Comment: thanks for the reply

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: The line gets drawn... (see in situ)

thanks for the reply

My response was specifically to the "Harm is as unique as the individual who perceives oneself harmed" idea, since I hear that a lot. But since you expanded on your thoughts, then I'll try to as well.

As far as having a dozen of your peers unanimously agree with you, even that could be perceived as one having force applied to them, if they believe the existence of juries is harmful to their individual rights, especially if one doesn't necessarily get to choose who their 'peers' are. This can be observed in the legal system even now.

Another thing to consider is *why* your peers would agree or disagree. People aren't always logical-- should judgements be based on emotion if the cold, hard facts offend others (as they often do)? After all, the emotional thinkers far outnumber the logical ones, so it's not exactly an unlikely scenario.

As far I see it, there's no magic bullet solution; no idea, concept, or system is foolproof because the beings who spawned them aren't foolproof. I guess what I'm trying to say is that for every idea, its opposite gets created (individualism/collectivism, for example). The two are polar opposites, yet one concept couldn't exist without the other and are inseparable. Human logic is a funny thing, eh?

I'm basically just trying to offer a counterpoint as a thought exercise on my part-- playing 'devil's advocate' if you will. Sometimes I like to argue against points that I agree with, just to keep myself in check, know what I mean? Sorry if I rambled a little. :x

Thanks again, +1

edit: Got to go rest. I'll reply later if you want to continue this conversation. See (read?) you later.

A signature used to be here!