Can we also talk about how this quote makes just no sense in this case…?
The quote implies that you don’t have to give them fish, you can just teach them to fish, because they can reasonably learn to fish in an hour or so. They’re unlikely to starve in that timeframe.
Kids on the other hand go to school to learn to ‘fish’, i.e. earn their own money, for more than a decade. You can’t just say nah, they don’t need food, we’re teaching them how to earn it, when that teaching process takes magnitudes longer than it takes for a kid to starve to death.
Ah, but you see; you have made the grave error of using logic and reasoning.
The less you think about it, the more it makes sense 😉
The quote implies
No it doesn’t? It never says not to do both. Just that one is short term, the other is long term. You’ve applied your own interpretation.
Fair enough. I’m guessing, the lady using the quote had the same implication in mind, though? Otherwise, I’m really not sure what point she was trying to make.
I’ve exclusively heard the proverb used by people who want to restrict or withhold any form of public or direct assistance, so I feel like your interpretation is reasonable
Which is funny, because I’ve actually never heard it used that way before. 🙃
Although, that’s probably because I’m not from a country with English as primary language.
…… it’s almost as if some people have decided that ‘christianity’ means whatever they want it to mean……
I was curious so I looked it up, seems like it started floating around in the late 1800’s, but realy evolved to it’s current form in the mid 1900’s (though it’s always attributed to being a much older proverb.)
Hold on lemme fish in the school cafeteria real quick
