[tsowellfan]

It’s one of internalizing the importance of doing what you know to be right. To where it’s important enough to do it even when financial and recreational incentives point in the other direction.

I assume what you mean is, if your child is starving and no stores are open... let him die.

[tuffydoodle]

You can feed a kid a flat screen tv?

[Sherman Logan]

I assume you realize no (American) child is going to die or even be seriously affected by even two or three days without food. Much less missing one or two meals, a far more likely scenario.

Leaving that aside, why in the world would you respond in such a way?

My comment referenced financial and/or recreational incentives, not life-threatening emergencies.

Of course if my family were in dire need of food during an emergency I would forage accordingly.

The difference is that I would forage only for life-sustaining needs and I would keep track of what I took so I could properly reimburse those from whom I took it in future, if it became possible to track them down.

I really don’t think jewelry or an HD TV are needed to sustain life in an emergency. Do you?