to have and not to give is often worse than to steal.?

Question

can u explain in 6-5 sentences

Answer 1

6-5 sentences
6-5 sentences
WTF?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!!?

But to answer your question in five sentences.

I totally disagree with that statement. No to have and not give is not worse than stealing. I don't expect someone living in a mansion to run out & give me $1000, but I would hope some thug on the street won't come up & steal my purse. Not offering to give is nowhere near as wrong as deliberately stealing from someone. That statement is illogical & absurd!!!!

Answer 2

it's an obvious truism has society not already stolen from from the poor and needy for the hungry to steal a piece of bread is only to do what is morally justified feed the hungry it's not as if the rapacious ignorant evil politicians were helping as they line their corrupt pockets with gold . no the reason that a poor dismayed desperate hungry person had to steal is because so many had stolen his chance his dignity his rights and his respect in their effort to obtain worthless riches . Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value.
Albert Einstein

Answer 3

stealing is actually forbidden. sharing is a prerogative and not an obligation. if by obligation then it should be in a good will. giving out of immense wealth or just by heartfelt desire is goodness.

Answer 4

That may or may not be true, depending upon the cirucumstances.

Answer 5

This would depend on the circumstances.

Answer 6

hell **** yeah! depending on what it is that's not being given or stolen within civilized reasoning.and if they won't give tellem first that you'll straight take it from their punk *** in front of their face cause you ****** need it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GOD.

Answer 7

I think 'reality' says....it can go either way.