Reply #94: your comprehension and forthrightness leave a lot to be desired [View All]

[NorthernSpy]

You: And I've already answered your "I continue to wait for you to come up with a solid reason why it is wicked for the survivors to salvage whatever they can of these goods before it all winds up abandoned beneath the waves" question, but your only response is along the lines of "since it isn't probable that owners will take the stuff back, looting is cool." We don't agree, period.


No, you haven't answered my question. I wanted to know whether survivors of a disaster might be allowed to salvage what they could of shop goods that were otherwise destined to end up in the floodwaters in short order. And in response, you have kept intoning something along the lines of, 'well, maybe the goods aren't REALLY destined to end up in the floodwaters in short order'. And that's a pretty obvious ploy to avoid answering the question that I asked.

Because for some reason, you are reluctant to declare outright that no -- the doomed goods will just have to be left to the flood. It would be better just to let them ruin and go to waste, rather than allow anyone who is in a position to salvage a few items to do so. That, in a couple of short lines, is the position that you have been dancing around throughout this little exchange.

So here barks AEsop's dog in the manger! Really, it's no wonder that you are reluctant to declare this sentiment in so many words. Such a position is exactly the sort of irrational extremism that too many people mistake for "principle".




(edit: proofreading)