User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 21

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    880

    Default What is injustice for you?

    In this thread, I will all invite you to answer some questions. First, I believe that MBTI preferences influence one's definition and perception of injustice. Second, people should exhibit a preference for acting to rectify it in their environment, or accepting it as a part of life, though no one will uniquely show the behavior typical of a single attitude.

    Proposed definition:


    Merriam Webster:
    Injustice: Mean an act that inflicts undeserved hurt. Applies to any act that involves unfairness to another or violation of one's rights.
    This definition stresses the importance of action, and hence, intentionality. It does not seem to include events that occur mostly without direct human action or lack of action. Social differences at birth, illness, natural catastrophes, accidents, individual differences in abilities, etc. are thus not considered as part of injustice in this definition.

    Questions:

    1. What is your type?

    2. Do you agree with the M-W definition of injustice? Would you put in events not resulting from human action or lack of action? What else?

    3. For each of the following examples, indicate if the outcome was fair or unfair and argue your stance:

    Situation 1: Sebastian is a high scoring student that get 95% of answers correct on tests. He's quite cocky and likes to boast about his intelligence. He's always interrupting the teacher, Mr. Freeze. Mr. Freeze is fed up with his behavior, insolence and lack of respect for him. Although he realizes Sebastian is a smart kid, he thinks he has an attitude problem. On the final year exam, Sebastian gets 90% of answers correct, but Mr. Freeze decides to mark the student down to 45%. Mr. Freeze doesn't mean bad, but he thinks Sebastian needs to develop some humility. When Sebastian learns about his results, he is furious and curses the teacher, which other students find funny.
    Situation 2: Amy has been working for 6 years in company A. Her performance is good. She has always been a helpful person and is well liked. One of her colleagues, Jodie, is a young hotshot and has been in the company since 6 months. Her performance is outstanding and she has achieved in 6 months what others have in 3 years. The manager, John, decides to promote Jodie. Amy is furious and feels betrayed, while Jodie revels in her achievement.
    Situation 3: Peter started off as a construction worker in terrible working conditions. He had to work 14 hours a day with a low salary. 20 year later, social laws are stronger and workers are only supposed to do a maximum of 10hours a day. Peter is now manager of 20 construction workers, thanks to his dedication and hard work. Peter is stressed because he has to finish something for a client and is not sure he'll have the time. He decides to pressure the workers to work 2 extra "unofficial" hours and promises to give them "something" back one day. One worker, Alan, complains that they already do enough work and he's tired. Peter explains that *he* had to work 14 hours when he was young. Alan still refuses. Peter is furious at Alan's unwillingness to cooperate and rigidity. Peter cannot fire Alan without a reason. The next day, Peter uses an unrelated past mistake of Alan and fires him.
    Situation 4: Patrick is a bit of a womanizer. He quickly gets infatuated with women. Patrick met Linda and they started dating. Linda has been unlucky in past relationships. After 1 month, patrick got infatuated with Linda, he told her he loved her and made all sorts of promises. Linda is so happy that Patrick loves her. She thinks this might be the right one! Unfortunately, Patrick realized 2 months later that he never really loved Linda, and that she isn't the woman he thought she was. Patrick decided to end the relationship, and did so by text message. Linda is heartbroken and finds all this particularly unfair. After all, he was making promises to her months before! The next day, Linda decides to wreck Patrick's car. Patrick has not got alot of money, and now he can't afford to buy a new one and has to take the bus everyday to go to work.
    Situation 5: Richard, Toby, Nick and Charlotte have been in graduate school for 3 years now. They're preparing their engineering PhD. They've had a tough time getting their work published. In fact, only Toby has one article out. The others have none. Their advisor, Mr. Fire, says that PhD students graduate on average in 7 years. That's just the normal timeframe everybody has to go through in principle. Tom arrives in their department, working for another advisor, Mr. Johnson. Tom's not friendly. He only works. Tom works so efficiently and well that he manages to run 4x more experiments than the others in the lab in a year. He manages to get his work published systematically. 3 years later, he has accumulated 5 publications, leaving his colleagues in the dust. Everyone is frustrated by Tom. He's discouraging all the others because they cannot work at the same pace as him. They're all demotivated now. Tom is also cold and distant. Tom decides to present his PhD thesis earlier, considering his exceptional results. Academics accept, but when it comes to reading his work thesis, they say it's not good work and systematically ask him to rewrite entire sections for several months. They think he's progressed too fast and he can't just have it easy like that. He needs to sweat it like all the others.
    3. For which stance do you exhibit a "preference" in your own life: Fight injustice and attempt to change your environment, or accept the reality of human affairs and go along with the state of things? Regardless of what you think people, groups, authorities should do, what do you actually do in your daily life? Why? Provide an argument as to why this stance is more viable to you than the other one. If your definition of justice is different than the one I proposed, explain your stance for both definitions.

    a. 1. If you choose to fight injustice: Would you consider yourself a particularly "brave" person? Someone with guts to act? Do you think this could partly explain your behavior?
    2. If you choose to accept reality: Would you consider yourself a particularly reasoned person? Someone realistic? Do you think this could partly explain your behavior?

    b. I'm interested in your actual behavior. Any examples in your life showing how you reacted in certain situations illustrating the previous stance(s)?

    4. (Optional) How would you have reacted in the examples I outlined?

    5. (Bonus) Supposing you were a Jedi, would you side with the light or dark side of the force? Why?

  2. #2
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    I am up with a headache and too tired to think too hard but this one is easy:

    Situation 4: Patrick is a bit of a womanizer. He quickly gets infatuated with women. Patrick met Linda and they started dating. Linda has been unlucky in past relationships. After 1 month, patrick got infatuated with Linda, he told her he loved her and made all sorts of promises. Linda is so happy that Patrick loves her. She thinks this might be the right wrong! Unfortunately, Patrick realized 2 months later that he never really loved Linda, and that she isn't the woman he thought she was. Patrick decided to end the relationship, and did so by text message. Linda is heartbroken and finds all this particularly unfair. After all, he was making promises to her months before! The next day, Linda decides to wreck Patrick's car. Patrick has not got alot of money, and now he can't afford to buy a new one and has to take the bus everyday to go to work.
    He was a flake, but she's way in the wrong here. She needs anger counseling.


    There is a popular song about a woman who gets cheated on and she vandalizes the guy's car. I think that is a pretty terrible act to romanticize with a song like that. If you get hurt in romance, live, learn and move on.

  3. #3
    ~dangerous curves ahead~
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    2,590

    Default

    1. What is your type?
    ENTP

    2. Do you agree with the M-W definition of injustice? Would you put in events not resulting from human action or lack of action? What else?
    Just a minor quibble that something that is "unfair/injust" could possibly not violate any legal right of a person, or even a moral right. At the end, an injustice to someone could be justice served for another.

    1. On arbitrary justice by teacher over arrogant student.

    Injustice done to the student. The teacher could easily find other means to correct the attitude, vs marking down something correct to "teach him a lesson".

    I've had experiences where teachers marked down my papers because they were "too perfect/too correct, it is impossible to score so high". It is basically using power (deciding grades) arbitrarily, and not punishing what is wrong, and an extremely short-sighted thing to do: The student will feel more arrogant for correcting the teacher. What does he achieve? I don't stand for power wielded with no clear-sightedness.

    2. The manager should've probably handled it better, but that situation is a reality of the workplace. Staying long-term in one place, you're needed, but you're not truly valued. We've a blunt saying in finance, that your shelf life is only 3 years in each finance firm.

    1st year: you're a star asset
    2nd year: you're a cash cow
    3rd year: depreciating asset
    4th year: writeoff.

    So this kind of job insecurity is something I've always lived with. There'll always be someone brighter, faster, younger, more hungry. Why should they not be promoted over you, if they've wrought changes for the better, that you never managed to achieve in the last x years, simply.

    3. Same as 1 to me. Arbitrary justice. Not too keen on it, since it lacks foresight. Firing someone when you need the help is short-sighted. With people, I'd have asked them to dig in and help out, and they'd be compensated for it. It is a relationship thing with workers at the end of the day, I think everything can be negotiated, the question is how. vs firing someone over something unrelated, when you need it.

    4. Perhaps where the injustice was, was the guy taking advantage of the girl's loneliness and feeding her hopes. The kind thing to do would've been to let her down gently, or in the first place, not to lead her on. So, I wouldn't condone the car smashing, but I could understand it. Personally, I've not done any revenge thing. I prefer to walk with my dignity intact. But when I walk, it is over. There is no turning back, and no support and friendship can be expected if there was betrayal. I'd make sure the memory of me was carved into his bones, so he'd never forget me anyway, and all other girls would be compared.

    I'd fight injustice if there was a clear end I was seeking, and that battle was necessary, or it affected me and there was no other out. Otherwise, there'd be too many things in the world to fight. I prefer to leave some battles and seek other paths. But if I choose to fight, I'd take no prisoners, and leave no quarter, simply. And I would take my time to do it.

    I've done it before in work related situations.

  4. #4
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    1, 3, 4 are unfair, to the student, Alan, and Patrick, respectively.

    5 is unfair IF the work is not actually at fault and it's only based on subjective opinions of him. If the work really is worse than it would have been if done in a longer time, than of course it's fair.

    2 is fair. In general and neglecting other factors, quality of work should be the focus not some arbitrary thing like how long you've been working there or how many starving orphans you're feeding.

    I don't have time to write out my own definition of justice now though. Maybe later.

    I dislike injustice and fight it when it really bothers me, I can do something about it, and I don't harm myself by doing so. It's a judgment call really. I would not call myself brave.

    ps if I was a jedi, I certainly wouldn't side with the dark side, but nor would I side with the light. They're both biased, and I'd rather do my own thing than identify with some arbitrary group. If I had to pick one I'd pick the light, though.

  5. #5
    heart on fire
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    ps if I was a jedi, I certainly wouldn't side with the dark side, but nor would I side with the light. They're both biased, and I'd rather do my own thing than identify with some arbitrary group. If I had to pick one I'd pick the light, though.
    I would say that I would not join groups either, but Star Wars is all about archetypes, modern mythology. Like the Lone Ranger. When he wears his white hat, we know he is absolutely good.

    When they say Light side, they really mean light side, good side. That's how I take the example.

    It is not like Democrat vs. Republican etc. here in real life.

  6. #6
    Highly Hollow Wandering's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick View Post
    1. What is your type?
    INFJ.

    2. Do you agree with the M-W definition of injustice? Would you put in events not resulting from human action or lack of action? What else?
    I guess I more or less agree. I do tend to think that it's "not fair" that people suffer from disabilities or get into accidents and it's nobody's fault, but it's more of an emotional feeling that a reasoned argument.

    When it comes to things like social conditions, though, I'd say that there IS definitely a component of human in/action: for example, social classes are more or less strictly enforced in all societies, without regard to the worth of each human being. "You're born X or Y, too bad for you, but that means we don't care about you as a person". That's injustice in my eyes, in that some people are granted or refused things (financial help, networking support, etc...) simply because of what condition they were accidentally born in, even though the people in charge could perfectly CHOOSE to do otherwise. IOW: I do believe that social injustice, among other things, is supported and reinforced by the actions and/or inaction of those in power, which is why I call it injustice.

    3. For each of the following examples, indicate if the outcome was fair or unfair and argue your stance:
    1- Sebastian the prat: absolutely unfair. The contract is simple, when it comes to grades: student writes paper, teacher grades paper. It is against the contract to give a bad grade for any other reason than because the paper itself is bad - unless of course, the contract itself was previously modified and the students know it. But in the absence of such a customised contract, then the teacher must grade the paper as it is, independently of which student wrote it.

    2- Amy, Jodie and John: John wasn't very diplomatic about it, but unless he'd previously *promised* the promotion to Amy, then he was perfectly in his right to promote Jodie instead. Again, it's a matter of contract: does it say anywhere that having been around for a longer time gives you the priority when a promotion comes around? Many employees do think that way, but unless it's actually *written down*, then this thinking is nothing more than an unfounded assumption that the bosses are in no way obliged to comply with.

    3- Peter and Alan: again, contract, contract, contract! Peter hired Alan according to a certain contract. This contract did NOT include doing extra hours whenever the boss thinks it's needed, nor did it include working as hard as the boss did 20 years ago. Thus Alan is in no way obligated to take those points into consideration when deciding whether or not to work those extra hours, and he is perfectly in his right to refuse to do it. And when Peter *purposefully* fires Alan for something *other* than the *real* reason he wants to fire him, that's dishonest. Maybe not technically unjust (if Alan once did something worthy of firing, then technically he should have been fired), but dishonest. It becomes unjust if Peter expressly mentioned, back then, that there would be NO retribution for the mistake, because that would mean he passed a contract with Alan, and then renegued on it.

    4- Where is the social contract that says that if someone breaks your heart, then you're entitled to destroying their material possessions? It doesn't exist, does it? In fact, if Linda gets caught, she can be tried for vandalising Patrick's car, right? Well then, my answer is easy: what she did was totally unjust. (And quite frankly, if she can believe a guy's promises after just one month, then she didn't learn anything from her previous unhappy relationships, and she needs to start learning soon!)

    5- The graduates. I see it as a typical example of localised justice within a globally unjust system. It's localised justice, because Tom is being held to the same standards as everyone else: they've all been told that it takes about 7 years to graduate, and so it doesn't matter how exceptional Tom might be, he's going to have to wait his seven years too. However, the system of having to wait 7 years is unjust in its nature, since it is NOT a contract ratified by both parties, but rather a condition imposed by one side on the other, with no regards to the needs, efforts and merits of that other side. One could argue, I guess, that the students know, or should know, what they are getting themselves into before they decide on that graduation program, and that's true, I guess. But still, imposing a condition for no other purpose than to impose it because the powers that be think it's a good idea, that's not justice, especially when it turns out to have hugely negative effects on everyone being affected by it! And this is the case here: not only is Tom being slowed down in his progress, which is a ridiculous waste of time and talent for everyone, but the others are made to endure his presence that much longer, which will only demotivate them further. This is a clear example of a situation where breaking the conventions would present clear advantages for *everyone* involved. So even more than unjust, it's STOOPID!

    As you can see, I'm huge on the concept of contract. Justice, to me, is defined in a large part by the type of contract that ties people together. Most especially important is the question of whether both parties (or all parties in case of multi-party contracts) have had a say in the writing and ratifying of the contract, because otherwise the relationship is not contractual anymore, it's more akin to slavery.

    For example, I once participated on a religious apologetics forum, where the members of the faith under discussion were being treated in an openly and unabashedly preferential way. It was written clearly in the rules of the forum, and any critic wishing to register was made aware of that fact: they would not be treated with as much leniency as the apologists, and nor should they expect the apologists to be treated as strictly as the critics. (I'm talking attitude, behaviour, how quickly the mods would clamp down on someone making a quip at someone else, things like that). And the reason for this was written very clearly: there would always be an infinite and constantly replenishing quantity of critics, while the good apologists were very hard to come by, and would thus be given preferential treatment. For any critic to then claim that it was unfair that they were reprimanded because, for example, they engaged in sarcasm towards the person of an apologist, while said apologist got a pass when doing the same towards a critic, was non-sensical: they had been warned that this would happen, and it was written in the rules which they had accepted when they had registered on that forum. It was an odd contract to make and act by, but within the confines of that forum, it made total sense: the apologists were gold nuggets, the critics were expendable, and thus the contract was purposely biased.

    3. For which stance do you exhibit a "preference" in your own life: Fight injustice and attempt to change your environment, or accept the reality of human affairs and go along with the state of things? Regardless of what you think people, groups, authorities should do, what do you actually do in your daily life? Why? Provide an argument as to why this stance is more viable to you than the other one. If your definition of justice is different than the one I proposed, explain your stance for both definitions.
    As much as I wish I were a fighter, I'm much more of a quitter. I'm a typical example of a loud mouth with no backbone I'll decry injustice loud and clear, but I know I don't have what it takes to actually fight it. And that's because I have so little energy, and there's so much injustice, how could I EVER fight it ALL? There will always be instances of injustice I can't fight myself. That doesn't mean I shouldn't fight ANY injustice, but it does mean I'm going to carefully pick and choose my fights. While still saying what I think about those other instances of injustice that I'm not actually doing anything about

    2. If you choose to accept reality: Would you consider yourself a particularly reasoned person? Someone realistic? Do you think this could partly explain your behavior?
    No, I'm more of a cynic: I can't put an end to all injustice, so I need to accept a good deal of reality.

    b. I'm interested in your actual behavior. Any examples in your life showing how you reacted in certain situations illustrating the previous stance(s)?
    Meh, my Si is on strike

    4. (Optional) How would you have reacted in the examples I outlined?
    My Fe just joined my Si in its strike, I can't be bothered to put myself in those people's shoes right now

    5. (Bonus) Supposing you were a Jedi, would you side with the light or dark side of the force? Why?
    I'd be the counselor trying to get the two sides to see eye to eye

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    880

    Default

    1. What is your type?

    My Type is ENTJ, just like yours!

    2. Do you agree with the M-W definition of injustice? Would you put in events not resulting from human action or lack of action? What else?

    Yes I do. I don't think that we should include events not directly resulting from action or inaction. I often hear people say things like "Hey, it's unfair, that person was born in a rich family and not me. He has money! Not me!". No, that's not unfair, because no one is directly responsible for that. What would be unfair would be to be treated differently and have lesser rights than someone that was born in a rich family.

    3. For each of the following examples, indicate if the outcome was fair or unfair and argue your stance:

    1. A teacher's job is to assess student's abilities, not their character. That's what they signed up for.
    2. Jodie deserves the promotion, because it is based on competence. No one ever said that loyalty will get you a promotion.
    3. Alan has the right to say no, and Peter is going against the law by trying to make them do something they're not supposed to.
    4. Well, Patrick's not been courteous. But he can't blame be blamed if he doesn't have feelings for her. He can't control that.
    5. Unfair. Tom worked more than the others. It's only normal that he gets to finish earlier. He's meeting all the criteria for the thesis. It's never been written anywhere that it has to be done under a certain amount of years.

    3. For which stance do you exhibit a "preference" in your own life: Fight injustice and attempt to change your environment, or accept the reality of human affairs and go along with the state of things? Regardless of what you think people, groups, authorities should do, what do you actually do in your daily life? Why? Provide an argument as to why this stance is more viable to you than the other one. If your definition of justice is different than the one I proposed, explain your stance for both definitions.

    Fight injustice. If we all made little efforts, we would collectively reap immense benefits. A fairer society is always possible, and we don't have to accept things as they are. We should learn from history and the fact that progress is always possible, not just idealistic.

    a. 1. If you choose to fight injustice: Would you consider yourself a particularly "brave" person? Someone with guts to act? Do you think this could partly explain your behavior?

    I am described as being a bold person, and it may explain my stance.

    b. I'm interested in your actual behavior. Any examples in your life showing how you reacted in certain situations illustrating the previous stance(s)?

    I used to defend kids being bullied at school, I was class representative and would stand up for others students against the teacher, I got myself involved in executive groups in the organizations I was in to change unfair rules, I intervened in public fights, etc.

    5. (Bonus) Supposing you were a Jedi, would you side with the light or dark side of the force? Why?[/QUOTE]

    Light side of the force of course! The dark side is vile Meh!!!

  8. #8
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    My answer is quite childish, actually.

    Injustice to me is when bad things happen to good people.

    Argh, I guess I'll answer appropriately, here goes...

    1. What is your type?

    ENFP

    2. Do you agree with the M-W definition of injustice? Would you put in events not resulting from human action or lack of action? What else?

    I dunno, I often equate lack of fairness with injustice, though intellectually I know that is not the case. If I were to lose my eye in a fishing accident tomorrow, then lose my leg in a car accident on Friday, to find out next Thursday I have skin cancer, I would feel like it was unfair, but it wouldn't really be an injustice.

    Life is unfair, but only people can act unjust.



    3. For each of the following examples, indicate if the outcome was fair or unfair and argue your stance:

    Situation 1: UNFAIR. Ironically, it is not Mr. Freeze's place to "teach Sebastian a lesson". If he were being graded on his citizenship, that would be one thing, but he isn't so yeah, totally unfair.

    Situation 2: NOT NICE, BUT FAIR, I am a very merit-based believer, your merits should speak for themselves. But I do feel bad for Amy, I dunno...

    Situation 3: I understand Peter's intention, but unfair, wait, so the past mistake was reason enough to fire him? If that's the case, then fair. Alan is being incredibly difficult, and he obviously isn't the best worker if Peter has overlooked blatant mistakes of his in the past.

    Situation 4: Psycho bitch, unfair. No need for explanation here.

    Situation 5: The wording is a bit unclear, but if I understand correctly, unfair, and total bullshit, the proof is in the pudding, not the recipe, the cook, or how long it took to make. Why should Tom get penalized because he is an exceptional worker??!?!? No sense at all.


    3. For which stance do you exhibit a "preference" in your own life: Fight injustice and attempt to change your environment, or accept the reality of human affairs and go along with the state of things? Regardless of what you think people, groups, authorities should do, what do you actually do in your daily life? Why? Provide an argument as to why this stance is more viable to you than the other one. If your definition of justice is different than the one I proposed, explain your stance for both definitions.

    a. 1. If you choose to fight injustice: Would you consider yourself a particularly "brave" person? Someone with guts to act? Do you think this could partly explain your behavior?


    I've been bitching and moaning about unfairness/injustice since I was three, literally. Yes, I think I am brave, because it takes courage to talk back to an authority figure, or to try to shake an erroneously made/kept status quo.



    b. I'm interested in your actual behavior. Any examples in your life showing how you reacted in certain situations illustrating the previous stance(s)?

    My action against injustice can basically be summarized in my willingness to voice my opinion, I will stick up for myself and others whenever I perceive an injustice. For example, since Kindergarten, I have personally taken upon myself to defend those who were being bullied. I cannot stand bullying!!!!



    5. (Bonus) Supposing you were a Jedi, would you side with the light or dark side of the force? Why?


    Light side of the force, all the way. I cannot stand people who infringe on other people's rights. I have a respect for life, and even more so, a respect for human life. People who trample over others, and use them for their own means, infuriate me!!!!!
    `
    'Cause you can't handle me...

    "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

    Veritatem dies aperit

    Ride si sapis

    Intelligentle sparkles

  9. #9
    no clinkz 'til brooklyn Nocapszy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Waw lol. Moral threads. LOL!
    we fukin won boys

  10. #10
    Procrastinating
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    954

    Default

    Questions:

    1. What is your type?

    INTP


    2. Do you agree with the M-W definition of injustice? Would you put in events not resulting from human action or lack of action? What else?
    Yes .... No ... Nothing else as they fall under other specific definitions as in legal justice.


    3. For each of the following examples, indicate if the outcome was fair or unfair and argue your stance:


    Quote:
    Situation 1: Sebastian .. unfair... subjective on the teacher's part.

    Quote:Situation 2: Amy .. can't say on this one as I don't know the company guidelines on promotions. If they do not include seniority, for instance, and lean to evaluations, then Jodie outperformed Amy and its fair.

    Quote:
    Situation 3: Peter/Alan.... unfair... against company policy and subjective.

    Quote:
    Situation 4: Patrick/Linda unfair to each other, with Linda being destructively and premeditatively so, if degress are permitted, she was more unfair than he as he may not have known himself well enough in his maturity process. But both were implusive in their behavior and the result was unfairness.

    Quote:
    Situation 5: Tom PhD thesis: key words are "in principle"... if its not written policy, its unfair... again subjective.

    3. For which stance do you exhibit a "preference" in your own life: Fight injustice and attempt to change your environment, or accept the reality of human affairs and go along with the state of things? Regardless of what you think people, groups, authorities should do, what do you actually do in your daily life? Why? Provide an argument as to why this stance is more viable to you than the other one. If your definition of justice is different than the one I proposed, explain your stance for both definitions.

    a. 1. If you choose to fight injustice: Would you consider yourself a particularly "brave" person? Someone with guts to act? Do you think this could partly explain your behavior?


    Yes on the first two. No, that's putting the horse before the cart. The cause is first and the bravery/guts summoned second. My behavior is based on... somebody has to do it if anything is going to change.. guess I will. (constructive change understood)



    b. I'm interested in your actual behavior. Any examples in your life showing how you reacted in certain situations illustrating the previous stance(s)?

    I have a bullet scar to prove it.. acquired marching for civil rights.... on and on... I've fought often.. right up to emminent domain this and the last 2 years. I'm getting older and its increasingly difficult but I haven't quit yet.

    4. (Optional) How would you have reacted in the examples I outlined?
    There are too many to remember... some would be legal action of course and I would definitely pursue it.


    5. (Bonus) Supposing you were a Jedi, would you side with the light or dark side of the force?

    Light

    Why?

    Given my previous reasoning for action, I see dark as destructive and not what motivates me.

Similar Threads

  1. What is it with you INTJ's and anime?
    By ajblaise in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 03-02-2017, 07:35 AM
  2. Which planet is right for you?
    By Virtual ghost in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 12-18-2016, 01:12 AM
  3. Which city is best for you?
    By ygolo in forum Online Personality Tests
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 02-25-2009, 09:51 PM
  4. [INTP] What is this fun you speak of?
    By Cerpin_Taxt in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 12:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO