Subatomic God discussion of Philosophy Forums Rules

[Obvious Leo]

I'm not sure to what you are referring to exactly. My understanding is that you can post those kinds of swear words just fine, and you can control in your User Control Panel whether they are automatically filters to be hidden (I think by a series of asterisks like ****) when you are reading the forum.

I can honestly describe myself as a techno-moron and was unaware of this. ( I struggle to cope with the remote control for the telly so the missus takes charge of it.) I'll poke around the User Control Panel and see if I can figure it out.

Regards Leo

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I feel that your rules are a constant reminder of how cold this world has become and how much we have lost our liberty and spirit as fellow men. We are losing our colors, personality and being to a new world of machine, cowards and technology-dependent sheep that obey these rules without any regard to their heart beating in vain, every passing day, as long as people do not wake up and bring back the life that humanity once had.

So what? This forum is not here to make the world less cold. It's so people who like to have in-depth, on-topic discussions/debates about complex or controversial topics can do so without it resorting to personal attacks, flame wars or other off-topic junk that so often happens when such discussions/debates about such topics are attempted in more typical mediums. Indeed, if one is looking to find a place that emotionally warm as opposed to technological and cold, a philosophy / logical debate forum is really not the place to look for it.

[Subatomic God]

That's not literal. There are no cats on the forum. I have no idea what you are talking about.

I don't know how to be literal in a non-literal world (the only thing that is remotely literal, would be this society, and that doesn't make it right). The world isn't literal - it's relative and metaphysical. We dream with symbols and a world that looks like it came upon us from drug intake. When we feel and communicate, it's not literal - it's through sounds, metaphors, parables, idioms and so on.

Why is it that when I try to understand you, you just disregard my poetry, which is who I am and what this Universe is beyond this transient society; this fishbowl?

I intend to consider much more than those 5 things--or words.

Then why don't you split up ad hominems from mentally describing a person? There is a difference between, "You are a troll", from "You are acting like a troll, because...".

I'm not convinced most people do that. I'm not convinced I do that. And most importantly I don't see the relevance of either of those things to the matter at hand.

You call everything I basically do off-topic, irrelevant or "rude remarks". When I have constantly explained that I am not doing it - the Universe is creating these images as a form of communication. It's used in dreams, as well. Great minds have referred to it as the realm of ideology.

aybe or maybe not. But what "can help" is not what this forum is about. There's lots of things that "can help" in some broader context but which shouldn't happen on this forum. A well-meaning charity could spam the forum for solicitations or with awareness-raising preaching, but it would be deleted as a violation of the forum rules. This forum serves a particular purpose and the purpose is not "doing whatever 'can help'".

Not help, like psychiatrist or psychologist. Help as in, get to the bottom of a philosophical issue that will never be resolved until you include the person's hatred, delusion and issues into the equation. You must allow this, so the other half of the philosophy questions on your boards can be resolved, or at least, much easier to deal with. Nobody likes to dance around the real issue, because the real issue is being protected by your controversial rules.

They are against the forum rules even if you think they are necessary. Other members have joined because they want a place where they can discuss philosophical topics and have debates without Subatomic God critiquing their personal traits or personally attacking them or harshly giving them personal advice or his honest descriptions about them.

Which is why we are here. I say that we need this rule to be changed, so the philosophy forums can breathe for a change. You say that it's against the rules, because it's against the rules, and... That's it. You don't have a reason to support this very regressive rule. People are like leeches, they latch onto objects, people and ideas. You can't expect anyone to deal with the most important issues without being personal about it. That's insanity and psychopathy.

The grammar of this sentence seems to be off. And thus I do not understand it.

Right above - I rephrased it.

No.

It's a process.

Lollipops can be good or bad. But that's not what this forum is for. Post pictures of lollipops and your posts will also be deleted.

What if someone needs a picture of a lollipop to better express a philosophical question? A lollipop can represent, say, how our desires are like a lollipop; it is sweet on top, but what holds it all up is very bland; too much can hurt us and consuming the desire (lollipop) top quickly can also harm us (chip a tooth).

I won't because I don't care.

I do care. I know this is frustrating, as I am as frustrated as you are.

Yes, you are. Many examples have been directly quoted in the previous posts I made in this topic.

An example: "Scott, you are a psychopath". I'm not attacking you - I am attacking a description of you. This has nothing to do with your family, your lifestyle - it's about a specific part being described.

No bear attacks have occurred on the forum.

It's a metaphor, but you know that already. You just don't seem to understand the significance of using symbols and objects to express an idea... When that's exactly how language is designed.

No, the forum rules do not prohibit hurt feelings. Quite the contrary, the rules are designed to enable discussion/questioning of controversial topics and people's deeply held opinions, where typically such discussion cannot occur because in other mediums it collapses into flame wars, personal attacks, off-topic tangents and/or violence. That is explained by the link given in rule A to this clarification on how forum discussions are simultaneously uncensored and strictly moderated.

It can't be uncensored and strictly moderated - that's contradicting yourself. You clearly want both worlds, but you have to choose one. And I am suggesting you to change one rule to make it that much more coherent and humane.

Even if these statements are true (which I doubt), what does that matter to the issues at hand?

It's important because I am using the genius example to demonstrate that there is a difference between calling people stupid; reacting to someone calling you stupid; and directly attacking the stupidity, as a description, that is a part of the person, not the person themselves.

-- Updated July 22nd, 2014, 2:19 am to add the following --

So what? This forum is not here to make the world less cold. It's so people who like to have in-depth, on-topic discussions/debates about complex or controversial topics can do so without it resorting to personal attacks, flame wars or other off-topic junk that so often happens when such discussions/debates about such topics are attempted in more typical mediums. Indeed, if one is looking to find a place that emotionally warm as opposed to technological and cold, a philosophy / logical debate forum is really not the place to look for it.

Whether you accept it or not, as a board for philosophy, you should question your very own ruling philosophically. It should not be based entirely on what you wrote a long time ago; you should change them when they cause controversy. I do not resort to name-calling, flame wars or off-topic - I always do my role correctly, but you insist on seeing it otherwise. I never call people names. I don't break any other rules. I am simply enlightening you, and others, that this rule is based on psychopathy, not personality. You cannot expect people to non-personally deal with the other half of the issues on these boards, because that's what they are: personal. You say people "enjoy" these forums, when they don't "enjoy" these forums - they enjoy discussing their ideas. They reluctantly obey the more dogmatic rules, like A. and B., which disregard humanity and the entire notion that 1. Life is relative (Einstein said so himself), and 2. Ideas without hearts, are ideas for psychopaths.

[Obvious Leo]

Subatomic God. Although I can understand your frustration I really can't agree with much of what you're saying. There are rules of civilised discourse which fall into the general category of "good manners" and forums such as this would be unworkable without them. To say "You are stupid" is NOT the same thing as to say "What you said is stupid" and even the latter is unacceptable unless you're willing to argue WHY you find the comment stupid. I would suggest that the word "psychopath" is such an emotionally loaded term that's its use would be inappropriate under any circumstances and unlikely to be conducive to a balanced exchange of views.

Anyway we all know that Scott is not god. Fanman is god.

Regards Leo

[Subatomic God]

Subatomic God. Although I can understand your frustration I really can't agree with much of what you're saying. There are rules of civilised discourse which fall into the general category of "good manners" and forums such as this would be unworkable without them. To say "You are stupid" is NOT the same thing as to say "What you said is stupid" and even the latter is unacceptable unless you're willing to argue WHY you find the comment stupid. I would suggest that the word "psychopath" is such an emotionally loaded term that's its use would be inappropriate under any circumstances and unlikely to be conducive to a balanced exchange of views.

Anyway we all know that Scott is not god. Fanman is god.

Regards Leo

There are three stages of behavior in marriage:

A. One that does not argue with each other.

B. One that argues, but never solves their issues.

C. One that argues, which solves their issues and expands their marriage longer - to until death.

I want this forums to be like C, but because sometimes it leads to B, Scott thinks it's off-topic, irrelevant and rude, so he wants A, when people need to conflict with each other, like electrons and protons conflict with each other. Scott, and others, need to stop playing perfect, to realize that humans need to learn how to argue, wrestle and fight again without resorting to the bad side of conflict, which is hatred, name-calling, poo-flinging truly off-topic madness. You will notice that many good friends that stay with each other, are always messing with each other with very light conflicts.

That, and A. is how marriages fail and erode quickly. I'm tired of the rules, the feeble and the psychopathy. It excuses, refuses, which impedes on humanity and personality. These are the cold, terrible rules that turn our future children into industrious emotionless bees.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

This site isn't a marriage, and thus the analogy presents a false dichotomy. However, if it was a marriage, the forum rules and I would certainly be directing it to be like C in that the website encourages debate.

[Subatomic God]

This site isn't a marriage, and thus the analogy presents a false dichotomy. However, if it was a marriage, the forum rules and I would certainly be directing it to be like C in that the website encourages debate.

That's the point, Scott. You need to open your mind and realize that it was never about marriage! It was about how relationships and friendships are stronger when they toughen up and know how to take some heat. Your forums will not take any heat, even though most people are well aware that your rules are unable to allow us to argue the other half of philosophical issues because those issues are undoubtably personal, (e.g religion, gender, conspiracy theories, governments...).

You got the cold, still world just right, Scott.

Now where is the hot and steamy world? Philosophy is based on both FIRE and ICE.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Go personally criticize people on the beach. It's plenty hot and steamy there. This forum isn't what you are looking for.

The forum rules are there to elaborate and specify what is described in the welcome message and stated purpose of the site, and to help ensure it gets provided:

Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! Please register or log in. Registration is completely free. All viewpoints are welcome. These are great forums for philosophers, philosophy students and anyone else interested in philosophy or thoughtful discussion. We want these forums to be the best place on the internet for in-depth, open-minded, civil debate and discussion about even the most complex or controversial topics. Philosophical debate is encouraged, but we require that members remain civil and refrain from personal attacks or insults. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. If you are a member, please log in.

That's this site's aim.

You seem to want something distinctly different. Luckily, there are many sites on the internet and many ways to talk to people. If you want to personally attack people--or whatever it is you think you are doing when you say things to other members like "You are a tiresome little kid that doesn't want to learn" or "you are a psychopath" or "you have no personality"--then do so somewhere else. Rule A (the rule that prohibits personal attacks) won't be replaced with your proposed rule which while verbose basically says "It is okay to describe people [on the forum] how you see them (if they act like a child, go ahead and describe it [...] Speak harshly; speak honestly. Do not speak harmlessly". If you want a site with rules like that instead of one that aims for the purpose advertised on this forum's homepage, then you will need to find another site or place to discuss with people.

[Subatomic God]

Go personally criticize people on the beach. It's plenty hot and steamy there. This forum isn't what you are looking for.

The forum rules are there to elaborate and specify what is described in the welcome message and stated purpose of the site, and to help ensure it gets provided:

Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! Please register or log in. Registration is completely free. All viewpoints are welcome. These are great forums for philosophers, philosophy students and anyone else interested in philosophy or thoughtful discussion. We want these forums to be the best place on the internet for in-depth, open-minded, civil debate and discussion about even the most complex or controversial topics. Philosophical debate is encouraged, but we require that members remain civil and refrain from personal attacks or insults. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. If you are a member, please log in.

That's this site's aim.

You seem to want something distinctly different. Luckily, there are many sites on the internet and many ways to talk to people. If you want to personally attack people--or whatever it is you think you are doing when you say things to other members like "You are a tiresome little kid that doesn't want to learn" or "you are a psychopath" or "you have no personality"--then do so somewhere else. Rule A (the rule that prohibits personal attacks) won't be replaced with your proposed rule which while verbose basically says "It is okay to describe people [on the forum] how you see them (if they act like a child, go ahead and describe it [...] Speak harshly; speak honestly. Do not speak harmlessly". If you want a site with rules like that instead of one that aims for the purpose advertised on this forum's homepage, then you will need to find another site or place to discuss with people.

Your site's aim will never hit its target, because it's impossible, insane and inhumane. You are taking away the emotion, heart and reaction out of people - that is how we communicate these chemicals. By eliminating one side, you are taking a whole half a world of philosophy and dumpstering it, because you personally don't understand how powerful human expression is, as evident by your lack luster rules and blatantly ambiguous rules.

People on here live in fear of your dogma, therefore you have already broken NATURAL LAW, by playing God and not respecting the fragility of human experience!

You are ignoring the negatively charged atoms within our bodies, which would be equivalent to pouring gasoline on fire, then imprisoning it. Good going, Scott. You are now an accomplice for all murders in the world, for you practice the same logical fallacy as every terrible parent and authority that don't seem to understand how to deal with issues they personally do not like, so they imprison, create rules and wall in the issue - rather than FACE the issue.

Does that mean you're a coward, Scott? You sure do punish me when cowards report me, while other people are doing actual name-calling and reducing a heated argument to poo-flinging madness that's counter-intuitive, but because nobody hits that little report button, you end up with double standards and hypocrisy. So you take away life from these forums for "civility", yet you rely on a button that is ABUSED by the undeveloped rather than exploring your hypocrisy so you can realize that you are punishing me not because I merely broke a controversial rule, but because I won an argument MY WAY, and applied pressure the RIGHT WAY, so someone reported me for being the voice they spent their life avoiding, while they haven't reported the ones who truly resort to breaking that rule because the undeveloped KNOW that they are getting nowhere, while I AM GETTING SOMEWHERE. There's nothing wrong with characterizing people's delusions, like calling people children when they act like one; or calling politicians monkeys when they act like one. Open your eyes, Scott. Your SYSTEM ENCOURAGES CHILDREN, NOT CRITICAL THINKERS.

I make cops, prideful parents, workaholics trip on their words when they attempt to "out-authority" me, because I am far beyond this psychopathy that which merely are children playing make-believe. I wish I could say the same for you, Scott. While you play God on a forums that should be for psychopathy, not philosophy, hence philosophy is about questioning with our will and curiosity; feeling with our heart in questioning; dealing with personal AND practical issues - I will be sitting here laughing at your regression and backwards reasoning, because I know you and psychopathy through and through. In the end, YOU LOST - I WON, because YOU LOST. I am nothing, but because you cannot handle that nothing, I become EVERYTHING.

Heed my word - you are preventing the strong, the great, the critical, the refined from doing their thing, because you are allowing the meek, the ignorant, the feeble and the delusional to be "protected" from HEAT, by HEART, by HARSH CRITICISM, that is NOT NAME-CALLING - that is HOW THE UNIVERSE ADDRESSES ITSELF VIA IMAGE AND SYMBOL - IN A WORLD THAT IS BUILT BY PRESSURE, FOR THE LOVE OF THIS UNIVERSE, SCOTT.

How does it feel to exercise REGRESSION?

There's a reason why diamonds require a lot of heat, cannot be cut and are extremely beautiful compared to an opal that can be cut with a fingernail, isn't beautiful, extremely basic and bought by people who don't have the money. And Scott, you are PREVENTING DIAMONDS FROM TEACHING THE OPALS. I did not self-discipline myself as I did, face everything as I did, and stood, defended and fought for this reality just so a bunch of children (that can't even face what is on the surface) can get their way because some guy, named Scott, doesn't know how to understand HUMAN RELATION, HUMAN TENSION AND HUMAN EXPERIENCE.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

There's nothing wrong with characterizing people's delusions, like calling people children when they act like one;

Whether or not there is something "wrong" with it in some broader context, there is something wrong with it when posting on these forums; and that is that it is against the rules.

If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

[Subatomic God]

Whether or not there is something "wrong" with it in some broader context, there is something wrong with it when posting on these forums; and that is that it is against the rules.

If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

You can't just choose what is wrong, because YOU want to see it as wrong, Scott. That's you failing to provide an ACTUAL ARGUMENT.

I'll quote you back with:

"it's against the rules because it's against the rules..."

Nice argument!

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Whether or not there is something "wrong" with it in some broader context, there is something wrong with it when posting on these forums; and that is that it is against the rules.

If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

You can't just choose what is wrong, because YOU want to see it as wrong, Scott. That's you failing to provide an ACTUAL ARGUMENT.

I provided argument in previous posts about why and how you are expected to not go into someone else's house and violate the conditions on which they let you in their home. I am not saying that it is wrong for you to do what you do like "speaking harshly" and personally criticizing or psychoanalyzing others, so in no way do I need to provide an argument for such a thing. But if you come in my home, you will take your shoes off or you won't come in. And if you post on this forum you will follow the rules.

Generally speaking, my members don't want to be psychoanalyzed by you. While they want to have debates and/or philosophical discussions on the forums, they don't want to be called psychopaths or children by the likes of you or whatever other names or psychoanalyzation or personal criticism you have towards them. This is the service I offer them before they join and since they have joined: to have discussions without such personal attacks. It's the clearly publicly displayed purpose of the site, and frankly I feel it would be tantamount to fraud if I let you prance around the site posting that ad hominem garbage. If you don't like it, leave.

I quote you back with:

"it's against the rules because it's against the rules..."

Who are you quoting? You're not quoting me. If you're attempting to paraphrase me or somebody, then don't put in quote tags or a quote box, let alone both.

[Subatomic God]

I provided argument in previous posts about why and how you are expected to not go into someone else's house and violate the conditions on which they let you in their home. I am not saying that it is wrong for you to do what you do like "speaking harshly" and personally criticizing or psychoanalyzing others, so in no way do I need to provide an argument for such a thing. But if you come in my home, you will take your shoes off or you won't come in. And if you post on this forum you will follow the rules.

Generally speaking, my members don't want to be psychoanalyzed by you. While they want to have debates and/or philosophical discussions on the forums, they don't want to be called psychopaths or children by the likes of you or whatever other names or psychoanalyzation or personal criticism you have towards them. This is the service I offer them before they join and since they have joined: to have discussions without such personal attacks. It's the clearly publicly displayed purpose of the site, and frankly I feel it would be tantamount to fraud if I let you prance around the site posting that ad hominem garbage. If you don't like it, leave.

I understand the principle of hospitality, but why must you be so stubborn about something that was purely created as an excuse throughout human history to enable the regressing and to disable the progressing? There's a difference between accepting that truth has to come with pain and acceptance, which involves criticizing people on a personal & practical level, and getting mud on your furniture and floor. What I do is designed to KEEP people from spreading mud, with their delusions and poisonous perception of those around them and the world they take for granted by playing god and toting their judgment hammer. I'm doing you a FAVOR, and everyone on here that is AFRAID to speak up about those that are passive-aggressively draining our time and energy with their constant tautology and rationalization. Think of me as someone in your house that has the courage and the knowledge to deal with people in your household which have secrets and parts of them that are dangerous to you and everyone in it - but you and others cannot see it, because it's not on the surface and you weren't looking for it in the first place, so you never would have expected it.

Why is truth the new hate speech, Scott? Why do you allow obvious weakness to go on, but punish those that are strong and well-minded inside and out because of the weak merely hitting a button strictly because their nerves were struck in a way they wanted to get me into trouble - as they know I am a threat to their games? (they never hit that button for those that reduced their argument to solely name-calling and child's play; they reported me only, when I was really hitting all the marks that people SHOULD BE HITTING, but can't because your forum's rules are INCOMPETENT.)

Who are you quoting? You're not quoting me. If you're attempting to paraphrase me or somebody, then don't put in quote tags or a quote box, let alone both.

I said a quote - I did not say your quote. It was my quote, which tells me that you don't pay a lot of attention to this discussion. Thank you for proving that much.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I'm doing you a FAVOR

Really? Because it seems like you are wasting my valuable time by throwing a fit because this site is what it advertises to be: a place to have discussions in which personal attacks are prohibited.

Why do you allow obvious weakness to go on, but punish those that are strong and well-minded inside and out

This question is loaded but--ignoring that--I don't. I delete reported posts that violate the forum rules or other posts I see that violate the forum rules because they violate the forum rules.

I personally think those that resort to personal attacks do so usually because their arguments are weak, their beliefs unreasonable, their ability to debate poor, and their logical intelligence incredibly low. But either way this site's aim is to provide a place to have discussions without personal attacks and without ad hominems; Thus, if I am wrong and those that abstain from such discussions instead opting for discussions that stay ad argumentum rather than go ad hominem are actually the weak-minded, then let this website be a haven for such weak-minded people who are so weak-minded they don't personally attack others in the course of philosophical debate/discussion. And all those strong-minded geniuses can go have their harsh discussions elsewhere and call each other children or psychopaths or whatever other criticism they have for each other all they want. Just not here.

This just isn't the place for these kinds of allegedly strong-minded inside and out debaters:

[Subatomic God]

I'm doing you a FAVOR

Really? Because it seems like you are wasting my valuable time by throwing a fit because this site is what it advertises to be: a place to have discussions in which personal attacks are prohibited.

Why do you allow obvious weakness to go on, but punish those that are strong and well-minded inside and out

This question is loaded but--ignoring that--I don't. I delete reported posts that violate the forum rules or other posts I see that violate the forum rules because they violate the forum rules.

I personally think those that resort to personal attacks do so usually because their arguments are weak, their beliefs unreasonable, their ability to debate poor, and their logical intelligence incredibly low. But either way this site's aim is to provide a place to have discussions without personal attacks and without ad hominems; Thus, if I am wrong and those that abstain from such discussions instead opting for discussions that stay ad argumentum rather than go ad hominem are actually the weak-minded, then let this website be a haven for such weak-minded people who are so weak-minded they don't personally attack others in the course of philosophical debate/discussion. And all those strong-minded geniuses can go have their harsh discussions elsewhere and call each other children or psychopaths or whatever other criticism they have for each other all they want. Just not here.

This just isn't the place for these kinds of allegedly strong-minded inside and out debaters:

Well, if this is really what you want, after everything I have explained: 1. how there is a huge half section of philosophy that ends up going in circles, because your fellow forum users that are arguing against them can only address the idea, not the person, even though the person is the problem - as anybody that tries to argue a politician's ideas would be suicide for their brain and time, as the person is the issue and the target, but that does not mean we should resort to weapons or malicious behavior, but harsh criticism and personal addressing; 2. how your rules prevent anyone from coming on here to express themselves and their theories at the same time, which any genius would call you crazy for, because any genius would have the capacity to understand the bond between mind, man and body; emotion and evidence, thinking and reacting; 3. Your rules do not seem to understand how it resorts to double standards (one gets punished, the other that does worse does not), hypocrisies (wants you to behave, while ignoring the secrets of misbehaving designed by crafty children that know the loop holes in between the rules, which are based upon passive-aggression - people can't see passive-aggression, only aggression - people can't see genius, only intelligence), blanket statements (it's against the rules, because it's against the rules; because I don't agree, even though what I am practicing is basically severing the brain from the body and mind, which is opaque by nature), and finally immutability (you created rules, but some how cannot change the rules to at least give my suggestions a chance; to instead ignore my suggestions, while demonstrating you do not understand psychology, or philosophy, else you would not be taking away the heart and emotion that leech onto said ideas; 4. You, yourself, lack emotion and feeling, which means you created these philosophy forums for yourself, not for others - you are shaping these forums with your small heart, and not this incredible Universe - as I have learned to not love a select set of things or people, but to love, embrace and absorb everything; all colors; all shapes; all experiences, therefore you are reducing the potential of everything that is the philosophy forums by not only imprisoning half of humanity's traits, but by not accepting the idea of trying it out for X amount of days, just for the sake of accepting there are other possibilities and the suggestion I am giving you is nothing big, which will result in a rare chance of one or two threads out of many becoming a flame war provided I am not there to control from which the flames go; 5. The capacity, the potential the sheer strength of letting go of rules, of settling, of comfort zones, to explore and open your mind to other ideas, experiences and ways of seeing this reality whether it is by your vision-made forums, or this non-vision made reality called the Universe and it's governing laws.

Then I will obey your rules, for now on, as I have said everything thus far. You are wrong, but you don't mind that, so there's nothing else I can do about you being wrong. I can't change you - I can only ask of you to change. You refuse to. That makes you a loser that can't make a proper non-personal argument on a real level of intellect (regarding the entirety of life and all that encompass it, rather than "that's not what I want"), but despite all of this, I will lay down my offence and accept that you may be the biggest hypocrite and the largest issue on these forums by far; preventing mountains of potential from being built over this rather receding show of decadence, for personal reasons (you prevent people from being personal, while your entire vision of these forums are built on your personal anguish; I speak of pain, because the way you protect the forums reminds me of an incompetent mother that protects her law breaking children with no discipline, which is quite a lot of irony considering the circumstances between you and I), but that's what you want - that is what people on here do not mind, even though they cannot admit that they are cowering and fearful altogether, they are happy with their bread crumbs, so be it. I have spoke the great truth, as I have, and you are holding onto your poor regulations; your regressing pocket-society; and your idea behind it all, as a child holds onto their poor blanket like Linus from Charlie Brown. I would never suppress my fellow people; I would deal with the issues up front to shut down every bad egg in the radioactive factory with my brutal words and my harsh, yet harmless; mean yet meaningful array of intellectually machine-gunned points and miles of broken down analysis.

My rules would respect people as people, and not place walls that people will always find a way around, like the walls which separate our countries, causing a lot of money to be wasted on an issue that cannot be solved by shutting it out, while other people don't even realize there are people crossing the walls that were put up, while those that do become tired from the ignorance and negligence people emit towards these very important matters that extend to your very rules and mindset. People want what they can't have; go where they should not go; desire for all that they have yet to experience - I understand this, so I know how to properly word and assess rules for people to follow in general, not in chains. The same way I was raised by a father that never forced me to do anything, which let me make my own decisions, while giving me advice and providing intellectual influences every day in his life. In turn, I grew more than this society and people's fragility; I became more intuitive and thoughtful than any teacher or principal; or any prideful parent or authority. I see above this mire of a society, and I see above your mire of a pocket-society - I see everything that you do not see, because I opened my mind and refined my heart, instead of losing my mind and closing my heart; to live in some personal fantasy, that is of fear, denial and rationalization.

If this is your dream of a tiny society, then so be it. It's nothing. It will never amount to anything - in the end, it's just really a terrible chute that reminds me of how there are things in life that are constipated by design, but people manage to squeeze in a few drops of constructivity because humans seem to be able to make the best out of any situation, in spite of them sacrificing 99% of their humanity, that 1% of their humanity manages to convince people that everything is still okay, and people can still be controlled by terrible leaders and society builders.

I will watch it all crumble before me, Scott. That's what you want. You have failed as a human being, but at least you have your shambles and your small chained family... do you feel warm? Or do you feel cold? Doesn't matter to me anymore, because I already know the answer. Anybody that wants to build something by themselves, never had the strength to build in the first place - everything they try to build is to compensate for what strength they never had, as real strength asks for help. The only reason why this doesn't seem so, is because the followers push the psychopath into power, instead. Then the psychopath controls them and says more empty words, while simply harboring weak ideas that are only made because of the people being enslaved by imaginary authority.

Only a man of failure does not keep working on their tools and creations to assure balance and perfection - a man that does not appreciate the things which hold everything else up. It seems that those that do a half-job think their work is perfect and should not be changed, while those that do a great job still know there is room to improve - there will always be room to improve. Such a shame that your pride is such a lonely flame, Scott. We could have fixed these forums and given it a chance to be more free and potent as a philosophy forum. But you cannot see that far into the future, with such a dark and murky heart closed and deprived of its humanity...