Another shooting

[zerosoma]

Originally Posted By: Duffman77

If you think the problems with society are based on a lack of morals lets talk about some then.

Are you morally outraged by the people who promote the castle doctrine, that allows them to be judge jury and executioner? Do you think it is acceptable to kill someone in the back as they exit your home with some valuables?

Are you morally outraged by peoples on this board who proudly indicate that when they shoot they shoot to kill?

In another thread where the situation of the woman hiding in her closet put 5 of 6 rounds into her household intruder and he survived. Were you morally outraged when some suggested it was too bad he lived and the state would have to pay for his imprisonment? Maybe you commented and I missed it?

Do you believe in any of these points or do you only speak up when something doesn’t agree with YOUR socially engineered view of the world?


I'm not saying all morals are perfect. They are not. However, for someone to blindly accept whatever the court says is lawful is indeed just and right, is totally "disturbing". All is not right in the world. All is not right in the court room. If we want to step out of reality and live in 'fantasy land' we can decide that whatever we are told is whatever is best for us. The government LOVES people like that. You are not alive to think for yourself, they say. Your purpose is to do as you are told. I'm sorry, but I was not raised to be brain dead. I think for myself, and I have core beliefs that obviously tell me there is something definitely wrong with how we view things in our society. Our courts are NOT just. Our laws are NOT just. The issue with abortion was over the debate whether the 'fetus' was a living human being. We have proved that it is. It has DNA, and to quote Juno, 'fingernails'. But it turns out that was not really the issue. That was a facade of the real issue and the real issue will never be satisified as it is about money and convenience. Just like war. Not a noble cause in most cases these days.

If you want to murder unborn children, feel free to. It is not illegal in this life, in this country; but you will pay for it in the next.

 

[Mystic]

As usual this topic went way off subject. I do feel that there is a need for a moral code to be taught somewhere and in the schools if necessary. A moral code really should be taught at home but apparently it is not getting done. A moral code does not have to be a religious thing. Any society to be able to function must have some sort of guidelines.

There would be far fewer problems in this world if everybody just practiced the Golden Rule-Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In fact if everybody here at bitgo practiced that we could have more productive discussions without a lot of personal attacks.

 

[The_Eric]

Originally Posted By: zerosoma
Originally Posted By: The_Eric

That is perhaps the most IGNORANT thing I've read so far in recent weeks concerning the firearms debate! Blame it on abortion.

If you don't like it then fine, but don't blame the world's problems on it. Regardless of whether you support it or not, it is necessary and should remain legal. However, it really is not a topic for this board (at least publicly) and is well beyond the scope of this thread.


Eric, I consider you a grand fellow. But you must realize that this issue simply cannot be solved by looking at it face value. There are much deeper causes here. Deeper than gun control, deeper than JDC, deeper than typical squirt-gun psychology. It is very much spiritual darkness. How we get here depends on our choices as individuals, communities, nations. Whether you agree with certain "issues" there is absolute truth and I think we all know when we're doing something terrible. The issue is very much that we have become our own god.





Originally Posted By: zerosoma
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Both my wife and I are pro-choice and yet we don't suffer from a lack of morals. We don't go around trying to con people out of money, I don't lie, cheat or steal. I don't kick little old ladies in the shin and take their purses, and I sure as heck don't have the urge to use my firearms in an irresponsible manner. So don't try and make some arbitrary comparison.

just because you don't happen to believe in it, doesn't automatically make it wrong.


Here's the problem though. We allow this "choice" because we think it is relative to the person's situation. We will legalize it because it is a free country and we feel people should have the choice to either do bad or good. Even if it really is a bad thing to do. We look at abortion like we look at drinking. But yet that system is flawed. A person can drink in excess and it is wrong but it is not against the law because it is a choice. But yet we will throw somebody in jail because they get behind the wheel drunk and possibly injure or kill someone else. Whose to say that is not a choice worthy of consideration as well? Is that fair? After all, he made a choice and it's a free country - it's blasphemous to put somebody behind bars for a choice they made. His chouice could have been relative to his situation. What about murdering? Whose to say that the guy who picks up the gun and kills his neighbor is not justified in what he did? Who are we to say? after all, we make choices, even if we feel it is generally bad - the person has the choice, and they should not be punished for it. what kind of sick society does that?

That's the way we are headed.


This topic is much like the one that's been discussed at length already. There will always be those who see it one way and those who see it the other and rarely is there any common ground.

My two cents are as follows...

First and foremost, you liken it to being our own god and mention spiritual this or that. It's not a matter of that. Maybe to you, but not to everyone. It's very similar to the "anti's" who feel that guns are wrong and nobody should have them. How do you feel about that? It's a personal decision not to be made arbitrarily by another person. Don't use your god to impose rules on others - keep him out of my life and off of this forum. My own moral compass works fine, thank you...

Abortion needs to be a legal option for women. If it's not, we'll go back to the old days of coat hangers, illicit drugs, alcohol and any one of a number of things to end a pregnancy AND their side effects. In those days, as it is now, it wasn't a matter of financial status, societal class, race or if daddy was a preacher. Women of all walks off life had them for any one of a number of reasons. Rape, incest, accidents (failed birth control) and other extenuating circumstances. It needs to be part of the mainstream healthcare system, for women's health. They'll take place with or without your permission, or if the law says it's okay or not, however if it's not, it could well be your daughter that dies of a terrible infection.





Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: zerosoma
Originally Posted By: Trajan
I'm not interested in what you find disturbing. Abortion is legal. It is not murder. Neither is legal execution.

Courts of law, in case you forgot, have determined that abortion is not murder.

What is disturbing is the inability to grasp that.


What is disturbing is that you blindly accept whatever society spoon feeds you. So the courts say that abortion is not murder. What if they decide that drunk driving homicide is not murder? Obviously you will accept that too. Your type will be completely deceived in the days to come and not even see it coming. Please wake up, friend.


If you think the problems with society are based on a lack of morals lets talk about some then.

Are you morally outraged by the people who promote the castle doctrine, that allows them to be judge jury and executioner? Do you think it is acceptable to kill someone in the back as they exit your home with some valuables?

Are you morally outraged by peoples on this board who proudly indicate that when they shoot they shoot to kill?

In another thread where the situation of the woman hiding in her closet put 5 of 6 rounds into her household intruder and he survived. Were you morally outraged when some suggested it was too bad he lived and the state would have to pay for his imprisonment? Maybe you commented and I missed it?

Do you believe in any of these points or do you only speak up when something doesn’t agree with YOUR socially engineered view of the world?


First, you need to get things straight before you start spouting off...

Castle doctrine does not give you the right to be judge, jury and executioner. It gives you the RIGHT to defend yourself if your home is invaded by another person. If you are in fear for your life, you have the right to defend yourself, instead of being forced to run away (not always an option) or submit to the will of the invader.


People who talk "proudly" about shooting to kill are idiots. If you are in a position that requires you to have to shoot, you don't shoot to kill. You don't shoot to wound either. You shoot to STOP the threat. The safest, most effective way is to aim center mass. Once the threat is gone, you stop shooting. If you fire one poorly aimed shot and hit the bad guy in the pinky finger and he turns tail and runs, the threat is over. You stop shooting. If you place two rounds in center mass and he's dead before he hits the ground, you stop shooting, the threat is over. In he case of the woman in Georgia, she shot her attacker 5 times (face, neck, lung, liver and stomach), he went down but was alive. He was begging her to stop shooting. He was no longer a threat. Do you see how that works?


And for the record I was not morally outraged when there was talk to the effect of "It's too bad he lived"... The guy was a convict with priors for assault, who forced his way into a house and actively sought out it's occupants while wielding a crowbar. He bit off more than he could chew that time.

 

[Duffman77]

Originally Posted By: The_Eric

First, you need to get things straight before you start spouting off...


Easy there buddy, no need to thrash in all directions, we don’t disagree on that much.

Originally Posted By: The_Eric

Castle doctrine does not give you the right to be judge, jury and executioner. It gives you the RIGHT to defend yourself if your home is invaded by another person. If you are in fear for your life, you have the right to defend yourself, instead of being forced to run away (not always an option) or submit to the will of the invader.


Well since you have the right to defend yourself regardless of location with up to lethal force it kinda makes the castle doctrine redundant then doesn’t it???

Originally Posted By: The_Eric

People who talk "proudly" about shooting to kill are idiots. If you are in a position that requires you to have to shoot, you don't shoot to kill. You don't shoot to wound either. You shoot to STOP the threat.


Not a lot of disagreement here, but if you think that attitude doesn’t exist here then you haven’t spent much time here in the last month.

Originally Posted By: The_Eric

And for the record I was not morally outraged when there was talk to the effect of "It's too bad he lived"... The guy was a convict with priors for assault, who forced his way into a house and actively sought out it's occupants while wielding a crowbar. He bit off more than he could chew that time.


To put my cards on the table, I am not terribly outraged by it either but I didn't come on here and link shootings with abortions either. For those of you who did not get the point of my questions, they were designed to measure someones moral depth on the sacredness of life. If you were not "morally" bothered by all of those issues then your moral high ground on the issue of abortion is built on a mountain of [censored].

 

[Mystic]

I don't think it is good to bring up stuff like the abortion issue in posts here. Because talk about stuff like that brings up issues that are not allowed like religion and politics. I have my own views on abortion but I am not going to bring them up here.

Any discussion that has religion and politics in it is likely to get locked up.

 

[The_Eric]

Originally Posted By: Duffman77
Originally Posted By: The_Eric

First, you need to get things straight before you start spouting off...


Easy there buddy, no need to thrash in all directions, we don’t disagree on that much.

Originally Posted By: The_Eric

Castle doctrine does not give you the right to be judge, jury and executioner. It gives you the RIGHT to defend yourself if your home is invaded by another person. If you are in fear for your life, you have the right to defend yourself, instead of being forced to run away (not always an option) or submit to the will of the invader.


Well since you have the right to defend yourself regardless of location with up to lethal force it kinda makes the castle doctrine redundant then doesn’t it???


Originally Posted By: The_Eric

People who talk "proudly" about shooting to kill are idiots. If you are in a position that requires you to have to shoot, you don't shoot to kill. You don't shoot to wound either. You shoot to STOP the threat.


Not a lot of disagreement here, but if you think that attitude doesn’t exist here then you haven’t spent much time here in the last month.

Originally Posted By: The_Eric

And for the record I was not morally outraged when there was talk to the effect of "It's too bad he lived"... The guy was a convict with priors for assault, who forced his way into a house and actively sought out it's occupants while wielding a crowbar. He bit off more than he could chew that time.


To put my cards on the table, I am not terribly outraged by it either but I didn't come on here and link shootings with abortions either. For those of you who did not get the point of my questions, they were designed to measure someones moral depth on the sacredness of life. If you were not "morally" bothered by all of those issues then your moral high ground on the issue of abortion is built on a mountain of [censored].



I wasn't thrashing in all directions, however the tone of your post did set the tone of mine... Unless it's a case of mistaken tone identity? It's always possible on the net since it is often hard to discern.

Unfortunately, not all states are like that, but the those with Castle doctrine make it easier for the homeowner to defend themselves and their family from the initial attacker, but also helps protect them from prosecution and lawsuits from the attackers family.


If I have to shoot someone in self defense, I won't be proud of it, but I certainly won't care if they die. After all, if I was forced to shoot, it would be in a life threatening scenario - mine/my wife or theirs.

Perhaps there is some confusion when you read about those who say that it's much easier if they do die, rather than if they live and run off? Often times that can muddy the waters and make your legal defense tougher, as now there's two stories.









Originally Posted By: Mystic
I don't think it is good to bring up stuff like the abortion issue in posts here. Because talk about stuff like that brings up issues that are not allowed like religion and politics. I have my own views on abortion but I am not going to bring them up here.

Any discussion that has religion and politics in it is likely to get locked up.


Which why I initially said that it was beyond the scope of this thread and not a topic for this board, at least publicly. However people kept bringing it up, so I gave my opinion and said that the religious aspects should be kept out of this thread. It's not productive to drive a thread into a lock...

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
Do you think it is acceptable to kill someone in the back as they exit your home with some valuables?

Many people see property as different from "in fear of life". The thing they miss is that property is obtained from your labor, which is gains from your working time on this planet, which is limited.

So when someone steals items from you, they are really stealing part of your limited time on earth. IMHO, property crimes are just as much a shootable offense as is a direct assault.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
And what we have found, that, now, with the AR-15, they have a slide stock which you put in. It's legal. And it makes the gun act fully automatic.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-575...burn/?pageNum=2

Shows how absolutely ignorant and dishonest anti-gunners are.

 

[Mystic]

I see this sort of stuff all the time. A lot of these anti-gun people have totally no clue about guns whatsoever. For example they don't know that automatic weapons are not illegal in the USA. People with special permits can actually have one.

And they think that the banning of guns would somehow be a magic bullet and stop or greatly lower crime. It is much more complex than that. We need better mental health in the USA (which we have no way to fund), better protection at schools, and probably a moral code taught in the schools. We have to even look at our failing educational system (which the government has no clue how to fix), and high unemployment rates. Crime would probably go down if there was even more employment.

In China a man injured several students in a school with a knife. We can't ban knives. If somebody was really determined to make a name for myself by killing a lot of students he could find a way-maybe drive an automobile through a lot of students or use a knife, a baseball bat, or explosives. Or set a school on fire.

I know some other things about some of these mass killers and teenage kids who murder their parents and families. But I can't bring it up here. It involves certain belief systems, etc.

 

[another Todd]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I think anti-depressants and other psych drugs might be responsible. People assume that medications make people with mental illness less dangerous but often times it's just the oposite. Of course healthcare and pharmaceuticals have so much power and wealth it's rarely mentioned.


The following taken from Patriot Action Network.

Guns don't kill people, antidepressants do!


This is stunning. I hope the ignoramuses in Congress see it, but then they won't act for another 15 or 20 years even if they do.


Pretty interesting info...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



School Shooting Prozac WITHDRAWAL 2008-02-15 Illinois ** 6 Dead: 15 Wounded: Perpetrator Was in Withdrawal from Med & Acting Erratically


School Shooting Prozac Antidepressant 2005-03-24 Minnesota **10 Dead: 7 Wounded: Dosage Increased One Week before Rampage


School Shooting Paxil [Seroxat] Antidepressant 2001-03-10 Pennsylvania **14 Year Old GIRL Shoots & Wounds Classmate at Catholic School


School Shooting Zoloft Antidepressant & ADHD Med 2011-07-11 Alabama **14 Year Old Kills Fellow Middle School Student


School Shooting Zoloft Antidepressant 1995-10-12 South Carolina **15 Year Old Shoots Two Teachers, Killing One: Then Kills Himself


School Shooting Med For Depression 2009-03-13 Germany **16 Dead Including Shooter: Antidepressant Use: Shooter in Treatment For Depression


School Hostage Situation Med For Depression 2010-12-15 France **17 Year Old with Sword Holds 20 Children & Teacher Hostage


School Shooting Plot Med For Depression WITHDRAWAL 2008-08-28 Texas **18 Year Old Plots a Columbine School Attack


School Shooting Anafranil Antidepressant 1988-05-20 Illinois **29 Year Old WOMAN Kills One Child: Wounds Five: Kills Self


School Shooting Luvox/Zoloft Antidepressants 1999-04-20 Colorado **COLUMBINE: 15 Dead: 24 Wounded


School Stabbings Antidepressants 2001-06-09 Japan **Eight Dead: 15 Wounded: Assailant Had Taken 10 Times his Normal Dose of Depression Med


School Shooting Prozac Antidepressant WITHDRAWAL 1998-05-21 Oregon **Four Dead: Twenty Injured


School Stabbing Med For Depression 2011-10-25 Washington **Girl, 15, Stabs Two Girls in School Restroom: 1 Is In Critical Condition


School Shooting Antidepressant 2006-09-30 Colorado **Man Assaults Girls: Kills One & Self


School Machete Attack Med for Depression 2001-09-26 Pennsylvania **Man Attacks 11 Children & 3 Teachers at Elementary School


School Shooting Related Luvox 1993-07-23 Florida **Man Commits Murder During Clinical Trial for Luvox: Same Drug as in COLUMBINE: Never Reported


School Hostage Situation Cymbalta Antidepressant WITHDRAWAL 2009-11-09 New York **Man With Gun Inside School Holds Principal Hostage


School Shooting Antidepressants 1992-09-20 Texas **Man, Angry Over Daughter's Report Card, Shoots 14 Rounds inside Elementary School


School Shooting SSRI 2010-02-19 Finland **On Sept. 23, 2008 a Finnish Student Shot & Killed 9 Students Before Killing Himself


School Shooting Threat Med for Depression* 2004-10-19 New Jersey **Over-Medicated Teen Brings Loaded Handguns to School


School Shooting Antidepressant? 2007-04-18 Virginia **Possible SSRI Use: 33 Dead at Virginia Tech


School Shooting Antidepressant? 2002-01-17 Virginia **Possible SSRI Withdrawal Mania: 3 Dead at Law School


School Incident/Bizarre Zoloft* 2010-08-22 Australia **School Counselor Exhibits Bizarre Behavior: Became Manic On Zoloft


School/Assault Antidepressant 2009-11-04 California **School Custodian Assaults Student & Principal: Had Manic Reaction From Depression Med


School Shooting Prozac Antidepressant 1992-01-30 Michigan **School Teacher Shoots & Kills His Superintendent at School


School Shooting Threats Celexa Antidepressant 2010-01-25 Virginia **Senior in High School Theatens to Kill 4 Classmates: Facebook Involved: Bail Denied


School Violence/Murder Antidepressants* 1998-05-04 New York **Sheriff's Deputy Shoots his Wife in an Elementary School


School Knifing/Murder Meds For Depression & ADHD 2010-04-28 Massachusetts **Sixteen Year Old Kills 15 Year Old in High School Bathroom in Sept. 2009


School Stabbing Wellbutrin 2006-12-04 Indiana **Stabbing by 17 Year Old At High School: Charged with Attempted Murder


School Threat Antidepressants 2007-04-23 Mississippi **Student Arrested for Making School Threat Over Internet


School Suspension Lexapro Antidepressant 2007-07-28 Arkansas **Student Has 11 Incidents with Police During his 16 Months on Lexapro


School Shooting Antidepressant WITHDRAWAL 2007-11-07 Finland **Student Kills 8: Wounds 10: Kills Self: High School in Finland


School Shooting Paxil [Seroxat] Antidepressant 2004-02-09 New York **Student Shoots Teacher in Leg at School


School Threat Prozac Antidepressant 2008-01-25 Washington **Student Takes Loaded Shotgun & 3 Rifles to School Parking Lot: Plans Suicide


School Shooting Plot Med For Depression 1998-12-01 Wisconsin **Teen Accused of Plotting to Gun Down Students at School


School/Assault Zoloft Antidepressant 2006-02-15 Tennessee **Teen Attacks Teacher at School


School Shooting Threat Antidepressant 1999-04-16 Idaho **Teen Fires Gun in School


School Hostage Situation Paxil & Effexor Antidepressants 2001-04-15 Washington **Teen Holds Classmates Hostage with a Gun


School Hostage Situation Antidepressant WITHDRAWAL 2006-11-28

 

[Mystic]

That is a lot of documentation! And the drug companies of course do have tremendous power.

Where I live there is an old mental hospital (still in operation) that at one time had 6000 patients. They were overcrowded. They reduced the population by decentralization (patients going to other facilities near their homes) and by drugs. Drugs were sort of the new technology to replace lobotomies. As long as patients stayed on the drugs a lot of them were able to leave the hospital. Sort of a different technique for warehousing in the general community instead of in the hospital.

Now the hospital has about 500-600 patients and there are several small prisons there-about 5-6 prisons.

It usually seems like there are no problems as long as the patient has the correct amount of medication and correct medication and stays on the medication. But I don't think the mental illness is really dealt with either.

And withdrawal from the medications certainly can cause problems.

There are other issues too that cannot be talked about here. Some of these mass murderers and teenage kids who kill their parents and families have dark belief systems. But we have to stay away from that. I have some connections with people who work now at the state hospital or did work there. Keep one thing in mind-the mentally ill actually have a lower crime rate than the general population.

Anyway, the medication really does not cure the mental illness.

 

[MinamiKotaro]

There are two ways antidepressants can be very dangerous: 1) if you suddenly quit taking them or 2) you didn't need them in the first place.

I am on antidepressants and they have made all the difference in my life. Going on them is not a decision that should be made lightly, going off them after you've started even moreso.

 

[MrHorspwer]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
And what we have found, that, now, with the AR-15, they have a slide stock which you put in. It's legal. And it makes the gun act fully automatic.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-575...burn/?pageNum=2

Shows how absolutely ignorant and dishonest anti-gunners are.


I have to ask: What is ignorant and dishonest about what was said?

Anybody who understands how a semi-auto rifle operates, the AR15 in particular, understands that it can be "bump-fired". Using it's own recoil, it can cycle rounds without the operator having to move his finger. Yes, the trigger is still cycling for each shot, but the gun's recoil, not the operator's finger, is cycling the trigger.



That is the stock in question. It remains a semi-auto rifle, but watching the action of the stock and how it responds to recoil shows how bump firing can be used for automatic operation of a semi-auto firearm.

Is it legal? Yes. Does it make the gun act like a fully automatic firearm? Based on the video above, yes.

That is what was said: It is legal and it makes the gun act like a fully automatic. I understand that in conflicts with your agenda, but where is the lie?

 

[Shannow]

the trigger is still cycled for each and every shot fired...therefore semi-auto, and legal...just like painting something black makes it "resemble" a spec ops thing when it is clearly not.

 

[Fleetmon]

They require a concentrated effort to fire "like a full-auto) and are very difficult to control....not from recoil but due to the unnatural trigger finger position and difficult to aim, much like a true full-auto. Wacko's don't use full auto firearms because they are almost unobtainable and cannot be used effectively against single targets. (I own slide-fire stocks for both an AR and an AK and have used them enough to be somewhat knowledgable on the subject....something my wallet can attest to).

Full-auto firearms are NOT like you see on TV....they run out of ammunition VERY quickly and get extremely hot. A lot of times you see the bad guys rattling off shots (rarely do you ever see them change magazines), grabbing the firearm by the barrel and running off to shoot some more....I GUARANTEE, even with gloves, you will blister your hand grabbing an AR or AK after a full mag on auto-fire....they get very hot firing as semi-auto. The other downside is they frequently jam unless kept meticulously clean and lubed...something wacko's are not known to do or even know how to do.

SH is a case of a [censored]-poor mother that failed to properly secure her firearms, not only from her demented (and known) son, but from the potential for theft....SHE is the main cause of this. She discussed with her son, the great possibility of him being committed for further treatment and she didn't think that news was going to [censored] him off???? Had he not had access to the firearms he might have used a bat, or bricks, or rocks...who knows? Of course he might not have been able to do the damage he did without access to firearms but the firearms didn't do it, his mother did and he was the one pulling the trigger.

 

[zerosoma]

Originally Posted By: The_Eric

My two cents are as follows...

First and foremost, you liken it to being our own god and mention spiritual this or that. It's not a matter of that. Maybe to you, but not to everyone. It's very similar to the "anti's" who feel that guns are wrong and nobody should have them. How do you feel about that? It's a personal decision not to be made arbitrarily by another person. Don't use your god to impose rules on others - keep him out of my life and off of this forum. My own moral compass works fine, thank you...


Ah! A relativist! I knew it.

 

[The_Eric]

So in light of my relativistic nature, you feel that it's okay for you to make my decisions for me and impose your own standards? What if the tables were turned?

Let me get this straight. You want the ability to dictate what others do with their bodies but it's not okay for those who oppose firearms to attempt to ban them? Seems like a double standard, unless I've missed something.

Also since we are really pushing board rules here, if you are interested in continuing down this path, you should pm me if you're interested in further discussion.

 

[zerosoma]

Pushing board rules we are. I could continue arguing until I was blue in the face but it would make no difference. We'd just end up wasting time. Unfortunately the world is made up with lots of clashing issues and we can't all agree. I guess I can't live with the theory that there is no absolute resolution of truth.

I resolve not to argue from this point on. However I do retract my comment about always thinking you were a cool dude. You get bent out of shape pretty quick.

 

[The_Eric]

Originally Posted By: zerosoma
Pushing board rules we are. I could continue arguing until I was blue in the face but it would make no difference. We'd just end up wasting time. Unfortunately the world is made up with lots of clashing issues and we can't all agree. I guess I can't live with the theory that there is no absolute resolution of truth.

I resolve not to argue from this point on. However I do retract my comment about always thinking you were a cool dude. You get bent out of shape pretty quick.



Oh don't worry, I'm not getting bent. I tend to be fairly direct and it can be hard to properly convey emotion. Just as you are passionate about your beliefs, I'm passionate about mine and while I don't expect you to suddenly change yours, I was hoping you'd view and accept mine as my own and not necessarily wrong. It's a big world out there and our individual beliefs are but a very small part of it. I wouldn't consider faulting others for theirs as long as they remained their own.