It is in fact an argument. I am arguing that theft implies harm, through the the taking of property of which the original owner can no longer enjoy its use. This comes straight from the dictionary: "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"
Now, this argument may be wrong, and maybe theft can also apply to things that are non-exhaustible, such as public goods, but that just makes my argument an incorrect one, not a non-existent one. Your's, on the other hand, seems to lack even this. --
Lack even what? You're starting to annoy me. I did in fact state what I believe the harm to be, and you pompously blew it off.
I note you haven't even addressed the trespass issue.
That's because the trespass issue is separate from the theft issue, and the theft issue is what we are discussing. Certainly, if the owners of the movie theater made it known that people remaining on their property after their movie is over are trespassing, than that is a legitimate argument against the morality of movie hopping.
The trespass issue is in fact a valid issue in your movie-hopping example, and I mentioned it early on. You don't like it, come up with a better example.
You say the movie owners should "make it known that people remaining on their property after their movie is over are trespassing." They do. When you purchase your ticket, it clearly grants you admission to a particular showing of a particular movie. To gain admission to the theaters, you have to show your ticket to a ticket taker and pass through a gate or rope. It's pretty damn disingenuous to think that gives you a license to spend the night in the theater.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
