|
 Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
 Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!).  [Re: Phred]
#1020632 - 11/04/02 10:37 AM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Note that this latest round of English disarmament legislation covered not just guns, but virtually every kind of chemical, electrical, projectile and edged weapon available to the Jane and Joe Bloggs.
Weapons like that are far, far rarer than even guns. Once again you are confusing america and the UK. There have never been tasers on sale in the UK, no gas weapons, no projectile weapons etc.
For the vast majority of the UK population there was no difference in weapons ownership between pre and post 1997. It is perfectly clear that we must look elsewhere to explain any theoretical increase in violent crime.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
 Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Xlea321]
#1020639 - 11/04/02 10:41 AM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Horseshit. Slavery meant poor white workers lost jobs and money. The people who supported slavery and pursued the policy were rich white landowners who made massive profits from it.
News flash -- slavery was an accepted institution in many societies from the beginning of recorded time. You were the one who mentioned millions of slaves perishing during the construction of the Egyptian pyramids, remember? Native American tribes had slaves, the Romans had slaves, The Goths and Mongols had slaves, the Aztecs had slaves, the Chinese had slaves, the Arabs had slaves, and slavery wasn't outlawed in the British Empire until 1833.
Horseshit. I personally know many muslims. Not one of them believes in death for anyone.
The Qu'ran is quite specific on this. The penalty for apostasy is death. I was steered to a number of Islamic bulletin boards last fall after the attacks on the WTC to get a better feel for why there seem to be so many terrorists who claim to be devout Muslims. I didn't even KNOW the penalty for apostasy was death until I visited those websites. Even our good buddy Zahid won't deny it. They don't ADVERTISE it, mind you, but the honest ones will confirm what I say.
pinky
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Phred]
#1021040 - 11/04/02 12:53 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
News flash -- slavery was an accepted institution in many societies from the beginning of recorded time.
Not quite. For the vast majority of human existence people lived in small groups of around 30 simply because this was the maximum size the hunter gatherer lifestyle could support. There were no slaves in this system, everyone was treated equally.
Remember, you were trying to make a point about democracy and saying slavery existed because of the democratic will of the majority of people in America. This is complete nonsense. Rich landowners wanted cheap slave labour - what the majority of americans wanted was irrelevant. As is often the case today.
The Qu'ran is quite specific on this
So what? The bible is quite specific about killing homosexuals:
"If a man also lie with
mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an
abomination: they shall surely be put to death"
How many christians have you met who wanted homosexuals killed?
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
 Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Phred]
#1021196 - 11/04/02 01:35 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
it is a crusade against all methods of self-defense with the possible exception of Jiu-jitsu.
They'll have to pry my Jiu-jitsu from my cold, dead hands!! Arggh!!
Alex123: How many christians have you met who wanted homosexuals killed?
Are you fucking serious? MANY!!!
I've talked to so many fucking christians who've come up with horrible ways to "handle the gays"... death was a common prescription.
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Sclorch]
#1021206 - 11/04/02 01:38 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Are you fucking serious? MANY!!!
I think they're in the tiny minority. Usually those bizarre christians who are also far right wingers.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
 Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Xlea321]
#1021355 - 11/04/02 02:23 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I think they're in the tiny minority. Usually those bizarre christians who are also far right wingers.
From every church (several denominations) I've ever been to, I can guarantee you that within 30 minutes (on a Sunday morning) I can find at least a dozen people who would (after gentle coaxing with simple conversation manipulation techniques) tell me that they hate gays. Of those, around half would say that death is a solution to the "gay problem".
Just because you're a fan of Christianity doesn't mean you speak for them all.
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
deepr
the dancer
Registered: 05/24/02
Posts: 238
Loc: nzl
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
|
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Sclorch]
#1021419 - 11/04/02 02:39 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Of those, around half would say that death is a solution to the "gay problem".
this seems like the bizzare tiny minority to me...
& preying on the oh so obvious mental vulnerability of christian patrons from the good ole us of a through the use of simple conversation manipulation techniques i believe could render them to say just about anything you liked..
you'd just have to sell it to them right?
|
Shroomalicious
You may say I'ma dreamer...
Registered: 06/20/02
Posts: 319
Loc: The Shire
Last seen: 21 years, 3 months
|
 Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Phred]
#1021668 - 11/04/02 04:06 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
That does not mean it is PROVEN. Look, I choose my words with care, and I have yet to see anywhere from anyone a psychiatric or sociological study that claims to PROVE that all children who were picked on by their peers grow up to be violent criminals.
Just because YOU have never read it does not mean it hasn't been proven. Also, I said killers often grew up as abused children, not abused children always grow up to be killers. There is a difference, "context is everything".
Slavery was once a universally accepted institution -- the MAJORITY of people felt blacks had no rights. There was once a time when women were not allowed to vote. There was once a time when the majority believed it was correct to kill heretics. The Aztecs believed it was correct to sacrifice newborns to the rain god. Muslims to this day believe the penalty for apostasy is death.
Did I NOT say that Democracy could be cruel? I believe I did when I said "The will of the people can still be cruel, for sure". I NEVER said Democracy was perfect, or even close to it. I simply said, and still believe, it is better than a Dictatorship.
Yes, you want to go through History and pull out ever nasty thing that has ever happened under a Democracy you will have a long list, but if you want to go through History and pull out every nasty thing a Dictator has ever done I could do far more than match you nick for nack.
The fact that I believe non-violence as a response to violence is a bad idea does not make me a totalitarian.
Pinky, please stop simplfying what I say to the point of NOT staying true to what I have actually said at all. I said that is a charateristic of a Dictator and of Totalitarians, I DID NOT EVER SAY that everyone with that charateristic was totalitarian. I did say some may be if they knew how to rise to that power, but , I DID NOT EVER SAY that everyone with that charateristic was totalitarian. As you said "context is everything".
It doesn't bother me; I'm used to people not being able to grasp the difference between Hitler's worldview and the worldview of the Founding Fathers.
You are getting bothered by people who do not grasp the worldview of the Found Fathers yet you believe a Dictatorship is a better than a Democracy?
I don't get angry with such people
You don't seem not angry by the way you have been carefully insulting me, I have nothing against you, so please stop it.  Please?
--------------------
Shroomalicious - I love you and in doing so I love myself, because we ARE all one - "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless". - Mahatma Ghandi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Shroomalicious]
#1022037 - 11/04/02 06:41 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Shroomalicious writes:
Just because YOU have never read it does not mean it hasn't been proven.
Just because SOME (by no means all) sociologists believe that being tormented by one's peers as a child increases the likelihood of growing up to be violent doesn't mean that this theory has been PROVEN. "Proven" is a very strong word. "Proven" has no shades of grey... it is an either/or situation. To quote your earlier statement in this thread: I can't prove this but I can say that it is found to be true in general that people who are violent, grew up in violent situations.
Pinky, please stop simplfying what I say to the point of NOT staying true to what I have actually said at all.
Hmmm... let's review, shall we?
"This system sounds like something Hitler would have loved...a computer that FORCES people to do what someone believes is the "right" thing."
"After all you are saying your way is a "gaurantee" for peace and my way is a "gaurantee" against it. IMO, this is a dangerous attitude because it is the attitude of all famous and not so famous dictators."
"Don't you wonder why your ideas keep making people think of Hitler?"
"If you adopt the attitude of your opinion is fact and everyone else is wrong this is the textbook attitude that makes people reject totalitarianism, dictatorship and most organized religions."
"We are merely saying that he (Hitler) decided what was morally right and then FORCED others to abide by it, even if it included others dying...not unlike your plan?"
"I know you believe you are right though, and since your philosophies, in your opinion, actually are right and so that makes forcing them on others okay...that too is what Hitler believed."
"I would say the comparisons to Hitler are because you believe that your way is a way that must be forced onto all others, because you believe it works."
End of review. I leave it to the readers of this thread to decide for themselves.
you believe a Dictatorship is a better than a Democracy?
As I stated earlier, with the right person in charge, following the right moral principles, yes I do.
King Canute was a benevolent leader, even though he inherited his position. Canute was a dictator. The Nazis were evil people, even though they came to power democratically. Ancient Greece was a Democracy, yet the Greeks were slave-owners. I believe most people in this forum would agree that slavery is wrong. It seems that many posters here at the Shroomery think the USA is the Great Satan; the most evil country which has ever existed in all of history, yet the USA is a democracy.
It doesn't matter whether the ultimate authority rests in a single person or in a democratically elected group of thousands -- what matters is what that government DOES, and even more importantly, what that government DOESN'T do.
From an earlier post: ...but I still trust ANY Democracy over ANY Dictatorship...
I guess we differ on that, then. I would rather have lived under King Canute or Theodoric than the Reichstag.
May I point out yet again that this subtopic is best addressed in the Political Discussion forum. I will make no further comments on Democracy vs. Dictatorship in this thread.
You don't seem not angry by the way you have been carefully insulting me...
I haven't been "insulting" you. I have been trying to keep you on topic. By the way, you have yet to provide your definition of "violence". You also have yet to explain how the violent can be imprisoned through non-violent methods.
pinky
--------------------
|
Traveller
enthusiast
Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 309
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
|
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Phred]
#1022425 - 11/04/02 08:39 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
man whatever the statistics say about australian crime, in australia you can still go out any time and know you're not going to get shot. you can go to a bar and get shit faced with lots of other people getting shit faced and you know that the average joe or even the hard-assed wannabe gang types are not carrying GUNS! there are not drive-by shootings, you cannot go to the local merchant and buy a machine gun. there are plenty of thieves, break-ins, car thefts, plenty of violent assaults...just no shootings. sure there are a few examples that can be brought up but those are very rare cases. do you really think if every australian was allowed to own a gun it would become a safer place?
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Traveller]
#1022479 - 11/04/02 09:01 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, but isn't Australia the place where babies get eaten by dingoes? If you had a gun, you could shoot the dingoes before they ate the babies.
pinky
--------------------
|
Traveller
enthusiast
Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 309
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
|
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Phred]
#1022597 - 11/04/02 09:50 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
very true, but then dingoes wouldn't eat babies if they were happy little dingoes now, would they?
there's some hard, sharp debating for ya, fair dinkum cobber!
coo-ee!!
|
Shroomalicious
You may say I'ma dreamer...
Registered: 06/20/02
Posts: 319
Loc: The Shire
Last seen: 21 years, 3 months
|
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Phred]
#1022830 - 11/04/02 11:39 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Just because SOME (by no means all) sociologists believe that being tormented by one's peers as a child increases the likelihood of growing up to be violent doesn't mean that this theory has been PROVEN. "Proven" is a very strong word. "Proven" has no shades of grey... it is an either/or situation. To quote your earlier statement in this thread: I can't prove this but I can say that it is found to be true in general that people who are violent, grew up in violent situations.
I agree, I never said my ideas WERE fact, I just said it was a fact that your beliefs were as unproven as mine.
I leave it to the readers of this thread to decide for themselves.
Thank you. I actually do think you were over simplifying my beliefs (I also still find it interesting that you left out some qoutes of mine where I talked about the difference between believing something that Hitler believed in, and being one in the same with him), however I have no problems standing by my statements.
If I am proven (granted some people could debate what is proven and what is not) wrong then I will correct myself and admit my faults, as I did when you pointed out the fact that Canute WAS a Dictator whether or not he used the power (though I believe I said that in the Political Discussion "Democracy Vs. Dictatorship), regardless of the fact that it was a detriment to my point of view.
King Canute was a benevolent leader, even though he inherited his position. Canute was a dictator. The Nazis were evil people, even though they came to power democratically. Ancient Greece was a Democracy, yet the Greeks were slave-owners. I believe most people in this forum would agree that slavery is wrong. It seems that many posters here at the Shroomery think the USA is the Great Satan; the most evil country which has ever existed in all of history, yet the USA is a democracy.
Like I said, Democracy IS quite fallable. However, I think it less fallable than Dictators.
I am not sure you meant me, but for the record I think the USA is just fine.
I haven't been "insulting" you.
I believe you refered to my statements as pretensious, stupid, ignorant and my point of view was not worthy of consideration. Oh ya, and you said you pitty people with my point of view because they have low comprehension levels, which you blame on our poor education.
You may say, I think your opinion is stupid but not you...but I say after all you said what is my impression of your thought on me suppose to be?
I believe you when you say you do not think I am stupid, but I urge you not to tell people who don't agree with you that you think their point of view is pretensious, stupid, ignorant, not worthy of consideration and that you pitty them because they have low comprehension levels which you blame on their education, or lack of education. A lot of people would find that insulting IMO, not just me.
By the way, you have yet to provide your definition of "violence". You also have yet to explain how the violent can be imprisoned through non-violent methods.
I suppose this is quite over do, you are right. My definition of violence includes hurting people. Simple enough but, you say what about arresting people? Good point. You are quite right, some will not go without a fight...and stuning people electronically, pepper spraying them or otherwise "evasive and passifying procedure" is still violent. My answer is a tough one but I would have to say you are right, I don't see a way to capture someone who won't go willfully without some form of violence, albiet small and far less than what is used today.
I still think Rodney King like beatings and shootings in general are uncalled for (I believe even me and you can agree on that  ), but in my opinion it is necessary to "grab and hold" as they say.
--------------------
Shroomalicious - I love you and in doing so I love myself, because we ARE all one - "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless". - Mahatma Ghandi
Edited by Shroomalicious (11/04/02 11:43 PM)
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Shroomalicious]
#1024104 - 11/05/02 11:34 AM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I believe you refered to my statements as pretensious, stupid, ignorant and my point of view was not worthy of consideration. Oh ya, and you said you pitty people with my point of view because they have low comprehension levels, which you blame on our poor education.
Dude, why are you getting so bent out of shape over this? I suggest you re-read my posts. I made ONE comment, and it wasn't even about YOU, it was about Alex's absurd equating of Hitler's plan of continual unprovoked aggression to a plan that stops ALL aggression before it even occurs. You chose to get all huffy about it and treat it as a personal attack. Furthermore, I never said your point of view re non-violence wasn't worthy of consideration -- I said it was wrong, then spent a lot of time illustrating WHY it is wrong.
I never said you were stupid, or ignorant, or "pretentious" (although you might want to crack open a dictionary and look up the definition of pretentious if you have a minute), nor did I say you have "low comprehension levels". I never even said your OPINION was stupid, ignorant, or pretentious; I merely pointed out that it is wrong. Further, I never said I pity people with "your point of view", I said I feel pity for people whose education was so inadequate (through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN) that they were never taught how to think in abstract principles. The ability to identify underlying principles as opposed to dealing strictly in concretes is not something that is AUTOMATIC in humans, it is something that must be TAUGHT. It requires TRAINING.
To the everlasting disgrace of modern education, this is something that is no longer emphasized. That does NOT mean people who haven't yet received this training are stupid... far from it. It is quite literally NOT THEIR FAULT. They're not dumb, or inferior, they don't lack comprehension; they've been victimized. They have quite literally been RIPPED OFF by the schools who didn't deliver the product they are supposed to provide. That's why I feel sorry for them, just as I feel sorry for ANYBODY who gets ripped off in ANY transaction. I have no doubt whatsoever that if the majority of those people were plunked down in a classroom today and given the proper course, they would pass the course with no difficulty. When taught properly, logical identification and concept isolation is not a particularly difficult thing to learn -- but it must (in most cases) be TAUGHT.
pinky
--------------------
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: deepr]
#1024805 - 11/05/02 03:15 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Of those, around half would say that death is a solution to the "gay problem".
this seems like the bizzare tiny minority to me...
There are more of them than there are level-headed philosophers.
If you're talking "majority of the congregation"... most church-goers know it's not socially acceptable to "hate gays". But most are still homophobic or closet-haters.
& preying on the oh so obvious mental vulnerability of christian patrons from the good ole us of a through the use of simple conversation manipulation techniques i believe could render them to say just about anything you liked..
Not really, I just steer them in a direction... it saves me time in proving my point. I could take all day if you'd like.
*church lets out*
I casually walk up to a few random people and initiate small talk... I tell them about "myself" (I'd have to lie a bit because most christians aren't atheists believe it or not.). So, we come to a certain point in the conversation...
Sclorch: So... I just found out a good friend of mine is gay. It has really shaken me up.
Churchgoer: That's too bad. You poor thing...
S: Yeah, apparently he was all into Michael W. Smith and Jars of Clay as well. My other friends and I had no idea... he hid it well.
C: Really?!
S: Yes. It's going to be hard not speaking to him ever again. I told him he's going to hell, but he still insisted that he couldn't help being gay.
C: I just don't know how gays can think they won't be damned to hell... it's right in the Bible!
S: I know... it's really sad. But God hates gays, so we have to as well... you know?
C: God knows best. He wouldn't send those he loved to hell.
S: You're right... he wouldn't. I mean, gays are so immoral and disgusting... ugh!
C: I hate everything about them.
__________________________________
Not much hypotism there.... just some coaxing.
Of course, I'm employing the straw man here... but you can't say that this conversation is improbable. If I really gave a shit... I'd record it and send you some video.
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
deepr
the dancer
Registered: 05/24/02
Posts: 238
Loc: nzl
Last seen: 18 years, 4 months
|
 Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Sclorch]
#1024895 - 11/05/02 03:55 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
id love to have a video copy of church patron interrogation thanks
but likewise i really couldnt give a shit either, i was just flaming you and you know it 
|
Shroomalicious
You may say I'ma dreamer...
Registered: 06/20/02
Posts: 319
Loc: The Shire
Last seen: 21 years, 3 months
|
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Phred]
#1025883 - 11/05/02 09:12 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Dude, why are you getting so bent out of shape over this?
I don't think I am bent out of shape about this...I brought it up again because you said you did not insult me, when I believe those things you said were insults.
When you said my statements were pretensious, stupid, ignorant, my point of view was not worthy of consideration and pitty people with my point of view because wehave low comprehension levels, which you blame on our poor education, did you take it the wrong way be believe you meant ill by it?
You chose to get all huffy about it and treat it as a personal attack.
I believe it got personal. If you are telling me it is not, than thats cool and we are friends again.
Furthermore, I never said your point of view re non-violence wasn't worthy of consideration -- I said it was wrong, then spent a lot of time illustrating WHY it is wrong.
I disagree, I think you said a lot more and I have reread the posts. Like I said, if I misunderstood, we can just drop it.
(although you might want to crack open a dictionary and look up the definition of pretentious if you have a minute)
See this is what I am talking about...how is this NOT an insult? Explain it to me please. I know what pretentious means, it does not mean stupid but it is still a bad thing to be, is it not?
I really am willing to drop it, I just feel like we are not understanding each other and hopefully this post helps.
--------------------
Shroomalicious - I love you and in doing so I love myself, because we ARE all one - "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless". - Mahatma Ghandi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Shroomalicious]
#1027294 - 11/06/02 07:30 AM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I brought it up again because you said you did not insult me, when I believe those things you said were insults.
I can't help what you believe.
When you said my statements were pretensious, stupid, ignorant, my point of view was not worthy of consideration and pitty people with my point of view because wehave low comprehension levels, which you blame on our poor education, did you take it the wrong way be believe you meant ill by it?
Holy crap! Do you even bother to READ what I write, or do you just automatically lash out when you "feel" you are being disagreed with? "This guy disagrees with my idea. He must hate me!"
Dude, I just wrote a couple of paragraphs explaining how I never said nor implied that you were any of those things, yet you never did me the courtesy of even reading that post, did you? To save you the effort of scrolling back and actually READING my previous post, let me repeat them here:
I never said you were stupid, nor did I imply you were.
I never said you were pretentious, nor did I imply you were.
I never said you were ignorant, nor did I imply you were.
I never said your point of view was unworthy of consideration.
I never said I pity people with your point of view, I said I pity those whose teachers failed their task of training them how to think in fundamental principles.
I haven't said yet that you have low comprehension levels, but I'm starting to wonder about it now.
pinky
--------------------
|
Shroomalicious
You may say I'ma dreamer...
Registered: 06/20/02
Posts: 319
Loc: The Shire
Last seen: 21 years, 3 months
|
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Phred]
#1028357 - 11/06/02 02:01 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Holy crap! Do you even bother to READ what I write, or do you just automatically lash out when you "feel" you are being disagreed with?
Yes, I did read and yes you did say those things about my opinions. Also, how is this "lashing out"? I am trying to explain my position but I am not angry, I did not call you names, and I continue not to now.
I haven't said yet that you have low comprehension levels, but I'm starting to wonder about it now.
You see, once again...
--------------------
Shroomalicious - I love you and in doing so I love myself, because we ARE all one - "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the whole world blind and toothless". - Mahatma Ghandi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Non-Violence explained (by my all time hero!). [Re: Shroomalicious]
#1028459 - 11/06/02 02:22 PM (21 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, I did read and yes you did say those things about my opinions.
Actually, no I didn't say those things, so either you didn't read what I wrote, in which case you are a liar, or you have a severe reading comprehension problem, in which case I was being overly generous in my original estimation of you.
There is no point in continuing this. You have nothing substantive left to add to your position re non-violence as a cure for violence, nor do I have anything substantive left to add to my position re eliminating the violent as a cure to violence. If you choose to continue to believe I insulted you or your opinion, so be it.
pinky
--------------------
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Buy Bali Kratom Powder 
Red Vein Kratom 
Bulk Cannabis Seeds 
All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck 
North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies 
Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale
Edit 
Reply 
NiamhNyx
spewed 4th
1 2 3 all )
Droz
Adamist
Swami
Kiafi