4 ms·

I think, in life, sometimes we just don't quite think things through. You're busy, preoccupied, whatever. You don't get all the facts and just assume the best.

I think, in life, sometimes we just don't quite think things through. You're busy, preoccupied, whatever. You don't get all the facts and just assume the best. You get to the auction and realize your daughter loves the goat a lot. You don't spend all day in an analytical mode, anticipating the worst cases, and then things happen and it's then too late to act. It's like being careless where you park your nice car and having it get keyed. We can hunch over a little more, strive to blend in, build taller fences, be more cynical, make a million plans and expect the worst, or we can advocate for change and try to be more patient, kind and accepting, and, I think, I would like to advocate the latter.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> or we can advocate for change and try to be more patient, kind and accepting, and, I think, I would like to advocate the latter 4-H auctions finance the programme. If the auctions become unreliable because parents couldn’t bother to identify an attachment early and message their intent to renegotiate a contract until right before the auction, the programme is threatened. It’s also baffling the parents didn’t try to buy the goat off the purchaser, its lawful owner, instead of asking the venue to void a contract. (EDIT: It appears they did and the buyer said they were fine reversing the contract. Nobody did anything to document this, however, and the family taking the goat home after the auction prejudiced them.) It’s also against the pathos of the programme? Knowing you’re raising livestock is the point.
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  > It’s also baffling the parents didn’t try to buy the goat off the purchaser I think they did? That's how I read "Long offered to “pay back” the fair for the loss of Cedar’s income" anyway.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > Long offered to “pay back” the fair for the loss of Cedar’s income It wasn’t the Fair’s property. It was the purchaser’s. The loss of income wasn’t the point. The property interest was.
    - Beltalowda 4y ago
      Oh okay, I think I don't fully understand how all of this works. Either way, regardless of the legality of the matter, I don't think you should confuse "the legal thing to do" with "the moral thing to do". They are not always identical.
vogt 4y ago
I don’t mean to attack you here, but I feel like it isn’t fair to paint my side of the argument as one of non empathy. I wish that the Shasta Farm Association and the dickhead that made the purchase would have said “let’s let it go”. But they didn’t, and I don’t agree that some egregious civil rights violation happened as a result. That is simply my opinion.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- superchroma 4y ago
  No, not an egregious civil rights violation, but an everyday, mundane brand of evil. Rules, contracts and law were duly followed, and empathy didn't come into the picture. Someone with power could have paused and tried to find an alternative path, but they didn't. This reality exists in stark contrast to the one depicted in Hallmark and Disney films, but the sad part is how little effort separated this situation from an alternative outcome.
  - vogt 4y ago
    Fair enough. I agree.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> or we can advocate for change and try to be more patient, kind and accepting, and, I think, I would like to advocate the latter 4-H auctions finance the programme. If the auctions become unreliable because parents couldn’t bother to identify an attachment early and message their intent to renegotiate a contract until right before the auction, the programme is threatened. It’s also baffling the parents didn’t try to buy the goat off the purchaser, its lawful owner, instead of asking the venue to void a contract. (EDIT: It appears they did and the buyer said they were fine reversing the contract. Nobody did anything to document this, however, and the family taking the goat home after the auction prejudiced them.) It’s also against the pathos of the programme? Knowing you’re raising livestock is the point.

Beltalowda 4y ago
> It’s also baffling the parents didn’t try to buy the goat off the purchaser I think they did? That's how I read "Long offered to “pay back” the fair for the loss of Cedar’s income" anyway.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Long offered to “pay back” the fair for the loss of Cedar’s income It wasn’t the Fair’s property. It was the purchaser’s. The loss of income wasn’t the point. The property interest was.
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    Oh okay, I think I don't fully understand how all of this works. Either way, regardless of the legality of the matter, I don't think you should confuse "the legal thing to do" with "the moral thing to do". They are not always identical.

vogt 4y ago

I don’t mean to attack you here, but I feel like it isn’t fair to paint my side of the argument as one of non empathy. I wish that the Shasta Farm Association and the dickhead that made the purchase would have said “let’s let it go”. But they didn’t, and I don’t agree that some egregious civil rights violation happened as a result. That is simply my opinion.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
superchroma 4y ago
No, not an egregious civil rights violation, but an everyday, mundane brand of evil. Rules, contracts and law were duly followed, and empathy didn't come into the picture. Someone with power could have paused and tried to find an alternative path, but they didn't. This reality exists in stark contrast to the one depicted in Hallmark and Disney films, but the sad part is how little effort separated this situation from an alternative outcome.
- vogt 4y ago
  Fair enough. I agree.