3 ms·

> 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.