[Bennett]

Like your argument, your research is pompous and based on misinterpretation. However, your approved definition, which is so radically different than what I provided again mentions fault nowhere. If your implication of fault balances on the word 'oppressed,' which it seems like it does, may I remind you that the word 'oppressed' is followed by a couple commas and the word 'or'.

["You tried to say that people couldn't be victim to the government unless they revolted"

No I didn't.]

"Yes. In order for there to be a victim, there needs to be a perpetrator. Who would it be in this context? The Government? But that is who most of these taxpayers are addressing their concerns to."

"The framers of the Constitution actually set a precident for dealing with a government which is victimizing its populace, its called Revolution buddy"

"Revolution is an extreme solution to an extreme problem, it is not to be used lightly, and apparantly by your application there, you HAVE forgotten about the revolution clause. The people are not captives, or victims, of their government. Period. The day they are, they will know it, just as the Russian under Stalin knew it, and one day they will fight back. "

["Yes, if you are male, and you decide to rape little girls, then that is heteosexual."

No, it makes you a rapist and a pedophile. It does not make you a heterosexual. Words have meaning, and must be applied correctly. Would you call a nuclear warhead a chair simple because it can be sat upon?]

Yes words have meaning, and since you are so familiar with that you would know that 'heterosexual' is not only a noun, but also an adjective. Go look it up in your fancy dictionary, and hopefully you will be able to understand how the NARROW definition, remember now about words meaning things, can apply to an act of rape, whether it is pedophilia or not.

"Never even occoured to me, to be honest, to so much as wonder about it. People are individuals, even those who share close philosophies have unique perspectives."

Doesn't suprise me that you would not be interested in this. After all, you are the same compassionate individual who stated: "Victims are generally made up of those who cannot, or simply do not, stand up for themselves, not those who seek to resist infringements upon their persons, property or assets."

Do you understand how contradictory this statement is to the rest of your postings? By definition, you say that a victim is usually a person who allows themself to be. In other words, it is their fault that they are a victim. Then you say that a victim cannot create their own victimhood. A person cannot be a victim if it is their fault that they are in that situation. Whatever.

If you want to talk about growing up, stop trying to turn this into a pissing contest. You haven't said anything that was remotely as interesting, insightful or intelligent as El Blanco and vibecrewangel managed to do in around three sentences. If this thread is boring to you, go puff out your chest somewhere else. Or maybe try a civilized post, that would be true grown-up behavior.