They already tried that, and it resulted in the creation of organized crime in America.

How about no. The system we have right now for alcohol is fine. You get drunk and do stupid shit, you get arrested and treated to punishments. Thus, people have a good deal of incentive to not get drunk and do stupid shit.

Did Jesus ever speak of a Judgement Day or Armageddon? I though that was in books of the Bible outside of Jesus' teachings.

Nope. I don't have a dark side trying to get out. If anything, I have a good side that has trouble getting out and being noticeably relatable to people!

I'm not glad about it, but I'm not upset either.

Big companies will either suffer for harming their workers, or, they won't harm their workers.

It's only sad that if a large, tyrannical company collapses from mistreating workers, it's those innocent workers who will suffer most because of how they don't have accumulative wealth to assist them in absence of a job.

Oh well. Something else will happen eventually to assist the common man against greedy corporatists. This just wasn't Michigan's victory, this time. I will have hope that the corporations in Michigan don't harm the lives of their workers as badly as they have the ability to, but the last thing I'm going to do is get brainlessly upset and angry about this.

The last time I checked, children were treated very, very specially in this country, perhaps all of 1st world society (other then totalitarian countries).

And while I don't totally disagree with the idea of treating children softly and better, I find it detrimental to their growth to enforce this idea that nobody looses and everyone is a winner and everyone is special, etc.

I was beaten when I did bad things as a child, with a wooden spoon, until my ass was scarlet and throbbing. And I didn't grow into a horrible person because of it! In fact, I think I have a very solid understanding of reality and the way things are.

But what about a child who grows up being spoiled and told that they can never loose and never be the wrong and that they are a unique in every way? I don't know... that just seems to me like a very bad idea.

Since I believe in evolutionary morality, I'm going to argue under the pretense that the aliens wish no harm.

With that said, if an alien race has the knowledge and understanding to traverse the speed of light, they will obviously have the capability to measure the perfect balance between risk & reward, thus knowing the perfect time to reveal themselves to us.

If that requires that we evolve, culturally, another few hundred years to the point that we are much more benevolent as a people, then so be it.

You didn't really dispute my point.

My point is that a space-faring race of creatures would be totally benevolent.

If they couldn't approach us without harming us, then they wouldn't.

And if they could without harming us, then they would.

If human, of course.

If not human... no. I'd say they could be trusted.

This is because I believe in evolutionary morality. I don't believe any advanced species of aliens will be evil, as we'd define evil. I think they would be totally benevolent and compassionate. I think they'd be able to be trusted if they came bearing gifts.

Surely you jest. ಠ_ಠ They don't do anything about it because there's nothing that can be done about it, not because they aren't miserable. And killing yourself is not an alternative to living...

That implies you believe they don't suffer as much as I think. The problem though is that, who the hell is going to hire a former beggar? Either nobody, or the beggar is going to have to get very lucky.

It's not that they make plenty of money, it's that they can't move up and get a better jobs. Because they're homeless, and businesses don't generally hire homeless people.

Being able to eat doesn't mean that they aren't at all suffering. If you were stripped of all things except food, I think you'd find yourself still pretty damned miserable.

I would say that logically, my story is more common an occurrence. Even when insane, people don't tend to enjoy suffering and prefer to, well you know, not suffer. To say that most of the homeless would turn down a meal is to say most homeless don't even adhere to basic instinctual logic, which I think it's a senseless, unlikely generalization.

Not that you necessarily made such a generalization.

ಠ_ಠ

Uncommon coincidence, I say. ಠ_ಠ