Tuml Ate My First Blog So Time To Start Again

"he's literally just doing what an adventurer is supposed to do"

"do you think they think of us as Giant Adventurers?"

"do you know how many other creatures would be infesting our cave if there were no adventurers?"

"how would you like it if you were bumbling along on your little adventurer day, and some giant dragon thing squished you for the crime of being yourself?"

No, riches are NOT bad by themselves. They are RAW MATERIAL. It's what you will do with them that counts as good or bad. This is why wealth redistribution is wrong and dystopian. Not all rich people are greedy. Many are. But not all. Just taxing them is fair, provided that it's done justly, not used as "revenge", and the money taken from them is used wisely.

(taxation is another discussion and I believe is accepted only under specific conditions, otherwise it's theft. And today it's mainly theft)

Similarly, not all poor people are innocent. Many DO exploit the system and DO want to live on benefits and have other people pay for them. Many others aren't (myself included). But a lot of them are.

Needless to say that the left is known for their hate towards people who are better than them. So I'm not surprised that they hate all rich people regardless of behaviour. They hate anyone who's better than them in anything and anyone who owns more than they do. If leftists are the ones who are better and richer than others, everything is fine. In other words, riches are fine as long as they are rich.

Part of the central point of her argument was that we and the world are at the mercy of a cabal of uber-powerful, uber-rich, unelected, and unaccountable tycoons -- which, of course, can hardly be denied; it's pretty much a non-partisan statement nowadays.

Well...that sounded awfully familiar to me.

Sounds not too far from "eat the rich", right? Maybe leftists have a point, after all!

But then I pondered: what common ground is there, really? Let us think -- what reasons does the Left usually cite for "eating the rich"?

Is it "Because this cabal of unaccountable men are are the real culprits of environmental destruction, and not your average Joe who wants to eat beef and do the occasional overseas trip"?

Is it "Because these people are foisting upon all of us, at the expense of nature, tradition, and true spiritual wellbeing, a bunch of technologies and lifestyles (think postmodernity, beigification, etc.) which we never asked for"?

Is it, as I tend to say, "Because they confiscated our past, and stole our future"?

I am willing to be contradicted, but in my experience, almost none of the aforementioned reasons ever make it into their rhetoric.

Their core, if not sole, rationale (for as many as do not go all-out in claiming that all private property must be abolished) is almost always some variation of "Having above a certain arbitrary amount of private property automatically means that you're an exploitative and immoral a***hole". Which is not only unfalsifiable, but also completely at odds with the reasons which any sane person has for wanting to "eat the rich", but also, most importantly, never addresses the core problems.

Prison abolition applies to criminals who have actually committed the crimes they have been arrested for. Yes that includes the ones I consider particularly heinous like rape and murder.

Even if someone refuses or is unable to be held accountable for their actions they should not have their freedoms limited and forced into prison labor.

It might not be fully possible to let someone have complete freedom without risk of reoffending, but the way we do prisons right now is not helping with the reoffending rates.

There is a tendency for someone to commit a crime, get out of prison, and then commit another crime because they cannot handle being in society because of poverty, poor mental health, and lack of access to jobs.

Parents denied and accused OP of trying to start trouble, perp was “well liked in the community”

I’m no expert politicians here, but I think there’s one hell of a false dichotomy here. Of course the kid should get in some trouble, and Reddit OP had tried to go through other options - fair play. I don’t know how many other options the guy had, but the thing is -

In any normal world, fucking up - even fucking up big time and stealing $2000 - at age 17 shouldn’t cost you your future. And everything I understand of the US? It will. I don’t know if the kid was some rich wanker who thought he could get away with anything, or some poor, stupid desperate kid - but laws shouldn’t be so punitive as to ruin a life over a mistake. And, of course, the effects are going to be much worse for a kid with no money than a kid from a rich family.

If they decided to roll the dice when OP had the kid on video stealing the item, that was their stupid choice.

Along with missing the multiple cameras the kid passed by, apparently.

In fact, what if the stolen item was something vital and urgent, like medical equipment? What if someone actually got physically hurt because of the theft?

>(which, by the way, who says about a 17yr old “they had no future”?)

This is not an actual criticism.

Because I keep thinking about it when I read anything about AAA gaming.

They are in fact setting new standards! that are, in a very real way, hideously low.

Regular attendance

Third-grade English language arts proficiency

Ninth-grade on-track rate for graduation

Graduation rates overall

Five-year completion rate, which includes students earning a GED or diploma

Kindergarten-second grade attendance

Eighth-grade math proficiency

Next up someone is going to claim that the Narnia series isn't kids books.

Found a Reddit thread where someone said the "bloodlust" of Daisy in Bioshock Infinite "came out of nowhere."

She started an armed uprising, and you're surprised that she wanted to kill an innocent kid?

Which is something revolutions have repeatedly done?

I love how the game showed that Elizabeth had an idealized image of a revolution, and so many people apparently had the exact same image.

One of the comments even pointed to Elizabeth's "flip-flopping" after Elizabeth just spent a lot of time witnessing the Vox's atrocities.

If you think changing your mind when you see evidence that proves you wrong is being inconsistent...

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that the Industrial Revolution broke people's brains, or rather broke reality while the brains remained where they were.

But also, there's the democracy problem. There was a comment on California's """one-time""" wealth tax initiative that went something like:

Democrats can promise their constituents 100% of your stuff. Republicans can only promise to let you keep your stuff.