@wayne,
wayne wrote: That is undeniably true.
I cannot, however, fail to be saddened by this.
While reading Band of Brothers, I was angered
to read that the 101st returned to England to find
their lockers rifled and their effects stolen.
By fellow soldiers no less.
Justice is often all we have, it cannot, however, replace human decency.
THAT is the human condition. Its been that way for a
WHILE.
(
Before that, it was
worse.)
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
wayne wrote:Obviously the maid placed little value in trust and honor either.
The property is incidental, easily replaced.
That 's not how my friend described it.
She was distraught; said it was heavy old
gold jewelry,
with
rubies and of great sentimental value,
qua its provenance.
David
yes but wasn't it you that said:
Quote:When I was 11, against my better judgment,
I allowed myself to be persuaded to leave my property
exposed to theft by some 13 year olds of my acquaintance.
Predictably: it was stolen and consumed.
That was a very VALUABLE lesson
not to trust anyone with more than u r willing to lose.
Isn’t the one who decides to entrust that which he has to another, the chooser of the possibility?
@dpmartin,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
wayne wrote:Obviously the maid placed little value in trust and honor either.
The property is incidental, easily replaced.
That 's not how my friend described it.
She was distraught; said it was heavy old
gold jewelry,
with
rubies and of great sentimental value,
qua its provenance.
David
dpmartin wrote:
yes but wasn't it you that said:
There were 2 different incidents.
I described them
both.
David wrote:When I was 11, against my better judgment,
I allowed myself to be persuaded to leave my property
exposed to theft by some 13 year olds of my acquaintance.
Predictably: it was stolen and consumed.
That was a very VALUABLE lesson
not to trust anyone with more than u r willing to lose.
dpmartin wrote:Isn’t the one who decides to entrust that which he has to another, the chooser of the possibility?
The predator n the victim have both chosen.
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
The predator n the victim have both chosen.
David
thanks for the reply
This is true but what is more valuable the property, (the Gov maintained legal right to have); or the knowledge and understanding of trust?
If the victim had understanding in what is to be trusted then the victim would have greater chance of not being a participant in the incident. The predator already had it in her heart to seek opportunity to do what she did. Though yes predators will do, but in this case the predator didn’t use force to do the deed. It seems that the predator, used the victim's lack of knowledge and understanding of trust.
@dpmartin,
Trusting human beings is unwise,
and it is best kept to a
minimum, in recognition of human nature.
David
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Trusting human beings is unwise,
and it is best kept to a minimum, in recognition of human nature.
David
David
thanks for the reply
I can relate to that.
What to be confident in, can be a difficulty for sure. Considering all dealings, one with another, require something to trust, even if it is to trust your enemy to be your enemy. But even that has been known to change.
I'm wondering what 'very poor' means. By that I mean, if you placed the house maid next to an honest but poverty stricken/drought affected/etc African family - would she actually be poor, or would the problem be that she views herself as poor (ie. doesn't have the things she wants...as compared to things she needs to survive). In this light (if she is capable of suriving), and compared to the honest african family, the 'very poor' house maid can't justify her theft.
Next, what is her working situation - is she full time, and the family employing her aren't paying her enough to survive on? Ie. Is the employer meeting his/her/their ethical requirements.
Perhaps it's that this woman has unforseen financial difficulties - perhaps she consolidate her debts, or file for bankruptcy?
Lot's of other thoughts :>
