Guilty By Association. How Everyone Within Society Partakes In Human Suffering.

[Mr Hyde]

Everyone who partakes in the rituals, systemization, practices, traditions, operation, movement, belief structure, economics, standards, and politics of society affects the outcome of those suffering within it.

This includes everyone including myself. There is no escaping it.


How? Although you may not harm or cause the suffering of another personally you nonetheless partake in the systemization of society which thrives on inequality and the suffering of other human beings.

You may describe that you don't personally harm others but nonetheless you are still apart of the systemization and equation that creates human suffering or inequality where even more you consume your living within the same equation as well.

To describe this we may use a fancy if not clever legal terminology that is called guilt by association.

In order to describe guilt by association I'll use an analogy:

There is a car driver who drives a vehicle full of bank robbers to a heist. Although the driver waits outside never even stepping inside the bank in robbing by waiting outside in the car only acting as the redundant driver that same driver nonetheless is considered guilty by association.

And should the bank robbers inside should kill a bank teller or some citizen bystander even though the driver outside may disagree with the act nonetheless the driver who has a association and connection with the robbers inside is actually the foundation in which the robbers act where afterwards the driver also acts as their escape.

What do we know about society? It thrives on inequality, forced coercion, violence,competition, conflict, blackmail and deception.

What is the source and foundation of society's existence? The people.

Who supplies the need and desire of inequality within the framework of society in order to consume or thrive upon on it? The people.

The government is only the intermediary of all this suffering and inequality. The people supply the need of inequality and human suffering for their own advances,conveniences, or pleasures where the government enforces the demand.

Noone is innocent as people partaking in the systemization of society are associated with the very equations that does create inequality and human suffering. All people partaking within society is the very energy and substance that society thrives on in order to maximize inequality or human suffering for profit.

Like the driver in the vehicle within the analogy the people are the very foundation in which inequality and suffering persists even if they don't do it themselves personally. The people are the vehicle or device of inequality and human suffering in which the status quo makes up demand after hearing the supply of desiring needs by the people themselves.

Even childern are not innocent for it is they who later on growing up take up the insidious practices of their mothers and fathers. Like father like son, like mother like daughter and so forth.

The next time you think to yourself that you are innocent because you don't harm others personally you might want to ask yourself if you partake in society the same entity that is the mass producer of all human suffering and inequality.

Remember that this same society derives it's public policy by your participation, foundation, energy and support regardless of what you may feel privately.

[princesspoppi]

But there are those in society who do their best to ease suffering of others, either within their own community or the wider community. Some people are unaware of their own causes to the suffering of humanity, but there are others who are aware and try to make amends. There are many different types of people in society who have many thoughts, ideas and opinions and I do not liked to be counted as one of the selfish uncaring masses. I believe that there is always hope for a better society and that we can ease the suffering.

[armenian]

sounds like the arguement is those who dont act, are passively supporting it
i think you need more details on 'the system', your too vague



What do we know about society? It thrives on inequality, forced coercion, violence,competition, conflict, blackmail and deception.


i thkn you need to be more specific then society

society to me is the people around me, they dont thrive on such things

those are exactly what keeps it from thriving

[princesspoppi]

I agree with Armenians views on society, the people I know also do not thrive on the suffering of others.

[Mr Hyde]

But there are those in society who do their best to ease suffering of others, either within their own community or the wider community.

Philantrophy? Always the selfish motive of gaining influence, prestige, and public acknowledgement is the desire of philantrophists. ( Of course they'll use code words like altruism to blanket and hide their selfish intentions.)

Besides they always manage to not do enough where inequality prevails all the time.

They do just enough to get public recognition and attention where afterwards they fall out of the scene.


Some people are unaware of their own causes to the suffering of humanity,

Whether they are aware or not changes nothing of their involvement.


but there are others who are aware and try to make amends.

And they are doing a bang up job aren't they?


There are many different types of people in society who have many thoughts, ideas and opinions and I do not liked to be counted as one of the selfish uncaring masses.

If you partake in the equation that creates and thrives on inequality or human suffering especially if you live within it you are nonetheless still apart of it whether you are aware or unaware of it.

I believe that there is always hope for a better society and that we can ease the suffering.

I believe there is no hope. I look at a species who's nature has been the same for three thousand years.

There is no changing human nature and believe me when I say it there is no ease to human suffering either.


I agree with Armenians views on society, the people I know also do not thrive on the suffering of others.

Do you go to a grocery store?


sounds like the arguement is those who dont act, are passively supporting it
i think you need more details on 'the system', your too vague

Actually even if you do act you are still supporting the system of society which creates and thrives on inequality or human suffering.

Because as you live within such a equation by giving it energy, substance, and foundation you become part of the process that creates such circumstances for others regardless.


society to me is the people around me, they dont thrive on such things

They don't? Please explain.

[billyjack]

we're not all equal. society survives and thrives on this hard truth. we're only equal in theory, not reality.

[Mr Hyde]

we're not all equal. society survives and thrives on this hard truth. we're only equal in theory, not reality.

Precisely. Society thrives on inequality, human suffering, blackmail, forced coercion, war, conflict, deception, control,violence,alienating others, disenfranchisement, and fear.

Do you agree or were you trying to elaborate somthing else?

[billyjack]

are you sure you agree with me? i'm embracing it, affirming it. you're condemning it

[Mr Hyde]

are you sure you agree with me? i'm embracing it, affirming it. you're condemning it

If you think I'm condemning it you completely misunderstand me.

I'm merely acknowledging the reality that we live in. I also know there is no solution to such a age old reality either.

[billyjack]

my mistake. i heard words like fear, blackmail, and alienating others. i assumed there was some judgement behind these loaded terms; i'll hold off on the assumptions next time.

[Virgil]

What rubbish. Unless you can point to a society that is free of any of those ills you mentioned then you are just whining that the world is not perfect. I think everyone realizes the world has never been and will never be perfect. Utopias don't exist. Get real, or find yourself a deserted island to live.

[Mr Hyde]

my mistake. i heard words like fear, blackmail, and alienating others. i assumed there was some judgement behind these loaded terms; i'll hold off on the assumptions next time.

No worries.


What rubbish. Unless you can point to a society that is free of any of those ills you mentioned then you are just whining that the world is not perfect. I think everyone realizes the world has never been and will never be perfect. Utopias don't exist. Get real, or find yourself a deserted island to live.

I'm not whining. I'm merely making the point that all of humanity is selfish, egotistical, and hypocritical.

I'm merely making the point that we live in a amoral, inequal, conflicting, chaotic and violent world where through survival everybody tries to accumulate power in order to out do one another or that they try to satisfy their carnal pleasures without regards to others.


I think everyone realizes the world has never been and will never be perfect. Utopias don't exist. Get real, or find yourself a deserted island to live.

If that is true why does morality, political correctness, religion, and trans- humanistic goals exist if such utopic belief structures truely can never be reached in such a indifferent world of ours?

You might say utopias don't exist and yet so much of humanity is trying very hard through various labors or toils to make it possible because simply they wish for it everyday. Absurd isn't it?

Can you see the contradiction?

[Virgil]

I'm not whining. I'm merely making the point that all of humanity is selfish, egotistical, and hypocritical.

Is that supposed to be some burst of enlightenment? An original thought? I think people have been saying that from the beggining of time.


I'm merely making the point that we live in a amoral, inequal, conflicting, chaotic and violent world where through survival everybody tries to accumulate power in order to out do one another or where they try to satisfy their carnal pleasures without regards to others.
If for the hundred thousand years that homo sapiens have been on the planet it has been ths way, wouldn't you think that this is the norm? Like I asked, do you know of a society where a utopia has existed?


If that is true why does morality, political correctness, religion, and trans- humanistic goals exist if such belief structures truely can never be reached in such a indifferent world of ours?
We can always make the world better. If that is something we agree on, then let's agree on that. But your original post makes it sound like the world is a terrible place and that there is a utopia around the corner. Come on. Like I said get real.


You might say utopias don't exist and yet so much of humanity is trying very hard through labors or toils to make it possible because simply they wish for it everyday. Absurd isn't it?
It's absurd to think there is a utopia. Think about this. Do you know what life, every day life, was like two hundred years ago? Or three hundred years ago? Or two thousand years ago? Or five thousand years ago? If you can't see that life is incredibly better today than at any time in the past then I just have to throw my hands up and say we can't communicate.

[Mr Hyde]

Is that supposed to be some burst of enlightenment? An original thought? I think people have been saying that from the beggining of time.

Burst of enlightenment? Certainly not. Just a acknowledgement.

Some people paint the world to be this equal, fair, and all aspiring place to be in so I felt the need to express my contrasting perspective.


If for the hundred thousand years that homo sapiens have been on the planet it has been ths way, wouldn't you think that this is the norm? Like I asked, do you know of a society where a utopia has existed?

Of course it is the norm. I was trying to illustrate that.


Like I asked, do you know of a society where a utopia has existed?

Of course there has never been a utopic society ever. That was my point.

Of course alot of futurists these days speak about the future of humanity in almost salvation like praise in that they somehow believe we will be delivered.


We can always make the world better.

This is where we part ways for you see I look at the world as being hopeless especially in regards to human nature which I view to be in-malleable.

Appearances change but human nature always remains the same.


If that is something we agree on, then let's agree on that.

I don't agree with with what you have said.


Like I said get real.

Hope this new post of mine clears up things. As billyjack said I'm merely embracing and affirming reality for what it is.

[Virgil]

Burst of enlightenment? Certainly not. Just a acknowledgement.

Some people paint the world to be this equal, fair, and all aspiring place to be in so I felt the need to express myself.

Well the people who paint the world as such are wrong. And perhaps irresponsible. And who says that equal is fair? If someone works twice as hard and gets the same pay as another who doesn't that is injustice. You see there can never be total justice because of all the complexities in the world.


Of course it is the norm. I was trying to illustrate that.

Of course there has never been a utopic society ever. That was my point.

Of course alot of futurists these days speak about the future of humanity in almost salvation like praise.
Well, then this seems to be the contrary point to your openning post in this thread.


This is where we part ways for you see I look at the world being hopeless especially in regards to human nature which I view to be in-malleable.
I certainly don't believe that human nature can be altered. It's in our genetic make up. Unless we mutate into angel-like personalities then we are what we are. Is that hopeless too? Perhaps. But I just accept it and try to make the best of it.


Hope this new post of mine clears up things. Also I was just affirming reality in this thread.

I was not making a judgement on anything.
Ok. Peace. Happy discussing. ;)

[Mr Hyde]

Well the people who paint the world as such are wrong. And perhaps irresponsible. And who says that equal is fair? If someone works twice as hard and gets the same pay as another who doesn't that is injustice. You see there can never be total justice because of all the complexities in the world.


Well, then this seems to be the contrary point to your openning post in this thread.


I certainly don't believe that human nature can be altered. It's in our genetic make up. Unless we mutate into angel-like personalities then we are what we are. Is that hopeless too? Perhaps. But I just accept it and try to make the best of it.


Ok. Peace. Happy discussing. ;)


Well the people who paint the world as such are wrong. And perhaps irresponsible.

Probally so.


And who says that equal is fair?

Well it is political correctionists with their use of words like equality, morality, virtue, ethics, noble, progress, betterment, and improvement that use such words.

Perhaps one of them could help us out in understanding why they believe in the things that they do.


If someone works twice as hard and gets the same pay as another who doesn't that is injustice.

Rightly so. That is why we have the lower class who we socially alienate and disenfranchise which we deem to be a more impure group of people.


You see there can never be total justice because of all the complexities in the world.

Yes there certainly is alot of selfish complexities all over the place and sometimes they can leave one confused.


Well, then this seems to be the contrary point to your openning post in this thread.

Do explain.


I certainly don't believe that human nature can be altered. It's in our genetic make up. Unless we mutate into angel-like personalities then we are what we are. Is that hopeless too? Perhaps. But I just accept it and try to make the best of it.

Those who call themselves moral or religious don't seem able to just accept it.

Those who call themselves progressivists, idealists and trans-humanists don't seem able to just accept it.

Why do you think that is?

Don't you at all find it contrary?


Ok. Peace. Happy discussing. ;)

The discussion is over just like that?

[NikolaiI]

I'm not whining. I'm merely making the point that all of humanity is selfish, egotistical, and hypocritical.

The first couple of people's responses to this are the right ones. People are basically good. You will see goodness everywhere. The way you are talking it sounds like you've given up, but don't give up. You get to a large degree what you give. If you give pure negativity, then you will see nothing good. If you're not open to the good as well as the bad, just like if you're not open to the bad but only the good; then you will become close minded and see nothing at all. I hope you can see beyond the thought that your own intellect is the supreme and final word. Some things can be harmful. Thoughts, words, ideas. You're a pessimistic philosophical writer, but you might want to be open to some of the greats of history. Some of the good people. If you think that a person saying anything is good is the evidence of the contrary, and you let it spiral like it seems like you might, this is nothing but reactionary, and it is not rational or true.

[Mr Hyde]

The first couple of people's responses to this are the right ones.

Right are they?


People are basically good.


You will see goodness everywhere.

I totally disagree. Inequality,war, conflict, violence, blackmail, and hypocrisy are just some of things that go on everyday which puts your statements as contradictions.


The way you are talking it sounds like you've given up, but don't give up.

Given up on what exactly? If anything I have opened my eyes to the world of realism instead of some pretend fantasy.


You get to a large degree what you give. If you give pure negativity, then you will see nothing good.

:lol:


If you're not open to the good as well as the bad, just like if you're not open to the bad but only the good; then you will become close minded and see nothing at all.

There exists no good or evil, right and wrong in my eyes.

The only difference between the so called virtuous man and the despised outcast is that the virtuous man is more effective at hiding his hypocrisy or malice than the other.


I hope you can see beyond the thought that your own intellect is the supreme and final word.

Where should I be giving my unflinching attention towards?


Some things can be harmful. Thoughts, words, ideas. You're a pessimistic philosophical writer, but you might want to be open to some of the greats of history.

What greats of history?


Some of the good people.

And what are good people?


If you think that a person saying anything is good is the evidence of the contrary, and you let it spiral like it seems like you might, this is nothing but reactionary, and it is not rational or true.

I see...........You are describing me as nothing but a no good filthy reactionist void of logic, truth, and reason.

Please tell me what logic,truth,and reason is. Please tell me how the contructs of logic, reason, and truth themselves are not reactions of man's existential anxiety of being.

[Mr. Vandemar]

To say that society thrives on such sufferings is not correct. I think that although a "utopia" is not possible; striving for one is the only thing that one can do. Why not improve society? Why would we abandon our hopes because of a philosophy that states that an improved condition is enigmatic and impossible? Good < Better < Best, why choose Good over Better simply because Best is impossible?

Peter Kropotkin, guys. Man has enough resources to make life decent for everyone. That is most certainly true. To say that we cannot redistribute the "resources" (or tools of happiness) to change this society of "blackmail", "war", and whatever is not only wrong but it is foolish!

This feeling of hopelessness and pessimism that you demonstrate has been implemented by the very society you are trying to point out! It's difficult for someone to say such concrete objective things as you have said in this topic without acknowledging the subjective twist that you add to it and the influence that others have given on you.

Personally, the people that I surround myself with are people filled with love and that I do not think that they manipulate me. My intentions are certainly not to manipulate them. However, I am a very strong political radical and am completely dissatisfied with our Liberal "democracies". I think that there are many things wrong with this world, things that can be changed, and things that will be changed. The French Revolution? The Cuban Revolution? They destroyed the former way of life (if a bunch of underfed and uneducated peasants can overthrow an aristocracy and a monarchy, can't we [the most educated generation yet] change our environment?) and society within their domain and completely rewrote history because of it. Why do you think that such a thing is not impossible?

Sure, society is bad. Feudal society was worse. Capitalism is the necessary follow up to the oppression of Feudalism. Perhaps with the given liberalism we can continue to evolve society to reach that unattainable utopia and perhaps we can take the next necessary step...

Oh shi- I just revealed myself as a Marxist.

[Mr Hyde]

To say that society thrives on such sufferings is not correct.

Oh, Why not?


I think that although a "utopia" is not possible; striving for one is the only thing that one can do.

Why strive for somthing that will never happen? What is the point?




Why not improve society?

How can you improve the human condition when human nature the main driver of the human condition itself cannot be altered?


Why would we abandon our hopes because of a philosophy that states that an improved condition is enigmatic and impossible?

To answer this post I shall let my previous statement explain my views.


Good < Better < Best, why choose Good over Better simply because Best is impossible?

I don't understand what you were trying to illustrate here.


Man has enough resources to make life decent for everyone.

Than why has humanity refused to lift a finger in doing so? Explain that.

If we have enough resources and if we are supposedly innately moral as a species aspiring toward equal fairness wouldn't you think we would of already done it by now?

Yet look around at the entire world and all you will see is nothing but inactivity on the subject. Ironic! :lol:

( Perhaps man himself is not innate moral and fair afterwards as previously assumed.)


This feeling of hopelessness and pessimism that you demonstrate has been implemented by the very society you are trying to point out!

Your correct. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.


It's difficult for someone to say such concrete objective things as you have said in this topic without acknowledging the subjective twist that you add to it and the influence that others have given on you.

However difficult it may be I'm saying it.


I think that there are many things wrong with this world, things that can be changed, and things that will be changed.

How novel. Tell me great revolutionist how will this be done?

[B-Mental]

It sort of feels like you are just baiting people with your opinion, and then replying with your personal belief, which must be superior (I mean really you did start the thread). I should point out that your bank heist analogy is inherently wrong, because the actions of the driver will benefit the driver and the group, therefore he shares responsibility for the crime. Maybe you can come up with a better analogy, one that isn't flawed like your arguement.

[Mr. Vandemar]

How novel. Tell me great revolutionist how will this be done

Who knew that "pessimist" and "prick" went hand in hand?

[Scheherazade]

.

Please do not personalise your comments.

Posts containing inflammatory and/or personal comments will be deleted without further notice.

.

[Mr Hyde]

{edit}


I should point out that your bank heist analogy is inherently wrong, because the actions of the driver will benefit the driver and the group, therefore he shares responsibility for the crime.
If you actually read my post that was the general direction I was going with.

And who is the driver and main energy source of the government who then creates and thrives on human inequality or suffering along with the rest of society?

I believe we call the driver of the government the people themselves, wouldn't you agree?

The government is nothing without the people's willing conscent or obedient submission.

The people give the government their conscent of approval or docile obedient submission in which the government takes them as it's foundation where it later on creates human suffering and inequality in which the profits of other people's misery is shared amongst society in which everybody consumes.


{edit}

[Mr. Vandemar]

The government is nothing without the people's willing conscent or obedient submission.

No. The government is nothing without a bureaucracy and a military. You don't need the support or "submission" of the people to rule them. You just need power.

Ever heard of a coup?

[Mr Hyde]

No. The government is nothing without a bureaucracy and a military. You don't need the support or "submission" of the people to rule them. You just need power.

Ever heard of a coup?

And a military and bureaucracy is nothing without the willing bodies of the people that fund them.

It is the people who allow the government to create human suffering and inequality in which the people themselves profit and partake in simultaneously. That is the entire theme of my thread if you read it.

Too many times people from all walks of life use the government as a scapegoat in order to conceal their own dealings in human suffering and inequality but at the end of the day such a excuse is absurd considering the government itself derives it's own power from the same people who use it as a scapegoat.

It is not only the government who creates human suffering or inequality that it then thrives on later but it is the people who are the foundation of the government who create the supply and need of it. The government only acts as the intermediary force on the supply and demand of things within society as it is the people themselves who create the orders of everything in the end.

[billyjack]

It is the people who allow the government to create human suffering and inequality in which the people themselves profit and partake in simultaneously.
.

i wouldn't quite say we, the people, allow it; as if we have a choice in the matter. we could choose not to partake in society: not pay taxes, not work, ect...but there is a name for that already and its called a bum. If the choice is between being a bum or being a contributing member to society i wouldnt call that a choice; unless you wear a guy foxx mask

[Mr Hyde]

i wouldn't quite say we, the people, allow it; as if we have a choice in the matter. we could choose not to partake in society: not pay taxes, not work, ect...but there is a name for that already and its called a bum.

The homeless do not choose their plight but instead are forced into it.

You say that the people do not allow it where in contrast I couldn't disagree anymore.

The people choose docile submission instead of rebellion or revolt and in that submission they still nonetheless profit and partake in the inequality around them.

[Sweets America]

{edit}
The government is nothing without the people's willing conscent or obedient submission.

The people give the government their conscent of approval or docile obedient submission in which the government takes them as it's foundation where it later on creates human suffering and inequality in which the profits of other people's misery is shared amongst society in which everybody consumes.


{edit}

I don't remember I ever though of it this way, but it sounds very true to me. That's my epiphany of the day. :thumbs_up

[Mr. Vandemar]

You make way too many generalizations for someone who doesn't have any friends. 'The People'? What people? The people you talk to on the internet? Or the people you watch on tv? Or the people who you watch from your window? Without any real relationships, you can't tell me what people are like. You don't know any people.

You keep referring to these 'People' who you've never clearly defined. I know lots of people who are dedicated to improving the lives of others and no; their motive is not selfish. If you can't comprehend genuine compassion, well, it's something that can't be explained.

This little theory of yours is entirely one dimensional. You act as if your words are considered concrete fact and unquestionable, therefore it is really difficult to argue with you. And yeah, I did read your post. You don't need to point out how mine contradicts yours, I did that on purpose (but thanks for telling me the theme of your post, it was so subtly stated and your concepts are so wise and intelligent that I couldn't have comprehended without your condescension).

Maybe if you change 'The People' to 'The Majority' I would agree with you. The way you're stating it is as if everyone is exactly the same (without an socio-cultural or socio-economic standards). You don't know everybody. From what I read on your blog, you don't even know ANYBODY! So please don't enlighten us, the less intelligent than yourself, on how people work and function. Your supreme intellect might just blow our minds.

[Mr Hyde]

You make way too many generalizations for someone who doesn't have any friends.

We all make generalizations. You've made plenty in this thread and others.

Generalizations are apart of our frail human nature.


'The People'? What people? The people you talk to on the internet? Or the people you watch on tv? Or the people who you watch from your window? Without any real relationships, you can't tell me what people are like. You don't know any people.

Are you saying I can't learn anything from observing others or by reading the history of our species which acts in a consistent manner and pattern?


I know lots of people who are dedicated to improving the lives of others

And yet I'm sure they partake in the services of those who live very inequal lives.

If you shop at a grocery store you are partaking in the services of someone paid a minimal wage and if that person is secretly miserable inside your interaction with them for their labors of bringing you service is a transaction of inequalness is it not?


and no; their motive is not selfish.

No?



If you can't comprehend genuine compassion, well, it's something that can't be explained.

And what is genuine compassion? Why can it not be explained or measured?




This little theory of yours is entirely one dimensional.

And all of humanity is one dimensional.


You act as if your words are considered concrete fact and unquestionable, therefore it is really difficult to argue with you.

I'm just opinionated. That's all. You could argue your point with me and I would listen although I probally wouldn't agree.


And yeah, I did read your post. You don't need to point out how mine contradicts yours, I did that on purpose (but thanks for telling me the theme of your post, it was so subtly stated and your concepts are so wise and intelligent that I couldn't have comprehended without your condescension).

Thanks for the compliment.


Maybe if you change 'The People' to 'The Majority' I would agree with you. The way you're stating it is as if everyone is exactly the same (without an socio-cultural or socio-economic standards).

Everyone consumes and consumption is built upon inequalness.


You don't know everybody. From what I read on your blog, you don't even know ANYBODY!

So please don't enlighten us, the less intelligent than yourself, on how people work and function. Your supreme intellect might just blow our minds.

Temper.........Temper.

No need to get angry at a simple conversation.

[Sweets America]

You make way too many generalizations for someone who doesn't have any friends. 'The People'? What people? The people you talk to on the internet? Or the people you watch on tv? Or the people who you watch from your window? Without any real relationships, you can't tell me what people are like. You don't know any people.

You keep referring to these 'People' who you've never clearly defined. I know lots of people who are dedicated to improving the lives of others and no; their motive is not selfish. If you can't comprehend genuine compassion, well, it's something that can't be explained.

This little theory of yours is entirely one dimensional. You act as if your words are considered concrete fact and unquestionable, therefore it is really difficult to argue with you. And yeah, I did read your post. You don't need to point out how mine contradicts yours, I did that on purpose (but thanks for telling me the theme of your post, it was so subtly stated and your concepts are so wise and intelligent that I couldn't have comprehended without your condescension).

Maybe if you change 'The People' to 'The Majority' I would agree with you. The way you're stating it is as if everyone is exactly the same (without an socio-cultural or socio-economic standards). You don't know everybody. From what I read on your blog, you don't even know ANYBODY! So please don't enlighten us, the less intelligent than yourself, on how people work and function. Your supreme intellect might just blow our minds.

I can't believe how mean you are. That really saddens me. Why do you need to attack people because they are lonely? Don't talk to us about compassion because coming from you, that's a big joke. I only saw cruelty in your post.

[Mr. Vandemar]

I didn't attack him because was lonely. I got defensive because of his subtle indications that I am only stating the obvious and that I am stupid.