Tolerance

imported post

The myriad verbose correspondences of the multitudinous affiliates of our electronic convocation remain a font of divertissement. I can only aspire to affect the attainments of a sage such as Doug Huffman.

That was fun. I hope I used all those words right. Even though I agree that the words used should have meaning to everyone who might read them, I would rather move away from "I like guns. They are shiny. They make me feel safe. See Spot run. Spot runs fast. Run, Spot, Run."

In an age where most information is literally at one's fingertips, it is a tragedy in progress that we are expected to dumb down the language we use so that people might not have to look up a definition. Some of my favorite words, I learned on internet forums.

imported post

mcdonalk wrote:

In an age where most information is literally at one's fingertips, it is a tragedy in progress that we are expected to dumb down the language we use so that people might not have to look up a definition. Some of my favorite words, I learned on internet forums.

Click to expand...

+1

imported post

DEE DEE DEEEEEE!!!!!!

imported post

wow

imported post

Dreamer wrote:

open4years wrote:

I know the difference between calling someone stupid and calling the idea stupid. But I respectively disagree that calling an idea stupid is okay. I feel that is a crude way of telling someone that you differ in your opinion or "I disagree."

Click to expand...

Calling an idea "stupid" that is not well thought out, contrary to reality, baseless in fact or contrary to truth is NOT the same as "disagreeing" with it.

If someone says that a 1969 VW Bettle is a better car than a Ferrari Testarosssa, that is a comment that someone could very easily disagree with, and it is not stupid. Such a claim can be backed up with facts, rational justifications and proof. Old Beetles are more reliable, easier to
maintain, cheaper to purchase, and MUCH more efficient machines in general.

However, if someone says that a 1969 VW Bettle is a FASTER car than a Ferrari Testarosssa, that is just plain stupid. Such a claim is absolutely baseless, untrue, and flies in the face of rational, provable fact.

And calling such a claim stupid is NOT wrong. It may be hurtful, rude, or
mean, but it is not wrong. The truth can never be wrong. Truth can hurt--it can damage one's ego if one is emotionally invested in an untruth--but truth is never "wrong".

Can you honestly say that someone calling YOUR idea stupid doesn't bother you? That is not what I call "constructive criticism." There are ample words in the English language that should allow one to phrase their disagreement in a more civil manner.

Click to expand...

My response to such claims is tempered by (and weighed against) intellectual abilities of the person making such a claim.

If someone could make a cogent argument to back up their claim that something I say is stupid, then I'll take that for what it is--a rational assessment of the intelligence, practicality, and utility of my original statement.

If a person making such a claim supports their claim with ad hominem attacks, irrational arguments, provable falsehoods and emotional
propaganda, then I will dismiss such a claim as the intellectual tripe that it is.

You see, the prudent response to such a claim, by a rational, intelligent person, is to assess the claim in the context of the person making it--NOT to internalize it as a direct personal statement. Internalizing statements made as part of rational discourse is a symptom of lack of
intellectual rigor, and indicative of irrational attachment to concepts that
may or may not be true.

And I still maintain that if something walks, looks, and quacks like a duck, there is no sin in calling it a duck, no matter how fervently the duck believes that it is a swan. Sure, the duck's feelings may be hurt when it finds out that it is, in fact NOT a swan, but truth is truth. Feelings are not the issue when discussing the truth. Truth is the issue..

Sometimes, an idea is so egregiously ill-formed, poorly thought out, and
potentially dangerous that it is, on it's face, just plain stupid. And calling out a stupid idea for what is it is NOT wrong. Sometimes, it's the only way to wake people up..

Grok?


"How many fingers am I holding up now, Winston?"

Click to expand...

In regards to someone saying a VW is faster than a sports car, first of all that is not an idea, so it shouldn't be called a stupid idea. What was said was the person making a statement, not an idea.

Saying: "You're wrong." would be appropriate. Then you can state the facts to support your statement that they are wrong. I would say: "That isn't right. Calling an idea stupid just doesn't sit right with me. One might feel since you called their idea stupid, that you think they are stupid

Starting a discussion with "that idea is stupid" is a poor start that will most likely result in conflict. That is not conducive to our desire to promote open carry. Is it that hard to say either: "I feel differently and this why...." or "that idea (or statement) is wrong. Allow me to tell you why."

I grew up with a very cruel father who was very emotionally and verbally abusive. I vowed that I would never be that way and that I would treat people with respect. There have been times that I know for a fact that the other person is wrong, yet I will say: "Maybe I'm wrong but...". and I would share the facts and they will see that I was correct.

I get no joy from hurting others, in any way. I've apologized, when there is an arguement and it was the other person who started it and was totally wrong. I may be viewed as a whimp, but the friendship wasn't ended over my friend's lack of the ability to admit that he/she was wrong.

My life experience has shown me that many people are incapable of admitting their wrong. Even more are incapable of saying: "I'm sorry. I have friends and family that I've never heard them say those words and they probably never will. Even if the other person is being a total a-- , and started the arguement, was yelling, etc., I might say: "I apologize if I did anything to upset you.". Even if the other person is 100% wrong and responsible for the arguement.

If they are using a hateful tone, saying hateful things, yelling, etc., I don't do likewise. I can tell you that it is much harder to take my approach and it takes maturity. But if you can get to that place in your life, you will be at peace as you see the whole picture.

What does it really matter if some one wants to think a VW is a faster car? You can share your opinion and facts, but if they still want to believe a VW is faster, let them.

That is all we can do here. I'm just trying to say that if we treat them with respect, even if they haven't earned it, let them share their point of view. We nicely tell them our point of view. If they have questions, answer them nicely even if it seems stupid to you.

If you reach a point where they haven't been won over to your/our point of view, thank them for coming and sharing their thoughts. That is MUCH better than their going back to their CC forum and saying all those OC people are very rude a-- h---- , just like I thought. If we treat them nasty, they will tell as many people as possible.

People in retail business and advertising, know this. It is supported by many studies that if a person was treated badly, at a store, they will tell many about their experience and will tell them to never go to that store. If they are treated okay, they will rarely share the experience with others. If they are treated great, they will tell some, but from then on, if someone mentions they need to buy some shoes, that person will share their great experience at that shoe store, and will highly recommend it and the other person is almost guaranteed to follow that recommendation.

What this shows is that if a person is treated poorly, they will tell MANY about it. If they are treated just okay, they will tell a few. If treated great, they will tell some and will continue sharing the experience and word of mouth will create a larger customer base.

But, if one person is treated badly , they will tell many. This can kill a business. I feel that we should treat everyone with respect. If it is someone, who is convinced in their beliefs and is just trying to aggravate us - don't let them! We don't HAVE to spend our time argueing with the troll and create a long thread to give him/her what they want.

The want us to get upset and argue with them, so they can send their friends to see what they created. We CAN, and should, rise above this behaviour. Sermon over, the collection plate is at the rear. Civil comments are welcome, but all we be treated as I wish to be treated.

One final comment: If you haven't read it, I posted earlier that I joined a CC forum and I made my first post there. The responses were very hateful and came close to calling me a fool. Why? I mentioned that I had a .22 in my pocket. Well, it seems they have a rule prohibiting posts about .22, or any mention of it.

The reason: They think that if they have posts about .22s, readers might conclude that the forum supports .22s for SD. It seems a bit silly to me, but I would have abided by that rule. It was the way that I was treated is why I will never go back. See, I had a bad experience and I have already posted twice about it.

Let's not do that to our guests and new members.

imported post

mcdonalk wrote:

The myriad verbose correspondences of the multitudinous affiliates of our electronic convocation remain a font of divertissement. I can only aspire to affect the attainments of a sage such as Doug Huffman.

That was fun. I hope I used all those words right. Even though I agree that the words used should have meaning to everyone who might read them, I would rather move away from "I like guns. They are shiny. They make me feel safe. See Spot run. Spot runs fast. Run, Spot, Run."

In an age where most information is literally at one's fingertips, it is a tragedy in progress that we are expected to dumb down the language we use so that people might not have to look up a definition. Some of my favorite words, I learned on internet forums.

Click to expand...

I never meant that we should "dumb down," I was suggesting that we avoid words that are rarely ever used. If you try to use uncommon words, that you just got from the dictonary, to show how much more intelligent you are than everyone else here, then you are the person that I'm talking to.

Come on folks, surely you know what I'm talking about. If you don't, then say so. I will try to explain it another way. If some of you enjoy learning new words that you need a dictonary to look them up, that's fine. Then let's create a vocabulary topic. Unusual words could be posted and others can learn new words.

I am merely making what I thought was a good suggestion, presented in a polite manner. If you wish to categorize my suggestion as " dumbing down," then I must have failed to get the message out properly. Maybe if I had used some fancy words .....

imported post

If you will go back and read my first post, at the start of this thread, you will see nothing about using big words. I later gave my opinion about using such words. But, we are off track.

I feel that it is of more importance that we all come to some conclusion and agreement of how we should handle "antis," CCers and trolls. Or do you want a more diverse forum where some will treat them with respect while others spew hatred?

I sincerely want the OC movement to spread across America like a wild fire. To accomplish that, we NEED every single person who might be convinced to join our movement.

I love this forum and all of it's topics. But I really would like to see the day when OC is accepted and no one longer fears us. I don't know if it will happen in my life, but I would like to see some movement in that direction. Or at the very least, even if our numbers don't increase, I would like to see more acceptance rather than fear.

imported post

open4years wrote:

...
What does it really matter if some one wants to think a VW is a faster car? You can share your opinion and facts, but if they still want to believe a VW is faster, let them.

That is all we can do here. I'm just trying to say that if we treat them with respect, even if they haven't earned it, let them share their point of view. We nicely tell them our point of view. If they have questions, answer them nicely even if it seems stupid to you...

Click to expand...

To the first, it is like this:

There are hard facts in life.
In order to support a position, one must be able to verify facts.
Omitting facts lends credence to the idea that your position is unsubstantiated.
It also lends thought to the prospect of questionable mental health, as you supplement reality with whatever you can dredge up.


I am not saying that we should be "rude" per se. I am simply saying that life is full of facts, and choosing to omit clear and present observation, to be able to inject your own reality, is not a viable or realistic solution.

So no, watching someone say "A stock VW bug is faster than old redhead(Ferrari "Testarossa". I'm a car guy, so sue me.)" is not an acceptable compromise.



We live in an age of information. We can literally study any subject we want, and exercising a bit of discretion and study skills, come to our own very well informed, and rational opinions.



Keep in mind I am NOT saying we need to tell everybody how stupid they are after their first post. That's not welcoming, nor is it an appropriate response from a forum wherein people are trying to change the false stereotype that guns + people = "bad people".

Sometimes people come here, and they make passionate statements about their disagreement with our rights. However, it is opening posts like these that we really need to observe our responses, and not simply refer to them as trolls:

Downriver wrote:

Why should your right to carry trump my right to take my family out without having to worry about a bunch of whackos who may or may not even know basic firearms safety packing deadly weapons?

Click to expand...

anti wrote:

Ban handguns in the USA
We don't need to possess handguns to be safe. People are being killed everyday because someone was allowed to own a handgun. It really shouldn't be that way. That is why I support a handgun ban, and am for stricter gun control laws. Only people in jobs that require handguns should have them (police, military, etc). It is their job to protect us, not ours.

Click to expand...

Now. In these posts there are some serious fallacies:

--"Right to take my family out without having to worry about a bunch of whackos..."

--"It's their job to protect us, not ours."

We know utilizing facts, that these projections of false reality are wrong on their face.

It does not help however, when the first post is "shoo troll, go away".



I try typically to at least offer up some meaningful answers and resources. If this does not work, and the individual/s in question do not accept the reality of the facts and sources posted, then they have decided to reject all premise for an open, rational debate.

Even though painful, and ignorant stereotypes like "Neanderthal", "Cowboy", or "Gun toting redneck" are certainly the bigoted equivalent of "honkey", "cracker", or "wop", it does us no good to project the same image.


This is just my personal opinion, but, I think we should back down a bit on calling people trolls, even when it seems blatantly obvious.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

imported post

I agree that personal attacks have no place here. I agree that even people who disagree with us should feel comfortable having discussions here. I even agree that someone using million dollar words just to foster a sense of superiority is probably not helping the cause. (Thesaurus, not dictionary, btw. )

I don't think that antis or CCers who come here spouting off at the mouth and being rude shouldn't be called on it. I have the same expectations of respect that we try to provide them. I'm not the one going into their forums being all emotional and stirring up problems, and if I was I would expect to be treated like I was.

imported post

mcdonalk wrote:

I agree that personal attacks have no place here. I agree that even people who disagree with us should feel comfortable having discussions here. I even agree that someone using million dollar words just to foster a sense of superiority is probably not helping the cause. (Thesaurus, not dictionary, btw. )

I don't think that antis or CCers who come here spouting off at the mouth and being rude shouldn't be called on it. I have the same expectations of respect that we try to provide them. I'm not the one going into their forums being all emotional and stirring up problems, and if I was I would expect to be treated like I was.

Click to expand...

I don't think I have found one of their forums where one is allowed to question their position in any way is tolerated. I know I asked one simple question on the Brady Facebook page and was kicked out. It was a polite question/correction on something they had posted. I did receive two PM's on from them, one of which called me an "ignorant redneck" and the other informed me that the NRA was a group of murderers and was responsible for X thousands deaths, bla bla, bla. My point being, no matter how polite and accurate you are on the anti board, your presence will be short lived, at least as far as I've found.

There are some good points here though. Things to think about certainly.

imported post

I have never been onANY forum where the truth is allowed 100% if it is in re: to certain 'controversial'topics (such as 'race' issues). Even this one. But even if it were, be prepared for being flamed big-time and called names like bigot, intolerant and racist (most assuredlyif you are not of the same race being spoken of, even if what you say is true). That's just how it is.

So I am not surprised that many forums are 'intolerant' of certain topics and will oust/ban you for mentioning them...that's just how it is. And as forum owners, they should be able to set whatever rules they wish. Like life,said rules don't have to be fair.

-- John D.

P.S. Some people here use 'big words' not to impress anyone but to express their views. That's just howsome were educated and howtheycommunicate every day. No apologies required. Ifsomeone has to go look up words some posters use (as I must do sometimes), that's too bad. Maybewe should have stayed awake in school. I mean, it's nota posters fault for using '$5 words' ifwe didn't...or skipped class entirely, or never assigned any real value to education.

imported post

cloudcroft wrote:

P.S. Some people here use 'big words' not to impress anyone but to express their views. That's just how some were educated and how they communicate every day. No apologies required. If someone has to go look up words some posters use (as I must do sometimes), that's too bad. Maybe we should have stayed awake in school. I mean, it's not a posters fault for using '$5 words' if we didn't...or skipped class entirely, or never assigned any real value to education.

Click to expand...

This may be for the first time, but I'm going to have to give you the big 'ol +1.

It may (then again, it may not) surprise readers here to learn that I never use a thesaurus to identify synonyms; I only ever use words with which I have already developed a familiarity. The only time I use reference is when I know there is a word which is exactly the right word I want, and I can't remember what it is, but I know it means something very similar to another word. Then I might use a reverse dictionary or a thesaurus to jog my memory as to that *perfect* word I know is hiding just behind the mental fog. :lol:

So, cloudcroft is quite correct. Most people who use "fancy" or "big" words aren't doing it in order to sound intelligent, we do it (when we do) because it's the way we have learned to communicate.

It is very hard to find that *perfect* word and not use it later on down the road.

Sure, a Hi-Point will get the job done, but who wouldn't prefer an Ed Brown if you just have to land that bullet exactly where it belongs?

imported post

Many years ago, I read that one reason very educated people use "big words" is that they often mean the same thing as lots of smaller words. So in essence (literally) you canWRITE or SPEAKless but actually SAY more.

Of course, it doesn't work for someone like me who characteristically tends to be verbose, but it DOES for people who prefer to be concise in their speech and writings. And saying as much as possible in a small number of words is a highly valuable skill (especially useful in Academia), but very few of us have it. I mean ANYONE can wrote a whole lot, but few can SAY a whole lot in just a few words/paragraphs.

And with today's public sorry education 'standards'this skill is even rarer.

-- John D.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

cloudcroft wrote:

P.S. Some people here use 'big words' not to impress anyone but to express their views. That's just how some were educated and how they communicate every day. No apologies required. If someone has to go look up words some posters use (as I must do sometimes), that's too bad. Maybe we should have stayed awake in school. I mean, it's not a posters fault for using '$5 words' if we didn't...or skipped class entirely, or never assigned any real value to education.

Click to expand...

This may be for the first time, but I'm going to have to give you the big 'ol +1.

It may (then again, it may not) surprise readers here to learn that I never use a thesaurus to identify synonyms; I only ever use words with which I have already developed a familiarity. The only time I use reference is when I know there is a word which is exactly the right word I want, and I can't remember what it is, but I know it means something very similar to
another word. Then I might use a reverse dictionary or a thesaurus to jog my memory as to that *perfect* word I know is hiding just behind the mental fog. :lol:

So, cloudcroft is quite correct. Most people who use "fancy" or "big" words aren't doing it in order to sound intelligent, we do it (when we do) because it's the way we have learned to communicate.

It is very hard to find that *perfect* word and not use it later on down the
road.

Sure, a Hi-Point will get the job done, but who wouldn't prefer an Ed Brown if you just have to land that bullet exactly where it belongs?

Click to expand...

I actually agree. I have no problem if posters are using words that have become part of their vocabulary and they are often used. One exception though: We shouldn't use highly technical terms that we might use daily at work, just to show how smart we are.

I have no problem with the "$5" words! I think we are all in agreement regarding the use of words that are not commonly used. I think/hope that everyone knows the type of people I'm speaking of. If not, I'm referring to the ones who look up new words, to post, that they think will impress us with their supperior intellegance. Those are easy to identify, as the majority of their words are on a much lower plane.

Regarding my second issue: How we deal with new members, the "stop and spew" types, antis trying to get a rise out of us etc. I agree with most of what was said.

Here, is where I differ. It was said that if they treat us with respect, we should treat them likewise. But if they treat us bad, we should do likewise. That is me paraphrasing, not quoting.

These people want that! They want us to lose our cool either to make a long thread, to show how rude OC people are, etc. I'm not even proposing that you turn the other cheek. Just let such posts go silent if it is obvious the CC poster is here solely to trash and bash.

Were all individuals and we react differently. All I'm really asking is for you to realize, in some cases, you are feeding the fire when the fire should be left to burn out.

This post has about run it's course but I would like to know if what I'm now suggesting is agreeable with you. Any suggestions?

imported post

"...I'm referring to the ones who look up new words, to post, that they think will impress us with their supperior intellegance.Those are easy to identify, as the majority of their words are on a much lower plane." -- open4years

It's not just the 'size' ($) of the words useone uses buthowone uses words in general,regardless of size (and punctuation, paragraphs, etc.). Consequently, even "lower-plane" words can be used in such a way (expressing oneself) that the writer is clearly well-educated...or just inherently intelligent.Most people write poorly and even in speech, can't effectiviely communicate. I don't know if it's a lack of education or just not having the 'knack' (i.e.,never having goneto Irelandto kiss the Blarney Stone). ;-)

As for people who post 'bait' questions seeking to stir up trouble, I think the rule "Do not feed the trolls" is a good one...but that's true in all forums, not just this one. Of course, the problem is to be sure the poster really IS a troll (so you don't out-of-hand dismiss an 'innocent victim'), which is sometimes in doubt, so in that case their 'question' (or statements) could be answered. HOW they are answered -- politely or with disdain -- I must leave up to those who respond.

-- John D.

P.S. When someone posts a word or name I do not know, it is SO EASY to open up another browser window and Google it: Presto, instant answer! The Internet is great in that respect...no 'hardcopy' dictionary (or encyclopedia) need be on hand.

imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:

open4years wrote:

...
What does it really matter if some one wants to think a VW is a faster car? You can share your opinion and facts, but if they still want to believe a VW is faster, let them.

That is all we can do here. I'm just trying to say that if we treat them with respect, even if they haven't earned it, let them share their point of view. We nicely tell them our point of view. If they have questions, answer them nicely even if it seems stupid to you...

Click to expand...

To the first, it is like this:

There are hard facts in life.
In order to support a position, one must be able to verify facts.
Omitting facts lends credence to the idea that your position is unsubstantiated.
It also lends thought to the prospect of questionable mental health, as you supplement reality with whatever you can dredge up.


I am not saying that we should be "rude" per se. I am simply saying that life is full of facts, and choosing to omit clear and present observation, to be able to inject your own reality, is not a viable or realistic solution.

So no, watching someone say "A stock VW bug is faster than old redhead(Ferrari "Testarossa". I'm a car guy, so sue me.)" is not an acceptable compromise.

 We live in an age of information. We can literally study any subject we want, and exercising a bit of discretion and study skills, come to our own very well informed, and rational opinions.



Keep in mind I am NOT saying we need to tell everybody how stupid they are after their first post. That's not welcoming, nor is it an appropriate response from a forum wherein people are trying to change the false stereotype that guns + people = "bad people".

Sometimes people come here, and they make passionate statements
about their disagreement with our rights. However, it is opening posts like these that we really need to observe our responses, and not simply refer to them as trolls:

Downriver wrote:

Why should your right to carry trump my right to take my family out without having to worry about a bunch of whackos who may or may not even know basic firearms safety packing deadly weapons?

Click to expand...

anti wrote:

Ban handguns in the USA
We don't need to possess handguns to be safe. People are being killed everyday because someone was allowed to own a handgun. It really shouldn't be that way. That is why I support a handgun ban, and am for stricter gun control laws. Only people in jobs that require handguns should have them (police, military, etc). It is their job to protect us, not
ours.

Click to expand...

Now. In these posts there are some serious fallacies:

--"Right to take my family out without having to worry about a bunch of whackos..."

--"It's their job to protect us, not ours."

We know utilizing facts, that these projections of false reality are wrong
on their face.
It does not help however, when the first post is "shoo troll, go away".



I try typically to at least offer up some meaningful answers and resources. If this does not work, and the individual/s in question do not accept the reality of the facts and sources posted, then they have decided to reject all premise for an open, rational debate.

Even though painful, and ignorant stereotypes like "Neanderthal", "Cowboy", or "Gun toting redneck" are certainly the bigoted equivalent of "honkey", "cracker", or "wop", it does us no good to project the same image.


This is just my personal opinion, but, I think we should back down a bit on calling people trolls, even when it seems blatantly obvious.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

Click to expand...

Okay, if it is not acceptable to you that the other person still believes a stock VW is faster than sports car A, and you have stated all of your suppporting data, what is next?

If you pursue the issue, it could become a heated arguement that could lead to a physical fight. You are both in the ER, seperated by a curtain, and you hear him say: "A VW is faster than car A" where does it end. Why is it SO important for you, that the other person agrees with you

I am not putting you down. I used to be just like you and for a very long period of time. I'm talking in terms of decades. I finally realized that there are people out there who will never change their position even if you put the evidence in their hands. Why? It goes back to what I've said before. Some people, have a very hard time admitting that they were wrong. Some will never admit it. Argueing with such people only puts stress on you. They are content in their own little world!

B

imported post

open4years wrote:

Okay, if it is not acceptable to you that the other person still believes a stock VW is faster than sports car A, and you have stated all of your suppporting data, what is next?

Click to expand...

Change the conversation once you have determined they are firm in their belief.

No need to converse with a closed mind.



People are often so firm in their beliefs, even when shown blatant countering evidence, that it is not worth pursuing.

Talk about golf or something.

imported post

"People are often so firm in their beliefs, even when shown blatant countering evidence, that it is not worth pursuing." -- slowfiveoh

IMO, Mayor Daley of Chicago is one of the best living examples currently available for this mysterious phenomenon.

-- John D.

imported post

cloudcroft wrote:

"People are often so firm in their beliefs, even when shown blatant countering evidence, that it is not worth pursuing." -- slowfiveoh

IMO, Mayor Daley of Chicago is one of the best living examples currently available for this mysterious phenomenon.

-- John D.

Click to expand...

Somewhere along the way, more and more fact, leaked out of the political process.

Around this same time, politicians embraced a more "dramatic" approach.

Out with the "facts", and in with the "American Idol".



A bit of a tirade:

Most of the people I have ever met are emotive. They are also extroverts, who draw their complete and utter being from the acceptance of those around them.

Technically, there is a lot that is completely and inherently wrong with this process, but it is absolutely true that people remain this way.


I have maybe 3-4 real good "friends". Some I shed some blood with, others I went to High School with.

Those who cling to extroverted acceptance, naturally assume that something is wrong with me, because I do not share their sense of worth based off of external approval.

How many of you are like that?
How many of you are like that but won't admit it? (Ok, trick question. heh)

Those who are introverted weigh and measure themselves according to their own scale. They see extroverts as people on an impossible mission to please everybody. A mission that is chaotic and unrealistic, and will likely lead to mental problems, marital problems, and societal drama.

Of course, I am an extreme introvert, with only those specifically close to me having any sway whatsoever on my own self worth. So this is surely my own interpretation of things.


This goes back to a post I posted quite a while back about Open Carry being the ultimate form of personal responsibility, and as open carriers, our acknowledgment of this absolute reality.

At some point, all of us, whether externally driven, or internally driven, have determined that our own life, and those of our loved ones, are worth protecting.

How many causes can you think of that unite people of so many differing backgrounds, ethnicity, and personality styles?

We need to get the emotive, dramatic types, out of their comfy, cushy, laid back seats in local government, and congress.

While empathy is a valuable trait in a congressman/woman, drama is not.