S: Only bullied abused children "rebel".
G: I disagree.
S: You won't be right.

Were you abused, Steve?
You sure seem to be rebelling.
Being a COMMUNIST?
Your apparent dislike for parents?
Atheism?
Come on, Steve, it's not really that unpredictable.

You're young too, aren't you? What age?
You seem to be struggling for a unique identity,
only to fit a well known and repeated cookie cutter
pattern. I've seen it before several times.

Tell me you don't see adolescent rebellion in
kids 16-25 who are into the anarchist scene..

Do you know Shawn?

S: If you are characterizing what you're
S: promoting as "rebellion", then you're
S: saying that you were abused, and that
S: has made you support Evil

G: Wasn't proposing, it was partly prediction,
G: partly hypothesis.
G: Your ""logical"" conclusion is totally illogical.
G: Major thinking error.

S: Stating such doesn't make it so.

Exactly. Apply that to this thinking error.
S: If you are characterizing what you're
S: promoting as "rebellion", then you're
S: saying that you were abused, and that
S: has made you support Evil.



S: Now if you actually presernted a sructured
S: argument why hitting someone doesn't
S: ACTUALLY make them want to kill you,
S: then we might be interested,

WE again? Is Kane just one of your personalities?
Who gives a rats behind if you're ""interested""?
Megalomania running away with ya eh?
(I noticed that OTHER people in the past have
observed this in you also. If you're not Kane,
in some way, then it is an amazing coincidence
that two such HUGE cases of meglomania have
paired up.)

(And it seems unlikely that two people with
such artificially inflated self images would
be able to STAND each other even if they were
pushing for the same issues.)

S: but absent that, you have done nothing
S: but prate uselessly.

Thanks for worrying about my time management.
I didn't know you cared so very much.

S: You see, I have reason on MY side.
S: That's your BIGGEST and MOST DIRE PROBLEM HERE!!

You have reason on your side to check
into a rubber room.

G: In a way, aren't you being held hostage by them?
G: Their extremism misrepresents the moderates.

S: Ain't any, there are Good and Evil, and you're Evil.
S: Can't be a compromise.

G: And you're complaining about the FUNDAMENTALISTS?
G: You just described their position!
G: (And I don't agree with it by the way.)

S: That's NOT a description of Fundamentalism.
S: That's a description of any system of True
S: Morality.

Any system of True Morality would recognize that
the world is not all polarized Good or Evil.
To ignore the shades of grey in our world and
see only black and white would be Fundamental,
My Dear Watson, Fundamental. It's also naive.

S: Fundamentalism is PHONY morality
S: because its morals are phony and false
S: revisionist versions of any Real Actual Goodness.

Isn't this the rhetoric people use against
anything and everything they don't like?
Certainly I could justify applying this to CPS.

And this Good and Evil stuff you throw around,
what does it have to SAY about a caseworker
who has to tell a terrible LIE in order to make
a case in Juvenile Court?

In a polarized world, as you describe, wouldn't
there be MUCH LESS tolerance for such LIES?
In a polarized world, the imagined good ends
WOULD NOT justify such bad means.

A caseworker telling LIES would become MUCH MORE
of an issue where GREYS are to be avoided.