You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
[+]pcdude0 points0 points0 points
ago
(edited ago)
[–]pcdude0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
Such a revolt will not occur until a sufficient number of people have nothing left to lose or they will be left with nothing absent of immediate action. Most of us still have something left to lose.
single people need to do all the fighting for us, even though they have the least to protect. i sure wouldnt want to have to fight to save my own children.
people with nothing to lose have nothing to save. we need people who actually have reason to fight, to do so. but everyone is gonna quietly wait until their children have to die saving themselves. it keeps happening and people seem to be okay with it.
you want to be the next haiti, rhodesia, south africa, europe? fine. dont fight. if you have nothing worth fighting to protect and dont care about your own people.
I am by no means suggesting that single people with nothing to lose are the only ones to fight. People fight when they are pressed into a corner. They fight when they have to chose between fighting and losing what matters. They don't fight after their family is dead, but they will not fight until the livelihood of their family is threatened.
I am not suggesting this is how it should work; rather this is how it works historically. Everyone has different thresholds for how threatened they must feel before they fight. I am just indicating (based on history) that enough people will not fight until what they value is imminently threatened.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] pcdude ago (edited ago)
Such a revolt will not occur until a sufficient number of people have nothing left to lose or they will be left with nothing absent of immediate action. Most of us still have something left to lose.
[–] xenoPsychologist 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
people with nothing to lose have nothing to save. we need people who actually have reason to fight, to do so. but everyone is gonna quietly wait until their children have to die saving themselves. it keeps happening and people seem to be okay with it.
you want to be the next haiti, rhodesia, south africa, europe? fine. dont fight. if you have nothing worth fighting to protect and dont care about your own people.
[–] pcdude ago
I am by no means suggesting that single people with nothing to lose are the only ones to fight. People fight when they are pressed into a corner. They fight when they have to chose between fighting and losing what matters. They don't fight after their family is dead, but they will not fight until the livelihood of their family is threatened.
I am not suggesting this is how it should work; rather this is how it works historically. Everyone has different thresholds for how threatened they must feel before they fight. I am just indicating (based on history) that enough people will not fight until what they value is imminently threatened.