this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2026
169 points (96.2% liked)
Not The Onion
21775 readers
1448 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you see someone stealing food... No you didnt. Move on.
Sure but also. If you see someone stealing, no you didn't.
Depends on what and from whom. If I see someone stealing some poor bastard's car, I'm saying something.
Yeah or a bicycle, leave peoples bikes the fuck alone assholes.
Found the dutchie
edit: not a nerve I expected to touch lol
It a go bon?
The guy stuffing 10lbs of ribeye steaks in his jacket is not Jean Valjean.
The guy judging someone created within a sick society of abundance is the problem. Not the individual who feels the need to steal food just to get by. (for whatever reason. Even if they are using the money to buy drugs. Very few addicts got hooked because they partied too much. Most get hooked because our society is unwell from the top down.)
And yet the vast majority of people in that unwell society don't end up being addicts. So there might be some other factors involved besides that, that are more relevant to the actual problem.
Pretty much every person that I know is addicted to caffeine. And those who aren’t have a serious sugar problem.
So addiction determines someone's right to eat? You see that's the difference between you and me. No matter how bad things get for you, I always want you to be fed, loved, housed, have community, access to educate, etc. Because I know those things are not in real short supply. Just those who have never been on the other side.
Unless they pulled up in a jag and are wearing fur.
Ya I'd just feel sad for them, realize I didn't see anything. And then move on with my day.
until I see them go outside to their luxury SUV and leave their shopping cart in the way
then I'm making a scene
Why is this the default response? The only truly upsetting thing is them not returning the shopping cart. Everything else just makes me feel sad for them and our society.
Depends on food. If it's truffle or black caviar, for example...
Who cares. Only worriedos and fascists that's who.
Are you allowed to steal food from anyone or only from certain categories of people / organisations?
Obviously only from those who have excess. If you're Christian, this is literally in the Bible. If you aren't, it's obviously just the right thing to do, for those with excess to give to the needy, willingly or not.
I don't know the verse you're referring to. Of course I'm not a Christian either, technically speaking.
And Jesus said "if you think Malachai has too much, go on and take a little. He won't miss it"
I'm also not Christian (it's just the most likely religion for people on here), but this is one verse I was thinking of:
Leviticus 19:9-10
‘Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the Lord your God.
It's not exactly saying stealing from the rich is good, but it is talking about the common act of the poor taking from fields to feed themselves.
There's more in there, but I can't really be bothered to look into it more for the two of us who both don't follow it. Lol.
How to determine if that person or organisation has an excess?
That's up to you. We aren't writing laws here. Morality is subjective.
Excess isn't a moral term.
But I suppose, your point is different from the OC:, you are suggesting to steal food based on moral views.
Which is problematic, as morality indeed is subjective.
Personally, I struggle to conjure a moral ground to steal food if I know where the food banks are. Or if said food is of a treat / luxury category.
What? What does that even mean? There aren't "moral terms." There's morality and ethics. Those are argued in normal language. For example, here is an discussion about a very similar topic from a Kantian perspective. It's just normal language.
The point is, stealing from the wealthy to feed the poor is, in my opinion, a moral good. I would say most people agree with this. That's why we have so many stories where this is what the hero does.
I said it is, and you agree, but it's also important to keep in mind some people do subscribe to a system of universal morality.
But this takes limited resource from the food banks that they could use to feed others. I think, as a hypothetical, food banks should be able to take money from the wealthy to fund their work. They aren't allowed to do this, and it would negatively effect their efforts if they did it and weren't allowed, so I still see it as a moral good for people capable of taking from the wealthy to do so, before consuming limited resources that could help others.
That partially depends on your definition, but that's fine. Is lobster a luxury? What about steak? What about a salad? What about bread? They're all providing sustenance. Why does the cost effect the morality? If it's moral to steal at all for food, where does cost come into that? Personally, I think people arguing that poor people should only get the absolute worst to survive aren't being considerate of those people. I think they deserve to eat something enjoyable sometimes.
I'll address one point for now and the rest - later (sorry, I'm in a hurry)
It's not the cost, it's intention. If you are hungry - steal bread, not some Jamón Ibérico .
OK, how does that effect the morality? "You're allowed to steal for sustenance, but you aren't allowed to steal something that you enjoy." What is your ethical rule here? You said it's not cost, so it must be about how much you'll like something. What if you like the thing that's cheaper?
I don't think you've really analyzed your beliefs here. I think you've been told you're supposed to think some way but you haven't really considered the implications of that.
As a hypothetical, let's say Musk is hosting a big event. You get word on the vehicles bringing in the food. You have an opportunity to steal it with no risk. Is it morally good to do so, and distribute it to the poor? Keep in mind, this food is going to be very expensive and fancy. Does that change if it's morally good or not?
Exactly.
You ignored the context of everything else. What if you're stealing for sustenance, but it's something you enjoy? Why does enjoying it make it morally bad? You said it isn't about money, so you're only allowed to do it, in your premise, if you don't get any enjoyment out of it. Arguably, everything you eat you'll enjoy if you're hungry enough, so then stealing for sustenance is not actually allowed.
I'll clarify my stance: you're allowed to steal luxury food / treats only if it's the only food available.
And, of course, you should be starving and have no other means to sustain yourself.
To justify stealing is a slippery slope, unfortunately.
In order for this to not be a slippery slope fallacy you have to show how it could reasonable lead to whatever you're claiming it'd lead to (which you didn't even state). What is the negative outcome to (morally) allowing theft for sustenance? Keep in mind, it's still illegal, so there are potential negative consequences. There's just not a negative moral judgement (from those of us who are fine with it).
As the opposite point, hoarding when others are in need, while legal, is immoral (in my opinion). Does that create a slippery slope where people don't create/collect more things for themselves? No, obviously. This is as close to a universal moral principle that I think exists, yet people still hoard. It doesn't create a slippery slope.
I think yes. Look at the billionaires. They leech ability of creation things from the poor
Maybe start with the millions of pounds of food the UK throws out every year? Getting mad about food that was never going to be in your empty stomach is wild to me. Says a lot about your morals.
This. When I lived in housing cooperatives in college 20 years ago we would lie in wait at various places (Trader Joes, Whole Foods, Einstein Bros., Roma Pizza, etc.) and grab ridiculous amounts of good food they would throw away at closing time. We actually got enough perfectly fine food that way that we were able to completely subsizide all of the food costs of the single parents and poor members of our community. I don't think folks can even do this anymore as now places have locked dumpsters or even keep the entire dumpster enclosed in the building itself.
Capitalism is, indeed, a plague. And I don't see any viable cure for it in the observable future.
First, you see if they have enough free time to be sea-lioning.
That's not the case.
Dude made a pretty radical assertion. And I want to see, how it all works in their eyes.
If something is a profitable (and for-profit) food-selling organization, I'd say they have an excess. Which would almost automatically include any grocery chain. Which doesn't make them all evil, of course, nor does it necessarily imply they have huge profits or great excess.
Finally a proper answer. Thank you.
When the media starts calling them a trillionaire.
In that case you are permitted to eat that person itself too, IMO.
Sevruga's OK. Beluga, that's across the line.
everyone deserves a chance to taste Beluga caviar before it's extinct.