Europe might break Google up

[Trepanated]

That is not an argument. That is a statement. An argument is: "a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory". No matter how many times you repeat something and no matter how much you believe in it and is true for you, it does not become true and a statement does not become an argument.

I did give reasons. You just chose to quote one sentence (which is a statement). Of course, that's not me suggesting you agree with my reasoning, just that you chose to pretend I presented no reasoning.

Again, with such a long post, it's not practical to respond to all your points as the resulting post would be even longer.

WTF would I disappear in the jungle or go to Mogadishu?

The jungle and Somalia are both examples of places where there is no practical government and therefore none of the 'state theft' you are saying exists and that you are against. I didn't specifically choose two examples that are not desirable places to live. It's just that there aren't many examples, and when there are examples, they don't tend to be places where people would choose to live - for some strange reason?

WTF would I go somewhere else? That's like me telling you if you live in a neighborhood with rapes and killings that instead of asking and expecting help from police you should move to some other even worse neighborhood.

But in the world without 'state theft' there are no police. That's not an option. In that world you would not need to move to Mogadishu - Mogadishu would come to you. At that point what would you do? Remain where you are, with the rapes and killings, or move to a location where you can live in peace, because they steal your money and use it to provide you with a police service?

My point is that faced with a true choice, where you are given the existing option, or the one you profess to prefer - when it comes down to it, you would choose what you have.

And if there was a way to give you that choice. And you chose the existing system. Then you can no longer claim the state is stealing from you

Coming up with a "fair" strategy for your experiment is impossible. Even trying to implement such a strategy, as fair as you might think it is, will result in having to force yourself over others

The point of the experiment was to present a scenario where there was no existing state system. Because perhaps our current argument is skewed, because we are both making it in a world which works from the perspective of my stance and not yours.

I did it for the sake of fairness - that's how I like to work

I believe there is a solution, I wondered what your solution would be?

I also believe if the experiment included two islands, you would end up choosing to live on the island which opted for my solution, rather than the island which opted for your solution.

My argument against your case would be rather long

This was your short argument??

As I said earlier, these are the sort of discussions for the pub on a Saturday. They are far too complex and wide-ranging to be presented succinctly enough to avoid the TL;DR scenario - I did read your entire post though

 

[jazzc]

It is in Germany's interests to keep the rest of the EU (mainly the PIGS) afloat because of it's export market. However, the current EU leaves it's members in limbo of being controlled, while trying to control. The member states, themselves, are not competive as they are. They rely on the unbalanced power of the EU.

This is a common misconception, so I'd like to address it. A country is not a blob. People tend to homogenize and "humanize" things and that leads to errors in analysis.

Germany's exporters and ruling elite indeed have in their best interest to keep the Euro afloat. The exporters because of the exporting market and the ruling elite because Germany is the de facto economic powerhouse and thus has a lot of political power by reflection.

On the other hand, the German citizens do not have in their best interest to keep the Euro because they are the ones paying for it. There is no free lunch here and they are on the wrong side of the deal.

So, the question is, do you care more about the well being of the exporters and the ruling elite or that of the people (not about Germany, in general)? The answer to that question is what decides where you stand in the ages old battle of people versus caste.

 

[bartosimpsonio]

Scorpion Ghost I know exactly where you're coming from. I also find it unacceptable that there are powers that can do that to you. But they exist and they do. Big guys tell small guys what to do, no matter how good the big guy may be, at some point they tell you what to do. Thus country unions are necessary, until humankind makes enough progress to not need unions but have mutual respect, which would be the right thing.

 

[Trepanated]

On the other hand, the German citizens do not have in their best interest to keep the Euro because they are the ones paying for it.

That's assuming that the Set of German citizens and the Set of exporters are distinct Sets with no overlap. (I am using a Venn Diagram here)

They aren't distinct though, they intersect.

And there are a group of German citizens who have a net economic gain from the exporters - whether that's because they work for exporters, or do business with exporters, or do business with the peripheral companies who service the export sector.

So we have Set A (citizens who benefit from the exporters), Set B (citizens who don't benefit from the exporters) and Set C (exporters) - all of whom have vested interests.

The size of the intersection of Sets A, B and C is unknown and open to debate.

Any argument on the subject must first ascertain the size of the intersection - and that's why there is no easy answer, because that is very hard to quantify, let alone agree on.

We can use logic to draw conclusions in the hope of finding the answer - but somewhere in that logical process, we have to tackle the question 'How big is the intersection between the 3 Sets?'

 

[Deleted member 364366]

@Madoctopus

You either think people are born free and should live free and do whatever their heart wants as long as they don't negatively affect others, or you think people should do what they are told to do and comply with what somebody else wants, despite what they want. Is that simple. Is not about governments, religions, societies, or any other form of organization or details, is about a very simple yet fundamental principle - freedom.

Surely, this is a contradiction or was it an intentional use of irony? "Negatively affect(ing) others" is a subjective phrase and therefore, removes the true freedom.

This is a common misconception, so I'd like to address it. A country is not a blob. People tend to homogenize and "humanize" things and that leads to errors in analysis.

Germany's exporters and ruling elite indeed have in their best interest to keep the Euro afloat. The exporters because of the exporting market and the ruling elite because Germany is the de facto economic powerhouse and thus has a lot of political power by reflection.

On the other hand, the German citizens do not have in their best interest to keep the Euro because they are the ones paying for it. There is no free lunch here and they are on the wrong side of the deal.

So, the question is, do you care more about the well being of the exporters and the ruling elite or that of the people (not about Germany, in general)? The answer to that question is what decides where you stand in the ages old battle of people versus caste.

I agree in that countries are not one cell, however, the well being of those exporters does have a number of direct and indirect impacts on the citizens.

Also, the citizens cannot be segregated so simply. There are citizens that are exporters and business owners. Citizens don't only pay taxes and work 'under' people. They can be found at the top of the food chain as well.

I'd rather write a longer response where I can actually clarify my connection back to the OP and respond to Bart's post that I didn't manage to earlier. I'll be back in a few hours. Keep the discussion going as this thread probably holds more interesting discussion that the rest of the forum, this month.

 

[jazzc]

@Trepanated & @Deleted member 364366

Of course they intersect, exporters and rulers are humans too - but you're looking at the tree. How exactly does it hurt the argument if they intersect by 0.001%?

The trickle down argument does not work for the simple reason that there is no free lunch and I'll demonstrate it by an example:

I'll get a mortgage to buy a mansion and fail to pay it. You'll take over my payments so that I can keep affording buying German pretzels from your cousin (you're German in this example ). Your cousin's extra wealth will surely trickle down to you, so I don't suppose you have any objections? PM me your details to add you as a co-signer

 

[sirgold]

No is not. Is the best way we have tested so far, that we know of. Evolution doesn't come from keeping things as they are, it comes from changing things for the better.

So, you're telling me this system *might* be "better" based on the pure speculation of a few supporters and most of all on a definition of "theft" that's not only NON-factual at all, but actually totally disputable given the premise of how in a society most people agree to pay taxes so decided to pay what's due... Still not convinced, by your argument, you know...

Our point is you can have it however you want to have it, just don't force me to do it that way if I don't want to and don't come and throw me in jail if I don't like your way.

Hardly. Why wouldn't you want to be punished for NOT conforming to what the general consensus of the majority wants? Be that taxes or trespassing or whatever else a society agreed to call a CRIME. So I might have bad news. If a community agrees on taxation because it seems the most rational way to address a lot of problems the regular citizen doesn't care about -because he doesn't need to care about, after all- but still need to be fixed there's a consensus it's RIGHT to punish the offenders if you don't do your part. That's what most people want, regardless of what you speculate your definition of "theft" might be. And I like this. It's just FAIR. The cost of your omissions will eventually fall on me in a way or another because there are always a lot of "hidden" costs in running a society...

If the clever alternative you guys seem to be suggesting is a vague, theoretical system left to some personal initiative or just private entities whose only bottom line is "maximize your profits", I already wrote that, NO THANKS that's not what I consider to be the best role for a governance to make not just me but the most people in a community happy and, apparently this point of view -relevant to your pseudo-logical exercise or not- seems to be shared by the vast majority around the globe.

Here's my circular round bubbly repetition then. If you don't want to stick to the set of rules a society sets and that not necessarily will please each and every single citizen every single time give up your citizenship, go find that island nobody can claim ownership of... The State acts because people want it to act that way. Do your part to change it, it's tedious but the only shot you have... OR your argument will inevitably result in what it is right now: a speculation based on the fantasies of a strict minority founding this whole crystal castle on a dubious definition of "theft" that's not even necessarily what most people agree with.

Circular logic, personal beliefs and statements are not arguments or counter-arguments. Look up "circular logic" and the list with other logical fallacies on wikipedia.

Lol, it reminds me my college days... We had a say back then. When someone resorts to the "true scotsman" or the usual lecturing about the wikipedia page on the logic fallacies the conversation is not just dead but already stinking...

 

[Trepanated]

@Trepanated & @Deleted member 364366

Of course they intersect, exporters and rulers are humans too - but you're looking at the tree. How exactly does it hurt the argument if they intersect by 0.001%?

The trickle down argument does not work for the simple reason that there is no free lunch and I'll demonstrate it by an example:

I'll get a mortgage to buy a mansion and fail to pay it. You'll take over my payments so that I can keep affording buying German pretzels from your cousin (you're German in this example ). Your cousin's extra wealth will surely trickle down to you, so I don't suppose you have any objections? PM me your details to add you as a co-signer

Are you saying they only intersect by 0.001%? I doubt you are.
And I am not saying they intersect by 99.99% either.
We don't know the size and it is hard to figure it out.

I made no mention of trickle down economics or mortgages - please stop this habit of putting words into my mouth.
And I made no argument - I have not even stated my viewpoint yet, so you don't even know whether I agree with you or not.

By the way, my previous post was not to disagree, it was to clarify

If you want to now include mortgages and pretzel manufacturers into the equation then we need to include another 2 Sets in the Venn Diagram

We cannot easily find an answer, unless we first figure out the size of the intersection in the Venn Diagram.

But now we have 5 Sets to contend with.

And we have only just started

 

[jazzc]

Are you saying they only intersect by 0.001%? I doubt you are.
And I am not saying they intersect by 99.99% either.
We don't know the size and it is hard to figure it out.

Hard to figure out? Is the number of exporters in any given country a secret? 0.001% was even generous.

I made no mention of trickle down economics or mortgages - please stop this habit of putting words into my mouth.
And I made no argument - I have not even stated my viewpoint yet, so you don't even know whether I agree with you or not.

You also have not read. My response was one post combined to you & Deleted member 364366. Read his post again.

We cannot easily find an answer

Sure we can, it's elementary. Since wealth does not instantiate from nothingness, if you put X in a box, 2*X isn't going to come out when you open it. Pretzels & mortgages.

 

[Trepanated]

Hard to figure out? Is the number of exporters in any given country a secret? 0.001% was even generous.

The intersection is not the number of exporters. Of course it is easy to find the number of exporters. It is the intersection of the Sets that is hard to quantify.

You mentioned citizens and exporters. That is 2 Sets.

Let's just keep it nice and simple and have Set A (citizens) and Set B (export economy)

The size of Set B can be anything you want. And the number of citizens (Set A) also can be anything you want. It doesn't matter.

There is an overlap between the circles of both sets (that's the intersection in a Venn Diagram) - in this instance we could define that overlap area as the number of citizens who benefit from the export economy, or the number of citizens who work the wider export economy. Call it what you want.

But there will be disagreement on what to call it, and to clarify, we then add more Sets

Now with just 2 Sets, that intersection is not too hard to measure. But 2 Sets was just to keep it simple. There are more.

And it gets a lot more complex, the more Sets we introduce.

And you just introduced 2 more Sets.

 

[jazzc]

in this instance we could define that overlap area as the number of citizens who benefit from the export economy, or the number of citizens who work the wider export economy. Call it what you want.

Bingo. That's the trickle down you supposedly did not imply before The answer is pretzels and mortgage.

 

[Trepanated]

Bingo. That's the trickle down you supposedly did not imply before The answer is pretzels and mortgage.

I implied no such thing.

You originally used an assumption that citizens and exporters are two distinct and separate groups, with different vested interests.

That is not the case at all - some people from one group also form part of the other group - and vice versa.

I was correcting the false assumption, because any conclusions we draw based on false assumptions, are almost certainly also going to be false.

 

[jazzc]

I implied no such thing.

You said it directly. Do I need to quote it again? Or perhaps you don't know what trickle down means.

 

[Trepanated]

You said it directly. Do I need to quote it again? Or perhaps you don't know what trickle down means.

You implied that exporters and citizens are two separate groups. I was correcting that. Nothing more.

But then you subverted things by introducing new factors and ignored the important point of whether the groups are distinct or not.

You are still avoiding it - and it is an important point.

I'm not sure whether you are doing so in the hope you can maintain the false assumption that the groups are separate - or whether it is a diversionary tactic so we ignore the point entirely.

Either way, the point remains?

Trickle-down economics, its validity, its relevance, its impact, its existence is a separate discussion that would come later.

Feel free to keep avoiding/ignoring the question of whether the groups are distinct - but don't then start to complain that we are going round in circles, or getting nowhere.

 

[jazzc]

You implied that exporters and citizens are two separate groups. I was correcting that. Nothing more.

But then you subverted things by introducing new factors and ignored the important point of whether the groups are distinct or not.

You are still avoiding it - and it is an important point.

I'm not sure whether you are doing so in the hope you can maintain the false assumption that the groups are separate - or whether it is a diversionary tactic so we ignore the point entirely.

[snip]
Feel free to keep avoiding/ignoring the question of whether the groups are distinct - but don't then start to complain that we are going round in circles, or getting nowhere.

I understand it's Monday, but how about you stop not reading my responses and make up ghosts stories? Read that I wrote here: http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackh...-break-google-up-post7411680.html#post7411680

That's the second time today.

Here, I'll re-quote it for you:

Of course they intersect, exporters and rulers are humans too

 

[Trepanated]

I understand it's Monday, but how about you stop not reading my responses and make up ghosts stories? Read that I wrote here: http://www.blackhatworld.com/blackhat-seo/blackhat-lounge/719940-europe-might-break-google-up-post7411680.html#post7411680

That's the second time today.

Here, I'll re-quote it for you:

Actually your full quote was:

Of course they intersect, exporters and rulers are humans too - but you're looking at the tree. How exactly does it hurt the argument if they intersect by 0.001%?

You said they intersect by 0.001%.

That suggests you didn't quite understand what the intersection in a Venn Diagram meant. So I explained again (the first time)

Which you then further compounded by saying this:

Hard to figure out? Is the number of exporters in any given country a secret? 0.001% was even generous.

Again, suggesting you still misunderstood.

So I explained again to make it very clear (the second time).

That time I used an even simpler explanation of a Venn Diagram.

And now you are pulling me up for having to explain it to you several times. (EDIT: Please don't think I am trying to insult your intelligence here, far from it )

The point is that there is a very large intersection between the 2 Sets - not the 0.001% you want to progress with.

And the point is very important

An intersection of 0.001% would be around 800 citizens.

The actual intersection would number in the millions.

Someone would draw wildly inaccurate conclusions if they were to use the false assumption that only 800 citizens are involved with the exporters.

 

[jazzc]

Actually your full quote was:



You said they intersect by 0.001%.

That suggests you didn't quite understand what the intersection in a Venn Diagram meant. So I explained again (the first time)

Which you then further compounded by saying this:



Again, suggesting you still misunderstood.

So I explained again to make it very clear (the second time).

That time I used an even simpler explanation of a Venn Diagram.

And now you are pulling me up for having to explain it to you several times. (EDIT: Please don't think I am trying to insult your intelligence here, far from it )

So, your point is that I (a trained mathematician and former private math trainer in university level) don't understand the concept of set intersection and you base that on your opinion that my estimate of that intersection is too low for your liking. Do I even need to start pointing the fallacies here?

The point is that there is a very large intersection between the 2 Sets - not the 0.001% you want to progress with.

In the words of the Big Lebowski, "that's like your opinion, man". Weren't you the one who was saying on this very page that "it's too hard to calculate it"? Now suddenly, you've calculated it and it's not 0.001%?

An intersection of 0.001% would be around 800 citizens.

So maybe the exporters are 8.000 and not 800, I didn't look up the number. Those are the prime beneficiaries. They are whose interest is on ripping off the rest to keep the exports up. Their employees and the restaurants they go to eat are not, but only in the short term. While they do enjoy a temporary benefit, as the economy goes down due to the rip off, they get to pay the price too - only quite later than the rest. This is exactly how it happened in South Europe (in which case it was the state loans and the state's employees).

Someone would draw wildly inaccurate conclusions if they were to use the false assumption that only 800 citizens are involved with the exporters.

Sure, almost everyone is involved. The world is only about 14 hops deep. Just like the guild of thieves. They buy stuff, they click ads on the internet, tons of people are involved with them. Hopefully, you're not suggesting that theft is to the benefit of the economy.

 

[Trepanated]

So, your point is that I (a trained mathematician and former private math trainer in university level) don't understand the concept of set intersection and you base that on your opinion that my estimate of that intersection is too low for your liking. Do I even need to start pointing the fallacies here?

No. Not at all. I presumed by the conversations we have had and the posts of yours I have read previously that you did know. I even debated bracketing 'Venn Diagram' in my initial post because I worried that you may think I was being condescending.

But when I mentioned intersections and you gave a figure of 0.001%, that looked like you were giving a figure on the Set 'exporters', which I (mistakenly, it seems), assumed you had misunderstood, hence my subsequent post. So my apologies for that

In the words of the Big Lebowski, "that's like your opinion, man". Weren't you the one who was saying on this very page that "it's too hard to calculate it"? Now suddenly, you've calculated it and it's not 0.001%?

No - I said quantify, not calculate - and although the difference is subtle, it is important at this stage.

We are nowhere near calculation yet, although in your original point you assumed the two Sets were distinct, which therefore has an Intersect of zero

But we do already know the size of Set A (citizens) - about 80 million.

So, when you then give a figure of 0.001%, it is clearly now easy to calculate what that would give us as the intersect - 800.

And with a population of 80 million there is no possibility whatsoever that the intersection of Set A and Set B is 800 people.

Only when we have the figures for both Sets we can move to the calculation stage.

But we don't have the figures for both Sets yet - just for one (Citizens)

And I also used 3 sets, not 2. Which makes quantifying things even more difficult - especially if we want to quantify one of the Sets as 'people who net benefit' from the export sector.

And then you introduced 2 more Sets - Mortgages and Pretzels (although Pretzels could be a Subset of Set B).

So now it is even more difficult to define and quantify the Sets - which means making a calculation of the (ever more complicated) intersection(s) even further away.

So maybe the exporters are 8.000 and not 800, I didn't look up the number.

800 would be the Intersection - not Set B. Derived from the known number of 80 million and the number you chose (0.001%), remember?

Every time you mix up the two, I point it out, but that ends up with you lambasting me for presuming you don't understand the difference.

And now here you are confusing them again.

Back to going round in circles I guess - maybe your plan is to get me spinning, so I get dizzy, fall down, bang my head and forget what we are talking about

 

[madoctopus]

I did give reasons. You just chose to quote one sentence (which is a statement)

Quote one! You gave:
- Statements
- Circular logic
- Assumptions presented as facts - "But in the world without 'state theft' there are no police. That's not an option."
- Statements coupled with truths, trying to pass the statement as true because of the connection.

The jungle and Somalia are both examples of places where there is no practical government and therefore none of the 'state theft' you are saying exists and that you are against. I didn't specifically choose two examples that are not desirable places to live. It's just that there aren't many examples, and when there are examples, they don't tend to be places where people would choose to live - for some strange reason?

"there is no practical government" - not true. There is no recognized government, no control structure recognized by other nations. There are however control structures and initiation of force for various reasons. The fact you have a structure that is not recognized by others or called a government, does not mean the negative effects of government lack too. My point was never against governments just like that. My points were against the negative effects inherent in a government controlled structure. It is not the government by itself that is bad but the inherent rules it imposes. If somehow magically a government would not have those negatives I wouldn't have a problem with it.

But in the world without 'state theft' there are no police. That's not an option.

Argument that please. That's an assumption. Police or rather protection structures have nothing to do with government. They are a service. A service does not rely on a government but on a need of the consumer. As long as there's a need for protection, you can have a free market system offering that service. Police is not a negative thing just like that but exactly because it is operated within this corrupted system - hence you end up with laws passed just to make money, war on drugs (a.k.a. war on citizens, in order to fill jails and make profit for jail owners), corruption, etc.

The point of the experiment was to present a scenario where there was no existing state system.

But that's not what you did. You presented a imagined illogical world. Why would you do that when you already have a real world? Plus your scenario was extremely forced and even the question you asked in the proposed scenario was meaningless in the context of my statements about why I think the state is bad.

On the other hand, the German citizens do not have in their best interest to keep the Euro because they are the ones paying for it. There is no free lunch here and they are on the wrong side of the deal.

I think in practice it is in their interest (farmer needs to take care of its cattle) to a certain degree and in most cases. In a free market what you say would make perfect sense every time, but since this is not a free market, the systems can't self-balance themselves.

"Negatively affect(ing) others" is a subjective phrase and therefore, removes the true freedom.

How is it subjective? Can you expand please?

I agree in that countries are not one cell, however, the well being of those exporters does have a number of direct and indirect impacts on the citizens.

I agree with that, see my reply to jazzc.

So, you're telling me this system *might* be "better" based on the pure speculation of a few supporters and most of all on a definition of "theft" that's not only NON-factual at all, but actually totally disputable given the premise of how in a society most people agree to pay taxes so decided to pay what's due... Still not convinced, by your argument, you know...

That's not what I said. I said I don't agree with his statement that the system is the best. I never said a better system would be the one with no taxes just because there are no taxes. I never said I mind taxes just because they're evil or something. I never said I dislike governments/state just like that. I have a problem not with the structures themselves but with the problems they inherently produce. I have no problem with taxes as long as they apply only to those who want them. I have no problem with the state as long as it doesn't impose stuff on me with force. You think taxes are ok, perfect! Pay them. But don't demand me to pay taxes. If I use webhosting I don't demand everybody in the world to pay a webhosting tax of 5% of their income, just because some people need webhosting.

All I'm saying is true free market removes any need for taxes because free market self-adapts and self-regulates itself through natural principles of supply and demand. But free market can't exist as long as you have forced regulations.

Hardly. Why wouldn't you want to be punished for NOT conforming to what the general consensus of the majority wants? Be that taxes or trespassing or whatever else a society agreed to call a CRIME. So I might have bad news. If a community agrees on taxation because it seems the most rational way to address a lot of problems the regular citizen doesn't care about -because he doesn't need to care about, after all- but still need to be fixed there's a consensus it's RIGHT to punish the offenders if you don't do your part. That's what most people want, regardless of what you speculate your definition of "theft" might be. And I like this. It's just FAIR. The cost of your omissions will eventually fall on me in a way or another because there are always a lot of "hidden" costs in running a society...

Because general consensus is bullshit. See my example with Jane, John and the 20 dudes who rape her. That's what consensus leads to. If a community agrees with X then that X can and should be applies ONLY to those in that community who chose it. If I choose to drink beer I have no right to demand you to drink beer with me. HTF is this so complicated for you guys to understand? I have no problem with taxes. I have a problem with having taxes imposed on me considering I never signed an agreement that I want to be part of this system based on taxes. Is it really that complicated?

"fair" - fair does not exist in an absolute manner. Fair only exists within a subset/community/whatever as long as ALL members agree it is fair. I explained and gave my argument to this already in a previous post.

"it's RIGHT to punish the offenders"? You have no rights over other people. NONE! There are no rights. You have the illusion of rights. There is only getting along and letting people be on one side or being controlled or controlling on the other side. The "right" to punish is not a right. You choose to delude yourself that you have this right but you don't. You just use it as an argument of why you hurt others so you feel good about your actions. People who do wars and kill, rape, whatever, they all feel it was their right to do so.

Again I have no problem with rules. Rules exist anywhere even in nature. What I'm saying is that I should have the freedom to join or not join certain rules or mindsets not have them imposed over me.

Again, you want taxes, wars, state education, state healthcare, etc? Perfect! Use them, be part of this. Just why do you force me to be part of it too? Explain me that. How the fuck can think there's anything that allows you do enforce that on me other than your higher power? You force shit on me, perfect. I'm small, you're strong. Just don't fucking come and preach to me how all this is "right" or "the best thing" or "to your advantage". Just call it by it's name - "I'm stronger, you do like I say or I kill you!". You say that, and we're cool. I'll take that.

My problem is not taxes, governments or whatever. My main problem is idiots who think it's ok to impose things on others despite what those others want. Which is the fucking definition of aggression. Rape, beatings, war, taxes, etc. - they are all a forcefully imposed thing on somebody who doesn't want it. If is not forcefully imposed it is called: sex, martial arts training, (nothing for war), commercial contracts. Really, is this so fucking complicated to grasp?

 

[madoctopus]

@jazzc - ignore my previous message about Germany, now I read all your other messages and understand what you mean.