If you have no other alternatives, go ahead and steal. Just don't get caught.

Honestly, if you're backed into a corner, it's more than likely a necessity such as food or water; the store isn't going to miss it that much.

Are you saying that (IRL) if you were talking to a friend and they complained that they wanted to watch/listen/etc. some movie/music/etc., you wouldn't tell them just to download it and not worry? (You might say no, but that's what everyone I know says).

Also subtlety has its place and if you want something taken, something that goes against what people have been doing for the last 2 millennium, you are going to have to make things a bit less subtle.

HOWEVER, that said as well, I've been thinking about it, and I think that what was said was wrong, they should not be stealing. Worst comes to the worst, they get the dole or beg. Their standard of living may significantly drop, but stealing isn't the only way. Heck, people in China get in a month the same amount of money as it takes to buy a cup of coffee.

You're still missing the point. Excusing it =/= doing it. There's world of difference between saying "yeah, I do it, and you should to" and "It's alright to do it". You may have reasons, you may have motives, but you never have an excuse.

Then technically, the priest is not excusing it, but rationalising it and placing it into proportion to our shortcomings.

That said, it is a matter of fact much food is thrown away; this has reasons from being spoiled to preventing saturation of the market, but I doubt somebody who qualifies as destitute can produce that much effective demand.

Actually I would tell him to download it.

That's what I mean! You would be encouraging them to nick it

I would tell them to suicide
Since lesser people=more oxygen for the rest

Like I said, I'm a hypocrite

Even so, I'm not making some s*** excuse. I won't deny it.

The priest also does not deny that stealing is stealing, nor that it is not the most gracious option on Earth.

The lesser of a million evils sort of thing

He's trying to excuse it.

No, he isn't. Just read the article. He is not saying it is not a crime, nor that it is not dreadful. He is just saying it is understandable and a method to survive, while barely affecting large companies (contrary to their claims).

Thus, the excuse. Heck, it's one of the five typical excuses used by delinquents, denial of blame by saying there is no victim.

That is not an excuse, that is a fact. It is a fact the companies themselves deny that truth, so they are the ones making excuses here.

You are also contorting views by saying that the claims is that there is no victim; that is your own invention. There is a victim, but the victim is barely harmed compared to the harms inflicted by itself.

If your example in your previous post is an excuse, what he does would not be an excuse.

A victim that is "barely harmed" is barely a victim.