The Fallacies of Man

Hello and good evening. =)

Let's jump right into this, shall we?


I first found out about this site when somebody linked me to the thread in which the supposed Illuminati member with the alias "Hidden_Hand" was doing a Q&A. After reading through this I thought to my self "Hm, this must surely be a place where I can find accepting and open-minded individuals." (I know what you are thinking - don't laugh) Of course, that does not seem to be the case, at least in my experience.

Now hear me out, this is not another crying rant about how "Oh! The quality of members has dropped so much!" I haven't been here long enough to make that judgement myself, nor do I honestly care. What I did want to talk about, however, was people and their thought processes.

It seems that, while many people have what would be considered as "outlandish ideals", there is still a lack of open-mindedness and the want (or ability, for that matter) to be proven wrong. Many people seem to hold as firmly as they can to their beliefs, morality, and ideas without taking the chance to truly view things from another perspective, especially an un-biased one.

Of course, why should you? You should obviously stand up for what you believe in, yes? The problem I am coming across is the suffocation of negativity on here, not that I believe that is "wrong" and also I feel that it is somewhat expected, given the current situation of the world. I am just hoping that through this I can help people have a better understanding of their view of the world and in turn possibly help them generate more peace for themselves.

So, let's look at a few possible reasons as to why someone would argue:

1. The person feels that who he or she is arguing with is wrong and would benefit from being proved wrong.
2. The person does not feel that who he or she is arguing with is right or wrong but merely wishes to help them see things from a different perspective.
3. The person is angry at the fact that someone else could believe such a thing and wants them to feel bad for being such a fool.
4. The person generally loves the excitement, heat, and passion of a good debate - be it one that is amicable or not.
5. The person is playing a "Devil's Advocate" and merely wishes to "troll" or argue for the sake of arguing, perhaps do to the results of Reason #4
6. The person feels as if they may learn something by arguing and generally is pleased if proven wrong.

Well, I can tell you that Reason #6 is usually not the case. It is rare to find two people arguing who do not, indirectly or directly, result in taking a blow at someone in an attempt to belittle them. In most cases, this what is known in logic as a argumentum ad hominem which is latin for "argument to the man" (e.i personal attack). This generates what is referred to as a Halo effect. In society, people generally relate one trait of perceived "good" with another and likewise for traits that are considered "bad". For example, if someone is considered good looking, an excellent wordsmith, and generally vibrant in nature, people will relate that to his truth and judge him as trustworthy. The same goes for the opposite. Thusly, if someone can point out something that is generally considered "bad" by the public then others will start to doubt the credibility of that person's statements. So, really these personal attacks are more like an argumentative defense mechanism. You can also conclude that by considering this: if someone makes another person look bad and then has other people join him and gang up against that person, there is less chance of him himself being ganged up on which provides safety; a sort of.. indirect alliance for protection, if you will.

Now, why would somebody actually have a problem with being proven wrong? Do they fear of looking foolish? Are they afraid that they could have been wrong this whole time and thusly they would view their life as being mislead? Why is it that there is such a certain stubbornness that makes people hold so dearly to the fact that they are right and you are wrong?

The conclusion I have come to has to deal with the egotistical mind. Let's look at the definition of "egotist":

1. A conceited, boastful person.
2. A selfish, self-centered person.

Of course, you could definitely say that someone who is bull-headed and constantly argues is indeed "egotistical" because they think that they are great and what they believe is surely right and all others who go against what they think are wrong, but that is not really the definition I am going for. When I say "egotistical mind" or "egoic mind" I am referring to what is believed in psychology and philosophy as the "false self". This is the false sense of self and identification that gives humans that crave for individuality and uniqueness.

Now, I am not saying that uniqueness is wrong. We as humans have the beautiful opportunity to create and express ourselves in different ways and we are all of course different (such as the cliché analogy of snowflakes) so it would make sense but it certainly does create an idea that we are all separate. It instills something in our head that makes us think that "I am me and you are you and we are not all together" (I am NOT The Walrus). When of course we all are.

It doesn't really matter what religion or belief system you want to look at it from as we are all indeed proven to be one.

In The Holy Bible it says this:

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in His own imagine, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

Many people confuse that and think "He created man to look like him" as if God is the figure of a Homo sapien (generally a male figure). What this could really be argued to say is that "God created us as himself, we are just as much God as He is. He created us in his image and so we are. We are God." Unless, of course, you want to assume that The Creator failed in creating something.

In quantum physics we have what is called the "Superstring Unified Field Theory". In physics a field is an area under the influence of some force, such as gravity for example. This theory suggest that there is one ultimate field that connects everything together. Basically, universal consciousness.

One person who can put this into words in a way which I can not is John Hagelin, Ph.D. Below are two videos on which he talks about all of these things (they are a little lengthy and in-depth):




In "New Age" Theology and other philosophies and sciences, everything is seen as a vibration. Things like Earth and our 3rd Dimension is of a more dense vibration, while things like time, which is supposedly of the 4th Dimension and ultimately unseeable to man, is of a higher vibration. Ultimately, the Universe could be viewed as just one vibration, resonating at different frequencies to manifest the reality you live in.

That being said, one could submit (at least I could) that everything is in fact One. We are all one.

This is where the egoic mind comes to a fallacy. Through social conditioning and upbringing we are taught to be unique and separate from everything. A baby does not worry about these things but as soon as he is capable of thinking for himself, he starts seeing the world as we have sculpted it. We have created this world to strive off of individuality. "Buy this and you will be better than the rest." Of course, the ego loves this. Is it not true that when a child reaches the early ages of a teen he or she starts to try everything and anything to try and fit in while at the same time separate his or herself from others? Look at the average high school and you will of course see groups of kids separated into their own niches: the jocks, the popular kids, the nerds, the goths, the skaters, the band-heads, the IT geeks, so on and so on, and it has been this way for awhile. These kids feel the need to belong to something because they think that it is wrong to not be defined or labeled by something. I'm sure most of you have heard of the term being used so often now that is "Hipster".

Of course, that last line may have been a contradiction of what I was just saying. "They separate themselves by belonging." Huh???? Well, in fact, on a grand scale, they do. Even though they are belonging to a group of individuals they see themselves as separate from those who are not like them. They lack the awareness to see themselves in everyone and see everyone in themselves, and this is just reinforcing the false sense of identification that the ego has created in order to stay alive.

The remedy for this may sound to a lot of you like Communism. However, that is not the case. Communism takes away the free-will of individuals to express themselves. There is nothing wrong with creating physical individuality and expressing yourself. The problem lies when people start to believe this story they have created for themselves, however, and they truly start to believe they are separate form their fellow brothers and sisters.

Any way, let's get back on track. So, we start to believe all these things we have came to in our head; this story we have created for ourselves. First the ego started to create a sense of identification with materialist objects, such as clothes, looks, and items, but now we are throwing psychology in there to create an even greater sense of individuality. We start adding all these titles to ourselves to create more of an identity. "I am a Christian. I am an Atheist. I am a Buddhist. I am this. I am that. I believe this. I believe that." and we hold so tight to these beliefs because it helps us govern who we are. So, surely if someone is to read something that goes against what they define themselves as they are going to take it personally and be offended. In a form, it can be also be seen as denial or even the obsessive means to be in control.

Let's take a look at a possible and hypothetical argument based on the subconscious level of the "ego":

AB: "This is my belief."
CD: "Your belief is stupid! It poses a possible threat to my belief system and would thusly render me as less of a unique individual!"
AB: "Well, my belief shapes who I am so I am obviously right. Otherwise I wouldn't be who I am, now would I?"
*Personal attacks shortly follow.*

That, of course, is pretty silly but that is usually what is taking place on a different level.

Spiritual psychologist Eckhart Tolle has this to say:

Most people are in love with their particular life drama.  Their story is their identity.  The ego runs their life.  They have their whole sense of self invested in it.  Even their--usually unsuccessful---search for an answer, a solution, or for healing becomes part of it.  What they fear and resist most is the end of their drama....You cannot have an argument with a fully conscious person.  An argument implies identification with your mind and a mental position, as well as resistance and reaction to the person's position.

Most of that is not realized on a conscious level, as it lies much further back in your mind. It has become so normal and a part of you that you would never question it.

So, that is that in terms of arguments but that does not exactly explain why there is so much negativity involved in arguing other than getting defensive. If you really ask yourself, do you feel as though an argument, at least on ATS, is a breeding ground for negativity? I have seen people post threads that were only relevant to happiness and yet they were somehow smothered out by so much negativity that the initial message was completely lost. Where is all this hatred coming from?

Well, let's take a look at the human mind. Generally, there are two ends of the spectrum people look at: happiness and unhappiness, or positivity and negativity. In Taoism, this is referred to as "Duality" or "Dualism" and it is said that "from the original source, there is one, and when this was split there became two." Most people, however, believe that such things as happiness are created by something outside of themselves. If happiness and even suffering are the direct result of something outside of your own mind then show me where they are? Can you point to the 'object of happiness'? Can you hold happiness in your hand? (I am being literal and rhetoric here).

Just like your mind, happiness can not be comprehended as a physical object and that is because happiness and suffering are a part of your mind. You create this so-called "happiness" or at least the image of happiness in your head. Not that there is no such thing as happiness but it's definition needs to be taken with a grain of salt as it varies from person to person.

The same thing is to be said for suffering. People create suffering in their head because they have preconceived notions of how things should be and what is right or wrong - because of the ego, mind you. When things do not live up to their expectations or go against their morality, they feel bad. It's like a quote I once heard "People create their own storms and get mad when it rains."

But I ask again, why do we do this? Why do we create our own negativity and suffering? Well, it is because the ego has created a learned response that being unhappy is essentially useful. The egoic mind believes that negativity can manipulate reality and that it will inevitably "get away with it". If you are unhappy, there is an unconscious belief, whether you are aware of it or not, that this unhappiness will get you want you want. Why else would your mind create unhappiness? Can you see a purpose to creating unhappiness for yourself? An example of this when you are young would be to cry and cry until your parents got you the item you wanted, not that that is the case for everyone as many people's parents did not get that item for them but it is a relative example. Of course, many will still argue that we do not create unhappiness for ourselves, it is merely how we empathetically react to certain situations. While it may be true that humans have an automatic empathetic system, this is merely used for the register of certain emotions, it does not mean we are entitled or should absorb these negative emotions into ourself. If you were not conditioned from childhood to think what is considered "right" and what is considered "wrong" you would not fall victim to being upset, and when I say "you" I mean your ego. Of course, you can feel the pain of another but there is no reason to allow that pain consume you. You already do this in some form or another, if you were to absorb the pain of everyone you came in contact with you would eventually collapse in depression and have no will to go on as everyone in this day and age seems to be consumed by negativity. That is why we are given the free will to register these emotions from others and even be compassionate with them but we do not have to be brought down by their suffering.

So, we can come to two conclusions:

1. The egotistical mind believes that negativity and unhappiness are wholly indeed useful in getting what it wants, and what it wants is to survive and strive.
2. The egotistical mind takes things very personally as that is the only level it exists on; the level of personality.

In a summary, we can say that: The egotistical mind is what creates our self sense of identification and that it truly believes it is separate from others, and - in theory - better or at least "different". Your beliefs, morality, judgements, ideas, and stories are all a part of it and its sneaky ability to create a sense of individuality. When these beliefs are questioned or are dissolved in front of you, the ego takes offense as it starts to lose part of its sense of identification. It also strives off of negativity because it believes that it will get what it wants.

There is one other reason that the egoic mind creates so much suffering for yourself, and that is the image of time. The ego can not simply live in the moment of now as it is an abstract thing that can not be grasped and the ego uses objectivism. Think about it - if you are constantly "living" in the past you are generally remembering what was, what used to be, and what is not now. This causes depression. If you are living in the future, you are wondering what will be, what could be, and again, what is not now. This causes anxiety. If you live in the present you are fully aware of yourself, without the egoic mind. This can not be gained by simply thinking "okay, let's think about being present" as that just puts you in the future, you are expecting to be in the moment. It is not something you think about, it is just something you do. Somewhat like the coined word "Meditation". Just breath and feel the present moment. Experience the ego-less now.

I'm sure that probably sounds pretty fantastic and whack-o, but it really does help.

Any way, you may simply judge this as my theory and I truly hope I do not upset any one, but I would understand why if I did. Haha I understand that this does not hold much scientific and factual evidence, so feel free to discredit it all.

I am not judging anything that anyone does as right or wrong and I am not telling anyone how to live their life. I just am in the hopes that I can help someone come to a bit more peace with themselves. In addition, I am not claiming that I am absent of these fallacies. I just believe that I am aware of them.

I apologize if I have worded this pretty badly. I am not the best at making my point haha but I truly hope you can get the basics of what I am saying.

Peace.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan

I'm a lazy man, among other vices. I started down your opening post and the first time I saw the word "argue" was when you were asking why people would want to argue. I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify the word. Do you mean a verbal fight, a presentation and examination of opposing points of view, or something in between? i think it makes a difference in how you judge "arguing"

Oh, the lazy part? That was because, I started looking down your post for a clarification, ran out of the first post, ran out of the second post, and then thought "I'm never going to read all this."

I might be able to get more involved with a little more concise Opening Post.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by ErroneousDylan

 

I'm a lazy man, among other vices. I started down your opening post and the first time I saw the word "argue" was when you were asking why people would want to argue. I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify the word. Do you mean a verbal fight, a presentation and examination of opposing points of view, or something in between? i think it makes a difference in how you judge "arguing"

Oh, the lazy part? That was because, I started looking down your post for a clarification, ran out of the first post, ran out of the second post, and then thought "I'm never going to read all this."

I might be able to get more involved with a little more concise Opening Post.

argue:
Give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view.
Persuade someone to do or not to do (something) by giving reasons: "I tried to argue him out of it".

I'm pretty sure there is a difference between an argument, a verbal fight, and a debate. At least, I thought it was pretty self-explanatory.

fallacies are due to existence, if u werent existing objectively u would b more true

the fact that u exist make u realize the priority of ur constancy, then when one give out smthg it would immediately care for itself freedom balance of that lost by confirming and approving any compensation u perceive of ur freedom ending constant back through

that is how if someone give credit to objective intelligence, smthg in his freedom happen stating that it is then not intelligent, so the compensation usually is done freely by introducing egos pretenses that self conscious must approve, justifying for instance that u must b more intelligent then objective intelligence u give credit to from knowing all about it as u r

existing make ones so involved in balancing constancies of each second different moves u must realize, that they loose common objective sense of all is happening outside of themselves

this what reveal too how true free sense is crucial essence for any existing constancy fact right

objective constancy cant b if u r not constant first

ones must know that they are not out of what they say nor do nor mean nor want, all those are extra it doesnt matter at all to what u r
that is why evil always win over rights, from knowing that so lying about all while being him free constant always same

reply to post by ErroneousDylan


Nice post, thank you for taking the time to write it.

I think the main reason we see so much negativity and disrespect on forums is that people enjoy a certain measure of anonymity on the internet. They don't have to look into the eyes of the people they are belittling and judging and "hating". They don't have to deal with any actual repercussions of arguing with others. They use their words as the weapons they might pick up if the argument were happening in real life. It's unfortunate.

People believe they are "right" about an issue because of their experiences. Now, I agree, we are all one in the sense that we are all sharing the human experience at the same time. But, none of us can experience all of the specific experiences of each and every other human on the planet. Therefore, it becomes difficult (for some) to understand the validity of any point of view which does not mesh with what has been learned through experience.

Learning to look outside of your own experience is a difficult thing to do if this is all you understand.

To understand others, we must learn to see others' experiences as truth, just as our own experiences are truth.

Originally posted by ottobot
reply to post by ErroneousDylan

 

Nice post, thank you for taking the time to write it.

I think the main reason we see so much negativity and disrespect on forums is that people enjoy a certain measure of anonymity on the internet. They don't have to look into the eyes of the people they are belittling and judging and "hating". They don't have to deal with any actual repercussions of arguing with others. They use their words as the weapons they might pick up if the argument were happening in real life. It's unfortunate.

People believe they are "right" about an issue because of their experiences. Now, I agree, we are all one in the sense that we are all sharing the human experience at the same time. But, none of us can experience all of the specific experiences of each and every other human on the planet. Therefore, it becomes difficult (for some) to understand the validity of any point of view which does not mesh with what has been learned through experience.

Learning to look outside of your own experience is a difficult thing to do if this is all you understand.

To understand others, we must learn to see others' experiences as truth, just as our own experiences are truth.

Nicely said =) I think that is an accurate statement.

reply to post by ottobot


Still, I have to assume that even if someone were to not actually voice their opinion or insult someone because they didn't have the security of anonymity, that doesn't mean that they aren't thinking it or still feeling the negativity inside themselves.

Paramahansa Yogananda once stated in his book that he went to swat at a fly but stopped himself shortly before doing it because he felt that his master would look down upon it. The Guru asked him why did he stop? He already had the intention in his mind to kill, even if he didn't act upon it.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan


Ahh, yes, but actions are what we are judged by. Not thoughts (thankfully).

Each and every one of us has the "imp of the perverse" that whispers to us that we should do naughty things - just to see what will happen. ("I could jump off this bridge right now.") But, not all of us do every single thing we think we could possibly do.

By controlling impulses and thoughts, we control who we are and who we are perceived as.

Thinking of killing an insect landed on your skin is an instinct (bugs can bite and spread disease, so must be killed to prevent disease), not a thought process. Realizing the specific bug does not fit into a "disease carrier" category and deciding NOT to kill it is what is important. There are some, though, who will kill the bug no matter what kind of bug it is.

Originally posted by ottobot
Ahh, yes, but actions are what we are judged by. Not thoughts (thankfully).

no this is also out of evil lies wills,

your actions state urself freedom constancy, so it judges ur freedom right through ur objective existence fact if it is in respecting existence being true or not

but ur thoughts state ur conscious freedom constancies, so it judges ur life reality right, if u r true through ur thoughts out then u will get positive present realities always, and if u r not true or a liar taking for granted ur conscious knowledge then since only truth live, ur free sense out of conscious being fact alone will be forced to worse forever constancies, as it shouldnt b there so always evil will through truth knowledge abuse that makes it free

I find that I have an adaptable mind, I can see things from many angles, so even when proven wrong, i can change my reasoning and approach to suit the mindset of the questioner.

Hm. I haven't watched the vids yet. I promise I will though, and if it inspires me to change anything I write right now, I will come back and say so.

But I see on many boards the continued complaint about "people who argue" as being selfish, as being hostile and uncaring about others, lacking empathy, trying to make others agree with them, prove themselves right, or superior...
Seems that kind of post is all the rage this week.

I think it is too bad that "to argue" has become something that is no longer a desireable intellectual skill, but an undesireable "lack of control" and hostile attack upon a persons "right to their opinion". There's hardly any high schools left in the US which still have a debate team! So that is like a self fulfilling prophecy- more and more people do not develop this skill and when faced with opposing forces, DO just lose control and get emotionally hostile- they haven’t the skills necessary to do otherwise.

I see debate as a sport- one that allows you to develop the skills of critical thought, analysis, reason, attention to detail and thought construction. It is much like resistance training we do with our muscles, using weights as opposing forces. Lifting wieghts or doing debates, either way you’ll build muscles, physical or mental.
When used as a sport for development (as boxing or martial arts are) it can be very beneficial, for each opponent, and in my opinion, for the collective as a whole. Because the more individuals we have which develop the ability to observe and analyze problems and proposed solutions, use critical thought, and be able to construct strong and rounded ideas, the better for our society as a whole.

When debating, the other shall be a force which helps you to see the parts of your idea that have holes, that have not been structured yet. They push you to develop your opinion or stance better.

The appearences of each not accepting any input from the other is, in my opinion, often an illusion.
The game itself is not meant for either to just throw in the towel. That is a sad failed match.
For some people, like me, it is training sessions, and no winner is necessary or pronounced. To those who take it more seriously they may be wanting a winner.
But no matter what, each match teaches you something ! You learn from your mistakes, you find out what needs to be developed better, and.......sometimes things the other said DO soak in, but later ! I have many times found myself disagreeing with someone, and years later realize I have changed my mind and am repeating what they said to me long ago. They planted a seed, I began to watch for evidence of it, and came to realize they were right.
I also see others who adamantly opposed me on something, repeating what I had said, sometimes word for word to another later. They had time to digest it, to observe, to weigh and decide for themselves. That is their right, and I don’t say anything. I’d rather they NOT just take what I (or anyone else )says on face value ! It is best if they have the habit and insist upon thinking for themselves and putting those skills to work.

Originally posted by SystemResistor
I find that I have an adaptable mind, I can see things from many angles, so even when proven wrong, i can change my reasoning and approach to suit the mindset of the questioner.

dont u ever wonder why do u end doing it more clearly out of all ? bc u r trapped from truth that way back u dont expect, u think only the objective way since is the conscious reason, but no there is also the living reason of ur soul back
truth presents is not santa claus ones

reply to post by Bluesma


I agree with you on the matter of a "debate" verses an "argument". Debates can be highly intellectually stimulating and I honestly hope to be proven wrong so that I may learn something in the course of a debate.

I suppose, yes, this thread does follow suit when compared to the others who rant about how everyone is arguing but that isn't really the purpose of the thread. I dont necessarily care if they do or don't I just hope I can offer insight in relation.

reply to post by absolutely


You mean to escape from the process of reasoning itself? That being said, truth is a sense of being, I can understand, however, an objective reason provides a purpose, does it not?

Originally posted by ottobot
Ahh, yes, but actions are what we are judged by. Not thoughts (thankfully).

We do judge ourselves by our thoughts though. Even if we don't admit it to ourselves. Much short term mental illness and instability can be described as thoughts that are not adequately expressed, one way or another. There are, sadly, many, many people who cannot reconcile their internal world with that of the external view that they present to the world, and by which they are perceived. We can literally make ourselves ill, simply by consistently thinking bad thoughts, or of willing the pity and attention of others. That is what a psychosomatic illness sometimes is, the physical manifestation of suppressed thoughts and emotions, the person simply makes themselves ill.

Some of the Buddhist schools teach 'Right Thought'. It is useful. Just imagine that your every thought was on loud speaker or could be read by everyone around you. Negative thoughts said out loud certainly hurt, but thinking bad things hurt, and the subsequent guilt/bitterness/resentment that develops will hurt you even more. Better to train your mind only to contemplate the nicer things in life, not to dwell on what has been or will be, and on the odd occasion when something negative does then cross your mind, learn to spit the damn thing out and deal with the consequences there and then.

We are, most of us, our own harshest judge.

Originally posted by SystemResistor
reply to post by absolutely

 

You mean to escape from the process of reasoning itself? That being said, truth is a sense of being, I can understand, however, an objective reason provides a purpose, does it not?

not, this is the whole point, truth is not only in what u see out of it, truth is also u same pattern logics reasons

that is how u as unik entity must b the free out of being true but always through being true within u the free constantly, free out of free right

it is never about escaping truth on the contrary this is how u r being true, it is u that must realize truth constancy of ur constant field, that is how u give credit to truth as always the reason of any, always any follow same logics superiority to b constant right

but then caring for ur absolute freedom is normal fact that is also of truth since of truth freedom, there cant b truth unless there is freedom realizing it always, especially when u know that truth is object conception result of void absolute free energies, while the object truth is stating mostly freedom values as no equal absolute superiority to it, so object conception truth is of freedom and to freedom while also free as constant same fact

the word freedom is totally misconceived, freedom is not a purpose not of nor for

freedom is a fact constancy joining many different points in right same state, freedom is more about nothing wrong, so the right become existing and perceived from its constancy
so when freedom is not or for a purpose then wrong is the reason and if wrong is called freedom it means that evil is mastering all, lies from knowing truth patterns from powerful positions and for powers over more

which say how freedom is the only point missing while it is the concept of all points that can b made

and no, bc an objective reason on the contrary never provide a purpose, by definition any objective thing is it only, so provide free sense out of it, more what represent constant then closer affiliation possible to truth field where constancies are, this is what prove what i was aiming as a point being true, ones alone in their heads are more judged then ones acts, u r more u where there is no excuse of else and where objectively it is only u gathering urself concept constantly as one fact

but people believe that if they kill someone or give money to someone else it matters, while absolutely not

this is for gods powers on creations through possessing all free means, and freedom truth means, when creations by definition is opposed to truth if creations are meant to live or worse for livings

what matter is constancy not a vulgar shape of no problem forced, constancy is what prove the element freedom existing and constancy is only out of different things joined in one result same constant exactly

it is only within ones alone that criminals are, anything is only absolutely, so to b criminal u must b that in absolute terms, so where u choose out of ur true freedom to benefit from, when u can kill urself concept constancy in rejecting being the least base necessary to u, then u r an absolute criminal that kill everything and everyone
that is why i said b careful in what u preach, u back alone is much more seen and surprises are surely gonna b