>Saying "yeah, someone else SHOULD pay for their non-necessity"? I can't imagine thinking like that. >Just because someone runs into financial difficulty doesn

>Saying "yeah, someone else SHOULD pay for their non-necessity"? I can't imagine thinking like that. >Just because someone runs into financial difficulty doesn't mean they can just stop paying for things. Nor does it mean that anyone else has an obligation to provide them with something for free. Particularly when that something is a luxury. Heck, if they're so short on money they could've sold their expensive Samsung phone and replaced it with a cheap one. That wasn't remotely what I was saying. I wasn't advocating for anyone to get non-necessities for free nor that difficulties automatically absolves people of responsibility. I was saying that to dismiss any consideration of life and death situations because any deaths would be on the people not paying is fucked up.