[Madness]

Thought I'd drop this here:

Asian elephants reassure others in distress

Also to check some balances:

B: If you're having trouble understanding what I've said, I have no idea what you're not understanding when you just say 'care to elaborate', so I asked questions. Which you could have answered yourself and then told me I could have answered your question, but you didn't.

Kellais might have specified which part he wanted clarified. But it seemed fairly obvious he couldn't answer your questions contextually without clarification...

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I take this missing what is a clear association to mean that I am not being read charitably.

Do you think this is reasonable standard to hold other people to?

To whom do we not grant the status of a person? What people do we exclude, in your opinion?

Nothing comes to mind?

Why would he ask your opinion, if he could read the contents of your mind?

Hoping you wont ask why I think we don't include them as as human, even as you wouldn't let your siblings starve to death or be raped for profit (ie, the way you treat your siblings as human).

This isn't shutting down conversation?

[Callan S.]

Mike, are you moderating or not? I had a boss at work who would argue, but he'd keep his position as boss as leverage in the arguement, which is really intellectually dishonest. I've been on an RPG forum for some time where the mod would be ambiguous about whether he was moderating or just engaging as another poster (and this guy was a teacher at a university). He seemed to clear that up a little about which hat he was wearing at any particular time, after I pointed it out, though.

You're not checking some balances if you're arguing with me because you're not in a higher position, just my peer. What if I say I am going to check some of your balances - does that sound legitimate?

And even with moderating, I request that no one starts telling anyone else 'what they are' just because they own a forum on the internet. That's like if you own a scrap of paper and someone else wants to draw on it, that gives you the right to call them a bad person - that RPG forum mod would slip into granting himself such a right. It's just a scrap of paper on the internet. Just nipping that one in the bud if it were to happen - hopefully just a strawman concern on my part and likely not applicable at all.

So: If it's poster to poster, as fellow poster I think you're trying to take a position above me - maybe I'm wrong on that, but I'm not keen on engaging with you until you drop the checking some balances stuff, Mike. I'm pretty sure you'd feel the same way if someone said they were going to check your balances (could be wrong?).

[Kellais]

Totally OT, but still - On most fora i know it is a sensible rule to use another color for the text if the text is meant as moderation. Maybe that'd be worth a try?

As to the content of Madness' post - maybe he is just showing you, that my posts could have been read differently...or that you are not as clear as you think you are. But i am sure Madness will clarify for you sooner or later.

[Madness]

Mike, are you moderating or not?

...

You're not checking some balances if you're arguing with me because you're not in a higher position, just my peer. What if I say I am going to check some of your balances - does that sound legitimate?

Callan, I don't think I've exercised "mod powers" or "worn a mod-hat" a day in my life here, except to move posts [admin features handle mods like the Quorum or adding new forums]. It's difficult to imagine what line would have to be crossed for that to happen. We've had versions of this conversation before. I've never done anything to censor anyone.

So: If it's poster to poster, as fellow poster I think you're trying to take a position above me - maybe I'm wrong on that, but I'm not keen on engaging with you until you drop the checking some balances stuff, Mike. I'm pretty sure you'd feel the same way if someone said they were going to check your balances (could be wrong?).

I don't know how I would feel? I might look to my previous words, like I do now, or the ones in particular that someone pointed out and see how they might be taken from another's perspective, or specifically, in the fashion that someone is pointing out. Then if I still really don't think I have "offended someone," or "acted like a mod," I would say so.

For clarity, I think the communicative balance between you and Kellais is skewed somehow and I'm a poster observing that. There's no hammer dropping. Mod-hat Madness doesn't care.

[Callan S.]

I don't know how I would feel? I might look to my previous words...

What would you do? It's a question of who you are, not who you might be.

Anyway, poster to poster

Kellais might have specified which part he wanted clarified. But it seemed fairly obvious he couldn't answer your questions contextually without clarification...

Do you agree he initially asked the first question? And actually I couldn't answer his 'can you elaborate' question without knowing how he didn't already understand it (it reads fine to me). So why is the 'couldn't answer the question without context' problem my problem, Mike?

Do you think this is reasonable standard to hold other people to?

In as much as I'd be fine with me being held to it, yes. I wont make any claims about it being a reasonable standard due to any supernatural reasons.

Why would he ask your opinion, if he could read the contents of your mind?

That's just uncharitable on your part, Mike. You've cut off the rest of the post where I answer after having asked a question.

A question of not just what's in my mind, but what's in our minds - and whether we actually share the same thing on the matter.

This isn't shutting down conversation?

Yes, in the same way I might not even respond to a vox day post because I really don't feel charitable enough to allow his sort of....attitude...to be broadcast.

It's not conversation when the other person doesn't give a compassionate shit, it's just advertising. If you think asking for advertisements and listening real hard to them is going to move the advertiser, okay. But I don't share that belief.

[Kellais]

Do you agree he initially asked the first question? And actually I couldn't answer his 'can you elaborate' question without knowing how he didn't already understand it (it reads fine to me). So why is the 'couldn't answer the question without context' problem my problem, Mike?

See, that's just it right there...you assume a lot. I wanted you to elaborate on your whole statement, Callan. That was why i did not specify any particular part. You had a very general statement in your post there an i wanted you to elaborate on it...go into more depth. It was not a problem of me not understanding you...it was me thinking you could have put more effort in laying out your point instead of those common placeholders. Anyway...a lot of water has passed under the bridge and i moved on.

Suffice it to say i do no longer think i read you uncharitably...i guess our styles of responding to other posters are just too different. And i kind of get the impression that you often look to the other for the faults of non-functioning conversation...maybe you should start being a bit more charitable yourself and look what YOU could do better to make it work.

Oh and i find it funny that now, all of a sudden, it's you who complain about not being well quoted when you shot me down when i made you aware of your method of partial-quoting.

[Madness]

I don't know how I would feel? I might look to my previous words...

What would you do? It's a question of who you are, not who you might be.

So: If it's poster to poster, as fellow poster I think you're trying to take a position above me - maybe I'm wrong on that, but I'm not keen on engaging with you until you drop the checking some balances stuff, Mike. I'm pretty sure you'd feel the same way if someone said they were going to check your balances (could be wrong?).

I don't know how I would feel? I might look to my previous words, like I do now, or the ones in particular that someone pointed out and see how they might be taken from another's perspective, or specifically, in the fashion that someone is pointing out. Then if I still really don't think I have "offended someone," or "acted like a mod," I would say so.

I phrased it that way so it would obvious that I expected you to do the same. I did do those things, even though I wrote "I might," because you told me (then asked me) what I would do in your position.

Anyway, poster to poster

Kellais might have specified which part he wanted clarified. But it seemed fairly obvious he couldn't answer your questions contextually without clarification...

Do you agree he initially asked the first question? And actually I couldn't answer his 'can you elaborate' question without knowing how he didn't already understand it (it reads fine to me). So why is the 'couldn't answer the question without context' problem my problem, Mike?

It's not just your problem. Both Kellais and you recognized that he might have been clearer. And when Kellais tried for clarity a second time you seem to have suggested that he was being uncharitable because he didn't phrase it properly in the first place...

It wasn't a question on any particular matter - you said 'care to elaborate?' Either A: If I didn't do so before, why would I do it now? Because I like the sound of my own voice? or B: If you're having trouble understanding what I've said, I have no idea what you're not understanding when you just say 'care to elaborate', so I asked questions. Which you could have answered yourself and then told me I could have answered your question, but you didn't.

And then, if you look back further back to your previous post before this:

For animals, no, atleast not until we actually grant the status of a person to all actual people. We don't currently. It's like trying to attach a failing mechanism onto even more workload that it fails to do the work on.

Care to elaborate? Just because some people do not get everything they'd be intitled to does not mean we do not grant them the status.

Why doesn't it mean you don't grant them the status?

Does it mean you don't want to grant them the status - no, I wouldn't say that. You want to.

Does it mean you DO grant them the status?

When you say you've granted someone the status of not starving and...they starve, why do you say that doesn't mean you haven't granted them the status?

I'm almost wondering if you're going to say that it's just the moral imperative to grant them the status - forfilling the status is just a secondary thing.

Fuck morals, in that case.

It seems fairly obvious to me that instead of asking all these questions, which almost certainly include the very phrasing or term Kellais was unclear about, you might have simply clarified your earlier statement and comprehension might have occurred...

[sarcasm]If you really have this amazing power to communicate everything you want to in perfect and clear encapsulated statements, I don't know... Preach because your unique recognition will astound us all.[/sarcasm]

Do you think this is reasonable standard to hold other people to?

In as much as I'd be fine with me being held to it, yes. I wont make any claims about it being a reasonable standard due to any supernatural reasons.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I take this missing what is a clear association to mean that I am not being read charitably.

Do you think this is reasonable standard to hold other people to?

Alright. You might well be the most uncharitable reader here by that metric.

Why would he ask your opinion, if he could read the contents of your mind?

That's just uncharitable on your part, Mike. You've cut off the rest of the post where I answer after having asked a question.

A question of not just what's in my mind, but what's in our minds - and whether we actually share the same thing on the matter.

To whom do we not grant the status of a person? What people do we exclude, in your opinion?

Nothing comes to mind?

Kids dying of hunger in ethopia and other countries? Asia's sex slaves (and sex slaves in various other countries, including our own), the homeless who don't want to be homeless. Wage slaves.

The list goes on - I'm sure I'll forget some because I forget to assign them human status myself.

To me, another random poster on this forum, starting off your "response" with "Nothing comes to mind?" has no communicative value other than to showcase that Kellais doesn't understand something that you think is obvious...

I don't understand why it was necessary to write that particular line.

This isn't shutting down conversation?

Yes, in the same way I might not even respond to a vox day post because I really don't feel charitable enough to allow his sort of....attitude...to be broadcast.

It's not conversation when the other person doesn't give a compassionate shit, it's just advertising. If you think asking for advertisements and listening real hard to them is going to move the advertiser, okay. But I don't share that belief.

Again, as another random poster on this forum - the bold in your quote describes yourself. I can't even believe that you would compare this situation conversing with Kellais to "conversing" with Vox...

[Callan S.]

Do you agree he initially asked the first question? And actually I couldn't answer his 'can you elaborate' question without knowing how he didn't already understand it (it reads fine to me). So why is the 'couldn't answer the question without context' problem my problem, Mike?

See, that's just it right there...you assume a lot. I wanted you to elaborate on your whole statement, Callan. That was why i did not specify any particular part. You had a very general statement in your post there an i wanted you to elaborate on it...go into more depth. It was not a problem of me not understanding you...it was me thinking you could have put more effort in laying out your point instead of those common placeholders.

Someone like Benjamin Cain seems to be able to generate long posts quite easily. Go into depth as you mean it, perhaps?

I am no Ben Cain - though I envy his capacity sometimes.

Suffice it to say i do no longer think i read you uncharitably...i guess our styles of responding to other posters are just too different. And i kind of get the impression that you often look to the other for the faults of non-functioning conversation...maybe you should start being a bit more charitable yourself and look what YOU could do better to make it work.

Tell me in what ways you humour you could potentially be at fault and I'll humour I could be at fault in such a way as you describe.

I will fall when you fall. I wll fall with you. I promise.

Until then we are both stubborn asses.

Oh and i find it funny that now, all of a sudden, it's you who complain about not being well quoted when you shot me down when i made you aware of your method of partial-quoting.

If the explanation I gave for not quoting something that seemed to damage your point more than helping it still seems to just shoot you down, then we really didn't talk, I agree.

[Callan S.]

I don't know how I would feel? I might look to my previous words...

What would you do? It's a question of who you are, not who you might be.

So: If it's poster to poster, as fellow poster I think you're trying to take a position above me - maybe I'm wrong on that, but I'm not keen on engaging with you until you drop the checking some balances stuff, Mike. I'm pretty sure you'd feel the same way if someone said they were going to check your balances (could be wrong?).

I don't know how I would feel? I might look to my previous words, like I do now, or the ones in particular that someone pointed out and see how they might be taken from another's perspective, or specifically, in the fashion that someone is pointing out. Then if I still really don't think I have "offended someone," or "acted like a mod," I would say so.

I phrased it that way so it would obvious that I expected you to do the same. I did do those things, even though I wrote "I might," because you told me (then asked me) what I would do in your position.

Maybe I phrased it poorly, but I said with you in the position of someone else saying to you they will check your balances. There's no need for 'might' there.

And in the end it seems if you don't think you've offended someone, then that's it. So what else are you expecting of me - if I don't think I've entered into any problems you've described, then that's it, just as much, surely? It seems a little being able to give oneself a free pass, but maybe I read some other interpretation of what you're saying, Mike?

Anyway, poster to poster

Kellais might have specified which part he wanted clarified. But it seemed fairly obvious he couldn't answer your questions contextually without clarification...

Do you agree he initially asked the first question? And actually I couldn't answer his 'can you elaborate' question without knowing how he didn't already understand it (it reads fine to me). So why is the 'couldn't answer the question without context' problem my problem, Mike?

It's not just your problem. Both Kellais and you recognized that he might have been clearer. And when Kellais tried for clarity a second time you seem to have suggested that he was being uncharitable because he didn't phrase it properly in the first place...

Assuming I'm understanding right, no, I didn't.

I mean, if you quote this your going to quote the section of me talking about impulses of the brain - and no one reading that as the electrical impulses of the brain.

Or is there another section you'd quote?

It wasn't a question on any particular matter - you said 'care to elaborate?' Either A: If I didn't do so before, why would I do it now? Because I like the sound of my own voice? or B: If you're having trouble understanding what I've said, I have no idea what you're not understanding when you just say 'care to elaborate', so I asked questions. Which you could have answered yourself and then told me I could have answered your question, but you didn't.

And then, if you look back further back to your previous post before this:

For animals, no, atleast not until we actually grant the status of a person to all actual people. We don't currently. It's like trying to attach a failing mechanism onto even more workload that it fails to do the work on.

Care to elaborate? Just because some people do not get everything they'd be intitled to does not mean we do not grant them the status.

Why doesn't it mean you don't grant them the status?

Does it mean you don't want to grant them the status - no, I wouldn't say that. You want to.

Does it mean you DO grant them the status?

When you say you've granted someone the status of not starving and...they starve, why do you say that doesn't mean you haven't granted them the status?

I'm almost wondering if you're going to say that it's just the moral imperative to grant them the status - forfilling the status is just a secondary thing.

Fuck morals, in that case.

It seems fairly obvious to me that instead of asking all these questions, which almost certainly include the very phrasing or term Kellais was unclear about, you might have simply clarified your earlier statement and comprehension might have occurred...

Looking past whether I had no idea how he wanted elaboration, is Kellais making a claim in what you quote or not?

If you don't see him as making a claim, I can see where you're coming from.

If you can see a claim being made, you're being hypocritical.

[sarcasm]If you really have this amazing power to communicate everything you want to in perfect and clear encapsulated statements, I don't know... Preach because your unique recognition will astound us all.[/sarcasm]

If you really think you all have this amazing power to ask the right bloody questions, preach because....etc etc.

You're coming from perfection. Of course I have no way of competing with that.

The only person you have on the plate of examination is me. Come join me. The water's lovely.

Do you think this is reasonable standard to hold other people to?

In as much as I'd be fine with me being held to it, yes. I wont make any claims about it being a reasonable standard due to any supernatural reasons.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I take this missing what is a clear association to mean that I am not being read charitably.

Do you think this is reasonable standard to hold other people to?

Alright. You might well be the most uncharitable reader here by that metric.

Maybe? I'm not sure I understand your use of metrics here?

Do you humour that you might, unexpectedly for you, end up as the most uncharitable? Or is it always the other guy?

It seems a little bit human default to just declare the conclusion (that I'm the most uncharitable) and...nothing else. Are you sure you aren't just doing the human default? Make your conclusion, figure the evidence for it afterward? What was the measure before this moment?

Why would he ask your opinion, if he could read the contents of your mind?

That's just uncharitable on your part, Mike. You've cut off the rest of the post where I answer after having asked a question.

A question of not just what's in my mind, but what's in our minds - and whether we actually share the same thing on the matter.

To whom do we not grant the status of a person? What people do we exclude, in your opinion?

Nothing comes to mind?

Kids dying of hunger in ethopia and other countries? Asia's sex slaves (and sex slaves in various other countries, including our own), the homeless who don't want to be homeless. Wage slaves.

The list goes on - I'm sure I'll forget some because I forget to assign them human status myself.

To me, another random poster on this forum, starting off your "response" with "Nothing comes to mind?" has no communicative value other than to showcase that Kellais doesn't understand something that you think is obvious...

I don't understand why it was necessary to write that particular line.

To showcase something didn't come to his mind.

Granted, me treating sex slaves as something that should be noticed might be hubris.

But let's say its worth noticing as an example of human rights not being granted - how would you put it when the other person misses this example entirely? You wouldn't say 'nothing comes to mind?' - okay, what would you say?

Or would you avoid rocking the boat (in this, IMO, mild way)?

You can question the estimated mildness of it, but if you'd just hunker down and keep the boat steady - I can't say I'm the same.

This isn't shutting down conversation?

Yes, in the same way I might not even respond to a vox day post because I really don't feel charitable enough to allow his sort of....attitude...to be broadcast.

It's not conversation when the other person doesn't give a compassionate shit, it's just advertising. If you think asking for advertisements and listening real hard to them is going to move the advertiser, okay. But I don't share that belief.

Again, as another random poster on this forum - the bold in your quote describes yourself. I can't even believe that you would compare this situation conversing with Kellais to "conversing" with Vox...

You're as certain as you describe me as being certain, Mike.

If you can only be right, then what can I say - your yardstick surely is the longest.

[Madness]

Maybe I phrased it poorly, but I said with you in the position of someone else saying to you they will check your balances. There's no need for 'might' there.

I listen, Callan, always. I'm too much of an intellectual remora too discount anyone's words. Who knows who might teach me something, even if they themselves are ignorant of their wisdom.

However, it is interesting for me to note, ironically, that few have ever mentioned to me that there was a communicative inbalance between myself and others.

You however....

And in the end it seems if you don't think you've offended someone, then that's it. So what else are you expecting of me - if I don't think I've entered into any problems you've described, then that's it, just as much, surely? It seems a little being able to give oneself a free pass, but maybe I read some other interpretation of what you're saying, Mike?

Have I offended you, Callan? Because no one has mentioned to me that I have offended them. If they did, I would (and do, those rare times it comes up) think about those person's words intently before throwing a wall of text (or words) back at them because I care enough about communicating with people to not want to commit the same offense twice...

Assuming I'm understanding right, no, I didn't.

I mean, if you quote this your going to quote the section of me talking about impulses of the brain - and no one reading that as the electrical impulses of the brain.

Or is there another section you'd quote?

Is this a cop-out? "My brain did it, therefore, I don't need to consider trying to adjust or change myself."

Looking past whether I had no idea how he wanted elaboration, is Kellais making a claim in what you quote or not?

If you don't see him as making a claim, I can see where you're coming from.

If you can see a claim being made, you're being hypocritical.

...

Considering I have absolutely nothing invested in this conversation except communicating with you, what does your logic decision here have to do with anything?

If you really think you all have this amazing power to ask the right bloody questions, preach because....etc etc.

You're coming from perfection. Of course I have no way of competing with that.

The only person you have on the plate of examination is me. Come join me. The water's lovely.

Callan, it's quite clear to me that I spend far much more time analyzing myself than I think that you do analyzing yourself.

Maybe? I'm not sure I understand your use of metrics here?

Do you humour that you might, unexpectedly for you, end up as the most uncharitable? Or is it always the other guy?

It seems a little bit human default to just declare the conclusion (that I'm the most uncharitable) and...nothing else. Are you sure you aren't just doing the human default? Make your conclusion, figure the evidence for it afterward? What was the measure before this moment?

...

Considering again, I have nothing invested in the content of this thread and am only interested in communication, between you and I, between you and Kellais, between you and anybody, your responses are almost comically ignorant. It is saddening.

To showcase something didn't come to his mind.

Granted, me treating sex slaves as something that should be noticed might be hubris.

But let's say its worth noticing as an example of human rights not being granted - how would you put it when the other person misses this example entirely? You wouldn't say 'nothing comes to mind?' - okay, what would you say?

Or would you avoid rocking the boat (in this, IMO, mild way)?

You can question the estimated mildness of it, but if you'd just hunker down and keep the boat steady - I can't say I'm the same.

...

What do you mean? This is indecipherable to me.

You're as certain as you describe me as being certain, Mike.

If you can only be right, then what can I say - your yardstick surely is the longest.

Again, and this is pretty much paraphrasing when I stopped trying to engage you last time: Mod-hat Madness is never going to step in on you or your posts. Even if the community advocates those options, I'd probably end up defending you.

But at some point, if you choose to insist on communicating as you do and never adjust yourself when interacting with others (which I do all time, by the way, as I imagine it would be fairly difficult to partake in SA and not realize that others are much more wise and knowledgeable than myself and learn from those individuals), then you'll slowly find that people will simply choose not to communicate with you.

[Callan S.]

Considering again, I have nothing invested in the content of this thread and am only interested in communication, between you and I, between you and Kellais, between you and anybody, your responses are almost comically ignorant. It is saddening.

There's an irony in slipping ad homenim into your communication about the quality of communication, Mike.

I asked my woman to check my quote over - she summerised it that I refered to bad things in the world, raised them in a gentle way and in her own words if you can't say it in a gentle way, how can you say it at all?

then you'll slowly find that people will simply choose not to communicate with you.

Ie, to not listen.

It's not really an issue if the main point wasn't listened to to begin with anyway.

And no one seems to be talking about the main point, just jnan.

Yes, you're listeners, but the protocols for communication weren't met, so you (soon) wont listen. I hear that.

[Madness]

You and I are talking jnan. You and Kellais were talking about granting people rights before you started commenting on Kellais' jnan.

I'm still listening? I just don't know what you are trying to say?

[Callan S.]

You and I are talking jnan.

No, I'm not. I'm talking about a cause - jnan is just a means to an end of pushing for that cause. You're talking about jnan exclusively. That's why we are talking past each other.

You and Kellais were talking about granting people rights before you started commenting on Kellais' jnan.

Again no on the same issue. I do not care about his uncharitable (IMO) reading for it's own sake, I care because it means my cause is being ignored because of it. I highlight it to show he should think again (which benefits me because maybe he'll start getting my cause if he does). Speaking on this might just make someone think about my cause - I am not posting with the pure intent of talking about how to talk. I'm still pushing for my cause even in this post! Sans a cause all this stuff is just wreckage to me and I wouldn't care. I'm posting now just in case there's still even a slim chance to push this cause! Sex slaves - sweat shops - wage slaves!

I had not thought of any notion of charitable reading simply for it's own sake (and then that you'd assume that was what I was refering to)? To me it's always in the employ of a cause...do you sometimes treat charitable reading as being done just for it's own sake? If so, okay, that blindsided me, I'll totally admit. Because it does not make sense to me.

[Wilshire]

Something like 7 participants on the first page, 4ish on the second, and down to 3 on the third (or I guess 4 if you count me, but that ruins the trend).

then you'll slowly find that people will simply choose not to communicate with you.

Ie, to not listen.

How long can you point to all of your peers and say "You are all wrong and I'm the only one that's right", before you check yourself? Probably forever is my guess. I'll not try to dissuade you, though I will say that its fun to watch. Please carry on.

btw I like the intimate first name basis you have with Madness . Careful though, your nameless 'woman' and the other forumers might get jealous.

Bravo to those who try so hard to breach the stubborn barrier here. Unfortunately, in this case, it appears to me that communication has shut down communication. Have all the irony.

[Kellais]

I do not care about his uncharitable (IMO) reading for it's own sake, I care because it means my cause is being ignored because of it. I highlight it to show he should think again (which benefits me because maybe he'll start getting my cause if he does). Speaking on this might just make someone think about my cause - I am not posting with the pure intent of talking about how to talk. I'm still pushing for my cause even in this post! Sans a cause all this stuff is just wreckage to me and I wouldn't care. I'm posting now just in case there's still even a slim chance to push this cause! Sex slaves - sweat shops - wage slaves!

I had not thought of any notion of charitable reading simply for it's own sake (and then that you'd assume that was what I was refering to)? To me it's always in the employ of a cause...do you sometimes treat charitable reading as being done just for it's own sake? If so, okay, that blindsided me, I'll totally admit. Because it does not make sense to me.

I'm sorry but OMG! I don't know where to start.
It is safe to say that you read me uncharitably, Callan. What you are saying about me and my posts while discussing with Madness is nothing short of offending. After following your convo with Madness, i will not take real offense though because it seems clear that well...you just don't get the problem. In case of my post in response to yours, it is quite possible that i did not phrase my reply very well and therefore you did not get my meaning through my fault. That i admit. Because, as said in my second post (i think), english is not my mother tongue.

If i ask a question, Callan, i want to hear what the other one thinks and says about the topic. So to infer that, just because i ask, nothing came to my mind is again a really big assumption on your part. I know what comes to MY mind, but i want to "see" what is in yours. And if you are talking human rights, why not say that much and not obscure your post via naming things in your own way.
I really think you are very good at obscuring your own meanings and messages. Because your explanations to Madness what your intended purposes were make everything much clearer but that is not really helpful for your original posts.

To conclude, i think what Wilshire said in his post is something you should think about. And maybe then we can go back to the actual topic.