Denkverbot

metilda wrote:evo me opet..
dva su susjeda - jedan je dobrovoljno bogat, drugi nedobrovoljno siromašan - kakav je odnos među njima - pravedan ili nepravedan?

metilda wrote:

aben wrote:ne postoji nedobrovoljno nemati mogućnost,

postoji..
ja nedobrovoljno nemam mogućnost školovanja jer sam nedobrovoljno siromašna tj. nemam mogućnost da budem bogata

metilda wrote:

aben wrote:

metilda wrote:

aben wrote:društvo koje radi pismenosti prihvaća temeljnu nepravednost nasilnog oduzimanja dice ne more se nazvati civiliziranin.

što ti je u ovom primjeru pojam temeljne nepravednosti? definicija?

pa nasilno oduzimnje dice

to je pojedinačna neparvednost, no uzima li u obzir sve parametre
recimo djeca žele biti pismena ali im roditelji to uskraćuju..
dakle djeca su nedobrovoljno nepismena?
kakav je to odnos između djece i roditelja?
po tvojoj definiciji nepravedan
moraju li djeca trpjeti tu nepravednost?

kic wrote:
mislim da kad ljudi izuste pravednost, da misle na harmoniju

a taj balans i nadopunjavanje nije lako postići-

metilda wrote:

aben wrote:

metilda wrote:i još, ako je netko u kapitalističkom društvu nedobrovoljno siromašan onda je to društvo nepravedno?
raste li nepravednost proporcionalno broju siromašnih?

ne postoji nedobrovoljno siromaštvo. 

ne, nepravednost je neovisna o broju siromahov

postoji nedobrovoljno siromaštvo - dokaži da ne postoji
tko želi osim monaha biti dobrovoljno siromašan?
oko ovog drugog - znači da postoji nešto kao opća nepravednost?

aben wrote:

metilda wrote:kuham ručak i razmišljam o tvojoj definiciji pravednosti pa postavljam pitanja kako mi padne koje na pamet.
oduzimanje djece zbog toga što ih netko nije slao u školu smatraš nepravednošću po definiciji jer oduzimanje djece nije dobrovoljno

to je onda pojedinačna nepravednost
postoji li opća nepravednost kao zbroj pojedinačnih nepravednosti i opća pravednost kao zbroj pojedinačnih pravednosti?

to je pojedinačna nepravednost, jer nepravednost je uvik pojedinačna- morobse dogoditi nad nekin. medjutin budući da je konkretno ova sustavna sustavna, unda je automacki opća. svi ljudi ki ne želu školovati dicu suočavaju se is istun neoravednošću.

ne vidin razloga zoč se pojedinačne nepravednosti ne bi zbrajale. tipa, razbojništva na nekon području ti moru reći oćeš li tote kupiti kuću.
ali, mi vode češće mislimo na ote sustavne nepravde. i bes problema ih rangiramo;
društvo u kin su crnci robovi, abortus legalan i vridni ljudi oporezovani je nepravednije od onog u kin je abortus legalan i vridni ljudi oporezovani je nepravednije od onog u kin su vridni ljudi oporezovani.

aben wrote:

metilda wrote:

aben wrote:

metilda wrote:i još, ako je netko u kapitalističkom društvu nedobrovoljno siromašan onda je to društvo nepravedno?
raste li nepravednost proporcionalno broju siromašnih?

ne postoji nedobrovoljno siromaštvo. 

ne, nepravednost je neovisna o broju siromahov

postoji nedobrovoljno siromaštvo - dokaži da ne postoji
tko želi osim monaha biti dobrovoljno siromašan?
oko ovog drugog - znači da postoji nešto kao opća nepravednost?

riječ nije o volji obćenito, tipa jo ne želin biti mlaji od svoje starije sestre, ili da ne želin biti siromah. riječ je o odnosu. 
odnos more biti dobrovoljan i nedobrovoljan.

aben wrote:

metilda wrote:

aben wrote:

metilda wrote:

aben wrote:društvo koje radi pismenosti prihvaća temeljnu nepravednost nasilnog oduzimanja dice ne more se nazvati civiliziranin.

što ti je u ovom primjeru pojam temeljne nepravednosti? definicija?

pa nasilno oduzimnje dice

to je pojedinačna neparvednost, no uzima li u obzir sve parametre
recimo djeca žele biti pismena ali im roditelji to uskraćuju..
dakle djeca su nedobrovoljno nepismena?
kakav je to odnos između djece i roditelja?
po tvojoj definiciji nepravedan
moraju li djeca trpjeti tu nepravednost?

ka jo rečin dica, unda mislin na de ljudi ki još nisu u stanju skrbiti o sebi. 
ovo je malo kompliciranija priča, za ku ti morin dati link ako je želiš malo proučiti.
ukratko i ofrlje preciznošću, "dok si pod mojin krovon činiti ćeš kako ti jo rečen".


odgovor na zanje pitanje je- ne

aben wrote:

metilda wrote:

aben wrote:ne postoji nedobrovoljno nemati mogućnost,

postoji..
ja nedobrovoljno nemam mogućnost školovanja jer sam nedobrovoljno siromašna tj. nemam mogućnost da budem bogata

to je isto ko i ono vulgrno korišćenje slobode;

dobrovoljnost ni naprosto stanje volje, nego kvalitativna ocjena odnosa između ljudi. 
ako se ti želiš školovati, a želiš školovanje, to je isto ko i da nemoš rakeru, a želiš pojti na mars. dobrovoljnost tu ne igro ulogu.

tek ako uspostaviš odnos isnekin, unda se more govoriti o dobrovoljnosti.

metilda wrote:

aben wrote:

metilda wrote:kuham ručak i razmišljam o tvojoj definiciji pravednosti pa postavljam pitanja kako mi padne koje na pamet.
oduzimanje djece zbog toga što ih netko nije slao u školu smatraš nepravednošću po definiciji jer oduzimanje djece nije dobrovoljno

to je onda pojedinačna nepravednost
postoji li opća nepravednost kao zbroj pojedinačnih nepravednosti i opća pravednost kao zbroj pojedinačnih pravednosti?

to je pojedinačna nepravednost, jer nepravednost je uvik pojedinačna- moro se dogoditi nad nekin. medjutin budući da je konkretno ova nepravda sustavna, unda je automacki opća. svi ljudi ki ne želu školovati dicu suočavaju se is istun neoravednošću.

ne vidin razloga zoč se pojedinačne nepravednosti ne bi zbrajale. tipa, razbojništva na nekon području ti moru reći oćeš li tote kupiti kuću.
ali, mi vode češće mislimo na ote sustavne nepravde. i bes problema ih rangiramo;
društvo u kin su crnci robovi, abortus legalan i vridni ljudi oporezovani je nepravednije od onog u kin je abortus legalan i vridni ljudi oporezovani je nepravednije od onog u kin su vridni ljudi oporezovani.

baš dobro da si spomenuo riječ sustavna .. radi se o jednostavnoj primjeni teorije sustava po kojoj se sustav sastoji od međusobno povezanih elemenata ili podsustava ali ne kao njihov jednostavan zbroj nego i kao sve moguće veze između elemenata ili podsustava koje eksponencijalno rastu što je veći broj elemenata... ili kako bi pjesnički rekli nitko nije otok ..
što je više nepravednih međuodnosa veća je i nepravednost pa bi takvo stanje sustava mogli nazvati nepravednim ili sustavom u kojemu vlada opća nepravednost

"ne, nepravednost je neovisna o broju siromahov" rekao si u jednom gornjem postu što si demanirao boldanim jer su i siromašni elementi  sustava kao i robovi, abortus i oporezovani..

a ako postoji opća nepravednost onda postoji i opća pravednost kao stanje ili dio općeg dobra o čemu sam ti jučer dala definiciju iz ksn:

Opće dobro...(nije zbroj istovrsnih dobara pojedinaca. Opće dobro nije zbroj, već po vrsti različita nova vrijednost...Svaki socijalni ustroj...ima svoje posebno opće dobro... To je skup uređenja i stanja koje pojedinomu čovjeku i manjim životnim krugovima omogućuju u uređenomu uzajamnome djelovanju težiti prema njihovu ispunjenju smisla, željenom od Boga (razvijanje osobnosti i izgradnja kulturalnoga područja) Pritom valja primijetiti da u vremenu svjetske isprepletenosti bonum comune (opće dobro) koje se do sada usmjerivalo na državu danas sve više postaje općenito te zbog toga obuhvaća prava i dužnosti koje se odnose na cijelo čovječanstvo. (ksn)

prava i dužnosti ovdje su shvaćeni kao međusobni odnosi i djelovanja o čemu i ti govoriš

kic je u svojoj opasci o harmoniji bliže ovoj definiciji kršćanskog socijalnog nauka

osvrnem se i na druge tvoje odgovore ako nađem što bih mogla komentirati a da ovdje već nisam rekla

metilda wrote:

aben wrote:

metilda wrote:

aben wrote:

metilda wrote:i još, ako je netko u kapitalističkom društvu nedobrovoljno siromašan onda je to društvo nepravedno?
raste li nepravednost proporcionalno broju siromašnih?

ne postoji nedobrovoljno siromaštvo. 

ne, nepravednost je neovisna o broju siromahov

postoji nedobrovoljno siromaštvo - dokaži da ne postoji
tko želi osim monaha biti dobrovoljno siromašan?
oko ovog drugog - znači da postoji nešto kao opća nepravednost?

riječ nije o volji obćenito, tipa jo ne želin biti mlaji od svoje starije sestre, ili da ne želin biti siromah. riječ je o odnosu. 
odnos more biti dobrovoljan i nedobrovoljan.

siromaštvo je stanje pa su i siromašni kao elementi dio određenog podsustava siromašnih ..
kao takvi mogu biti siromašni protiv svoje volje što znači da postoji ne-dobrovoljno siromaštvo ili da dekonstruiram sintagmu - siromaštvo bez dobre volje biti siromašnim

metilda wrote:

aben wrote:

metilda wrote:

aben wrote:

metilda wrote:

što ti je u ovom primjeru pojam temeljne nepravednosti? definicija?

pa nasilno oduzimnje dice

to je pojedinačna neparvednost, no uzima li u obzir sve parametre
recimo djeca žele biti pismena ali im roditelji to uskraćuju..
dakle djeca su nedobrovoljno nepismena?
kakav je to odnos između djece i roditelja?
po tvojoj definiciji nepravedan
moraju li djeca trpjeti tu nepravednost?

ka jo rečin dica, unda mislin na de ljudi ki još nisu u stanju skrbiti o sebi. 
ovo je malo kompliciranija priča, za ku ti morin dati link ako je želiš malo proučiti.
ukratko i ofrlje preciznošću, "dok si pod mojin krovon činiti ćeš kako ti jo rečen".


odgovor na zanje pitanje je- ne

dakle riječ je o nepravednim roditeljima i ako dijete uz to ne želi trpjeti tu nepravednost nije nikakva nepravda ako ih socijalna služba oduzme roditeljima
nepravda bi bila tek ako ni roditelji ni dijete ne žele odvajanje a to je već nasilje države a nigdje nisam rekla da država ne može biti nasilna prema svojim državljanima.. štoviše navela sam i primjer iz današnje političko-obrazovne situacije

metilda wrote:

aben wrote:

metilda wrote:

aben wrote:ne postoji nedobrovoljno nemati mogućnost,

postoji..
ja nedobrovoljno nemam mogućnost školovanja jer sam nedobrovoljno siromašna tj. nemam mogućnost da budem bogata

to je isto ko i ono vulgrno korišćenje slobode;

dobrovoljnost ni naprosto stanje volje, nego kvalitativna ocjena odnosa između ljudi. 
ako se ti želiš školovati, a želiš školovanje, to je isto ko i da nemoš rakeru, a želiš pojti na mars. dobrovoljnost tu ne igro ulogu.

tek ako uspostaviš odnos isnekin, unda se more govoriti o dobrovoljnosti.

ne mora se odnositi iskljućivo na odnos .. može biti i nepostojanje dobre volje za biti siromašan
kad sam rekla nemam mogućnost u toj su sintagmi bili uključeni svi odnosi u sustavu koji mi onemogućuju biti bogata

kic wrote:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/the-times/steven-pinker-i-had-to-speak-out-over-orwellian-cancel-culture/news-story/a461bc438ffccd827753f5deaba9b25e

aben wrote:

kic wrote:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/the-times/steven-pinker-i-had-to-speak-out-over-orwellian-cancel-culture/news-story/a461bc438ffccd827753f5deaba9b25e

kopiroj text

Steven Pinker, the Harvard psychology professor and bestselling author, who was one of the signatories of the letter to Harper’s protesting against a climate of intolerance, has claimed he is the target of an “Orwellian” attack on his reputation.

The professor, whose books, including The Blank Slate and The Better Angels of Our Nature, have made him one of America’s leading public intellectuals, was the focus of a letter this week from more than 500 academics calling for his fellowship to be rescinded at the Linguistics Society of America. Citing half a dozen tweets posted by Pinker in the past few years, the letter accused him of a willingness to “dismiss and downplay racist violence”.

The authors of the letter said that they did not wish to “cancel” Pinker, a claim he says is “completely disingenuous [and] denying the obvious. They know that that is not a good thing to do, but that’s exactly what they were trying to do.”

The letter accused him of a pattern of “drowning out the voices of people suffering from racist and sexist violence,” a claim he rejects.

“It’s utterly ludicrous, it’s Orwellian and reveals the mindset that there has to be utter conformity and unanimity, and that even broaching a difference of opinion is treated as ‘drowning out’,” he tells me by telephone. “This is one of the examples of the kind of Orwellian language that has infused the cancel culture where disagreeing is called punching down or silencing or drowning out. It’s a warped mindset, but it’s becoming common.”

He says that a favourite tactic is to accuse those with a different view of “dog whistling” even when there is clearly no intention of saying something offensive. “It means that it doesn’t matter what anyone says, you can always accuse them of having dog whistles of your own invention.”

One of the charges against him involved his tweet about a New York Times article from 2015 about whether or not police are more likely to kill black people during an encounter. “The data seems to suggest that there is racial bias in harassment by police – in frisking and arrests – but not in shootings,” he says. “However, that clashes with the narratives that police shootings are a result of racism. It was considered an outrage to cite that article.”

He had already agreed to be one of 152 signatories of an open letter to Harper’s protesting cancel culture before the letter attacking him was released, as he feels very strongly about the issues it tackles.

“It’s important that there be a public voice, a focal point to break what is sometimes called a spiral of silence. A large number of people have been appalled at the firings, the cancellations and the state of oppression, but in an atmosphere in which you can be cancelled for protesting a cancellation it’s quite possible for a majority of people to be silenced. A minority view can become entrenched. Breaking the spiral of silence by a conspicuous public statement can be like the little boy saying the emperor has no clothes, namely pointing something out that a large number of people believe in the first place but have been cowed into acquiescence.

“No one’s [been] murdered yet, or burned at the stake, so I wouldn’t go too far in tasteless comparisons to the Chinese cultural revolution or the European witch hunts, but in terms of the psychology and social dynamics that arise from the psychology, there are parallels. Societies can get locked into a circle of mutual, pre-emptive denunciation: you denounce lest you be denounced. You prove your bona fides, that you’re on the right side of the moral crusade, by denouncing those on the wrong side before you yourself get denounced. I don’t want to say that the criticism of journalists and academics is the same as burning a real witch, [but] some of the underlying dynamics overlap.”

He says he is secure in his academic post and is not worried about himself, but rather the effect that all this has on younger academics. “I don’t deny that it was a source of distress and anxiety, but I can handle that and if I get fewer honorary degrees going forward I’m not going to complain about that.

“The greater concern I have is really what [effect] would the repressive atmosphere have on people who are not as secure. I see that. I’ve heard from junior scholars who say, ‘Well, this is what I think, but I dare not say it. The way I’d put it is there’s an atmosphere like the Sopranos: ‘Nice career you’ve got there. It would be a real shame if something happened to it.’ ”

aben wrote:

metilda wrote:

aben wrote:

metilda wrote:

aben wrote:ne postoji nedobrovoljno nemati mogućnost,

postoji..
ja nedobrovoljno nemam mogućnost školovanja jer sam nedobrovoljno siromašna tj. nemam mogućnost da budem bogata

to je isto ko i ono vulgrno korišćenje slobode;

dobrovoljnost ni naprosto stanje volje, nego kvalitativna ocjena odnosa između ljudi. 
ako se ti želiš školovati, a želiš školovanje, to je isto ko i da nemoš rakeru, a želiš pojti na mars. dobrovoljnost tu ne igro ulogu.

tek ako uspostaviš odnos isnekin, unda se more govoriti o dobrovoljnosti.

ne mora se odnositi iskljućivo na odnos .. može biti i nepostojanje dobre volje za biti siromašan
kad sam rekla nemam mogućnost u toj su sintagmi bili uključeni svi odnosi u sustavu koji mi onemogućuju biti bogata

moro.

daj mi primjer za to ča govoriš, paš viti

aben wrote:siromašćina ni nepravda.

kic wrote:

aben wrote:

kic wrote:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/the-times/steven-pinker-i-had-to-speak-out-over-orwellian-cancel-culture/news-story/a461bc438ffccd827753f5deaba9b25e

kopiroj text

Steven Pinker, the Harvard psychology professor and bestselling author, who was one of the signatories of the letter to Harper’s protesting against a climate of intolerance, has claimed he is the target of an “Orwellian” attack on his reputation.

The professor, whose books, including The Blank Slate and The Better Angels of Our Nature, have made him one of America’s leading public intellectuals, was the focus of a letter this week from more than 500 academics calling for his fellowship to be rescinded at the Linguistics Society of America. Citing half a dozen tweets posted by Pinker in the past few years, the letter accused him of a willingness to “dismiss and downplay racist violence”.

The authors of the letter said that they did not wish to “cancel” Pinker, a claim he says is “completely disingenuous [and] denying the obvious. They know that that is not a good thing to do, but that’s exactly what they were trying to do.”

The letter accused him of a pattern of “drowning out the voices of people suffering from racist and sexist violence,” a claim he rejects.

“It’s utterly ludicrous, it’s Orwellian and reveals the mindset that there has to be utter conformity and unanimity, and that even broaching a difference of opinion is treated as ‘drowning out’,” he tells me by telephone. “This is one of the examples of the kind of Orwellian language that has infused the cancel culture where disagreeing is called punching down or silencing or drowning out. It’s a warped mindset, but it’s becoming common.”

He says that a favourite tactic is to accuse those with a different view of “dog whistling” even when there is clearly no intention of saying something offensive. “It means that it doesn’t matter what anyone says, you can always accuse them of having dog whistles of your own invention.”

One of the charges against him involved his tweet about a New York Times article from 2015 about whether or not police are more likely to kill black people during an encounter. “The data seems to suggest that there is racial bias in harassment by police – in frisking and arrests – but not in shootings,” he says. “However, that clashes with the narratives that police shootings are a result of racism. It was considered an outrage to cite that article.”

He had already agreed to be one of 152 signatories of an open letter to Harper’s protesting cancel culture before the letter attacking him was released, as he feels very strongly about the issues it tackles.

“It’s important that there be a public voice, a focal point to break what is sometimes called a spiral of silence. A large number of people have been appalled at the firings, the cancellations and the state of oppression, but in an atmosphere in which you can be cancelled for protesting a cancellation it’s quite possible for a majority of people to be silenced. A minority view can become entrenched. Breaking the spiral of silence by a conspicuous public statement can be like the little boy saying the emperor has no clothes, namely pointing something out that a large number of people believe in the first place but have been cowed into acquiescence.

“No one’s [been] murdered yet, or burned at the stake, so I wouldn’t go too far in tasteless comparisons to the Chinese cultural revolution or the European witch hunts, but in terms of the psychology and social dynamics that arise from the psychology, there are parallels. Societies can get locked into a circle of mutual, pre-emptive denunciation: you denounce lest you be denounced. You prove your bona fides, that you’re on the right side of the moral crusade, by denouncing those on the wrong side before you yourself get denounced. I don’t want to say that the criticism of journalists and academics is the same as burning a real witch, [but] some of the underlying dynamics overlap.”

He says he is secure in his academic post and is not worried about himself, but rather the effect that all this has on younger academics. “I don’t deny that it was a source of distress and anxiety, but I can handle that and if I get fewer honorary degrees going forward I’m not going to complain about that.

“The greater concern I have is really what [effect] would the repressive atmosphere have on people who are not as secure. I see that. I’ve heard from junior scholars who say, ‘Well, this is what I think, but I dare not say it. The way I’d put it is there’s an atmosphere like the Sopranos: ‘Nice career you’ve got there. It would be a real shame if something happened to it.’ ”

aben wrote:

kic wrote:

aben wrote:

kic wrote:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/the-times/steven-pinker-i-had-to-speak-out-over-orwellian-cancel-culture/news-story/a461bc438ffccd827753f5deaba9b25e

kopiroj text

Steven Pinker, the Harvard psychology professor and bestselling author, who was one of the signatories of the letter to Harper’s protesting against a climate of intolerance, has claimed he is the target of an “Orwellian” attack on his reputation.

The professor, whose books, including The Blank Slate and The Better Angels of Our Nature, have made him one of America’s leading public intellectuals, was the focus of a letter this week from more than 500 academics calling for his fellowship to be rescinded at the Linguistics Society of America. Citing half a dozen tweets posted by Pinker in the past few years, the letter accused him of a willingness to “dismiss and downplay racist violence”.

The authors of the letter said that they did not wish to “cancel” Pinker, a claim he says is “completely disingenuous [and] denying the obvious. They know that that is not a good thing to do, but that’s exactly what they were trying to do.”

The letter accused him of a pattern of “drowning out the voices of people suffering from racist and sexist violence,” a claim he rejects.

“It’s utterly ludicrous, it’s Orwellian and reveals the mindset that there has to be utter conformity and unanimity, and that even broaching a difference of opinion is treated as ‘drowning out’,” he tells me by telephone. “This is one of the examples of the kind of Orwellian language that has infused the cancel culture where disagreeing is called punching down or silencing or drowning out. It’s a warped mindset, but it’s becoming common.”

He says that a favourite tactic is to accuse those with a different view of “dog whistling” even when there is clearly no intention of saying something offensive. “It means that it doesn’t matter what anyone says, you can always accuse them of having dog whistles of your own invention.”

One of the charges against him involved his tweet about a New York Times article from 2015 about whether or not police are more likely to kill black people during an encounter. “The data seems to suggest that there is racial bias in harassment by police – in frisking and arrests – but not in shootings,” he says. “However, that clashes with the narratives that police shootings are a result of racism. It was considered an outrage to cite that article.”

He had already agreed to be one of 152 signatories of an open letter to Harper’s protesting cancel culture before the letter attacking him was released, as he feels very strongly about the issues it tackles.

“It’s important that there be a public voice, a focal point to break what is sometimes called a spiral of silence. A large number of people have been appalled at the firings, the cancellations and the state of oppression, but in an atmosphere in which you can be cancelled for protesting a cancellation it’s quite possible for a majority of people to be silenced. A minority view can become entrenched. Breaking the spiral of silence by a conspicuous public statement can be like the little boy saying the emperor has no clothes, namely pointing something out that a large number of people believe in the first place but have been cowed into acquiescence.

“No one’s [been] murdered yet, or burned at the stake, so I wouldn’t go too far in tasteless comparisons to the Chinese cultural revolution or the European witch hunts, but in terms of the psychology and social dynamics that arise from the psychology, there are parallels. Societies can get locked into a circle of mutual, pre-emptive denunciation: you denounce lest you be denounced. You prove your bona fides, that you’re on the right side of the moral crusade, by denouncing those on the wrong side before you yourself get denounced. I don’t want to say that the criticism of journalists and academics is the same as burning a real witch, [but] some of the underlying dynamics overlap.”

He says he is secure in his academic post and is not worried about himself, but rather the effect that all this has on younger academics. “I don’t deny that it was a source of distress and anxiety, but I can handle that and if I get fewer honorary degrees going forward I’m not going to complain about that.

“The greater concern I have is really what [effect] would the repressive atmosphere have on people who are not as secure. I see that. I’ve heard from junior scholars who say, ‘Well, this is what I think, but I dare not say it. The way I’d put it is there’s an atmosphere like the Sopranos: ‘Nice career you’ve got there. It would be a real shame if something happened to it.’ ”

 
mi smo u jugosloveniji navikli na takov život. ako se i oni naviknu, biti će in ko i nami u jugosloveniji

metilda wrote:

aben wrote:

metilda wrote:

aben wrote:

metilda wrote:
postoji..
ja nedobrovoljno nemam mogućnost školovanja jer sam nedobrovoljno siromašna tj. nemam mogućnost da budem bogata

to je isto ko i ono vulgrno korišćenje slobode;

dobrovoljnost ni naprosto stanje volje, nego kvalitativna ocjena odnosa između ljudi. 
ako se ti želiš školovati, a želiš školovanje, to je isto ko i da nemoš rakeru, a želiš pojti na mars. dobrovoljnost tu ne igro ulogu.

tek ako uspostaviš odnos isnekin, unda se more govoriti o dobrovoljnosti.

ne mora se odnositi iskljućivo na odnos .. može biti i nepostojanje dobre volje za biti siromašan
kad sam rekla nemam mogućnost u toj su sintagmi bili uključeni svi odnosi u sustavu koji mi onemogućuju biti bogata

moro.

daj mi primjer za to ča govoriš, paš viti

ma ne mora..
to je kao da kažeš postoji ljudsko siromaštvo ali bez čovjeka
ili postoji sustav bez elemenata takvi kakvi jesu po svojoj strukturi biološkoj i socijalnoj (govorim o ljudskom sustavu)