I can settle this debate:
1. She turned out not be marriage material
2. Y'all are way too sensitive about a teenage girl who shoplifted one time.
1. She turned out not be marriage material
2. Y'all are way too sensitive about a teenage girl who shoplifted one time.
It’s about how you framed and excused your behavior.
No need for excuses whatsoever - if someone on here has a stolen book they want to gift me, I'll accept it with no shame or guilt. The joke wasn't meant to be an excuse, but for what it's worth, my emotional frame towards what she did is gratitude.
I'd love to discuss this with you, since we have interestingly divergent viewpoints on how I should have reacted. Feel free to hit me up: the.jesus.aviles [at] gmail.com
Knowingly accepting stolen property is both unethical and illegal.
This isn’t an unexplored ethical frontier; I appreciate the offer for further discussion, but I don’t think there’s anything novel either of us can contribute on the subject.
Sounds to me like the basic conflict here is the OP holds to expressive individualism of the sort historian Carl Trueman describes in his book, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self [0]; while the commenter appears to believe that moral/ethical reality exists external to human persons, thus stealing and being an accessory to theft are wrong, regardless of one's emotional frame.