Okay, let me try to explain.
Since most of you won't accept the point I make until I do show once again that I can articulate my thoughts in English (what game are we playing here? you all know already, don't you?), I will proceed the formal way and see if appearance changes something where substance won't.
I think that most of the points we make in any argument come from personal experience. There is one honest way of admitting it, and pointing out what made you think what you think, and one dishonest way of pretending your views came from heaven knows where because you're afraid of being called someone who has issues or who needs to get laid. By the way, Villain, people who conclude arguments that way tend to be extremely vulgar in nature. I hope you escape the majority. I don't need to remind you or anyone else that alluding to someone's sexual activity or lack thereof to discredit them is a sign of ignorance and stupidity: "You need to get laid" is mysteriously more accepted than "You're a disgusting fag", but in my eyes they sound the same. Unrequited and unproven offences towards someone based on assumptions on their private behavior.
Now that this is out of the way, on to the main point. I have or might have "issues", I am biased by my "personal history", and so on and so forth. My take on this is that I have sound opinions based on experience, and I claim a right to have them. By observing reality, I have seen the following phenomenon happening many a time: in high schools, or othwer adolescnt communities like, say, the boy scouts or a metal band alike, some people are appreciated because they act according to a certain stereotype. The current en vogue clichés range from vampyre/goth to neohippy to punk rock kid to whatever other youth trend you can think of. A teen pagan who says he likes the fact that is mother is suffering because she's been bad to him is another cliché, and nobody will tell him that he has "issues", although it's pretty obvious that they have, because they are trendy and accepted. I do question the truths behind those stands, and I do question the values themselves. As a pretty square teen, although I wore Manowar t-shirts, I always thought that the amount of attention directed to the so-called "alternative" scene was excessive and unfair. Since I am a human being, I suffered the fact that I was ignored and that I was less popular than them, didn't get invited to the "cool" parties, etcetera. If you look inside with some honesty, I guess this is not an experience no one else of you has. And if you want me to go on more on the subject, I can do so anytime.
Does my disapproval of people who belong to the alternarebel teen scene stems from having "issues"? No, it stems from having a brain and using it. Now I'm pretty much out of this phase, being 24 years old, considerably richer than those who were the leaders of the pack back then, and the only one in my high school class to have achieved social status so soon. I am not boasting, rahvin can confirm this anytime [By the way he's going to make it bigger with his book, so I'm just temporarily overshadowing him - and you all see what a little conquest overshadowing a dwarf is]. And exactly because I survived the unpopularity, the attacks - on my religion as well, because it's so old-fashioned and you don't get laid before marriage, oh gosh, I think I'm going to kill myself - and the laughs, I think that my reaction should be considered objective social commentary more than the outcome of having "issues".
A distorted teenage culture brings to the spotlight people who put forward values that are not good to themselves or society: one who, say, studies hard or has a good relationship with their parents or does not do drugs tends to be ridiculed. And why is that? Because in a typical short-term time window like the one most people have at 15 or 16, being bold and courageous equals saying you refuse everything, while slacking at your weak family's expense night and day.
Of course if someone wants to turn themselves into a no-good it is their problem, and I don't really care much about the social effects at this point of my philosophical evolution. What I feel compelled to point out is that those kind of persons, momentarily stronger than the others because they have a crew and their self-esteem is boosted by widespread complicity, can prey on others who are temporarily weaker but hold constructive, positive moral values. If someone is thought cool if they badmouth their parents all the time (while, I repeat, merrily taking their money), and if not doing so is stonewalled by the community and worn as a mark of cowardice, then the good people who try to value objectively the downsides but also the upsides of their family might be strayed. This is easy at 16. What would you think if your kids did the same? And so on and so forth. Of course I'm just taking one example, I could expand to many other situations and cases.
Deviated teenager values, such as glorifying irresponsibility, silly cults (yes, silly cults) and false affirmations of self (normally at the expense of others, no wonder they turn violent) are dangerous since they can stifle and kill the few good men and women around from the start. It takes a lot of guts to get over it if you're inclined to react, or a detachment and determination to go for the kill if necessary few have - our good dwarf is an example of that, but I am not.
This is the reason why I immediately responded to Ibsen's comment: you say it was a joke, but I imagine him telling the same "joke" in his group of friends and them mocking the catholic boys or girls in their class for whatever stupid reason. I can also feel the pain of those people since I was one of them. Is this having issues? I call it being critical of some customs and conscious of the way a part of the world and relationships between human beings work.
Villain, you said anyone supporting America is your personal enemy. I am saying that anyone praying on the momentarily weak on the wave of a culturally deconstructive trend is my personal enemy. Giving objective, real-life reasons for it does not mean that I have problems: just that I know where I am coming from.
Now that I've had my ten show-off minutes, I do not think that I have added anything substantial to the discussion (those of you with a working mind could figure out already, and if they didn't it was because they didn't want to; those of you who don't understand... what can I do?), but at least I've been pc enough to please your aesthetic requirements. don't get me wrong: the content of this email is still "fuck you, ibsen".
h
before i dreamed doing. what she was trying to say is that she was not amongst the "cool" people. she never did embrace what - at the time - were easy stereotypes made to impress and ultimately (even by some friends) she was considered less than others because the outward signs of popularity and charisma just weren't there. no fancy clothes, no "i've been going out with a guy for a month then got bored", no "i went to a sit in to save the whales". this is not something you all can relate to directly: in your time and place maybe the very definition of being cool is completely different, but these were accepted clichés when we were younger here in turin and that's what spelled the difference between being in or out inside our environment.
it was less widespread and maybe less of a mark of shame, but still she (we) had no power, no control over this regardless of our religious o moral beliefs. i am and i was an agnostic, and the only thing i had against sex before marriage at the time was that nobody wanted to do it with me 
but still i was in a similar situation.
