Can we also talk about how this quote makes just no sense in this case�
The quote implies that you donât have to give them fish, you can just teach them to fish, because they can reasonably learn to fish in an hour or so. Theyâre unlikely to starve in that timeframe.
Kids on the other hand go to school to learn to âfishâ, i.e. earn their own money, for more than a decade. You canât just say nah, they donât need food, weâre teaching them how to earn it, when that teaching process takes magnitudes longer than it takes for a kid to starve to death.
The quote implies
No it doesnât? It never says not to do both. Just that one is short term, the other is long term. Youâve applied your own interpretation.
Fair enough. Iâm guessing, the lady using the quote had the same implication in mind, though? Otherwise, Iâm really not sure what point she was trying to make.
Iâve 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
âŠâŠ itâs almost as if some people have decided that âchristianityâ means whatever they want it to meanâŠâŠ
I was curious so I looked it up, seems like it started floating around in the late 1800âs, but realy evolved to itâs current form in the mid 1900âs (though itâs always attributed to being a much older proverb.)
Hold on lemme fish in the school cafeteria real quick
