It doesnt cause inconvenience for the host to need to put out more because of the greed of the woman?
No, the host already put out all the candy bars he was going to put out, so there was no inconvenience to the host.
It doesnt cause any hurt or inconvenience to the children who come after her to empty boxes?
You mean the same inconvenience that would happen when the last candy bar is taken, no matter who took it?
No, there is no inconvenience that would not be there after the last candy bar was taken.
She was clearly not considerate. She clearly did not follow the instructions.
You are assuming that she was educated enough to know what the vague instruction to "be considerate" was supposed to mean.
The host was obviously at fault for not specifying that each person was to take only one candy bar.
The woman was not at fault for helping herself.
Your post even ignored the last part of the sign when you objected.
You defined what considerate meant.
I addressed the definition you provided.
Have you spilled a whole bowl into your own bucket or something at some point in time?
Why do you ask that instead of actually stating why you feel the woman did something wrong?
I already understand that you believe that the woman did something wrong, but you still haven't actually stated why you think what she did was wrong.
Maybe you think she is at fault for not following the vague instruction to "be considerate."
For all you know, the woman could have taken the candy bars to a homeless shelter, which would have been considerate, or she could have taken them all to spare someone (other than herself) from getting diabetes from eating too much sugar, which also would have been considerate.
opcorn:
