Qing Tian wrote:
What's not constructive is people who are so defensive that they can't acknowledge that what they've written can be understood from a different perspective than their own. And/or they can't acknowledge, when it's pointed out to them, that their initial message wasn't clear so they try to defend it instead of amend it.
Actually I did rephrase my point in a subsequent post. You (mkoll) chose, as your first interpretation, to ascribe a judgemental quality to what I had written when none was implied. Of course I am going to be defensive in such circumstance.
My position is clear. As an individual I am a limited resource. I choose to deploy that resource locally and in quality, rather than globally and diluted, because I feel that this is the optimal approach for individuals like me. I feel for those who I cannot help and offer merit to all when I can. If you think I can do more then please tell me how.
I hope that is unambiguous now?
Except I wasn't judging you or criticizing you or your standards of morality personally. How you choose to be charitable and moral is your business. What I was doing was pointing out that based on what you wrote,
Qing Tian wrote:1. Those we are likely to come into contact with in our daily lives.
2. Those we are unlikely to come into contact with in our daily lives.
As there are plenty of #1 is it really necessary, practical or realistic to embark on a crusade (for want of a word) to help those in group #2?
, it follows that it isn't necessary, practical or realistic to help people in group #2. In fact, that's exactly what you said. So I gave an example of certain people who would fall into group 2 who you just said
it wasn't necessary, practical, or realistic to help:
Mkoll wrote:Do you think people without clean water or enough food to eat aren't worth helping just because you're unlikely to come in contact with them?
And you accused me of "gross misrepresentation" even though what I said follows exactly the criteria that you
laid down in the first place. You could have amended your criteria so they were more in line of what you actually thought but instead you take it personal and take passive-aggressive potshots at me while replying to Kim's post. So I, unwisely, take it personally and take potshots at you.
And here we are.
So, can we shake hands and call it a day?