(small Kafkaesque parable)
There is an object A. Has an owner. The subject B as greed and try to take it. C and D will insist desist. B assures them he will not resign. C says that its claim to possession of A are not themselves in any way, a property right. D tells A's right to self determination. The arguments of C and D range contradictory between the instigation of resignation and apology of seduction: a A must either leave it alone, or enter it a little tame, enchant, persuade. From A to B must either not wait for anything, or do not expect more than A can or will give, and that when A decides. Ie that B wait, simply. C and D call for B to respect the sovereignty of A. There are limits to comply, they explain. There is a law that prohibits B have its like A. But B claims that A is theirs and not just going to take it, and not just going to take it as soon as possible, but also will not release it even if I try to take by force. B to C and D is a coward and do not hesitate to go to A. But you can not go alone: \u200b\u200bit needs to C and D, those who followed him and accompany the principle, but do not go as far that B believes that they should go. For whatever reason, B loses to A, was able to grab it with the help of C and D, but can not keep it. When you're losing, desperately asking for help once more to its partners C and D, but they call prudence. After a short fight, A is lost and B must sit for it. B because of their defeat to the cowardice of C and D. For its part, C D loaded on B all responsibility for the disaster.
0 comments:
Post a Comment