I haven’t moved the goalposts.

What are you talking about?

I’ve been very consistent with what I’ve been saying. At no point have I claimed that people are being too flexible with their morals.

I’ve essentially made three points:

Theft is morally wrong, regardless of whether it can be justified in a particular circumstance.

Lemmy is being two-faced in how it applies its moral standards.

Theft is, by definition, wrongdoing.

I’ve repeatedly acknowledged that theft is highly nuanced and that there are situations where it can be morally justified. I’ve said that multiple times. My criticism is that many Lemmy users will admonish people who disagree with their personal opinions, yet turn around and excuse or even celebrate theft whenever it’s directed at something they dislike.

Either theft is theft, or it isn’t. Definitions don’t change based on personal opinion, and neither does the law. Whether an act is morally justified is a separate question from whether it still fits the definition of theft.