Imagine a ship sinks just off the coast. Two lifeboats go out to save survivors.
One captain fills his boat to maximum number and heads back to shore to drop off survivors. He then return to pick up more people, but by the time he get back out they have all drowned.
The second captain takes his lifeboat out, he's so filled with compassion for the poor drowning survivors that he fills the boat beyond capacity, it sinks and all are lost.
Question: Which captain saved the most people?
Moral of the story: We all want to help those in need, but sinking our on lifeboat in the process will save no one.
I agree. I also use the analogy that if you want to be a giver, give out of the interest on your account. Don't deplete the principle. If you empty out your assets, not only will you be unable to generously give to others anymore, you will also be requiring charity yourself.
Imagine a ship sinks just off the coast. Two lifeboats go out to save survivors.
One captain fills his boat to maximum number and heads back to shore to drop off survivors. He then return to pick up more people, but by the time he get back out they have all drowned.
The second captain takes his lifeboat out, he's so filled with compassion for the poor drowning survivors that he fills the boat beyond capacity, it sinks and all are lost.
Question: Which captain saved the most people?
Moral of the story: We all want to help those in need, but sinking our on lifeboat in the process will save no one.
The sinking ship captain wants to rule the corpse.
I agree. I also use the analogy that if you want to be a giver, give out of the interest on your account. Don't deplete the principle. If you empty out your assets, not only will you be unable to generously give to others anymore, you will also be requiring charity yourself.
Same thing as putting on your oxygen mask first before you try to help other passengers on an airplane that is in trouble.
Weakening yourself makes no sense.