The Scorpion and the Frog

Post Reply New Topic

The Scorpion and the Frog
One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.

The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn't see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

"Hellooo Mr. Frog!" called the scorpion across the water, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?"

"Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

"Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!"

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. "What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!"

"This is true," agreed the scorpion, "But then I wouldn't be able to get to the other side of the river!"

"Alright then...how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?" said the frog.

"Ahh...," crooned the scorpion, "Because you see, once you've taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!"

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog's back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog's soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"
The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.
"I could not help myself. It is my nature."
Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

What is the moral of this story? http://www.snopes.com/critters/malice/scorpion.asp

The moral is obvious. Don't trust scorpions, and under no circumstances allow them to ride on your back across a river.

The moral is that people are liars. They will do what makes them feel good despite the consequences for themselves and others, and do almost anything (lying, cheating, hurting, even killing) for their personal pleasure.

That Palestinians never let pass a chance to ruin themselves.

The moral is people don't change. And don't trust someone you shouldn't trust.
Why is this not in random discussion?

Isn't the moral that you can't change who or what you are?

Frogs swim, scorpions sting, spaniels dig etc.

You are what you are. Sometimes you might try to convince yourself and others you're not, but in the end, you can only be yourself.

where did that come from?

Sounds like it is you who has got the axe to grind making such a blanket statement. The Palestinian people have had a long history of being pushed about. If anything the scorpion is the British who made false promises only to cave in to pressure from Zionists (who incidentally didn't have much of consensus before WWII and had already begun terrorist activities targeting Arabs and British, whist we were supporting Jews in Germany). This has got to have been one of the biggest mistakes in history. Completely thoughtless. It is largely responsible for where we are now. Clearly nothing was learned from WWII. However that is the past we have to make the best of a bad situation.

Also what is remarkable about comment about this is often people in charge on both sides have been reluctant to make use of opportunities. The Isreali government is no exception and even the US, which is their main ally has criticized them for not making use of opportunities. It is clear that some involved actually want the conflict to continue and also want more land and sovereignty violations, knowing full well is will inflame the situation and make Palistinians look bad in general. The terrorist are also hoping for this. They are both playing each other at a game of bluff, hoping that one or other will be weakened. But being realistic the people who are going get vast majority of the suffering are the Palestinians.

The conflict has become increasingly more and more religious in nature. I'm talking from the origins of the conflict. Obviously the religious element has been pretty strong for years. Israel shares part of the blame for that.

Isreals right to exit has nothing to do with higher morality or 'god given' right. That if anything is the problem. Israel's right to exist is no different that Palistines right to exist. Israel shouldn't have formed, and certainly not in the way it did, but since it has and the fact that many people have emigrated means that it is infeasible that it cannot exist, so that is the basis for it exist as a nation. I don’t think it is extreme to say this, if fact people who say that it is could equally be called extreme. If you look at the POV of the late 40s then definitely not, but Israel has been a concrete nation for a while so this is not a new assertion.

The idea of Israel being a concrete nation before roman invasion is somewhat historically spurious, but ultimately it is irrelevant. If we took that kind of logic there would be strife all over the word. As it is we already have a global conflict.

0 = true,

Where my statement came from is the context in which I first heard that story 30 years ago. I wrote down what I first thought of and then went to the cited website to see if the context I remembered was correct. It was interesting to see the permutations of the story and seeing how different cultures swapped out animals in the fable to reflect their particular fauna. The use of the scorpion reflects a mid-east source. I'm sorry the carelessly repeated memory was offensive.

it is not offensive to me just a bit silly and ironically divisive IMO. I think it is important I had the opportunity to share my take on the matter.

The moral of this story is that some people remain true to their blackhearted selves even if it is their own undoing. That is why I put the link to snopes up there.