3 ms·
I would normally agree _IF_ the person didn't already have to deal with his wife's cancer. Under the US health system no less. Some other reason? Meh, it's jus
by outworlder 5y ago
I would normally agree _IF_ the person didn't already have to deal with his wife's cancer. Under the US health system no less.
Some other reason? Meh, it's just a job. But getting thrown into distress, financial or otherwise, warrants looking out for oneself (and family) first.
Choose your battles.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y agoThe more the collective situation worsen, the worst all individual cases go. You're advocating a vicious cycle, or I can't see a possible equilibrium.
- wokwokwok 5y agoI think that as long as in general folk do the right thing, if a few folk “unfairly” do the wrong thing because of extenuating circumstances like having cancer (or a family member having that or something else serious)… well, that’s ok. Calling for universal absolute behaviour from everyone is unkind, and, statistically not necessary for the outcomes you want. Basically; it’s easy to say “call them out!” when it’s not you and youre not taking any risks. Pretty nice and comfortable to sit in your armchair and say that… I think there are a lot of people here to want someone else to do it, but aren’t willing to do it themselves.