I've seen this image around a few times and I really have no words for the comments I've read about it. There's this assumption that the guy carrying the two cats is 'holier than thou' because unlike the second guy, the first guy is carrying cats.
I'm not an animal hater but the assumptions are unfair because it's assumed that the guy behind the 'Good Samaritan' isn't prioritising and that the first guy is.
People like to use this image and say that the first guy is essentially believing that life is more worthy than material possessions, which apparently makes him better than the guy behind him. Of course it's always life > material possessions, but is it really fair to assume that the guy behind him isn't prioritising? Isn't he prioritising by taking his stuff out? Doesn't he need his stuff to survive?
Has anyone one ever considered that:
- The guy behind him probably doesn't have any pets
- The guy behind him picked up the things he needs for his
young?family - The guy behind him prioritised and put his family and his family's needs first, therefore grabbing the stuff as opposed to any pets he left behind (I'm quite sure this is acceptable? Putting your family first?)
- The first guy probably got his stuff moved before he took the cats
- The first guy is probably going back to get his stuff
- The first guy probably finds his pets more important than anything else... which is fine
I guess?
But, as with everything in life, there's a backstory...:
Yeah, this man knows what's important because he has the means to pick and choose. He has flood insurance; so all of his stuff will be covered. The guy behind him will probably end up having nothing, even after carrying some of his stuff out of the floods.
So it really is a matter of priorities.
So it really is a matter of priorities.
