I must admit that I’m privileged in many ways and may not always understand all the frustrations of less fortunate people. I’m trying to change and to have a more open mind. So maybe this should be explained to me as the logic behind it baffles me completely. I can understand that one could be very unhappy about a non-functional toilet, and most probably I will also complain and even protest if needed to have better facilities. But I’m sure that I would rather have a toilet that may not be perfect, but somehow functional, rather than not having any toilet at all. I’m sure that having some sort of toilet system is more hygienic and convenient than other un-mentional options. So why would one destroy what you have before you have something better? This part needs be explained to me.
Is the logic: "I have to have nothing if I cannot have the best!"?
Because if this logic is used in my life there would be a number of great changes to be made:
- Because I do not have a Rolls Royce, I should in fact destroy my Ford.
- I do not stay in Houghton, therefore I should be homeless.
- Because my wife is not miss South Africa, I should divorce her or even worse - be thrown in jail or be killed.
- My kids only go to a good school - burn it down until it’s the best school.
- Because I’m not the CEO of XYZ, it would be better to have no job.
- If I do not earn R12500-00 or more I should have no income at all.
This is all toilet logic.
Or maybe there is something else going on?
Tags: blog, politics