8 ms·

+misery = +violence -misery = -violence +people participating in the economy = +business, +salaries better society = better society for everyone You still can'

+misery = +violence -misery = -violence +people participating in the economy = +business, +salaries better society = better society for everyone You still can't seem to think outside your box it seems. Misery breeds violence, there's no "or else", there's no "they", it's reality, I could resort to violence to survive and so could you.

ahomescu1 13y ago
By that logic (extending it a bit), we could fire all the cops, and just give our money over to criminals who ask for it. There's a point at which I draw the line, and prefer to fight instead.
- buzaga41 13y ago
  You still can't seem to think outside your box it seems.
  - ahomescu1 13y ago
    What box is that? I can't contradict or agree with you unless you're actually making an argument.
    - buzaga41 13y ago
      The discussion, and the topic, talks about a change that isn't so radical but that could improve things in society as a whole. But you're still talking in 'me' vs 'they' terms, and 'the criminals' and 'threats', mocking 'the unfortunate'... This is not a conversation for the 'what about me?' mindset. The whole of this discussion(also to the other replies) you're only talking about yourself, I don't want to talk baseless opinions, the stuff I'm talking about is conceptual so you need to understand the concepts that precede the topic and don't seem to be there yet. I've made my argument at the first reply then tried expanding on it but you missed it
      - ahomescu1 13y ago
        Society is made of many individuals, you can't disconnect a discussion about society from one about individuals, including "me". If you make high-level society-wide decisions that trample on individuals' rights, that also has society-wide implications (even if it's just a minority of individuals). What you're proposing is a tyranny of the majority, where the opinion of a single individual is discounted "for the greater good". On the other hand, I believe society is just a big group of individuals, so "what about me?" does matter (in fact, it's maybe the most important question in all of society).

ahomescu1 13y ago

By that logic (extending it a bit), we could fire all the cops, and just give our money over to criminals who ask for it. There's a point at which I draw the line, and prefer to fight instead.

buzaga41 13y ago
You still can't seem to think outside your box it seems.
- ahomescu1 13y ago
  What box is that? I can't contradict or agree with you unless you're actually making an argument.
  - buzaga41 13y ago
    The discussion, and the topic, talks about a change that isn't so radical but that could improve things in society as a whole. But you're still talking in 'me' vs 'they' terms, and 'the criminals' and 'threats', mocking 'the unfortunate'... This is not a conversation for the 'what about me?' mindset. The whole of this discussion(also to the other replies) you're only talking about yourself, I don't want to talk baseless opinions, the stuff I'm talking about is conceptual so you need to understand the concepts that precede the topic and don't seem to be there yet. I've made my argument at the first reply then tried expanding on it but you missed it
    - ahomescu1 13y ago
      Society is made of many individuals, you can't disconnect a discussion about society from one about individuals, including "me". If you make high-level society-wide decisions that trample on individuals' rights, that also has society-wide implications (even if it's just a minority of individuals). What you're proposing is a tyranny of the majority, where the opinion of a single individual is discounted "for the greater good". On the other hand, I believe society is just a big group of individuals, so "what about me?" does matter (in fact, it's maybe the most important question in all of society).