Following up from another thread...

I don't have much to add here to what has already been said. Like Jim, I had a Catholic education, and I knew priests who were very good people, who really cared about people and did their best to help. I think, however, that they were good despite their faith, not because of it (and, also, because Portuguese Catholicism has more to do with tradition than with God or Jesus; most Portuguese are Catholic, and most older people go to mass on Sunday, but few of them think about it, or read the Bible, or anything).

I know some people, however, who, despite not being "religious" themselves, believe that the above is evidence that there's some "good" that can come from religion, if only we remove the anti-abortion, anti-condoms, sexist, closed-minded parts. My answer to that is... yes, but then why start from religion at all? Why not start from, say, the works of Shakespeare (after removing the "bad" parts), and make a philosophy of life out of it?

Then again, why start from anything at all?

Upon reflection of my earlier comment I think I would have to agree with this. I think I am reluctant to ascribe the word "evil" to their beliefs (as TX did in the post where this conversation begin), but I would agree that ones I knew who were good often bucked the system, not just spouted it.

There ends up being a conflict and conflicting actions in the "bucking the system" position. The evil is inherent to the position and to the religion, so any "bucking" of the system requires denying the religion, not merely the church, so by the dictates of the religion the priest can no longer be a priest. However that bit of problem aside, I doubt that you can find even a single example of one of these "good" priests who is actually willing to deny the religion and its inherent evils (or even the evil actions and beliefs) regardless of any outward appearances of doing "good."

As for any reluctance to call a spade a spade, remember that intentional harm to others is indeed evil.

This post was last modified: 12-12-2006 10:28 PM by TXStorm.

TX- I've actually met a few priests who did point out things Christians did that were evil. At least two.

To answer the question itself... we should trust priests the same way we trust anybody else. They are people.

Kren,

So to use the same reasoning, we should trust murderers "the same way that we trust anybody else?" The same goes for rapists, thieves, and con men?

What about Klan members? Do we also ignore their actions and affilliations and instead pretend that these qualities and actions have no bearing on who they are? What about pedophiles? Oh wait you already said yes to that one..

As for pointing out things that xns did that were evil, I strongly suspect that there is more than a little bit of equivocation going on here. Regardless this does not address the points I made. I noted that they must deny the religion itself, not merely condemn others for not being *real* xns...

This post was last modified: 12-14-2006 12:13 AM by TXStorm.

TX- Nice, but a total misunderstanding.
You trust any stranger to stand next to you and not kill you, USUALLY.
Because you don't know them.
If you know a priest is a pedophile, then would you trust him with your 4 year old? No.
Does that mean that you can't trust all priests with children?

The question itself was "should we trust priests?" Not, Should we trust pedophiles.

Trust is something you gain for someone you know. This is why I say we should trust a priest just like we trust everybody else.

Kren,

I wholeheartedly agree that there is a gross misunderstanding, unfortunately it is entirely on your part.

You either missed the entire previous post, or chose to ignore the fact that we are not talking about accidental traits, but inherent traits.

Do you "trust" squares to be round?
Do you "trust" Klan members to be accepting?

So a person's actions, affiliations, beliefs, etc. have no bearing at all? So you do trust pedophiles "just like everyone else? You do trust murderers "just like everyone else?"

Why on earth should we ignore inherent and entirely relevant characteristics merely because they are religious?

This post was last modified: 12-18-2006 08:35 AM by TXStorm.

TX-I trust no square to be round. But coming to the conclusion that all priests are bad people is yet another bias.
Klan members are different. Thier only purpose is to judge and destroy a different race. A priests purpose is never to harm someone. I fail to see the connection I gues. Yes, they both wear robes.

Regaurdless of all of this, I was merely answering the question itself. "Do we trust priests?"

This is the same as asking if you trust teachers, or police.

I may be wrong, but I think TX is saying that priests are inherently bad people because of what they have chosen to do with their lives. I may be wrong, here, but that is my impression. Although I tend to agree with you Kren that, although misguided in my opinion, priests are not inherently bad people.

But if you see religion, and Christianity in particular, as a bad thing, then a priests purpose is to harm people - by helping them be better Christians.

Oh... now you have opened a can of worms. I may be wrong here too (and I'm sure you'll correct me quicker than you can say "government schools" if I am, TX) but I think he would say that teachers and police are no more inherently trustworthy than priests - and are most likely not deserving of trust.

Maybe a post should be started about who we do trust!

I'm not sure why I think that we trust people, for the MOST part, on a person by person basis, regardless of what thier job is. Maybe I've known different cops, priests, teachers, pizza delivery drivers, managers, and blah blah blah.
But throughout my life, one thing that I've learned is that you trust someone based on what YOU go through with them.
Further...
Trust can be different between someone and YOU than that person and someone else. For instance, I can trust my dad not to kill me if I stole his car. Other people though...?

Circumstantial is the word here. To not trust someone just because they have a label is bias.

The question itself hit a chord with me right away because of that.

There's a post on this forum about concidering the other persons views and the possibility that you may be wrong.
In maybe somewhat of the same practice, I try to put myself in someone elses shoes.
If you were a priest I'm sure you might find this sort of question disgusting, especially if you had never fucked a little boy.

I think I agree with you on this Kren, but I'm also anticipating TX's response. I much prefer to take people on a case by case basis and trust them based on their actions. However, I think it is important to "consider the messenger" so to speak. I may trust a priest in most instances, but it would certainly not be because he is a priest. On the other hand, I would not trust him if terms of my 'immortal soul' (assuming I have one for a moment) since I don't agree with his perspective. Same is true for a member of the KKK... If I were working next to him in a factory, and I never knew he was in the Klan, but he always demonstrated that he was trustworthy at his job I would accord him a certain amount of respect. However, I would not invite him back to my place for a party if I found out he was in the Klan because I have friends I know he would not approve of because of his affiliation.

I feel this was a garbled reply, but it's the best I can do right now.

Ah... so you are simply begging the question by denying that priests are priests at all.. :

I do agree that the question is the same as do you trust police for the same reasons. The choice of behaviors and actions, as well as beliefs, does indeed matter. The choice to pursue efforts to cause harm to others, especially under the guise of "doing good" (or worse yet calling evil good as both groups do regularly), is indeed evil and it does matter.

Did you notice that you simply asserted that though they share types of objectives you condemned the Klan for being identical in type to priests but at the same time gave priests carte blanche? And to think that you dared to bring up bias as an explanation for CONSISTENCY OF REASONING....

As for the trust as you go notion, I have no doubt at all that you would not adopt that approach with those groups which are PC to hate, such as the Klan, non-priest pedophiles, arabs, etc.

This strawman tactic reveals more than you intended. It shows that you either YET AGAIN completely ignored the previous posts or made exactly no effort at all to understand the exceedingly simple points made in them. The label has at no point been an issue, as you very well know. I have been quite careful in stressing the actions and beliefs behind the actions, though you seem to have missed this conveniently.. and sadly repeatedly even after having it explicitly spelled out repeatedly.

Jim,

Teachers belong in a different category as they are not pursuing something which is inherently harmful to others.

I believe you are hitting upon the points I have repeated several times now, though you do add in the important aspect of awareness. Once you are aware of the negative behavior you begin trusting less, in limiting exposure. The important element here is to not blind ourselves with PC-ism, prejudices (either direction), or ill informed beliefs.

So if you know a person who seeks to harm others regularly, but you are unaware of this fact, you judge from what you do know and trust either develops or not. Once you discover that the individual intentionally pursues efforts to cause harm to others, the reasonable thing to do is withdraw that trust and separate yourself from such individuals. Unfortunately some choose to believe that X is good simply because of the robes that they wear or because of the lies that they tell, or near as I can tell BECAUSE of the harm that they do..

Certainly ignoring actions because of some unusual collar decoration is irrational...

This post was last modified: 12-18-2006 02:00 PM by TXStorm.

TX-

What exactly did I ignore? Even so, is what I said wrong just because of this?
IS what I stated WRONG? or is judging people on a label given to them a bias?

If you are to believe that all priests should not be trusted, even if you know one and know that he/she is trustworthy, then hey... you know that, I'm the one who'se stupid for trusting even ONE priest out of all of them.

Sorry if I'm ignorant, but I'm not going to let you undermind me BECAUSE of it. Are you willing to say that you judge people based on thier labels?

Kren,

I do not believe that you are failing to understand the very clear points which I have made, and in fact Jim has also explained to you. That leaves only a less flattering explanation of your misrepresentations and protestations.

I am NOT judging on a label, as I have made abundantly clear. It is not small irony that you are in fact judging on labels, only you are excusing any behavior, any actions, any belief because of the label you happen to already like.

If you are to believe that all rapists should not be trusted, even if you know one and know that he/she is trustworthy, then hey... you know that, I'm the one who'se stupid for trusting even ONE rapist out of all of them.

If you are to believe that all liars should not be trusted, even if you know one and know that he/she is trustworthy, then hey... you know that, I'm the one who'se stupid for trusting even ONE liar out of all of them.

See the problems with your argument?

As for what you have ignored, I would say the answer must be every post made on this thread, every belief of xns, every action of priests, the inherent nature of religion and the church, the basic tennets of reason, and the nature of evidence. I have probably left out a few here, but you get the gist. You continue to lash out at me for a strawman argument of your own creation. No where have I referred to or relied upon labels, yet you pretend that something pivots on this notion.

And no I am not willing to make a liar of myself and claim that I have adopted the strawman you have pretended is mine. I will state again, and I am certain that you will ignore it yet again, that I am making a point about beliefs, actions, and behaviors. I am speaking of inherent traits, NOT LABELS OF ANY SORT. You however cannot honestly, or consistently make the same claim.

"I am NOT judging on a label, as I have made abundantly clear. It is not small irony that you are in fact judging on labels, only you are excusing any behavior, any actions, any belief because of the label you happen to already like."

If this is the case, then why defend the question at hand?
I also made it very clear (AND THE POINT OF MY POST WAS) not to judge on labels, something which YOU decided to ignore, which is clear in the quote above. I do not remember stating that I "already like" priests.

I will admit, I made a mistake. You never said that you judged people on the label of a priest.


Let's talk about those inherent traits.
The inherent traits of a priest for instance, to keep the post itself going.

What are they that condem them to be pedophiles, or rapists? And what are the traits that make them untrustworthy?


Also: "You however cannot honestly, or consistently make the same claim."

First, I CAN honestly make the claim that I speak of inherent traits, NOT LABELS OF ANY SORT. If you mean to say that the inherent traits of a priest is to be an untrustworthy person, that is something I will contend... because I have known priests.

TX, you continue to say that I ignore things, some of which I didn't, others in which I admittedly have only by my own ignorance. I wonder if you'll admit ignoring the things I have pointed out to you.


In closing, let me ask a few simple questions. If I have made any misunderstanding, they should be made clear to me if you only answer them.


Do you think that a priest is automatically not worthy of your trust?

If you say "no", is that just because you've never known a priest that you at least thought you COULD trust?

Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that this post was about trusting or not trusting priests at all. That WAS the question posted... but if you ask me the answer was simple and I've already stated it.

Again Kren I am not prone to "admitting" blatant falsehoods. I will not play your game where you try to place yourself on a pedestal simply because I do not actually fit your strawman which you claim represents me.

I notice that you failed to answer ANY of the questions asked..

As for what you have pointed out, thus far you have not pointed out anything at all, so this is a moot point. You have used strawman tactics, false claims, blatant mischaracterizations and the like, but these fail to meet the minimum standards for "pointing out" since none of these has any similarity to reality.

Let me try once again to get you to see past the clear and undeniable bias for priests by yet again asking your same questions of you. Do you think that a liar is automatically not worthy of your trust?

TX, thanks for finally coming through for me and trying to make things simpler for such a simple mind as my own.

Sorry if none of the questions posed were answered... The only one I see a couple of posts above is do I see the problem with my arguement.
The answer is no, I don't see it. I'll take another look of course.

Do I think that a liar can be trusted?
Of course.
Everybody lies. Yet people can be trusted. If you don't understand that, than just tell me to stop. I am not a teacher.

As I have said before, it is circumstantial. I even wrote an example of a circumstance.

Thus my own arguement, that you can not say "Priests cannot be trusted."

If this was not your position, than I have greatly missunderstood you.

OK, I'm adding my 2 cents to this and leaving, before I get flamed.
A priest, through my eyes, ( I despise the use of the personal there, debate is impersonal, argument is personal), is not evil, it is the TYPE of priest, for instance, there are two "priest" at my school.
The first
X: An Anglican preacher, sees God in everything and does not trust people without beliefs.
The second
Y: A priest, but he takes RE, open to debate and argument, and I've spent a good two periods derailing the class with him.

I dislike X, alot, he is pretentious, will gladly point out other's faults and sees no value in other point of views. He once referred to me as a "cynical, pretentious and insecure teenager who needed a lesson" when I questioned him on a recent Personal Development lesson, ( the speaker was a "nutri-nazi"), I'd argue that there is nothing wrong with cynicism but that'd be a derail.
I don't mind Y, obviously due to our differentiation in beliefs we don't gel as well as I do with other people, but we get along, he is, in fact, brining in an "Extended philosophy and RE" class for the senior years in 2008, something that X apparently tried to hinder.

The difference is not in their beliefs, but how they show them, Y has clearly stated that he would gladly die for his beliefs, and I respect him for it. Whereas X has shown himself to be quite clearly a sheep.
Admittedly I don't get along with Xtians in a religious setting, as I voice my opinion (and don't apologies for it) a little too often.

Case in point: Do not hate someone for their beliefs, particularly if they enforce good morales, hate people because they are blind, foolish and un-empathetic.

I'd go back to the beginning and say that a priest can indeed be a good person, but that's despite his religion, not because of it. The "good" ones ignore most of the Bible; they use some of Jesus' nicer parables, and some stories from Genesis and Exodus, but ignore most of Paul's Christianity, and most of the OT.

Like I said, I had a Catholic education, and one of the priests there was one of the nicest people I ever met; he genuinely cared about people, and sometimes implied that religion wasn't to be taken too seriously. He never threatened anyone with going to hell; in fact, he never mentioned hell at all. To him, Jesus was a nice example to follow, and the Bible had some nice, educating stories (though most of it was necessarily ignored). That was it.

My point is that he would have been just as good a person if he was an atheist, though, maybe, he was a priest because it allowed him to help people - that's what he really liked to do.

'He'd' be a better help to people as a social worker or a psychologist, primarily because in that case ALL 'his' energy would be devoted to helping people, rather than a small fractions.

This post was last modified: 12-18-2006 11:06 PM by XTimmy.

Kren, and others who think that priests can and should be trusted, I have asked this a dozen times (thus far without an answer) and I will ask it again though I expect no answer this time either: would you trust any individual BECAUSE of their evil nature?

So by your argument Kren, you would trust a rapist with your mother or sister. By your reasoning you would trust a theif with your wallet.

I would point out that this is necessarily irrational, as well as outright foolish.

As for trusting a liar, it seems that either you are not familiar with the meaning of the word "trust" else are taking an extreme position in order to save the desired conclusion (that priest are trustworthy) and in doing so making a joke out of that position.

If I were to choose to devote my life to doing harm, to causing and being evil, would you also simply assert that I am good? If not, then you have a double standard in favor of priests.

TX-

I never said I thought that priests should be trusted, I stated that you trust PEOPLE by your OWN experiences with them. This includes priests as well, yes, and I will stand by that belief because I do not think it is right to judge someone as trustworthy, or untrustworthy if you have no idea who that person is.

"So by your argument Kren, you would trust a rapist with your mother or sister. By your reasoning you would trust a theif with your wallet. "

When it comes to rapists, I probably would not trust one with my mother or daughter. However if I had a friend who was a thief, and I could trust him not to steal MY things, then yes I gues I could trust him with my wallet.
Do you see what I am saying?

This is all circumstantial. Being a priest does not necessitate devoting ones life to harm.
Say that it did... say that all religion is evil and therefore those who teach it are doing evil. This does not mean that they cannot be trusted.

My double standard has nothing to do with thieves, however more to do with people whom I not yet know, or know very little about.
I do not hear that John Doe is a police officer and come to the conclusion that he will beat a black person who runs away, or hear that he is a priest and come to the conclusion that he will fuck my 4 year old if left alone with him/her. The fact is that when all you know about a person is thier job title, there is very little imput to decide weather or not they are trust worthy.

Of course common sense is involved, if all I know about John is that he is a police officer, I can come to the conclusion that he'll probably write me a ticket if I drive past the speed limit. This does not say anything, one way or the other, about his trustworthiness.

Notice that you have to employ a false premise in order to give the illusion of sense to the position?

Oh? And being a liar means that you are always honest??

Uh... What on earth do YOU mean then when you use words like "evil" and "trust??"

You continue to either miss or ignore the central point which has been made ad infinitum. You are mistakenly assuming that per se traits are merely coincidental and non-inherent.

Wow.. so close yet so far away. A cop's actions are predictable BECAUSE OF WHAT HE CHOOSES TO DO AND WHAT SORT OF PERSON HE IS. This means of course that he is inherently UNTRUSTWORTHY in exactly the same way as the other liars, rapists, and thieves.

Your arguments are internally and necessarily contradictory. You are in essence claiming that squares can be round, that circles have right angles and that time runs backwards. (THese are analogies which hopefully will make more clear the problems inherent to your claims and arguments)

On one hand you recognize that a rapist is not trustworthy (because that is a sufficiently PC position to hold I suspect) but then ignore the very same sound reasoning when it comes to priests or cops.. Because they are supposed to be trusted by the dictates of PC thought, you ignore the identity of type and flip flop on the conclusion as is convenient.

BTW you did not answer this question (or most of the others of course): "If I were to choose to devote my life to doing harm, to causing and being evil, would you also simply assert that I am good?"

This post was last modified: 12-19-2006 02:06 AM by TXStorm.

"If I were to choose to devote my life to doing harm, to causing and being evil, would you also simply assert that I am good?"

Of course not. However I do not know every priest or cop.

Maybe I should make my point clearer so you cannot claim that I am "flip flopping".

Weather or not a person is trustworthy is for the most part circumstantial.
I cannot say that John is a cop and is therefore untrustworthy, especially if that is all I know about John.

Weather someone is trustworthy or not is not a simple equation. Yes, reasoning can be applied to determine weather or not a person IS trustworthy, but based only on thier occupation.

You do realize that you are using this round square analogy to justify prejudice right?

Perhaps if you had known a trustworthy cop, you wouldn't make the arguement you did above.

Kren,

Your statements are perfectly clear, simply contradictory and arbitrary.

Nice ad hominem. Your own failure to understand very basic aspects of sound reasoning is not in fact evidence of prejudice on my part. In fact had you taken the time to bother reading and at least making an effort to understand these very simple points concerning inherent traits, and assuming you were an honest person, you would not be making such absurd claims and personal attacks.

The analogy explains the difference between inherent traits and accidental traits. Humans being mammals is an inherent trait, like squares having four straight sides and all right angles. Cops being power seekers and inherently harmful are inherent traits, just as priests who are pursing intentionally a path of harm to others. These are not accidental traits for if they were, then these individuals would immediately abandon the paths they have chosen!

To yet again prove logically that your argument is completely without merit:

Perhaps if you had known a square circle, you wouldn't make the arguement you did above.

In your arguments you completely ignore the basis for and nature of trust. You then assert an individual who actively pursues untrustworthy behavior is inherently trustworthy if he is a priest or cop, yet you flip flop like a fish out of water when the subject is one against whom the PC attitude allows you to condemn, such as a rapist, theif, or liar. The problem here of course is not the rational withholding of trust from those who pursue untrustworthy activities (notice unlike you I am not relying upon labels), but rather the exempting of some because of pre-existing bias in favor of those indivdiuals because of the labels that they wear!

The judgement of anybody's trust worthiness without knowing that person is a prejudice.

I know you're going to say that the statement above would mean that I can't tell that if something is square, it has four right angles.

It's more like you're saying if something is round than it must be blue.

You can think till the cows come home that no police officer is worthy of trust, but it doesn't change the fact that there are probably many who are. I've known many police officers, not all were trustworthy and yet some were. Hence that sentence.

I also would like to point out to you that people can have many jobs in a lifetime, you wouldn't trust a police officer, so how about a pizza store owner? It could be the same person you know. What makes that person trustworthy or untrustworthy? His job?

Of course this is nothing but a strawman tactic since in fact we do know the relevant characteristics of the individuals in question. Here again you seem to want to pretend that necessary or inherent traits cannot be known despite the fact that just as with the square, we can and do in fact know those traits. Why are you fighting so hard against this fact of reality? Why oppose the clear and demonstrable difference between accidental and inherent traits? Why continue in the face of overwhelming evidence to claim that the two are the same?

If you had read the previous posts in this thread you would not be making this ABSURD query.

YET AGAIN, we are not talking about mere jobs, or about ACCIDENTAL TRAITS, but rather about specific choices to cause harm to others as a way of life, and sadly to promote these harms as well.

There is nothing of which I am aware in the nature of pizza owners which is coercive, dishonest, or dangerous. This cannot be said of priests or cops, no matter what your pie in the sky (or more accurately head in the sand) view of them is.

The person who seeks out power over others necessarily is seeking harm to others. The person who directly seeks to harm others, is of course seeking to harm others. Priesthood and police work both necessarily involve these characteristics and consequences. They are INHERENT to the path, or more correctly to those who choose these paths.

Now to return to the shape analogy, to correct your mischaracterization, what I am noting is that for a square to be a square it must have four equal sides and four right angles. Yet in this analogy you are asserting that I cannot know that such shapes are squares therefore they must be circles. See how not only is your assertion but also your conclusion is necessarily false? Now if you can apply this back to the original situation, without the prejudice on the behalf of cops and priests, and you will find the exact same error of thought constituting the whole of your argurments.

This post was last modified: 12-19-2006 08:00 AM by TXStorm.

TX, I know you are trying to bring us all into the light, but at some point you must realize that your method of making arguments appears to be antagonistic to anyone who cannot measure up to your ability in logic. This is not an attempted ad hominem attack, but an observation of your style.

I don't know how many priests you have known, but I have known a few. I think that assuming that every person who chooses to be a priest does so because they seek power is negligent. Regardless of your assessment of what it means to be a priest, some of those who choose to do so honestly seem to choose it because they seek to help. I have known some priests - by their actions - that fall into this group. Sadly, I have known more who do fit your characterization. However, that does not change the fact that as long as there is at least one who does not, then it is not a proven statement for all.

I am willing to concede that the 'job' of priest may be as you describe. I am not willing to presume that I know the intention of every person who seeks to be a priest. Based on my experience I cannot logically accept that the only reason someone chooses to be a priest is for the pursuit of power, as you suggest it is.

Earlier, you seemed to concede that my argument about trusting a colleague until I actually learned of his KKK membership was a valid one. Cannot the same be said of a person who chooses to be a priest? Perhaps they chose to be a priest because of altruistic motives (because, of course, this is how all priests present themselves), and only later realized the truth. Given your previous statements about your leaving teaching because of the inherent problems in it, perhaps you would say that this person should leave the priesthood as soon as they realize the truth. However, why can't they choose to remain (even for a while) feeling that maybe they can change things.

Sometimes it is easier to bring down the castle walls if you have some people on the inside then only by throwing rocks from the outside.

Just some thoughts...

Quote:
The judgement of anybody's trust worthiness without knowing that person is a prejudice.


"Of course this is nothing but a strawman tactic since in fact we do know the relevant characteristics of the individuals in question. "

But I don't think we DO have all of the relevant characteristics as to weather or not a person should be judged when all we know is that they are a priest or a cop.

Being a police officer doesnt necessitate seeking power. I don't know where you've come up with that notion. Maybe you haven't seen the police in action around where you live, or never watched the show "cops". You can notice that the majority of the time they are actually running around fixing a civilians fuck up, or even sometimes just listening to a couple bicker. The only power they have over civilians is the right to forcefully arrest someone. (Something I've even wished I had in some certain cituations.)

It's sad to think that if you met somebody, and became friends with them, you'd change any of your thoughts about them upon finding out that they are a police officer. The KKK analogy is different of course. Mob lynchings of innocent people don't happen every day.

I also see that you've attributed me with this PROpriest or cop position. That's absurd. I can easily admit that there are pedophilic priests and corrupt cops out there without losing my point. I never said "Cops are good" or "priests are humble".

Back to this equation you've set up that's perfect for judging those you don't even know as untrustworthy. It's more complicated STILL now that I think about it.

Take you for instance TX. You are a smart man. You chose to be a teacher. You chose to have the very great power to shape somebody's kids minds. This isn't something that somebody made you do. You probably worked hard to have the power to make kids think. And not JUST make them think, to make them think the way you tell them to.
You yourself has a job with that necesitates the seeking of power.
Does that make you untrustworthy? No.
It also doesn't make you bad. Because you can use this power to teach people well, and brighten the future of little ones. It could of course also be used for wrong, and neglected.
That's the nature of power. Those who work acquire it have the ability to use it for good, use it for bad, or not use it even when they should.

Yet, can I trust you? No. I don't know you. But I'm not willing to say that you are untrustworthy because you seek to harm people by not teaching them. I don't know that, and wouldn't assume it.

Okay then by your own statements we