The vandelism of "Fred the Shredder's" home merely symbolises the discontentment with the wider system which they perceive to be unfair, it would seem:
"Fred Goodwin's house in Edinburgh was attacked this morning. We are angry that rich people, like him, are paying themselves a huge amount of money and living in luxury, while ordinary people are made unemployed, destitute and homeless. Bank bosses should be jailed. This is just the beginning."
As such, it was inappropriate to attack the individuals involved rather than the system as a whole, regardless of what political stance you take. The encouragement of the recent enterprise of shaming, humiliating, and provoking hostility against individuals, rather than the system, is wholly unjustified. One may say that the encouragement of a class system is equally unjustified, and I might retort that they may be right on that point to some extent (mainly by citing a small moral obligation to essential services by noting that the means of productions, all things material and all property were originally unowned - they were taken without justification at a time when the fruits of the earth belonged to nobody or everybody, but not exclusively to one person). Essentially, those who work hard should have the liberty to be paid accordingly, but moral obligations to "society" certainly exist.
Last edited by Melancholy; 27-03-2009 at 07:18.
Is it me being barmy here, or are you genuinely not understanding what's being said here? How is what you've just said even relevant to this Motion, or what we were talking about?
(Original post by lotsofsnails)
But surely, the people who replace the ones who have been sacked will be more careful in future?
Last edited by SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian; 27-03-2009 at 12:13.