Greg Hanson wrote:
S: Only bullied abused children "rebel".
G: I disagree.
S: You won't be right.
Were you abused, Steve?
----------------
I didn't rebel against my parents, never had to.
You sure seem to be rebelling.
-------------------
Against an abusive society, perhaps.
Being a COMMUNIST?
----------------------
Agsinst abuse of people by rich bullies.
Your apparent dislike for parents?
------------------------
Not mine. Undoubtedly yours, however.
Atheism?
Come on, Steve, it's not really that unpredictable.
--------------------------
I'm not an atheist, how stupid are you to repeat this mindlessly.
You're young too, aren't you? What age?
--------------------------
Gee whiz, golly-gosh, I'll be 54 in March.
You seem to be struggling for a unique identity,
----------------------------
A lifequest of all decent humans, undoubtedly.
only to fit a well known and repeated cookie cutter
pattern. I've seen it before several times.
--------------------------
You've played in your **** the same way, too, I bet.
Liar. You imagined it because it pleased you to say so.
Tell me you don't see adolescent rebellion in
kids 16-25 who are into the anarchist scene.. 
-----------------------------
I think they are stupid, but they have the right to learen
from it, till society is forced to do better by them.
Not my age-group though, by thirty or forty years.
Do you know Shawn?
-----------------------
What's a Shawn?
G: Major thinking error.
S: Stating such doesn't make it so.
Exactly. Apply that to this thinking error.
----------------
That was YOUR thinking error, you lying distorting little ****head.
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?
---------------
People like me. You'll meet more of them soon enough.
Is Kane just one of your personalities?
-----------------
Nope. I ONLY post by my own name. A matter of pride.
(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.)
--------------------
You're dabbling in your delusions.
Any system of True Morality would recognize that
the world is not all polarized Good or Evil.
-------------------------
The world isn't, people are.
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.
----------------------------
Now if you only knew what Fundamental means to religionists...
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?
------------------------
You mean Evil? Sure, I suppose so.
You still don't get it, so you should worry.
Certainly I could justify applying this to CPS.
------------------------
Now if you knew what Evil was, instead of mistaking Good for Evil.
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?
------------------------------
Depends on whether they are right.
In a polarized world, as you describe, wouldn't
there be MUCH LESS tolerance for such LIES?
--------------------------------
When a Lie does Evil, it is wrong, when it does Good, it isn't!!
In a polarized world, the imagined good ends
WOULD NOT justify such bad means.
------------------------------------
Good cannot be merely imagined, it is real or it is Evil.
But you're Evil, so you won't know that.
Steve