On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 16:57:30 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > Says the person who compares giving a vaccine to someone to a
>> > totalitarian regime.
> 
>> It is if you go out, grab them, stick them with a needle and pump
>> something in them that they only have your word on being good for them.
> 
> You clearly don't even understand what a "totalitarian regime" is.
> 
> Or rather, you know what it means, but you are using it in the
> completely wrong way just to attack some idea. Same thing as, for
> example, people calling the occupy wallstreet protesters "anarchists"
> (even though the movement couldn't possibly be more the opposite of
> anarchy.)
> 
> By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian regime".
> Which makes absolutely no sense.

A totalitarian regime is a regime where the leadership says "you will 
submit to us".  That's not /my/ definition, that's the definition from 
the Oxford English Dictionary.

So I'll be trusting that definition rather than any bullshit definition 
you decide to use.

If you tell someone "we're doing this for your own good", you are talking 
down to them and are treating them like a child.  Adults don't do that to 
each other.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 23:52:31 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 9-8-2013 22:57, Warp wrote:
> 
>> By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian regime".
>> Which makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> Ah, it is good to see the great strawman-master at work again.
> Well done.

Indeed.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 16:57:30 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > Says the person who compares giving a vaccine to someone to a
>> > totalitarian regime.
> 
>> It is if you go out, grab them, stick them with a needle and pump
>> something in them that they only have your word on being good for them.
> 
> You clearly don't even understand what a "totalitarian regime" is.
> 
> Or rather, you know what it means, but you are using it in the
> completely wrong way just to attack some idea. Same thing as, for
> example, people calling the occupy wallstreet protesters "anarchists"
> (even though the movement couldn't possibly be more the opposite of
> anarchy.)
> 
> By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian regime".
> Which makes absolutely no sense.

Your logic here is "the ends justify the means".  That's a pretty 
dangerous ideology, and has been used to justify a /lot/ of pretty bad 
behaviour over the years.

So I'll ask the question:  Do you believe that "the ends justify the  
means" is always a good argument?  Under what circumstances would you say 
that it's a bad argument (assuming the "ends" are always intended to be 
good - since you're talking about intent, whether the ends in hindsight 
are good or not is irrelevant; you can't predict the ends will always be 
good, so we have to go with the "predicted outcome", not the "actual 
outcome")?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 9-8-2013 22:57, Warp wrote:

> > By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian regime".
> > Which makes absolutely no sense.

> Ah, it is good to see the great strawman-master at work again.
> Well done.

Yes, because comparing saving people's lives to a totalitarian regime
is in no way a straw man argument.

Do *you* understand what a totalitarian regime is? Do you understand
why going somewhere, saving people's lives (even if by force), and
leaving, is *not* a "totalitarian regime"?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Shay <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
> news:520557ba@news.povray.org...
> >
> > You clearly don't even understand what a "totalitarian regime" is.

> Any regime with the power to forcibly inject people is a totalitarian 
> regime.

No, it isn't. A totalitarian regime is a form of government. Going
somewhere, doing something to people, and leaving, has absolutely
nothing to do with imposing a "totalitarian regime" on them. This even
if it were something negative, like stealing their property. And here
we are talking about saving people's lives.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> A totalitarian regime is a regime

And that's the point. It's a regime, a form of government.

Going somewhere, doing something, and then leaving, is not a form of
government and has absolutely nothing to do with totalitarianism. Not
even if that something were a negative thing.

> If you tell someone "we're doing this for your own good", you are talking 
> down to them and are treating them like a child.  Adults don't do that to 
> each other.

Do you disagree with the notion that eradicating smallpox from the world,
saving millions of lives, was a good thing?

Or would you rather sacrifice those millions of lives to your altar of
political correctness?

If you agree that those millions of lives were worth the worldwide smallpox
vaccination program, then you have not business in criticizing the
worldwide polio vaccination program, or else you are just a hypocrite.

If you don't agree that the millions of lives were worth the vaccination
program, then I don't even want to write the words that come to mind to
describe what you are, because it's nauseating to even think.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Your logic here is "the ends justify the means".

The millions of saved lives justified the means. Yes.

> So I'll ask the question:  Do you believe that "the ends justify the  
> means" is always a good argument?

Always? Of course not.

When it has been scientifically and empirically proven with absolute
certainty that the program will save millions of lives, then it is
perfectly justified.

Sacrificing millions of innocent lives just to not offend some people
is sickening.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10-8-2013 1:28, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 9-8-2013 22:57, Warp wrote:
>
>>> By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian regime".
>>> Which makes absolutely no sense.
>
>> Ah, it is good to see the great strawman-master at work again.
>> Well done.
>
> Yes,

Indeed so stop with that.

And everything below is totally irrelevant to my remark.
Learn how to debate and stick to the subject.


> because comparing saving people's lives to a totalitarian regime
> is in no way a straw man argument.
>
> Do *you* understand what a totalitarian regime is? Do you understand
> why going somewhere, saving people's lives (even if by force), and
> leaving, is *not* a "totalitarian regime"?
>


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:28:26 -0400, Warp wrote:

> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 9-8-2013 22:57, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian
>> > regime".
>> > Which makes absolutely no sense.
> 
>> Ah, it is good to see the great strawman-master at work again.
>> Well done.
> 
> Yes, because comparing saving people's lives to a totalitarian regime is
> in no way a straw man argument.
> 
> Do *you* understand what a totalitarian regime is? Do you understand why
> going somewhere, saving people's lives (even if by force), and leaving,
> is *not* a "totalitarian regime"?

You don't seem to understand what totalitarianism is.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:52057bb3@news.povray.org...
> Shay <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:
>> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
>> news:520557ba@news.povray.org...
>> >
>> > You clearly don't even understand what a "totalitarian regime" is.
>
>> Any regime with the power to forcibly inject people is a totalitarian
>> regime.
>
> No, it isn't. A totalitarian regime is a form of government. Going
> somewhere, doing something to people, and leaving, has absolutely
> nothing to do with imposing a "totalitarian regime" on them. This even
> if it were something negative, like stealing their property. And here
> we are talking about saving people's lives.
>

You'll need power to do that, near-absolute (total) power. Genie ... Bottle 
... Forced Vaccinations ... Eugenics ... Greater Good

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:16:56 -0500, Shay wrote:

> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:52057bb3@news.povray.org...
>> Shay <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:
>>> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
>>> news:520557ba@news.povray.org...
>>> >
>>> > You clearly don't even understand what a "totalitarian regime" is.
>>
>>> Any regime with the power to forcibly inject people is a totalitarian
>>> regime.
>>
>> No, it isn't. A totalitarian regime is a form of government. Going
>> somewhere, doing something to people, and leaving, has absolutely
>> nothing to do with imposing a "totalitarian regime" on them. This even
>> if it were something negative, like stealing their property. And here
>> we are talking about saving people's lives.
>>
>>
> You'll need power to do that, near-absolute (total) power. Genie ...
> Bottle ... Forced Vaccinations ... Eugenics ... Greater Good

Bingo.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:37:48 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> A totalitarian regime is a regime
> 
> And that's the point. It's a regime, a form of government.
> 
> Going somewhere, doing something, and then leaving, is not a form of
> government and has absolutely nothing to do with totalitarianism. Not
> even if that something were a negative thing.
> 
>> If you tell someone "we're doing this for your own good", you are
>> talking down to them and are treating them like a child.  Adults don't
>> do that to each other.
> 
> Do you disagree with the notion that eradicating smallpox from the
> world, saving millions of lives, was a good thing?
> 
> Or would you rather sacrifice those millions of lives to your altar of
> political correctness?
> 
> If you agree that those millions of lives were worth the worldwide
> smallpox vaccination program, then you have not business in criticizing
> the worldwide polio vaccination program, or else you are just a
> hypocrite.
> 
> If you don't agree that the millions of lives were worth the vaccination
> program, then I don't even want to write the words that come to mind to
> describe what you are, because it's nauseating to even think.

Sorry, but if you're going to engage in this sort of personal attack 
rather than debating on the merits, then you're not worth my time.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:37:48 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> A totalitarian regime is a regime
> 
> And that's the point. It's a regime, a form of government.
> 
> Going somewhere, doing something, and then leaving, is not a form of
> government and has absolutely nothing to do with totalitarianism. Not
> even if that something were a negative thing.

While you may find totalitarianism defined as a form of government, 
totalitarianism is an extreme form of authoritarianism, which elevates 
the power of authority over individual freedoms.

Totalitarianism is the extremist point that you're advocating (whether 
there is a government involved or not) in that your authority trumps the 
individual freedoms of those you would subject to your rules and enforce 
your "moral superiority" on.

Now, if you want to debate this in a rational manner that doesn't involve 
telling the people who disagree with you that they're horrible people or 
monsters, I'm happy to do that.

If, however, you're going to continue to engage in ad hominem attacks 
against those you disagree with, then we're done here.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/8/2013 8:37 AM, Shay wrote:
>> "Patrick Elliott"  wrote in message news:520332b1@news.povray.org...
>
> Just a general reply. Every anti-anti-authoritarian (make sure you read
> that one right) argument you give comes down to "It'll work if it's done
> right." The anti-authoritarian (Libertarian) view can be expressed
> semi-succinctly as "It's not being done right, or conscientiously. The
> government, military, and megacorps are three heads of the same beast.
> Feeding any of its thee mouth strengthens the entire animal. The beast
> cannot be controlled and has to die. I'm taking back what power I still
> have--while I still can."
>
> Also, read about Mercantilism on Wikipedia. We aren't talking about the
> same thing.

And, I think you are being naive, like most people that suscribe to 
their "vision", that you can kill the beast, instead of just breeding a 
new one. At the core, you will always get the same result, if you don't 
have someone making sure that megacorps don't form, or that the smaller 
ones band together, to control the government too, etc. The beast can 
get smaller, or bigger, but you don't kill it by someone deregulating 
everything, shutting down the government, getting rid of a military, and 
replacing it with 500 groups of thugs, instead of one, etc. You can, 
sometimes, keep it chained, but only if "people" are making the 
decisions, not amorphus entities (like legal entities, political 
parties, chains of command that can hide what they are doing from the 
public, etc.) Libertarians are not going to "fix" any of this, they are 
themselves a "political party", and, worse, some of their ideas about 
how reality works, tend to be naive as hell. (A big one is how they deny 
that inequities are inevitable, and that, short of some sort of a pure, 
and equality delusional, socialist redistribution, any such inequity 
**will** just breed a new beast, with new heads, like someone that 
thinks they have killed the hydra, but hasn't noticed that the heads are 
growing back.)

They don't see that, "taking back the power", they way they seem to want 
to do it, is strengthening some heads, even if it weakens others, and 
that, if anything, its making the things "less" controllable. I 
completely understand what they think they are doing, what they want to 
do, etc. I even, in principle, agree with much of it, but, they don't 
have the slightest damn clue how to get there, and what ideas they do 
have, often, have been tried before, even if, like a communist, arguing 
that no one has ever really "tried it", they can't see why it never has 
actually, ever, been truly tried. The reason being - the world can't 
work they way they want it to, there are too many things that get in the 
way, in the process, which will hurt real people, to do so, and then, 
there is no certainty, at all, that the result isn't going to, almost 
immediately, degenerate into the same thing, all over again. And, its 
the "how many people will get hurt" things that is the biggest problem, 
for anyone with the slightest scrap of compassion, and the key reason 
why their views are so often describes as, "I have mine, fuck you."

Post a reply to this message

On 8/8/2013 12:20 AM, scott wrote:
>> Except, of course, for all the people struggling to heat their homes,
>> put food on the table, buy new clothes, and all the other stuff you
>> mention.
>
> Indeed it's sad that we haven't reduced the number of people in that
> situation to 0%, but it's *a lot* better than the situation 100 years ago.
>
Even if true, this doesn't change the fact that, recently, things have 
been getting "worse" not better, and the percentage of people who can't 
afford to heat/cool their homes is "growing" not shrinking, pretty much, 
in fact, since Reagan, trickle down economics, and the rasulting 
escalation of a pay gap, along with, BTW, his, and numerous other 
Republican presidents/congresses, "deregulation" of certain industries, 
including laws like fair pay, and the like.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/8/2013 1:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 22:05:56 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>> Uhmm, you did get the sarcasm, did you?
>
> It seems not - sorry, it's been a rough couple of days for me. :/
>
> Jim
>
Yeah, missed it too, but, in my case, because this is *actually* one of 
the bullshit arguments I hear from a lot of people (interestingly, quite 
a few of which are libertarians).

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:09 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 8/8/2013 1:38 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 22:05:56 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>> Uhmm, you did get the sarcasm, did you?
>>
>> It seems not - sorry, it's been a rough couple of days for me. :/
>>
>> Jim
>>
> Yeah, missed it too, but, in my case, because this is *actually* one of
> the bullshit arguments I hear from a lot of people (interestingly, quite
> a few of which are libertarians).

That's the sign of a good poe, though.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 10/08/2013 01:40, Warp nous fit lire :
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Your logic here is "the ends justify the means".
> 
> The millions of saved lives justified the means. Yes.
> 
>> So I'll ask the question:  Do you believe that "the ends justify the  
>> means" is always a good argument?
> 
> Always? Of course not.
> 
> When it has been scientifically and empirically proven with absolute
> certainty that the program will save millions of lives, then it is
> perfectly justified.

But what if... 30 or 40 years later it is discovered that the program
had a delayed side-effect which was not expected.

Look at penicillin: wonderful products in the forty's, yet its usage has
now contributed to the fact that some dangerous bacteria becomes
resistant to it (and the competing bacteria which kept the other as
exception were also reduced, changing the balance)

> 
> Sacrificing millions of innocent lives just to not offend some people
> is sickening.
>

Post a reply to this message

On 10-8-2013 1:40, Warp wrote:

> When it has been scientifically and empirically proven with absolute
> certainty

There is no such thing at all, at all. If you were a scientist you would 
know that.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:5205a3f5$1@news.povray.org...
>
> And, I think you are being naive, like most people that suscribe to their 
> "vision", that you can kill the beast, instead of just breeding a new one. 
> At the core, you will always get the same result, if you don't have 
> someone making sure that megacorps don't form, or that the smaller ones 
> band together, to control the government too, etc. The beast can get 
> smaller, or bigger, but you don't kill it by someone deregulating 
> everything, shutting down the government, getting rid of a military, and 
> replacing it with 500 groups of thugs, instead of one, etc.

And I thing you are being naïve, like most people who subscribe to the 
centralized-power "vision" that you can control a larger share of the 
government than you do the economy. And worse, you *!*want*!* price-fixing, 
selective taxation, and a massive military. Doesn't work. Hasn't worked. 
Won't work.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 10-8-2013 1:28, Warp wrote:
> > andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> On 9-8-2013 22:57, Warp wrote:
> >
> >>> By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian regime".
> >>> Which makes absolutely no sense.
> >
> >> Ah, it is good to see the great strawman-master at work again.
> >> Well done.
> >
> > Yes,

> Indeed so stop with that.

> And everything below is totally irrelevant to my remark.
> Learn how to debate and stick to the subject.

You are trying to convince me to "stop with that" by cutting the first
word of my reply and making a smartass remark about it, without even
trying to resond to what I actually said?

How about I don't?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:16:56 -0500, Shay wrote:
> > You'll need power to do that, near-absolute (total) power. Genie ...
> > Bottle ... Forced Vaccinations ... Eugenics ... Greater Good

Yes, because that's totally what happened in the 70's when smallpox
was eradicated. Forced vaccinations, eugenics...

Sure, rather than forced vaccinations, which inevitably leads to eugenics,
we should have let all those millions of people die horrible deaths.

> Bingo.

You are both sick in the head, and you are making me sick.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > Do you disagree with the notion that eradicating smallpox from the
> > world, saving millions of lives, was a good thing?
> > 
> > Or would you rather sacrifice those millions of lives to your altar of
> > political correctness?
> > 
> > If you agree that those millions of lives were worth the worldwide
> > smallpox vaccination program, then you have not business in criticizing
> > the worldwide polio vaccination program, or else you are just a
> > hypocrite.
> > 
> > If you don't agree that the millions of lives were worth the vaccination
> > program, then I don't even want to write the words that come to mind to
> > describe what you are, because it's nauseating to even think.

> Sorry, but if you're going to engage in this sort of personal attack 
> rather than debating on the merits, then you're not worth my time.

You didn't answer my question. Instead you resort to the "you are making a
personal attack" card.

I repeat: Do you think it was a bad a thing that smallpox was completely
eradicated, saving millions of lives?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> On 10-8-2013 1:40, Warp wrote:

> > When it has been scientifically and empirically proven with absolute
> > certainty

> There is no such thing at all, at all. If you were a scientist you would 
> know that.

Well, if you happen to find smallpox on the wild, inform me. Or better
yet, the proper authorities. I think they would be interested.

I think it's pretty safe to say that we know with absolutely certainty
that there is no smallpox out there. Thus the efficacy of the program is
likewise proven.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 10-8-2013 19:26, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 10-8-2013 1:28, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>> On 9-8-2013 22:57, Warp wrote:
>>>
>>>>> By your logic someone robbing someone else is "a totalitarian regime".
>>>>> Which makes absolutely no sense.
>>>
>>>> Ah, it is good to see the great strawman-master at work again.
>>>> Well done.
>>>
>>> Yes,
>
>> Indeed so stop with that.
>
>> And everything below is totally irrelevant to my remark.
>> Learn how to debate and stick to the subject.
>
> You are trying to convince me to "stop with that" by cutting the first
> word of my reply and making a smartass remark about it, without even
> trying to resond to what I actually said?
>
> How about I don't?
>

"Yes" was sufficient the rest was irrelevant, because it had nothing to 
do with what I said. It was nothing more than a childish 'he did it too 
;( ' and that was not true either.

For me there was and is no point in going into a debate with you on what 
totalitarian means or not, because, again, it is irrelevant for the 
discussion. I have said elsewhere why vaccination 'by force' won't work. 
If you have anything useful to add to that, be my guest.

-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 13:31:34 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > Do you disagree with the notion that eradicating smallpox from the
>> > world, saving millions of lives, was a good thing?
>> > 
>> > Or would you rather sacrifice those millions of lives to your altar
>> > of political correctness?
>> > 
>> > If you agree that those millions of lives were worth the worldwide
>> > smallpox vaccination program, then you have not business in
>> > criticizing the worldwide polio vaccination program, or else you are
>> > just a hypocrite.
>> > 
>> > If you don't agree that the millions of lives were worth the
>> > vaccination program, then I don't even want to write the words that
>> > come to mind to describe what you are, because it's nauseating to
>> > even think.
> 
>> Sorry, but if you're going to engage in this sort of personal attack
>> rather than debating on the merits, then you're not worth my time.
> 
> You didn't answer my question. Instead you resort to the "you are making
> a personal attack" card.
> 
> I repeat: Do you think it was a bad a thing that smallpox was completely
> eradicated, saving millions of lives?

Of course that was a good thing.

Now you answer *my* questions.

And instead of saying "you make me sick", try actually debating on the 
merits rather than engaging in personal attacks.

Otherwise, I'll just add you to my 'asshole' filter and move on.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:5206786d@news.povray.org...
>
> Sure, rather than forced vaccinations, which inevitably leads to eugenics,
> we should have let all those millions of people die horrible deaths.
>

Again, you're examining one totalitarian (or, if you prefer, 
"by-overwhelming-force") act in isolation. This is the problem with "if I 
were king for a day" thinking.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I have said elsewhere why vaccination 'by force' won't work. 

Does that mean there is still smallpox on the wild out there?

Quite clearly smallpox contradicts your statement.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> If, however, you're going to continue to engage in ad hominem attacks 
> against those you disagree with, then we're done here.

You don't even know what "ad hominem" means.

"Argumentum ad hominem" is a claim that tries to say that someone's
argument is invalid or suspicious because of something objectionable
about that person. In other words "you shouldn't listen to him because
he is (something objectionable)".

A couple of examples:

"He doesn't accept the theory of evolution, therefore he's an idiot"
is *not* an ad hominem.

"He is in jail for tax fraud, and thus you shouldn't be listening to
what he has to say about the theory of evolution" *is* an ad hominem.
(He might be wrong about evolution, but he being in jail for tax fraud
is completely irrelevant to the issue.)

Nowhere have I said that your argument is wrong because of what kind of
person you are, or what you have done, or anything of the sorts.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 15:02:02 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> If, however, you're going to continue to engage in ad hominem attacks
>> against those you disagree with, then we're done here.
> 
> You don't even know what "ad hominem" means.

Again with the "defining my native language to me".

> "Argumentum ad hominem" is a claim that tries to say that someone's
> argument is invalid or suspicious because of something objectionable
> about that person. In other words "you shouldn't listen to him because
> he is (something objectionable)".
> 
> A couple of examples:
> 
> "He doesn't accept the theory of evolution, therefore he's an idiot" is
> *not* an ad hominem.
> 
> "He is in jail for tax fraud, and thus you shouldn't be listening to
> what he has to say about the theory of evolution" *is* an ad hominem.
> (He might be wrong about evolution, but he being in jail for tax fraud
> is completely irrelevant to the issue.)
> 
> Nowhere have I said that your argument is wrong because of what kind of
> person you are, or what you have done, or anything of the sorts.

You have, and if you don't knock it off, then I'm done talking with you.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 15:02:02 -0400, Warp wrote:

> "Argumentum ad hominem" is a claim that tries to say that someone's
> argument is invalid or suspicious because of something objectionable
> about that person. In other words "you shouldn't listen to him because
> he is (something objectionable)".

I didn't say "argumentum ad hominem", I said "ad hominem attack", which 
is different.

You are intentionally and deliberately calling my character into question 
because I am disagreeing with you.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by 
an answer to the contentions made

You are /not/ discussing the issue, you're saying things in response to 
disagreements with your assertions that the ends justify the means by 
saying things like "you make me sick".

And it's time you STFU.  Seriously, if that's your debating technique, 
then you need to learn how to debate properly rather than resorting to 
character attacks in a deliberate appeal to people's emotions to make 
your point.

"If you don't agree that the millions of lives were worth the vaccination
program, then I don't even want to write the words that come to mind to
describe what you are, because it's nauseating to even think."

Yeah, because that's not appealing to people's emotions and is debating 
based on the facts/merits of the argument you're trying to make.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10/08/2013 8:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 15:02:02 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> >Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom>  wrote:
>>> >>If, however, you're going to continue to engage in ad hominem attacks
>>> >>against those you disagree with, then we're done here.
>> >
>> >You don't even know what "ad hominem" means.
> Again with the "defining my native language to me".
>

Bloody Aida! Jim. I didn't know that you were old enough to speak Latin 
as your native language.
My how time flies. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 10.08.2013 01:37, schrieb Warp:

> If you agree that those millions of lives were worth the worldwide smallpox
> vaccination program, then you have not business in criticizing the
> worldwide polio vaccination program, or else you are just a hypocrite.
>
> If you don't agree that the millions of lives were worth the vaccination
> program, then I don't even want to write the words that come to mind to
> describe what you are, because it's nauseating to even think.

I tell you something sick:

Here in Germany, some decades ago there was a huge campaign pro Iodine: 
To fight hypothyreosis, people were encouraged to use salt with added 
Iodine, companies were encouraged to add Iodine to their food products, 
and farmers were encouraged to add Iodine to the food of their 
livestock. All for the good of the people, especially (but not limited 
to) those suffering from undiagnosed hypothyreosis.

Today, in effect it's nigh impossible to buy any food products that have 
natural levels of Iodine.

This is good for people who have an undiagnosed disposition to 
hypothyreosis.

It's devastating though for people who have an undiagnosed 
/hyperthyreosis/ - the excess Iodine can literally /kill/ them! And even 
if those people are lucky enough to find a doctor who comes up with the 
correct diagnosis, the most obvious and least invasive treatment - a 
low-Iodine diet - is in practice nearly impossible; instead, the typical 
treatment is to remove or destroy the thyroid gland, making the patient 
dependent on artificial thyroid hormones for the rest of his life (not 
to mention that a portion of the patients lose their voice or even their 
life due to the surgery).

Without the artificial addition of Iodine to literally each and every 
food product - which in effect boils down to forced medication of each 
and every person - it would be the people with hypothyreosis who would 
need treatment, but that would be as easy as changing their diet to food 
with a high natural Iodine concentration, or in the worst case 
artificially adding Iodine to /their/ food - instead of adding it to 
/everyone's/ food.

I have someone among my relatives who suffers from this very problem. 
That is something that makes /me/ sick.

/Forced/ medication? No, sir.

If people /want/ to get vaccinated, or at least allow themselves to be 
/talked/ into being vaccinated, to protect /them/ from Polio or 
whatever, let them. But do /not/ force medication - of any kind - onto 
anyone against their will.

Sacrificing people's freedom to reject some medical procedure, in order 
to try achieving some greater medical benefit for all, opens up a can of 
particularly ugly worms we've seen crawling across Europe before.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 21:26:44 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 10/08/2013 8:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 15:02:02 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> >Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom>  wrote:
>>>> >>If, however, you're going to continue to engage in ad hominem
>>>> >>attacks against those you disagree with, then we're done here.
>>> >
>>> >You don't even know what "ad hominem" means.
>> Again with the "defining my native language to me".
>>
>>
> Bloody Aida! Jim. I didn't know that you were old enough to speak Latin
> as your native language.
> My how time flies. ;-)

;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> > Nowhere have I said that your argument is wrong because of what kind of
> > person you are, or what you have done, or anything of the sorts.

> You have

And now you are also a liar. If you want to take that as an "ad hominem"
then be my guest.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> And it's time you STFU.

No, I won't shut the fuck up, and here's why:

Many people participated in the worldwide smallpox vaccination campaign,
and their efforts helped eradicate the disease from the face of Earth,
saving millions of people. Did they sometimes half-force people to be
vaccinated? Yes. However, those actions have saved millions of lives.

You, and others here, however, are calling their actions "totalitarian"
and comparing it to eugenics. That, my friend, makes you an asshole in
my books, and it makes me sick.

I would really like to see you explain to a mother whose child has been
crippled for life because of polio the reason why there is still polio
in the world. "Yeah, sorry, we could have eradicated this disease years
ago, but we didn't because, you see, our moral sensibilities take
precedence." I'm sure that mother will find solace in the notion that
her child has been a worthy sacrifice for your higher moral sensibilities,
to make you feel like you are not imposing a "totalitarian regime" and
"eugenics" onto other people. What is the life of a child in comparison
to the purity of your mind?

If avoiding "totalitarianism", as you call it, means sacrificing the life
of millions of people, then you can shove your morals where the sun doesn't
shine. You are sick in the mind.

If you want to call this an "ad hominem", then go right ahead. It won't
make any difference.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 17:48:16 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> > Nowhere have I said that your argument is wrong because of what kind
>> > of person you are, or what you have done, or anything of the sorts.
> 
>> You have
> 
> And now you are also a liar. If you want to take that as an "ad hominem"
> then be my guest.

Stop being a jerk, Warp.

You have persistently engaged in personal attacks and character attacks 
in trying to make your point.

You have said that holding an opposing view makes you sick.  You have 
continually tried to twist what's being said so you can denigrate people 
who disagree with you.

I'm calling you out on that.

If calling you out on saying the things that you have said makes me a 
liar, then I guess that means you think I'm a liar.

Here are things that you have *specifically* said:

"You are both sick in the head, and you are making me sick."

"Do you disagree with the notion that eradicating smallpox from the world,
saving millions of lives, was a good thing?

Or would you rather sacrifice those millions of lives to your altar of
political correctness?

If you agree that those millions of lives were worth the worldwide
smallpox vaccination program, then you have not business in criticizing
the worldwide polio vaccination program, or else you are just a hypocrite.

If you don't agree that the millions of lives were worth the vaccination
program, then I don't even want to write the words that come to mind to
describe what you are, because it's nauseating to even think."

(Yes, the implication is there - "if you don't agree with what I'm 
saying, then I don't even want to write the words that come to mind to 
describe what you are" - you set up a strawman and knock it down by 
implying that those who don't agree with you are sick.)

I said it before, and I'll say it again:  If you want to debate *on the 
merits*, fine, let's debate on the merits.  If you're going to resort to 
calling people who disagree with you "sick" and worse, then you don't 
really have a very coherent argument to make.

Now, shall we try this again - and you can stop calling me names and 
describing what kind of a person I am because I disagree with your 
fundamental premise of forcibly vaccinating people against their will?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 17:59:44 -0400, Warp wrote:

> If avoiding "totalitarianism", as you call it, means sacrificing the
> life of millions of people, then you can shove your morals where the sun
> doesn't shine. You are sick in the mind.

Yeah, audit you.  I'm done.  You don't want to debate, you want to just 
engage in name calling and proclaim your moral superiority.  I'm done 
with you.  You don't know me, and you are in no position to judge me.  I 
don't really give a shit what you think, because you think that forcing 
people to do things against their will "in the name of the greater good" 
is perfectly fine.  Your authoritarian views make me sick, and your 
method of debating is reprehensible.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> I tell you something sick:

> Here in Germany, some decades ago there was a huge campaign pro Iodine: 
> To fight hypothyreosis, people were encouraged to use salt with added 
> Iodine, companies were encouraged to add Iodine to their food products, 
> and farmers were encouraged to add Iodine to the food of their 
> livestock. All for the good of the people, especially (but not limited 
> to) those suffering from undiagnosed hypothyreosis.

Surely you can now point out how the polio vaccine is likewise dangerous,
and should therefore not be administered worldwide?

Do you see your "thing X is dangerous, therefore thing Y probably is too"
fallacy here?

> Sacrificing people's freedom to reject some medical procedure, in order 
> to try achieving some greater medical benefit for all, opens up a can of 
> particularly ugly worms we've seen crawling across Europe before.

There's a big difference between your iodine example and things like
smallpox and polio: These latter things are contagious, and by not
taking a vaccine, you are potentially spreading the disease to others.
You are, thus, not responsible only for your own wellbeing, but of other
people as well.

There's another difference: Smallpox and polio can be completely
eradicated. Once they are gone, they will are gone for good, and nobody
ever will have to suffer from them or need any further vaccinations for
them.

By not removing those diseases from the Earth when we have the means to,
we are responsible for all the lives that are lost or ruined. Many of
them will be people who would most certainly have wanted to live and be
healthy. The blood is in our hands if we allow people to suffer and die
when we are sitting on the cure because of our moral sensibilities.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:5206b7cf@news.povray.org...
>
> I would really like to see you explain to a mother whose child has been
> crippled for life because of polio the reason why there is still polio
> in the world. "Yeah, sorry, we could have eradicated this disease years
> ago, but we didn't because, you see, our moral sensibilities take
> precedence."

I would like to see you explain to a mother whose child has been blown in 
half by a terminator drone the reason why wealth and power are so 
concentrated in the world that the powerless majority are herded and 
slaughtered like livestock. "Yeah, sorry, we keep those guys around in case 
we have to forcibly vaccinate someone."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> > Nowhere have I said that your argument is wrong because of what kind
> >> > of person you are, or what you have done, or anything of the sorts.

> Here are things that you have *specifically* said:

> "You are both sick in the head, and you are making me sick."

> "Do you disagree with the notion that eradicating smallpox from the world,
> saving millions of lives, was a good thing?

> Or would you rather sacrifice those millions of lives to your altar of
> political correctness?

> If you agree that those millions of lives were worth the worldwide
> smallpox vaccination program, then you have not business in criticizing
> the worldwide polio vaccination program, or else you are just a hypocrite.

> If you don't agree that the millions of lives were worth the vaccination
> program, then I don't even want to write the words that come to mind to
> describe what you are, because it's nauseating to even think."

Yes. None of that says that your argument is wrong because of what kind
of person you are or what you have done.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:12:11 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Yes. None of that says that your argument is wrong because of what kind
> of person you are or what you have done.

Thank you for intentionally missing my point.  That tells me what kind of 
person you are.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> and proclaim your moral superiority.

That made me laugh out loud. Look who's talking.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:12:11 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > Yes. None of that says that your argument is wrong because of what kind
> > of person you are or what you have done.

> Thank you for intentionally missing my point.  That tells me what kind of 
> person you are.

I said, and I quote: "Nowhere have I said that your argument is wrong
because of what kind of person you are, or what you have done, or
anything of the sorts."

You said, and I quote: "You have"

Then you quoted my previous posts trying to argue why I have done that,
and none of it was that kind of argument.

Now you are saying that I'm "missing your point." I take that as an
acknowledgement.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:19:20 -0400, Warp wrote:

> I said, and I quote: "Nowhere have I said that your argument is wrong
> because of what kind of person you are, or what you have done, or
> anything of the sorts."

You tried to imply that if I disagree with you, I'm a horrible, horrible, 
immoral person.

As I said, I AM DONE.  GO AWAY.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Shay <non### [at] nonecom> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
> news:5206b7cf@news.povray.org...
> >
> > I would really like to see you explain to a mother whose child has been
> > crippled for life because of polio the reason why there is still polio
> > in the world. "Yeah, sorry, we could have eradicated this disease years
> > ago, but we didn't because, you see, our moral sensibilities take
> > precedence."

> I would like to see you explain to a mother whose child has been blown in 
> half by a terminator drone the reason why wealth and power are so 
> concentrated in the world that the powerless majority are herded and 
> slaughtered like livestock. "Yeah, sorry, we keep those guys around in case 
> we have to forcibly vaccinate someone." 

You seem to be saying that we shouldn't vaccinate people because of
drones. And then you wonder why I find it sickening?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:19:20 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > I said, and I quote: "Nowhere have I said that your argument is wrong
> > because of what kind of person you are, or what you have done, or
> > anything of the sorts."

> You tried to imply that if I disagree with you, I'm a horrible, horrible, 
> immoral person.

Yes, and I'm still saying it.

However, you accused me of making ad hominems (ie. claiming that you are
wrong *because* you are a horrible person), and I didn't, as demonstrated.

> As I said, I AM DONE.  GO AWAY.

Why?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:5206bcb8@news.povray.org...
>
> You seem to be saying that we shouldn't vaccinate people because of
> drones. And then you wonder why I find it sickening?
>

I'm saying we shouldn't concentrate authority to the extent that we have the 
ability to force people into vaccinations.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:22:35 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:19:20 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > I said, and I quote: "Nowhere have I said that your argument is wrong
>> > because of what kind of person you are, or what you have done, or
>> > anything of the sorts."
> 
>> You tried to imply that if I disagree with you, I'm a horrible,
>> horrible,
>> immoral person.
> 
> Yes, and I'm still saying it.
> 
> However, you accused me of making ad hominems (ie. claiming that you are
> wrong *because* you are a horrible person), and I didn't, as
> demonstrated.

*sigh*

You seem to be thinking that "ad hominem" only is used in the context of 
"argumentum ad hominum".

So, here's a very simple explanation.  If you don't understand it, well, 
I guess then you're just stupid.

"Ad hominem" is latin:  "ad" meaning "to", and "hominem", which is the 
accusative form of "homo", which means "person".

Clear?

By definition, this means "Relating to or directed at a particular 
person; (also) directed against the individual concerned rather than the 
relevant issue; personal.¨  (Citation, Oxford English Dictionary, Online 
edition)

An "ad hominem attack" is therefore an "attack directed at a particular 
person".

Clear?

Now, you said that I make you sick because I don't agree with you that 
forced vaccination is appropriate, because the goal of eliminating deadly 
diseases trumps everything.  You favor an authoritarian approach, whereby 
you force people to be vaccinated whether they want it or not.

You want to use the force of your authority to vaccinate people to make 
them not have a choice.  That's the definition of authoritarianism.  It 
has nothing to do with government, it has everything to do with your own 
self-perceived position of authority.  "I know better then them, so I'm 
going to force them to do what I think they should do."  That is, by 
definition, and authoritarian approach to solving a problem.

You say that anyone who has a problem with that (a) doesn't really want 
to rid the world of disease, (b) makes you sick.

Now.

I have a problem with that approach.  NOT because I think deadly diseases 
are wonderful things and should be allowed to flourish.  I have a problem 
with that approach because it dehumanizes the people you would force to 
be vaccinated.  It treats them as less than people, and it imposes your 
will and your sense of "I know better" on them, regardless of the actual 
consequences.

The approach that I favor (which - surprise - doesn't include NOT 
VACCINATING PEOPLE AGAINST DEADLY DISEASES) is educating the people you 
want to vaccinate, and give them the choice after they've been educated.

I DO NOT advocate doing so by force.  I advocate vaccinating them by 
educating them and giving them a choice.  I would advocate encouraging 
them to make the "right" choice, but in the end, THEY GET TO MAKE THE 
CHOICE BECAUSE THEY ARE PEOPLE AND NOT CATTLE.

Now, if you have a problem with that, you are a sick, twisted individual 
who doesn't understand the value of individual freedoms, and because 
people with less education than you are nothing more more than cattle to 
be "managed".  That makes me want to vomit.  If you think that, then you 
are an asshole and I don't want you anywhere near having the authority or 
the power to actually put your plan into action.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 8/10/2013 4:33 AM, Shay wrote:
>
>
> "Patrick Elliott" <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
> news:5205a3f5$1@news.povray.org...
>>
>> And, I think you are being naive, like most people that suscribe to
>> their "vision", that you can kill the beast, instead of just breeding
>> a new one. At the core, you will always get the same result, if you
>> don't have someone making sure that megacorps don't form, or that the
>> smaller ones band together, to control the government too, etc. The
>> beast can get smaller, or bigger, but you don't kill it by someone
>> deregulating everything, shutting down the government, getting rid of
>> a military, and replacing it with 500 groups of thugs, instead of one,
>> etc.
>
> And I thing you are being naïve, like most people who subscribe to the
> centralized-power "vision" that you can control a larger share of the
> government than you do the economy. And worse, you *!*want*!*
> price-fixing, selective taxation, and a massive military. Doesn't work.
> Hasn't worked. Won't work.
Oh, I do huh? So glad you know what is going on in my mind. No, I don't 
want a massive military. That is just wasteful and stupid. I want 
government that works, unfortunately, time after time, we see that 
"works" generally means that there are lots of small fish, fighting over 
things, such that they are forced to compromise with the people that 
elected them to get a nibble at things they want themselves. What we 
have now, instead, is a two party mess, where the only thing that 
changes is which species of fish is in charge, and maybe, once in a 
while, the ecosystem shifts enough that the smaller ones among that 
species rise up, and replace the bigger ones, hence the right wing, 
ultra-religious, government so small it will fit in your back pocket, or 
a woman's uterus, "republicans", we are seeing right now.

There is such a thing as both too big, and too small. But, that isn't 
the only problem. Libertarians can, and do, play the game the same way, 
and are already turning into another big fish. That is what won't work.

As for price fixing and selective taxation.. This one really gets me... 
How many technologies, short of a damn war, have grown, only because 
someone, other than the public sector, decided they where worth 
pursuing, and "funded" research? How would any of them have ended up 
being created, without some sort of incentive, from "non-public" 
sources, who, I don't give a frak what kind of economist you are, your 
company, mega-corp or otherwise, will want to, unless they can 
monopolize the new technology in some way, maintain the status quo 
instead. Don't you dare tell me libertarians don't think that way, I see 
it all the time from them. If it can't benefit them, more than someone 
else, then its a "bad investment". Not, in fact, actually true, and if 
they really did give a damn about helping other people, they would have 
been building, for example, light rail, in recognition of the necessity, 
and improvement to everyone's well being, including their workers, and 
thus, their odds of having workers, 30 years ago. Oddly, the only people 
bothering has been "government", and they have been so two faced about 
it, that all that has ever been done is to waste tens of millions of 
dollar, "studying" the problem, like.. at least once every 5 years, like 
clockwork, and increasing costs, every single time.

And taxation.. I have heard all about the whole "tax everyone the same". 
It has *exactly* one thing, and only one thing, going for it - if you 
could manage to keep people from having loopholes (Whoops, there goes 
incentives for charity, running needed, but poor profitability 
businesses at a loss, or dozens of other legit reasons to allow 
loopholes, along with the 50 times as many illegitimate ones), you might 
get "some" of them to actually pay taxes. Of course, all the extra money 
they make would, instead of flowing back into our economy, would instead 
flow into a offshore Caiman Island account, just like it does now, 
because, surprisingly, they a) don't have enough to spend their money 
on, that offsets the slow, inevitable, bankruptcy of the entire rest of 
the economy, as money disappears, never to be seen again, and b) there 
is no way, under such a so called "fair" tax system to recover any of it.

I really do not comprehend why this basic math is so hard. Its like a 
hydraulic leak, or an air leak, or heck, a bloody memory leak. 
Eventually, it **must** crash the system. Do we, every few thousand 
years, have another French revolution, to fix this, or actually admit 
that its total bullshit that being rich, making a lot of money, and then 
railing about people taking it, is "acceptable", because someone you 
"earned it" by being better than all the people for which the 
combination of, yes, government spending, but also, your own damned 
unnecessary greed, inflates costs by 600% in fewer decades than I need 
the fingers on one hand to count them?

I will be honest, I am a "social" libertarian. A lot of liberals would 
likely admit the same. Its the whole, "My neighbor believing differently 
than I do, neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my bones." The problem 
is, that is only half right. Belief can be challenged by fact, 
knowledge, especially of ourselves, undermines differences. Ideals, and 
beliefs, can become tolerable, when "understood", or must be through 
out, when they prove to be intolerant of change, reality, or the well 
being of a people. Economics.. doesn't work like this. When that has to 
change, real people get hurt, in real ways, and sometimes killed, 
because, some bastard out there, right now, is figuring out that they 
can pick my wallet, even while finding a way to convince someone else, 
to pay a fourth party, to break my legs, all so they can shove what ever 
they got out of my wallet, into their shoe box.

There is no ideology in that, other than, "I deserve", no argument you 
can make in its disfavor, which doesn't demand that the perpetrator 
admit they don't deserve it, no solution that can be proposed, which 
will not inconvenient the one planning it, and yet no way that it can be 
allowed to continue, without all of the problems such thinking causes, 
getting worse. Introduce the concept of "I own", to any object you 
cannot physically carry on your person, and pretty soon some idiot is 
applying it to intangible ideas, patches of land, which they don't want 
other people on, food and other basic needs, and finally, to *people*, 
who after all, are just one more commodity, which, if they are not 
"earning" enough, must simply not be "trying hard enough".

Economic libertarianism in inhumane, it ignores "why" we don't have 
freer markets (or, rather, it ignores the sound reasons some laws where 
passed, and simply asserts that only the corrupt ones count), and then, 
kind of like someone who says, "There have never ever been true 
communists", they proclaim, as you just did, "No one has tried a true 
libertarian economy!" From where I am standing, and given the things 
that the moment have flat out, boldly stated, about some things.. I have 
no problem understanding why, and being terrified at the prospect 
someone might actually attempt it. Because, all I can see, given its 
leaders, is Dystopia.

Post a reply to this message