3 ms·

They want money and there's no reason not to do it. This isn't a matter of meeting peoples needs, most thefts are not of anything necessary. It's just a job to

by llbbdd 1y ago

They want money and there's no reason not to do it. This isn't a matter of meeting peoples needs, most thefts are not of anything necessary. It's just a job to them.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
> This isn't a matter of meeting peoples needs Curious how you reach this conclusion from the point that they do it for money? > They want money > It's just a job to them. That's pretty much exactly how most people meet their needs: do a job for money. That they are stealing things other than what is directly needed is a distraction from the point that they are stealing to meet their needs.
- lazide 1y ago
  Steal bread to eat it? Meeting needs (directly) Steal baby formula to sell on the black market? May or may not be meeting needs, but it definitely isn’t direct!
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
    > May or may not be Yes, this is my point. It can't be concluded that they are not stealing to meet their needs.
    - lazide 1y ago
      It certainly can be concluded it isn’t for a direct need, which is not ‘stealing bread to feed starving kids’.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > it isn’t for a direct need Well, right, but that's not what I was refuting.
        lazide 1y ago
        Stealing to meet abstract secondary needs is criminal for a reason. People don’t sympathize with it because everyone has needs, and if everyone stole to meet them instead of find something more productive to do, society would collapse into anarchy. So yes, I am refuting what you are saying.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > So yes, I am refuting what you are saying. You're not. You acknowledge my point > Stealing to meet abstract secondary needs But do not refute that this is the reason for the theft, only argue that it is wrong regardless. My only point is that the theft is "a matter of meeting peoples needs". > criminal for a reason I'm not sure of your overall point. Stealing bread to eat is also criminal for the same reasons.
        lazide 1y ago
        If your point is ‘stealing is to meet people’s needs’ then there is no point. Unless you think anyone was proposing they did it to set it on fire instead? Needs are also often defined arbitrarily, and many people steal because they ‘need’ more drugs, for example. So, who cares?
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > Needs are also often defined arbitrarily I thought they'd be defined as real needs like food, warmth, safety. That seems a reasonable assumption. > then there is no point No, there is a point. The commenter I initially replied to wrote > This isn't a matter of meeting peoples needs My point is that this statement seems to be false for the reasons that I've given.

by llbbdd 1y ago

They want money and there's no reason not to do it. This isn't a matter of meeting peoples needs, most thefts are not of anything necessary. It's just a job to them.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago

> This isn't a matter of meeting peoples needs Curious how you reach this conclusion from the point that they do it for money? > They want money > It's just a job to them. That's pretty much exactly how most people meet their needs: do a job for money. That they are stealing things other than what is directly needed is a distraction from the point that they are stealing to meet their needs.

lazide 1y ago
Steal bread to eat it? Meeting needs (directly) Steal baby formula to sell on the black market? May or may not be meeting needs, but it definitely isn’t direct!
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  > May or may not be Yes, this is my point. It can't be concluded that they are not stealing to meet their needs.
  - lazide 1y ago
    It certainly can be concluded it isn’t for a direct need, which is not ‘stealing bread to feed starving kids’.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
      > it isn’t for a direct need Well, right, but that's not what I was refuting.
      - lazide 1y ago
        Stealing to meet abstract secondary needs is criminal for a reason. People don’t sympathize with it because everyone has needs, and if everyone stole to meet them instead of find something more productive to do, society would collapse into anarchy. So yes, I am refuting what you are saying.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > So yes, I am refuting what you are saying. You're not. You acknowledge my point > Stealing to meet abstract secondary needs But do not refute that this is the reason for the theft, only argue that it is wrong regardless. My only point is that the theft is "a matter of meeting peoples needs". > criminal for a reason I'm not sure of your overall point. Stealing bread to eat is also criminal for the same reasons.
        lazide 1y ago
        If your point is ‘stealing is to meet people’s needs’ then there is no point. Unless you think anyone was proposing they did it to set it on fire instead? Needs are also often defined arbitrarily, and many people steal because they ‘need’ more drugs, for example. So, who cares?
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
        > Needs are also often defined arbitrarily I thought they'd be defined as real needs like food, warmth, safety. That seems a reasonable assumption. > then there is no point No, there is a point. The commenter I initially replied to wrote > This isn't a matter of meeting peoples needs My point is that this statement seems to be false for the reasons that I've given.