The Nanny State (and How We Fix That)

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I think the three go hand in hand and it would be very difficult to separate them. I do not; however, think that’s a reason not to try to effect positive change. [/quote]

Why you think it’ll be a positive change to take power from the hands of the federal government and give it to the states?

What if the state did something that you disagreed with (vehemently)? Would you demand that the power then go from the state to the city you live in?

As for the first sentence- Fair enough. We do all have different beliefs, and obviously this translates directly into our politics and ideologies.

In hindsight my question is too simplistic. I guess a better question would be whether you think the politics and ideologies of today are borne out of a calculated, rational beliefs, or on the basis of a man’s fear and terror of a situation and a desperate attempt to gain control?[/quote]

Well, you sort of jumped to a conclusion I didn’t expect you to (me pushing for power shifting to the state from the fed), I think that for one thing the Constitution was setup so the majority of power was with the individual states as yet another check and balance. I can pretty easily move to another state if I vehemently disagree with a new law. I can not so easily move out of the country (although I can and it’s an option). Secondly, I think an individual state has a much stronger grasp on the pulse of the population and can act more how that particular populace wants them too. Third, I think it gives the people within the state more influence on policy because their vote is more effective.

I would love to power shift towards local government under the right circumstances for the same reasons. My voice becomes more effective.

I think it’s very difficult to say where exactly a man’s beliefs come from.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

If they gave us all the tools necessary, then they would have implemented term limits from the start.[/quote]

They did. The Ballot Box.

They never intended for everyone to vote… [/quote]

I don’t think, as wise as they were, they foresaw the likes of McCain and Pelosi spending 40 years in politics.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Two things:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
-They already have outlawed most “Assault rifles” in many states[/quote]

This really isn’t that big of a deal. Most of the bans are on cosmetic features, not the actual rifle.

Shit gangbangers can get select fire on the street, we the people can get a couple semi auto AR’s and AK’s.

Compounded by the fact I’m sure there is some wingnut in a basement somewhere who has fabricated the $15 worth of material to convert most AR’s into select fire…

I’m not worried about it.
[/quote]Agreed, but we certainly don’t have tanks, planes, APC’s, RPG’s etc… That’s mainly what I was referring to. Those inclined to “revolt by force” will most certainly be out gunned and out trained. [quote]

I dont’ know that I’d call these “right wing”.

[/quote]I certainly wouldn’t classify them as right wing either. But the MEDIA does! And they are the ones who control the dialog. They have the power to display a coherant, well spoken message, OR an incoherant, racist rant. Which one will get more ratings? Which one will work against the threat to THEIR MASTERS? You know where I’m going with this. [quote]

Anywho, in order for revolution you’d need a situation like the Bundy Ranch to have actually popped off, and it not have been a tax cheat who was being defended.

The government would have to slaughter a lot of innocent people, and in a way that made even the “I love the democrats” types sit back and say… NO.

That isn’t going to happen. It will be a slow decline. I forget how TTR described it, but something like a frog in a cool pan and slowly turning up the heat.
[/quote]

The boiling frog analogy is a perfect one: if you toss a frog into a pot of boiling water, it will hop right out. But if you keep a frog in comfortable water and SLOWLY raise the heat, it will be boiled and dead without even realizing it.

In my opinion we are nearly at two hundred degrees - we don’t have far to go until we are boiling… But most of the country thinks it’s just a nice relaxing bath. With government supplied candles and Sade playing in the background… They are drifting deeper and deeper into a relaxed state of helplessness and vulnerability - and they accept it…

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I was just mulling over the idea of adjusting the office of the President to be more like SCOTUS. Have three or five executives as opposed to the one. Thoughts?

I’m not sure anything will change, short of a serious upheaval of government, until a legitimate 3rd party emerges and the Congressional HC is completely replaced with term limits established.

We need to end the ability to be a career politician.

I also think states need to push back with significant force.

[/quote]

I would LOVE to end career politicians, but none of them will EVER vote for that! I would love it if the States stood up for their rights, but with the Federal Gov’t offering subsidies (paid for by OUR federal taxes), the States won’t cross them.

A third party would be great, but the Left controls the MEDIA and the GOP won’t go without a fight… I think the “third party” would look a lot like us: social libertarian, small government, fiscal conservative…

But as long as special interests and lobbyists control our elected official, NOTHING is going to change… [/quote]

If enough people get behind the idea of term limits for Congress and, more importantly, we consistently vote out officials that vote against such a measure, it can be done.

I agree about the states. I would like to see states become more fiscally conservative and independent of federal subsidies.

I think a 3rd party can still emerge. When the Republican party was created, from what I understand, it was born from disfranchised WHIG members in both politics and the populace. We certainly have that now with both current parties. I also think the internet is how this new party or parties could get their message out. Youtube is a powerful tool for free speech.

Again, I agree in regards to lobbyists and special interests. [/quote]

Have you heard of any legitimate party that is starting up? I mean the Tea Party got some traction quickly, but then out grew it’s infrastructure and message - it’s become so convoluted that most people don’t know what it stands for (I would be hard pressed to “define it”).

I agree that internet would make it easier, but the government CONTROLS the internet… So it’s a medium that can be taken away.

I think that there is MUCH discontent out there. But how (who, really) can it be focused to the necessary laser-like precision necessary to carve out a new “territory” within the status quo?

I feel that anyone who starts such a movement will be targeted, publicly shamed/discredited and/or arrested. I think it’s that far gone. I am not very hopeful at all that I will see change within my lifetime.

I think that the most likely chance of change will come from war or economic collapse, not a political revolution or a democratic transition.[/quote]

No, I am not aware of a current 3rd party with legitimate traction.

Well, the government doesn’t control the internet, yet. I think this is where Net Neutrality comes into play and where I am pulling the ol flippty flop Romney style.

I think sometimes people just need a spark and then the objective becomes crystal clear. You know, the straw that breaks the camels back sort of thing. Will it happen? Probably. When? Hard to say. Change, real change, has happened many times throughout history and U.S. history isn’t an exception.

MLK was target and look what he accomplished.

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The framers of the Constitution have given us ALL of the tools we need to make changes. The problem is that our elected officials ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW. They are making back room deals and horse trading while maintaining the illusion of division. In reality, all they want is to control us and keep their advantage (i.e. MONEY, our tax dollars) going to whatever or whoever pays the highest price for their vote.[/quote]

If they gave us all the tools necessary, then they would have implemented term limits from the start.[/quote]

I agree, that would have been better. But they didn’t, so here we are… I don’t see those corrupt bastards voting themselves out of a job anytime soon. Do you?

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
It’s getting pretty stupid. There are a metric shit ton of “laws”. So many, that it’s nearly impossible to go about a normal day without breaking SOME law. And every time you do, the Po Po has the obligation to detain, fine and charge you with a “crime”.

If you resist, they have the right to use force to impose the will of the state on your sorry ass. If you get killed, then you are just a dumb ass for resisting arrest.

Here’s the problem: I don’t see EITHER party ever ABOLISHING any laws. The GOP had power not too long ago and look what happened: the fucking PATRIOT act! They expanded government more than the Dems did!

So how does a society go about REDUCING the number of bullshit laws? I mean, I’m all about keeping rape and murder etc… as felonies. But growing the wrong Geranium? Methinks things are a WEE BIT askew…

Most of this shit we didn’t vote for and congress didn’t specifically vote on, its bureaucratic decisions about fines, crimes and misdemeanors made by unelected government employees.

How do we take our country back?[/quote]

Peaceful parenting.
Eliminate people that accept the nanny state and the sociopaths that run it.

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
It’s getting pretty stupid. There are a metric shit ton of “laws”. So many, that it’s nearly impossible to go about a normal day without breaking SOME law. And every time you do, the Po Po has the obligation to detain, fine and charge you with a “crime”.

If you resist, they have the right to use force to impose the will of the state on your sorry ass. If you get killed, then you are just a dumb ass for resisting arrest.

Here’s the problem: I don’t see EITHER party ever ABOLISHING any laws. The GOP had power not too long ago and look what happened: the fucking PATRIOT act! They expanded government more than the Dems did!

So how does a society go about REDUCING the number of bullshit laws? I mean, I’m all about keeping rape and murder etc… as felonies. But growing the wrong Geranium? Methinks things are a WEE BIT askew…

Most of this shit we didn’t vote for and congress didn’t specifically vote on, its bureaucratic decisions about fines, crimes and misdemeanors made by unelected government employees.

How do we take our country back?[/quote]

I’m not sure. Positive change will only come about via education, de-funding, and morality. Small acts by many would probably go a long way towards improving things.

I’m a local government employee. I also have a seven-year old daughter(along with two younger children), and when we are out and see people that share my profession, I can ask, “What do you do if those people want to talk to you?” She can tell me that she should ask to speak to us(her parents) and/or a lawyer. At seven, would she do that if put in the situation? I tend to doubt it, but at least she will grow up with the knowledge that she should not necessarily speak to them-she won’t grow up believing that she should always speak to them and that she doesn’t have other options. I have to pay for a parking space when I go to work. I pay a church for a parking space-I pay a bit more than I would if I parked in a city parking garage, but at least I’m putting a bit of money back into private hands.

There is also something to be said for libertarians pursuing some government jobs, in my opinion. The libertarians who believe otherwise are biting off their noses to spite their faces. [/quote]

Education is a joke, as long as teachers unions prevent bad teachers from being fired and good teachers from being rewarded. I recently had to interact with my youngest son’s school/teachers/principal and I was just appalled at the level of incompetence… I mean ONE competent person could do the job of FIVE of those idiots. Education is a lost cause. I’m actually looking at homeschooling and/or private school because it’s so pathetic.

De-funding won’t happen. It’s too painful. Politicians won’t TAKE AWAY from their constituents. So the band will keep marching on.

Morality is a double edged sword. I’m not prepared to open that can of worms here right now. I’ll just say that it’s a slippery slope…

I agree that in a perfect world, those things would come to pass and the pendulum would begin to swing the other way. But in a perfect world, a frog would have wings so it didn’t bump it’s ass every time it jumped (I’m LOVING all the frog analogies lately! LOL)

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
It’s getting pretty stupid. There are a metric shit ton of “laws”. So many, that it’s nearly impossible to go about a normal day without breaking SOME law. And every time you do, the Po Po has the obligation to detain, fine and charge you with a “crime”.

If you resist, they have the right to use force to impose the will of the state on your sorry ass. If you get killed, then you are just a dumb ass for resisting arrest.

Here’s the problem: I don’t see EITHER party ever ABOLISHING any laws. The GOP had power not too long ago and look what happened: the fucking PATRIOT act! They expanded government more than the Dems did!

So how does a society go about REDUCING the number of bullshit laws? I mean, I’m all about keeping rape and murder etc… as felonies. But growing the wrong Geranium? Methinks things are a WEE BIT askew…

Most of this shit we didn’t vote for and congress didn’t specifically vote on, its bureaucratic decisions about fines, crimes and misdemeanors made by unelected government employees.

How do we take our country back?[/quote]

Peaceful parenting.
Eliminate people that accept the nanny state and the sociopaths that run it.[/quote]

Define “eliminate”… And how does that correlate to peaceful parenting… Please clarify.

That’s it for me today, fellas.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Education is a joke, as long as teachers unions prevent bad teachers from being fired and good teachers from being rewarded.
[/quote]

Be careful not to let the state do your thinking for you(not saying that you do, but your mind should not jump to “government schools” when it reads “education”). Education can, and certainly should, come from other sources, either in addition to or to the exclusion of state education.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
It’s getting pretty stupid. There are a metric shit ton of “laws”. So many, that it’s nearly impossible to go about a normal day without breaking SOME law. And every time you do, the Po Po has the obligation to detain, fine and charge you with a “crime”.

If you resist, they have the right to use force to impose the will of the state on your sorry ass. If you get killed, then you are just a dumb ass for resisting arrest.

Here’s the problem: I don’t see EITHER party ever ABOLISHING any laws. The GOP had power not too long ago and look what happened: the fucking PATRIOT act! They expanded government more than the Dems did!

So how does a society go about REDUCING the number of bullshit laws? I mean, I’m all about keeping rape and murder etc… as felonies. But growing the wrong Geranium? Methinks things are a WEE BIT askew…

Most of this shit we didn’t vote for and congress didn’t specifically vote on, its bureaucratic decisions about fines, crimes and misdemeanors made by unelected government employees.

How do we take our country back?[/quote]

Peaceful parenting.
Eliminate people that accept the nanny state and the sociopaths that run it.[/quote]

Define “eliminate”… And how does that correlate to peaceful parenting… Please clarify.
[/quote]
Because peaceful parenting eliminates the source for most sociopathy. It also instills empathy and the power of reason and evidence over the initiation of force and therefore the rejection of the indoctrination of public schools.

[quote] angry chicken wrote:

I certainly wouldn’t classify them(Nazism, white supremacism) as right wing either.

[/quote]

The best way to describe Nazism is “democratic Caesarism”. Nazism was a populist mass movement with the Nazis winning far more votes than any other political party in Germany in 1934. As a reminder, “right-wing” refers to those who sat on the right side of the French National Assembly - those representing the clergy and the monarchy. Nazism was a radical left-wing movement; their anthem, the Horst-Wesel-Lied song, describes the Nazi’s ideological enemies:

“…the SA march with quiet, heavy step.
Comrades shot by Red Front and reactiomaries
march in spirit within our ranks.”

The “reactionaries” being the traditional conservatives/monarchists - the Metternich and Bismarck conservatives and arch-monarchists. Those were the ideological enemies of Nazism alongside the Communists who were the mirror of the Nazis - their competitors.

And regarding “white supremacism”: the term has become a general pejorative and with good reason. Those who associate themselves with “white supremacism” are Nazi sympathisers. However, on purely unemotional and measured reflection, “white supremacism” isn’t necessarily an entirely immoral or evil concept, if by “supremacism” you mean, societies with a white majority in power seem to be more stable, more prosperous, more tolerant etc. than other societies. Whilst not a racial determinist, purest or absolutist, if I’m to be honest I’d have to say that I favour (in general) the kinds of social and political structures of white Europeans.

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
It’s getting pretty stupid. There are a metric shit ton of “laws”. So many, that it’s nearly impossible to go about a normal day without breaking SOME law. And every time you do, the Po Po has the obligation to detain, fine and charge you with a “crime”.

If you resist, they have the right to use force to impose the will of the state on your sorry ass. If you get killed, then you are just a dumb ass for resisting arrest.

Here’s the problem: I don’t see EITHER party ever ABOLISHING any laws. The GOP had power not too long ago and look what happened: the fucking PATRIOT act! They expanded government more than the Dems did!

So how does a society go about REDUCING the number of bullshit laws? I mean, I’m all about keeping rape and murder etc… as felonies. But growing the wrong Geranium? Methinks things are a WEE BIT askew…

Most of this shit we didn’t vote for and congress didn’t specifically vote on, its bureaucratic decisions about fines, crimes and misdemeanors made by unelected government employees.

How do we take our country back?[/quote]

Peaceful parenting.
Eliminate people that accept the nanny state and the sociopaths that run it.[/quote]

Define “eliminate”… And how does that correlate to peaceful parenting… Please clarify.
[/quote]
Because peaceful parenting eliminates the source for most sociopathy. It also instills empathy and the power of reason and evidence over the initiation of force and therefore the rejection of the indoctrination of public schools.[/quote]

“Peaceful parenting” produces the kind of spoilt, lazy entitled little turds that we see today. A father should be feared and respected. When the father is a permissive, pony-tailed modern parent you get dysfunctional families and rotten children. Much of the welfare bumery can be put down to permissive parenting - the kind that hippy dippy shits have been advocating since the 70’s. Molyneux certainly takes it to a new level however. I really can’t understand why people go in for that kind of batshit.

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
It’s getting pretty stupid. There are a metric shit ton of “laws”. So many, that it’s nearly impossible to go about a normal day without breaking SOME law. And every time you do, the Po Po has the obligation to detain, fine and charge you with a “crime”.

If you resist, they have the right to use force to impose the will of the state on your sorry ass. If you get killed, then you are just a dumb ass for resisting arrest.

Here’s the problem: I don’t see EITHER party ever ABOLISHING any laws. The GOP had power not too long ago and look what happened: the fucking PATRIOT act! They expanded government more than the Dems did!

So how does a society go about REDUCING the number of bullshit laws? I mean, I’m all about keeping rape and murder etc… as felonies. But growing the wrong Geranium? Methinks things are a WEE BIT askew…

Most of this shit we didn’t vote for and congress didn’t specifically vote on, its bureaucratic decisions about fines, crimes and misdemeanors made by unelected government employees.

How do we take our country back?[/quote]

Peaceful parenting.
Eliminate people that accept the nanny state and the sociopaths that run it.[/quote]

Um…we’re “eliminating” Molyneux’s ideological opponents now? Maybe you should tone it down a bit. You sound like a nut.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
It’s getting pretty stupid. There are a metric shit ton of “laws”. So many, that it’s nearly impossible to go about a normal day without breaking SOME law. And every time you do, the Po Po has the obligation to detain, fine and charge you with a “crime”.

If you resist, they have the right to use force to impose the will of the state on your sorry ass. If you get killed, then you are just a dumb ass for resisting arrest.

Here’s the problem: I don’t see EITHER party ever ABOLISHING any laws. The GOP had power not too long ago and look what happened: the fucking PATRIOT act! They expanded government more than the Dems did!

So how does a society go about REDUCING the number of bullshit laws? I mean, I’m all about keeping rape and murder etc… as felonies. But growing the wrong Geranium? Methinks things are a WEE BIT askew…

Most of this shit we didn’t vote for and congress didn’t specifically vote on, its bureaucratic decisions about fines, crimes and misdemeanors made by unelected government employees.

How do we take our country back?[/quote]

Peaceful parenting.
Eliminate people that accept the nanny state and the sociopaths that run it.[/quote]

Um…we’re “eliminating” Molyneux’s ideological opponents now? Maybe you should tone it down a bit. You sound like a nut.[/quote]

Jumping to conclusions by thinking the only way to “eliminate” is through violence, especially considering I already wrote a follow up post clarifying this.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
It’s getting pretty stupid. There are a metric shit ton of “laws”. So many, that it’s nearly impossible to go about a normal day without breaking SOME law. And every time you do, the Po Po has the obligation to detain, fine and charge you with a “crime”.

If you resist, they have the right to use force to impose the will of the state on your sorry ass. If you get killed, then you are just a dumb ass for resisting arrest.

Here’s the problem: I don’t see EITHER party ever ABOLISHING any laws. The GOP had power not too long ago and look what happened: the fucking PATRIOT act! They expanded government more than the Dems did!

So how does a society go about REDUCING the number of bullshit laws? I mean, I’m all about keeping rape and murder etc… as felonies. But growing the wrong Geranium? Methinks things are a WEE BIT askew…

Most of this shit we didn’t vote for and congress didn’t specifically vote on, its bureaucratic decisions about fines, crimes and misdemeanors made by unelected government employees.

How do we take our country back?[/quote]

Peaceful parenting.
Eliminate people that accept the nanny state and the sociopaths that run it.[/quote]

Define “eliminate”… And how does that correlate to peaceful parenting… Please clarify.
[/quote]
Because peaceful parenting eliminates the source for most sociopathy. It also instills empathy and the power of reason and evidence over the initiation of force and therefore the rejection of the indoctrination of public schools.[/quote]

“Peaceful parenting” produces the kind of spoilt, lazy entitled little turds that we see today. A father should be feared and respected. When the father is a permissive, pony-tailed modern parent you get dysfunctional families and rotten children. Much of the welfare bumery can be put down to permissive parenting - the kind that hippy dippy shits have been advocating since the 70’s. Molyneux certainly takes it to a new level however. I really can’t understand why people go in for that kind of batshit.[/quote]
Do you have any evidence for this? There is quite a lot of evidence that very few practice non-violent parenting at any level.

What’s your evidence of such a “modern parent” being the norm?

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

Do you have any evidence for this?

[/quote]

In the social sciences there are a broad range of methodologies used that could be proffered as “evidence.” However,my life experience and fundamental insight into social phenomena from the study of history forms my view of such things. In this case, it seems to me to be axiomatic that spoiling a child leads to…a spoiled child. And by “spoiling” I’m referring to allowing children to behave poorly and not punishing them. Physical punishment is often the best course of action because it is the only thing that will make the child actually fear the repercussions of his/her actions. If course, I don’t condone cruelty. I punish a dog but in a way that it understands why it’s being punished and I evince “fear” not “terror”. Punishments should be reasonable, commensurate and the punishment should be understood so the child is not confused. All of this is common sense to me. It’s how I was brought up; it’s how other people I know we’re brought up and I’ve seen the consequences of children(and dogs) who were raised in an environment lacking the authority of the father. In fact, the lack of authority of the father is the primary cause of the anti-social and violent behaviour of many African Americans who grew up without fathers.

So. I’m not really concerned with a statistics battle on this. I’m absolutely confident in my beliefs, formed over many years; I’ve experienced all of this myself. It’s a [b]fundamental aspect of my “worldview.”

The ones that do raise absolutely obnoxious children. I’ve seen it in action. I’ve known parents like that and I’ve seen what they’ve done to their children. One example that comes immediately to mind is a guy called Silas - his father is a radical leftist who read all the indulgent parenting books that were popular in the 70’s. Silas was home schooled because he was a precious little snow flake. Also because, he developed into a spoiled egotistical little shit who bullied smaller children. As an adult Silas still lives with his Daddy in his 30’s and is too lazy to hold down a job. A classic, textbook example of how not to raise a child.

[quote]

What’s your evidence of such a “modern parent” being the norm?[/quote]

It’s common knowledge that parents today in Western societies are immeasurably more tolerant and permissive than any previous generation. Let’s not pretend otherwise. And you only need to look at this generation to see how fucked up and egotistical/narcissistic, spoilt, lazy, ignorant and entitled they are. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

Jumping to conclusions by thinking the only way to “eliminate” is through violence… [/quote]

The conclusion I reached is that using the word “eliminate” is indicative of an extremist. Yeah, sure you didn’t mean “violence” when you talked about “eliminating” people. However, the phrase was clearly intended to shock and convey a radical/extreme position on the matter. That’s my conclusion.

Edited

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

Do you have any evidence for this?

[/quote]

In the social sciences there are a broad range of methodologies used that could be proffered as “evidence.” However,my life experience and fundamental insight into social phenomena from the study of history forms my view of such things. In this case, it seems to me to be axiomatic that spoiling a child leads to…a spoiled child. And by “spoiling” I’m referring to allowing children to behave poorly and not punishing them. Physical punishment is often the best course of action because it is the only thing that will make the child actually fear the repercussions of his/her actions. If course, I don’t condone cruelty. I punish a dog but in a way that it understands why it’s being punished and I evince “fear” not “terror”. Punishments should be reasonable, commensurate and the punishment should be understood so the child is not confused. All of this is common sense to me. It’s how I was brought up; it’s how other people I know we’re brought up and I’ve seen the consequences of children(and dogs) who were raised in an environment lacking the authority of the father. In fact, the lack of authority of the father is the primary cause of the anti-social and violent behaviour of many African Americans who grew up without fathers.

So. I’m not really concerned with a statistics battle on this. I’m absolutely confident in my beliefs, formed over many years; I’ve experienced all of this myself. It’s a [b]fundamental aspect of my “worldview.”

The ones that do raise absolutely obnoxious children. I’ve seen it in action. I’ve known parents like that and I’ve seen what they’ve done to their children. One example that comes immediately to mind is a guy called Silas - his father is a radical leftist who read all the indulgent parenting books that were popular in the 70’s. Silas was home schooled because he was a precious little snow flake. Also because, he developed into a spoiled egotistical little shit who bullied smaller children. As an adult Silas still lives with his Daddy in his 30’s and is too lazy to hold down a job. A classic, textbook example of how not to raise a child.

Anecdotes and “common knowledge” aren’t evidence of anything.
Using the world “immeasurably” when there is actual quantitative evidence is completely inaccurate.

Why should anyone care what you believe based on anecdotes when there is a lot of scientific evidence to the contrary?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

Jumping to conclusions by thinking the only way to “eliminate” is through violence… [/quote]

The conclusion I reached is that using the word “eliminate” is indicative of an extremist. Yeah, sure you didn’t mean “violence” when you talked about “eliminating” people. However, the phrase was clearly intended to shock and convey a radical/extreme position on the matter. That’s my conclusion.

Edited[/quote]

My conclusion is that you are actually insane because you’re incapable of separating your personal biases from the objective definition of a word.