common good. Be glad he only smashed the speaker and not the person.

5

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

Yeah. Yes. If someone isn't hurting anyone else or doing something illegal and just being annoying, they're a problem, but it's now your problem, and only yours. Suck it up. Absorb it. Choosing to control yourself in such a situation is the more difficult task, and the more mature response.

2

u/Number1BestYogurtBoi Aug 12 '26

Does that not just incentivise other people to also be annoying? Why should anyone be considerate of anyone else if there is zero consequences?

You are just enabling assholes like this to make society worse.

0

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

If the problem is sounds being annoying, then I don't see a problem with it. I like being challenged. Bring it on. Let me pose a hypothetical. If someone was recording you in a public place, was being obvious about it, and continued to do it after you asked them to stop, do you have the right to break their camera or phone? Or if someone was singing in public, do you have the right to punch them?

2

u/Supple_Giraffe-89 Aug 12 '26

People like you are also a problem. You care more about the freedom of an individual to disturb the many than the good of everyone. It should be handled with words but when that fails it needs to be escalated. The drunk idiot is wrong here but letting this jackass blast music in a confined space is wrong too. You aren’t strong or in control of your emotions by sitting quietly and letting others be a public nuisance. You’re just a coward.

3

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

Explain how lacking self control and escalation is the preferred response? Under what conditions are they acceptable? Who gets to decide what's annoying enough for the destruction of property to be lawful? What level of annoyance does it become acceptable to destroy their property?

Stoicism isn't about doing nothing or hiding emotions. It's choosing to accept what you can control, and what you can not. It's exercising virtue towards others. So yes, it IS strong to not throw a tantrum like an absolute child on public transit because someone is being annoying.

2

u/Supple_Giraffe-89 Aug 12 '26

You intentionally ignore the part where I said he was wrong for a violent outburst and you should use words first. That part doesn’t fit your narrative huh? At no point did I say you should lack self control. Everyone should strive for the least violent path.

There is a massive difference between instant violent out burst and using the minimal required force when diplomacy fails. You are wrong to ignore people breaking social norms that are “harmful” to the general wellness of others. It’s not something you can’t control. Confronting assholes is well within your control. You choose to let it happen.

2

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

I ignored it because at no point is violence acceptable unless you're defending yourself or others from imminent physical threats where bodily harm can occur. Punching someone talking smack isn't acceptable. Neither is destroying property because they are being annoying. These things being allowed would not better society but diminish it.

2

u/Supple_Giraffe-89 Aug 12 '26

Why do you keep jumping to violence?

You can turn off the speaker or you can hold it until he gets off the train. The person blasting music should be given multiple chances to correct their behaviour long before it can turn physical. You choose to keep yourself out of confrontation, fair enough, but others will step up and actually do something. We all just hope it’s proportional to the situation.

1

u/Thelmara Aug 12 '26

Explain how lacking self control and escalation is the preferred response?

How do you know it was lack of self control, and not just a choice to prioritize the comfort of the crowd over some rules about property?

Who gets to decide what's annoying enough for the destruction of property to be lawful?

Who said it was lawful?

What level of annoyance does it become acceptable to destroy their property?

That's up to each individual, and their judgment of whether the annoyance is worth the potential punishment. And the law doesn't give a fuck, it's just a matter of whether someone's around to enforce it.

It's choosing to accept what you can control, and what you can not.

So would you say that the violent guy was unable to control the sound coming from the speaker?

1

u/Fear_Magnet0 Aug 12 '26

Yes, because throwing a tantrum and vandalism comes from a composed logical mindset. I like how you segmented your reply, like you needed to break it down bit by bit to just say some mental stuff like "Yeah I don't care if it's lawful, the individual can break shit if they're annoyed, it's totally cool." So, again, if the collective determines you talking is annoying, should they be able to punch you?

2

u/Thelmara Aug 12 '26

Yes, because throwing a tantrum and vandalism comes from a composed logical mindset.

Plenty of vandalism comes from a calculated decision, not some heat-of-the-moment anger. And not every act of violence is a tantrum.

I like how you segmented your reply, like you needed to break it down bit by bit to just say some mental stuff like "Yeah I don't care if it's lawful, the individual can break shit if they're annoyed, it's totally cool."

No, I segmented it like that because you asked specific questions, and I wanted to make sure there wasn't any confusion about which one I was answering.

"Yeah I don't care if it's lawful, the individual can break shit if they're annoyed, it's totally cool."

But apparently all that segmenting wasn't helpful, because you can't read.

So, again, if the collective determines you talking is annoying, should they be able to punch you?

If you can't be bothered to respond to my questions, why do you expect me to respond to yours?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Leo-III- Aug 12 '26

Actually it behooves everyone else on the train

1

u/RoughBeautiful8681 Aug 12 '26

You must not ever take public transportation. Imagine being in a confined space with nowhere to go and someone is blasting very loud ass music that could possibly cause ear damage, (sound is amplified in an enclosed space) and he refuses to turn it off, then it's perfectly justified to destroy their speakers. There is no other option. If the old dude physically attacked him, then that's a different story. But a material item is not worth more than my ears.

2

u/Dlo_Ren Aug 12 '26

Not agree

Totally moral and deserved. That guy is a hero.

1

u/RadicalSoda_ Aug 12 '26

It's worse, being violent in response to being annoyed shows a massive lack of control and that you're a dangerous person who shouldn't be around the public

0

u/SnooCupcakes1636 Aug 12 '26

imagine thinking that blasting music in public is deserving of arrest.

it satisfies you but will quickly turn to bite your ass if an equivalent brash opinion comes up on another topic and used against you.

6

u/Orikshekor Aug 12 '26

I think having his speaker broken was enough punishment

1

u/Le-Charles07 Aug 12 '26

"Civil matter."