Kitk34's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Kitk34's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

You are pretty stupid though you cannot deny this

Says the rock to himself.

1 point

Lol. It's you're. Your is the possessive pronoun.

"Ooh, look at me, I'm a grammar nazi now." Dude, whatever. Is that the best you got? Correcting me on a typo? Okay.

I don't have anything against you personally, but yes, I find it stupid that you write 15,000 word essays of outrageous, self-contradictory nonsense, without first grasping the basics of what you are trying to have a discussion about.

HA! As if I have actually done that. You claiming it does not make it so, right? Anything that I have posted as an argument, was not disproven. You just claim "Non-sense!" and follow it up with insults.

Most of what I wrote in response to you and your buddy Jody, is lengthy because both of yours were long to begin with. I was responding point by point, but that is okay. I am pretty much done with the both of you.

1 point

I pointed them out and you ignored them , that’s what you do you ignore every counter to your arguments

I refuted what you had said with valid points. The experiment, while having an ethical framework that is questioned, had good data that illustrated there are those who are willing to obey authority, while ignoring what their own conscience tells them.

No you showed nothing , the people were told constantly they had to do it and it was a great thing they were doing for science they could not see the subjects face either , Milgram was only interested in fame and fortune

That just made my point. They were told, constantly because they did not want to go on, but continued anyways, with the say so of the "authority" over the experiment. Milgram's motives have been called into question over the years, but this does not disprove the results.

You keep assuming because you say something it’s true , the reverse being the case as you refuse to investigate the matter

I have investigated it. Years ago and now. I suppose you'll tell me that the Stanford Experiment was false, as well.

You did “research “ to confirm your findings not to falsify them making your research utterly useless.

Oh, bullshit. Here:

So far, you haven't provided any links to your own sources.

I asked if the ones giving the shock would also pull out toe nails with a pliers and you said “yes and this experiment proves it “ this clearly demonstrates you’re totally biased and not interested in anything that doesn’t support your narritive

I said that I would hope they would not do it, but that it would likely be the same amount as the original scenario. I did not say that this experiment proves it. "Likely" being the key word.

Yet I keep doing it and you’re not listening

You've, actually, made my points for me. It still illustrates the points I have already spoken of. Yet, you aren't listening because your mind is made up that the whole thing is useless.

Ha, ha , when I was 17 I went on a one day course for an Army training day which was used to determine whether one wished to join the military , it went pretty well until four hours in a commanding officer threw his boots at me and roared “ clean these boots boy “ .....I said “ clean your own fucking boots you toad faced fuck “ ........I found myself outside the main gates and told to fuck off and never show my face again there’s your answer

Ah, well, good for you. But you did not answer my second question, "How many do you think would?"

Do a bit of research you clown before you post up another pile of bullshit because you have do none such is your school girl crush mentality towards Milgram

Bullshit coming from you some more. I swear, you're a rock, but one that talks back.

“There’s a lot of dirty laundry in those archives,” said Arthur Miller, a professor emeritus of psychology at Miami University and another co-editor of the Journal of Social Issues. “Critics of Milgram seem to want to—and do—find material in these archives that makes Milgram look bad or unethical or, in some cases, a liar.”

One of the most vocal of those critics is Australian author and psychologist Gina Perry, who documented her experience tracking down Milgram’s research participants in her 2013 book Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments. Her project began as an effort to write about the experiments from the perspective of the participants—but when she went back through the archives to confirm some of their stories, she said, she found some glaring issues with Milgram’s data. Among her accusations: that the supervisors went off script in their prods to the teachers, that some of the volunteers were aware that the setup was a hoax, and that others weren’t debriefed on the whole thing until months later. “My main issue is that methodologically, there have been so many problems with Milgram’s research that we have to start re-examining the textbook descriptions of the research,” she said.

There have been similar experiments done that coincide with Milgram's and they get similar results. His critics might have him on some ethical things, but it does not disprove the FACT that there are those who will obey "authority", even against their own Conscience, Judgement, Moral code or compass, Intuition, what-have-you. That internal voice that says "Stop doing this!"

A Remake of The Milgram Experiment
1 point

Hitler didn't disarm the Jewish population. The Jewish population was already unarmed because the Weimar Republic had outright banned guns throughout Germany. Hitler changed the law to permit private citizens to own guns, but he excluded Jews and opposition groups.

Actually, according to the link provided, The Weimar Republic still allowed, with weapons permits, "authorized persons" to have firearms. The Legal foundation to disarm the Jews, was laid down by the Republic and used by the Nazis as an excuse to confiscate weapons from the Jewish people and others, such as Gypsies.

However, Hitler and his Nazis enacted stricter "laws" in 1938. So, my point still stands that he disarmed them, using his enforcers to do so. Yet, with that slight correction as to where he started. oftheGermanJews

(albeit to explain the similarities between Germany and modern America)

Yeah, I learned through my own research while in college and after, that their were various "eugenics laws" enacted in this country, in several states. They restricted people from reproduction, through these laws. They also, established profiles of certain ethnic groups as having criminal tendencies, through criminology theory.

They thought that someone's skull size might be an indication of being a criminal. Also, they thought that people with a "criminal" family member or ancestor could be a potential criminal.

The term "eugenics" was first used by Francis Galton, if I am not mistaken. And it took the land by storm. There are those who claim that the Nazis adopted their own twisted ideology from American States with those "laws" spoken of above. I wouldn't doubt it.

There were those in this country who actually, supported Hitler, until he invaded Poland. Then, during and after WWII, the "government" here brought some of those Nazis over here, under Project Paperclip. They were scientists and Truman wanted them vetted. If any had more than a nominal involvement or were supportive of The Nazis, they were excluded. However, I wonder how effective they were in keeping Nazis out of the country, as they were bringing these scientists over here.

1 point

None of those atrocities would have happened if Hitler did not have those who obeyed and carried out those orders. Without many of the people going along with his "laws", including the Jewish and political dissidents getting on those cattle cars, he would not have had power.

The point is that, this applies the world over. We know, from history, that he was not the only ruler who had enforcers carry out his orders. Stalin is another one, with those who were willing to enforce his decrees to starve millions of their own people, amongst other crimes. And Mao is another example.

It is always the enforcers, who carry out such evil acts that are more morally culpable. And the US is no different.

Both of the above links are about incidents where the people were found to be in "violation" of "gun laws". But the 2nd Amendment protects the "Right to keep and bear Arms", and the last part says it ". . .shall not be infringed". This is of course being ignored and violated on many fronts under the guise of "laws and regulations".

The 2nd Amendment is as follows:

"A Well Regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The People are the Militia.

At Waco, if they wanted Koresh, they could have waited for him to leave the compound. They did not do so because of erroneous information that he rarely leaves it.

Hitler enacted "gun control laws" and disarmed the Jewish population. Then, they were sent, along with political dissidents and others who were deemed unfit, to their deaths, in concentration camps. But it could not have been done without people to support and carry through with such orders.

1 point

In response to your own claim that, "The problem isn't guns. It's people."

Meaning those who are intent upon harming others will find a way to do so. Many get a badge and gun, then, use it to push people around up to and including murdering them. And they have government at their back.

What is your goddamned obsession with government? You don't want to disarm mass shooters and rapists, just government? Very rational.

Their "authority" does not exist in Reality. I have no delusions about controlling other people. I can only do what I can do on an individual basis, to stop a mass shooter or a rapist. That does not include disarming everyone else, who is not actively seeking to do harm to others, and would do the same as I would in situations involving someone attempting to harm others.

Apparently you can't remember what your own claim was about.

So, you're okay with disarming everyone else, but leave those "in power" armed? Yeah, that always works out great. Check history, many tyrants did just that before they murdered millions of their own people.

So why did you say they don't? You said the problem isn't guns.

Only in the sense that they are used to commit acts of violence. I have not disputed that. And everyone has the potential to do that, given that they have free-will do make the choice to act in that way. So, the answer would be that everyone, including those in "government" should disarm? There are so many guns, that I don't think it would be possible. And those "in power" will certainly not, give theirs up. They are the worst actors of violence.

Of course they are, because that is what guns were invented for!! For taking life. Are we finally getting somewhere?

You can hardly be free if you have tyrants, willing to use guns, to take it from you. And to them, "might makes right". The whole purpose behind having an armed populace, is to protect against that very scenario. When you are facing them, and it comes down to kill or be killed, it is best to have such a thing as a gun to protect Life, yours.

For God's sake no it isn't accurate. Gun violence is gun violence. Gun control is gun control.

For Fuck's sake, it is accurate because in order to enforce the "gun control" gun violence must be used to seize those weapons, from those not willing to give them up.

You are repeating the exact same assertion I debunked. There was a handgun ban in the UK following the Dunblane Massace and no armed soldiers turned up at my door. It is your responsibility to follow the law because the government does not have the resources, manpower or inclination to check every single home to see if every single law is being followed. That's absolutely fucking RIDICULOUS!!! Do armed soldiers turn up at the weekend to check you aren't trafficking children from your basement? Or committing computer fraud through your laptop?

You haven't "debunked" shit, let alone disprove it. So, people willingly disarmed after that incident. An unjust law is no law at all. Which as far as I am concerned is all of man's laws. They obeyed "authority" and will suffer for it when they are kept from leaving their homes because that authority tells them not too, as if they are in a prison.

Also, I have mentioned incidents here in America, in the nineties. Ruby Ridge and Waco. People, including women and children, burned alive at Waco. They were both, done in the name of enforcing "gun control". So, tell me, how is that not gun violence?

I also, posted a link to a documentary that covered the gun confiscation, done by the National Guard, under orders of the New Orleans city government, during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It has actual footage of the SOLDIERS going door to door, enforcing that order.

The things you are saying are nothing short of insanity.

That's funny. You claim that what I am saying is "nothing short of insanity", yet I have shown historical evidence of what I am talking about. Yet, you are willingly IGNORANT of what I have said. It is as if I am speaking to a rock. But you have nothing, you come back with emotional kneejerk reactions and insults for what I say. At least, the rock would be silent.

1 point

The Old French entry says that mentum is Late Latin. The English entry says mentum is Latin. Neither of them mention classical Latin, which is the period before Late Latin. Regardless, government has never meant mind control.

The point of going to the root meaning of words is to understand what they originally, meant. When you have a word like "government" it is two words put together, so, you check the meaning of each word. The suffix -mente is shown to be used prior to mentum. One is shown as Latin, as you said, and Late Latin.

I made the time distinction based on the use of the word "late". And putting the latin forms of govern together with mente, mens, or mentis. It does show it to be "to control mind". Now, "mentum" means instrument/means. I asked what would be the means behind the governing aspect? What activates that?

It would have to be something within, first, then, it expresses itself externally. Each of those people you said, who interacts to correct bad behavior would have to have that internal aspect, am I right? And in order for it to work, they have to agree to cooperate in such a manner. Or it does not work. If you want to call that government, fine, but those same people have no say over anyone else, who is not part of their group.

What it boils down to is "government" is someone having to be subservient to someone else's rule, and no one is right to force that upon others, outside of themselves and their property. That is slavery. No one owns anyone else, nor is right to try. But we have been over this, already.

Given that mentum forms the ment suffix for many english words, how is that particular linguistic adoption an obfuscation?

I am going from the first use of mente as the suffix, from Latin. And a question came to mind concerning where the Late Latin mentum came from. I looked up mentum in my Latin Dictionary and it shows it means "the chin". So it seems like there is something not right, there. Maybe, using it as a suffix changes the meaning?

But it shows that the word means the chin, and that would be a noun. Just as the mind would be considered a noun with the action coming before it, like "to control, direct, guide, etc." These are verbs. So, it seems like there might be obfuscation and misinformation being applied. And our online sources might be the culprits. Or places to consider.

When you first, addressed this, I checked and sited the Latin dictionary I used. It was Cassell's Latin/English Dictionary.

2 points

No, not fake. I don't like being rude to people but it is a fact that you are a stupid person. That is my dilemma.

I haven't seen much of anything productive from you, other than, "You are so stupid, blah, blah, blah." When you could explain your own position on this issue. I explained mine in depth. You said, "I feel strongly about this issue. . ." Okay, why? Please, explain. If you don't I will just figure you are attempting to think with your emotions. Good luck with that, if it is what you are doing.

2 points

Are you actually joking right now? You've just tried to argue that guns shouldn't be banned because "law-abiding citizens" will suffer.

Yeah, because a bloody armed conflict may ensue. You haven't paid any attention to what I have said, have you? Any one who truly values life, does not want to see that. But Freedom is worth laying down your life for, so that you and others may have a free life, rather than be subservient to others, like enslaved.

2 points

Oh, OK. So you admit that you want a gun so you can break the law?

Having a gun might be breaking the "law" soon, in this country. But I don't recognize "man's laws" as being legitimate. I recognize Natural Law and adhere to the Principles therein. But you don't know what that is, do you?

What I pointed out in my post, about helping to free the slaves, would have been breaking the "laws" of of that time. But it was the right thing to do. It was the same with those who hid Jewish people in their attics. "Man's laws" are typically, in contradiction to doing what is right.

1 point

You are very literally one of the most stupid people I have ever spoken to.

This is what you sound like, "Uh, uh, your just so stupid, uh."

1 point

Oh for God's sake shut up. Guns are tools for killing and/or seriously injuring people. Killing and/or seriously injuring people isn't defensive. You are just literally stupid buddy. I'm sorry but it's true.

Killing and/or seriously injuring people is not what I said. Defending against such actions is what I am talking about. But you knew that didn't you. Your dishonesty escapes you.

Self-defence is a legal defence which you use in court when you've taken an action which is offensive.

That is absurd. The legality is based on the self-defense principle. The very definition of self-defense is, in this context, an action someone takes to stop an attack upon them. Using equal force to do so, like using a gun.

Stupidity abounds, but is not coming from me.

1 point

Theres absolutely no point in conversing with you the Milgram experiment was deeply flawed from start to finish , you’re so entrenched in your position you did fuck all research on the matter as your mind is totally made up as it supports and bolsters your further unfounded babbling about government

Yeah, you tried to show the flaws, but failed to do so. I showed that, regardless of whether they were doing it for "Science" or because an "authority" told them to, they were still willing to cause harm upon someone else, then, feel okay about it because they were told it was. They did this against their own principles that, likely, would have stopped them from continuing. Like the ones who did actually, stop.

I did research on this long ago. I am familiar enough with the experiment to draw the conclusions that I have.

Just admit it, you have nothing to be able to refute what I have said.

Tell me, if you were, say, in the military, and someone tells you to execute a prisoner of war, would you do it? And how many do you think would?

1 point

How is it you are unable to understand that you are precisely one of these people?

If you weren't prepared to blindly obey authority and/or believe whatever you are told by authority then nobody could have ever convinced you that guns are "defensive tools". That claim is at clear odds with the factual reality that guns are designed to kill, and yet millions of people in your country all seem to have made the exact same error. What a big coincidence.

I refer to firearms as a defensive tool because that is how I see and use them; in a defensive capacity. A bow and arrow could be seen as the same way. Or any other weapon. They could also, be referred to as "assault weapons" and be used in that capacity, as well. They are in fact, a tool of force, that can be used defensively, or for evil. And it does not matter if the person is wearing a badge, has the label of "government" behind their name, or not.

1 point

Listen friend. Your wilful inability to understand the things other people explain to you is not a counter-argument.

You are deliberately ignoring what I wrote after those questions. You should go back and re-read what I said, then, try to refute. But, of course you won't. You will probably, come back with some insult, but have nothing productive to add to the conversation.

2 points

Yes you would, moron. You'd have stood red-faced in front of an audience and expressed your outrage that the government is depriving you, a law-abiding citizen, of your main source of income.

So, I guess that apology you made for the "idiot comment" was fake?

No, I would have been one of those "law-breakers" who were helping slaves get to Freedom. Doing what's right and following the "law" does not always align. That is the point of what I posted, but I guess you missed that since you didn't really read it, did you?

Kitk34(185) Clarified
1 point

Hey, I'm sorry for the idiot part.

I appreciate that. Apology accepted. I also, feel strongly about this issue. Probably, for different reasons. We all have biases. I cannot doubt that. It is difficult to escape them. And having an ego, it tends to get in our way.

I have been approaching such issues as, Freedom, Morality, and just living life, etc., from Natural Law Principles. I seek out the Truth and do my best to understand it, then, speak it through my perspective.

As for "media indoctrination", we all get information from somewhere. But I am not indoctrinated. I have broken myself out of that. I am working on self-educating and that is always a work in progress.

It seems to me that we differ on this issue because of our respective locations. Here, where I am (the midwest of the US) it used to be that young people were taught the proper use of firearms in school.

They had shooting teams to practice accuracy, which is just as important as other aspects of handling firearms. Mass shootings were unheard of. In my area, I do not know of any shootings to this day, taking place. They seem to typically happen in areas with very strict measures on guns. Cities, like Chicago, have very high rates of crime, like murder, and guns are "not allowed".

My own upbringing involved being taught how to handle firearms. And if we "played with one" we could face our father, who might kick our ass for doing it. We did not do that. Later, while in the military, I trained with firearms further.

Then, after that, I was hired as an armed security officer. I had continuous training on those weapons. I know and understand how to use them. I am Principled enough to know the difference between right and wrong. I will not act wrongly toward my fellow human-being.

You are talking to one who would work to stop mass murderers from committing such acts, with what I have to do that (preferably a firearm).

1 point

No, you have to ask yourself why you are so stupid. Two hundred years ago you'd have made the same argument that the government wants to deprive law-abiding citizens of their right to own slaves.

I most certainly would not have made that argument. Furthermore, historically speaking, slavery was protected by the Constitution, just one fatal flaw in that document, at it's establishment. They decided to let their posterior hash it out. Which resulted in a very bloody civil war; though it is debatable that slavery was the only issue. Lincoln, himself said that if it meant the Union would stay in tact, he would have kept slavery.

The reason it lasted for so long was that the Federal Government kept it going through enforcement. Other countries refused to go after runaways. In this country, it took people breaking the law through the Underground Railroad, that helped runaway slaves get to freedom. If it would not have been enforced, it would have died out.

The disarmament of a people is what leads to their enslavement. The Principles in the 2nd Amendment was meant for a Free and Principled people to be able to protect their Freedom by being armed against a tyrannical Government who would see them enslaved. History shows this to be true.

Hitler did it to the Jewish people in his country. All done by way of "laws". Then, he ordered theirs and others that were deemed unfit to their deaths. But it was the people in that country who obeyed his decrees that allowed it to take place. All as "law-abiding citizens" or his enforcers.

"Law-abiding citizen" means absolutely NOTHING, because people break the law for the first time EVERY SINGLE DAY. People with no criminal records walk into schools and shoot kids, and you want to defend their right to do that? On the basis that they haven't broken the law previously?

I am not defending someone going in and committing mass murder. I am defending someone having the means (a gun or equal force) to stop that person from doing it. As far as I know, every location where a mass murder took place, was a "gun-free zone".

The cops were slow to respond, and did not act to stop the person, but in one instance, was awaiting "orders" as to what to do. Those mass murderers knew these locations were gun-free. Human Predators will find those who are most vulnerable and prey upon them, with whatever means they have at hand.

1 point

The same way all other laws are enforced you rent-a-twit. If you get caught doing something illegal you go to jail. Do the cops stop you every morning on your way to work to establish that you're not carrying a nuke?

I just... I can't even...

No, but they are known to break into peoples homes based on those people having a plant, or other substance, such as marijuana. They also, have hit the wrong house, killed some of those inside, and getting a way with that.

There is a whole host of abuses by the cops, that go unaccounted for. Some of the most well known are two incidents from the nineties, Ruby Ridge and Waco. Both clusterfucks, and no one in the "government" was held accountable for their actions. And they were "enforcing" weapons violations.

And thanks for illustrating my point. Cops=men with guns, seizing property (guns), and kidnapping, throwing into a cage, or murdering those who resist, under the guise of "enforcing an assault weapons ban" (any weapon could be considered an "assault weapon" if used to assault someone).

1 point

You’re on the money again Burrito , I was quiet prepared to have a conversation with him until I read his response to my piece , the guy is only interested in ramming his idiotic ideas home he is not interested in dialogue he just wants to hear himself

Says the accuser, who is doing exactly what he is accusing the other of doing. The fact is, I welcome dialogue, but that is not what you have given. You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.

1 point

Do you like living in a civilised society which has laws? Where people aren't allowed to rob you in the street or rape your wife?

I protect myself, and have taught my wife how to protect herself. I do not need others to provide that for me.

Because if you do, then the price you pay for that is government.

Idiots like you complain about guns being taken from "law-abiding citizens", but nobody is more "law-abiding" than the government, because they make the goddamned laws!!!

You have to ask yourself why do they want to disarm "law-abiding citizens"? If they, the so-called "government" are so "law-abiding", then, why are they doing this? It is for CONTROL, not because they are Principled or so much better than your average civilian.

What you just said there is seriously, laughable. Consider Obamacare. Congress is not under it, they voted themselves out of it. But they forced it down the throats of the rest of us, through the Supreme Court.

How about "taxes"? Ones such as Mitt Romney have off shore accounts that shelter them from paying into it. The list is endless. There are things that they could not do on an individual basis, but if done under the guise of "government" it is okay, like continuous unjust wars on other countries; nothing more than mass murder, etc.

Yep, "government" is the "most law-abiding". And you call me the idiot. Sheesh.

2 points

You followed it up with the demonstrably false claim that a gun ban necessitates armed soldiers coming to your door.

Okay, genius, how would such a "ban" be enforced if not by the use of men with guns to do just that?

1 point

I don't need to disarm the government to debunk your ridiculous idea that guns have no relationship to gun violence.

You said, "The problem is giving guns to people." I said to disarm the "government" made up of people. Apparently, you've got nothing for that.

Obviously, guns have to do with "gun violence" as they are being used to force one's will upon others, in an attempt to violate them, to include taking their life. What I described in my statement about gun control being gun violence is accurate because it would take that very scenario to happen if people do not obey such a "law" as an "assault weapons ban". I said that it would take men with guns to enforce such a "law". And it would.

That was an actual event in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The city government said there will be no guns allowed and the National Guard was used to enforce that by going into people's homes and confiscating their property, i.e. guns.

This documentary shows what occurred there:

1 point

It’s remarkable really you talk about people being compliant with authority and yet here you are totally accepting an authority’s word without once researching the other side

Yes they were trying to be good servants to science .......

Science weekly ......

{{Participants were most compliant when an experimenter encouraged them to continue shocking for the sake of the experiment (by saying, 'The experiment requires that you continue'), the psychologists add. Participants never followed the order: 'You have no choice, you must continue.'}} In other words those identifying with the experiment's purpose ("ideology") were more likely to shock until the end; participants were not motivated by "just following orders".

How does any of this disprove what I said? Those who participated, continued to do a perceived harm upon someone else, all in "the name of science" or because someone in the position of "authority" over the experiment, was telling them to continue. The point is that they chose to continue to actively cause a perceived harm to that person. Regardless of what that person said, such as, "No more" etc, they kept on with it when they should have stopped.

Nonsense , imagine if you gave each of the experimenters a pair of pliers and told them that had to extract toe nails how many would do if? Also in the original experiment the ones giving the shock could not see the victim as a partition seperated them

How is that nonsense? It sounds more like you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I don't know how many would go through with it. Hopefully, none, but in all likelihood it would be roughly the same amount as the original scenario.

Yes, the partition was part of the experiment. What's your point? They were still under the impression that they were shocking someone when they pushed the button.

I claim they were

Based on what? It still showed that there are those willing to blindly obey authority.

Your making an emotional argument now as like most you want to deny the tests were flawed ,I proved why the experiment is flawed but you perfer to deny the why’s as you’ve fallen for an authority figures word on it and are stubbornly adhering to your postion

Look, man, there are no experiments that are perfect, since they are done by imperfect creatures called human-beings. But it does illustrate how far people will go to obey authority figures. It shows that people will go against their own internal process that tells them they shouldn't continue actively doing harm upon another because it is a cause for science or because someone else told them to.

I’m no fan of politicians or to much government power but I am in favour of the law to the extent we have it here I like most have never had a problem with it as it’s never interfered with my freedoms in any way

"Man's law" is all about a perceived control. I adhere to Natural Law Principles as best as I can understand and apply it to my life and what I do. I do my best not to cause or initiate harm upon others. Man's law always interferes with everyone's Freedom and is, essentially, "playing god" when someone "makes a law".

That authorization means nothing, but so many people today will go against their own Principles and moral code or compass, for, one example, a paycheck.

You speak authoritatively of people you do not know sweeping makin generalizations , opinions like yours are nothing but your subjective opinions coming through your particular world view and are just an opinion like any other

I recognize the Truth by observing people's actions. And I have spoken of that with that statement. What you said does not refute the Truth of that statement.

We all as individuals want a certain power and control you haven’t stated precisely what you mean by this , I’ve yet to meet a human that was otherwise

Having an internal power and control over oneself is what anyone should aim for. What I am speaking of is attempting to take that from others in an attempt to exercise power and control over them.

1 of 11 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]