[kesg]

"Besides, with all due respect, what's it to you? What has any of them ever done to you personally? For example, have any of these people actually committed a crime against you?"

That's a spectacularly pathetic framework for weighing public policy issues.

Okay, you answered my question. Nothing. And that's what I thought you would say.

Incidentally, I disagree with what you think about my question. Indeed, if people asked "what's it to you" more often, they would be amazed how often they would have to answer "nothing." This is especially effective when dealing with liberals. But it works with all people who obsess about what others do even when it doesn't have any adverse impact whatsoever on their personal life.

[gogeo]

Maybe so. I believe that the world is a much better place because of any number of people who fixed a problem that had nothing to do with them. I have no children in public schools, but I recognize how important they are. If they ultimately fail, it will be after I'm gone, no skin off my nose. I'm not poor, but I pay taxes to help those who are. I'm not old, but I volunteer for the Community Center. I give blood, but I have O negative; I should logically bank my own blood for my own use, or find another O negative person or two. I'll donate more than I ever use myself.

I had a chat with someone on a police brutality thread. I drive a nice car, I'm home by 9:00, I know the local chief of police. I have no fear of being on the wrong side of a wayward cop. There's no logical reason, therefore, for me to advocate for effective regulation of police activity, but I do.

A lot of life is more pleasant than it would otherwise be because anonymous people did something that had nothing to do with them.

Sometimes minding your own business is a virtue. Sometimes it's not.