"Clowns entertaining goats" seems like an apt metaphor for some of the pot-stirrers on the forum and those that follow them.
Theft is theft, regardless of the motivation behind it. It's not justified because of a person's circumstance. I'm actually a little surprised that people who work for a living would think that it's ever okay for someone to take the fruit of their labor. If you do, PM me your address. I know some folks who consider themselves hungry ;-)@spicy1 wrote:
How hungry or sick or prejudiced against do you need to be before you force someone or some institution to hand over part of their legally or illegally gotten goods so that you or who you represent can survive for now and thrive in the future?
Probably want to read up on your history, but that aside...
If a mother had starving children and they were on the cusp of dying, would it still not be justified to steal a loaf of bread from a store... Judges will give leniency...
Does it change if the theft is from an individual rather than painting it as something as non-personal as a "store"? Or is it okay to steal from a faceless entity, just not from a person? Theft is always wrong. I agree with you that there are different degrees of wrong; that's why we have different penalties depending upon the action and even the motivation. A kid taking a joyride in my car is as guilty of theft as a pro taking it to a chopshop. Same with the red-herring mother with the starving child versus the person who lives off their shoplifting. Both wrong, but the penalties ought to fit the crime. So, yes, judges give leniency where warranted -- they don't absolve the perpetrator of the crime, only show mercy to the punishment. They're still guilty of committing the crime.
If those of you who think it's okay to steal because one is in "need", please send me your address. I know several people who feel their needs are life-and-death who would be happy to visit.