you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -17 points 1 year ago (56 children)

I'm pro LGBTQ, anti-israel, against consumerism/capitalism, pro socialism. Pro government control on key infrastructure (water, gas, electricity) and better housing and support services. Pro climate policies, pro taxing the rich.

But I'm also against fossil fuel bans, against bans on firearms, pro military for defence, pro free-speech, pro strict immigration, against 'PC' culture, against trans-women in women's sports, pro merit success.

Am I left or right? ...Or centrist?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 56 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children)

    Let's take the obvious "Pro military for defense" first since that's the most insane thing to think is a contentious political issue.

    There are 30% of people in the US that think aliens are real and have visited their asshole but you will not find 5% of people in america that oppose the military as a concept.

    What you're doing here is being manipulated by people who want you to think some of these things are Important Issues(tm)

    The trans women in sports is a great example of propaganda. It was cooked up by a conservative think tank. How many people are affected by this "problem"? Maybe 200? And in most cases sports organizations themselves often have rules in place like "how long you'd have to have been on hormone therapy to qualify." That is already more or less a solved problem for most the people it actually affects. People playing sports didnt come up with the "trans people in sports issue", a think tank did.

    So what you are ..is manipulated by think tanks and propaganda and in a way that causes you to oppose people who otherwise have common interests with you.

    There's only two real political philosophies and they can be summed up as "fuck you, I got mine" and "we're all in this together." I will tell you right now only the "fuck you, I got mine" group has any real interest in dehumanizing people by say, having the government ban trans people from public spaces and public activities like sports.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    And yet the comments and downvotes shows how contentious it is which I knew it would be when I wrote it.

    Probably extra contentious because it's trans discrimination on Pride weekend. And there's the fact that some research (backed by the International Olympic Committee) suggests that trans-women may perform worse than cis-women.

    Even if more research comes out that shows otherwise (entirely possible considering that it's hard to get a decent sample population of elite trans athletes as there are so few), discrimination is not a solution. The simplest solution would be to get rid of gendered leagues and group athletes by measureable athletic abilities. Probably would make most people with an actual vested interest happy, with exception of those who want to keep paying women less.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Oh wow, I did not know that! For both points. It's great to see more research, I skimmed a little but I'll read it right after this comment.

    I like the idea of athletes competing against one another purely to see who is best overall. But I'd be worried that could possibly be more discriminatory. Such as in bouldering there was recently a controversial issue with a short climber not being able to compete in some climbs due to certain starting holds being too far apart. So something like weight classes but that considers a lot more depending on the sport?

    Thanks so much for your reply and your linked study! I'm really happy for comments like yours.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I know the trans-women in sport issue is almost non-existent but it’s probably the biggest talking point in the comments it seems.

    Says the person who brought it up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    It was simpily an argument for me being centrist and therefore legitimate centrist existing.

    It clearly worked in demonstrating what a centrists opinions are like and no one has so far argued I fall on one side or the other.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Sure. just bring up divisive right wing talking points. And then call yourself a centrist.

    It tracks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    And what about my left wing opinions? Would the right wing accept me or would they be as friendly as you lot are?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Would the right wing accept me or would they be as friendly as you lot are?

    You're asking us to accept bigoted opinions and threatening to go to the right like you weren't there already.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    No, I'm not, I'm comparing how so many commenters are unfriendly here to the point of insulting and abuse.

    I know the right act the same and have treated me the same. Therefore I belong nowhere, not accepted from the left, not accepted from the right.

    So I'm neither, cue being a centrist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    but you will not find 5% of people in america that oppose the military as a concept.

    Thats just your speculation. And do you mean people oppose the US having any military at all? 90% of the countries have a standing army, and the ones that dont are mostly small island countries.

    Why is that the line you draw?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm pro LGBTQ

    against trans-women

    Right

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    In women's sport, I just don't think it's fair to women to compete against trans-women* who are stronger than them. I only beleive that out of fairness, but I think people have every right to do what they want with their bodies and be accepted for who they are.

    Where another person's rights begin, another's ends type of thing.

    ** EDIT: Clarifycation of 'trans-women' at the astrick, was just 'women' before

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (28 children)

    I'm pro LGBTQ

    against trans-women in women's sports

    No, you're not pro lgbtq. You're a TERF at best

    against consumerism/capitalism, pro socialism. Pro government control on key infrastructure (water, gas, electricity) and better housing and support services. (...) pro taxing the rich

    pro merit success

    ??? Do you understand what any of those words mean? "Pro merit success" directly contradicts each of the social policies you claim to support.

    Pro climate policies

    I'm also against fossil fuel bans

    You're either lying about one of these or you somehow think we can stop climate change without stopping the most significant cause of climate change?

    Does the complete lack of internal consistency in your worldview not bother you at all? You have no defined political leaning, you have a bunch of emotionally driven contradictory political opinions that you clearly have little to no understanding of.

    Given that description, I'd guess you probably call yourself a centrist and vote conservative.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    Or some people just have nuanced opinions and see that topics can be multiple shades of grey instead of either white or black.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (12 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    There is no contradiction.

    Not wanting trans-women in sports doesn't make you not support LGBT. T is only one letter of 4+. And trans-women is only half of T. And athlete trans women is a small subset of that. And athlete trans women that want to play in women's leagues are a subset of that.

    You can reward people based on accomplishments and also tax the rich. You can also have social programs while still rewarding them.

    You can improve the environment without a complete ban of fossil fuels.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    T is only one letter of 4+. And trans-women is only half of T. And athlete trans women is a small subset of that. And athlete trans women that want to play in women's leagues are a subset of that.

    Wow that's revealing more than you probably wanted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    What is it revealing that I supposedly didn't want?

    Yes. I believe that you can support a political group without supporting 100% of the policies that supposedly support that group.

    Basically because it's impossible fro 100% of the people on the group to agree on exactly which policies are hurtful and which are helpful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Like I said elsewhere, you're competing with the internet for the most contrarian take. You revealed that trans athletes is not an issue you support because they are such a small group of the whole. But when you feel insecure or challenged about your "hot take" you do the contrarian line of "it's impossible for 100% of the people on the group to agree" as if this is a matter of opinion and not facts. As long as it is rooted in opinions, you are free to claim the most contrarian take possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    First of all, that's not my opinion. I'm defending the other guy. Since he's getting his opinion denied under the untrue argument that his opinion is contradictory, when it is not. See the user names.

    Second point, "not supporting trans athletes because they are a small group" is not at all what I said, but you are acting as if that were what I said. Let me repeat it again so you can see the difference: you don't need to support every policy that claims to support a small subset of a group in order to claim that you support that group.

    Since it seems hard to understand let me say an example. There is country "chairland" where the chairpeople leave happily. Inside chairland there is a town called "tabletown". Person A says: "tabletown people should have free access to Netflix!" And person B says: "No, I love chairpeople, but tabletown is not entitled to free Netflix". Is the claim of people B contradictory? Can't a person support chairland but not support giving tabletown free Netflix?

    And yes, everything in that original comment made by the other guy are opinions. "Trans women should compete in women leagues" is not a fact, doesn't matter how progressive you are, it is under every definition of the word: an opinion.

    You are free to have any opinion you want, I don't believe in thought crimes. I don't know why you place such importance on "contrarian". Is someone that has an opinion different than yours a contrarian? Are contrarian opinions not valid? Therefore, are opinions different than yours not valid?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

    It's frankly disgusting to compare this to people wanting free Netflix. I know that's not exactly what's happening here but I think we're loosing the plot.

    Contrarian has a definition, it isn't relative to what my opinion is but the mainstream. The point is you're using the fact that your opinions are contrarian as evidence that your opinions are correct. It is funny.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I tried to make the least offensive analogy possible in order to have a logical conversation around the topic. But it still got an emotional response. I don't think you're arguing in good faith.

    The second paragraph is called projection. I never made the claim that those opinions are correct because they are contrarian, yet you keep making the claim that they're incorrect because they are contrarian.

    I don't understand how being contrarian or not makes an opinion less or more valid. Who decides what mainstream is? Whoever gets more upvotes? We should never ever have an opinion that will get downvoted on Lemmy? Or is it a democratically elected process? In that case, the mainstream opinion in the US in 2020 was that the best person to be the president was Donald trump. Does that make it correct?

    You're yet to give any argument other than "those opinions are wrong because they are contrarian"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    I'm not saying you're wrong because you're contrarian, most of the people here fall into the category. What I am saying is that using the fact that an opinion is contrarian is not evidence that it is correct.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    And what I'm saying is that what you claim I claimed was never claimed by me.

    Since the discussion seems to have derailed let me do a brief summary:

    • Original guy: here are some opinions I have
    • Other guy: your opinions don't make sense, some of them contradict other ones
    • Me: they don't contradict at all. It is perfectly coherent to have those opinions.
    • You (correct me if I'm wrong): your opinion is wrong because it seems you're a contestant for a contrarian contest.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Let me put it another way. You are wrong in regards to trans participation in sports but not because you are being a contrarian. You are also wrong to use your contrarian stance to justify your opinion. Hopefully that clears things up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)
    1. My argument has nothing to do with trans or sports. My point is that his opinions are not contradictory.
    2. Yor point has gone from "you are wrong for being a contrarian" to: "you are wrong because _____"

    Fill in the blank please.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Dead wrong, I've always voted left. And yes, I do consider myself a centrist, that's exactly why I commented because I think the 'you're either with us or against us' mentality is doing more damage than it helps.

    I'm only against trans-women competing against women because they would have a competitive advantage. I'm even for athletes using hormones, stereroids and drugs in sport (in seperate divisions perhaps) and then the rules on who is in who's class can really be thought out properly, but currently most trans-women have a clear advantage based on current sport (and biological) evidence. I don't think it's fair competition is all. I know some pretty cool trans people and one of them even admits to similar feelings of it being unfair.

    I'm pro social policies because I think everyone deserves a roof over their head, food, water and basic amenities. But I'm also pro merit purely to reward people to achieve more and be better. Some people will never be as capable as others are but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have a basic living standard. Something like UBI would be a perfect solution to my understanding. I'm not American but when Bernie Sanders was a candidate I was rooting for him.

    Pro climate because we need to fix it and fast, we do way to much damage to the environment. Against outright bans on fossil fuels because we simply are not there yet. My country is unfortunately nowhere near renewable and our outback has hardly any electricity, we need fuels to do anything out there. Trucks, trains and ships sometimes can't work without it. Not to mention that lithium although amazing is causing more greenhouse gases mining and refining it than what electric cars are offsetting. Electric cars literally aren't doing anything because the batteries die before they make up for their production. Carbon batteries are coming but mass production is difficult to scale. Cargo ships emit around a quater of all green house gasses and I personally think thats where we could really cut down on it by either fitting cargo ships with nuclear reactors which some military vessels have or just reducing consumerism. Currently most CO2 emissions is from electricity of which in most countries (such as mine) residential makes up only about 10%. The onous is not so much on the individual person but on companies and business, we need more incentives/punishments for corporations to be more considerate.

    Almost no issue is black or white. I do have defined political beliefs, I think most people oversimplify or don't research topics before forming an opinion. And there there are people like the one I originally commented to who have turned politics and world issues into binary division, where instead of educating they attack and insult.

    What is emotionally driven here?

    And what do I have little understanding of?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You’re in the wrong place to present nuanced opinion in long form. I love the independence of Lemmy from the large corporations (likely astroturfing aside), but this place swings the Overton window back to the left so hard it breaks without any acceptance of different nuanced ideas. It’s as though the life you’ve lived and the subtleties that governed it are irrelevant.

    Of course this develops the mindset that trying to engage is mostly pointless, which I’ve adopted, because ultimately these are all just words on a screen with no real connection to the person behind them either way. You can’t sway them and they don’t respect your attention to minutiae.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Yeah I'm really starting to notice this exactly. It's sad to think that you either disengage or get unwarranted abuse hurlded towards you from every direction.

    Maybe just getting off the internet entirely is the better option.

    I liked your reference of the Overton window though haha

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Gonna be honest, I'm not reading that slop. You open by telling me that I'm dead wrong, then immediately confirming that my guess as to your political leaning was half correct, which sets a very clear tone that you're here to mudwrestle on the internet rather than engage in a discussion. If you want to try again I'll talk to you, but I'm not interested in trading novels high on insults and low on reading comprehension with you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Of all the things in your comment, getting right the "you probably call yourself a centrist" is the least significant part. You're wrong in all the rest of your comment, which is the actually important part.

    Whether someone calls themselves left, right or center is way less important than the policies they support.

    Because guess what. You can't fit the entire world in 3 political buckets and expect everyone in each bucket to have the same opinion as everyone else on that bucket.

    As I said in another comment. The world is not black and white. There's lots of shades of grey.

    And each person has a different combination of shades of grey for each political topic.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I assumed being centrist was already clear.

    Mudwrestle? I'm here to make a point, that not everything is back and white, left or right. But if you don't want to discuss, fine by me. I didn't insult you once so your insult is quite hypocritical and immature infact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Why is everyone so sharp with words here?

    Should we stop pumping oil right this very minute? Do you think the world will be ready by 2050 to effectivly ban the sale of fossil fuel? We are yet to globally REDUCE carbon emissions, we've only decelerated so far and by a tiny amount. We are no where near ready to make the change. Unless you are willing to cause a massacre by shutting off the oil wells?

    I want things to be better, you're right. And we all play a part in improving it. Right now I actually work in solar power infanstructure, is that pathetic? I vote against fossil fuels, and I am happy my country is cutting off gas and forcing people to be more electric.

    I have helped contribute to some of these other issues I have metioned also and donate and invest in the future.

    If you can draw a conclusion on a person so quickly and determine them to be pathetic, then what are you doing that makes you so special? Because, unfortunately, there is only so much a single person can do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So wait, what things make me a pathetic coward? Could you make a list?

    And if it is only relating to fossil fuels, I'd wager 99.99% of the population doesn't want fossil fuels to be banned without replacements or serious societal change. Does that make 99.99% of people also pathetic cowards?

    Then who goes first? Do we all agree at once to stop using? Or will militaries be exempted because you and I both know that no government is sabotaging their own power.

    How would country's that export oil react do you think? Certain economies almost entirely depend on it, do they just cease to exist at once?

    Would there be exceptions for agriculture or would some communities have to starve to death?

    What about exemptions for building the replacing technology, or should we cease to use power at all and ration what remains?

    There is more complexity to the issue you deem so simple to fix. If you had complete control of the world, how would you go about eliminating fossil fuels without being guillotined by 8 billion people?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Am I left or right? …Or centrist?

    Judging by the down-votes : not-left.
    On trans athletes: it's a non-issue.
    On guns: these three videos always spring to mind.

    Can you substantiate the remainder of your last paragraph a bit?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    Those are some great linked videos.

    I agree with a lot of points in the video on trans-athletes. I wonder if the meta-study that I've been refering to was one of the studies mentioned, and there certainly needs to be more research into the topic to settle the matter for good. I think social and low stake competition should most certainly be non restricted especially for kids, the fact they are restricted in some places is obscene. But I'm still on the fence with professional and Olympic level sports. The part that currently holds me back from changing stance, is how many Olympic sports have either banned or heavily restricted participation. Perhaps they are in the wrong themselves but I suspect they are being cautious until more studies have confirmed one way or the other. Overall, I certainly don't hold my view in high regard and I'm just waiting for more evidence, but like I said, anything other than professional or Olympic shouldn't be restricted at all, any strength difference there is negligible.

    With the guns part I agree with everything mentioned. I don't think a free gun ownership system like what America has, is a smart idea. My country is very restrictive which is why I dislike the idea of completely banning them. Where I am, even the plastic toy guns were made illegal. Only if you live on a farm and need to protect livestock or produce, then you're allowed to own some. Good thing is, no mass shootings here and only some gun crime. It would be nice if tough but fair licensing was more-so available, but nothing like America.

    I'll try substantiating the last paragraph without it getting too long. Fossil fuel bans are just not possible at the moment and even when it is, there will likely be some things we will never replace, even backup generators when black outs happen for hospitals. Making it really expensive and hard to acquire should be all that's needed. Military for defence because I don't think the world will be truely at peace for a while longer. Free-speech so ideas don't go suppressed, but that doesn't mean people have to respect that free-speech. Strict immigration to bring in valuable skills not just people (pronounced problem where I am). 'PC' culture ties into free speech but also reducing diversity hires (not requiring names and personal information in hiring to make such decisions truely unbias would be a better solution). Keeping some merit success with a socialist system to reward people to achieve more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    But I’m still on the fence with professional and Olympic level sports.

    At that level you have lots of money involved, which means, among other things, steroids, corruption and lack of sportsmanship (oh gee maybe it's sportspersonship now...). So, really, not what i would consider sport so i don't give a damn; they can all "compete" with llamas for all i care.
    On everything else, it's a sport, you're doing it for sport, so who cares?
    Of course some cultures are more competitive than others.

    backup generators when black outs happen for hospitals

    Good point.

    Making it really expensive and hard to acquire should be all that’s needed.

    All that ever does is limit access to the rich.

    Free-speech so ideas don’t go suppressed,

    Bare in mind that in english (especially murican english culture), "free-speech" is often used as "i can say whatever i want, including bigoted shit". I do see a significant increase in the number of easily-offended people in the last decade, must be a generational thing.

    make such decisions truely unbias

    No such thing, there's always a bias, but trying to minimize it is indeed a good goal imho.

    Keeping some merit success with a socialist system to reward people to achieve more.

    I'd say places where merit is actually and properly valued are few and far between.
    And "socialist" red-scares muricans.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    You sound like a bog standard social conservative.

    Please name the trans women athletes who have won Olympic medals during the many years they've been allowed to compete. They have a clear advantage, right, so it should be easy to find.

    I'll wait.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/Beyond-the-Games/Human-Rights/IOC-Framework-Fairness-Inclusion-Non-discrimination-2021.pdf

    Sports decide themselves, of which world rowing and boxing have blanket bans. Athletics, cycling, swimming, rugby and cricket are bans if the transition was after puberty. Triathlon, tennis and archery requires testosterone testing. And all other sporting bodies are on a case by case basis.

    That's why we don't see them because the Olympics themselves have said:

    high-level organised sporting competitions - relies on a level playing field, where no athlete has an unfair and disproportionate advantage over the rest.

    I'm tired of replying to everyone, please put more effort into your argument

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    I didn't, I cited the literal Olympics. I have cited medical studies, and I have defended my position where everyone then returns to insults and statements like this.

    Unless you have evidence that what I said was incorrect, you are infact wrong. One, only ONE person has cited one study that is inconclusive and I congratulated them because at least they showed there is some conflicting research but you haven't even bothered to try.

    If you are going to throw your opinion around, at least back it up with weight. Cite studies, link articles, or form a proper argument, because if I can refute your claim before I've even had my morning coffee than you still have room to make a half decent point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Yeah rules tend to be updated when new information is presented. Stereroids were also not banned once upon a time, because hardly any information about their use in sport existed, and when new information was presented it was promptly banned.

    You may not care enough to present evidence to me, but how do you expect to sway the Olympics? Your rant is not going to change the Olympics policies so if you want to make the world a better place for you and your peers, find and cite evidence, maybe fund new studies to find convincing evidence to present to the Olympics and the greater world.

    You cannot expect to change opinions when you have no evidence to back up what you claim. And you will also not convince people by throwing labels and insults around, you'll only make the very people against you dig their heels in, which is the last thing you want. I don't care what you call me, I care about evidence and so far you have failed to convince as a result.

    Not everything is black and white, I'm against unfair competition as is the Olympics. That does not mean I'm against trans people, there is a substantial difference.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    You are a National Socialist. Your kind joined the Nazis as street thugs, and were very useful until shortly before the Night of the Long Knives, when your demands for the socialist part of the platform would have seen you killed or otherwise purged.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Huh!? This isn't a troll, I'm an example of a centrist. The term 'centrist' exists for a reason, and plenty of people such as myself think this way although I will admit, I have met very few unfortunately.

    What makes me seem like a liar?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)