filtherton

Fine, prepare to be impressed. Go back and mentally replace everywhere i said "human" with "alive". POW!

Because it is.

I have my clarity and it is this: discussions about controversial issues on internet message boards are generally useless. People actively engaged in these discussions fall into three camps: 1. Those who want their own opinions on above mentioned controversial issue validated; 2. Those who want their own opinions on the irrationality of anyone who doesn't agree with them validated; and 3. Those who pretend that they haven't made up their minds yet. The members of these groups will attempt to gain validation from each other through a process consisting of repeated reassertion of various rationalized and rephrased statements. These statements will be based on ultimately subjective underlying assumptions; despite this fact, statements often will be made as though they represent absolute truth/morality. Typical interactions occur. Side A starts by setting up a framework for the discussion. This framework is most often just rephrasing of one of the central themes of their position. Sometimes the initial framework is rejected by the opposing team. If Side B finds the framework acceptable it then works within this framework to try assert that, no, in fact Side A is wrong. Sometimes side B then sets of the framework for side A to try to dismantle. The sides repeat this process over and over and over again until one of them quits. No one is ever convinced of anything, but that's okay because the vast majority of the participants were just after some sort of validation and you don't need to convince the other side to feel validated, you just have to convince yourself that the only reason they don't agree with you is because they, in some remote way, suck.

Not really.

No thanks. No offense, but i kind of feel like it would be a waste of both of our time.