Arguments

What are your thoughts on Arguments? What do you think arguments are?

Arguments are when one person or more are fighting over something that can always be made better but are too stubborn or dumb enough not to find a solution-what do you think arguments are?

My thoughts about arguments are that they are pointless, demining to themselves since it shows you what age they truly are maybe if it was a debate then I would understand or just a conversation that has a point I would understand, but if it doesn't have a point to it and two parties (even one since they are arguing with themselves) or more are arguing and there's not point I find it very stupid just my opinion.-What are your thoughts on Arguments?

Also thank you for posting this Everlasting!

^ I disagree, respectfully.

Not all arguments are stupid or pointless. I think it can be foolish to, especially with close/intimate relationships, expect to have no arguments. I actually saw in a show a married couple proclaiming to the therapist that they never have arguments, and this troubled the therapist. That would be an idealistic relationship, and with the bigger picture in our world, there is always a conflict whether at the surface or boiling within. It raises the question if a person is truly, truly content and has no battle to pick or if the person suppresses emotions and cannot be honest in a relationship. The truth is, we can all improve ourselves. And we all should not be afraid to open up if we have uncertainties.

Arguments can be healthy, as they show our human side and if dealt with afterwards with maturity, can bring healing.

Arguments can pave the way to resolutions. In my experience, it seems blame is continually one-sided and that's a problem. But after an argument, a person may come back to reality or realize immediately or after a period of time, where the fault realistically lies. In my family, I was always taught never to say "oh, we were fighting", as that implied physical violence. Sure, arguments may lead to that but all arguments are different. Some are yelling, some are simple disagreements or flat-out denials. Some arguments we need to have in order to find out what matters in our lives.

My mom constantly teaches my brother and I that you have to pick your own battles, and how true is that? What is petty, what can we move on from and bite our tongue... or what really damages us, causes us hurt that we need to speak up about? Are we allowing another person to control and lead where we should lead, or are we just sacrificing for the other?

^
Interesting to be honest hun in my family we argue so my ideal relationship would be one that doesn't have any arguments but that's me but thanks for explaining everything I loved the part about the married couple I think I would love a relationship to be like that

Completely agree with everything MaryAnne said. :) Arguments can be healthy but if it's more arguments than anything or if they turn into verbal attacks, that is when it becomes unhealthy and some kind of counseling needs to happen.

I've always heard new couples say "Oh, we never fight! We're the perfect couple!"... I always roll my eyes and say give it time, lol. It is just human nature to argue. We are all different and have different opinions on everything, not always going to agree.

I'll admit, I even like to argue with my man sometimes. Lol!

When I was a child my older sisters called it sass . When I expressed my argument with a bit more passion as nearing adulthood it was called "verbal attack" lol

""Arguments can be healthy, as they show our human side and if dealt with afterwards with maturity, can bring healing.""

^^ I also agree with your statement MaryAnne and also with Hannah. I feel arguments are an important aspect in every relationship. However, I have been having a hard time trying to find a specific term that would define "pointless arguments." I guess I wouldn't considered arguments that are pointless to be arguments... they are ... ??? .. What are they? a rumpus?

Here, I was watching this video:

It's call ---- Argument Clinic - Monty Python's The Flying Circus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

This guy comes to a clinic in search of an argument... just watch it and see what y'all think about it.

The Fairy Marry--- I can see that what we think of arguments is somehow similar. You find pointless arguments stupid but valid arguments, you can understand them.

Michael:

"When I was a child my older sisters called it sass . When I expressed my argument with a bit more passion as nearing adulthood it was called "verbal attack" lol"

^ Though did your argument remained valid despise the change in passion?

Yes Everlasting, exactly like that :)

^ Though did your argument remained valid despise the change in passion?
I have a sister that was always passive aggressive about attempting to lower my self esteem . After my mother passed away she set me up with a blind date and often asked how things were going as if she was talking about a committed relationship . I decided to ask my coworker to attend the Christmas party with me after the lady I thought I had been courting for a year came up with an excuse not to go with me. Christmas eve my sister announced that the woman that was supposed to be my friend was engaged to be married . I disputed the contention by my sister that the woman ever was my friend . My sister said that was a verbal attack

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but it takes words to really screw me up

at 2009-07-27

rating: 5.0
votes: 7

Rate this quote : 1 2 3 4 5

To my ex wife

http://youtu.be/RVvcGurG6dk

Haha lets argu about argument
Dr. Deepak Chopra once said: All the human cavities have awareness but brain is the only one who has evolved to the stage that could deny even its own existence

And Dr (now guru) deepak Chopra, is a very wise man :-) and as humerous as that statement is, it also holds a lot of very truthful meaning

Hmm I may have to go back and search this up, my ignorance usually gets in the way, but I always thought that the brain wasn't a cavity but that the brain was in the cranial cavity...

Michael, I'll see the YouTube video that you provided... Once I get a hold of my laptop.

By cavities I meant anatomy parts such as brain, liver, heart, kidney, lung, stomach

as the matter of fact the dr. comparison was between brain and liver. as far as I remember.

To my ex wife

http://youtu.be/RVvcGurG6dk

^ "you don't love me anymore" by Weird Al.

Sad song's meaning.

---

Ddavidd <-- Hmm.. rather Sir.

yeah, there's a truth in that statement. I just have a hard time discerning why he used the word "evolved" if at least to me, when I think of the word "evolve," I link it to progress. Where as if the brain "evolves" to the point of forgetting its own existence then I wouldn't necessarily think of it as progress. :-?? I wouldn't necessarily say the brain evolved...

I'm so weird. Would forgetting our existence be a good thing? How could that be a good thing? or may be, I'm not understanding the point of evolution.

I think a Florida Prosecutor used this quote in two high profile closing argument

John Guy: "To the living we owe respect, to the dead we owe the truth"

It's not a passive act of forgetfulness, but an active case of denial.

The liver, or any other organ, has only the capacity to sense it's own misfortune (sickness, malfunction) and certainly accepts such "gut" feelings at their face-value.

The brain has developed cognition, including abstractions that allow it to hold diametrically opposing premises at once such as that all we know is illusion including even whether our own ego exists.

Then, when you get into the "problem of the other" things get really hairy.

Haha Everlasting you ANALIZE hummer. You did not get the point of my statement and the irony of why I used this quotes. And also the irony of why you have such problem with knowledge. See those holes said in your comment on my work that you could not explain, are in the eyes of beholder and this is the reason of why you could not explain them: We externalize our inner world and then analyze it as something utterly outer.

Also when you said in the other thread:

"That only tells me, that you didn't fully understand what I meant by what I said, "knowledge is nothing and love is everything. Though nothing is everything and everything is nothing." But it's okay"

Though it was so absurd, it was not the first time people accused me of not being able to understand the very thing that I myself taught them in the first place. ( You could go and dig deep in our privet messages.) Because people tend to forget after they internalize the knowledge. Those were half digested of the alphabet of the knowledge that I taught in workshops since perhaps before you start learning THE alphabet.
I did not mention that then because first, I am use to it and second, I do not own the knowledge. So it was egoistic if I mentioned it then, but now I feel responsible to point out ( for what it's worth) that your treatment of knowledge is a self reflecting one.

Let's see...

For starters, the quote that you provided from Dr. Deepak, Is that a direct quote from him?

That the universe is made of mostly nothing is a physical fact according to the less poetic parts of the movie "Mind Walk"

http://youtu.be/h-A9fdnQkSw

Http://youtu.be/Up6GqgBK5Qo

What difference does that make to you Everlasting? In either way you did not understand it.
Mentioning his name was optional for me for it was something I remember he said years ago. Non of you would have guessed the source. Mentioning his name only was my obligation to my conscience. The academic factuality that you are expect here, do not match our casual conversation and for sure would not satisfy the shelter that you're seeking to council your lack of comprehension of it. See these are all those holes that you conceal from yourself and the only way to see them for you is to acknowledge them in others.

Pay attention: you did not get the hummer, now you want to say it is not factual therefor the hummer is not merit. Could you see the hole, the circular argument? A caricature need not to be factual.

Not that the quote is not factual, but if were not, still it wouldn't have any bearing on the story, even it would looked better if I did not mention the name but doing so just is an indication to my honesty.

In the end. The quote was from one of his speech almost 16 years ago, I guess, in the hotel in harbour Castle Toronto he made.

Michael: considering the distance between proton and electrons and between the electrons themselves, it is almost made of nothing.

Larry a clear mind a clear answer.

Dear Everlasting accepting your mistake and lack of understanding is more noble than the knowledge itself. Good for you and I appreciate that.

Sir, sorry to disappoint but the reason for my late reply is that I have priorities. At this point in my life, priorities from college come first.

Second, the argument that you state is mainly supported by what I have said in our previous conversations. It's saddening that you have to bring forth conversations that are irrelevant to this thread. You are not even giving the benefit of the doubt of why I am giving so much importance to what some would consider trivialities. You rather just bring forth your point and prove that I have a lack of understanding.

In reality, it made a difference for me to find out if that was a direct quote or not, because this thread is about arguments, and the argument that I wanted to withdraw from that argument that you posted, was that a doctor wouldn't have used those specific words. "A doctor said so it must be true."

And that without you realizing it, if you are not careful with your words, you can mislead people. If on the contrary, you have said something like:

Dr. --- once said something like:

I would have not focus on the words in that suppose "quote." And I would have approach the argument in a similar manner that Mr. Larry did.

But the first point that I wanted to approach is that just because someone says 'a doctor once said' doesn't mean that it is entirely true, and even if a Dr once said that, we still need to think about the meaning of the words. That's why I admire Mr. Larry, whether he intentionally does it or not, but he gives a purpose to each of the words he uses.

In short, I'm not interested in pointless arguments. And if I hurt you with my previous words, the ones you thought were absurd because I said that if you don't understand them, that's okay... I apologize, it wasn't my intent to hurt you. Rather, by saying knowledge is nothing and love is everything... Etc I was only showing my admiration towards knowledge. If you cannot see that, there's nothing I could do.

And indeed, you have taught me many things, just like Mr. Larry, Hellon, Abby, Sylvia, Meena, gmcookie, Andrea, and I wish I could name them all. Though what I learnt the most from you, it's that I like you best when you are not driven by your ego.

Anywho, I'm out.

Philosophically speaking, since arguments are based on thoughts and thoughts are limited (meaning that a person could not possibly have all the thoughts in the world); therefore no argument no matter how valid could prove to be Absolute and Complete in nature.

Plato in his Republic when asked what is the point of arguing with him when he never completely gives a yes or no answer to questions says something along the line that: he is following the truth and compares it to gold veins in rocks. You have to chip away the things that you don't think as gold to reach the gold itself.

Michelangelo and Rafael believed that sculptures already lived in marbles and it was their task to chip away the excess to bring the angels (sculptures) out.

Arguments are the fertile fields that the seed of truth germinates in. If a party is not truthful the argument is useless and destructive.

It is not our business to understand the existence of red rose, maybe we should suffice being immersed and intoxicated in its beauties!

Everlasting:
"by saying knowledge is nothing and love is everything... Etc I was only showing my admiration towards knowledge"
sorry E.L. do you see how hilariously you contradict yourself in the extend of one sentence?

talking about ego, as I said it is a self reflecting notion, like those holes, remember??. Now pay attention: the reason I mentioned the name dr. D.P. was that I did not want to plagiarize, it was not to scare you off with the name of DR. It was to say this is not my word. I wanted him to get the credit for it not me. The quote was an irony, a jock of some kind. It meant evolution evolves us to the stage that we deny our very own existence, but liver in the other hand, do not have that luxury, it has no knowledge of itself except self awareness. So it is not condemned by self contemplations.
I put that "saying" as a trap to make you understand that the source of what you said about the wrong doing( potentiality) of knowledge is not yours because if it was you, you would not have problem to grasp the quote I posted. I said that to verify your statement, that I, supposedly, did not understand. I wanted you to know it was not me who did not understand it. And the reason of my doing so is not that I am hurt, again another self reflecting statement, the reason is I wanted you to know how big your ego has evolved, that you turn a simple knowledge to deny the source. The knowledge that if it was yours you would recognize it like a real parents would their child in any clownish outfit . For me it is absolutely irrelative if I am the source or others, because as I mentioned it before, the knowledge existed before me, I am, at the best, he who fell in love with it because he could appreciate its value.

Dear Mohammad:
wow how did you mine to my mind? That was something I would have said. Lets refine Michelangelo and Rafael idea though: All the sculptures are in the marble at once, like all the words in silence. We chose them, but the truth is farther than that. As Plato mentioned, the form exist before matter, or mater is the way the form forms itself into existence. The fact is that they (forms) are all there like the David is already existing in marble, in platonic essentialism. But the fact that the David and all other sculptures all are there, but, it is us who choosing them, tilts us towards existentialism.
We are the "efficient causes" according to Aristotle, but there are always THE FINAL CAUSE also.
An existentialist believes the sculptor creates the sculpture in any second, according to his experience of existence. David become David after Michelangelo made it to be David.
For the Dali, if whether the girl with grape in her hand smiles or whether not, is the matter of option. There is no necessitation involved. There is no David in marble. The David is one of the potentiality it becomes David after it is sculpted by Michelangelo.
Now the question is if the David is not there why the sculpture create it this ways, a master piece? First the David looks like what we see in day to day life in regular bases but there is the idea of perfection in it, all the motion, angles; where did we find that perfection in this imperfect world? The answer is in when what Descartes says: I am an finite being, how did I find the idea of infinite being in my mind, unless it exist before me and I am somehow connected to it? And then he goes and say something spectacular, he said that it is like mountain that could not exist without valley so when you ( my interpretation, my professor did not agree with me on that) look in to the a valley, when you have a glimpse onto the vastness a valley, that by itself entails the existence of a mountain which is the whereabouts of your standing simultaneously.
Though the truth, for an existentialist is relative. for Plato it is definite. I myself am in the side of Plato. But in syntheses you would see both of these, either theses, or antitheses, are merit all together at the same time. They both are different side of the same coin. As don Juan said: only a man of true knowledge could stand the presence of paradox.

in the end I am glad you brought some fresh air to this. why aren't you active. I love your participation.

Dear ddavidd I am not taking sides though I feel it is unfair to accuse someone who uses only lowercase letters in their screen name as egocentric . Arguments even from a strictly Christian point of view could be viewed as a necessary evil since Jesus seemed to have disagreements with the religious authorities of His day and once called his chosen disciple a Satan . I DO ADMIRE YOUR ASSERTIVNESS IN SHARING HOW YOU REALLY FEEL RATHER THAN PRETENDING TO AGREE WITH EVERYONE

Dear Michael I am not calling her egomaniac I am calling on ones self reflection-identification in pointing others egos . If you pay attention she is the one who pointing at my ego, if you fallow the conversation I am only reflecting back. I would never commit anything that spirit hasn't appointed me to.
thanks for the compliment though I value it for it comes from you.

Edited
I am giving her tough love . If she wants to inter an adult discussion and pretend that others do not know what they are talking about she is going to be exposed on that fraud.
It is good for her. it is part of learning adulthood .

I was not calling anyone an egomaniac either ,but it seemed like someone else was implying you were

So than you thought I was who were unfair.
While I am called egomaniac while whoever unjustifiably is calling me egomaniac merely is justifiably reflecting him/herself .

I think it is unfair to call you egotistical , but Lord it is hard to be humble lol

http://youtu.be/QCsNunGnqE0

It is easy to pretend to be humble. But it is hard to be really humble, where to be realy authentic leaves egoistic impression on the eyes of mediocre audience .
This is the tragedy of authenticity: The ugly duckling of Hans Christian Andersen: Should I act humble for the sake of the show, like others, or should I be authentic no matter how costly?
The hero of authenticity would not hesitate. he lets himself to burn by the very flame that he worship.
It is a decision that an ugly duckling has to make in regular bases that the average Joes duckling would never even come near to experience . They just hear different quacks, the unpleasant ones to their mediocre ears. They interpret it to ego though.

Edited
for example so many people criticize my work it never upsets me. I, on the contrary always invoke such acts. They vibrate me and my poetry. But I never mistake an act of bad intention! I know "Salieri s" (if you ever watch the movie "Amadeus" ) I know the "saints of mediocrity". And I am not humble about it for the best reasons.
If you haven't seen, you would never understand what I am talking about.

Mahatma: Life of Gandhi

I recall Gandhi coming to terms with the reality that humility cannot be taught because it cannot be mastered

Lets talk about ego.
in all my existence in this site I never a -kissed, that is why I have no recognition. I know who to please to get ahead. I know how to please people to get pleased, how to comment people to get comment, how to nominate people to get nominated. But in all my existence in this site I only nominated Hazel tree times on the row who could not pay it back to me.
It is not that I do not know how to get ahead. I am smart enough. There are kids who have way more award than me in few month even though they are new here and their journey to the wisdom of poetry and experience of life is not one tenth of mine. Because they know how to please and bond more than how to write.
Is this your Idea of egomaniac?
I dare Everlasting or any of the good poets of this site to give me their best poems secretly and see if even one of them gets nominated or elected in the weekly contest if they are posted under my name. Though I bet lots of my unknown poems would be prised under any other name in this site but me.

I think you guys should redefine the word ego to fit your world.

A few month ago I posted a complain because I checked the number of how many visited my poem since it was nominated, and the result was none, zero, actually only one.
I knew that posting that particular complain would be very bad for my image because the mediocre would think that I am upset because my poem did not get elected. My poems so many time did not get elected why did I do it only that time? I knew it would anger the judges and then they psychologically would undermine my works after. But I DID it because the authenticity dictate me to do so, regardless how lame it seemed in the eyes of average Joes. This is where Everlasting call me egoistic, Abby said I did it out of anger( insinuating I was hurt because my poem did not win)
How many of you dare to question and penalize the judges knowing your poetry is going to be for another few month judged by them? So am I a egomaniac because I did not kiss A, or you who would never do such act? Would an egomaniac do this? Aren't all the un-pious acts such as cowardice and ego and ... come from the same source and connected??

A guy was in madhouse and the inspector saw him and said: you are not mad, you are even more sain than us, so why are you here? The mad man said I know, but try to convince the rest of my town because from 5000 people I claim that 4999 of them are mad and the 4999 claim I am mad so they are majority therefore I am here not them.
So you all are egomaniacs not me.

Hmm...

"the reason I mentioned the name dr. D.P. was that I did not want to plagiarize, it was not to scare you off with the name of DR."

Point taken. However, Sir, here is my view and my concern. By you saying, "Dr. Deepak Chopra once said: All the human cavities have awareness but brain is the only one who has evolved to the stage that could deny even its own existence," there is a possibility that your quote could mislead people. I mean, I know it is good to think about the meaning each word has. I also know that it is important to pay attention to how we employ our words in our sentences ( I'm still learning about that, haven't been much successful), but since I know that, my first concern when I read the quote was:

1._a Dr. said 'human cavities' and the way he structured his sentence seems to reference the brain as being a human cavity? Is that right? ( I questioned myself)
2._ Should I doubt the credibility of the quote?
3._If a Dr. really said that, Should I doubt the credibility of the Dr.?
4._ If the quote is a direct quote, I wonder if the Dr. was testing someone. Though I wonder from where did this quote come from? What gave rise to these thoughts? What is the story behind it?
5._ Doesn't the word "evolved" has a positive connotation???

So as you can see, my first reaction was to doubt myself,

"Hmm I may have to go back and search this up, my ignorance usually gets in the way, but I always thought that the brain wasn't a cavity but that the brain was in the cranial cavity..." By Everlasting

So then, you went ahead and clarify it to me, that's the moment when I started to realized that the Dr. couldn't have say "human cavities." ...

But think about it, there's a possibility that some people who read that 'quote' could have fallen under the notion that the Dr. said that even though you said the Dr. said that, and immediately, due to it, subconsciously or not, they associate the brain not as an organ but as a human cavity? Or even worst, anyone who read that 'quote' and who realizes the difference between a human cavity and an organ, goes under the notion that the Dr. said it, marks the Dr. as ignorant and untrustworthy? (I know people who would do that, thought their first question would have been if that quote was a direct quote).

So that's why it made a difference to me to know that and why I had to ask that because the quote as it was written could have been misleading. Citing someone, if we are not careful how we cite our sources, could lead to misunderstandings. We try to avoid plagiarism but in our attempt to avoid it, if we don't cite properly, it could end up working against us.

That's pretty much the basis of the argument that I wanted to start since I read the 'quote.'

That's why I said that it would have been better if you had said something like: -- 'Dr. D.P. once said something like' instead. If at first you would have said something like that I would have assumed that it came from your memory and that you didn't remember his exact words. Then I would have focus on trying to see what point you were trying to make when you brought that quote to the thread.

However, it seems that you saw where I was going for with my first three post so you tried to guard yourself by saying:

"The academic factuality that you are expect here, do not match our casual conversation and for sure would not satisfy the shelter that you're seeking to council your lack of comprehension of it." by Ddavidd

"Not that the quote is not factual, but if were not, still it wouldn't have any bearing on the story, even it would looked better if I did not mention the name but doing so just is an indication to my honesty.
" by Ddavidd

Sir, you tried to be in control of the argument. Not bad.

Though you could have won your argument without having to bring forth previous conversations or events. In my opinion, they are irrelevant to the arguments that we were having in regards to that quote. You could simply have said that the connotation in the word "evolved" is neutral and that it doesn't necessarily means a positive connotation. You could have said everlasting that's why you are not fully understanding that quote nor the irony.

That was a given.

"yeah, there's a truth in that statement. I just have a hard time discerning why he used the word "evolved" if at least to me, when I think of the word "evolve," I link it to progress. Where as if the brain "evolves" to the point of forgetting its own existence then I wouldn't necessarily think of it as progress. :-?? I wouldn't necessarily say the brain evolved...

I'm so weird. Would forgetting our existence be a good thing? How could that be a good thing? or may be, I'm not understanding the point of evolution." By Everlasting

The reason for me saying that you are driven by your ego is that according to the dictionary:

"ego is an inflated feeling of pride in [ones]* superiority to others"

And that's what some of your post imply.

* it used to say "your" instead of "ones."

O my God how many wrong impressions did you get about one sentence. Let me give you a Dr, diagnosis : OCD: obsessive compulsive disorder. Why did not I see that before. This is the same reason that you said all those thing about my work perhaps not out of Salieri 's malicious intention.
But right after that you started to refute anything I said on the board. So you got obsessed with it.
well if it is a disorder is much safer that what I thought it was.
So I do not argue with you anymore. To know why . For example Go read Larry's respond to this, after you posted your first concern. In two or three sentences he exactly explain what I meant by posting those sentences. He read the same sentences that you did. This is a clear mind, seeing things as they are not going pages and pages trying to explain so many things that are irrelevant and quite frankly my fried they are funny. I am not saying that to please Larry or to make sure he is on my side or neutralized, I am not a politician like others I do not hid behind people. I just said it because it is the truth and if he rambled and said something erroneously I would go after him as well because we are discussing ideas here not people. So everybody is equal in the eyes of truth.
Another pointer. I am in this for long time. I had apprentices in your age who rebelled against me ways worse than what you did ( not saying that you were ever my apprentice) so believe me I know the reason of your recent shifts, thing that you did not probably noticed. Do you remember when I told you long time ago that you are only half like me and half like others. Now it is the time that your the other half has taken over and trying so violently to deny the other. It is not the conflict about me it is a conflict within yourself and it started( perhaps) by my post regarding the judged did not read my poem. The irritation that you were feeling towards me is the inconsistency in your personality. You might shift back sometime later but believe me your ego would do anything to prevent that.
in the end it doesn't matter who you are, where you are be happy and have a good life my friend as you yourself prescribed in the other thread.

And haha please I do not want to hear anything more about the dr's quot.

It must be difficult Master Ddavidd to have such a young grasshopper question your ethics?

Ne sentence. Let me give you a Dr, diagnosis : OCD: obsessive compulsive disorder. Why did not I see that before. This is the same reason that you said all those thing about my work perhaps not out of Salieri 's malicious intention.

^^ haha I'm taking 'a reason and logic class' I'm ask to pay attention to the meaning of words their connotations and denotations .... This thread at least when I started it, it seemed like a good opportunity to stir some participation and put into practice what I am learning. Though it surprised me that you started taking it more towards the personal. That seriously did not go how I had pictured the thread to go... I had hoped someone will bring an argument of other sort and we would had expanded it...

But it did not go exactly that way.

Edit: I guess it was my lack of formulating a good argument since the very beginning. Something to learn for the future.

P.s. I have not said anything bad about your work. Though you do seem obsessed with the holes. Please dorry about them. They are irrelevant to this thread.

People always Hellon, throw dirt at you, specially if you are different, more specially if you try not to hide those differences. And the word master do not trigger any excitement for me. First because I am not , second If I was looking for acknowledgment I would not act the way I do in this site . As the matter of fact I would act exactly oppositely.
Questioning my ethic is the mildest thing. You cannot believe what these seemingly harmless grasshoppers are capable of.
And being called egomaniac is the normal practice. Whatever I do, looks that way for them, because it is the only way it make sense for them. They don't called me "alien" for no reason around here. The British colonialist even called Gandhi an egomaniac or the apartheid regime the Mandela, never mind me, comparing to them I am almost nothing. And they really believe so.
You do not end up to be like me if you are not ready to be smudge in dirt. You cannot rely on the fellow man's eyes. A man of knowledge only relies on the eyes of the truth that always is there , watching us in our conscience.

Haha EL I bring whatever to the discussion as I please. You should learn to go with the flow instead of trying to control.
The logic class is not helping you believe me. At least not at this this stage of your life.
You always dissect things Freud would have said interesting thing about this habit of yours.
Clarity does not come by stirring the water. That is clarity lost.