> 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.
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?
> 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.