I was thinking something more along the lines of splitting the work equally, then synching memories after and then I have way more free tine (I'd unsplit for that).
HopFlop
joined 2 years ago
I respect democratic decisions and find any form of terrorism against those decisions and thus the democratic system itself unjustifyable.
[About Nazi Germany:] would it be morally justified to fight against the government with terrorism if you are unable to leave?
The Nazis didn't adhere to the democratic principles themselves, they were very much antidemocratic and were forcibly trying to change the system against the will of the majority (this I find unjustifyable). They were themselves a kind of minority
To answer your question, I think I would be justified to fight that (with force), HOWEVER, it is NOT justified that I push my own minority-opinion (e.g. by establishing a dictstorship with me as the dictator).
So a democracy has no value to you? Not everyone can be perfectly happy with the state of society at any point in time. What makes you feel like you are entitled to achieve your goals against the majority's will?
If the policies that govern a society aren’t working for a group, [...] what are they to do?
- Either you accept the constitution, in which case you could protest, say your opinion publicly or just accept what the majority wants, OR
- You don't accept the constitution, in which case you can leave the country/society.
Is every terror attack for political reasons justified then?
"I want to change something and I cant get it democratically so because a revolution requires violence, I have the right to kill everybody" - Is that how you think it works?
That is very much acceptable, killing other people is not.
Do you think that rich people should have to serve shorter prison sentences
Of course not. I completely get your point, you say (correct me if I'm wrong) that time is a fair metric for everyone. I respect that.
I agree, however I think money is too. Sure - some people have more or less money, and some people live longer or shorter lives. But everyone can still do the same in one hour and everyone can still buy the same things for 10€.
What I think is UNFAIR is trying to "convert" one metric to the other depending on personal wealth. If I get a fine, it should be a fixed amount of money IMO and if you charge me with time in some way then it should be a fixed amount of time.
Exactly, so that answers the question. When you finish paying your loan, you stop paying back money and thus your credit score is slightly lower than when you were actively paying back.
Who would you rather give a loan to? A person who you know is currently able to pay you back or a person you know was able to pay back the loan 10 years ago?
I guess that depends on the metric you use. You say they should be punished by time (and so people who earn money more quickly should have to pay more). However, I see many problems with that and I think it would result in much less fair fines than now.
Picture two persons, one living in the countryside, one in a big city. The second person earns considerably more than the first because life in the city is just more expensive. Both persons have the same amount of money left at the end of the month (after paying the bells etc) but income-adjusted fines would mean person B would have to pay way more.
If it's posession-bases instead (i.e. your fines depend on what you have/own) then what about some person who inherited a large house that is worth lots of money and has an otherwise normal job. This person may also have the same amount of money left at the end of the month as the other two persons but because of his big house, he'd have to pay even more, potentially sell his house because of a small offense.
Yeag tgats what I meant with "unsplit". Just do that for work and then unite again for the free time.