|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 17, 2009 6:53:30 GMT -5
You know, I would hope that a moderator on a site devoted to exposing and mocking fundies wouldn't engage in fundie-esque selective blindness herself... Oh, and... This is again, that very IMPLIED and thinly veiled; I'm right and what the fuck do you know? attitude that we are talking about.
It was insulting to LF and to those people she was refering to, because she and those folks don't agree with YOU. It was attacking people personally based on their decisions in an attempt to ridicule and it is or should be beneath you.
That was an emotional and irrational way to deal with something you have issue with. What anyone's definition of "decent man" should be - a man who respects my ability to make informed decisions for myself, and who doesn't treat me like a silly child simply because said informed decision - whether it's choosing to be an atheist, buying a purebred animal from a breeder instead of rescuing a mutt from a shelter, or deciding not to have kids because I recognize that they're not appropriate for me, EVER - happens to be an unpopular one. Is that really so fucking difficult to grasp?
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 17, 2009 6:47:58 GMT -5
Okay then, Eric me say it: People who choose to be childfree are not any better or worse than those who are not. You are not inherently worthless or immature because you don't have a brood. And since you didn't knock anyone for being parents, I won't say anything else. Just to clarify this point; I don't recall any non child wanting people saying that parents are, lacking, selfish, unfullfilled or that they MUST find more in life.
WE have not bashed people FOR having kids, but we've certainly not been shown the same courtesy. Not all parents are doing that, but many have. Again, child free poeple are legally speaking their minds about a topic they are familiar with and giving their opinions, and not putting them forth as any kind of moral gauge or implying it is the "right" thing to do or that parents will 'change their minds when they grow out of being selfish'.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 17, 2009 6:42:20 GMT -5
So don't accept it then. I DON'T CARE. Just leave it alone!! Aqualung, WTF is your problem, exactly? I'm not saying you are a shitty person and I'm not calling you a bigot. You implied all cf people were bigots on par with hating blacks for "being loud" people. I don't care whether you have kids or not, I would support your choice either way. I'm not upset with you as a person at all. It doesn't change the way I feel about you as a poster. You've spent the majority of this thread arguing that it should just be accepted and people should get over it, more or less. That's up for debate--that's what the purpose of the thread is for. Don't be pissed and smiteful at me because I'm participating in a thread and asking valid questions about reasons that you freely gave. If she is like me it is the insinuations and the out of context comments and the blanket statements that are annoying.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 17, 2009 6:38:01 GMT -5
Hmm, I disagree. Would you like me to quote him for you? Not only does it sound like he's saying nothing we do matters except having children, but we're selfish for not doing so. THAT shit pisses me right the hell off. He did not say that nothing you do matters except having children. That's reading WAY in between the lines for something that simply isn't there. He said HE was a better person for it--he did not say that you were not a better person because you didn't do the same thing he did. For example, I've learned way more about being patient and how to teach by having a child. Does it then follow that if you want to be a good teacher, I suggest you have kids? No. Not by a long shot. Why bitch about CH pointing out it's a selfish reason? It is a selfish reason. Some people have said quite clearly that they ARE doing it for selfish reasons -- and they're OK with that. I'm OK with them not having kids for selfish reasons. He's explaining HIS experience--if it doesn't apply to you, it doesn't apply. Nowhere did he suggest you should all become child bearers. No one is saying that he said that.
What is being discussed is the overall attitude that CF is "selfish" and wrong and that his way will be teh way that we will all arrive at someday.
He clearly implies that not having kids is the wrong way. You are seeing what you want to see if you are missing that. If that was a news article, it would clearly be labeled biased as fox news. His overall tone was, 'One day you'll know better'.
no one said he was telling us to have children, are you intentionally trying to cloud this issue with statements like that?
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 17, 2009 6:33:58 GMT -5
You hate all kids because of a trait that only a few of them have. That's a blanket generalization, and it's no different when applying it to kids than to any other demographic group. It's more consistent to say you hate people who abuse animals. But it's your thought process and your reasons. What bugs me is that it's passed off as something everybody should just accept, because that's just the way you think about it. That works for personal likes and dislikes, I suppose, but nobody has to accept that it's OK to hate kids because "they" abuse animals. Thank you for addressing her on HER words and hopefully this will not be continued to be used as a blanket statement about all of us. Please prove how Captain Hooker demonized those people who choose not to have kids. Go back two posts, Eric pointed them out.
It is the mindset that the childless decision is the wrong one, and that one day they will 'come around'. Calling folks 'selfish' and pushing his decision as the only real one is demonizing the other side.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 17, 2009 6:29:36 GMT -5
CH clearly loves his kid very much and enjoys being a father, why should that make you feel "sorry" for his kid? As I said when I answered him, he believes that the only worthwhile contribution to society is breeding and that he is passing that view on to his daughter. If his daughter truly wants children, then great! But if she does not, how do you think she will feel, knowing that her father considers her a failure because she did not have a child? Actually, he did... I'm going to ignore the fucked-up kids of good parents ( ) and just comment on this. You are right. A part of me does admire those who truely want children and raise them to be productive members of society. I don't understand them, but if they are happy, great! Me too. But CF folks want that same respect and it is obvious that our reasons are not considered valid even as the parents SAY that they don't have issue with it.
CF'ers are saying, "Good for you that you want kids, none for me thanks!"
Then DV here specifically is stating that CF'ers are "diminishing" the decision of parents when we have not been. Not one of us is saying, "I can't BELIEVE YOU would have kids!"
And at the same time, those parents are stating they don't have issue, even as they are telling us 'you just don't know better', 'you're selfish' and the like.
How can people not see this double-standard? I'm not pointing fingers at anybody and saying they are wrong to have them. LF wasn't diminishing the job of parenting. She was directly addressing CH and his comments about how those of us who choose not to be parents are immature, clueless, and unproductive. Because it WAS personal - personal attacks on those of who who are CF. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here by believing you don't know how insulting that comment is. Yes, there are people who change their minds; I don't deny that. But there are many more who know damn well that they do not want kids. (As I said before, I decided about the age of 12 I never wanted kids, and nothing has given me reason to reconsider.) It would simply be nice to have folks give us the respect or common courtesy to assume we have a good reason or many good reasons and given this a lot of thought than to be told (like children) that we 'just don't know better but you'll grow up one day and see the light'.
That is all most of us childless people are asking. I guess that is too much."Oh, you say that now. You'll change your mind" is what we call a "bingo." As in, there are certain pseudo-arguments that CF-people hear so much that we feel like we are filling out a bingo card. What they really mean (or how it sounds) is "you aren't mature enough to know. We know what you REALLY want. If you just listen to us, everything will be perfect." Yes. Because by saying that, they are putting forth that the default "right" answer is, "Have kids".
The lips say, "I respect your decision" but the subtext of "one day you'll change" shows that there is NOT respect. So not only is it arrogant but insulting as well.
And for the record, I'm only using this particular poster as an example, there are plenty of others in this thread and IRL that use these 'arguments' which is precisely why they are sore spots with us. ALL parents use that line of thinking on non-parents. Non-parents, who have chosen to be childless, do NOT.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 17, 2009 6:15:49 GMT -5
More on-topic, I am going to say that I personally don't think it's necessary to understand why anyone either does or doesn't want kids. If they want kids, they want kids. If they don't, they don't. Everyone has their reasons, and most will be different from others. So my question to those involved is: why is it so important to know why a harmless emotion (because it is emotional) exists in someone's mind? I don't get it. I sort of get it with other issues, but not this one. My two cents as a layman in biology. I think that part of the reason for its 'importance' is that reproduction is one of the major cornerstones of biological existance. Turning your back on it is a big deal. Humans, being what they are tend to want to understand how and why this dichotomy exisists on such a basic level. The more you learn about others, particularly people are different from you, the more you learn about yourself. Repopulating the earth is not a priority right now. We are in no danger of going extinct.
Lots of biological functions are altered as society advances. We live longer and we aren't compelled to have a dozen kids before we are 20 because we'll likely die before 40. Birth control is a great example of man fighting against biology or at least working with it, to achieve a goal outside of biology's design. People like to fuck. People don't ALWAYS want that fucking to result in babies, therefore we have birth control.
At any rate, the majority of folks can and do go about that design and feed into it. That's super. But the folks who DON'T are treated differently. That's a fact too. You said, 'Everyone has their reasons but they will all be different' but you are seemingly speaking of why they are having kids. This lack of options to NOT have them or to actively work to convince others they are wrong, misled, selfish, stupid, immature or whatever shows me that it is NOT a viable option to most folks, and as many have shown, they are more than willing to put forth their decision as the right one while claiming they "don't care". Then of course there are also all the dicks of the world who see a minority view and demonize it because they are afraid of it. Exactly, like folks who don't want kids.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 17, 2009 6:07:48 GMT -5
Why take it so personal? I think that has been covered pretty well. At most, he's suggesting that you might actually change your mind when you get older, and he's attempting to find common ground. He was saying that, just like every other parent that either she or myself or many of us have encountered had said.
This assumes that she is wrong in not wanting kids, does it not?
This assumes that she just hasn't figured it out, right? It implies to me that not having kids is a "problem" that can or will be "fixed" in the future. That's pretty arogant, and again, I don't htink he was trying to be, but that's exactly what it is.
Just imagine if a fundy said that to you about jesus, and how you would feel about it. About how you're "too young" and "one day" you think differently as if it is the shared goal of all people. As if there aren't valid reasons or hell, even REASONS period that she might feel that way. It assumes that everyone with working genitalia OWES the world more children. It is not my duty to have children and if that decision was a respected one, it wouldn't see like such a contest.
No one makes these same arguments about carrots or cats. No one is told, 'Well, one day you'll change your mind... just get a cat and you'll fall in love with it all, you'll see.' That would be irrational and disrespectful of someone to assume that everyone, deep down, feels just like they do. This without asking the person's personal opionion, or in this case, apparenlty reading and dismissing those reasons.
Again, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with anything else in that post, either his or LF's, but that attitude of "you just wait, you'll want one and you'll like it too," is precisely the attitude that we see as proof that our decisions are not respected.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 17, 2009 5:56:11 GMT -5
No, but you asked an extremely loaded question with the heavily-implied attitude of "If you don't like rotten brats, raise your own and teach them not to act that way." Whether that was intentional or not, that's how you came off. I guess I don't have the emotional attachment to this subject to have seen it as a loaded question. If I had stated "I hate fundies" and then been asked the 'Good Christian' version of this question I would have answered it with "I don't believe in god here's a list of reasons why. Even if I did believe in god the fundies, and a lot of things done by, or in the name of, organized religion have ruined it for me". Pester me with that question repeatedly and I can see where you would become justifiably irritated by it. Might as well get everybody pissed off...
You implied, perhaps unintentionally but still, that someone who had shitty parents could just "not do it" to their own kids. This is overly simplified thinking and probably not an intentional insult. WMDK perhaps took it that way, perhaps rightly so, perhaps not. At any rate, I can see what she took bad but I can also see that it probably wasn't done maliciously.
But it was overlysimplified and something that is definitely NOT that easy to overcome. At any rate it is a version of that same mindset where everyone seems to have a personal vestment in other poeple having children. It IS something we see all the time and I think this is representative of it, intentional or not. Parents are almost universally NOT willing to just accept someone's reasons for not wanting kids, they just DON'T. I'm on that end and I see it all the time, even hinted at like in your post.
I don't think you're a dick and I didn't do this to piss you off or WMDK for speaking about her. I am, and I have only been, trying to have an open and honest conversation, but for as many times as the parents are saying it's "fine" if we don't want children, an awful lot of emotion, subtext and sometimes irrational responses have shown me otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 17, 2009 5:47:26 GMT -5
I really don't think I was talking about any single person much less you specifically.
You really seem worked up to me. Oh of course, Red.. you weren't talking about any single person... except DV, who you specifically named and referenced, but she isn't a "single person". You were never directly addressing Bluefinger... except for all those times you were quoting him and replying to his replies to other people, thus opening the floor to the idea that it's ok to respond to comments not made directly to you or about you in any direct fashion. I quoted blue and responded directly to his comments, it is that thing that I often do. I broke down each part and addressed them.
He keeps making general statements about US and then applying all statemetns said by everyone and then stating to US that OUR reasons are generalizations.
I have not been general, I've been specific. If I didn't address him specifically then I wasn't speaking those words ONLY to him as he implied. In fact, you frequently engage in this behavior and then turn around and fuss at people for doing the same to you. But you never gave the impression that Blue was allowed to respond to your post, especially since he's part of the "everyone" you referenced, because being encompassed in an absolute generalization can't possibly be justification for response. No you gave Bluefinger absolutely no reason to reply to you whatsoever... somehow. Care to explain that one? Or are you going to jump at me since up to now I've not even been part of the discussion due to arriving too late to address the posts I wanted to address regardless of the fact that, since I have read the thread, I am part of that "everyone" too? Ah, more lovely assumptions about what I might do.
I gave specific reasons why I dont' like kids, he addressed us as a group and said we Hate kids.
I gave specific reasons why I don't like kids, he addressed us as a group and said we were being general.
He has been using DV's comments, for example, and arguing them. Now you are taking BOTH of them, and arguing them to me.
I have tried to speak for myself or when it has been others, I have tried to be specific as when I said AL and her animal comment was hers and not necessarily the thoughts of all of us as was implied.
No one clarified that point but me. The Assumptions were made by people who were not me.
The reason that things have gotten to be a mess is because of implied and general comments, unlike this one I'm making to you, based on your words to me.
Your attitude is noted, but unwarranted. If this is your attempt at a rational debate, you are stumbling badly. Try to stop attacking me and what you think I MIGHT do and state your case simply and plainly and you'll have much better luck at this. More on-topic, I am going to say that I personally don't think it's necessary to understand why anyone either does or doesn't want kids. If they want kids, they want kids. If they don't, they don't. Everyone has their reasons, and most will be different from others. And we were trying to discuss those reasons. If you dont' understand why folks like to compare notes or learn about other viewpoints, then why did you chime in at all? So my question to those involved is: why is it so important to know why a harmless emotion (because it is emotional) exists in someone's mind? I don't get it. I sort of get it with other issues, but not this one. "A harmless emotion" is the same type of vague behaviour that I was referring to. How about you state concisely what you are talking about? Although it seems kind of pointless after you just stated that people are going to think what they want.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 17, 2009 5:36:03 GMT -5
Well, I won't deny that I am annoyed, but regardless, let's try getting across a point: I joined in with this topic specifically because of two things Aqualung had said (justifying her dislike with a statement saying that "Everyone's a little bigoted against something, they just don't want to admit it", and the thing with "Kids abuse animals" stated as fact when the same applies to adults equally, and that in each case, it is only a minority that does those things), and I think DevilsChaplain. With Cait, I was more curious than critical. So what are you and I talking about then?
You have repeatedly NOT mentioned people by name and made general comments while claiming that we as a group are doing the same.
I challenged that idea and I still haven't seen a follow up to what it is you have an issue with specifically. Except here you have mentioned AL's comments. But when you addressed them, you addressed the board, not her (not everytime). Both you and DV are still discussing it as if that comment was a common theme amongst all of us. Mostly, the generalisations issue mostly stemmed from Aqualung, to which a lot of her reasons were blanket generalisations. You then took issue with a mere example from DV, which every time you have misunderstood the purpose of that example to highlight a specific FALLACY, and then we have this mess. Then let's discuss why she is wrong to compare our dislike of children with disliking a race of people based on a phony racist stereotype. Here's the link to what the fallacy being mentioned, just for reference. But anyway, at this point, I have got further in understanding with what other people have said. I'll just go with what DV said for the moment, because it sums things up better than I have been able to. This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. Here's why this is wrong.
Children actually do the things that we have mentioned as our reason for not wanting to be around them.
I don't have to meet and greet every child or baby since the beginning of time to KNOW that they cry, shit themselves, are limited in intelligence and logic and reason, are helpless and noisy and stinky and are a great deal of responsibility. For these very real reasons, which are NOT the fault of the baby or child as everyone; including those of us here who are admitting we don't like to be around children, have done when they were the same age. Though you don't have to agree that they are valid reasons to dislike children the reasons are universal and true.
They are real things that real kids really do and we really don't like it.
How is that so hard to understand? How is admitting to those factual things the same as agreeing to a tired racist stereotype?
Answer: It's fucking not. Therefore there is no illogical fallacy, there is only a group of folks (you guys) who don't agree with the reasons of anti-children folks.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 17, 2009 5:21:39 GMT -5
I dunno, why do you?
You, my bluefingered friend, repeatedly refered to the reasons given as 'generalizations' and implied that they did not apply across the board. You did. You refered to them again and again as 'generalizations'...
They fucking aren't.
Why do I bother to keep pointing it out? Oh right, because you keep forgetting about it.
And not to mention that you and DV kept bringing up ONE posters ONE comment from the first few pages as if we were all thinking the same way about the animal thing. Red, you can look up "logical fallacy" on the internet, and you'll find the definition for "hasty generalization" and that might help clarify things. What many people are doing, as Blue has tried to point out, is claim that certain characteristics make babies worth "hating"--please reread some of the posts on the previous pages to determine who chooses to use colloquialism and who chooses not to. It's pretty clear. Saying "babies poop" as a reason to dislike all children is ridiculous--all adults poop. Jesus christ. So having to clean up dirty diapers is the same as my having to visit the restroom?
Are you serious?
They are NOT the same.
And yeah, if I was having to clean up after an adult, who was costing me money, cried all the time, was time consuming and confounding and counted on me to take care of every aspect of their lives for 20 years or more, they you're fucking a right; I WOULD dislike them just as much.
YOU are assuming that they are different instead of asking specific questions.
YOU are taking ONE aspect of what a group of people have stated as their reasons why they don't want children and applied IT to an adult, an adult which by the very fucking definition is NOT and cannot be a child.
BUT
Yes, if an adult exhibited most or all of the very same reasons that I don't like to be around babies or children, then I would feel the same fucking way.
Why are you fighting every goddamned thing here? Speaking of illogical fallacies; generalizations, assumptions and only using part of the issue to twist the meaning to try and prove a point is fucking lame.There are also some adults who poop themselves just like infants do. LOGIC would suggest that if people pooping themselves is a reason for hate, that person should hate those other disabled people as well. Yeah. Pretty much. Nice of you to fight with me about something that we agree on.
Except I didn't say I hated children and you are using that word with me.
If you and blue could uncork your rage for a moment and focus on specific people and the things that THEY are saying instead of YOUR generalizations, this might be clearer to both of you.
I don't hate kids.
IF an adult exhibited all the same traits that children exhibit, then yes, the feeling would be the same. I never said otherwise, I nver said I hate kids and you are wrong to make that assumption and to cast those illogical aspersions on me. I'm not really interested in debating the examples and analogies with you, because Blue has explained several times why they're being used, and it seems like you're refusing to examine it from his (or my) point of view. You and his point of view is to focus on the animal thing for example and then to lump us all together as haters and then compare us to racists.
See how you would like it if someone did that to you and then called you illogical after taking a plethora of stances out of context and applying assumption to answers to questions that weren't asked. But there is nothing wrong with asking for instance why someone believes that all kids abuse animals as a blanket statement. But there is something wrong with harping on it as if everyone on the one "side" of this feels the same way.
In fact, there doesn't have to be "sides" as it seems that at least on the anti-children front there are several folks who have differing levels of dislike to children. But that is your choice to lump us all together and bash us as one group of irrational haters. It doesn't matter if every single one of the other statements are "true" (which they're not)--the abusing animals bit was the most obviously illogical one, and the one easiest to understand. She hasn't retracted it in the face of greater evidence, so I have to assume she still believes it. Then that is HER problem and that is YOUR problem. I didn't say it, LF didn't, NOBODY else did. It was brought up ONCE by ONE person and you and blue have beaten it into the fucking ground. How bout fixating less and reading more? Neither I nor Blue are saying that people should change their minds and have kids. Not at all. Again, I didn't think that and I haven't seen anyone suggest that but YOU right now.
Your stating this and things like it is implying that we are thinking that you are trying to change our minds, and that is all from you, hon. Both you and blue have stated that unnecessarily. It seems that when you do that you don't seem to understand what is being discussed here.
This is a non-issue, I know that. How bout addressing what IS said? To keep mentioning it like we have been is to strawman our arguments. The fuck are you talking about? We're also not saying there are NO good reasons not to be a parent--there are plenty of good reasons. Please go find me where you have said that, I don't recall it at all. All I've heard from you is irrational comparisons to racism and harping on teh abuse thing. If I'm wrong in that statement, please show me. What we are saying is that there are some reasons that seem really irrational. Honestly, the emotional reaction that has been flaring up all over this thread suggests that some reasons are very irrational. There is nothing wrong with asking questions and trying to get answers. Nobody is trying to demonize the childless. But we're just like folks who hate black folks because they "are loud".
That's some bullshit right there.
The emotional responses haven't been from the anti-group as much as the pro-group who are shocked and disgusted by a single comment from a single poster and then by our displeasure on being specific about our reasons and being repeatedly called vague by using "generalizations", even as you are lumping us together and addressing us as a single entity.
Nice! As to those of you who are making comments like "who asked you" about kids--the OP asks how can people enjoy having kids? Please don't demonize those people who are explaining how having kids can be an enjoyable experience--just like you don't want to be demonized for not having any, people who have kids deserve the same respect. And have we told YOU that you'll change your mind because you don't really know what you want?
Have we acted outraged or shocked at your decisions?
Did we refer to you as "racist"?
Have we made assumptions about what you did or said?
Am I for example, being 'general' in my comments or specific?
Look in the mirror dude.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 17, 2009 4:56:55 GMT -5
jesus christ... that's it? Attacking JonE and using phrases like, "It looks like..." instead of definite answers?
skkky, you've "jettisoned" any integrity that may have lingered in your confused head. You've sent me running off crying from laughter.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 17, 2009 4:52:37 GMT -5
From page 21 - At this point, I am here mostly to try and teach my young apprentice the art of critical thinking, By your own admission, then, you are committing one of the most basic blunders that critics of the church routinely commit: assuming that anyone who is Mormon is somehow unlearned, stupid, or ignorant. Not saying this is true but you automatically assume anyone with issues about your church is a "critic" and you then take it a step further by stating that anyone who is a critic of mormonism intentionally brings false information or outright lies about things (ironic since you are the only one who is a confirmed and unrepentant liar on this thread) yet you've not proved a fucking thing about any of us lying to you.
Paranoid hypocrite. PLank. Eye. Remove. Now.This is what I was getting at when I told you that your attitude totally contradicted your statement of intent. It's also part of the reason why I doubt you as a debater (with your assorted blunders being the other, larger part). LOL! Who gives a fuck? You called him and everyone else liars! And anti-mormon while not proving the criticisms about your church wrong!
Yeah, if I lived in total delusion, I'd hate the bringer of reality too!
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 17, 2009 1:17:08 GMT -5
I found that the word "or" is completely lost on people on the telephone.
I am unable to give any details but the bulk; and I'm talking 95 fucking percent of the calls in which I ask someone, "What name or department are you looking for?" they will tell me BOTH. It doesn't matter how much I stress, "Name OR department", they will give me one and then struggle for the other. I have to wait or cut them off to tell them I'm putting their call through almost every mutherfuckingtime.
Why is the word, "OR" so foreign to people?
Those are appointment calls, the ED calls are the same way. I can't be bothering the folks there with every call that comes through, I try to eliminate pestering them if I can help the caller. I can check to see if someone is here, they don't have to speak to the ED for that. Half of those calls are like this:
ME: Do you have a question for them or are you looking for a patient?
THEY: Yes.
...
Of THOSE responses, half of them continue like this:
ME: Which one?
THEY: "Yes", I'm looking for a patient.
ME: Okay, I can help you with that.
THEY: *silence*
ME: *still waiting*
THEY: Hello?
ME: *blink* *blink* And what is the name of the person you're looking for?
Wouldn't it follow that if I'M the person they need to find the person they are looking for and they are using a telephone in which to achieve this, that they'd, oh, I don't know... fucking TALK?
Do these folks go to a store and when the employee says, "Can I help you?" they simply state, "Yes"? and stare at them?
On second thought; don't answer that. I'm grasping tightly this last fibre of hope for humanity and the answer to that question may just launch it into the night breeze never to be seen again.
|
|