What kind of society do you all prefer, an honest and just society without divisiveness, or a dishonest and unjust society with conflict-but that you can benefit personally from?

I’m a person who just wants to live life minding my own business and usually I just want to be left alone. I was never out to screw anyone over for my own personal gain and even sometimes I’m actually out for the opposite; to help people make it through life.

So probably, an honest, just, equal society.

I vote for an honest and just society that I can benefit personally from.

@Disc2021
I can relate with your sentiments. Try travelling to places like Europe, you will observe a wholly different approach. And, just because they are more socialist, does Not mean they are less Charitable, accountable, or honest. They have more honesty, justness, and equality than America in general, ‘interest’ groups want Americans to feel ‘special’ or ‘guilty’ for personal gain.

Honest, just and equal because to have anything else will allow anything you achieve or earn to be taken from you.

@Dog
Very prophetic, just examine the current economic condition of American,(caused by ACORN and forced affirmative action lending, __often Bad Loans__ and subsequent junk bond selling by fannie and freddie exascerbating the condition..) and the subsequent printing of ‘stimulus’ money, reduced value of assets, currency, and land-to be replaced by people who fit a certain ‘criterion,’ not proven thrifty producers…

Honesty is the best policy.

@justwannaknow

True, that.

An honest and just society has nothing to do with divisiveness. We will always find reasons to segregate ourselves, and find ourselves somehow superior, from what is different. Honesty and justice are relative terms, with no objective meaning. I’m 100% positive my idea of justice is not the same as yours @Crusader.

This question essentially has no meaning.

I want a society where people are free to choose, and overall choose honesty over being a butthead. I also want a society where I am judged for my actions and not by my ideals. I’d also like a society where everyone pays their fair share and lives their lives for themselves and others in a way that does not infringe upon the beliefs, ideals, and ways of others.

Also, a place where blatant stupidity and fear-mongering are as frowned upon as homicide and armed robbery.

@tinyfaery

Questions are not required to have meaning. Answers are.

I would think, if the former society existed we would all benefit.

An honest and just global society without divisiveness.

Charity rather than self-interest.
Humility rather than pride.
Upliftment rather than oppression.
Cooperation rather than competition.
Acceptance rather than condemnation.
Consultation rather than conflict.

I appreciate honesty and justice, but my choice of society depends on the nature of the society, and what its agreements and disagreements are.

I disagree with “in other words, a safe nation of enforced laws” being the same thing as honesty and justice. For examples, when laws are shaped by industries, corporations, religious extremists or control-freak politicians, then law enforcement starts looking unjust and dishonest to me.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies well, if that’s true, then you are the king of questions. because none of yours ever have any meaning.

@Crusader: The problem is that my “fair society, free of discrimination,” is your “unjust society giving preferential treatment to liberals and minorities.”

You’ve demonstrated repeatedly that you are in favor of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; how can any society that does that be considered just?

Is there a question here?

Which would you rather go to sleep with: a fuzzy teddy bear or a hungy cobra?

@eponymoushipster

Thank you. It is good to be King.

I am amazed at the number of people who have attacked this question. They seem to believe that it is such an obvious choice and thus not a question at all. Yet I read the very last line, which qualified it as an genuine question. The qualifier was “personal benefit” at the cost of deception.

I can point to many people who have chosen the second path offered, and so there must be a valid point in asking this question to others.

Why attack the question when you can simply answer it or ignore it altogether? Those who attack the question seem more inclined to be the type of people who would choose the second path, attempting to conceal a deception for their personal benefit.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – I don’t think it was the question that was being attacked, so much as it was the questioner. When someone presents themselves in such a narrow minded and divisive way, as Crusader has over the past month or so, then they may be reacted to harshly even when the question itself is pretty straightforward.

Especially when the obvious answer is so antithetical to the posts that have been left by the questioner. You reap what you sow…

@fireside

Surely you have spoken wisely and with great insight. The questioner was indeed being attacked, through the vehicle of attacking the question. The questioner in this case is extremely passionate about their beliefs, and that can lead to abrasive tactics when presenting them.

I try to see through the abrasiveness and read into the essence of the passion. But no one else is required to do so. They may answer abrasiveness with abrasiveness if they so choose.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – I agree completely.
——————————————————————
O people of Baha! Ye are the dawning-places of the love of God and the daysprings of His loving-kindness. Defile not your tongues with the cursing and reviling of any soul, and guard your eyes against that which is not seemly. Set forth that which ye possess. If it be favourably received, your end is attained; if not, to protest is vain. Leave that soul to himself and turn unto the Lord, the Protector, the Self-Subsisting. Be not the cause of grief, much less of discord and strife. The hope is cherished that ye may obtain true education in the shelter of the tree of His tender mercies and act in accordance with that which God desireth. Ye are all the leaves of one tree and the drops of one ocean.

Baha’u’llah

@Crusader That’s on my “To do” list. Everyone in my state at least only seems to be concerned with themselves =\.

@tinyfaery
No, you and your will find way, as long as you benefit from unconstitutional and unethical economical and scoial academic advantages, ad hominem all you like it does not change the facts of the current racist,(white protestant Hating/economical/social legislated prejudice,)
@fireside
Yes, those are noble sentiments,but how can anyone truely be without self-interest? Do you work for free? If married, do you not expect occassional sex? How about, after a long, hard effort in work/school/etc.. pride in what they have accomplished?
All will feel oppression to some degree it is a matter of perception, and not reality, as often as not. Without a degre of competition, how do we measure our accomplishments? How do we advance ourselves beyond mere existance and into prosperity?
Without condemnation how do we know right from wrong, good from evil? Should not murderers, rapist, child molesters, etc..receive condemnation? Also, conflict is not the antonym of consultation, With conflict, often Truth is discovered, when an individual has the courage to act alone for the sake of truth, there will ineveitably be conflict.
@cwilber,
Again, you distort the truth for the sake of ad hominem, or perhaps you genuinely believe that to be denied a ‘special’ and advantageous status based upon a sexual orientation other than heterosexual is justifyable. I any case I Never advocated dicrimination against homosexuals, neither do I advocate providing them with a ‘favored, special’ status in terms of academic, employment, and government contracts. (See Washington State and many other liberal states on favored quota systems for any other than heterosexual white males…) Your party ascribles to Punish with reduced opportunity and social marginalization for those who do Not agree. You are No different than the elitists who would advocate intolerance and Hate decades previous, I would protect you from violence, but you want money power, and attractive mates, you are the greatest threat to America domestically, you have no conception of what is good for all, could care less, and play on the sympathies of those who are forced into a guilt state, yours is pure political expediency for personal gain.

Anything Cwilber advocates is a paid position for personal gain. Along with all other so-called progressives. Advancing one group over another is Always Discrimination, as a Government it is Facism and Racism. Heterophobes love any and all groups that would advance them Personally. One and All.

Ba’Ha’ism,

Translation, selective interpretations of Christianity, with liberal doses of Buddism, and Hinduism. All Democrats. Agenda? You decide.

Also, if you do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God, you are neither Christian, nor Catholic. If you beleive Jesus was both Man and the Son of God your are a Protestant, all others seek to Subvert Christ and Christians/socially conservative Catholics.

‘Beware, their will be May false prophets..’

@Crusader – I was speaking of charity over self-interest. Not charity in the absence of self-interest.
When you have sex, is the goal to please yourself first and your partner’s pleasure a secondary concern? I know that is not my focus.

Everything else you mentioned is just a way to spread discord and disunity. I would rather see all peoples come together and respect each other. If you want to call that an agenda, then I can’t disagree.

@fireside @Crusader

Respect

@fireside
Again, your recent post is inaccurate. As your post before clearly stated, ‘charity rather than self-interest.’ ‘Rather than’ is identical to ‘Instead Of’. Also, given your vacillation on this point, I would understand, considering the Blatant Hypocritsy of accepting the Charity of social conservatives, (generally white protestants,) to advance yourself at their expense, with tax-payer subsidized liberal advocacy groups, advantages in higher education, private and public sector positions, etc…All straight liberals who qualify for NAACP and/or ACLU benefits/advocacy are encouraged to have larger families, and, regardless of the lack of responsible parenting, are elevated over white kids. White families with many kids are considered ‘irresponsible’ in virtually every circumstance, especially if they are socially conservative, then they are not only irresponsible, but Cults as well…So 95% of abortions are inflicted upon innocent babies from two white parents… I see through the genocidal efforts. This is the subtle genocide of 20th and 21st century. Libs want to encourage such Death, because they know most of the abortions will be whites anyway, and not as likely to support their Demon-Crat agenda…

Your sex reference is an obvious effort to elicit an emotional response, and then attack the response, ignoring entirely the relevency of my previous posts, typical Demon-Crat strategy. And in terms of pleasure, it is reciprical, and Godly between a man and women, designed to produce and reproduce, not just elicit ‘pleasure’ for its own sake, you might know something about this, yes?

Everything you say is an effort to spread hypocrisy, deception, and political expediency designed to enhace your own personal position, and that of your friends, social conservative Christian/Catholic Haters one and All. In terms of discord and disunity, if the Truth produces such results then your so-called Harmony and Unity is based on lies, and deceit, a frail foundation indeed.

“what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to decieve…” Sir Walter Scott

@Crusader – feel free to read whatever you want into what i say. I don’t normally see things is such stark terms as this or that. I feel that false dichotomies are part of the problem we have in the world right now.

Also, my sex reference was a direct response to your sex question.

Best of luck in your crusade.

Hands down honest and just society!