the righteous tyrant

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 6682
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:49 pm
Age wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:36 pm ...when questioned and challenged in regards to THEIR CLAIMS runs away...
No.
Yes you did.

The ACTUAL EVIDENCE and PROOF is just a few posts back.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:49 pm It's just that there's a minimal, very low bar for quality of conversation in order for it to be worth going forward. You always seem to find a way to be below the bar. It's probably a function of your age. So maybe you'll learn. We can all be optimistic about that.
These are just EXCUSES, EXCUSES, and more EXCUSES for your lack of ability to back up and support YOUR CLAIMS.

I wil once again suggest to you it is far better for you if you can back up and support your claims with actual evidence and/or support BEFORE you make the claim at all.

Also, what do 'you' envision my age is, EXACTLY?

Have I warned you before about ASSUMING before CLARIFYING?

If no, then I have now.

Also, your attempt at condescending coming from your superiority complex did NOT go unnoticed at all.

You are very ashamed and afraid of being so lack of ability to back up and support YOUR CLAIMS, so you have overcompensated this inferiority with an attempt to come across as superior. Yet you have FAILED, once again, COMPLETELY.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:49 pm But it's not today.
Today you, ONCE AGAIN, made a CLAIM, which can be so VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY REFUTED. Yet you will do all you can to 'try to' DEFLECT AWAY from this FACT.

Today you, ONCE AGAIN, were CHALLENGED, and AGAIN you could NOT stand up to the CHALLENGE, and instead chose to run away, and 'try to' DECEIVE.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4520
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Lacewing »

Age wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:57 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:49 pm No.
You are very ashamed and afraid of being so lack of ability to back up and support YOUR CLAIMS, so you have overcompensated this inferiority with an attempt to come across as superior.
This is one of your projections, Age. There are potentially many reasons and ways that I.C. feels and does what he does.
Age wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:57 pmToday you, ONCE AGAIN, made a CLAIM, which can be so VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY REFUTED. Yet you will do all you can to 'try to' DEFLECT AWAY from this FACT.

Today you, ONCE AGAIN, were CHALLENGED, and AGAIN you could NOT stand up to the CHALLENGE, and instead chose to run away, and 'try to' DECEIVE.
Yes, this IS what I.C. does, continually. The way he demonstrates his Christianity through deflection and deception are laughable. A platform based on deflection and deception can only be a self-serving fantasy, agenda, or "personal truth". If it cannot stand up to honesty or questioning, it is being manipulated and protected by the claimant's dependency on it... not because of any actual truth contained in it at all.
Atla
Posts: 3260
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Atla »

Age wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:57 pm
Advocate wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 1:34 pm First you establish legitimacy, then you use whatever force is necessary to accomplish your objectives.
This describes the founder of another philosophy forum.

They even claim to be legitimately righteous, BUT THEN do the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they say and claim to "fight for".

They CLAIM EVERY one has A RIGHT to 'free speech', but then BLOCK some people from speaking. Usually, by the way, when they are being PROVEN Wrong.

The "righteous" tyrant does NOT like to be shown up as being False, Wrong, and Incorrect.
They had enough of your schizophrenic preachings about the 'I' on the other forum? :)
Age
Posts: 6682
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Age »

Lacewing wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:44 pm
Age wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:57 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:49 pm No.
You are very ashamed and afraid of being so lack of ability to back up and support YOUR CLAIMS, so you have overcompensated this inferiority with an attempt to come across as superior.
This is one of your projections, Age.
Yes it is. But a 'projection' is NOT necessarily a Wrong thing to do, NOR is a 'projection' a projection of what 'one's own" 'self' does. As I actually can back up and support EVERY thing I say and claim. So, I have nothing to be ashamed nor afraid of in this regard.

By the way, the word 'projection', like many different words, has MANY different definitions. So, what definition of the word 'projection' were you alluding to here, EXACTLY?

Lacewing wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:44 pm There are potentially many reasons and ways that I.C. feels and does what he does.
Yes there are. And that was just one of them.

But they ALL lead to one ultimate reason WHY this, and EVERY, human being feel, think, and do what they do.

Once you also have learned what this one reason is, then you will understand further what has actually been happening here, and what all of this is, literally, leading up to itself.
Lacewing wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:44 pm
Age wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:57 pmToday you, ONCE AGAIN, made a CLAIM, which can be so VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY REFUTED. Yet you will do all you can to 'try to' DEFLECT AWAY from this FACT.

Today you, ONCE AGAIN, were CHALLENGED, and AGAIN you could NOT stand up to the CHALLENGE, and instead chose to run away, and 'try to' DECEIVE.
Yes, this IS what I.C. does, continually. The way he demonstrates his Christianity through deflection and deception are laughable. A platform based on deflection and deception can only be a self-serving fantasy, agenda, or "personal truth". If it cannot stand up to honesty or questioning, it is being manipulated and protected by the claimant's dependency on it... not because of any actual truth contained in it at all.
Age
Posts: 6682
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Age »

Atla wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 6:35 pm
Age wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 2:57 pm
Advocate wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 1:34 pm First you establish legitimacy, then you use whatever force is necessary to accomplish your objectives.
This describes the founder of another philosophy forum.

They even claim to be legitimately righteous, BUT THEN do the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they say and claim to "fight for".

They CLAIM EVERY one has A RIGHT to 'free speech', but then BLOCK some people from speaking. Usually, by the way, when they are being PROVEN Wrong.

The "righteous" tyrant does NOT like to be shown up as being False, Wrong, and Incorrect.
They had enough of your schizophrenic preachings about the 'I' on the other forum? :)
Who is "they", and will you provide ANY EVIDENCE and/or PROOF for this claim of yours here.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4520
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Lacewing »

Age wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:10 pm
Lacewing wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:44 pm This is one of your projections, Age.
Yes it is. But a 'projection' is NOT necessarily a Wrong thing to do...blah, blah, blah...
See? I've told you that you make projections. You insist that I point them out, as if they do not exist. Then when I do, you make excuses and say "but, but, but...".

A projection is you projecting your ideas about how someone else is FEELING, onto them. You do not know, yet you may base much of your argument on it. You've done it to me many times, and you've been wrong. If someone wants to continue to engage with you, they have to explain how much you are projecting... which you deny and argue with. It ends up being a convoluted swamp, too false and pointless and time-consuming to wade through, you see?

Your supposed end-all answers/ideas/claims are as fanciful and personal as your projections. We ALL have our own sight and ideas. We may point out what and how someone else is doing or saying something... but any projections about how they feel or who they are is not true or complete, because we all can be many things.
Age
Posts: 6682
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Age »

Lacewing wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:14 pm
Age wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 1:10 pm
Lacewing wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:44 pm This is one of your projections, Age.
Yes it is. But a 'projection' is NOT necessarily a Wrong thing to do...blah, blah, blah...
See?
Why the question mark now? What are you asking here?
Lacewing wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:14 pm I've told you that you make projections.
I know you have told me this. You have told me this a few times already. But so what?

I have informed you that making projections is not necessarily a wrong thing to do.

Making projections is also not necessarily a bad thing at all to do, as making projections does not necessarily have anything to do with what "one's" 'self' does.

By the way, you saying, "This is one of your projections", to another, is a 'projection', itself. Was this a bad or wrong thing for you to do here?
Lacewing wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:14 pm You insist that I point them out, as if they do not exist.
Where and when have I ever insisted such a thing?
Lacewing wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:14 pm Then when I do, you make excuses and say "but, but, but...".
What are you on about here?

How one views 'projections', or not, like EVERY other word is all dependent upon the observer.

Do you see 'making projections' as being something wrong or bad?

If yes, then WHY?

Also, can one 'make projections' without that projection being something that one, them self, does? Or, is this NOT possible to you?

If you want to make the claim that 'making projections' is what the one making the projection does them self, then you have to PROVE this. So, if you want to claim that I am 'making projections', then you will HAVE TO PROVE that I do that EXACT SAME thing "myself".

I was pointing out that "another"; is very ashamed and afraid of being so lack of ability to back up and support THEIR CLAIMS, and, that they have overcompensated this inferiority with an attempt to come across as superior.

Now, if you want to make the projection and claim that 'I', "myself", do this as well, then you will HAVE TO PROVE that 'I' do this. Otherwise, what you are projecting, saying, and claiming here is just your own view and/or belief, which is not necessarily based on ANY supporting evidence and/or proof AT ALL.

So, if you want to PROVE that I also do this, then you will have to CHALLENGE EVERY thing I say, and claim. See, I can back up and support EVERY thing I say and claim, and the only way you can DISPROVE this is by CHALLENGING me, which I MOST WELCOME and, literally, LOOK FORWARD TO.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:14 pm A projection is you projecting your ideas about how someone else is FEELING, onto them.
Yes. And if I am WRONG, then they can just CORRECT me.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:14 pm You do not know, yet you may base much of your argument on it.
AND, I also MAY KNOW. Or, do you really believe that you KNOW that I do not know?

As I also MAY base much of my, alleged, "argument" on 'it' I MAY also NOT.

Also, is what you just said here 'a projection'? (After all you did say, "You do not know").

If no, then WHY NOT?

Is it possible I COULD KNOW?
Lacewing wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:14 pm You've done it to me many times, and you've been wrong.
So what?

i have been WRONG MANY, MANY times in my life. And, i do NOT think that i will NEVER be WRONG ever again.

Also, do NOT forget that you have made many ASSUMPTIONS about what I have actually MEANT and you have been WRONG many times as well. Or, have you forgotten this already?
Lacewing wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:14 pm If someone wants to continue to engage with you, they have to explain how much you are projecting...
NO they do NOT. They could just tell 'me' and inform "others" HOW and WHY 'I am WRONG', and then proceed.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:14 pm which you deny and argue with.
You speak here as though you are NEVER wrong, and whatever you say should NEVER be 'denied' nor 'argued' against.

Could what you say be WRONG, and thus should be 'denied' and 'argued' against, or do you prefer NO one does this when engaging with you?
Lacewing wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:14 pm It ends up being a convoluted swamp, too false and pointless and time-consuming to wade through, you see?
For example, just EXACTLY LIKE what is happening here now?
Lacewing wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:14 pm Your supposed end-all answers/ideas/claims are as fanciful and personal as your projections.
If my answers/ideas/claims are NOT end-all answers/ideas/claims, then just point this out, by EXPLAINING HOW and WHY they are NOT end-all answers, ideas, and/or claims.

I KNOW I can back up and support ALL of my, so called, "end-all answers/ideas/claims". This is because I have ALREADY obtained the actual EVIDENCE and PROOF that can, will, and does back up and support them ALL.

If ANY one thinks or believes that this is NOT possible, then just CHALLENGE me on this.

I have absolutely NOTHING to fear NOR be scared of here.

By the way, instead of just using emotive words like "fanciful", and words like "your projections", as though you have some actual EVIDENCE and PROOF of them, how about you PROVIDE some ACTUAL PROOF?
Lacewing wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:14 pm We ALL have our own sight and ideas.
Just to be absolutely correct here SOME have their own sight and ideas. But who and/or what YOU view 'we' here is, is probably VERY DIFFERENT to what I view, and SEE, the 'we' is.
Lacewing wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:14 pm We may point out what and how someone else is doing or saying something... but any projections about how they feel or who they are is not true or complete, because we all can be many things.
HOW do you KNOW that it is "not true" or "complete"?

Do you KNOW things that "others" do not?

How do you KNOW that I do NOT KNOW, EXACTLY, who and what 'you', human beings, are, individually AND collectively?

By the way, EXPLAIN, exactly, HOW 'you', human beings, can be MANY things.

What else can 'you' be, other than a 'human being', and HOW, exactly, can 'you' be those things?

ONCE MORE, I suggest that if ANY one wants to make a claim, then it is better for them if they can back up and support their claim BEFORE they make the claim, in the first place.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4520
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Lacewing »

Age wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 9:25 am
Lacewing wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:14 pm See?
Why the question mark now? What are you asking here?
Sorry Age, I cannot read your post. Like I said, for me it's like wading through a swamp of your convoluted (and noisy) thoughts. If you want to learn to communicate better (as you've said), I suggest again that you pick a few main points and be succinct in your discussion of them, rather than trying to dissect every word, symbol, or statement and pummeling people with questions from every angle about each and every one. Maybe that's how you think and explore (?), but it seems clear that few people have the interest in doing all of that with you. Looking more broadly at what someone says, provides better understanding than stumbling over bits that may seem meaningless or incomplete on their own without the context of the whole. Like staring into a drop of ocean water vs. seeing the broader ocean.
Advocate
Posts: 2571
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Lacewing post_id=507113 time=1618240862 user_id=11228]
Sorry Age, I cannot read your post. Like I said, for me it's like wading through a swamp of your convoluted (and noisy) thoughts. If you want to learn to communicate better (as you've said), I suggest that you pick a few main points and be succinct in your discussion of them, rather than trying to dissect every word, symbol, or statement and pummeling people with questions from every angle about each and every one. Maybe that's how you think and explore (?), but it seems clear that few people have the interest in doing all of that with you. Looking more broadly at what someone says, provides better understanding than stumbling over bits that may seem meaningless or incomplete on their own without the [u]context of the whole[/u]. Like staring into a drop of ocean water vs. seeing the broader ocean.
[/quote]

I found that to be an elegant, comprehensive, and accurate analysis of one of many things happening around these parts that indicate the need for a Communication in/of Philosophy section.

The trees v. forest problem there. Age's got to be able to take "common knowledge" for granted unless it's explicitly part of the issue at hand. To say exhausting detail is always relevant is self-defeating because logistics is a thing, as is triage, as is common sense. It would also defeat the entire purpose of knowledge which is to cram the ∞ of stuff into our tiny minds.

In a broader sense trees/forest is the major problem with regard to Academia, and it's a fatal one there just as it is here.

When there's an infinite regress hiding behind every unturned stone, turn over as few stones as necessary. That also avoids every conversation becoming about socialism, please, thank you.
Age
Posts: 6682
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Age »

Lacewing wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:21 pm
Age wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 9:25 am
Lacewing wrote: Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:14 pm See?
Why the question mark now? What are you asking here?
Sorry Age, I cannot read your post. Like I said, for me it's like wading through a swamp of your convoluted (and noisy) thoughts. If you want to learn to communicate better (as you've said), I suggest again that you pick a few main points and be succinct in your discussion of them, rather than trying to dissect every word, symbol, or statement and pummeling people with questions from every angle about each and every one. Maybe that's how you think and explore (?), but it seems clear that few people have the interest in doing all of that with you. Looking more broadly at what someone says, provides better understanding than stumbling over bits that may seem meaningless or incomplete on their own without the context of the whole. Like staring into a drop of ocean water vs. seeing the broader ocean.
But to see the broader, and ALL OF the, ocean, then ALL of the drops 'need' to be LOOKED AT.

Also, and by the way, instead of just picking an actual point and being succinct with that point you 'allude' to 'this' and to 'that', through symbolic and metaphor language. I suggest just telling and informing me and the readers WHERE I am Wrong.

As for the actual number of people with a True interest in creating a much better "world" for EVERY one, then that number, in the days of when this is being written, is fairly obvious.

I have been looking VERY broadly at what "others" say, that is WHY I can SEE what I SEE.

Again, what seems meaningless and incomplete to 'you' is just your perspective of things. What seems like 'stumbling' to 'you' is just your perspective of things.

If you ever gain the interest, then you will gain the curiosity to either CHALLENGE or QUESTION me, instead of all of this assuming, and projecting, which you are clearly doing here.

I suggest again pick a point, or two, and DISCUSS.

Instead of ASSUMING and LOOKING AT what I do, how about LOOKING AT what I write and discuss THAT? Especially considering the FACT we are in a philosophy forum.
Age
Posts: 6682
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Age »

Advocate wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:48 pm
Lacewing wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:21 pm Sorry Age, I cannot read your post. Like I said, for me it's like wading through a swamp of your convoluted (and noisy) thoughts. If you want to learn to communicate better (as you've said), I suggest that you pick a few main points and be succinct in your discussion of them, rather than trying to dissect every word, symbol, or statement and pummeling people with questions from every angle about each and every one. Maybe that's how you think and explore (?), but it seems clear that few people have the interest in doing all of that with you. Looking more broadly at what someone says, provides better understanding than stumbling over bits that may seem meaningless or incomplete on their own without the context of the whole. Like staring into a drop of ocean water vs. seeing the broader ocean.
I found that to be an elegant, comprehensive, and accurate analysis of one of many things happening around these parts that indicate the need for a Communication in/of Philosophy section.

The trees v. forest problem there. Age's got to be able to take "common knowledge" for granted unless it's explicitly part of the issue at hand.
Supposed and alleged "common knowledge", and taking ANY knowledge for 'granted', is a big part of the reason WHY 'you', human beings, are living in the ACTUAL MESS that 'you' are in, in those days when this was written.

Taking 'knowledge for granted' without ever LOOKING INTO 'knowledge', itself, deeply and accurately will NEVER allow 'you', human beings, to evolve past your present way of living.
Advocate wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:48 pm To say exhausting detail is always relevant is self-defeating because logistics is a thing, as is triage, as is common sense. It would also defeat the entire purpose of knowledge which is to cram the ∞ of stuff into our tiny minds.
'you', human beings, do NOT have minds.

And when 'you' UNDERSTAND this FACT, then 'you' will be to SEE 'things' very differently.
Advocate wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:48 pm In a broader sense trees/forest is the major problem with regard to Academia, and it's a fatal one there just as it is here.

When there's an infinite regress hiding behind every unturned stone, turn over as few stones as necessary.
Why not just turn over ALL of the stones, to REVEAL thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'?

If, and when, one does, then what is CLEAR is that thee One and ONLY Universe is ACTUALLY INFINITE, and the 'regress' STOPS when thee Truth is SEEN, and UNDERSTOOD.
Advocate wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:48 pm That also avoids every conversation becoming about socialism, please, thank you.
Advocate
Posts: 2571
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Advocate »

>Supposed and alleged "common knowledge", and taking ANY knowledge for 'granted', is a big part of the reason WHY 'you', human beings, are living in the ACTUAL MESS that 'you' are in, in those days when this was written.

Taking something for granted is not equivalent to guessing, it's simply understanding that we don't have infinite time to examine all possibilities in context of a given conversation, and that's almost never necessary or useful anyway. All knowledge is not to be examined in every conversation. Trying to do so is why You never get anywhere, and it's why academic philosophy fails, by being all detail, no larger picture. The regress must be decapitated by common sense to have useful dialog.

>Taking 'knowledge for granted' without ever LOOKING INTO 'knowledge', itself, deeply and accurately will NEVER allow 'you', human beings, to evolve past your present way of living.

Taking it for granted means that you Have looked into it and the answer is so commonly understood or obvious that it doesn't need to be examined any further, or that is simply not relevant to the question at hand. Your version of taking things for granted is applied in an entirely different way than anything i've ever said or intended. You're right, except that your point is irrelevant.

>'you', human beings, do NOT have minds.

To be a human doesn't require a mind but to be a person does. Minds is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain, and if you're talking about it, you have one.

>And when 'you' UNDERSTAND this FACT, then 'you' will be to SEE 'things' very differently.

>Why not just turn over ALL of the stones, to REVEAL thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'?

I have. That's why i'm here, to spread understanding.

>If, and when, one does, then what is CLEAR is that thee One and ONLY Universe is ACTUALLY INFINITE, and the 'regress' STOPS when thee Truth is SEEN, and UNDERSTOOD.

The universe is infinite, but our conversation cannot be, that's why we Must take for granted the commonality of our experience. If we meet aliens we'll have to establish a different sort of basis which we can also take for granted before we can meaningfully communicate further..
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:57 pm Legitimation has to be on some universal principle, not on personal preference.
Except that there are really no universal principles. Such technologies of power as they exist can, and are invented and reinvented.
History is awash with novel ideologies from brute force, through various mystical/religious claims, genealogies, hero worship, kinship, kinghsip, democracy, demagogy, totalitarianism, what is next ?? Who knows?
Advocate
Posts: 2571
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Sculptor post_id=507163 time=1618319762 user_id=17400]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=506691 time=1617969447 user_id=9431] Legitimation has to be on some universal principle, not on personal preference.
[/quote]

Except that there are really no universal principles. Such technologies of power as they exist can, and are invented and reinvented.
History is awash with novel ideologies from brute force, through various mystical/religious claims, genealogies, hero worship, kinship, kinghsip, democracy, demagogy, totalitarianism, what is next ?? Who knows?
[/quote]

The universal principle is priority. First all parties have to formally understand their own, then those priorities can be calculated and balanced. Until then what you've got is an emotional/political/economic morass. There's always a right answer if the question makes sense and the variables are understood.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11670
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: the righteous tyrant

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 2:16 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Apr 09, 2021 12:57 pm Legitimation has to be on some universal principle, not on personal preference.
Except that there are really no universal principles.
Then there would also be no legitimation. There would only be competing power-groups, with none of them any objectively "better" or "more legitimate" than any other.
Post Reply