Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: pine on November 13, 2012, 03:21 am
-
Is there anybody else who believes we may be living in a particularly ominous moment in history, a sort of pre-1914 period?
I believe we going to go to a titanic conflict such as has never been seen inside of the West for almost a century. I believe we are going to experience civil war. The West is in deadlock. I think we should prepare for the consequences of that. Our network has a far better chance of surviving than structured hierarchies like the DEA. Many people believe we are facing a Great Economic Stagnation, but I think we are really facing a Great War due to the intergenerational conflict. The conflict of self interest is much much greater than it was in the 60s and 70s. Many older people have commented that it is surprising that the rate of violence is declining during such times, and they are correct to profess such astonishment.
I know a lot of you will have had similar thoughts over the last few years, and that some think violent action to be relatively unlikely or limited in its course.
So I would ask you to submit what evidence you believe supports your position and the likelihood as expressed 1 to 10, where 1 is peace/stability and 10 is world war.
-
Pine, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
In all seriousness, I have no idea what you're talking about. A "Great War due to intergenerational conflict", really?! That sounds like every generational conflict since the dawn of man. You're apparently well respected around these here parts, but this is nothing but a meaningless rant devoid of any real substance.
-
Fuck it, there is too many people in the world anyway. Probably some nice black-market opportunities coming up if it happens too.
-
On second thought, the way I phrased that was totally uncalled for, my apologies. I can't stand when someone abruptly dismisses and belittles another person simply because they disagree with them, and I'm afraid I'm guilty of that here. To answer your question though, I'd argue that there's very little evidence to support the claim that modern civilization is on the brink of collapse.
Here's my critique of your aforementioned points:
"Is there anybody else who believes we may be living in a particularly ominous moment in history, a sort of pre-1914 period?"
-- So you're talking about the pre-World War I period, where a bunch of European countries secretly aligned themselves with one another in order to play a game of diplomatic brinkmanship? I don't see that happening today on any level of the global political landscape.
"I believe we going to go to a titanic conflict such as has never been seen inside of the West for almost a century. I believe we are going to experience civil war. "
-- Uh where exactly is this "titanic conflict"? And when you say "Civil War", are you implying a class war in the United States or is this a global war?
"The West is in deadlock. I think we should prepare for the consequences of that."
-- I don't see how the you can say that with a straight face, there is no Eastern superpower anymore. And what exactly do you mean by "the West"? America? The first world? Wyoming?
"Our network has a far better chance of surviving than structured hierarchies like the DEA. "
-- If you're talking about the deep net here, then I'd disagree, although this is certainly debatable. I doubt either one of us will live long enough to see the collapse of the DEA (and thus the United States), but I can foresee a future without Tor.
"Many people believe we are facing a Great Economic Stagnation, but I think we are really facing a Great War due to the intergenerational conflict. The conflict of self interest is much much greater than it was in the 60s and 70s. "
-- You really should you take a history class on the Cold War, it'd scare you straight. I personally think that was by far the darkest time in American history, a time where we placed more importance on "maintaining steadfast loyalty" than on protecting individual freedoms. Again, I have no idea what you mean by an "intergenerational conflict", but if you're seriously comparing the tension of the present day with that of the Civil Rights movement, I think you're seriously misguided.
"Many older people have commented that it is surprising that the rate of violence is declining during such times, and they are correct to profess such astonishment."
-- This sentence really came out nowhere and I again have no idea what you mean by it, as it seems to contradict your previous points. There's less violence in modern times.. sounds like good news to me.
These "points" all seem to be a jumbled mess of ideas that don't really lead anywhere. I'm open to your feedback though, so feel free to post back.
-
@lesseroftwoweevils
Very well, together these ideas frame an unlovely picture of the developed world's prospects.
◦ When nation states expand their empires across the globe such as the British Empire and its colonial expansion, violence is relatively rare and situated at the periphery. When superpowers diminish in power and strength there is a huge upsurge in violence because of the power vacuum. The retreat of the western powers from the African continent is an excellent example of this.
I posit that America and Europe are declining in political, social and economic power. Part of this is a natural artifact of 'growth catchup' by other nations, but it is also because productivity in the West is declining greatly if you factor in the whole population as your sample. Compare and contrast.
◦ People are in the habit of imagining that globalization, the freeing up of the trade of goods and services in the world economy is a never ending, always unfolding process. This is completely wrong. When measured on a per capita basis the world was about as globalized before WW1 as it is today. It is the conceit of every generation to believe they are in an especially favorable period of propensity and freedom, but it doesn't stack up well against the actual statistics. Globalization rather abruptly came to a halt with WW1 and some aspects of it have still not recovered, such as capital flows and labor controls (the requirement for becoming an American citizen used to be the possession of a boat ticket, compare and contrast).
Globalization stalled from 1914 to 1970 or thereabouts and only recovered afterwards. That is a long long time. The antithesis of globalization is protectionism. Many economists are afraid we may have trade wars with developing countries.
I posit we are in for higher levels of protectionism.
◦ The intergenerational gap business I mentioned is partly experience looking around me. My taxi drivers and waiters have 2 or 3 degrees apiece. It's just ridiculous. Our economic growth has not resulted in new and better jobs for the new generations of young people for some time now. The reason for that is technological progress has essentially stalled, existing industries have become radically more efficient over time (fewer workers) but there are no new industries (the relationship between workforce volume and technology industry tends to be bell curve shaped over time). This may sound like a daft argument to you but I assure you it is not. The only newish industries providing work I can think of are technology as relates to computing and the Internet, and shale gas extraction/discovery. Take those out of the equation, and that's it, there's almost nothing else. Just a big empty. This has driven down labor costs down to the point that high school graduates are going to higher level education as a means of keeping them off the ranks of the unemployed, but they ultimately exit to a world without actual jobs. There are so many people going 'back for an MBA' or postgrad for the sake of it it's incredible. There is huge unemployment among the scientists, the engineers and others, these are core STEM areas I'm talking about, the jobs that are supposed to be good. I'm looking at statistics which say less than 25% of new graduates are doing work they were educated to do, of the ones that are working at all.
In short, this is an catastrophe for an entire generation. Eventually, slowly, they'll realize they've been duped and then we'll have a real problem.
I posit that 'the devil has work for idle hands', that Chuck Palahniuk has a lot more to say to this generation than Barrack Obama. In short, protest/civil unrest, high suicide rates, at an absolute minimum.
◦ The national debt of developed countries is the highest it's ever been in world history in most countries. Japan for example is almost 1 quadrillion yen in debt. If you've studied history you'll already know this is the most dangerous sign of them all, because historically it has been at periods of higher than normal indebtedness we've experienced social breakdown or war. Being in debt puts additional tensions on every other part of society because the interest payments leech the power to be effective in other areas from the State.
◦ The taxes of Europe and the USA are set to increase due to demographic trends. Basically we are going to have way more old people who will require support. The problem is that we're already in enormous debt and taxes (most especially in Europe) are already very high. Europeans fully expect that taxation will tip over from ~50% of GDP to 60% or 70% of GDP as a result of social entitlement spending and state pensions etc. Quick economics lesson. Higher taxes, just like the way higher taxes on cigarettes and alcohol reduce consumption, reduce the consumption of labor by businesses, resulting in a situation where fewer people work. The future holds either unemployment rates in the high 20s or 30s as a constant norm and with vastly more people working for the State. Europeans are hitting a tax saturation ceiling where it doesn't make sense to increase taxes long term, but which they are politically motivated to do so in a kind of terrible Faustian deal with the devil. No matter what happens the result is the same, younger generations are going to be sacrificed by a political consensus on the economy they have little hope of influencing.
I posit this will lead to civil unrest and the potential for civil war. It's so old we've forgotten what it was like, but I think its logic shall return with a vengeance possibly as a result of dim memory and scant respect for the danger of civil disorder.
Do you understand why China is so keen on harmony? I do, and I empathize with the Communist leadership completely on that score. They understand something horrible, the war of sibling vs sibling and parent against child from their cultural revolution, we have long since forgotten the bitterness of that particular cup in the West.
◦ That developing countries like Brazil, China and other contenders, it is inconceivable they will not joust to become world powers militarily, it's practically the default next step right after rapid economic development. The world has been peaceful in macro since the fall of Soviet style Communism, and that's going to change in this coming century one way or the other. How far that goes I'm not willing to speculate, my crystal ball is cloudy on the motivations and political aspirations of the developing countries and where they might lead. I would point out however that China's colonization program for Africa is predicated on resource extraction, and so that is the kind of logic we might see for a considerable time. e.g. cats paw conflicts between distant nation states in areas of resource extraction.
I posit that we will see, for the first time in a long time, wars between well equipped and powerful nation states. That last genuine conflict of that kind was WII. For all the Soviet's flag waving and tank parading, they could never defeat NATO in open warfare without nuclear weapons, they simply never had the economic strength to back it up, the illusion was so complete that many western spectators thought they were experiencing economic growth, but it was almost all smoke and mirrors. Modern warfare will be much more terrifying than what we've come to expect, such as the easy conquest of Iraq or Afghanistan.
--
The result is that many observers believe we are headed for a 'Great Stagnation' in the West. I don't believe that, I believe there will be a reaction and it'll get nasty instead. I think Civil War is a realistic prospect.
I place the prospect of civil war at an 8.
I place the prospect of serious nation state conflicts at 7.5.
I place the prospect of lesser evils such as the ones described above at 10.
For us, like Limet, I think business is going to be excellent due to the variance and spread of arbitrage opportunities (inequalities and the black market are closely connected, we are like the back-up system when the traditional routes fail). In this world we shall create our own Empire of sorts, the future of the West looks a lot like Russia's situation but that's a topic for another day.
If you don't think this, ok. I hardly expect everybody to agree with everything I say. But you have to back up your world view with your ideas and references to the world around you.
-
"Is there anybody else who believes we may be living in a particularly ominous moment in history, a sort of pre-1914 period?"
-- So you're talking about the pre-World War I period, where a bunch of European countries secretly aligned themselves with one another in order to play a game of diplomatic brinkmanship? I don't see that happening today on any level of the global political landscape.
I didn't say World War 1 was going to repeat itself. My contention was that we are living in a period of stability which seems much like the pre World War 1 era, where the idea of War seemed completely inconceivable. The UN (called the League of Nations then) had just been invented and everybody was (in public) making peace pacts, trade agreements etc. Of course as you say, something different was going on under the surface, but nobody seriously expected such a calamity as the First World War, even the hawks didn't think it would get that bad. I think psychologically we're in a similar place today.
"I believe we going to go to a titanic conflict such as has never been seen inside of the West for almost a century. I believe we are going to experience civil war. "
-- Uh where exactly is this "titanic conflict"? And when you say "Civil War", are you implying a class war in the United States or is this a global war?
Within the West. The West is the United States, Europe, Japan. Any developed or post industrial countries essentially.
Class war is not an actual war, it's a description of social conflict, not armed conflict, save in the minds of Marxists. By civil war I mean actual war. If you study history you'll notice a feature of civil wars, in that they seem to be highly contagious. Around the time of the American Revolution, many other civil wars flared up. This is because civil wars are intrinsically related to economics, those countries which were suffering from 'imperial overreach', with high debt burdens were the ones to suffer civil wars. I'm sure you remember how the American civil war began, well the French and Indian civil wars began in a similar fashion. High levels of debt foreshadowed higher levels of taxation that the population could bear.
http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/timeline/amrev/britref/
"The West is in deadlock. I think we should prepare for the consequences of that."
-- I don't see how the you can say that with a straight face, there is no Eastern superpower anymore. And what exactly do you mean by "the West"? America? The first world? Wyoming?
The West is in deadlock internally. I think it is appropriate to define what deadlock means here: "a state of inaction or neutralization resulting from the opposition of equally powerful uncompromising persons or factions". It seems familiar somehow.
The West has the same definition it always had done. Rich developed countries.
"Our network has a far better chance of surviving than structured hierarchies like the DEA. "
-- If you're talking about the deep net here, then I'd disagree, although this is certainly debatable. I doubt either one of us will live long enough to see the collapse of the DEA (and thus the United States), but I can foresee a future without Tor.
Without Tor, sure, perhaps. But the DEA is not going to survive this century. We'll have to agree to disagree, it's not really a point I wish to get stuck on, I was aiming for the more general point that certain types of organization are unlikely to survive a future conflict of the kind I'm thinking of, it wasn't really targeted at the DEA specifically or exclusively.
"Many people believe we are facing a Great Economic Stagnation, but I think we are really facing a Great War due to the intergenerational conflict. The conflict of self interest is much much greater than it was in the 60s and 70s. "
-- You really should you take a history class on the Cold War, it'd scare you straight. I personally think that was by far the darkest time in American history, a time where we placed more importance on "maintaining steadfast loyalty" than on protecting individual freedoms. Again, I have no idea what you mean by an "intergenerational conflict", but if you're seriously comparing the tension of the present day with that of the Civil Rights movement, I think you're seriously misguided.
I think my other longer post qualifies what I meant by those words so I'll let you reply to that.
"Many older people have commented that it is surprising that the rate of violence is declining during such times, and they are correct to profess such astonishment."
-- This sentence really came out nowhere and I again have no idea what you mean by it, as it seems to contradict your previous points. There's less violence in modern times.. sounds like good news to me.
These "points" all seem to be a jumbled mess of ideas that don't really lead anywhere. I'm open to your feedback though, so feel free to post back.
Oh, it is good news. But this is a familiar pattern in history. Periods of prosperity lead to a less violent society, things such as social entitlements can aid this. However this can abruptly change quite rapidly and you suddenly face an unfamiliar, more violent world. Remember that I'm positing that we're living in good times for most of society but we won't for much longer due to the trends in economics, politics and demographics I've mentioned in the other post. You can call it the 'calm before the storm' point of view, it is not a contradiction.
-
I am extremely interested in this conversation.
In short, my personal opinion is that yes, the world is on a brink and something horrific is all too close by. To quote pine "an ominous moment in history". I agree exactly with this.
I will say just that for now, as I don't have much time on me. But I will re visit this thread with an argument for my claim when I am in a more comfortable situation.
-
Wow, that was a very insightful read pine, thanks for posting it! I'm not going to lie, I'm CLEARLY not as well-read as you on this subject, although I intend to devote a large amount of self-study to it in the near future. To give you a response that this question deserves, I'd need to devote hours, days, perhaps even weeks of time that I don't really have at the moment. Nevertheless, I'll try and add some of my first impressions to your post before I quit the SR for the night, apologies in advance if I butcher it.
I tried summarizing your main arguments (correct me if I'm wrong) and responded with my rebuttal:
1. "The exponential growth and dependable productivity of the "West" can't last forever; sooner or later their economies will stagnate, with developing countries slowly catching up to the traditional powers."
● I disagree. Doomsday prophecies similar to yours have been told since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and time and time again, innovation prevails over developmental stagnation. I don't think the present age is any different, as there are so many untapped technological breakthroughs we can take advantage of to boost our economic growth.
If that is indeed the case, the first world (ESPECIALLY the United States) has a decisive advantage over developing countries with regards to the universities, labs, and corporations required to make this type of innovation a reality. The "brain drain" effect is a very real phenomenon and although it might be more difficult to retain talent within the states than it was 30 years ago, we're still the ones holding all the cards (19th century Britain this ain't). Suffice to say, while our "exponential growth" obviously isn't sustainable, I doubt productivity through technological advancement will just wither up and die.
2. Globalization is a thing of the past and protectionism will take its place.
● I disagree. You claim globalization has become all but nonexistent since the turn of the 20th century, something I have a very hard time even conceiving. Perhaps our definitions of "globalization" differ (mine is "the process of international integration from the interchange of world views, products, ideas, and other aspects of culture"), but from my vantage point, the rise of the internet age and rapid transport to any point on the globe has only enhanced its effect on our global community. You can currently buy a Big Mac in 123 countries around the world, talk to a stranger 4,000 miles away from you instantaneously, hell... you can have a kilo of MDMA delivered to your door from Germany via an anonymous illicit drug market.
3. The educational system in America and other Western countries is unsustainable and without realistic rewards for the required effort. This artificial system will soon collapse, and civil unrest will most likely be the end result.
● I agree 100%. The educational system and its mind-boggling yearly tuition cost increases is unsustainable and artificially controlled through the federal government. For this a college grad is rewarded with less job opportunities than our grandfathers had with a high school diploma.
I disagree with you on what I think the outcome of this education bubble will be though, as I'm a bit more optimistic. Instead of riots on the streets, I think a revamping of the secondary educational system is likely to occur, starting with more trade schools, more reasonable tuition costs and a repeal of the bullshit "everyone needs to go to college!" mentality implored by modern-day society.
4. The economic trade deficits employed by the majority of Western countries are unsustainable and will result in the breakdown of the current global financial system.
● I agree, although again, I'm more optimistic about what the outcome might be. There will certainly be rough times ahead for the people footing the bill of those currently in charge (i.e. young people), but I in no way think this will be the catalyst for economic upheaval on a massive scale.
5. Higher tax rates are in store for both Europe and America, which will result in decreased labor output and will affect the younger generations the most. Civil unrest/class warfare will ensue.
● Eh, a person's opinion on this subject seems to lie on whether you have libertarian, liberal, or conservative leanings. Our current policy of spending at will to fund federal programs AND enjoying low taxes isn't sustainable. I couldn't tell you which policy would work the best with regards to retaining jobs and economic growth, but I do think Reaganomics and the "trickle-down theory" isn't a viable option, nor are aggressive Socialist policies. (That being said, I do think a tax increase on the richest of the rich is only fair.)
6. I don't understand what you mean by this so I won't comment on it. Upon first glance though, I can confidently say that not going to agree with it : "Do you understand why China is so keen on harmony? I do, and I empathize with the Communist leadership completely on that score. They understand something horrible, the war of sibling vs sibling and parent against child from their cultural revolution, we have long since forgotten the bitterness of that particular cup in the West."
7. Emerging superpowers will become as powerful as America/Europe on both a military and economic basis, perhaps even surpassing us. China is in many ways the new "colonial power" through maneuvering in Africa.
● I agree to a certain extent, especially on an economic basis, but I question why these countries would even attempt to surpass America's military dominance. You seem to think modern-day countries actually want to a fight a "mutually assured destruction" war with one another, but I just don't see that happening. As long as you have a few nukes, you're effectively as strong as the United States on a diplomatic brinksmanship level.
You also fail to recognize the HUGE hurdles China/Brazil/etc. have to overcome to get on the U.S's level in economic terms. Much of these countries are still terribly underdeveloped and although they're currently enjoying the"easy" economic spoils of capitalism as they play catch up to the West, their future is much more murky. Chinese "colonialism" in Africa is also very overstated.
8. A devastating war between two powerful, sparing nations is all but inevitable.
● Strongly disagree. Why would any country, even North Korea, want this to occur? It would destroy global trade avenues and thus be an incredibly negative detriment to any country involved. Nuclear warfare would be the death of any party involved as well, so in the end, no one would win. I honestly believe the age of "world wars" is over, if not for any other reason than the terrible costs it would bring with it.
9) Pine and lesseroftwoweevils will continue to take too many amphetamines, resulting in a 400 page treatie on the economic status of Zimbabwe if they institute bitcoin as their national currency.
Okay yeah I'm done. I don't have an essay of my own for you to pick apart, but maybe I will in a few days time.
-
To answer the subject heading...
We're already at war. Not only have we destroyed Libya, we're now fighting a proxy war against Syria in an attempt to take out one of Irans key allies, and you can bet Lebanon and ultimately Iran are next on the list. The military build up in the gulf and in all the US friendly countries surrounding Iran is unprecidented. Iran are completely encircled and are being crippled by economic sanctions, which are a form of warfare. Sanctions killed half a million children in Iraq, and this is recent history repeating itself. Add to that the pack of lies peddled by our media about Irans nuclear program and how they're a threat to the region is just INSANE. Israel are even talking about nuking, YES, NUKING, Iran.... as this would be the only way to ensure they destroy their nuclear facilities. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32998.htm It's utterly evil and very worrying. The whole concept of a 'war of aggression', attacking a country that 'might do something bad one day' is crazy, and is considered a high war crime by the Nuremberg principles. But, as recent history has taught us, the West can get away with it. Just look at Iraq. Bush and Blair will never go to the International court, despite having the blood of a million people (including their own soldiers) on their hands.
Whether the existing war(s) will expand into a World war, or very large regional one is the big question. Will China and Russia draw the line and stand up for Iran? They seem to be very quiet on the whole issue. I expect Iran will be blamed (probably falsely) for some act of aggression, and this will be the trigger for the US to join Israel and get involved in a terrible war against Iran. Iran are one of the last countries in the region standing up to the playground bully.
Around the time all this kicks off I think we'll see some other massive world events, including the impending economic meltdown. We're clearly all 'over the fiscal cliff', with no way back. They can keep printing money or increasing the debt ceiling, but eventually the bubble will burst and I fear people in the west will be more concerned about their own troubled finances (worthless dollars / euro's / pounds) than the wars that are being fought in the middle east.
I also think the US may have some kind of civil war if Obama tries to initiate gun confiscation. I think it could all kick off...
Anyway, despite my predictions, I'm trying to be positive! I agree with much of what you guys are discussing. I confess I haven't read the posts properly as I'm in the office, and need to get off the forums and do some damn work!
Peace out,
PTF x
-
Pine, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
In all seriousness, I have no idea what you're talking about. A "Great War due to intergenerational conflict", really?! That sounds like every generational conflict since the dawn of man. You're apparently well respected around these here parts, but this is nothing but a meaningless rant devoid of any real substance.
"Ok... a simple wrong would have done just fine but uh.."
-
I have news for you. There already is a war. Actually, there are several wars. The largest one being the US's attempts to maintain the USD as the world's reserve currency and "petrodollar".
I would suggest checking zerohedge.com on a daily basis. ZH is reliable, credible, and not connected to the MSM in any way, shape or form.
-
Current times are by no means comparable to pre-WW1 ones.
While countries like china and russia are very powerful, much of that power comes from trade with the west. For the Russians this is mostly in fossil fuels supplied to western Europe, and for the Chinese its mostly export of products towards both America and western Europe. None of these parties have anything to gain from another global war at all.
The situation in the middle east is another matter though. I can see that being ignited by US or Israeli attacks on Iran, but that would not spark another world war. Russia will not lend support to the countries attacked by nato forces if that would result in reduced fossil fuel/gas returns in trade with western europe. Currently the fossil fuel market is what keeps russia afloat - unlike china they have little industry that is hard to replace without a significant increase in cost.
-
Honestly the first post was gibberish to me and I almost quit reading. However, the rest of pine's posts have explained everything more clearly, and I'm glad I read them.
I think we are long overdue for a World War
-
Current times are by no means comparable to pre-WW1 ones.
While countries like china and russia are very powerful, much of that power comes from trade with the west. For the Russians this is mostly in fossil fuels supplied to western Europe, and for the Chinese its mostly export of products towards both America and western Europe. None of these parties have anything to gain from another global war at all.
I believe countries stand to make much more money from wars than from trading fossil fuels and exports.
If i remember correctly, American companies had money invested in German companies that made weapons that were used against the Americans in WW2.
-
I think that there will be a Netwar. Well, there already is, but hopefully it will reach a critical mass. The power of the state is increasingly weakening due to advances in communications technology and organizational structuring, the fact that we are on a public international drug trafficking forum is proof enough of this. I do not imagine that there will be a world war, nuclear weapons have the potential to destroy us all and only extreme religious fanatics are willing to give up their lives for the next life. The war of the distant past was largely nuclear centric and between nations, the war of the present and near future is largely information oriented and largely decentralized, with centralized states playing a role but not overwhelmingly dominating the playing field. The war of the distant future will likely be fought largely with weaponized (sometimes anonymously controlled) remote controlled aircraft, and one of the primary focuses will be determining who your enemy is. Nuclear weapons are good at fighting largely centralized targets, they are useless at fighting decentralized largely distributed networks.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netwar
-
I feel sorry for people living in America. It doesn't take a genius to see that something awful is going to happen to a large percent of the population in the near future.
Need more love in the world tbh
-
Okay, so I come back today to 4 fresh (-1)'s, all most likely coming from this thread. Not that I give a shit about karma here, but if you're going to downvote me, at least have the balls to tell me why.
And why should simply disagreeing with someone merit negative karma, especially if you want this place to have a diverse array of opinions? I didn't even (-1) pine, even though I basically disagree with everything he/she wrote.
[/butthurt]
-
Karma is neither negative or positive, it just is 8)