moeys91 doesn't quite understand, yet. After "... treat it as an unplanned donation" should have been "So, you should feel free to receive an unplanned donation from someone who seems to need it less than you. That's how this works. Cheers!"
Interesting that moeys91's "could be" immediately went to "in greater need of the items than you." That's rather a large assumption. It could also have been someone who had less need of them or about the same, who just wanted to take them. It's revealing that the assumption is that stealing comes from need rather than criminal intent.
That's not too surprising, in someone for whom "need" may mean not much more than "I'd like to have that right now, and I can't think of any reason why I should trade anything valuable for it, especially if that would require doing something I don't care for and deferring my gratification."
It makes me think of the quasi-socialism my husband and I practice. If we're both thinking of heating up leftovers for lunch, I don't just grab something I know we both want. I might check to make sure he wouldn't mind my hogging it, or I might decide it gives me as much pleasure to see him enjoying it as it would to enjoy it myself. It works because there is a mutual tie of affection; I'm genuinely gratified by his welfare. With strangers, I expect to be allowed to make the decision whether I keep something for my own use or turn it over to someone else, perhaps because I perceive a greater need, perhaps for some other reason.
Someone is going to have to sit these children down and teach them some of life's long words.
9 comments:
Lions are definitely stronger together with zebras.
moeys91 doesn't quite understand, yet. After "... treat it as an unplanned donation" should have been "So, you should feel free to receive an unplanned donation from someone who seems to need it less than you. That's how this works. Cheers!"
Xe's been Defunded.
Peaceful looters.
Eric Hines
LOL
The zebras may have a chance to finally learn a lesson. If they survive.
Interesting that moeys91's "could be" immediately went to "in greater need of the items than you." That's rather a large assumption. It could also have been someone who had less need of them or about the same, who just wanted to take them. It's revealing that the assumption is that stealing comes from need rather than criminal intent.
That's not too surprising, in someone for whom "need" may mean not much more than "I'd like to have that right now, and I can't think of any reason why I should trade anything valuable for it, especially if that would require doing something I don't care for and deferring my gratification."
It makes me think of the quasi-socialism my husband and I practice. If we're both thinking of heating up leftovers for lunch, I don't just grab something I know we both want. I might check to make sure he wouldn't mind my hogging it, or I might decide it gives me as much pleasure to see him enjoying it as it would to enjoy it myself. It works because there is a mutual tie of affection; I'm genuinely gratified by his welfare. With strangers, I expect to be allowed to make the decision whether I keep something for my own use or turn it over to someone else, perhaps because I perceive a greater need, perhaps for some other reason.
" It's revealing that the assumption is that stealing comes from need rather than criminal intent."
For the well meaning leftist, understanding human nature has always been a weakness.
I saw a great quote from Camille Paglia recently-
"They do not understand the fragility of civilization, and the constant nearness of savage nature"
Of course, this is also why they can so easily accept things like trans and reject biological sex.
Post a Comment