the dynamite politics thread
- Thread starter Malaclypse
- Start date
so, while you not necessarily want me dead, you most definitely want me jobless. i will not stand for it.Salamurhaaja said:
Villain
Doctor BenQuillity
Okay, I admit I have not always expressed myself too clearly, but it appears YOU don't have a feeble grasp of the ideas I presume to support. It feels almost like you are intentionally putting someone else's words into my mouth and I doubt those are even Salamy's. Thus, it seems I need to make a few points clear now:rahvin said:
1. I'm not a left-wing supporter. I might have some opinions that are similar to those of some left-wing politicians, but surely I'm not supporting them with any kind of passion. I have several opinions that are pretty much against all so-called "liberal" ideologies and I'm sometimes very vocal with them (just for an example, I support the idea of a global "three-child policy" that should be effective starting today, which would mirror the Chinese "one-child policy" meant to slow down the overpopulation [one of the worst problems and future threats in the world] except in the amount of children - one woman should be allowed to give birth to a maximum of three children in her lifetime, no more under any normal conditions; the theoretically great Chinese policy fails in practice because it is too limiting and because of the huge inequality between boys and girls in Chinese culture, which leads to abandoned girl-babies, etc). The thing is, I'm extremely anti-right-wing in my political views, but that doesn't (or shouldn't) make me a left-wing supporter. I see no difference between the real motivations and goals of the fascists of the 1930's and the hard-set conservatives of the 2000's, yet that shouldn't put me in any political camp - just clearly outside one. And in any real democracy, there are more than two political camps to choose from. Just as a side-note, I have usually voted for either independents or environmentalists.
2. What comes to your rather undefined accusation that I wish certain people to get killed, I won't deny it. Still, I fail to see any difference between the positions of Hyena and myself in this issue: she wants the radical islamists and other people she seems as a threat to her precious christian way of life killed, I want all the religious fanatics that I see threatening my view of the (future) world killed. If there really is a difference, would you like to point it out for me? Could it be that I openly admit that I want them killed, while Hyena, the hypocrite that she is (as is every Christian who supports any war - read the ten commandments again, if you will) avoids carefully (like a skilled politician, I might add) saying openly that she wants quite a few thousand people dead? Huh?
3. I don't think I have ever said (and if I really have said, I haven't really meant it in that way) that I wanted someone dead because of their ideas, or political opinions, or world-view, or whatever. I want people dead because of their actions - the things they do to support the religious fanatics, fascist leaders or communist conspiracies. Granted, my definition of support in this regard has varied a lot (depending on my mood mostly) from voluntarily paying taxes to certain governments to killing millions of innocent people (like, say, Henry Kissinger did), but never have I based my "death-wish" on anyone's opinions alone, and if I have come across in the wrong way in that regard, I sincerely apologise.
4. My ideologies are highly utopian and I'm the first to admit they are not meant for the world of today. If I really were an idealist, I guess I would try to implement them to today's society in the small scale or something, but as I actually am a rationalist, I see that the world of today is not ready for them. Anyways, as I think that I really haven't (yet, just wait 'til I have graduated) ever thoroughly explained my ideologies here on this forum, I find it rather funny that you are criticising my lack of concistency with them or between them and my words here - I mean, on what are you basing your assumptions of the ideas that I support? I have posted a few pieces of them here and there, sure, and probably expressed some of them to you face to face, but you must be quite a mind-reader to state that my comments here are showing a feeble grasp I actually have of the ideas I presume to support. Because I just don't support those ideas, and I don't presume I support them either. Certainly, you can criticise my stated opinions and their contradictions (as there probably are quite a few of them), but unless I have really posted something here that explains my ideologies and have completely forgotten it already (which I doubt, but it's certainly not impossible with my feeble memory), it appears you are just making wild guesses on the real content of my ideologies. You do have some points right, that's for sure, but it appears you haven't got the full picture and are filling in the blanks with something you are possibly reading on someone else's postings (the left-wing issue, for example). To fix a single error in your view of my ideas, I point out that getting rid of all religions is a step towards that ideal world of mine, but I have always realized it can't be achieved in my lifetime and that is why I'm really not saying that every religious person should be killed - heck, many of my good friends are religious people. Religious fanatics are a completely different case (I realize I should probably define "religious fanatic" here, but I'm getting tired).
Finally, I must admit (and I have done so before) that I certainly am not a good argumentator (is that a real word?) in any of these political issues - I tend to get way too hot-headed sometimes. Yet, I believe that I have learned a lot during the past few years in this whole area (and I thank Hyena, Nick & others here for "teaching" me), and that is why I was very surprised by your (Rahvin) critique now - what exactly of my posts in this thread within the past, say, three months prompted you to address me personally (had you said something like "Salmy and those who think likewise" I could have passed this, as even though the implication towards me would have been clear, I wouldn't probably have felt so mis-interpreted)? Or are you referring to some older posts of mine? I could understand that, but I think I have actually pretty much explained (read: apologised) myself for them quite some time ago already.
-Villain (who just wasted more than an hour of precious time I should have used working on my graduation thesis, all because of this - thank you for giving me the excuse to stay away from that damned thesis for a while)
t.a.j.
:.::
hm, I've gotten the impression that people who are willing to believe sincerely and without question the most contradictory and unreasonable things (read religious people) show two main attributes they have in common:
They cannot be argued with (as argueing requires reason and scrutiny both of which they cannot apply to their view of the world) and they can be made to do the most contradictory and unreasonable things simply by presenting those things in the light of their divine authority.
That is strangely (or rather obviously) the same problem that extremly nationalisitic people represent.
Religious people are looking for a leader too...
They cannot be argued with (as argueing requires reason and scrutiny both of which they cannot apply to their view of the world) and they can be made to do the most contradictory and unreasonable things simply by presenting those things in the light of their divine authority.
That is strangely (or rather obviously) the same problem that extremly nationalisitic people represent.
Religious people are looking for a leader too...
@ville: since you're not the only one who has to finish a thesis i'll be brief and pospone the rest of this until we've both handed in our (undoubtedly brilliant) work:
just don't misinterpret me in that. i am in no way advocating a "christianity for all would be good" scheme. i was speaking of preserving civil rights, freedoms etc. including freedom of religion. most of the western world isn't even christian anymore, and it's not necessary to be christian to support free speech, racial equality, free trade, whatever comes into your mind when thinking of "western values". while i personally am christian (and not necessarily a hypocrite for supporting a war, i will extend on this in the future), i strongly wish that all people in this part of the world, be they agnostic, atheist, jewish etc., are protected from a fundamentalist threat. and yes, i'll state it: if terrorists and the likes don't listen to reason/threats/bargains/promises, they might just have to be killed. with wars.Villain said:
Dark_Jester
Unrepentant sentient
But Hyena, what would you say in regards to the threat to civil liberties and freedoms posed by the current US administration? Are these measures only wrong per se if it is threatened by 'them' in violent means, as opposed to by 'us' through decidedly more dangerous political means? It would seem to me through current reports that 'western values'such as free speech, racial equality, etc are at more risk from our own than from the terrorists. For one thing, they may be a threat to life, but I'm not sure how they're threatening the free speech of the everyday public.
Additionally, the biggest war being fought now is in a place where these 'threats' weren't in existence. Iraq was a secular and insular country where the dictator was more interested in consolidating and keeping power in his own country without dealing with external issues. He is also proven to have no strong ties to the terrorist operatives the US was so interested in capturing in the first place.
He also posed no threat in regards to chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, as he did not have any. How can a man lacking all these elements be of significant threat to a continent on the far side of the Atlantic? You talk of bargaining and etc not working. However, the CIA recently released a report admitting it looks like the sanctions in Iraq were working effectively; there were no weapons, no plans to gain such weapons, which pretty much states what Saddam was saying before this 'just' war began. Surely the fact that the western people were misguided by those in positions of authority, and those particularly close to the current administration who disagreed or complained were removed with forced resignations when they stated they were to go public with the accusations represents more of a threat to civil liberties than a man who was essentially, at the time when it was decided to declare war on him as part of a mass-campaign on terror, was nothing more than another tin-pot dictator who posed no serious international threat.
Additionally, the biggest war being fought now is in a place where these 'threats' weren't in existence. Iraq was a secular and insular country where the dictator was more interested in consolidating and keeping power in his own country without dealing with external issues. He is also proven to have no strong ties to the terrorist operatives the US was so interested in capturing in the first place.
He also posed no threat in regards to chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, as he did not have any. How can a man lacking all these elements be of significant threat to a continent on the far side of the Atlantic? You talk of bargaining and etc not working. However, the CIA recently released a report admitting it looks like the sanctions in Iraq were working effectively; there were no weapons, no plans to gain such weapons, which pretty much states what Saddam was saying before this 'just' war began. Surely the fact that the western people were misguided by those in positions of authority, and those particularly close to the current administration who disagreed or complained were removed with forced resignations when they stated they were to go public with the accusations represents more of a threat to civil liberties than a man who was essentially, at the time when it was decided to declare war on him as part of a mass-campaign on terror, was nothing more than another tin-pot dictator who posed no serious international threat.
Villain
Doctor BenQuillity
Hyena: I wasn't misinterpreting you - your stand in this was perfectly clear to me, and I wasn't trying to imply that you advocated anything else.
And they certainly haven't listened to any reason/threats/bargains/promises this far - thus they should be killed.
To sum it up: I have never felt that Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaida, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, or any of these people you are afraid of have threatened my values (which just happen to include some of the things you mentioned, like freedom of speech) and my way of life in any significant way, while I feel an ever-growing threat to those very same values raising its ugly head from across the Atlantic.
I am just hoping that either 1) the American system falls before the threat it poses to western democratic values becomes a reality over here, or 2) the Europe is united and strong enough to stand against the USA (in both military and political sense) and keeps to its own values when that happens. I have pretty much lost my hope that the USA can somehow reverse its course on its own anymore, but I surely hope I'm wrong with all this.
-Villain
I agree wholeheartedly - the only difference being in our definitions of "terrorists". As I've stated before, I consider the current US government to be the biggest terrorist-leaders the world has seen since the fall of the Sovier Union and I consider the US Army to be nothing but a big terrorist organisation.hyena said:
And they certainly haven't listened to any reason/threats/bargains/promises this far - thus they should be killed.
To sum it up: I have never felt that Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaida, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, or any of these people you are afraid of have threatened my values (which just happen to include some of the things you mentioned, like freedom of speech) and my way of life in any significant way, while I feel an ever-growing threat to those very same values raising its ugly head from across the Atlantic.
I am just hoping that either 1) the American system falls before the threat it poses to western democratic values becomes a reality over here, or 2) the Europe is united and strong enough to stand against the USA (in both military and political sense) and keeps to its own values when that happens. I have pretty much lost my hope that the USA can somehow reverse its course on its own anymore, but I surely hope I'm wrong with all this.
-Villain
rahvin
keeper of the flame
there are many differences. the first one to come to mind, and i daresay the most embarrassing, is that you want to kill for threatening your values people who have had a tangible, substantial role in creating, defining, and supporting your values. within their broader set of values you have fine-tuned (even though they don't seem very fine-tuned to me) your own, taking advantage of the possibility that was given to you to narrow down the options to your very own choice. it is in the framework of the western culture and the western tradition of democracy, promoted and fostered by groups who were - unfortunately, if you want - made up of thinkers whose ideology was not altogether different from that of those you want to smite, that you have been able to formulate and express your personal version of a religious crusade.Villain said:
whether this is for better of for worse, you live in a country where it is possible to put online pictures that are offensive to, say, christians, without getting arrested. now try doing that with muslims in the middle-east.
oh, i will. but perhaps you should read a commentary to the ten commandments - something your hate frenzy might have prevented you from doing in the past - so that you can find out how the prohibition against killing people was aimed at personal enemies, and had nothing to do with wars. the killing of your enemy in a war was not considered murder, and there is nothing in the ten commandments that forbids wars. there is nothing in the bible that forbids wars, in fact. so you're possibly referring to the gospels or the teachings of jesus christ, i don't know.
TheFourthHorseman
In The Twilight World
Villain
Doctor BenQuillity
Okay, please explain one thing to me:rahvin said:
How in hell have the extreme religious people (or extreme right wing politicians for that matter) had a tangible, substantial role in creating, defining, and supporting my values??? No matter how hard I try, I can't see them having done anything even remotely resembling any of that.
Quite the contrary, the extremely religious people (especially Christian, Muslim and Jew - I leave the rest of the religions outside this argument, as I'm not too well-informed about them) have throughout the history opposed those very values I appreciate: freedom of thought, freedom of expression, equality among human beings, etc. Fundamentalist Christians, Muslims and Jews have always done their best to reduce those values to ash - just like they do today. The current US government opposes those values in my eyes just as much as Osama bin Laden does - and unlike the insignificant Osama, the US government is really threatening to impose their entirely different values to replace those I, and the majority of the western democracies for that matter, hold dear.
You seem to think that the concept of Western Democracies is somehow held up by the USA alone, and specifically the ultra-conservative religious hard-liners therein - you seem to imply that without them the whole democratic system in the west would crumble. If that is your opinion, so be it - but I don't agree with it at all. The so-called democratic culture as I see it has developed through centuries, from ancient Greece to French revolution and beyond. And yes, one of its greatest manifests was the American independence and during the 19th Century the USA stood on the forefront of democratic development in the world. However, just like one of the forerunners of European democracies, Germany, under various kinds of pressure voluntarily succumbed into a totalitarian terror-state in the 1930's, similarly has the USA succumbed into an oligarchic terror-superpower during the past Century.
Your claim that "it is in the framework of the western culture and the western tradition of democracy, promoted and fostered by groups who were made up of thinkers whose ideology was not altogether different from that of those you want to smite, that you have been able to formulate and express your personal version of a religious crusade" is simply wrong. Unless by "not altogether different" you mean something along the way that the North-Korean and Swedish political systems are not altogether different. The people I want to smite, the religious fanatics and the extreme right-wing leaders, were not the ones who promoted or fostered the western tradition of democracy - on the contrary, they did their best to prevent that tradition from ever existing, halt its development, and destroy and murder its real promoters. My freedom to form my own opinion has certainly not been given to me by their kind - not any more than it has been given to me by the Arabs (to whom the Europe owns much in terms of culture, btw). That freedom has been given to me by the current, existing community of (mostly) European democracies - in spite of those religious hard-liners and their attempts to impose their own values on me.
If you want to back up your above argument (which I currently find outright stupid), please use some examples: real names and deeds. How have the current (or even recent) religious fanatics and extreme right-wing leaders affected my values or my ability to form them? I promise to offer you all the beer you can drink next time we meet if you can come up with even one plausible example. (Just for comparison, since the WWII it was the Soviet leaders who in practice allowed the small Finland to develope into a social democracy - yet to claim that my parents owe their freedom of thought or ability to form values to Brezhnev is ridiculous).
I see the current US policy as a wide-spread tumour within the western democratic ideal - and I am truly afraid it will kill the whole "body", unless we cut it out soon.
What comes to your comparison between the freedoms of people in Finland and muslim-states, I find it completely irrelevant. I'm not supporting any Muslim values that have anything to do with their religion, simple as that. But how does that make me (or you?) a supporter of opposed ideologies? You seem to think that if I don't want Muslims to take over the world, I better have the Americans take over the world. Now, if I really were forced to choose, I would probably consider the Americans the lesser evil and choose them (like you seem to do, and like I pretty much chose in the late 80's, against the threat of communism). But my point is, once again, that there are more options than just those two! Especially in the world of today. Among them there is the American way, and there is the fundamentalist Islamist way - and there is the European democratic way, which I (very loosely) side with if I have to choose a side in the end. And which, in my opinion is the polar opposite of both the American and Islamist ways in idealistic sense.
Furthermore, I say again that I don't find the radical Islamism threatening my values or the democratic development of Europe except in a very minor way (the murder of the Dutch filmmaker being a sad singular example - death to all those religious fanatics, once again). Meanwhile, I do find the ultra-conservative religious Americanism threatening the very basis of the western democratic system - and all that it has achieved in the past years.
And this brings us back to the perceived difference between the attitudes of Hyena and me regarding the killing of our perceived enemies. You said that there were many. Now that I found the first of them to be utter bullshit, I'd like to have you tell me about the rest - perhaps there's some sense in some of them.
-Villain (I'll post the Survivor-polls now, as I forgot to do it yesterday - then I'll get back to my thesis)
likening all religious people to fundamentalist nuts is a bit like saying that we are all child-sacrificing maniacs because we listen to metal. get over it.
rahvin
keeper of the flame
christians, muslims, and jews do not match my definition of extremely religious people. the past ten presidents of the united states do not match my definition of extreme right-wing politicians. i think you can't see the forest for the trees.Villain said:
religious and/or political fundamentalism is, in my opinion, a very bad thing. while i can understand, if not sympathise, with the reasons and the ways it has developped in the past and in the modern days among groups who have been driven by necessity to radicalise their attitude against something, i do not condone it and i wish it could be wiped off the face of the earth. i don't really think it should be destroyed through the physical annihilation of the individuals supporting it, at least unless those individuals are threatening the lives of others, but i'm certainly willing to resort to a certain amount of force if need be.
and yet, no matter how funny the satire about it can be, your everyday christian does not constitute a threat to my civil rights. your everyday christian (or jew, or muslim, really) does not live to destroy atheists and is not disrespectful of my being a non-believer. the narrow-minded generalizations typical of atheist fanatics, involving lascivious priests and zealots bent on burning books, are a fundamentalism themselves, and i think they should likewise be wiped off the face of the planet, along with all forms of stupid ignorance.
so when you say that you wish all religious people dead and when you correct yourself specifying you would like to see all fundamentalists dead, i simply do not agree that the two things match. i'm not in favour of doing either, but if you actually stuck with trying to get rid of the world of civil rights killers, then i'd just label you as an overly aggressive freedom-fighter and leave that alone. to cut a long story short, we don't seem to have mutually understandable grounds to define who needs to bite the dust. it's pointless to insist: should i ever see you point the gun to someone's head, i will automatically assume he's just a poor soul who made the mistake of voicing a religious belief. so watch where you point your weapon when i'm around.
as for the proximity of your values with those promoted by the groups you want to destroy, this is a direct consequence of what i just finished saying: if i tell you that you shouldn't kill all right-wing politicians because right-wing ideologies have made it possible to build nations where you're actually earning based on how much you produce, you'd probably tell me that those are not the extremists you want to see dead and gone. but, like i said before, in my opinion you're putting everyone in the same category, in your eagerness to get rid of those who disagree with your view of the world. not all of those who do are blood-thirsty fanatics. the fact that you sound like a blood/thirsty fanatic should indeed suggest the rest might be quite different.
i do have a few things to do too, so maybe hyena would like to jump in, or you can wait a few days until i'm back at work and in full gear myself.I found the first of them to be utter bullshit, I'd like to have you tell me about the rest - perhaps there's some sense in some of them.
Villain
Doctor BenQuillity
[Edit] I started writing this before I had read Rahvin's post above, but having just read that I must now add this:
FOR FUCK'S SAKE, RAHVIN, LEARN TO READ!!!
When I'm speaking of killing people, I'm speaking of the extreme, fanatic, fundamentalist religious people. How do you manage to read me like I think your everyday Christian, Muslim or Jew threatens me in any way? I do not mean every Christian, Muslim or Jew is a fundamentalist, I have all the time been talking about extremely religious Christians, Muslims and Jews - a small minority within those groups. [end edit]
I think I have consistently used terms like religious fanatics, extremely religious people or fundamentalists - if I have not, I apologise, but I fail to see how you could misread my intent here, especially after I just wrote yesterday "I'm really not saying that every religious person should be killed - heck, many of my good friends are religious people. Religious fanatics are a completely different case".
Or was this aimed at Rahvin? Then yes, I think he should not liken the two groups together and realise that when I say "all religious fanatics should be killed" I do not mean "every religious person should be killed". There really seems to be some "getting over it" needed here.
I have always been very anti-religious, but (at least nowadays) my whole stand is against the collective organisation (formed by the different religions) and the relatively few individual fanatics withing them - not the whole religious population of the world. I want to bring all the religions down in the long term, but I doubt that I have (at least in a few years) even implied that I honestly would like to see all religious people dead.
The following statement probably applies to myself as well, but:
Perhaps the two of you should actually read my posts before making wildly inaccurate analyses of my opinions.
I admit I haven't been very clear with my expressions all the way in this discussion, but I really feel now that you are intentionally misreading (or not reading at all) what I write. Or are you constantly referring to something I have written several years ago? I actually claim that I might have matured in the way I feel about things since the birth of this thread...
-Villain
FOR FUCK'S SAKE, RAHVIN, LEARN TO READ!!!
When I'm speaking of killing people, I'm speaking of the extreme, fanatic, fundamentalist religious people. How do you manage to read me like I think your everyday Christian, Muslim or Jew threatens me in any way? I do not mean every Christian, Muslim or Jew is a fundamentalist, I have all the time been talking about extremely religious Christians, Muslims and Jews - a small minority within those groups. [end edit]
Was this aimed at me? Isn't this exactly what I've been saying all the time?hyena said:
I think I have consistently used terms like religious fanatics, extremely religious people or fundamentalists - if I have not, I apologise, but I fail to see how you could misread my intent here, especially after I just wrote yesterday "I'm really not saying that every religious person should be killed - heck, many of my good friends are religious people. Religious fanatics are a completely different case".Or was this aimed at Rahvin? Then yes, I think he should not liken the two groups together and realise that when I say "all religious fanatics should be killed" I do not mean "every religious person should be killed". There really seems to be some "getting over it" needed here.
I have always been very anti-religious, but (at least nowadays) my whole stand is against the collective organisation (formed by the different religions) and the relatively few individual fanatics withing them - not the whole religious population of the world. I want to bring all the religions down in the long term, but I doubt that I have (at least in a few years) even implied that I honestly would like to see all religious people dead.
The following statement probably applies to myself as well, but:
Perhaps the two of you should actually read my posts before making wildly inaccurate analyses of my opinions.
I admit I haven't been very clear with my expressions all the way in this discussion, but I really feel now that you are intentionally misreading (or not reading at all) what I write. Or are you constantly referring to something I have written several years ago? I actually claim that I might have matured in the way I feel about things since the birth of this thread...
-Villain
i've got a question this time, for villain but also anyone else who would describe their political beliefs as utopian. i fail to see the philosophical sense of utopian beliefs - i swear that this is not a slight or a putdown, i'd really love to hear an argument to the contrary. so the actual question is: assuming that you are convinced that your political beliefs cannot be implemented, what is the sense of them? i mean - as far as i see, politics has to do with how human beings are, in the here and now. so how can you hold a belief that would never work with humanity as it is?
rahvin
keeper of the flame
it could be because you said you admitted that my accusation of you wanting certain groups killed was valid. it could be because you implied the number of those ranked in the hundreds of thousands (by saying that hyena didn't admit to it, unlike you). it could be because your definition of groups that deserve to be killed extends to those who show certain features, and the features you have described can be found in your generic religious believer.Villain said:
regardless of the reason, though, i find it increasingly annoying to debate a point with any sobriety when it is not a shared notion that me or my side of the argument can read. i admit, however, that this kind of dismissing attitude is what i get nine times out of ten from the majority of people around me (hyena is an exception, but then again it is also common to assume that hyena and i agree, even when we don't), and it makes for boring, tedious discussions where i'm either cut off or sidetracked. so i concede: let the non-abusive reign of reason begin.
Dark_Jester
Unrepentant sentient
Wolfman Von Jones
The trouble with you
SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP!!!!!
Don't all of you see this entire quarrel is pointless? How about we just accept each other's beliefs and make some cookies?
Nick
Don't all of you see this entire quarrel is pointless? How about we just accept each other's beliefs and make some cookies?
Nick
Villain
Doctor BenQuillity
A-ha...rahvin said:
Instead of certain groups, I said certain people. Also, I spoke of a few thousand not hundreds of thousands - and there are probably a few hundred million religious people on earth, so neither of them should have implied anything. And I really doubt I have ever even properly defined the groups that I think deserve to be killed (which is of course my bad). So, you really need to learn to read.
I couldn't quite grasp the point in the rest of your post, but I hope the misunderstandings were now cleared.
Hyena: I do not have the time to answer the Utopia-question right now, but I actually am very interested in it (as in why indeed do I have those Utopian beliefs
). I'll try to get back here with my opinion, once I get it formed and shaped in some sort of language.Fireangel: Thanks for the comments - and for the nice email as well. I will get back to you next month, as I now really, really, need to get back to my thesis.
-Villain
rahvin
keeper of the flame
as an alternative to learning to read, i could try take all of your posts by the word, instead of the passages you assume need closer examination. but i guess i won't: like i said, i'm not enough of a strong opposer of your kind of fanatism to keep supporting the other side (which isn't mine) any longer.Villain said:
Similar threads
