Sociopath Community

 That may be a boring answer, but well said and soooo true.  "Excitement" is easy.  I have excitement practically chasing me.  True security is rare.

Is it impossible to have excitement with safety?

 Excitement. Because I can't help myself.

Safe sex though :D

by Justice

Sadly, as soon as a person admits to finding themselves in possession of the one, they will always find themselves seeing more value in the other.

Human Condition.

 I like this answer...

 I've always loved and pursued excitement but as I reach old age, security is more important for me. I have found it and I enjoy it. But from the safe roost of security, I look out of the side of my eyes for some excitement.

Oh I never answered why.

I have had a lot of stupid insecurities in my life. Right now it seems like where I live is threatened AND I don't have a lot of money. I thought I had found some materialistic security and I've lived a quite secure life in that sense for several years. When I was younger I never knew where the money would come from and I sometimes had no place to live or no food.

I feel secure enough in da hoodz. It's on the high crime end but most of the time the victims are store clerks getting robbed or friends or family getting stabbed or killed, things like that. And a lot of drug dealing.

I'm not a thrill seeker since almost anything can be interesting to me in the right mood. Nevertheless I can find fun where people see next to disaster, despite the fact I don't handle everyday type anxieties well. I would tolerate getting lost in the wilderness with no phone better than having a lot of laundry and someone stole my laundry slot.

by tesseract

 Security but I always end up chasing excitement.

 +1

So IOW excitement within the bounds of safe sex.

Security first, and then excitement within that?

It seems in order to have "both," and/or find "balance" with both,it's excitement within security. If you get excitement outside security you lose that for the other.

I run into this with the "free will vs. fate" argument.

If you have fate first, you can have free will within that, so you can have both.

but if you put free will first, you can't have fate within that. So to have both, free will is a subset of fate.

As for "balance" people want freedom and peace (or security) and justice is the balance between both. You can't take free will to such an extreme you disrupt the peace; you can't impose peace and order so much that people lose freedom. the laws by the people's consent are to agree where to balance both. and if ppl disagree, there is conflict over who is trying to control whom, etc.

similar questions but different contexts

 So you're an ex sheep farmer living in da hoodz now? LMAO. So much bullshit...

Actually, yes Edvard. Everyone doing farm work does not live in the countryside. Also the farm is pretty close to an area where people live so I only have a few kilometers to it. My area of my city is made up from people who moved in when it was new but they are old and dying off, people with low income, drug/alcohol issues and a lot of immigrants.