northpolarbear
Active Member
- Oct 3, 2015
- 260
- 14
- 26
Some people claim wrongful entitlement with an expectation of favor.
Put in simply, they claim that if I would have done something wrongful for their profit (which is false & delusional), if I changed my mind after I got pissed off at them, they are entitled to that wrongful profit. I won't get into the specifics, but for an example? They claim that if I would have stolen a Rolex for their wrongful profit (which is false & delusional) & if I changed my mind after I got pissed off at them, they are entitled to me stealing that Rolex for them. This is false in 2 ways. I would never have done a wrongful thing in their favor "&" they are not entitled to such even if I changed my mind (neither morally nor legally). What something should be done or shouldn't be done is a matter of rightfulness, not what they would have had nor what they want. What something would be done or is wanted to be done is a matter of 100% entirely my choice. No one else has an entitlement, say, control, power over my free will regardless of whether I changed my mind or not.
The term happy coincidence refers to how some things, goals, reasons or whatever are not mutually exclusive. Whether something is rightful or not is decided entirely on its own. Not something else. It is about legitimacy. Whether something is legitimate or not is determined by logic. Also, there is the matter of principle or preference aside from logic for legitimacy. The important point is that whether something should be done or not is determined entirely on its own. Whether something else is met or not is irrelevant in whether that should be done or not. The same goes for whether something shouldn't be done or not. Also, whether something is wanted to be done or would be done is irrelevant in how something should be done or shouldn't be done anyway. Also, whether something is wanted to be done or would be done changing because of whatever is not important as it either should be done or shouldn't be done irrelevant of the desire changing. Aside from the desire changing being real or not (as in you would have never gotten what you wanted), I am pointing out that it is irrelevant. Also, what someone wants to do or would do is entirely up to him regardless of the desire changing or not. He is not obligated to such. He has an entitlement to do what he likes legitimately. You have no control, say, power over it regardless of the desire changing or not. You are not entitled to such neither rightfully nor morally nor legally. Aside from that, the rightfulness, legitimacy, should part are clear. Whether something should be done or not, or whether something shouldn't be done or not, is a matter of logic. It's not a matter of what you want to have or what you want to see. Your want & greed are not given a shit for rightfulness.
I am just talking the obvious, but there really are human trashes like those.
Put in simply, they claim that if I would have done something wrongful for their profit (which is false & delusional), if I changed my mind after I got pissed off at them, they are entitled to that wrongful profit. I won't get into the specifics, but for an example? They claim that if I would have stolen a Rolex for their wrongful profit (which is false & delusional) & if I changed my mind after I got pissed off at them, they are entitled to me stealing that Rolex for them. This is false in 2 ways. I would never have done a wrongful thing in their favor "&" they are not entitled to such even if I changed my mind (neither morally nor legally). What something should be done or shouldn't be done is a matter of rightfulness, not what they would have had nor what they want. What something would be done or is wanted to be done is a matter of 100% entirely my choice. No one else has an entitlement, say, control, power over my free will regardless of whether I changed my mind or not.
The term happy coincidence refers to how some things, goals, reasons or whatever are not mutually exclusive. Whether something is rightful or not is decided entirely on its own. Not something else. It is about legitimacy. Whether something is legitimate or not is determined by logic. Also, there is the matter of principle or preference aside from logic for legitimacy. The important point is that whether something should be done or not is determined entirely on its own. Whether something else is met or not is irrelevant in whether that should be done or not. The same goes for whether something shouldn't be done or not. Also, whether something is wanted to be done or would be done is irrelevant in how something should be done or shouldn't be done anyway. Also, whether something is wanted to be done or would be done changing because of whatever is not important as it either should be done or shouldn't be done irrelevant of the desire changing. Aside from the desire changing being real or not (as in you would have never gotten what you wanted), I am pointing out that it is irrelevant. Also, what someone wants to do or would do is entirely up to him regardless of the desire changing or not. He is not obligated to such. He has an entitlement to do what he likes legitimately. You have no control, say, power over it regardless of the desire changing or not. You are not entitled to such neither rightfully nor morally nor legally. Aside from that, the rightfulness, legitimacy, should part are clear. Whether something should be done or not, or whether something shouldn't be done or not, is a matter of logic. It's not a matter of what you want to have or what you want to see. Your want & greed are not given a shit for rightfulness.
I am just talking the obvious, but there really are human trashes like those.
