3 ms·
> And these choices were insufficient to save him > If you think that is what I said, you did not understand what I wrote. I cannot think otherwise because yo
by protomyth 11y ago
> And these choices were insufficient to save him
> If you think that is what I said, you did not understand what I wrote.
I cannot think otherwise because you seem to say that stealing is still the only means of survival. I offered what this person could do instead of stealing. Stealing is still not the only solution.
- vidarh 11y ago> I cannot think otherwise because you seem to say that stealing is still the only means of survival. I offered what this person could do instead of stealing. Stealing is still not the only solution. My point, which you still do not seem to understand, is that someone who is starving is not in a frame of mind where you can expect them to be able to calmly and logically go through the available options, weigh them, find the most moral one, and execute on it. Hence why I asked if you have ever experienced starvation rather than just hunger. To me the above ranks with the (admittedly apocryphal) "let them eat cake". Technically, yes, he "could" have done many things.
- protomyth 11y ago> To me the above ranks with the (admittedly apocryphal) "let them eat cake". Technically, yes, he "could" have done many things No, hell no. Its not let them eat cake. Its there were other ways to save yourself and not cause pain to others.
- vidarh 11y agoSo "let them eat cake." In other words: You still don't understand what I wrote above, and you're still talking from privilege.