Respect for Pickpockets?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's not possible. Part of a skill is knowing when it is appropriate to use it.

I think knowing when to apply something is an issue of morals and understanding the problem (which is a separate skill, e.g critical thinking).

Earlier an example was given of a dissident republican shooting a PSNI officer. Regardless of the moral issue, or if discussion would have been a better solution, getting a bullseye from 1000 yards is a skill.

If that sniper was an Olympic athlete instead his skill would be respected, regardless if it's essentially the same shot.

We're not discussing the morals of individuals, just their specific abilities.

You shot yourself in the foot with the thread title, anyway. It says "respect for pickpockets", rather than "recognising the skill involved".

Ya I know, can't change it now though. I think the fact that it's badly titled is clear now.

I'll flip this away from criminals for a second.....you say you talked to a Garda for 30 mins re an accusation......would you have respected the Garda (remember : it's your thread title) had he demonstrated his baton skills ?

Would I have respected the Garda? No.
Would I have respected his baton skill (presuming he was a skilled stick-fighter)? Yes.

Of course in the moment I wouldn't have, but it's difficult to remain objective when you're being beaten on. But if he was in a riot or something and used those same skills I could objectively admire the skills.

Or do you respect him more because he - as part of his skillset - used his discussion/interview/negotiation skills instead ?

If he's a skilled interviewer I would have respected that too.

I would also respect his ability to act appropriately to the situation, but that's a separate skill as far as I'm concerned.


I would argue that Mike Tyson is a skilled boxer but not so disciplined when it comes to arguments and has, I believe, used his skills outside of the ring. I don't think that takes away from his boxing ability though.


I guess it boils down to how you define a skill. Do you take situation reading into consideration or define that as a separate skill? I'm obviously the latter.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's partially separate, and partially the same skill. As I said, no-one recognises a skill if the soccer player uses it inappropriately often enough.....it'll get viewed as "luck" at best.

So the question of how "appropriate" it is is definitely a factor, and that's subjective.

That's an issue of skills within skills I'd say. David Beckham is a skilled kicker taker, not necessarily a skilled tackler. If he confused the two regularly he wouldn't be considered a skilled soccer player but can still bend a ball, which is a skill in itself.

Not really. One is application of the skill in an appropriate environment with the safety of others in mind - similar to a twit doing circles on a dual-carraigeway or driving at 200mph......fine for Schumacher or The Stig, idiotic for a boy-racer.

If The Stig went for a joyride he'd still be the same skilled driver, just in a different environment.

And that "difficult to remain objective" (as you phrase it - not the phrase I would use when it comes to criminals and scumbags) is the nub of the issue....you're saying yourself that you couldn't be "in the moment", but I doubt you would afterwards either, as you sued him and went to the media or whatever.

Like I've said before; I've been pickpocketed, yet I respect the skill that went into it. I've been in fights and lost, but I still respect the other persons ability to kick my ass and I don't begrudge any of them. Sometimes I deserved it, other times I didn't. I don't let either of those issues get in the way of me accepting the fact that they can kick my ass with finesse.

....assuming that they were used appropriately....if he used them on innocent people caught up in the riot (whether you or a friend or just random innocents) I once again doubt that you would.

I disagree, I'm confident I can remain objective when the emotions die down.

Agreed. Because it's appropriate.

Not because it's appropriate but because he's good at it.

You're not separating them that much if you admit yourself that you wouldn't do so "in the moment".

I think trying to discuss these matters from a subjective stance is pointless. Objectivity is key in discussions. I consider myself fairly objective, some might I'm cold. I've told friends their relationships won't work because they asked, and I've told other friends they wouldn't be good at specific jobs they wanted because they can't see others' perspectives. I'm the type of person who will lose their head in the moment but will easily take a step back and look at everything objectively. I've no problems for apologising when in the wrong (I did so the night I was accused after I started on a guy. I was being an idiot, pushed him, squared up to him and afterwards went over to him and apologised).

Just because I can't analyse situations in the moment doesn't mean I can't step back and think objectively. And, as far as I'm concerned, the only opinions worth discussing are objective ones. Subjective opinions can't be reasoned with making debating them a waste of time.

Again, agreed.....but that's only because you've seen him use the skills appropriately, which creates a mental separation.

If somebody wants to get a wallet out of someones pocket without the noticing then pickpocketing is the appropriate skill to use. It could be on or off a stage, doesn't matter. The only question there is legal and moral, neither of which I find relevant to the discussion.

As I suspected earlier, you're not completely the latter.

I am entirely. I admire the skills of pickpockets despite my opinion of them personally, that's not up for debate.