[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47880471]And HumanAbyss claims I don't understand "the culture"...
Sometimes we must rise above impulsive emotions and appraise the larger context of a situation before taking action. Negative social stigma in tandem with the rule of law are vital if we are to minimize destructive behaviours.[/QUOTE]
I didn't know understanding and compassion for other human beings was an impulsive emotion.
[QUOTE=Scum;47881267]has social stigma ever actually minimized destructive behaviour?
[editline]5th June 2015[/editline]
stigma of drugs means people have to go to shady dealers and increase the chances of getting impure product and dying. that seems to be increasing the destruction.
stigma of prostitution means working girls have no union or law enforcement protection and increases the chance of getting murdered by psychopaths. that seems to be increasing the destruction.
etc you get the point (hopefully).
the biggest destroyer of stigma is understanding.[/QUOTE]
It seems to work pretty well with murder and theft (at least in less impoverished areas). Those are extremely destructive behaviours that have a very negative social stigma and whose perpetrators are held under strict laws.
I'd say the success is largely due to the fact that the negative social stigma is pretty ubiquitous along with heavy handed official intervention.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47882280]It seems to work pretty well with murder and theft (at least in less impoverished areas). Those are extremely destructive behaviours that have a very negative social stigma and whose perpetrators are held under strict laws.
I'd say the success is largely due to the fact that the negative social stigma is pretty ubiquitous along with heavy handed official intervention.[/QUOTE]
so to get you right
Drug use(not alcohol though, god forbid) = murder/rape/theft
Okay...
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47882294]so to get you right
Drug use(not alcohol though, god forbid) = murder/rape/theft
Okay...[/QUOTE]
That's not the point and you know it.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47882310]That's not the point and you know it.[/QUOTE]
Your point being that both are illegal behaviours that both detriment society in ways that are undesirable and harmful to everyone.
But you see, drug use(And this includes you drinking your whiskey) is wrong in your books(except you exclude alcohol from being a drug based on _______) but to the majority of the world, soft drugs like marijauna harm no one.
Places like Insite, once again, to belabour this fucking point, help prevent drug use, and disease, they help to do this by giving a safe space with drug addiction specialists, rehabiliation being something they push on the ones that are willing to go down that route.
These clinics HELP people get OFF drugs and you want them closed down because to you, those people are doing a behavior that you classify as being similar to fucking murder.
I don't care if you say "That's not the point and you know it" until your blue in the face. You're a blatant fucking hypocrite and you clearly don't care that you are
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47882337]Your point being that both are illegal behaviours that both detriment society in ways that are undesirable and harmful to everyone.
But you see, drug use(And this includes you drinking your whiskey) is wrong in your books(except you exclude alcohol from being a drug based on _______) but to the majority of the world, soft drugs like marijauna harm no one.
Places like Insite, once again, to belabour this fucking point, help prevent drug use, and disease, they help to do this by giving a safe space with drug addiction specialists, rehabiliation being something they push on the ones that are willing to go down that route.
These clinics HELP people get OFF drugs and you want them closed down because to you, those people are doing a behavior that you classify as being similar to fucking murder.
I don't care if you say "That's not the point and you know it" until your blue in the face. You're a blatant fucking hypocrite and you clearly don't care that you are[/QUOTE]
Wow, you actually did miss the point.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47882339]Wow, you actually did miss the point.[/QUOTE]
No, i'm sick of arguing with your dismissive, dodgy shit where you barely respond to arguments or posts.
Hell you went on a fucking small tirade there calling me a liberal stereotype and ignoring any arguments there were against you. If you think you have the high ground here, you're mistaken.
Tell me then, what is the point in you comparing drug use to murder as a analogy as to why both are harmful for society? Because frankly, I don't think YOU even know why you said it anymore.
[editline]4th June 2015[/editline]
Why do you think murder is a ubiquitous social stigma? Because it's bad for everyone.
So why do you want social stigma of the same sort against drug use like marijuana? Because you think it's bad for everyone.
But you won't see the hypocrisy in saying you can drink 3-5 ounces of whiskey a night?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47881750]lol yeah let druggies die in prison or of aids fuck em
Nice post though, really. Clearly harm reduction strategies developed by people ten times as smart as you are useless.[/QUOTE]
I don't agree with the law being passed, my post was in reference to someone posting that obesity and cheeseburgers was comparable to using drugs, as if it were something that should be just as legal.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47882339]Wow, you actually did miss the point.[/QUOTE]
Here's a point.
How about society and government work together to teach safe and responsible use of drugs? In my opinion the only way to reduce drug [I]abuse[/I] is to properly educate students on the effects and potential dangers of common drugs (to include prescription drugs and alcohol). When you use a negative stigma and misinformation about these substances your only promoting dangerous ignorance and naivety. When the largest substance abuse prone group doesn't understand the potential risks of these substances then they can't make rational decisions about them thus leading to addiction and overdose. Much like guns and sex, proper education is the only way to prevent harm; when you know how things can be potentially dangerous or bad you can make rational decisions about situations.
In-fact, you are a perfect example of this behavior. I can assume that you've never tried illicit substances therefore you wouldn't understand what the cause and effects of those substances can be. That would entail that your only knowledge of drugs would be the negative stigma that you so kindly endorse.
[QUOTE=reedbo;47882592]Here's a point.
How about society and government work together to teach safe and responsible use of drugs? In my opinion the only way to reduce drug [I]abuse[/I] is to properly educate students on the effects and potential dangers of common drugs (to include prescription drugs and alcohol). When you use a negative stigma and misinformation about these substances your only promoting dangerous ignorance and naivety. When the largest substance abuse prone group doesn't understand the potential risks of these substances then they can't make rational decisions about them thus leading to addiction and overdose. Much like guns and sex, proper education is the only way to prevent harm; when you know how things can be potentially dangerous or bad you can make rational decisions about situations.
In-fact, you are a perfect example of this behavior. I can assume that you've never tried illicit substances therefore you wouldn't understand what the cause and effects of those substances can be. That would entail that your only knowledge of drugs would be the negative stigma that you so kindly endorse.[/QUOTE]
I don't know where you grew up or what rock you've been living under but 'society' and 'the government' have been preaching the negative effects of drug use for a long time now. Also, there's hardly any responsible use of some illicit drugs (anything besides marijuana or alcohol tbh) because using them in themselves is a completely irresponsible act with disregard to personal health and safety.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;47882607]I don't know where you grew up or what rock you've been living under but 'society' and 'the government' have been preaching the negative effects of drug use for a long time now. Also, there's hardly any responsible use of some illicit drugs (anything besides marijuana or alcohol tbh) because using them in themselves is a completely irresponsible act with disregard to personal health and safety.[/QUOTE]
That's exactly my point. How are some substances safe (prescriptions, alcohol) and others not safe? The only defining factor would be improper dosage and misunderstanding of effects. Every drug can have a positive benefit, shit the whole pharmaceutical and medical industry is responsible for the majority of beneficial drug use. Lots of recreational drugs actually have positive benefits and can be used in many treatments. It's only when misinformation and negative stigma are promoted that drugs are abused and not treated as they should be. Go look up psychedelic art on google images and tell me that the substance consumed during creation wasn't used responsibly. Personal health and safety is exactly that [B]personal[/B].
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;47882607]I don't know where you grew up or what rock you've been living under but 'society' and 'the government' have been preaching the negative effects of drug use for a long time now.[/QUOTE]
That's exactly what he said. But he's saying we [b]shouldn't[/b] use the "Drugs are satan's hellspawn and they will murder you" education route, instead we should teach responsibility and the truth about drugs, not over-exaggerate like drug education tends to do. Telling the negative effects of drug use is great, but we also need more than that because right now we're just telling kids that drugs are completely dangerous, and if they ever try drugs they will think "Wow it's not even as dangerous as they've been telling me" because we talk about them so negatively.
[sp]I think that's what reedbo meant anyways...it's my opinion on the matter at least.[/sp]
[editline]poopie[/editline]
Oops ninja'd by reedbo himself.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47882339]Wow, you actually did miss the point.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't even going to comment in here but HOLY SHIT how sheltered do you have to be to be as lacking in the compassion department as you, to think that "having 2-3 ounces of whiskey after a long day" is a normal pastime for most people or to think it's valid to make comparisons between murder/rape and drug use? I can't even fathom how huge of a piece of shit you must be up there on your high horse where you can judge drug users like this without showing a sliver of human undertanding or empathy.
You keep talking about how the kind of people who would need drug shelters are detrimental to society and a waste of tax payers' money, but it seems like you have completely, 100% missed the point of having a society with tax-funded benefits like health care. These services and the state as a whole do not exist to function as a circlejerk for rich people who think it's even remotely fucking okay to drink whiskey on a daily basis. Society and its benefits exist to a much greater degree to function as a safety net for the less fortunate. It doesn't matter whether you got to where you are because of arbitrary external factors or poor decisions, you still have any rights that anyone else, including yourself, has. The moment you decide that "society is only there to benefit the fortunate" you are undermining the very backbone of the concept of a state and might as well go full-on anarcho-capitalist.
For the sake of everyone around you; please get help.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47882280]It seems to work pretty well with murder and theft (at least in less impoverished areas). Those are extremely destructive behaviours that have a very negative social stigma and whose perpetrators are held under strict laws.
I'd say the success is largely due to the fact that the negative social stigma is pretty ubiquitous along with heavy handed official intervention.[/QUOTE]
yeah it must be the social stigma of murder that stops us from doing it totally.
there's a quote i really like in regard to stuff like this but i'l have to paraphrase
"people who don't do evil so they do not go to hell are slaves
people who do good so they can go to heaven are mercenaries."
why do you think that the stigmas and laws don't have as much of an effect in impoverished areas? there's a variable here and it isn't the stigma and law.
if stigma and law are a constant in both areas but the results are radically different can it not be concluded that stigma and law are not as effective preventatives as you believe they are?
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47882280]It seems to work pretty well with murder and theft (at least in less impoverished areas). Those are extremely destructive behaviours that have a very negative social stigma and whose perpetrators are held under strict laws.
I'd say the success is largely due to the fact that the negative social stigma is pretty ubiquitous along with heavy handed official intervention.[/QUOTE]
If you think that is working you're probably on some of the stuff you're so keen on stigmatizing. If you look at countries with low crime rates (cough cough, the nordic countries) and low repeat-offenders (cough cough, the nordic countries) you'll see that the punishments for crime in general are very lenient with a focus on rehabilitating people. If you look at countries with abnormally high murder rates (the US), you'll see that their prison system has little focus on rehabilitation, and a large focus harsh punishments.
Of course there are differences in the poverty levels, but I'd very much like you to find some numbers to support that argument of yours.
That won't solve anything! If you want to make people stop using drugs you can:
1. Remove the source of the drugs (can't think of how to do that so it doesn't result in billions dying from senseless eternal carpet bombing)
2. Brainwash people somehow (until mind control is available it ain't really practical)
[QUOTE=reedbo;47882592]Here's a point.
How about society and government work together to teach safe and responsible use of drugs? In my opinion the only way to reduce drug [I]abuse[/I] is to properly educate students on the effects and potential dangers of common drugs (to include prescription drugs and alcohol). When you use a negative stigma and misinformation about these substances your only promoting dangerous ignorance and naivety. When the largest substance abuse prone group doesn't understand the potential risks of these substances then they can't make rational decisions about them thus leading to addiction and overdose. Much like guns and sex, proper education is the only way to prevent harm; when you know how things can be potentially dangerous or bad you can make rational decisions about situations.
In-fact, you are a perfect example of this behavior. I can assume that you've never tried illicit substances therefore you wouldn't understand what the cause and effects of those substances can be. That would entail that your only knowledge of drugs would be the negative stigma that you so kindly endorse.[/QUOTE]
Who says a negative stigma is misinformation? A lot of these drugs serve to feed hedonistic lifestyles and can potentially lead to even more destructive behaviour. The least that can be asked for is to keep the negative stigma and make sure that these drugs are kept out of the lower class's hands as much as possible (since they've proven time and time again that they simply can't handle these sorts of things constructively like the bourgeois of society).
I never said keeping people ignorant was the plan at all, it seems everyone is just assuming I want people to die because I enjoy it or something; of course proper education is needed on this matter, a negative stigma is part of that.
Indeed, the only drugs I've dabbled in are alcohol and caffeine, I'm living proof that a negative stigma works.
[QUOTE=Scum;47882871]yeah it must be the social stigma of murder that stops us from doing it totally.
why do you think that the stigmas and laws don't have as much of an effect in impoverished areas? there's a variable here and it isn't the stigma and law.
if stigma and law are a constant in both areas but the results are radically different can it not be concluded that stigma and law are not as effective preventatives as you believe they are?[/QUOTE]
You view the idea of committing with fear and disgust probably, negative stigma, case in point.
Stigmas and laws don't have as much of an effect in poor areas because the poor naturally engage in more crimes, which would require people to break the laws and stigmas of society.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47883950]Who says a negative stigma is misinformation? A lot of these drugs serve to feed hedonistic lifestyles and can potentially lead to even more destructive behaviour. The least that can be asked for is to keep the negative stigma and make sure that these drugs are kept out of the lower class's hands as much as possible (since they've proven time and time again that they simply can't handle these sorts of things constructively like the bourgeois of society).
I never said keeping people ignorant was the plan at all, it seems everyone is just assuming I want people to die because I enjoy it or something; of course proper education is needed on this matter, a negative stigma is part of that.
[B]Indeed, the only drugs I've dabbled in are alcohol and caffeine, I'm living proof that a negative stigma works.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
I've never smoked a cigarette, but that's not because smoking is looked down upon in Denmark, it's simply because I know it's unhealthy. Many drugs are unhealthy (downright lethal in doses) too, and that's reason enough to shun them.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;47883297]If you think that is working you're probably on some of the stuff you're so keen on stigmatizing. If you look at countries with low crime rates (cough cough, the nordic countries) and low repeat-offenders (cough cough, the nordic countries) you'll see that the punishments for crime in general are very lenient with a focus on rehabilitating people. If you look at countries with abnormally high murder rates (the US), you'll see that their prison system has little focus on rehabilitation, and a large focus harsh punishments.
Of course there are differences in the poverty levels, but I'd very much like you to find some numbers to support that argument of yours.[/QUOTE]
What about Singapore? It employs something like what I'm proposing and it has one of the lowest drug abuse rates worldwide, which has been dropping significantly over the past couple of decades too.
Care to explain what magic is doing that if it's not the heavy handed laws and extremely negative social stigma?
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47883950]Who says a negative stigma is misinformation? A lot of these drugs serve to feed hedonistic lifestyles and can potentially lead to even more destructive behaviour. The least that can be asked for is to keep the negative stigma and make sure that these drugs are kept out of the lower class's hands as much as possible (since they've proven time and time again that they simply can't handle these sorts of things constructively like the bourgeois of society).
[/QUOTE]
HAHAHAHAH.
You keep getting funnier and funnier;
Except for your glass of whiskey at the end of the day, right? That's obviously not hedonistic.
Drunk driving.
Domestic Violence.
Teens drinking themselves so drunk they keep passing out, waking up, screaming, and passing out again.
Don't you think there should be way more of a stigma on alcohol as well, then?
I mean I don't see ads for that new type of bud on the market, but I do see ads for that new Citrus-flavoured beer.
If I get you right, [B]YOU[/B] enjoy your whiskey at the end of each workday.
Figures, huh.
I love how you say "lower class" like people in higher places haven't gotten themselves so smashed or drugged up that they completely, and utterly fuck up their lives.
Read: Smashed, from alcohol, yes.
Really,
Get your head out of your ass, read up on history, and see how the world works, instead of buying whatever news-channel you seem to get your information from.
[editline]5th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47884239]What about Singapore? It employs something like what I'm proposing and it has one of the lowest drug abuse rates worldwide, which has been dropping significantly over the past couple of decades too.
Care to explain what magic is doing that if it's not the heavy handed laws and extremely negative social stigma?[/QUOTE]
Is it just me or is Singapore only a few decades old?
If you "create" a culture from scratch, which is what Singapore pretty much IS, then yes, you can regulate this, and place a stigma on it so harsh that people (usually) wont go near the stuff.
For countries that have been around for centuries? Prooobably too late.
At the same time, I spoke to a group of 6 Singaporeans that admitted to doing:
Marihuana
Shrooms
Perscription drugs
And even tried Meth once.
[B]Edit[/B]
Forgot MDMA and probably more.
What helped them to not get addicted?
Conscription at 18.
After that they were clean.
Maybe all countries should just force all 18 year old into the army for a while?
If you REALLY, REALLY care about getting ALL drugs away from humans, as you seem to want.
We should ban:
Alcohol
Cigarettes
Coffee and every other caffeine-based drink and food
And then i'm probably missing some.
Then we get to the point of giving people the death penalty for those who trade in it.
Yay you.
[editline]5th June 2015[/editline]
Why am I posting you obviously don't read other peoples posts anyway.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47884239]What about Singapore? It employs something like what I'm proposing and it has one of the lowest drug abuse rates worldwide, which has been dropping significantly over the past couple of decades too.
Care to explain what magic is doing that if it's not the heavy handed laws and extremely negative social stigma?[/QUOTE]
If you could choose between having a country with harsh punishments for basically any crime, mandatory conscription and a ban on bubble gum, or have one with lenient punishments, basically no conscription and essentially the same end result, which one would you choose?
This is of course ignoring the fact that Singepore has quite a bit less area to care about, even compared to Denmark (Denmark is about 60 times the size of Singapore, same population), and thus even less border to care about, making smuggling harder - especially compared to the US or Canada.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;47884387]If you could choose between having a country with harsh punishments for basically any crime, mandatory conscription and a ban on bubble gum, or have one with lenient punishments, basically no conscription and essentially the same end result, which one would you choose?
This is of course ignoring the fact that Singepore has quite a bit less area to care about, even compared to Denmark (Denmark is about 60 times the size of Singapore, same population), and thus even less border to care about, making smuggling harder - especially compared to the US or Canada.[/QUOTE]
So now we're not denying that negative social stigma and heavy handed law reduces destructive behaviours, glad to see I managed to force that one out.
Unless Singapore's borders suddenly shrunk significantly over the last 20 years, that does not explain the consistent reduction in drug abuse that has occurred as of late.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47884483]So now we're not denying that negative social stigma and heavy handed law reduces destructive behaviours, glad to see I managed to force that one out.
Unless Singapore's borders suddenly shrunk significantly over the last 20 years, that does not explain the consistent reduction in drug abuse that has occurred as of late.[/QUOTE]
You didn't answer the question though. Obviously drug use can be influenced by laws and campaigns.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47883950]Who says a negative stigma is misinformation? A lot of these drugs serve to feed hedonistic lifestyles and can potentially lead to even more destructive behaviour. The least that can be asked for is to keep the negative stigma and make sure that these drugs are kept out of the lower class's hands as much as possible (since they've proven time and time again that they simply can't handle these sorts of things constructively like the bourgeois of society).[/QUOTE]
Negative stigma IS misinformation. How can you negatively stigmatize something that isn't negative unless it's abused without the use of misinformation? Also, your opinion on hedonism is exactly that, your opinion. Don't use some slippery slope argument about how people can't make responsible decisions for themselves. I for one don't think it's responsible in the slightest to drink whiskey every night, in-fact your brain is probably already addicted to alcohol. How is your daily drink not hedonism? You're a fucking hypocrite advocating for the death of addicts. Either that or sociopath.
[QUOTE]I never said keeping people ignorant was the plan at all, it seems everyone is just assuming I want people to die because I enjoy it or something; of course proper education is needed on this matter, a negative stigma is part of that.[/QUOTE]
A negative stigma isn't education. Like I said, how can you negatively stigmatize something that's safe unless abused without using misinformation?
[QUOTE]
Indeed, the only drugs I've dabbled in are alcohol and caffeine, I'm living proof that a negative stigma works.
[/QUOTE]
Also living proof that the same stigma has promoted ignorance and bigotry.
[QUOTE]You view the idea of committing with fear and disgust probably, negative stigma, case in point.
Stigmas and laws don't have as much of an effect in poor areas because the poor naturally engage in more crimes, which would require people to break the laws and stigmas of society.[/QUOTE]
Please go do some research. Even just a little. Telling people not to do something doesn't work and never will, even if the law and your peers say it's bad.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;47884634]You didn't answer the question though. Obviously drug use can be influenced by laws and campaigns.[/QUOTE]
That's what I've been trying to say this whole thread, glad to hear someone finally admit it.
As for Nordic countries, they have a much lower poverty rate, which means they have a more bourgeois population. The middle-upper classes characteristically have lower crime rates and drug abuse rates, not every country has such a high proportion of upper-middle class folks.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;47882586]I don't agree with the law being passed, my post was in reference to someone posting that obesity and cheeseburgers was comparable to using drugs, as if it were something that should be just as legal.[/QUOTE]
Well, you're right in that he's wrong - illicit drugs aren't anything like food. They're more like alcohol, which is legal and ubiquitous.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47884483]So now we're not denying that negative social stigma and heavy handed law reduces destructive behaviours, glad to see I managed to force that one out.
Unless Singapore's borders suddenly shrunk significantly over the last 20 years, that does not explain the consistent reduction in drug abuse that has occurred as of late.[/QUOTE]
You more or less just twisted his words til you heard what you want to hear
[B]Just like you've done to make it seem acceptable to you that you can drink and still judge anyone else so harshly [/B]
[editline]5th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;47884769]That's what I've been trying to say this whole thread, glad to hear someone finally admit it.
As for Nordic countries, they have a much lower poverty rate, which means they have a more bourgeois population. The middle-upper classes characteristically have lower crime rates and drug abuse rates, not every country has such a high proportion of upper-middle class folks.[/QUOTE]
No what you want to hear is that "Drug use should be effected by campaigns so we can stop the spread of it". Of fucking course it "can" be effected. As to whether you have valid justification for that, well you've failed to communicate that in a meaningful way
Bigfatworm is like the ra's al ghul of FP. This man has done something illegal, he is a criminal, criminals feed on society's empathy and understanding, they need to be severed from society. Then batman fucked up the league of shadows. #gothamcanbesaved
Frankly, I just don't think you have the capability to understand or explain why you're allowed to drink 3-5 ounces of whiskey a night, but anyone who so much as touches marijuana is harming society in extreme ways.
I just don't get it. You have your vice, and you've justified that to yourself excellently. But how you lack the where with all to see how this is highly hypocritical of you.
[editline]5th June 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=reedbo;47884735]Negative stigma IS misinformation. How can you negatively stigmatize something that isn't negative unless it's abused without the use of misinformation? Also, your opinion on hedonism is exactly that, your opinion. Don't use some slippery slope argument about how people can't make responsible decisions for themselves. I for one don't think it's responsible in the slightest to drink whiskey every night, in-fact your brain is probably already addicted to alcohol. How is your daily drink not hedonism? You're a fucking hypocrite advocating for the death of addicts. Either that or sociopath.
A negative stigma isn't education. Like I said, how can you negatively stigmatize something that's safe unless abused without using misinformation?
Also living proof that the same stigma has promoted ignorance and bigotry.
Please go do some research. Even just a little. Telling people not to do something doesn't work and never will, even if the law and your peers say it's bad.[/QUOTE]
He rates you funny, and walks away from every argument and point you've made here like that's a valid response.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47884947]Frankly, I just don't think you have the capability to understand or explain why you're allowed to drink 3-5 ounces of whiskey a night, but anyone who so much as touches marijuana is harming society in extreme ways.
I just don't get it. You have your vice, and you've justified that to yourself excellently. But how you lack the where with all to see how this is highly hypocritical of you.
[editline]5th June 2015[/editline]
He rates you funny, and walks away from every argument and point you've made here like that's a valid response.[/QUOTE]
Pissing into a sea of piss. Maybe he just doesn't know how to admit he's wrong but I know that's asking for a lot.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
