Controversial world leaders poisening the mind of our students..., oh no! Options

[Melissa]

So this discussion/debate is stemmed from an extremely controversial event (at my college, at least) when President Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, was invited to speak at Columbia University. Parents, alumni, prominent leaders, reporters, etc. all had something to say - many of which were very negative - and tons of people pulled funding (listening to alumni bitch at us over the phone was not a pleasant task). I had the chance to listen to him speak and have to admit that he's an incredibly intelligent man (which is scary because I think he's a bit crazy), and while he said many things that might cause some outrage (i.e. "there are no homosexuals in Iran" - look the event up if you're interested, etc), that's not the point of this debate.

I really don't care if you agree/disagree with Pres. Ahmadinejad, I'm wondering if you think that it is a positive or negative thing to have such a controversial figurehead speak at an American university. People opposed to the event have said that there is no good outcome and think he should be banned from even landing on American soil. They say that such a smart man like him would only succeed in poisoning the minds of students.

The other side of the argument is that the only way to understand someone under such scrutiny is to listen to him and hear him out. Chris Colombo, our dean, claimed that if Adolf Hitler was alive, he would invite him to come over and explain himself. Wouldn't it be interesting to hear what he said? Hear him say why he did what he did?

So, what's your side of the argument? Should figureheads such as Saddam Hussein, Ahmadinejad, or Hitler be allowed to speak to at universities? Or should they just be completely ignored?

[illriginal]

So this discussion/debate is stemmed from an extremely controversial event (at my college, at least) when President Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, was invited to speak at Columbia University. Parents, alumni, prominent leaders, reporters, etc. all had something to say - many of which were very negative - and tons of people pulled funding (listening to alumni bitch at us over the phone was not a pleasant task). I had the chance to listen to him speak and have to admit that he's an incredibly intelligent man (which is scary because I think he's a bit crazy), and while he said many things that might cause some outrage (i.e. "there are no homosexuals in Iran" - look the event up if you're interested, etc), that's not the point of this debate.

Supposedly it's true. No homosexuals exist in Iran.

I really don't care if you agree/disagree with Pres. Ahmadinejad, I'm wondering if you think that it is a positive or negative thing to have such a controversial figurehead speak at an American university. People opposed to the event have said that there is no good outcome and think he should be banned from even landing on American soil. They say that such a smart man like him would only succeed in poisoning the minds of students.

Maybe we as humans should take the time to fully understand world leaders and what their agendas are. Maybe while America or most of the Western side of the world portray him as evil and insane the true nature of this man could actually be fair and righteous. Not that I'm sayin he is or isn't.

How could he poison the minds of others? Is he known to force his views on others outside of Iran in the first place? Who are they? Catholics? Right wing? Liberals? President Bush? Who?

The other side of the argument is that the only way to understand someone under such scrutiny is to listen to him and hear him out. Chris Colombo, our dean, claimed that if Adolf Hitler was alive, he would invite him to come over and explain himself. Wouldn't it be interesting to hear what he said? Hear him say why he did what he did?

This is the point of humanity and God has said so; we should learn of self, beasts (animals), and brothers & sisters (other humans). Also I'm a strong believer of; "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Why? Because one who hasn't sinned has a pure heart and mind, he/she would be able to recognize and judge legitimately. I would have to agree... give him his time to explain himself, he's man enough to show that he has no hate for Americans, that's not his nature. He wants to show that Islam is not everything that has been said about in the media and other westernized organized religions. We must be just and let him speak his nature... he's not gonna come here and try to poison the youth, please.

So, what's your side of the argument? Should figureheads such as Saddam Hussein, Ahmadinejad, or Hitler be allowed to speak to at universities? Or should they just be completely ignored?

Yes.... while Saddam was a tad messed in his head which I would admit is sort of not his fault because of his youth and all the shit he went through which caused to build this f**ked up hatred towards his own people, Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction, he wasn't given a fair trial, and for some really odd reason his lawyers were gettin assassinated... he was about to win the trial til' all his lawyers were killed. And to make it more comical, they said it was the terrorists (which could be true... American terrorists that is) who killed off his lawyers lol... for f**k sake people are stupid.

Anyways, only communication, only idea we have of world leaders is the media. Do you know how easily a video or a statement can be modified? Can be taken out of contexts? Shit people take religious texts out of contexts... even the Quran for goodness sake, and the Quran is as accurate and literal as it can possibly be, and on top of that.. the companion of the Quran (Hadiths) make it even MORE literal and breaks the Quran down into laymens terms, yet people who are filled with ignorance, hatred, and fear still take things out of context and poison their own children, friends, and the rest of their communities with their own fake ass imagination.

[Reidar]

Supposedly it's true. No homosexuals exist in Iran.

I'm Iranian. There are homosexuals in every country.

Aman-olly-olly-oxen-free-ninijad-iad -- a smart man? Only if his public persona is a ruse for an unapprehended perspicacity (is that not true about most politicians?). If he had any sense of social astuteness, he would have simply denied the accusation of human rights violations on Iranian homosexuals. It wouldn't have been any more farfetched than saying there aren't even any to abuse in the first place; the only difference is that he would be omitting the portion that would look as ridiculous as it did. My father, who served in the Iranian Air Force, actually desires for U.S. intervention in Iran because of the current administration, although he's always been an old warhawk.

However, the concept isn't really any different from, say, Dan Rather granting Saddam Hussein a metaphorical podium through a televised interview, which happened after his regime was outed. It still managed to cast the dictator in a somewhat empathetic light. Ethically, the qualm of inferring legitimacy through an invitation to a vile figure is identical.

If you gave Ahmadinejad an enema, he would fit into a matchbox. Any student who would be politically swayed by his speech is no intellectual loss.

[Melissa]

Any student who would be politically swayed by his speech is no intellectual loss.

I agree with that.

And when I say he's intelligent, I mean that he has a way of speaking to crowds and coming to completely insane conclusions, yet sounding sane and logical all the way there. A speaker like that (any politician, really, I guess) is dangerous because people who don't know much and can't think for themselves might find themselves beginning to agree.

[illriginal]

I'm Iranian. There are homosexuals in every country.

Aman-olly-olly-oxen-free-ninijad-iad -- a smart man? Only if his public persona is a ruse for an unapprehended perspicacity (is that not true about most politicians?). If he had any sense of social astuteness, he would have simply denied the accusation of human rights violations on Iranian homosexuals. It wouldn't have been any more farfetched than saying there aren't even any to abuse in the first place; the only difference is that he would be omitting the portion that would look as ridiculous as it did. My father, who served in the Iranian Air Force, actually desires for U.S. intervention in Iran because of the current administration, although he's always been an old warhawk.

However, the concept isn't really any different from, say, Dan Rather granting Saddam Hussein a metaphorical podium through a televised interview, which happened after his regime was outed, yet it still managed to cast the dictator in an empathetic light. Ethically, the qualm of inferring legitimacy through an invitation to a vile figure is identical.

If you gave Ahmadinejad an enema, he would fit into a matchbox. Any student who would be politically swayed by his speech is no intellectual loss.

Well... they're not socially modernized. They still follow a belief system in which frowns upon homosexuality, askin them for an adaptation of democracy is ludicrous in their minds and social acceptability.

[Reidar]

I agree with that.

And when I say he's intelligent, I mean that he has a way of speaking to crowds and coming to completely insane conclusions, yet sounding sane and logical all the way there. A speaker like that (any politician, really, I guess) is dangerous because people who don't know much and can't think for themselves might find themselves beginning to agree.

If this were true with Aman-I'm-gonna-hurl--ninijad-iad, the majority of Iranians wouldn't loathe him and his regime.

I understand Farsi, and his rhetoric is more broken than the bumbling translator from C-SPAN (although, to her credit, it was quite funny how she mangled his speech so badly).

Well... they're not socially modernized. They still follow a belief system in which frowns upon homosexuality, askin them for an adaptation of democracy is ludicrous in their minds and social acceptability.

Which is why they're contemptible.

Undesired Westernization is one matter (Evola outlines the intricacies of that). Fundamental human rights are quite another.

[Melissa]

If this were true with Aman-I'm-gonna-hurl--ninijad-iad, the majority of Iranians wouldn't loathe him and his regime.

I understand Farsi, and his rhetoric is more broken than the bumbling translator from C-SPAN (although, to her credit, it was quite funny how she mangled his speech so badly).

Hm, true.

I thought the translator kind of sucked, mainly because she seemed ... confused half of the time. I'm not sure if you watched the whole thing, but does most of what she said coincide with what he said? Or did she change/sugarcoat/modify anything?

I'm also curious - what's your point of view on the opening speech that Lee Bolinger gave (if you watched it)? Many people seem to think it was uncalled for and Ahmadinejad did say something along the lines of "you're really rude and i'd never do that to you if you came to my country, bitch."

[illriginal]

If this were true with Aman-I'm-gonna-hurl--ninijad-iad, the majority of Iranians wouldn't loathe him and his regime.

I understand Farsi, and his rhetoric is more broken than the bumbling translator from C-SPAN (although, to her credit, it was quite funny how she mangled his speech so badly).
Which is why they're contemptible.

Undesired Westernization is one matter (Evola outlines the intricacies of that). Fundamental human rights are quite another.

Are you ashamed of your people? Of your ancestors? I could never call anyone's origin a waste, that's sort of unfair.

Human rights need to be balanced, in my most honest opinion.

[Reidar]

She was accurate, save for one particular instance that I recall scoffing at, but it was minor, anyways. I was laughing at her English, not her translation. "We WANT you to underSTAND where...where we are COMING frommmmm..."

Bollinger's opening was a pathetic attempt to save face, to me. It was obvious that he did that because of how much flack he took from the media. That was probably the only instance where I agreed with Aman-ani-Jane-stop-this-crazy-thing-ninijad-iad.

Are you ashamed of your people? Of your ancestors? I could never call anyone's origin a waste, that's sort of unfair.

I'm ashamed of mankind, in general.

[Comptine]

I think it's incredibly dangerous and frightening that people with such power/influence have such extremists/hateful views. Especially in a democratic society because it seems VERY contradictory and deconstructive to the establishment. It's is equally scary that a monarch/single ruler would do the same thing.

College students have a very diverse population. Like someone mentioned, if someone can be easily swayed, then it's not a big loss. However, since the population is so diverse, and college kids are starting to take part in voting, the consequences can potentially be detrimental for others. You get enough people whose beliefs get influenced by these figureheads and they go vote or take action... those beliefs could be manifested.

Personally, I would love to speak to some figureheads or at least, get an insight into their heads.

[illriginal]

I think it's incredibly dangerous and frightening that people with such power/influence have such extremists/hateful views. Especially in a democratic society because it seems VERY contradictory and deconstructive to the establishment. It's is equally scary that a monarch/single ruler would do the same thing.

College students have a very diverse population. Like someone mentioned, if someone can be easily swayed, then it's not a big loss. However, since the population is so diverse, and college kids are starting to take part in voting, the consequences can potentially be detrimental for others. You get enough people whose beliefs get influenced by these figureheads and they go vote or take action... those beliefs could be manifested.

Personally, I would love to speak to some figureheads or at least, get an insight into their heads.

omg.. you're right... there's goin to be a revolution! wooooot we're gonna take over bishes

[Spirited Away]

I came from a country torn by communism, so if a communist leader had came to my university to speak, I'd be the first to protest. My community from all over the States will join me.

With that said, the argument that we should at least hear them out is crazy for one reason: do they hear us in turn or will the shoot us down at the first oppotunity?

In a position of leadership, they know exactly what they're doing and so do the people who follow them as well as those made to suffer by their rule. We understand them quite well already.

If they want understanding, they should do as Hilter did and write a book. I'd buy one and tear out the pages to wipe my ass.

Now then, I'd have to say that these leaders are great speakers. It is hard for the uninformed to not be moved by their pretty speeches, this reason I can forgive. But for those who advocate them for the sake of "uniqueness", "radicalness", or "zeal"... this is a shame on humanity.

On a last note, your Dean seems to enjoy his own morbid curiosity. He should read a book rather than subjecting the student population to hear the why's and how's of any killer.

[illriginal]

I came from a country torn by communism, so if a communist leader had came to my university to speak, I'd be the first to protest. My community from all over the States will join me.

With that said, the argument that we should at least hear them out is crazy for one reason: do they hear us in turn or will the shoot us down at the first oppotunity?

In a position of leadership, they know exactly what they're doing and so do the people who follow them as well as those made to suffer by their rule. We understand them quite well already.

If they want understanding, they should do as Hilter did and write a book. I'd buy one and tear out the pages to wipe my ass.

Now then, I'd have to say that these leaders are great speakers. It is hard for the uninformed to not be moved by their pretty speeches, this reason I can forgive. But for those who advocate them for the sake of "uniqueness", "radicalness", or "zeal"... this is a shame on humanity.

America is the transgressor. Iran doesn't want war, but America's leader does. America is the transgressor, not Iran, not Islam.

[Spirited Away]

America is the transgressor. Iran doesn't want war, but America's leader does. America is the transgressor, not Iran, not Islam.

What are you talking about? Where in my post did I say anything about Iran or Islam or transgressors?

[illriginal]

What are you talking about?

With that said, the argument that we should at least hear them out is crazy for one reason: do they hear us in turn or will the shoot us down at the first oppotunity?

You're talkin about a man coming here with no weapons, with no army, with NOTHING but the clothes on his back, who's willin to speak to a group of young adults in a foreign country in which HATES him, HATES Iran, HATES the Middle East, HATES Islam, HATES Arabs, yet... you call him crazy. Yet... you only know what the media tells you. Yet if he wrote a book... you'd do nothin but rip it up and wipe your ass with it. Ignorance at its finest.

Never judge by action... judge by intentions, this is how God judges.


EDIT: She thinks it's crazy for a controversial leader to speak their mind to the people... not that she thinks the controversial leader is crazy him/herself...

[Spirited Away]

You're talkin about a man coming here with no weapons, with no army, with NOTHING but the clothes on his back, who's willin to speak to a group of young adults in a foreign country in which HATES him, HATES Iran, HATES the Middle East, HATES Islam, HATES Arabs, yet... you call him crazy. Yet... you only know what the media tells you. Yet if he wrote a book... you'd do nothin but rip it up and wipe your ass with it. Ignorance at its finest.

Never judge by action... judge by intentions, this is how God judges.

First, you really, really need to take my suggestion to (read) moar. Please tell me, print a screeny or quote me, where I call that man crazy.

Second, please stop assuming things that you do not know about me. You lead the discussion in the Feedback forum about personal attacks and what not, but here you are committing that very act by assuming that I only know what the media feeds me and implying my ignrance in judgment. I do speak two languages fluently and can read a third quite passably. I've gone to college and earned two degrees with honors, which proves I can do read and do research quite well. My media consist of news from these different counties that sit opposite ends of the world. Your generalization of "media" is quite small in this aspect.

Third, there is no ignorance when you and your loved ones suffer (insert oppressive leader here) personally. I do not speak for those in Iran or Islamic states, I'm simply answering to the topic at hand, which if you had forgotten by your own brash intentions of shooting me down, is "should (insert controversial leader here) be allowed to speak at universities".

(Read) Moar (and do it correctly), for goodness sakes O_O

[illriginal]

First, you really, really need to take my suggestion to (read) moar. Please tell me, print a screeny or quote me, where I call that man crazy.

Second, please stop assuming things that you do not know about me. You lead the discussion in the Feedback forum about personal attacks and what not, but here you are committing that very act by assuming that I only know what the media feeds me and implying my ignrance in judgment. I do speak two languages fluently and can

read a third quite passably. I've gone to college and earned two degrees with honors, which proves I can do read and do research quite well. My media consist of news from these different counties that sit opposite ends of the world. Your generalization of "media" is quite small in this aspect.

Third, there is no ignorance when you and your loved ones suffer (insert oppressive leader here) personally. I do not speak for those in Iran or Islamic states, I'm simply answering to the topic at hand, which if you had forgotten by your own brash intentions of shooting me down, is "should (insert controversial leader here) be allowed to speak at universities".

(Read) Moar (and do it correctly), for goodness sakes O_O

Ah yes I'm sorry, you're right, you're not callin HIM crazy, you're callin the idea of HIM or ANY controversial leader speaking out to the people so they can better understand him/her, CRAZY. You're right.

There was nothin to assume as you made it clear to everyone that the idea is crazy.. also that'd you'd buy their book and that you'd rip up their book of "understanding" and wipe your ass with it after tearin the pages out, would you even bother to read it? Maybe try to figure out where they come from? Read moar ey? Irony at its finest, keep goin.

Your quote:

If they want understanding, they should do as Hilter did and write a book. I'd buy one and tear out the pages to wipe my ass.

No personal attack made by me... I only stated the truth of your issues.

[Spirited Away]

Ah yes I'm sorry, you're right, you're not callin HIM crazy, you're callin the idea of HIM or ANY controversial leader speaking out to the people so they can better understand him/her, CRAZY. You're right.

There was nothin to assume as you made it clear to everyone that the idea is crazy.. also that'd you'd buy their book and that you'd rip up their book of "understanding" and wipe your ass with it after tearin the pages out, would you even bother to read it? Maybe try to figure out where they come from?

Your quote:

Wait, wait... you got that I call the idea of him crazy from where? This:

With that said, the argument that we should at least hear them out is crazy for one reason: do they hear us in turn or will the shoot us down at the first oppotunity?

Even though I specifically referred to the "argument" is crazy? Are you trippin? If anythng, argue the my argument. Stop beating around the bush. Re-read what the OP wrote and please get back on topic.

And had you really read, the specfically said that we already understand what these leaders are about (having to live the life under their oppression), so why read their crap.

LOL I'm not exactly sure what you are about anymore. I think you're very confused and I haven't the slightest clue what you're trying to prove...

We'll see what others have to say. I'm really tired of having to break things down for you. Maybe someone else will understand me better =)

[illriginal]

Wait, wait... you got that I call the idea of him crazy from where? This:
Even though I specifically referred to the "argument" is crazy? Are you trippin? If anythng, argue the my argument. Stop beating around the bush. Re-read what the OP wrote and please get back on topic.

And had you really read, the specfically said that we already understand what these leaders are about (having to live the life under their oppression), so why read their crap.

LOL I'm not exactly sure what you are about anymore. I think you're very confused and I haven't the slightest clue what you're trying to prove...

We'll see what others have to say. I'm really tired of having to break things down for you. Maybe someone else will understand me better =)

This topic is generalize into two categories.. Controversial world leaders and President Ahmadinejad.

As to what I'm tryin to prove is that people like you wouldn't at least try to get some closure as to why people are the way they are, such as President Ahmadinejad or other controversial leaders such as Hitler. And that people like you would think in general for whatever the reason may be that it's crazy for a controversial leader to come speak to a country who most likely hates him/her, only to explain him/herself. Shit I give him props for being as brave as he is, comin into land that is full of hatred of not just him and his country but of every other country and their leaders outside of the U.S. =\

Your tellin me to stop beatin around the bush? Ok... no beatin behind no bushes here.

Keep breakin it down... not just for me, but for everyone to understand you :P

[Spirited Away]

This topic is generalize into two categories.. Controversial world leaders and President Ahmadinejad.

As to what I'm tryin to prove is that people like you wouldn't at least try to get some closure as to why people are the way they are, such as President Ahmadinejad or other controversial leaders such as Hitler. And that people like you would think in general for whatever the reason may be that it's crazy for a controversial leader to come speak to a country who most likely hates him/her.

Your tellin me to stop beatin around the bush? Ok... no beatin behind no bushes here.

No, it's not "generalized into two categories". President Ahmadinejad is an example of the a controversial leader speaking at the university. The main topic at hand (as titled) is a world leader poisoning the minds of students. I swear you would fail the LSAT (but that's another story).

I think those of you who never experience these leaders first hand WOULD think that the rest of us would want "closure" by "understanding" why they do what they do. But because you haven't traveled day in our shoes and have never experience our loss that makes it soooo incredibly easy for you to say these things; you might even think you're righteous for doing so (which makes it all very laughable and naive).

Anyway, I understand where you're coming from now, and I understand why you would choose that position. But, where I'm coming from is that when I know what they did to others (all the trials and pain), I don't care about "why" they did those things, just that they did and the reasons are usually political aspirations anyway. If not, the reasons are always apparent anyway, no need for pretty rhetoric or a book. If "why" = closure, then where do the "how", the "who", and the "what" fit? Better yet, where do the consequences of their actions fit?

And lastly, once we know "why", what then?

-------
On a personal note (because you like to get personal), a lot of people understand me fine. I've never had a problem before with anyone not understanding me, just you. A lot of people seem to like me but you seem to be an exception. I actually think you have a problem with me. Wanna talk about it?

[illriginal]

No, it's not "generalized into two categories". President Ahmadinejad is an example of the a controversial leader speaking at the university. The main topic at hand (as titled) is a world leader poisoning the minds of students. I swear you would fail the LSAT (but that's another story).

I think those of you who never experience these leaders first hand WOULD think that the rest of us would want "closure" by "understanding" why they do what they do. But because you haven't traveled day in our shoes and have never experience our loss that makes it soooo incredibly easy for you to say these things; you might even think you're righteous for doing so (which makes it all very laughable and naive).

Anyway, I understand where you're coming from now, and I understand why you would choose that position. But, where I'm coming from is that when I know what they did to others (all the trials and pain), I don't care about "why" they did those things, just that they did and the reasons are usually political aspirations anyway. If not, the reasons are always apparent anyway, no need for pretty rhetoric or a book. If "why" = closure, then where do the "how", the "who", and the "what" fit? Better yet, where do the consequences of their actions fit?

And lastly, once we know "why", what then?

-------
On a personal note (because you like to get personal), a lot of people understand me fine. I've never had a problem before with anyone not understanding me, just you. A lot of people seem to like me but you seem to be an exception. I actually think you have a problem with me. Wanna talk about it?

Understood. And no there's no personal problems... I just like to get into full details of someone's thoughts. If not I'm left wide open with many different ways to approach your thoughts, which sucks because assumption has to come into play in the beginning of things, if that makes any sense.

[Spirited Away]

Understood. And no there's no personal problems... I just like to get into full details of someone's thoughts. If not I'm left wide open with many different ways to approach your thoughts, which sucks because assumption has to come into play in the beginning of things, if that makes any sense.

But when everything is based on assumptions of me (or anyone) personally, where does that leave room for facts? I would say facts are most important and assumptions are extraneous.

All I've seen from this is a direct attack on how ignorant I am of these people's actions and how uninformed I am of their purposes just because I don't like how or why they do things.

I'm glad that there are no personal problems. I would hate to think anything I said on these forums actually upset someone so much that they'll try to put me down every chance they get... that would be wurrrd.

[illriginal]

But when everything is based on assumptions of me (or anyone) personally, where does that leave room for facts? I would say facts are most important and assumptions are extraneous.

All I've seen from this is a direct attack on how ignorant I am of these people's actions and how uninformed I am of their purposes just because I don't like how or why they do things.

I'm glad that there are no personal problems. I would hate to think anything I said on these forums actually upset someone so much that they'll try to put me down every chance they get... that would be wurrrd.

Like to weed out all the other things to get to the facts... kinda backwards, but it works for me

So when people say I have a hard time understanding, I don't let it bother me because I do understand, but I keep pushin for what is not intended in order to acknowledge what is intended.

Understanding: The best part of what you know; to see things clearly as what they are not what they appear to be.

[Spirited Away]

Like to weed out all the other things to get to the facts... kinda backwards, but it works for me

So when people say I have a hard time understanding, I don't let it bother me because I do understand, but I keep pushin for what is not intended in order to acknowledge what is intended.

Understanding: The best part of what you know; to see things clearly as what they are not what they appear to be.

So you "understand" by calling me ignorant and uninformed of the topic at hand?

I'm sorry to drill you on this, but I just don't get where you got that from by one post from me on the matter. Did I hit a nerve somewhere?

[illriginal]

So you "understand" by calling me ignorant and uninformed of the topic at hand?

I'm sorry to drill you on this, but I just don't get where you got that from by one post from me on the matter. Did I hit a nerve somewhere?

My philosophy simply is... people should just stop for a minute, drop what you're doing... f**k a job, f**k pop artists, f**k the news, f**k everything that preoccupies your mind. Relax, begin thinkin at a peaceful pace and get to know yourselves, then once you know who you really are, work on knowing your neighbors, your brother and sisters (humans in general). Figure them out, get to understand them fully to the point of near, "overstanding" them.

If we could all do this, then we can stop with the judgments, stereo typing, generalizations, evil deeds etc... but because our minds are sooo f**ked into tryin to survive, tryin to fit into a trend, tryin to up keep with sports, tryin to know all the secrets of Brittney Spears etc... we just become a big group of ignorant, stupid assholes, who are generally selfish and careless of others and only care to benefit ourselves.

So yeah... I think not just because of your thread... but just in general, I'm really gettin sick of people. I want to escape humanity as it bleeds hatred and fear and stay away from it, as THAT is the true poison, and I want nothin to do with it.

/rant