The NRA is retarded.

Ouiji wrote:

Butterflygoddess wrote:

Ouiji wrote:

*sighs* Sorry

What you sorry for, Wheej?

Didn't mean to upset anyone

Wheej. You are like one of the sweetest people on this forum.

Stay gold.

Tank Abuse wrote:

You're right, I don't. As a matter of fact, I'm still eagerly awaiting the day when Hasbro either shuts down completely or fucks up MLP so bad that bronies, cloppers and clop artists implode with rage, and then finally simmer out like a dying flame and finally melt into the background like every other annoying thing on the internet that was once over-hyped for no particular reason whatsoever.

I posted this on reddit to invalidate it.

(My favorite part about you is that you always keep posts on topic.)

Ouiji wrote:

*sighs* Sorry

Oh, you don't have to apologize for upsetting people in the Angry Dome. Especially in a topic that's such a hot-button issue. People are gonna get offended. It happens.

It especially happens to Wolf-Bone. No offense, Wolf-Bone.

Wuffie, it's cool man. My only response to the MLP thing is that I don't get the appeal. I feel like a group of stoned dudes got together, lost the remote to the television, and ended up having to watch MLP. And from then on, they spread the word of MLP on the internet where people hopped aboard the band wagon because reasons.

Now back on topic. I read some really good points. Ouiji pointed out that gun bans would really do nothing in the way of preventing mass killings. People who are in disturbed states of mind will find a way to harm others. I mean, just the past week or so, I read a story about how this guy in China, went into a primary school and started hacking and slashing kids with a kitchen knife.

Some people are just fucking nuts. And gun owners shouldn't be stigmatized because of what some psychotic asshole does. Because I too enjoy my guns. And this whole talk about banning certain types, I think is a bit of an overreaction to the problem.

And Butters over there, Hi Butters , also brought up something good. We shouldn't be having guns in school PERIOD. In fact, there are some places that guns shouldn't be allowed in. Schools, hospitals, libraries, etc. So yeah...totally agree with ya Butters.

So many more points to go over. If this gets some more replies, I'd be happy to talk some more about the line that needs to be treaded when it comes to issues such as these.

Riv wrote:

It especially happens to Wolf-Bone. No offense, Wolf-Bone.

Actually what happens is I ask questions that really vex me, that I think really deserve answers because I know I'm not the only one who wonders shit like how the hell Liberals are basically fascists with smiles on, or how anyone with half a brain thinks Obama (or basically any Democrat) is a Liberal. And then people assume I'm this big angry scary black man, er, wuff, attacking them and not the absurdity I perceive in a lot of these ideas - ideas I know aren't entirely representative of that person's views (let alone their worth as a person). And then, somehow, it becomes my fault not only that I'm offended, if I even really am, but that this other person feels I am and is in turn offended themselves.

I really, really wish I truly wielded the kind of power people ascribe to me because then I think I'd have about half my problems with these things solved, and there'd be no reason for me to ask the kinds of questions I'm talking about in the first place.

Wuffie is indeed a big scary black man. True story brah.

Riv wrote:

Tank Abuse wrote:

You're right, I don't. As a matter of fact, I'm still eagerly awaiting the day when Hasbro either shuts down completely or fucks up MLP so bad that bronies, cloppers and clop artists implode with rage, and then finally simmer out like a dying flame and finally melt into the background like every other annoying thing on the internet that was once over-hyped for no particular reason whatsoever.

I posted this on reddit to invalidate it.

(My favorite part about you is that you always keep posts on topic.)

Ouiji wrote:

*sighs* Sorry

Oh, you don't have to apologize for upsetting people in the Angry Dome. Especially in a topic that's such a hot-button issue. People are gonna get offended. It happens.

It especially happens to Wolf-Bone. No offense, Wolf-Bone.

I hope the users of a site I don't go to got a kick out of it.

Wolf-Bone wrote:

Actually what happens is I ask questions that really vex me, that I think really deserve answers because I know I'm not the only one who wonders shit like how the hell Liberals are basically fascists with smiles on, or how anyone with half a brain thinks Obama (or basically any Democrat) is a Liberal.

Fascism just comes in many flavors: indirect control of the state by
the most wealthy/powerful, totalitarian dictatorships, economic
enslavement through state ownership of all resources, media outfits,
etc; the list could go on forever really.

Fascism is the most extreme expression of left-wing political views, just as anarchy is the most extreme expression of right wing political views. Both parties in the United States lean more and more left, but take different roads to the end. Words like "liberal" and "conservative" have just become synonymous with left-wing and right-wing respectively because most people don't know ANYTHING about political philosophy; it would take me way longer than I would want to make any post to untangle the web of misnomers thrown around in political discourse, but I suspect you know most if not all the same shit I do anyway. Suffice to say though that Liberalism as a philosophy supports a limited government and individual liberties.

One of the funniest things to me is that conservatives (and others :V) will often use Liberal and Socialist as synonyms even though liberalism is in direct conflict with socialism;

Quote :

And then people assume I'm this big angry scary black man, er, wuff, attacking them and not the absurdity I perceive in a lot of these ideas - ideas I know aren't entirely representative of that person's views (let alone their worth as a person). And then, somehow, it becomes my fault not only that I'm offended, if I even really am, but that this other person feels I am and is in turn offended themselves.

I really, really wish I truly wielded the kind of power people
ascribe to me because then I think I'd have about half my problems with
these things solved, and there'd be no reason for me to ask the kinds of
questions I'm talking about in the first place.

Yes, people become so emotionally attached to their ideas that an attack on their ideas becomes an attack on them as a person. It's a never-ending source of my own personal frustration because I end up having to qualify every statement with "I'm not saying you're a total dumbass, but..." just because they hold some beliefs that seem plainly stupid to me.

I just sort of naturally assume that when someone calls me an idiot because I say something it's because they think what I said was stupid, not because they believe me to be a total moron. It's more likely I'm projecting though because projection being what it is I'm sure that they truly mean to imply that I am wholly an idiot because I was incorrect about some random piece of knowledge (since they seem believe that is what I mean to imply); maybe I should start taking those slights more seriously after-all. :V

More on topic though, the NRA is a bunch of weasel-tongued scumbags like [s]most[/s] all interest groups, and all of the firearms enthusiasts I know personally are ashamed to have them representing them.

I hate talking about this subject though because it really feels to me like the whole 'gun control debate' is contrived; it feels the gun control lobbyists woke up that morning and creamed their pants for a chance to push their agenda, and the bodies weren't even cold before the NRA started up their shit-spewing too. There would be nowhere near this amount of political uproar if this was done in any other way, or if the victims weren't all young children. Emotions get attached and nobody wants to be that guy who "doesn't want to ban guns because he doesn't care if children get murdered in cold blood".

The issue of this tragedy at the core is that enough people aren't asking the right questions.

"What the fuck is wrong with this country when people like this shooter are becoming more and more common and no one is around to do anything about it?"

"Why are all these mass murderers some of the brightest and most intelligent people in their respective environments?"

"What the fuck is wrong with this country when people commit copycat shootings/threads for celebrity status?"

"What the fuck is wrong with this country when shit like this gets sensationalized to fuck and back and the shooter becomes a household name while the victims are 'the dead kids'?"

"When did this become responsible journalism?"

There are so many more too and some even more profound, but none of them center on the question of gun control in my mind. I have tired myself out these last couple of days talking to people who want to make that the big question that I am long past the desire to talk about it though(unless someone REALLY wants to champion the idea that it is).

That NRA press conference was terrible. I don't know whether to be more disgusted by the elitist, ignorant, reactionary tendencies of coffee-shop intellectuals or by the absolutely ludicrous hypocrisy, insanity, and stupidity of the people who have, by merit of the bizarre political tribalism in this country, come to be the representatives of (what ought to be) rational positions.

Anyway, don't fucking talk to me.

A group of paranoid gun-fetishists saying dumb things.

Boy is that a surprise.

They made a big deal of making this huge database of people with mental health issues, even those who have never offended. You know, for a group that claims to be all about liberty against tyranny they sure are fascist in their methods.

Zara, I'm sorry, but until you realize that you're speaking from a uniquely and strictly American bastardization of the very concepts of Left and Right, we simply cannot have any meaningful discussion here. Could left-wing politics lead to a totalitarian, dystopic police states? Sure, they do all the time, but because they're corruptions or outright betrayals of those ideals. But Fascism is right-wing, and has been known as such from the start. You could pontificate all you want about the subtle difference between Communism as the Soviet Union or Fascism as Mussolini's Italy, but they're both totalitarian. It's only you Americans who seem to get confused on this. Maybe certain right-wing ideals are indeed more about personal liberty than certain left-wing ideals, but not only do I doubt that, it's obvious to pretty much everyone but you that in practice, the distinctions in rhetoric don't mean squat in practice.

I had a longer (and in my opinion more precise) post written and then I clicked something that took me off the page and it's all gone so lets see if I can construct something that will express the same idea :V

Right wing politics support social inequality and left-wing politics support egalitarianism, in a nutshell. if I am wrong on either of those counts then I suppose that everything I say is flawed from the premise, but you'd have a difficult time convincing me otherwise.

All government systems that end in totalitarianism are betrayals of left-wing ideals because the large and powerful expressions of government that come about are only possible through left-wing policies. The theoretical right wing supports smaller government because their end-goal requires no government intervention. inequality is the only natural result of human civilization; human beings are selfish, greedy creatures by design and there is absolutely no left-wing ideology that isn't completely ground in fantasy or false assumptions about the human spirit.

Fascism can only result from corruption from within a government large enough to execute the measures which create a police state, the government powerful enough to do that only comes from the implementation of left-wing policies which require the individual to relinquish freedom to the government in exchange for social support. The more reliant Joe Average is on the government to maintain his standard of living, the more susceptible he is to being controlled by a theoretical fascist corruption of that government.

Centrism is the attempt to find the middle ground in between equality and inequality for the sake of providing the most freedom possible while also having a government that can maintain a reasonable degree of social welfare.

The far right wingers who have huge boners for minimalistic government and the free market are not supporting fascism, or espousing any ideas that could result in fascism. They are only supporting (perhaps unwittingly) a social dynamic in which the elite rule and inevitably oppress the proletariat.

The far left wingers who believe that social equality will result from government regulation and state involvement in wealth redistribution are -all- unwittingly supporting fascism, the government is run by people, and giving the government enough power to artificially create a socialist/communist state is to make those who serve in that government more powerful than the proletariat. Eventually someone will do what humans do best, and capitalize on the power they are given to reign in a totalitarian state.

It is not merely that left-wing ideals are betrayed, it is that they are doomed to betrayal no matter what.

.... So basically you support your fascism because it's not their fascism. And you don't believe in things like, I dunno, accountability, rule of law, checks and balances, you know, shit that happens to be why our society isn't quite as totalitarian as your paranoid political fantasies think it's doomed to be - or perhaps the very thought gives you a boner, I can't really tell at this point. All I know is you sound like you're on some Glenn Beck shit right now. Right-wing beliefs are every bit as whimsical, fantastic and fallacious as those of the left. "The Market will take care of it". Fuck off. The Market isn't a thing, or a force of nature, or Santa Clause, or whatever the hell these idiots believe it is. And they believe in "private charities" to fill the gap left by the systems "The Market decided" were needed in the first place.

Both sides, at their extremes, want to shape the world into something far different than what it is and perhaps what it can be. But you can at least get the fucking delusions of each right.

Wolf-Bone wrote:

.... So basically you support your fascism because it's not their fascism. And you don't believe in things like, I dunno, accountability, rule of law, checks and balances, you know, shit that happens to be why our society isn't quite as totalitarian as your paranoid political fantasies think it's doomed to be - or perhaps the very thought gives you a boner, I can't really tell at this point. All I know is you sound like you're on some Glenn Beck shit right now. Right-wing beliefs are every bit as whimsical, fantastic and fallacious as those of the left. "The Market will take care of it". Fuck off. The Market isn't a thing, or a force of nature, or Santa Clause, or whatever the hell these idiots believe it is. And they believe in "private charities" to fill the gap left by the systems "The Market decided" were needed in the first place.

Both sides, at their extremes, want to shape the world into something far different than what it is and perhaps what it can be. But you can at least get the fucking delusions of each right.

What is my fascism Wolf-Bone? I don't know where in my posts I ever claimed to be a supporter of either form of extremism so I'm not really sure if I can even argue against whatever it is you're arguing.

I flat out stated that total government removal from the "free market" results in inequality and oppression of the working class by the elite, I don't know how you could assert in any context that I supported that or implied it was not whimsical.

I (not-so)simply stated that totalitarian states do not arise out of small government and deregulation.

Zaraphayx wrote:

What is my fascism Wolf-Bone? I don't know where in my posts I ever claimed to be a supporter of either form of extremism so I'm not really sure if I can even argue against whatever it is you're arguing.

I flat out stated that total government removal from the "free market" results in inequality and oppression of the working class by the elite, I don't know how you could assert in any context that I supported that or implied it was not whimsical.

I (no-so)simply stated that totalitarian states do not arise out of small government and deregulation.

You don't exactly oppose it, either, it seems, and then go on to say pretty much anything left-wing is the product of complete fantasy, which sounds like pretty typical American bullshit. The only difference with you is you think both parties are moving further to the left when everyone else, even many Americans, think it's actually one party going extreme right/corporatist and manipulating the other party and the public to "meet them in the middle", which only moves them to the right. So you're just way out in left field there, no pun intended, unless just about everyone in the world but you is wrong.

If Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, and Stalin's USSR had nothing else in common, they had one thing in common that rendered everything else moot, and that was government and enterprise being way, way too close in both relationship and function. It's for these reasons that it doesn't matter much whether China is only Communist in rhetoric, or American corporations are "private entities". Any great concentration of power in too few hands = Oligarchy. It is a form of government whether or not the people under it want to believe it is, as is the case with Americans and their bizarro "free market" ideals.

You could completely obliterate government as we know it and all that would happen is corporations would fill the void, essentially making them the government. Anarchy is nothing but a means to an end in the real world. Now, you can say 'til the cows come home it's a means to an end of the right, and somehow, therefor, a right-wing idea, but I think many if not most self-identifying anarchists would disagree with you, saying it's either leftist or not applicable, being a non-system, in theory. But even if leftists, by definition, are pro-government, that doesn't mean they favor any government, or oppose individual and civil liberty. Indeed, they believe government can be a means of protecting those things. They don't tend to like government when it doesn't. And I know why. Because it makes government just seem like another corporation...

You're welcome!

Wolf-Bone wrote:

You don't exactly oppose it, either, it seems, and then go on to say pretty much anything left-wing is the product of complete fantasy, which sounds like pretty typical American bullshit. The only difference with you is you think both parties are moving further to the left when everyone else, even many Americans, think it's actually one party going extreme right/corporatist and manipulating the other party and the public to "meet them in the middle", which only moves them to the right. So you're just way out in left field there, no pun intended, unless just about everyone in the world but you is wrong.

That's a grave assumption you're making. I focused on the negative outcomes of left-wing practices because I felt it necessary to explain why I thought that you were incorrect in stating that left-wing politics was 'an okay idea but was corrupted by bad people' like it's common for people to say in defense of socialism.

People are innately and inherently corruptible, I do not trust anyone with a significant amount of power to not be corrupt and morally bankrupt under the right conditions: this includes politicians and corporate heads.

Honestly, the government in this country gets bigger every year and has been doing this for a while regardless of which party is in office or has the majority. Corporate America controlling the government is not the result of smaller government, it's the result of the government getting intermingled with corporate interests to the point where there is no distinction; the deregulation is a result of that, not the cause; it's an issue far beyond the simple 'left vs right' dichotomy.

It's an almost poetic inversion of communism in that the means of production end up controlling the public.

Quote :

If Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, and Stalin's USSR had nothing else in common, they had one thing in common that rendered everything else moot, and that was government and enterprise being way, way too close in both relationship and function. It's for these reasons that it doesn't matter much whether China is only Communist in rhetoric, or American corporations are "private entities". Any great concentration of power in too few hands = Oligarchy. It is a form of government whether or not the people under it want to believe it is, as is the case with Americans and their bizarro "free market" ideals.

I'm not sure if you actually believe that anarcho-capitalism is a purely American view and that everyone in America holds it as the one true answer to all political problems, or if you're just using it as some sort of rhetorical point to taunt me for being born on the "wrong" side of the International Boundary.

Quote :

You could completely obliterate government as we know it and all that would happen is corporations would fill the void, essentially making them the government. Anarchy is nothing but a means to an end in the real world. Now, you can say 'til the cows come home it's a means to an end of the right, and somehow, therefor, a right-wing idea, but I think many if not most self-identifying anarchists would disagree with you, saying it's either leftist or not applicable, being a non-system, in theory. But even if leftists, by definition, are pro-government, that doesn't mean they favor any government, or oppose individual and civil liberty. Indeed, they believe government can be a means of protecting those things. They don't tend to like government when it doesn't. And I know why. Because it makes government just seem like another corporation...

I already said the exact same thing only I used the term "Elite" to describe the ruling class in a far-right system. You can call them corporations, or monarchies, or even just 'the guys with all the money, resources, and weapons' and it means the same thing. In the absence of government regulation whoever has the most economic power will invariably rule over the rest.

Anarchy does not exist as a pure system in anything but theory because civilized people will always gravitate towards order. It's the result of a lack of a governing body and it is almost always the precursor to another form of government, the particulars of which are dependent on the circumstances.

As for the bolded part of your post, I am very aware of that. I do not think that anyone except those who are potential wielders of government power want the government to become so powerful as to take away their liberties. I believe the problem lies in the fact that they have idealistic views of government in the same vein as libertarians who have idealistic views of the free market. If those who participate in democratic government were fully aware of what is and what isn't a functioning balance of government power and all acted in the best interests of the average citizen we would not be having this conversation.

The idea I'm trying to express here is that while I agree with you that government can (and has been) be used as a tool for protecting the liberties of it's citizens, it is (and again, has been) the most powerful weapon of oppression that exists and should be regarded accordingly. Leaning too far away from the center in either case opens the door to some very bad possibilities.

Quote :

You're welcome!

Okay.

God forbid I wouldn't have a violent hatred for Socialists. You know, guys like George Orwell, who wrote the fucking book on bad socialism. He never stopped being a socialist even if he tempered his socialism with the experiences he'd had living amongst the other half of his kind. I'm not saying he was necessarily right about Democratic Socialism being the best path (or even an attainable one), I'm saying he was a guy who had every reason in the world to become the kind of paranoid right winger who completely disowns socialism, government, and not being a complete douchebag in the name of "freedom". And yet he didn't. Probably because he was as much a satirist and a language nut as a pundit, if not more.

I've tried to learn from his example, and that of people like him. People I respect, because I believe they want what's right and have a few decent ideas of how to get there. And that's why I think it's important words mean what the fuck they're supposed to mean and people understand fundamentally flawed doesn't = beyond hope or repair.

I'm sorry, I just don't think socialism = we all turn into Russian gooks who eat a lot of rice and ban all religion except worship of the state and its Glorious Leader, Chairman Ching Chong Smirnoffsky. We don't live in the fucking Cold War anymore, let alone World War II.

You seem to have a violent hatred for individualism though despite the fact that in an equally idyllic world people wouldn't just screw each-other over for marginal short-term gain in pursuit of their own interests.

The fact is that no matter how pretty a picture you try to paint, the world is full of myopic, selfish people who all think they have the best interests of others at heart because it's implicit that what they want is what everyone else wants or worse; they believe that what is good for them is good for everyone else too.

I am wary of socialism just as I am of libertarianism, and it's not that I've completely disowned government because I am paranoid or clinging to some romanticist notion of freedom. It's because I have read the history and I have heard some of the things people have said, or still say today and they scare me. They scare me because they are said with such conviction and assurance the likes of which I cannot fathom having about almost anything much less the 'roles' we are supposed to play in governance.

Although Chairman Ching Chong Smirnoffsky made me laugh and I fully intend to use it in the future.

Zaraphayx wrote:

You seem to have a violent hatred for individualism

What an idiot.

Wolf-Bone wrote:

Zaraphayx wrote:

You seem to have a violent hatred for individualism

What an idiot.

I love you too.

I could have worded that better probably. :[

Edit: Let me recant that part of my post and say that what I perceive you to have is a violent hatred for anyone who values their own interests above the common good.

You use libertarian as a slur much like socialist is used in American political discourse, as if the very notion that someone wants the government to keep their nose out of their business is indicative of some sinister sociopathic desires that they are hiding.

I might be wrong in this assumption, but you were wrong in almost all of yours about me so I guess I don't feel bad about it :V

Mussolini hangs from a butcher's hook.

Zaraphayx wrote:

Wolf-Bone wrote:

Zaraphayx wrote:

You seem to have a violent hatred for individualism

What an idiot.

I love you too.

I could have worded that better probably. :[

Edit: Let me recant that part of my post and say that what I perceive you to have is a violent hatred for anyone who values their own interests above the common good.

You use libertarian as a slur much like socialist is used in American political discourse, as if the very notion that someone wants the government to keep their nose out of their business is indicative of some sinister sociopathic desires that they are hiding.

I might be wrong in this assumption, but you were wrong in almost all of yours about me so I guess I don't feel bad about it :V

The reason I loath them is because of the massive hypocrisy of their views and the way they abuse the very word "liberty". They believe in "personal responsibility" for everyone but themselves. To them, personal responsibility means "I'm not responsible, personally, for my part in the messes you are responsible for cleaning up because they've impacted you, personally. I'm perfectly happy to wallow in my own filth and it's your problem that you have a problem with the smell and overflow seeping into your backyard".

To them, "liberty" means the liberty of themselves and, more specifically, corporations, to trample on the liberty of others. Of course, they won't say what they're really about is corporate rights above the rights of individuals, because, well, that's not what libertarian means to the rest of the fucking world, and even in America, I don't think most folks could support that without the kinds of mental gymnastics that would just as easily suit them to, say, Communism.

Basically my problem with you is that, like a lot of Americans, you live and think according to those peculiar American twists on words and concepts the rest of the world had more or less reached a consensus on a long time ago, confusing the fuck out of everyone and thinking we're all so odd for being confused - when you're not mistaking it for the world being awestruck at your awesomeness, anyway.

Wolf-Bone wrote:

Zaraphayx wrote:

Wolf-Bone wrote:

Zaraphayx wrote:

You seem to have a violent hatred for individualism

What an idiot.

I love you too.

I could have worded that better probably. :[

Edit: Let me recant that part of my post and say that what I perceive you to have is a violent hatred for anyone who values their own interests above the common good.

You use libertarian as a slur much like socialist is used in American political discourse, as if the very notion that someone wants the government to keep their nose out of their business is indicative of some sinister sociopathic desires that they are hiding.

I might be wrong in this assumption, but you were wrong in almost all of yours about me so I guess I don't feel bad about it :V

The reason I loath them is because of the massive hypocrisy of their views and the way they abuse the very word "liberty". They believe in "personal responsibility" for everyone but themselves. To them, personal responsibility means "I'm not responsible, personally, for my part in the messes you are responsible for cleaning up because they've impacted you, personally. I'm perfectly happy to wallow in my own filth and it's your problem that you have a problem with the smell and overflow seeping into your backyard".

To them, "liberty" means the liberty of themselves and, more specifically, corporations, to trample on the liberty of others. Of course, they won't say what they're really about is corporate rights above the rights of individuals, because, well, that's not what libertarian means to the rest of the fucking world, and even in America, I don't think most folks could support that without the kinds of mental gymnastics that would just as easily suit them to, say, Communism.

Basically my problem with you is that, like a lot of Americans, you live and think according to those peculiar American twists on words and concepts the rest of the world had more or less reached a consensus on a long time ago, confusing the fuck out of everyone and thinking we're all so odd for being confused - when you're not mistaking it for the world being awestruck at your awesomeness, anyway.

If there's anything this thread has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt it's that you really have no idea what I believe, but you have a very active imagination.

Zaraphayx wrote:

If there's anything this thread has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt it's that you really have no idea what I believe, but you have a very active imagination.

Yeah, and that's the wonderful thing. I actually open up about what the fuck I believe, make it known where I stand, you know, the kind of shit normal people try to do to make these discussions more than one guy getting to pretend how smart and mysterious he is while the other guy tries to get at something resembling the truth. I do indeed have a very active imagination, but that doesn't mean I'm blind to the kind of bullshit you're pulling right now.

Wolf-Bone wrote:

Zaraphayx wrote:

If there's anything this thread has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt it's that you really have no idea what I believe, but you have a very active imagination.

Yeah, and that's the wonderful thing. I actually open up about what the fuck I believe, make it known where I stand, you know, the kind of shit normal people try to do to make these discussions more than one guy getting to pretend how smart and mysterious he is while the other guy tries to get at something resembling the truth. I do indeed have a very active imagination, but that doesn't mean I'm blind to the kind of bullshit you're pulling right now.

Accusing me of having multiple dispositions I do not have is not trying to get at anything resembling the truth; it's you trying to divert the topic of conversation onto my personal failings instead of the subject at hand.

If wanting to discuss ideas instead of trying to play armchair psychologist about why I might have certain ideas is some transparent attempt to be 'smart and mysterious' on the internet then I suppose you have finally gleamed some truth about my character.