Discussion The Worst Scum?

With this point -- I can understand this feeling because I used to feel this way too. I mean, when I learned about Enlightened absolutism with rulers like Frederick and Catherine the great, the idea was immensely appealing -- especially when democracy frustrates us so much in the modern day.

However, over time, my opinions have really shifted. Although dictatorship is without question often more effective than a democracy (defining "effectiveness" as the speed at which legislation is changed and passed), they aren't necessarily "better" on all metrics.

The question that I use as my litmus test is: (1) Do I think if I became the dictator and abolished elections, could I run the country better than the current system?

And the answer is a definitive no.

Aside from the fact that I think I'm unqualified (but then again, to be frank, everyone is probably unqualified in some way or another, and you'd be egoistic to think otherwise -- although I think I'm probably more qualified than most). Part of the reason for this answer is that I've really come to appreciate how little each of us know. Every single one of us lives in a bubble, and everyone that we surround ourselves with becomes part of that bubble. It is sheerly impossible to know every piece of society and take their wellbeing into account like a good "Enlightened Monarch" should. It happens in webnovels, yes, but that's because it's fiction. All of us are human. We are fallible. We have limits to what we know. We live in our own bubbles, and we only see the problems that are visible in our own bubbles.

This is more of the personal side for me related to my career things, but I am deeply invested in the dregs of society. I guess that's what makes me a liberal. I want to know the suffering of people who are unseen and don't have a voice -- because otherwise in my everyday I'd never see it (since I guess I grew up part of the high-achieving side of society), even though the data tells me that it's there.

The more voices there are in the decision-making process, particularly diversity of voices (not in the "token diversity" sense just for show, but actual diversity of experiences and backgrounds completely unlike mine, rich and poor, high levels of education and low, and it's even better if they disagree with me), really helps make decisions that are better than me making decisions on my singular life experiences alone.

An entire country run on a single person's life-experiences and decisions is kind of scary to think about.
Or even an entire country run by people who think exactly the same way is equally scary to think about.

 

You misunderstand "corrupt Politicians" I think. I guess you may have been spoiled with democracy.

The term refers to among other things those Politicians who may be in power against the will of the people, rig elections, kill millions, cause suffering, etc.

I find it fatuous to attempt to judge intent; you are not God. You can't judge the intent behind the action, all you have is the action, and that is all you should judge.

But even if, even if we could judge intent, I still feel we shouldn't. We shouldn't get in the habit of rewarding or punishing intent, and should reward or punish only actions, and the consequences thereof; it is better for society.

I'm a consequentialist; intent is irrelevant to me. It doesn't matter why you did what you did (save for understanding the person), it only matters what you did, and what were its consequences.

Folly lies the path of judging by intent; that is the domain of God, not mere man.

Those who cause people to suffer; politicians who cause the deaths of millions are the worst scum to me.

Sadism manifests in different forms. When I watch rape porn, or torture or something else, it is indulgence in sadism. I gain pleasure from imagined suffering of others. The difference is that I don't actively seek out such pleasures in reality, and enjoy the convenience of fantasy. The motive behind someone who watches rape porn, and someone who rapes for sadistic reasons, are the same. The intent is the same.

Do you find me repugnant?

Most rape isn't even because of sadistic reasons though; majority of rape is caused by family members and/or acquaintances, with family alone taking around 43-45% of cases.

Majority of rape is caused by lust pure and simple. Lust and a disregard for others.

I wouldn't ever commit rape, but if you're judging by intent behind the actions, I'm worse than most rapists; I am very selfish. Selfish in a way that is more malicious in intent than rape.

Rape is rarely motivated by a desire to inflict suffering; satiation of lust, and obsession with the target sufficiently explains most rape as per Occam's Razor.

[quotr="Hanlon's Razor"]
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
[/quote]

Rape isn't motivated by sadism in most cases, that is the truth.

If we were judging by intent, then I have fantasised about torturing people, making them suffer. That I haven't carried it out shouldn't matter right?

Judging people by intent opens up a whole can of worms.

I mentioned before that most people would consider someone like me the worst scum, maybe I wasn't wrong; my intentions are far more malignant than those of rapists anyway.

If I hate someone, or they wronged me I may fantasise about torturing them. Or killing them, or making them suffer and shaming them. It is cheaper, and far more convenient than actually going through with the act.

I don't believe we should judge by intent, if we do, we'll be opening a can of worms I'm not sure you're ready to open.

As for murder, I'm willing to bet that a higher percentage of murders is motivated by malice than for rape.


EDIT:
Intent is relevant, for example if someone killed someone else, the intent matters.

Though how I deal with it, was that killing in Self Defense, you were averting your own death.

Accidentally ending a life, is also different from murder.

I guess intent matters.

 

You're committing a very rudimentary, yet conspicuously egregious fallacy; you're assuming the dictator does not have advisors, or ministers, or aides.

I do not want to rely on the availability heuristic, but I cannot recall a single administration in history, that was run entirely by one person.

I stand by my earlier statement.

Demerits of Democracy:

1. Impermanence of Government: Too little time to revolutionise a country.
2. Difference in Ideology: Any plan that requires several administrations to exact is not trustworthy, as your successors may not share your ideology.
3. Limited Legal Powers: You can't easily enforce laws the way a Monarch could. I'm not a US citizen, but I heard congress frustrated Obama and his 'Obamacare'.

The best democracies in the world are still subject to these three limitations. A competent democrat << A competent dictator.

I do not believe in "Die Gratia", nor would any Royal Style I support have "Dei Gratia" in it. I designed a system for a constitutional monarchy, which is what I feel is the best.

Main points of the system.

1. Meritocracy: System is completely meritocratic succession of Aristocracy titles and Monarchy is not by blood, but based on merit. Blood can inherit if they proved themself.
2. National Aristocratic Academy: The future leaders would be trained for leadership from childhood, and the best would fill in the spots. The academy would take the best of the youth the country as to offer. National primary school exams, could be used to recruit students and maybe only those I the 99th percentile would be accepted into the school for example?
3. Limited Powers: The Monarch has full reign, but can be resisted if enough people in power support it.
4. Transparency: The accounts of aristocrats, and rulers, etc are made transparent. Reasons behind decision making is also made transparent etc.
5. Capital Punishment: Corruption is a crime that elicits capital punishment.
6. Parliamentary System: House of Lords is made up of the Aristocracy, House of Commons is elected by the citizenry. Both houses, are involved in the selection of the Monarch from among the princes, and in nomination of the princes.
7. Citizenship School: All citizens must go to a 1-3 year citizen school, that would ensure they have the informed agency to vote and be involved in decisions involving the country (Prime Minister and A house of Commons would still be elected).

They should at least implement the "Citizen's School" in modern democracies.

 

From a practical real-world standpoint, when people evaluate whether a politician is "corrupt" or not, people often use value judgements based on speculation of intent, opaque facts, and unclear outcomes (e.g. "Hillary Clinton is corrupt because she has a private email server!"). In many circumstances, many of the things you mentioned are not verifiable at least from the perspective of many Western Countries that have established democracies. What exactly do you mean quantitatively by "politicians who may be in power against the will of the people"? Electoral fraud in the United States is another thing I don't even want to go into. And how exactly do you evaluate whether a politician has "killed millions" or "caused suffering"? All politics involves the weighing of trade offs. There is no such thing has a policy that pleases everyone -- one policy might give millions a job, but the same policy might put a different hundred thousand people out of a job. Bailing out the banks in 2008 might been a bad choice, but we don't know if not-bailing them out would be a worse choice?

My point is, from a practical standpoint, if you argue that it's fatuous to attempt to judge intent, it is also fatuous to attempt judge whether a politician that implemented X policy instead of Y killed or didn't kill people. On a scale as grand as the world where political policies affect, nobody has complete understanding about the consequences.

It is impossible for a viewer to definitely say with whether Donald Trump is "corrupt" or not, simply because we as a viewer don't hold complete information. It's exactly the same situation in how we don't know what his intentions are.

I think I should clarify that I don't necessarily think that society should reward or punish intent. I am describing my personal behaviors and beliefs, not with any suggestion that anyone else should think like this. It's a personal thing. Whether or not we think some is "scum" is a subjective question, not an objective one.

In terms of "judging" -- it is my firm belief that I don't judge people I don't know.

If I don't know you or I've just met you, I'm not going to judge you based on your resume or your appearance. It is part of my personal philosophy give you an open mind and to treat you well at first regardless of what some others might say about you.

I only feel comfortable judging people that I've known sufficiently. And part of knowing people sufficiently is getting to know them on their inside. Are they are nice person or are they only superficially a nice person for show? What are their goals? What are their desires? What is their story? What are their interests? How do they act when I'm not around? All of these things help inform a picture about what is a person's intents.

The difference between evaluating a person's actions and a person's intents, to me, is that evaluating actions is evaluating a person's past. Evaluating intentions is making a judgement call about what they will do or kind of person they will be in the future, and whether or not you can trust them.

Both are critical skills in the real world. Information is never perfect, but it's absolutely necessary to weigh both pieces of information.

I for one, personally place greater value on the latter. The former is of course important, but but I'm the type that is more willing to forgive mistakes as long as I'm able to make the judgement that X person is going to be different in the future (and evaluation about intent).

If you advocate for a world of judging people solely on their past actions and not their present intentions, to me that is basically the same thing as saying "forgiveness" shouldn't be a thing in interpersonal relationships.

I'm not in the mood for arguing about this.

I never said that rape is connected to sadism, or that rapists are sadists.

I get that people are interested in BDSM and that people have sexual fantasies and different fetishes. However, I would ardently argue that the intent in having the sexual fantasies is not the same as actually committing them in real life. In this sense, no I don't find you repugnant. It's not like I'm wholly disinterested in the BDSM in BL either, and it's not like I haven't read rape in BL without finding it erotic on the occassion. Having a fetish or finding something controversial sexual or erotic does not make you automatically a repugnant person. The intent also isn't the same.

Claiming it is the same, in my view, is actually a huge offense to people who actually practice BDSM in real life. A dominant who acts out a "rape" scene isn't the same as a rapist. A submissive who has a "rape fantasy" (orz the otome games from Japan are all rape fantasies q___q) doesn't mean that they actually wanted to be raped in real life. Those are very very very different things.

To use things in your language, fantasizing about drinking Kavka's poison is very different from actually intending to drink it.

Yes, I'm aware that a majority of cases of rape come from acquaintances -- it's why the term "date rape" is a thing.

But it still remains the subject I have the most automatic reaction to on the list, because when I learn information like that X raped my friend, I am comfortable making the value judgement that he isn't trustworthy, even if he is the straight A student and had a impeccable record before. Like you said, the kind of rape using sleeping pills and that kind of thing indicates a lack of regard for others. That's a judgement about the intent of the person that committing rape, not the act of rape itself.

The intent matters to me very much because premeditated rape (pills in a drink at a party) is at a different place than alcohol/drunk rape, at least how I view things on a moral spectrum, even though they're both pretty bad.

As for whether "murders are motivated by malice" -- I think you've misunderstood me. Murdering someone out of malice for someone is often because one has an underlying grudge or negative feeling towards -- in other words, there's a reason why many murders are done, and often time, they're regrettable reasons. Murders are much less frequently committed because "It's fun to kill people!" -- that's just psychopathic.

I gave this example before, but if I found out my brother "raped someone", vs. "killed someone," I'm far more likely to leap to conclusions about my brother's character with the former than the latter. Hence the gut reaction.

 

murder is meh after a while in the army I see human life as meh. I do not wantonly kill though since laws would put me in jail and jail is boring so I follow orders. As for rape imo it just causes a much larger reaction from me. Some people that rape feel as if its just sex to them so its okay even if they go to jail. Murder on the other hand is very clear and str8 forward ( its wrong) so I do not really view it with as much hatred as I do rape. Some scumbags that rape. The shit they pull in court to avoid going to jail might be why I am so jaded against rapists. I just stating my opinions though so I do not mind people disagreeing with me.

 

You're right, but my point here is that a dictatorship is biased to the opinion of one individual.

Automatically, things are taken off the table because advisors know not to present ideas that the individual will not like to hear, at least according to their personality.

Why do you think the Three Gorges Dam was built? This isn't meant in any serious way, but I would jest to say that Mao wasn't interested in hearing the advisor that vehemently disagreed with him -- oh maybe about how several million people might be unhappy they'd be relocated and the river ecosystem might be damaged. It's a common theme and trend in many dictatorships of the world.

When more people carry weight in the decision-making process -- real decision-making weight, mind you (not the nominal kind as an "advisor") -- it forces more viewpoints to be entertained.

You're absolutely right that democracies, like all forms of government have limitations, particularly when it comes to implement change and advance policy.

However, the real question here is how one makes the values judgement of what makes a system of government better than another? More happiness? More speed? More money? More security? More freedom? We're juggling values here. Unless we've established what are the metrics we're evaluating one system by or another, the argument is a bit meaningless. All of us hold different values of different importance as well.

The very premise of having a dictatorship is to override the desires of the majority.

Suppose for instance, in an alternate world, a majority (>75% fake number) of Americans are pro-life (anti-abortion). If I as dictator decided to legalize abortion because I believed in it, the 75% of America that disagrees with me is bound to be unhappy about that decision. Do we judge this outcome as good or bad?

Social issues are a somewhat trivial matter, but what about issues with more weight?

When the Chinese stock market popped a bubble in 2015-6, and you were dictator of China, with the advice of your best advisors, what would you do? Economics are such a delicate thing that there's no accepted answer for what is the best thing to do. The Chinese decided to ban the selling of stocks for 6 months, but the rest of the world intelligentsia also noted that the action may or may not have eroded consumer confidence and may have worsened the situation.

>____< I love using China as an example for these types of things because, functionally, China is a technocracy. <-- I really recommend this article @Dupe2818!

That was part of the appeal of the USSR and communism. The intellectuals and the engineers and economists and the PhDs would run government while the farmers would be all happy and dandy. Democracy is imperfect, for the large part, because people are dumb, and they vote dumb people into office. In democracy, we essentially send monkeys into office and hope the boat doesn't sink.

The real question here is that, in which society, would you say outcomes are better?

The society run by the technocrats who use their cutting-edge intellectual ideas (mind you, the "cutting edge" is always changing, and we don't know which ideas are phrenology and which are legit) to drive a super speedy ship?
Or the society that is driven by a bunch of monkeys randomly driving a slow-moving ship?

(^The answer to the question above is to have a really really resistantly-built ship XD)

The odd thing is, both societies are roughly equally as bad at predicting the future. In the multiple choice game of life (Do you implement this policy? Yes/No?), China has made just as many mistakes as the United States (if only because sometimes inaction is better than a horribly wrong action, e.g. 1-child-policy), and China is very much a country of intelligent design and constant implementation of new policies.

Of course, if you're someone like Roland from Release that Witch, and you have knowledge about future technology and systems that work, you have an advantage. However, the real world isn't like that. We are limited in our decision making capacity because we don't have the technology or knowledge of the future. Much more frequently than you might think, we're confident that X policy is the correct answer, but it may turn out we're horribly wrong.

 

just going to address this since it's something that slightly bothered me in Release the Witch. As much as I like that novel because the author actually tries to make the world make sense, Roland's ability to singlehandedly affect that level of mental change in his citizens is still incredibly unrealistic. Assuming the medieval aspect of that world is similar socially to the one that happened in our world, serfs wouldn't "yearn for freedom". They've had generations and generations of living as serfs, most of them would be confused at the ideas of social change and mobility. It's somewhat understandable because of his position as a prince and the dire situation they were in, but mentality isn't something that changes that easily, esp the way Roland uses social pressure to get his newer citizens to adapt. And I don't even want to get into how culture influences how societies are willing to let themselves develop. Just because a system works in the future, in our world, etc. doesn't mean they'd work in the past, in a similar world, etc. Realistically, Roland's policy regarding people could easily have flopped for any unaccounted-for reason. The author does give him a good excuse in the form of the witches though. Personal change from personal interaction is far easier than affecting change in societies as a whole. When you add the help of the witches' powers (esp Nightingale's), it still maintains the bubble of feeling realistic enough for me to let it go. I just wanted to mention it since it kept niggling at the back of my brain.

but yea just to touch on the main topic for a bit I guess, I'd probably narrow it down further to "child molesters" being the worst scum. There's arguably times where tyrants, warlords, and corrupt politicians are needed. Abe Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, there's plenty of benevolent dictatorships throughout history such as Frederick the Great, and 100% non-corruptable politicans don't exist in reality. Con artists, elites, and perverts aren't really scum on the same level either when compared to the harm the previous group can do (even when necessary). So yea, while rapists are def the worst on the list, considering the culture of homemade child porn in the deep web that proliferates these days, I feel like child molesters are the worst scum. Also #notalllolicons are child molesters Just to give a bit of defense to the perverted brotherhood here on NUF

 

Yeah! I've always thought something more-or-less similar.

But that's essentially what you get when the author is an engineer(?). As an engineer, you start to see problems like an engineer, although frankly, it doesn't necessarily mean the engineer approach is universally the best approach or right approach.

I mean, I chose 科学 (the sciences) over 文学 (the humanities) too (kids in China generally used to have to make that key pick when going to university), but I think countries these days are getting it wrong when they elevate the sciences over the humanities.

Humanities are essential! Humanities are people! I wish I went into the humanities sometimes, though I know I'm not good enough to make a career out of it. q___q

 

yea reality makes everything way more complicated than it has any right to be lol. Although a lot of those realities are rooted from our own weaknesses as humans... When you make a personal change in your life, it's simple but hard : simple because you just have to make it a routine, hard because new routines are a pain in the bum till you get numbed to them. However, since you alone are the one trying to change, while you can get your social circle to help you by applying social pressure, you still have to want to do it yourself. More or less, because it is a problem you saw in yourself, that itself help lowers your mental defenses enough to where you're willing to bruise your ego a bit to hopefully come out a better person and heal. If you don't SEE a problem though and instead get an intervention, the only reason your defense don't go up all the way is hopefully because the intervention was hosted by people you care about maintaining your relationship with. And even that gets exponentially harder, thus the saying that it's impossible to help someone who doesn't want help.

When you apply this to a country level where you sometimes get ridiculed by people, it's not surprising that it's so hard to move society as a whole. Even if the majority of the people sympathize with the issue you're trying to solve, enough people would probably get defensive over the issue since acknowledging it would basically be admitting having been part of something bad. Rather than reconsider the world you constructed in your head that you believe to be reality, it's easier to simply deny that reality is different in the first place. If you want to read up more about how hard change really is and how much self-delusion people are willing to commit to, try reading this article : http://www.cracked.com/article_24477_2017-america-summed-up-in-one-photo-from-50-years-ago.html . It's about the people involved in a certain desegregation influential event in Little Rock.

(Actually, in fact, if you're interested in a lot of things like this, I'd suggest you frequent that website in general. It's mostly a website that posts silly articles about pop-culture, but every once in awhile they come out with a documentary level article that really blows your mind wide open. And the best thing is probably the people involved in the comments section : generally they're discerning, willing to call bullshit on the author of the article when needed, and they generally downvote/make fun of people who are there to be assholes instead of contributing to the conversation. It's a great environment for critical thought and a great source if you're interested in gathering a wide variety of different people's unique experiences)

 

I come from a Third World country; for a long time in my country, elections have been a joke.

From what I hear, the populace in Venezuela are suffering.

Let me give you examples you can relate to: Stalin and Hitler carried out Ethnic cleansings.

Military Dictatorships who cause reigns of terror.

Election fraud is real, and it happens.

Local elections have been very bloody in my country, several national elections have been rigged. Only 3 elections were allegedly "free and fair"; in the first, the President elect died shortly after from poisoning, and the results were annulled.

Embezzlement of money happens a lot. It is normal in my country. My former President who stepped out a year+ ago, allegedly went into office quite poor. Now his estimated worth is 600 million dollars.

More than one former leader has stolen billions of dollars.

I don't think any of my former presidents have been impeached. The concept of resigning doesn't exist here.

You may sound insensitive (I think you do, but I'm apathetic right now, so I don't feel anything), when you try to defend "corrupt politicians". They're real, and people suffer, people have lost loved ones due to their policies, people have been oppressed.

Insensitive or not, you do sound ignorant when you try to defend Politicians and bias your sample to only the West, specifically the USA. I especially warned you, that you have been spoiled by democracy. Folly lies the way of generalising from one specific instance.

Again, you have been spoiled by Democracy; I am not thinking about the West, when I mention corrupt Politicians.

 

You didn't comment on this:

This was the crux of my argument. I don't understand why you would loathe a rapist, but I am not anathema to you. I am not talking of BDSM fantasies for now, let's leave that alone. Christianity has a concept of "Adultery of the Heart" which has been extended to other sins. I have committed murder of the heart, and torture of the heart.

I have held malignant, malevolent, maleficent, evil thoughts towards others. Thoughts that if exacted will be more horrendous than rape. The intent is there. The only difference is that I do not exact it? Why do I not exact it? The cost of exacting it, Vs the benefit gained isn't favourable. If I need to, I indulge in fantasy about revenge. I don't do this all the time though, though there's people that if I had the chance to kill and get away Scot free from, that I will.

For the cases in which I do exact my revenge, it's much much less. Never to the extent I fantasised to. I haven't killed anyone, or sent anyone to ICU. The one time someone might have died from a revenge plot I hatched (in hindsight, quite improbable), it was never my intention, and I was quite worried then. I sabotaged the fan in their room as well as the light bulbs and all electric sockets, and intended for them to bear the inconvenience of not have access to any of them, and maybe the cost of fixing it. The fan may have fallen down and killed someone after malfunctioning, and I was kind of worried about it. I didn't feel repentant about the action, more worry at the consequences.

If God judged me, I would rate as bad as murderers and those who engage in torture for sadistic reasons. Funnily enough, I haven't fantasised about rape (I don't classify a lot of Hentai rape as rape. It's not really rape if the girl enjoys it, and in any raoe fantasy I've had, it's more BDSM play).

The reason why I don't enact those fantasies, is because of the consequences; not morals, logic and reason prevent me from actualising my thoughts.

I think I should be worse than rapists in your eyes.

I also disregard others:

I only care about me and mine (defined as those with significant utility to me, e.g my family, loved ones, and maybe friends). I disregard others.

If you're judging rapists by intent, then you should abhor me.

I'm not trying to enact a reductio ad absurdum here; I am merely asking that you be consistent in your thoughts.

Premise: "Rapists are terrible because of their intents, and I care more about people's intents than their actions"

Conclusion: Dupe2818 and his ilk are anathema to me.

You should hate me. I don't understand why you don't. I do not argue that you shouldn't judge people by their intents (I personally disagree with this, but you've raised sound arguments). Now, I argue that you should loathe me.

Do you?

I guess I view murder as worse since I fear death — either a permanent end to my existence, or an eternity of suffering — infinite negative payoff either way.

I understand why people would regard rape as worse though.

True. But for Kavka's poison, I will actually intend to drink it.

For murder, I am not sure whether you can classify it as intent; I do want to kill the person and may fantasise about it, and I would... but the consequences restrain me. Do I intend to commit the murder then.

God will condemn me all the same; would you?

 

Sorry, but my definition of "competent" involves having the common sense to recognise that you are fallible possess limited knowledge, and several views should be entertained.

Surely there were dictators like that in History?

I would be a dictator like that, if I were one.

I would read the article thanks.

Irrelevant, read my comment on "informed electorate". The opinions of an ignorant and uninformed electorate are irrelevant.

Democracy is basically populist. Democracy started in Athens, and the then electorate were informed. Nowadays, they're not.

Democracy puts too much power in the hands of ignorant masses and people who don't know shit about Government, Economics, public administration, etc.

Studies showed a significant amount of people (in the tens percentage wise) believed that the problems of Government were imaginary, and they or anyone else with common sense could solve them.

Those are the people you're granting power to.

You didn't reply to:

1. My suggestions for a proposed constitutional Monarchy
2. My suggestions for an informed electorate.

Hitler is still worse than the worst rapist, child molester, etc. Simply because it is fatuous to try and compare the suffering of a single person/handful of people to the suffering of millions.

 

Don't really think you can quantify and determine which kind of scum is worse since the crimes are too different from each other in the nature of the crime.
For example a corrupt leader can cause far more damage than a rapist, but I'm more disgusted by the rapist on a personal level.
Before you ask who is worse you need to determine according to what criteria you are basing the concept of "worst" on, is it based on harm?, disregard? or fear?

 

rapist is the worst scum in my opinion.

 

Seconded. Everything seems tame in front of rapist.

 

Even the Holocaust?

Even more than a genocidal dictator?

 

Of course. Killing is good. There are too much people in earth anyway. We need more Hitlers to send more people to another world.

 

You're just being juvenile now; what happened in that thread should stay in that thread.

I was asking a serious question; I appreciate a serious reply.

 

A God.

 

Meh, who're you to judge whether I was being serious or not? You're just a dupe anyway. A juvenile dupe who likes to forcing his beliefs to others. I was serious, though you don't deserve my seriousness, I was 100% serious.