|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted May 14, 2010 03:49 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 03:50, 14 May 2010.
|
Azagal:
Quote:
A society that doesn't treat humans equally can not function in any civilized manner. Of course there'll be leeches and scum that'll benefit from our morals but apparently that's the way it has to be in order to uphold higher morale standards.
Humans do not treat other humans equally, not as individuals and not as societies. You wouldn't value your son the same way you value someone else's. And nor would society value Jeffrey Dahmer more than Albert Einstein. Is it wrong to say that Albert Einstein was a more valuable human being than Jeffrey Dahmer?
I'm only asking you to be objective. Let go of your affect heuristic and consider the matter for a second in the absence of any moral frame of reference.
Assuming that the odds of rehabilitation are low, so low as to be negligible, what is the value to society of keeping a pedophile alive? And even if the odds of rehabilitation are greater than infinitely small, wouldn't those resources be better spent elsewhere, where the benefits are, on average, greater?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 14, 2010 07:00 AM |
|
|
@Corribus
I agree on the observations in the thought experiment. With that I mean: It's my impression as well, that there's unequal threatment between humans and non-human living things.
Likewise I agree that eventhough both living things seem to have the same current capacity and have done the same crime, they seem to be judged very differently.
With that said, I think I should add that I have never supported the idea of killing anyone, non-human animals included. I mention this in case that the idea of your post, among others, would be that because I might agree with non-humans getting killed, then under same circumstances it'd seem inconsistent to not also agree on humans getting killed. In my opinion, killing is always wrong (though can be forced).
Now, about the questions upon the thought experiment, here's my take on it:
I think there are three things important to note, that may give society the impression human lives are more valueable.
First; it's humans that gives the power of society and if you don't threat your members well, those in power is in greater risk of loosing it.
Second; concepts such as free will and consciousness becomes very easy to extrapolate to other human beings because we're able to communicate. I think that is a great factor in why the average person thinks of a human being as something 'existing' and animals as very impressive complex 'machinery'.
[Comments upon the second part of my reasoning: I do realise point nr. 2 isn't correct from every persons perspective. After all, persons who 'owns' a pet would often see 'human properties' and as such 'human value' in their pet. Likewise when killing injured animals, it is claimed to be done in mercy. However, I'd like to bring in an example and use as an analogi of why this kind of thinking is still making animals of less value in the case of both types of person (Those who kill in mercy and those who see pets as having 'human properties'). I've heard about a case where a family dad decided that the world simply were too cruel. So he decided to do what in his view is the merciful thing. He killed his wife and both children, then he attempted suicide, but failed in doing that.
From this example, I think it should be noted that apparently (my guess), the family dad thought that his view on the world was so much superior to that of those he love, that he did not give them the ability to choose (like people with pets, a type of ownership), but simply decided for them. Secondly, I think we can all agree that his merciful killing really was unwanted, and it was only from his perspective it was something merciful. Is it merciful from the perspective of the animal that's in pain, would the animal, if it could, decide to kill itself? I hope the example brought makes my second reason for why human are seen to have more value than animals to be more likely].
Three; the historical perspective. I do not have much knowledge about history, but in my view of the world, I observe that whatever we (society) did in the past, which worked out well, we'll continue to do for all time, until someone questions it. I think society is even more a slave of habit than the individual human being, but I can't really back up my claim anymore than I can back up a feeling.
Since I earlier wrote that in my opinion, killing is always wrong, and since it is not forced in this case (as we can always simply throw someone out of society), I think it's probably not unexpected when my comment on the analysis of in which case society benefits the most from the fewest ressources, I'd simply claim that killing is the wrong option.
In my opinion, the point of society is not to get the most out of our ressources. The point is to get the most out of our ressources in the direction of fullfilling its purpose.
In my opinion, when starting to wonder if it's more beneficial, in regard to the purpose of society/state/government, to kill someone, I think society/state/government have created a purpose that will destroy itself.
My analogi of this would be, if a wall would get taller and taller by turning around bricks, so they're vertical in stead of horizontal, but for each bricks turned, a certain percentage would be crushed, increasing for more and more bricks turned, I think there'd be no doubt that this wall would rise up high, but also fall down again, because it keep removing its own foundation in return to rise up as high as it can. Though it is not a very good analogi, because it's not the 'purpose' of the wall to protect its bricks, or anything like that, at least it shows the way I see people as the bricks of which society is build. Given you start on making the bricks unstable (make the focus, what can people do for society, in stead of what society can do for people), then it's probably just a question of how unstable it needs to get, before the entire wall goes down.
My opinion thereby is that both in the case of phedophile (or general criminal) and of the angry dog, is that they should never be killed. Rather I'd like that people gets as much freedom as possible, without others freedom getting limited in the process. I think that'd be an excellent purpose of society.
Speaking of which, I recall to have heard that the purpose of society/government/state in USA should be something like: "Make sure everyone have equal opportunity, independent of how they were born". If one changed "how they were born" into "their past", and of course this is limited by the ressources at hand, then I think it'd show that even the criminal as well as the animal [though I'm not certain, does the foundation of society in US, the idea of everyone to have equal opportunity, only apply to humans?] at all time should have a right (by the definition suggested and since it's society in power, society gives out rights) to live.
So all in all, I agree with the observations of your thought experiment, since my opinion is that to kills is always wrong, the acts (or at least acceptance) by society in the case of the dog, is the wrong thing to do.
Also, my own opinion on value of lives pretty much goes like this (which might indicate I'm a bit different than most people on the subject ):
#1 Those I love and care for
#2 Everyone living (humans as well as non-humans)
#3 Everything else (Rocks, wood, etc.)
There's certainly grazy zones inbetween both #1 and #2 and especially between #2 and #3 I admit that, but it's my general view on things.
@Mvass
If someone becomes like animals in the view of society, the only thing that gives that society the right to treat those animals like they want, is because they've the power to do so.
Also I disagree with the way society deals with dangerous animals. It's abuse by the masses to use their power upon others eventhough these others don't want it. Only when these others, in this case criminals, gets the choice to stay in society at the cost of being isolated and rehabilitated, or isolated and be on their own, there's no abuse in my opinion.
There's no difference if 20 or 100.000 people form a group and give some requirements to be part of the given group, it's still a group of people, even if you call it society or what you call it.
Now for the second part, first of all, not everyone gives the legitimacy of government simply because they're born some place. There's no such thing as tacit consent, sadly the use of tacit consent is highly abused in my experience.
Now with that said, let's just assume everyone at point blank gives legitimacy to society.
So let's look at the process from both perspectives, using your own arguments to form the process:
Group of people kills someone -> Society now sees group of people as animals (removing the idea of legitimacy to society from these peoples point of view, because you act upon animals like you want without them giving legitimacy to society) -> Society treats group of like dangerous animals.
Superior society sees group of people (aka. our society) kills someone -> Superior society now sees group of people as animals (which in turn makes your argument of lack of legitimacy irrelevant, in my opinion) -> Superior society treats group of people like dangerous animals.
Because, eventhough at point blank the criminals might have given legitimacy to our society, that I'm sure they did not do upon trial (which is part 1 ). If they'd the choice of either
A) The big guy punish them
or
B) The big guy leaves them alone, however in return they're not to interfer with the big guy again (here society is an analogy of a big guy, who abuses someone, eventhough he could choose simply to throw them out in stead of, and does so just because he's the power to do it)
then I'm certain they'd choose option B). Like we would in regard to this superior society who now sees us as dangerous animals.
In the view of the superior society, the lesser society did as well abbandon their idea of what is needed to be part of a society, thereby transforming them to dangerous animals, thereby making their opinion irrelevant (if one is to follow the standard procedure against dangerous animals).
@Azagal
I disagree that it's an objective (or absolute?) statement that human life is of more value than animal life. In your reasoning, to me, you seem to assume that value is determined upon how well someone can perform a certain function. However whatever defines value is subjective and can be completely independent of any function to perform.
To me, what defines value, is not anything the people around me, in principle, can decide. It simply goes like this:
#1 Decided loved ones
#2 Of what I believe to be consciouss [and thereby exist]
#3 Everything else
No matter if you're the smartest, most effective guy on Earth, and are to be compared with the most evil scum of the world, or just with a polar bear, I'd not value anyone higher than the other.
Who, if choosen, I'd spend my time with however, that's an entirely different matter. Though I think that has little to do with the value of life (unless subjectively defined by the given person).
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 14, 2010 07:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@JJ
Quote:
1) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we kill deseased humans who are a danger for others. We quarantine them, but we don't kill them.
I'm asking what is the reason for this policy.
Polemically spoken, it seems difficult to imagine a squad of white vacuum-suit types moving through the country, eliminating people and burning their flats. It's difficult to imagine you going to the doctor, and after an examination he makes a call upon which the vacuum-suit types come to solve the problem. We'd have to kill half of Africa.
The real reason is probably, that every human should be allowed to fight their diseases -not because they have a right, but mainly because a human beating a disease can be studied; antibodies may be found with him, that may be cultivated to help curing others; the disease and its workings may be better understood... Kill and burn doesn't help in the long run.
We don't know all that much about diseases anyway. Today, it becomes always clearer that the alpha and the omega of virtually everything is the immune system, and basically everything is the consequence of a defect there.
Quote:
And Quote:
2) I thought I've written that, but research is for prevention, isn't it? And healing. Why kill people, if they are deseased and can be healed? Why kill people, if by studying them we can find out what's wrong with them. If these brain defects would be obvious with babies or children, there might be a simple test to discover it, taking precautions and so on.
Yes, yes, I'm all for throwing money at diseases, but I've got two things to say about that:
First, let's throw money at diseases that we know are diseases and are likely to affect the most amount of people. The cost of keeping the nation's pedophiles in prisons far surpasses the amount of money spent on cancer research, and yet the number of people who will get cancer far exceeds the number of people who will become pedophiles. (OK, I actually dont' have statistics to prove that, but you get the point.) Furthermore, you could prevent a large portion of pedophile-related deaths simply by killing the pedophiles in prison now - since a large portion of pedophiles who kill are repeat offenders - and that's a pretty cheap solution.
Second, I'm sure you'll not disagree with me that most pedophiles who are sitting in jail are not really being studied. They're sitting in jail, eating free food, watching free TV, sleeping in free beds and wearing free clothes, merrily going about their time until some arbitrary day when they're released back into the neighborhoods where our children ride their bikes and go to school. Pedophiles for the most part are treated as criminals and not as patients. So really, enough with all this "let's study them to find out how to prevent future kid-killers from growing up" BS. It's not happening.
Well. For diseases, the money is put into research with a simple formula: the more common it is, the more money is put into it, since the success will translate into more revenue. That's why breast cancer is researched quite massively - but larynx cancer, well.
Research does takes place - I gave the link; it's a very official research that takes place there, and it seems to even bring results.
Anyway, it's difficult to get that going - many people are arguing like you and don't want to spend money on that.
In the end they are shortsided, because research will help refine our ways to deal with perps. We can't just kill everyone.
A lot of pedophiles - that is, those who desire sex with kids - can be cured by chemical castration, and what's more, with them it's no fundamental defect of personality but "only" of sexuality, so a lot of them doesn't want it and welcomes a way to lose a demon. Don't you think it's important to be able to make a difference between the curable and the incurable?
Secondly, I don't necessarily see a difference in sex-related crime and others. Statistically, people who regularly drive drunk are prone to crash and crash with consequences. How many alcohol related delicts are necessary (driving drunk, then driving drunk without licence, crashing drunk...) to put the repeat traffic offender lifelong behind bars to prevent the inevitable crash with some kid?
Or take theft. Repeat offenders get massive penalties, but it doesn't solve the problem, obviously - in fact it makes it worse. 3 times is the charm, so there is an additional incentive for the offender not to get caught, which leads to follow-up crimes like hostage-taking and so on.
The bottom line is, you cannot beat crime by killing offenders - only by understanding what motivates them and either removing the causes or detecting the signs EARLY.
This is especially true in a society that allows deepest poverty to exist with obscene wealth, that allows neighborhoods I wouldn't even let animals die in, not to mention humans live.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 14, 2010 09:14 AM |
|
|
In regards to Joonas, in my opinion, rather relevant comment about pedophiles contra homosexuals, I'd like to add my opinion to what JJ wrote here:
JJ wrote:
Quote:
The bottom line is, you cannot beat crime by killing offenders - only by understanding what motivates them and either removing the causes or detecting the signs EARLY.
And that is, another way to beat crime is to make the crime impossible to do in the first place.
We are very much only focusing on one side of the equation here, the criminal, or to say, what can we do once the offending have happened? Maybe we should also look at, what could we have done, so this wouldn't have happened, in stead of only what can we do to avoid it happening again.
Are there any means of which we could protect children so someone who decides to rape them (and note, like all homosexuals don't rape men, all pedophiles don't rape children), actually won't be able to, however without us limiting freedom unnecessary for anyone?
@Bak
About comparing systems. A system of which the purpose to increase freedom for everyone only with the limit that no one gets their freedom decreases by anything in the process, would pr. definition over an average time span produce the best product.
Everything else, over average time spans would be do to coincidence.
I claim this, under the assumption both systems use equal valid and reasonable methods, then it should be clear that the system of which the purpose is X, is most likely to reach X, also assuming the system itself is self sustainable.
Now there are the thing that you don't give any specific time. That means if you just compare two systems at a few random times, then you might get an average that does not fit with the true value, simply because a disregard for the uncertainity.
I tried to make it general, I don't know if was too much though?
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 14, 2010 12:17 PM |
|
|
That's all swell in theory but in practice you still get pedos in the streets.
A huge problem with your system is that you know what should be done but have no idea about how it can be done. I am, according to that, uncertain about whether it can be done at all, and without that, we can't really argue about whether it should be done anyway.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 14, 2010 01:37 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 13:38, 14 May 2010.
|
well, father said what I would have said again.
Quote:
Of course they are. You don't even have to get into morals or a philosophical discussion about it, humans are more valuable than animals strictly objectively speaking. A single human is of more benefit to his group than any other individual animal is to their specific group. An individual human can become president and influence his group for the better, no other individual animal can even come close to accomplishing any feat that benefits its species as much (you don't even have to take it as far as president, make the human a teacher).
A human is a mass of potential. An animal isn't. Don't get me wrong I love animals and they deserve to be treated better but putting them on the same level as humans just isn't rational.
animals aren't extinguishing natural resources in the name of progress. oh yes, we get so much more than animals thanks to progress. but for how much time?
Quote:
Humans do not treat other humans equally, not as individuals and not as societies. You wouldn't value your son the same way you value someone else's. And nor would society value Jeffrey Dahmer more than Albert Einstein. Is it wrong to say that Albert Einstein was a more valuable human being than Jeffrey Dahmer?
he made the atomic bomb. better be stupid than using your intelligence in such a way (although he was forced to, no?)
and well yes, it's weird that you value your son more than anyone else or almost (what if you know he is a pedophile? will you hate him because of that, or will you love him because the fact he is your son is the only important thing?)
Quote:
I'm only asking you to be objective. Let go of your affect heuristic and consider the matter for a second in the absence of any moral frame of reference.
Assuming that the odds of rehabilitation are low, so low as to be negligible, what is the value to society of keeping a pedophile alive? And even if the odds of rehabilitation are greater than infinitely small, wouldn't those resources be better spent elsewhere, where the benefits are, on average, greater?
reasoning that way is the path to inhuman abuse. you could as well say we should enslave people because that would allow us to produce a lot for a small cost. it would be of an extreme practical use of course. but the human should be the center of the preoccupation, not the productiveness, or the progress for example...
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted May 14, 2010 03:04 PM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 15:39, 14 May 2010.
|
@Corribus
Maybe I wasn't clear enough earlier but I do believe you are right Corribus in principal, you don't have to convince me ^^. Some humans have more value than others be it of emotional nature (your sone example), intellectual nature (your Einstein thing) or due to other criteria and of course we don't treat each other as equals nor do we see each other as equals most of the time but that doesn't mean that idealy we should.
Quote:
And even if the odds of rehabilitation are greater than infinitely small, wouldn't those resources be better spent elsewhere, where the benefits are, on average, greater?
Considering what Father said I'm not entirely sure what to believe anymore but let's say you're right and we lose a noteable amount of ressources for the sake of these people. Objectively speaking I'd say you're right trying to fix something that is beyond help is futile and if the spend time could be used anywhere else more productively the time repairing is wasted.
The whole point is however that one can not abbandon the moral behind this as quickly as you suggest. Moral or holding on to a higher principle may look irrational in this situation but it isn't if you put it in perspective. Do you not see the idea behind ascribing each human life value (of course you do)? If we abbandon that idea not every case will be as clear cut out for us as the "my son vs other person" or "Einstein vs. hobo". Human life has it's own value and it is imperative that we protect it. I really don't mean to sound like some naive moralist here (unfortunately I seem to sound like one a great deal xD) but you can't simply abbandon morals because it's more convenient.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
Father
|
|
posted May 14, 2010 07:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Let go of your affect heuristic and consider the matter for a second in the absence of any moral frame of reference.
Was I the only one that caught this statement? Though Corribus doesn't seem to be refering to anything I write, I can't help but notice such comments as this. Yes lets do refer to the affect heuristic so that we may comfortably let go of what makes us human so that we can see the argument from a Borg's point of view? Corribus, it is comments such as these that stagger me back a step.
Let me clear this up a bit. An affect heuristic in a nut shell is a "rule of thumb". There is an action, and thus a reaction. What your suggesting here Corribus is that we simply react on instinct rather than rational thought? That is somehow the golden path to elightenment on this issue? As powerful of a thinker as you have been known to be, I'm suprised that one such as you would take such a stance. Well, I guess I'm not anymore but I certainly would have been before 
I'm sorry but I must continue to firmly disagree with this line of "thought". Although now it appears as though the debate has gone from one of thought to one of instinct? Is that a correct assessment on the basis of your argument?
I continue to affirm and support that the only humanitarian and correct method to finding a solution to this challenge comes from clear and deliverative decisions. I would counter that if we allow our instincts to guide us on such a heavy issue that we are indeed falling back a step on the evolutionary ladder to civilized enlightenment. That may sound a tad bit rediculous to you, but if it does then your really not ready for that step up or down either way.
Perhaps the only logical answer is to do nothing at all? Bah, nobody really cares for warm milk or those that sit atop a fence. One thing is for sure, things don't get done by doing nothing. But if the absense of nothing is to take a step back? No sir, I would choose in that case to stand still until the rest had time to think clearly.
____________
Once Bitten,
Twice shy,
Be careful,
This one has sharp teeth.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 14, 2010 08:15 PM |
|
|
People can read about affect heuristic here. Better would be to read some of the original papers by Paul Slovic. If you've still need clarification of my post after reading, particularly with respect to whether I'm asking you to make a decision based on something other than rational thought, then you know where to ask.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Father
|
|
posted May 14, 2010 08:20 PM |
|
|
Exactly, so why is it that you would wish to do away with moral thinking in order to come to a conclusion on this. Or am I just radically misunderstanding something that your trying to say?
____________
Once Bitten,
Twice shy,
Be careful,
This one has sharp teeth.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 15, 2010 10:07 AM |
|
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 12:28 AM |
|
|
I'd say if they can be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, just break their legs. Only in the case of violent rapists and the like mind you. Why should I care if some perv looks at pictures on the internet, no matter how much he loved the man on goat action.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Father
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 01:17 AM |
|
|
--blinks--
And with one fail swoop, she comes, she conquers, she explains the difference between Socialism and Capitalism in a thread not dedicated to it, and not even meaning to. 
ROFL, this was great...
Needless to say, umm...yeah I would disagree with that last post, but that all might be fluffery anyway. Yes that's right, I just said fluffery, who's jealous!?
--smiles--
____________
Once Bitten,
Twice shy,
Be careful,
This one has sharp teeth.
|
|
Celfious
Promising
Legendary Hero
From earth
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 01:47 AM |
|
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 02:24 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 02:27, 16 May 2010.
|
One step ahead of you Celf.
Also let's make this the most viewed thread of all time so that whenever someone googles "hardcore sex" he's directed here.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 02:32 AM |
|
|
@Shyranis:
Quote:
I'd say if they can be proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, just break their legs.
Break their legs? Is that innuendo for 'castration' or do you actually mean break their legs?
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Lure_of_Lilith
Adventuring Hero
2nd Level, Expert Blind
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 04:42 PM |
|
|
Personally, I think it's permissible for the authorities to resort to different levels of inhumane punishments as they see fit (the gravity of the punishment as reflected by the gravity of the offense done).
And I see castration for sex offenders as a sort of warning sign for future, would-be sex offenders to step back and think twice about commiting such acts.
This is just, entirely my opinion. Feel free to attack me. 
Of course, castration is pretty much like the act of taking one's life (Death Penalty): when you cut it, there's no turning back.
I believe humans are evolved to be smart enough to choose what to do with their feeble lives and be prepared for the grotesque consequences of their actions.
____________
|
|
Father
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 08:43 PM |
|
|
So authorities should have permission to use whatever inhumane punishments that they want. At the same time we are evolved and smart enough. -- Paraphrased from 2 parts of previous post.
I vote the previous post to be the award winner for the Oxymoron post of the year.
There, I have attacked you. LOL
____________
Once Bitten,
Twice shy,
Be careful,
This one has sharp teeth.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 16, 2010 09:37 PM |
|
|
It makes perfect sense. We're smart enough to choose, and we're smart enough to punish (once guilt has been determined). People have free will and if they choose to offend, they accept the possibility of being punished. And we should punish in such a way that people will not want to offend again.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 17, 2010 12:25 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 00:26, 17 May 2010.
|
It indeed makes sense, and I used to think that way too, but then again, does that really attack the root of the problem, or does it merely push it back a bit?
In other words, it seems to me the debate here is between those who believe that humanity can evolve over a relatively short period of time so that it does not produce individuals who would commit crimes such as rape, and those who believe it can't.
The first ones' main flaw is that they cannot present a system of education and correction that would definitely work, and they most certainly cannot ensure the extermination of the criminally insane from our gene pool, unless it's resorted to genetic engineering or similar. They disregard the fact that there are people impossible to reason with, and those with crimes so horrid that it would be futile to attempt to persuade them back into behaving acceptably. In the end, it would be inhuman to require a father of a raped, abused, murdered and cannibalized daughter to even theoretically accept the perpetrator back into society.
The problem with the latter group is that mankind would hence evolve more toward citizen control and fearful obedience than individual reason, choosing what is currently more comfortable and secure but what will most likely eventually turn into a heavily monitored society where your every move could theoretically be watched in order to prevent crime, which would be rather exploitable.
I'm as of yet undecided.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
