The remnants of a dove. Cat stole its life.
... I am aware that it depends very much on how the parents grew up and what they passed on to their children on a more subconscious level. Of course, this also includes the real actions that were commonplace in the country of origin.
My family lived for a while under a regime that was described as communist. When people from the village were short of goods or needed something they couldn't buy, either because it was out of stock or too expensive, they stole it.
They were probably no more than six or seven years old. It involved stealing a sack of flour, which my father hoisted onto the bicycle and expected the two little boys to ride home with. By hook or by crook, the two of them managed to get the much too big bicycle home with the much too heavy sack. So far, this could be seen as a story of success. Not to pity my brothers or my family. They did it, after all, and I call it a good story.
Stealing was not something special, nor was it considered a criminal act by my father and mother. After all, it was about feeding a family of eight. Probably some similar incidents took place that I don't know about, but I realise that thievery and bribery must have been the order of the day when I look at my family's history as a whole and how they lived.
The habit of being devious, lying or cheating did not manifest itself in such an obvious way here, because there was no shortage of existential goods. But those who lived for so long under a different regime do not immediately discard the habits under which they learned to survive.
But of course, my parents realised very quickly that stealing was not legitimate here and so my father chastised my brothers when they were increasingly caught stealing from the supermarkets. (Note, that a formerly good story turned into a sad one).
That was his way of teaching the children that you can't disobey authority. It must have seemed more important to him to appear obedient than to realise that he must have seemed very contradictory to his sons. Whereas before he had been their accomplice thief and had (had to) teach them that one simply had to take things, now the opposite was true. If they had been caught, my father would have been punished, that's for sure. Now, that he was not the head of thieves, he had to punish his sons (the conviction that otherwise the authorities would come after the family was deeply ingrained).
Again, don't hate my father, but ask for responses which might come up when you pass your judging.
There are some downvoters here who get excited about plagiarism and want to teach such people a better lesson who have discovered this platform for themselves in order to "steal their bread together". Simple people who may live in some "undeveloped country" and see an opportunity to keep their heads above water.
The fact that every rule, even the most sacred, may be broken under certain circumstances precisely because necessity demands it, is not something I can see in the consciousness of those who pretend to be the police here.
Someone who has a mobile phone and has chosen it as a source of income will probably recognise a lack of other sources of income for himself. There may be modern supermarkets nearby and yet he may be destitute. Stealing from supermarkets or food warehouses has become much more difficult in this day and age, I imagine.
I have noticed that those who have been caught plagiarising behave very submissively and often cave in to their correctors and show themselves docile. Often it irritated me a lot and on reading such responses as
I was overcome with great anger. I was thinking about that now.
I believe this is another survival strategy of the "little people". They talk after the mouths of those they perceive to have the upper hand. Often the "superiors" are flattered.
The psychology behind this seems to suggest that one wants to pander to the stronger ones in order to avoid being the focus of their displeasure. While, on the other hand, they will probably continue to copy and paste. The probability increases with the perceived need and urgency.
The plagiarism police may here and there prevent some from "unjustly" enriching themselves from the pool, but they do not realise, or do not like to realise, that those thus targeted have good reasons for their behaviour. In the case of the rather ludicrously awarded downvotes, I rarely saw the interested question in a dialogue with the person concerned whether he was perhaps copying content from the net out of necessity and whether this would ensure his survival.
And why would and should they when what the regime and circumstances under which they live, does not leave much room doing otherwise?
You never know, who this "other" might come from, who he is and what his motives are. Why would anyone tell a stranger online? In particular when trust is disturbed?
Another aspect is, that it's actually quite easy to spot a plagiarist on this level, no? You immediately can see if his English skills are developed or not.
And they will do so further on (note: the big ones always stole from the little ones). To punish them or downvote them can only satisfy those minds who feel very right and good about it. There may not be many here, I don't really know. But I observe this quite often, so it seems to happen not only on my radar.
Whereas stealing on a big scale happens all the time, too, it's much harder to catch the big thieves, for they appear either very nice or powerful, or both.
Do I worry about the big fish and want them punished? No. Why would I?
Everyone steals from everyone else. That's how it is.
I don't think that shaming or blaming is the way to go. That's why I am not for punishment but for better alternatives in how to communicate with one another.
