But in the world we live in, this is sadly not the case and we must stick to the rules that the people have agreed to.
Who says we must? F the rules, it’s not like it’s in the interest of those who actually make the world go round. Immigrants for example.
The rules in this case are, the people of Britain have voted to leave the EU and all its benefits, so these new rules must be followed.
There was a poll about the death penalty some time ago in an EU country. The majority of those polled were in favour of the death penalty. Does the death penalty prevent murders? No it doesn’t. It’s just another terrorist tool that the populace OKs to have used upon itself in certain cases.
Your logic is exactly the same of following orders and denouncing undesirables. It is no better than what UKIP and Sweden Democrats base their decision making on, in fact it boils down to the same thing. It’s nationalism.
But in the world we live in, this is sadly not the case and we must stick to the rules that the people have agreed to.
Who says we must?
To be polite to others?
F the rules, it’s not like it’s in the interest of those who actually make the world go round. Immigrants for example.
Why every discussion about rules need to end with citing immigrants ?
The rules in this case are, the people of Britain have voted to leave the EU and all its benefits, so these new rules must be followed.
There was a poll about the death penalty some time ago in an EU country. The majority of those polled were in favour of the death penalty. Does the death penalty prevent murders?
Obviously not, death penalty alone would not work if you are pretty sure to not be caught.
What you really need is to be sure that if you break the law there will be a penalty, and a hard one if you commit a murder.
No it doesn’t. It’s just another terrorist tool that the populace OKs to have used upon itself in certain cases.
Like every penalty if you think about it.
Your logic is exactly the same of following orders and denouncing undesirables.
No. Following the rules is the base for a society to be functional.
Beside, when UK decide to leave the EU, they know very well what the consequences would be, they simply choose to ignore them, or they were convinced that the UK could have imposed their conditions on EU.
Oh, politeness. I forget, that is of course the motivator of behaviour. Not interests or economics, forget about those of course.
Why every discussion about rules need to end with citing immigrants ?
Not every discussion about rules ends with citing immigrants. Immigrants are relevant here – see the article – and the rules that exist favour either rich immigrants or people with citizenship. And migrants do make the world go round, look at doctors, people working in industry and so on.
Obviously not, death penalty alone would not work if you are pretty sure to not be caught. What you really need is to be sure that if you break the law there will be a penalty, and a hard one if you commit a murder.
All of that is after the fact. After murders have happened. Murders know that they will be punished harshly and do it anyway. The interesting question is how to prevent murders without strictly relying on harsh punishments since that is something murders factor in…
Like every penalty if you think about it.
So you do recognise rules are forced upon subjects by an authority, in this case the state. I assume you are not a state servant or business owner, do you also recognise that the state wants to squeeze you of every ounce of labour so that it can do its deed to perpetuate its system of class rule? It’s hens OKing the fox guarding the hen house.
No. Following the rules is the base for a society to be functional.
Society is not merely a set of rules. Society is made up of relations between people and physical infrastructure such as housing and workplaces. What you think of as rules are at best for edge cases. Most people don’t go about their day thinking about rules, those who do are a small minority which most would generally label bean counters. You have a highly idealistic conception of why things work.
Beside, when UK decide to leave the EU, they know very well what the consequences would be, they simply choose to ignore them, or they were convinced that the UK could have imposed their conditions on EU.
Actually, no those who voted did not understand the consequences. To understand the consequences you would need to spend time that most people don’t have because they work. Nationalistic thinktanks that position themselves against German (and French) competition pour a bunch of money into campaigns that say the UK will be paradise after Brexit and the people lap it up. Not that this is the thing that brought us Brexit, there was a nationalistic sentiment that existed before Brexit was even a concept. This has a logic, and it has very little to do with rigorously rational voting.
But yeah, what you are saying, about needing to follow rules and whatnot, is exactly the same thing someone killings others for the military would say. “I need to follow the rules because if I don’t something bad happens or something”
“In the first version of the study, the “learner” could be heard banging on the wall at 300 volts and 315 volts and then falling silent. The experiments unexpectedly found that a very high proportion of subjects would obey the instructions, with every participant going up to 300 volts, and 65% going up to the full 450 volts” -The Milgram Experiment
‘Following orders’ is a part of humanity. If your plans require its absence they will fail.
Who says we must? F the rules, it’s not like it’s in the interest of those who actually make the world go round. Immigrants for example.
There was a poll about the death penalty some time ago in an EU country. The majority of those polled were in favour of the death penalty. Does the death penalty prevent murders? No it doesn’t. It’s just another terrorist tool that the populace OKs to have used upon itself in certain cases.
Your logic is exactly the same of following orders and denouncing undesirables. It is no better than what UKIP and Sweden Democrats base their decision making on, in fact it boils down to the same thing. It’s nationalism.
To be polite to others?
Why every discussion about rules need to end with citing immigrants ?
Obviously not, death penalty alone would not work if you are pretty sure to not be caught.
What you really need is to be sure that if you break the law there will be a penalty, and a hard one if you commit a murder.
Like every penalty if you think about it.
No. Following the rules is the base for a society to be functional.
Beside, when UK decide to leave the EU, they know very well what the consequences would be, they simply choose to ignore them, or they were convinced that the UK could have imposed their conditions on EU.
Oh, politeness. I forget, that is of course the motivator of behaviour. Not interests or economics, forget about those of course.
Not every discussion about rules ends with citing immigrants. Immigrants are relevant here – see the article – and the rules that exist favour either rich immigrants or people with citizenship. And migrants do make the world go round, look at doctors, people working in industry and so on.
All of that is after the fact. After murders have happened. Murders know that they will be punished harshly and do it anyway. The interesting question is how to prevent murders without strictly relying on harsh punishments since that is something murders factor in…
So you do recognise rules are forced upon subjects by an authority, in this case the state. I assume you are not a state servant or business owner, do you also recognise that the state wants to squeeze you of every ounce of labour so that it can do its deed to perpetuate its system of class rule? It’s hens OKing the fox guarding the hen house.
Society is not merely a set of rules. Society is made up of relations between people and physical infrastructure such as housing and workplaces. What you think of as rules are at best for edge cases. Most people don’t go about their day thinking about rules, those who do are a small minority which most would generally label bean counters. You have a highly idealistic conception of why things work.
Actually, no those who voted did not understand the consequences. To understand the consequences you would need to spend time that most people don’t have because they work. Nationalistic thinktanks that position themselves against German (and French) competition pour a bunch of money into campaigns that say the UK will be paradise after Brexit and the people lap it up. Not that this is the thing that brought us Brexit, there was a nationalistic sentiment that existed before Brexit was even a concept. This has a logic, and it has very little to do with rigorously rational voting.
But yeah, what you are saying, about needing to follow rules and whatnot, is exactly the same thing someone killings others for the military would say. “I need to follow the rules because if I don’t something bad happens or something”
“In the first version of the study, the “learner” could be heard banging on the wall at 300 volts and 315 volts and then falling silent. The experiments unexpectedly found that a very high proportion of subjects would obey the instructions, with every participant going up to 300 volts, and 65% going up to the full 450 volts” -The Milgram Experiment
‘Following orders’ is a part of humanity. If your plans require its absence they will fail.
Human nature argument that can be safely ignored.