Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 6011256" data-attributes="member: 8835">While trying to steer clear of politics, when I hear somebody use the word, it tends to shift blame, responsibility, and absolve responsibility, social obligation, or generosity.I certainly agree someone in need, hurt, or wronged, isn't entitled to guarranteed assistance.But when folks bandy that word about, they toss a whole heapful on the guy who's down, shifting focus from the guy who done wrong, or is in position to help but refuses to.It's like the richest woman in the world (in Australia) who inherited her billions, complaining that australian workers should accept $2/day pay like their african counterparts so she can make more money.  She also basically says they need to work harder (which most poor people bust their arses just to make ends meet, so she's full of crap).  The long chain of her diatribe is, she's got no empathy for those people and she casts all responsibility and ability to correct their situation onto them.  It's politics and bickering to get into what should be done to help the poor people (like taking her money).But it's morals and ethics to get into casting all the blame on the guy who's down, when we know the other guy can do something to help.  the start of it is to get folks to stop using terms like Entitled to blame Umbran when it's Bob who's actually exhibited poor human behavior.</blockquote>