2011-02-04, 05:05 AM
Sarah Wrote:Money isn't just an object. It's not like a lost necklace. Money is life for everyone, no matter their background. You don't feel like going out of your way to return cash to someone while you would report a lost dog? It's the exact same process. You wouldn't go out of your way because you want the money. There are a ton of dog lovers out there who would argue the exact same position as you are with money right now.
It's an object until you turn it into something useful for life. Until then, it's whatever you want it to become. And I'm sure there are plenty of pedophiles that would take my above offer of a helpless kid as well, that still doesn't make it comparable to losing money. Drop the straw man, it's getting in the way if your logic. Lost dogs are not comparable to lost cash, there are simply too many other factors that alter the decision making process for the two to properly be compared to one another.
Sarah Wrote:The chances of someone desperately looking for $200 are just as high as someone searching for a dog, believe me. At minimum wage in Ontario that's 20 hours work. You think someone is just going to write that off? How can you make that assumption any more than you can that they won't go searching for their dog?
I don't think they'd write it off, but I'll never meet them so it won't matter.
"But you'd care about how strangers felt about their lost dog or child?"
(Because I know you're not going to drop this example)
I'd actually care more about the dog if it were the dog case, and if it's the kid's case I'd probably care about the lost kid more than I'd care about the family. The two in these situation are innocents, and I really have no personal gain from either situation. If I hypothetically did, then you're pretty much re-writing my character completely just so I fit into this role you're trying to put me in, to compare dog/kidnapping to money pocketing.
Sarah Wrote:And no, I'm not assuming anyone has twisted morals for keeping lost money. I'm saying they're a selfish douche, plain and simple. And I want for them to admit that.
I never said I wasn't selfish. Despite you never directly stating that taking lost money is a sign of twisted morals, it's heavily implied by how you're discussing this (this is what's wrong with society/it's morally right to return the money/etc.)
You can tack on douche if you want, I don't mind, but I've never thrown an insult at you in this discussion and honestly find it uncalled for. I could say that I'd love for you to admit you were a naive child that's still living in a dream world and trying too hard to show how much of an upright citizen you are, but that doesn't add to my argument at all, now does it?