jamoch wrote:
And so, you decide that there is no way that you are going to pay for that drink. In other words, 'you specifically did not pay because [substitute "you" for "she"] did not want to give to the [sub "7-11" for "charity"]. When the store manager catches you and calls your Mom, try the line that you didn't pay because you specifically did not want to give to the 7-11.
The race organizer will get a good laugh too.
Once again you have made a leap that does not make logical sense.
My scenario:
RACE pays all costs. CHARITY gets all entry fees. Bandit won't pay entry fee b/c Bandit does not want to support CHARITY. RACE loses money-this may be stealing. CHARITY does not get Bandit's entry $, but that is not stealing from the CHARITY.
In your example. Bandit is steals from 7-11. I agree that this would be stealing. Just like it would be stealing from the RACE. However, that is not the scenario we were talking about. A correct analogy would be, Charity and 7-11 agree that $1.00 of every slurpee sale goes to charity. Bandit steals slurpee from 7-11. Bandit could be charged with theft from 7-11, but not with theft from Charity.
please stop changing the examples and then saying that my logic is bad - it makes you look silly.