Does Inequality Result In Violence?

[Brawd]

Seems to me that violence is a choice. After all, India was pretty poor when Gandhi lead his non-violence revolution to success. If lack of income produced violence, than that movement would have been extremely violent.

I dont have much income at the moment. I am not violent. Especially towards people who havent done anything to me.

There was a lot of violence, his civil disobediance was a rarity that is why he is revered, even today there is sexual violence going on towards women and children in india.

Hence, why violence is a choice.

It didn't work there is still violence in India....and inequality

 

[Meathead]

Seems to me that violence is a choice. After all, India was pretty poor when Gandhi lead his non-violence revolution to success. If lack of income produced violence, than that movement would have been extremely violent.

I dont have much income at the moment. I am not violent. Especially towards people who havent done anything to me.

Have you heard the latest of the Indian rape victim who hadn't done anything to her attackers?

 

[Avatar4321]

Seems to me that violence is a choice. After all, India was pretty poor when Gandhi lead his non-violence revolution to success. If lack of income produced violence, than that movement would have been extremely violent.

I dont have much income at the moment. I am not violent. Especially towards people who havent done anything to me.

More brilliance.

Your sarcasm is duly noted. Doesn't change the fact that people choose to be violent or peaceful.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Seems to me that violence is a choice. After all, India was pretty poor when Gandhi lead his non-violence revolution to success. If lack of income produced violence, than that movement would have been extremely violent.

I dont have much income at the moment. I am not violent. Especially towards people who havent done anything to me.

There was a lot of violence, his civil disobediance was a rarity that is why he is revered, even today there is sexual violence going on towards women and children in india.

Hence, why violence is a choice.

And we...as a country...choose it? Makes perfect sense.

 

[Brawd]

There was a lot of violence, his civil disobediance was a rarity that is why he is revered, even today there is sexual violence going on towards women and children in india.

Hence, why violence is a choice.

And we...as a country...choose it? Makes perfect sense.

Maybe some do like "sniperfire" shrug

 

[LoneLaugher]

Seems to me that violence is a choice. After all, India was pretty poor when Gandhi lead his non-violence revolution to success. If lack of income produced violence, than that movement would have been extremely violent.

I dont have much income at the moment. I am not violent. Especially towards people who havent done anything to me.

More brilliance.

Your sarcasm is duly noted. Doesn't change the fact that people choose to be violent or peaceful.

It isn't sarcasm....it is boredom. trying to figure out how someone like you thinks we are talking about your personal experience in this thread leads to extreme boredom.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Seems to me that violence is a choice. After all, India was pretty poor when Gandhi lead his non-violence revolution to success. If lack of income produced violence, than that movement would have been extremely violent.

I dont have much income at the moment. I am not violent. Especially towards people who havent done anything to me.

Have you heard the latest of the Indian rape victim who hadn't done anything to her attackers?

What's the latest?

 

[Avatar4321]

Seems to me that violence is a choice. After all, India was pretty poor when Gandhi lead his non-violence revolution to success. If lack of income produced violence, than that movement would have been extremely violent.

I dont have much income at the moment. I am not violent. Especially towards people who havent done anything to me.

Have you heard the latest of the Indian rape victim who hadn't done anything to her attackers?

What's the latest?

She's dead.

 

[DiamondDave]

Way to go nutters. You are all on a roll.

From the nutter who believes in equality in outcome with assistance/force from government

Trying to change the meaning of an accepted term again, huh?

No.. you openly support systems and a mantra that has a goal of equality in outcome, at the expense of some.... I openly support true equality that is blind to circumstance, just as justice is to be blind...

The difference.. mine is not based on subjective touchy feely bullshit and the fucking whims that come with it

 

[LoneLaugher]

From the nutter who believes in equality in outcome with assistance/force from government

Trying to change the meaning of an accepted term again, huh?

No.. you openly support systems and a mantra that has a goal of equality in outcome, at the expense of some.... I openly support true equality that is blind to circumstance, just as justice is to be blind...

The difference.. mine is not based on subjective touchy feely bullshit and the fucking whims that come with it

I was referring to your misuse of the term " nutter "' nutter.

And I support no mantra, imbecile. I support SENSIBLE DISTRIBUTION OF THIS NATION'S WEALTH. When too few have too much, shit goes bad.

 

[DiamondDave]

Trying to change the meaning of an accepted term again, huh?

No.. you openly support systems and a mantra that has a goal of equality in outcome, at the expense of some.... I openly support true equality that is blind to circumstance, just as justice is to be blind...

The difference.. mine is not based on subjective touchy feely bullshit and the fucking whims that come with it

I was referring to your misuse of the term " nutter "' nutter.

And I support no mantra, imbecile. I support SENSIBLE DISTRIBUTION OF THIS NATION'S WEALTH. When too few have too much, shit goes bad.

No.. it was proper use.. you are indeed a nutter (nutbag, whacko, idiot) that believes exactly what I stated

There is no 'SENSIBLE DISTRIBUTION'... you have no right to the earnings of another

 

[LoneLaugher]

No.. you openly support systems and a mantra that has a goal of equality in outcome, at the expense of some.... I openly support true equality that is blind to circumstance, just as justice is to be blind...

The difference.. mine is not based on subjective touchy feely bullshit and the fucking whims that come with it

I was referring to your misuse of the term " nutter "' nutter.

And I support no mantra, imbecile. I support SENSIBLE DISTRIBUTION OF THIS NATION'S WEALTH. When too few have too much, shit goes bad.

No.. it was proper use.. you are indeed a nutter (nutbag, whacko, idiot) that believes exactly what I stated

There is no 'SENSIBLE DISTRIBUTION'... you have no right to the earnings of another

When those earnings are made possible by the contributions of others....you bet I do.

 

[TNHarley]

Trying to change the meaning of an accepted term again, huh?

No.. you openly support systems and a mantra that has a goal of equality in outcome, at the expense of some.... I openly support true equality that is blind to circumstance, just as justice is to be blind...

The difference.. mine is not based on subjective touchy feely bullshit and the fucking whims that come with it

I was referring to your misuse of the term " nutter "' nutter.

And I support no mantra, imbecile. I support SENSIBLE DISTRIBUTION OF THIS NATION'S WEALTH. When too few have too much, shit goes bad.

How is stealing money from a smart and ambitious person sensible?

 

[TNHarley]

Here is a good question : Why should a lazy-good-for-nothing poor person get all that money and not me(and dont bring up seniors, vets or disabled. I never want to see their benefits cut)? I am responsible, hard working, good parent(hopefully. I will find out lol) and a contributor to society.

 

[Katzndogz]

Inequality doesn't but envy does. Democrats have hit upon the formula for exploiting envy into warfare. Now that war will have to be fought on many different levels.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Here is a good question : Why should a lazy-good-for-nothing poor person get all that money and not me(and dont bring up seniors, vets or disabled. I never want to see their benefits cut)? I am responsible, hard working, good parent(hopefully. I will find out lol) and a contributor to society.

They most certainly should not.

 

[TNHarley]

Here is a good question : Why should a lazy-good-for-nothing poor person get all that money and not me(and dont bring up seniors, vets or disabled. I never want to see their benefits cut)? I am responsible, hard working, good parent(hopefully. I will find out lol) and a contributor to society.

They most certainly should not.

OK.. good contradiction.. What kind of people need to be "up-lifted" to be equal?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Here is a good question : Why should a lazy-good-for-nothing poor person get all that money and not me(and dont bring up seniors, vets or disabled. I never want to see their benefits cut)? I am responsible, hard working, good parent(hopefully. I will find out lol) and a contributor to society.

They most certainly should not.

OK.. good contradiction.. What kind of people need to be "up-lifted" to be equal?

You seem to be debating someone other than me. Perhaps the person you want me to be?
I get it....it is much easier that way.

 

[Koios]

It's called poverty, not inequality. Inequality is a misnomer.

And most of the poverty is because of the 70% of single-parent households having kids out of wedlock.

From what I could see the problem is mental illness. Drugs. Alcohol. A lack of respect or accountability.

Not in economics. In fact, it's a vital measure of a society's sustainablity, which btw, does not suggest nor ever expect that equality will ever exist, but merely that too much inequality leads to dual societies, which perform poorly, economically. Examples abound in South America, many of which are reversing the awful trend, while we seem hellbent on becoming more like them.

Kinda stupid (read: "righty.")

 

[TNHarley]

They most certainly should not.

OK.. good contradiction.. What kind of people need to be "up-lifted" to be equal?

You seem to be debating someone other than me. Perhaps the person you want me to be?
I get it....it is much easier that way.

Your thread is about inequality. Peoples inequality.