<p>I specifically stated only food was acceptable please read posts before arguing against them. It isn’t that curious, it’s only ok when you need it. When your family is starving you tend to be starving also. If I don’t need it, it is wrong for me to take and give to people who do need it. I should give to them, and I try to. </p>
<p>When the poor have their revolution I’m going to have some major lol’s and then proceed to hop on my unicorn, chill with some wizards, and then go to Hogwarts. In that order. Utopias aren’t real for a reason.</p>
<p>EDIT: How can you say they didn’t work for it? That’s a company not a person. A company can’t work, it’s inanimate. No both are wrong. You can’t compare 2 wrong things and say one is better than another, wrong is wrong.</p>
<p>It just isn’t your place Dolorous. I wouldn’t hold it against someone if I was wealthy and they took money from me to feed their family, but it isn’t your place to play God and say “you don’t need this money, it needs to be given to this person instead.” Sorry.</p>
<p>I read your post. Assets are assets. Differentiating between food and money that will be used to purchase said food is pointless.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You might be starving. Or you might have a family of five and enough food to feed four of them. In which case your moral system relies on an accounting procedure to decide who is allowed to steal the food.</p>
<p>But you’re right, curious isn’t really a good word for the system, at least not if the implicit condescension isn’t clear.</p>
<p>I was referring to the reference about stealing money; money and food are completely different, you don’t require currency, you need food, water, shelter. It’s not that illogical, families have an obligation to take care of one another. People have an obligation to care for other people but it is different. A lot of those worker revolutions ended out bad for everyone involved rich and poor (Russian, French).</p>
And in our modern world, money means all those things.</p>
<p>
Yes, but without the Russian and French Revolutions, modern Russia and France wouldn’t exist as they are today. And did it matter to the rich if the poor that killed them eventually ended up in a bad state again?</p>
<p>
What about letting them die when you could stop it? Is that wrong?</p>
<p>I knew what you were referring to. The difference between money and food is insignificant if the amount of money taken is equivalent in value to the food that would have been taken and is spent entirely on food equivalent to what would have been taken. In fact taking the food would in many cases be more of an annoyance, in the same way that it’s a pain in the ass to have something lifted from your shopping cart before you’ve paid for it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The end result is identical. It is, in fact, the same.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The French Revolution wasn’t a worker’s revolution. The Russian revolution turned out badly because it wasn’t prepared for communism, and they quickly stopped trying.</p>
<p>There was a French workers revolution it wasn’t The French Revolution but it did happen. I’m not sure of its official name.
Not all of the rich were killed, more poor people were killed then rich. (mostly because there were a lot more poor then rich available to die)
And even more innocent people then people that were guilty. The Communist revolutions did a lot more harm then help because they never actually hit the goal. They just went from being really horrible for most people to being really horrible for everyone.</p>
<p>Then you too are a murderer. You didn’t save that one Somalian child that was lost a few moments ago from starvation, PREPARE THE GUILLOTINE! (Only jokin’) </p>
<p>I respect your opinion and I understand it differs from mine. I also understand that I’m going to be very grumpy tomorrow if I don’t get off the computer and sleep. I’ll probably pop back in on this discussion if I have time tomorrow. In case I don’t peace out</p>
Paris Commune. Was working fairly well, with lots of new-found rights and liberties, until the goddamn French army came and executed everyone.</p>
<p>
I give what I can, but I have little to give. It isn’t exactly murder to let them die, but it’s close. Especially since neo-colonial capitalism did play a role in their deaths.</p>