3 of 5
3
Interesting Statistics
Posted: 15 June 2013 11:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
Cloak - 15 June 2013 11:02 AM
Lois - 15 June 2013 06:14 AM
Cloak - 14 June 2013 11:42 PM

What I’m saying is that inequality explains the majority of a developed country’s violence, not just “some” of it. Secondly, it’s my understanding that Canada’s lean to the right has been much more gradual than the US.

But it makes no difference.  The numbers are all that counts. What difference can it possibly make what is behind it? Numbers don’t lie. Whatever Canada is doing and for whatever reason, they have better gun death ststistics than the US has and they have similar demographics.  The US has the most abysmal gun-death record of every country in the Western world. The laws or lack of laws and attitudes toward guns tell the story.

Actually it makes a significant difference. The real issue here is inequality, and if Canada has enjoyed decades of less inequality than the USA (however, the gap is starting to close recently), then that explains it.

Get this clear: Canada doesn’t have any significant difference in financial inequalities than the United States. We are NOT Communist, contrary to what you may be thinking. The only one thing that we have that may stereotype this image is our universal health care coverage for essential concerns. We also do not have an absolute ban on firearms or a universal registry for them. The significant difference is that the general public is not allowed to carry “assault” weapons concealed or otherwise without a permit for exceptional reasons.
  Poverty is certainly an important issue to help address some of these motives. But you have to address my argument regarding the predominance of domestic violence, not crimes due to fiscal necessity, as a bigger concern that would also increase in the event that poverty all of sudden just vanished off the Earth as the more common problem to gun violence. In the meantime, reducing the capacity of domestic ownership of guns is the first, and easier step, to create desirable results.

Cloak - 15 June 2013 11:02 AM

The UK has an abysmal violence record for a country with significantly less border problems and less access to firearms than the US. Yet, our inequality numbers are relatively similar. 

Where are you drawing these conclusions from? How do you assert these things as true?

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 11:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
Cloak - 15 June 2013 11:30 AM

Most everyone in the USA who is not rich is in debt, working jobs that they hate just to make it, or are unemployed. They are getting increasingly crappier insurance policies, stagnant wages, and absolutely horrible public education. And things are gradually getting worse. On top of that, nobody wants to address the growing elephant in the room that is going to become both the destroyer of jobs and the biggest argument for the increasing irrelevance of labor: the exponential rate of technological advancement. Whatever favorite word you want to use (relative vs absolute), this is the end result of such economic systems.

A lot of people are in debt because they over-spend and get into debt. Regarding people in debt for college, that’s a good deal because through our subsidizing college to try and make it more widely available to everyone, we have caused the price of it to skyrocket. Regarding unemployment, that’s due to the recession right now. Regarding stagnant wages, remember wages are not the same thing as incomes. Incomes per capita have mostly been increasing, but wages, which are a part of incomes, have been stagnant or even declining in some industries due to the rising costs of healthcare.

The quality of public education has been an issue since the 1950s, and that’s another complex problem, but I wouldn’t say it’s increasingly getting worse or all horrible. I went through a public high school and would consider it to have been a reasonably good school in terms of educating. As for technological advancement ending labor, that has been a concern since the start of the industrial revolution and thus far it hasn’t happened. Thus far, technological advancement continues to create more jobs and economic opportunity.

“Market capitalism” while it does, for a time, help to spread wealth more equitably, is ultimately a game system in which the name of the game is profit. As with any competitive game, there is always the problem that someone who knows how to play the game better and even circumvent the rules will rise above the rest and exploit the others. This is what we see happening right now, and it will continue to increase until the problem is dealt with at its core.

In a situation like this, violence will inevitably increase. The last thing I want to deal with in such a situation is someone taking my protection away.

Market capitalism is the economic system that functions the least badly out of the alternatives. We try to counter this by having laws, regulations, safety nets, etc…in place. But I do not agree that economic inequality, at least across society, is responsible for the violent crime. In the very poor inner-cities, I’d say that is the case, but the cause of their problems is very complex, ranging from the history of the gangs to drugs, to bad social policies.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 12:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19

People are in debt because of consumerism, a product of capitalism. The recession was caused by capitalism out of control. Wages have declined or remained stagnant because it is more profitable to keep them that way, thus capitalism.

Public education is indeed horrible. I run into kids who have just graduated who can barely write a complete sentence without mispelling something or engage in intermediate algebra.

We’ll have to agree to disagree then, regarding whether economic inequality is a chief cause of violent societies but I think there’s been enough research to confirm the correlation.

And you can’t compare the rate of technological advancements that we’ve made over the past several decades to that which we made at the beginning of the industrial revolution. That is the nature of exponential growth. Yes, we were able to bounce back when the ATM put over 250,000 bank tellers out of the job, but what about Foxconn’s plan to replace 1 million production jobs with fully automated robots? There comes a point when you have to admit that job growth can’t keep up with automation anymore.

[ Edited: 15 June 2013 01:09 PM by Cloak ]
 Signature 

Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.

- Bruce Lee -

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 12:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19

Get this clear: Canada doesn’t have any significant difference in financial inequalities than the United States. We are NOT Communist, contrary to what you may be thinking. The only one thing that we have that may stereotype this image is our universal health care coverage for essential concerns. We also do not have an absolute ban on firearms or a universal registry for them. The significant difference is that the general public is not allowed to carry “assault” weapons concealed or otherwise without a permit for exceptional reasons.

I never said that you are communist or that you have an “absolute ban on firearms or a universal registry for them”. Secondly, economic equality in the US has been higher than Canada. Recent closure in the gap doesn’t change that.

Poverty is certainly an important issue to help address some of these motives. But you have to address my argument regarding the predominance of domestic violence, not crimes due to fiscal necessity, as a bigger concern that would also increase in the event that poverty all of sudden just vanished off the Earth as the more common problem to gun violence. In the meantime, reducing the capacity of domestic ownership of guns is the first, and easier step, to create desirable results.

What I’ve continuously stated is that removing guns from the possession of responsible gun-owners will further compound the issue.

Scott Mayers - 15 June 2013 11:50 AM
Cloak - 15 June 2013 11:02 AM

The UK has an abysmal violence record for a country with significantly less border problems and less access to firearms than the US. Yet, our inequality numbers are relatively similar. 

Where are you drawing these conclusions from? How do you assert these things as true?

Are you saying that the UK doesn’t have a reputation for being the most violent country in the EU?

 Signature 

Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.

- Bruce Lee -

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 01:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
LogicMan - 15 June 2013 11:27 AM
Lois - 15 June 2013 11:24 AM

Just check out the gun deaths in countries with strict gun-control laws.  They have far fewer gun deaths than the US. Why is it that in countries with gun control and fewer gun deaths hasn’t caused “a ridiculous level of inequality and border problems”?  Are Americans just more stupid than the people in all other countries with gun control laws and fewer gun deaths?  Why would the same restrictions in the US have different results than in other countries!  Are Americans just naturally more violent?  If so, that is an additional reason to have strict gun control laws. Why arm a naturally stupid and violent populace?

Criminologists have been studying this issue for years now and have mostly concluded that there is no direct relationship between gun control laws and gun violence in a society.

This is selectively picking supportive evidence for your view and than claiming that it is universal amongst all professionals. It’s not representative if even true.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 02:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
Cloak - 15 June 2013 11:16 AM

“Environmental and genetic differences would just replace itself as major causes”?

What exactly are you talking about, and why do you think it’s so constant/static?

Domestic affairs such as personal relationship struggles and problems is one example. It already is the most common concern for violence and 911 calls. If a society were all economically balanced (such as not having to worry about struggling for survival income), then their time would be more open to social concerns which means there would be an increase in problems proportionate to social issues. Thus, more domestic violence.

Differences such as your physical (genetic) appearances would have a higher impact too in causing social imbalances.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 02:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
Cloak - 15 June 2013 12:22 PM
Scott Mayers - 15 June 2013 11:50 AM
Cloak - 15 June 2013 11:02 AM

The UK has an abysmal violence record for a country with significantly less border problems and less access to firearms than the US. Yet, our inequality numbers are relatively similar. 

Where are you drawing these conclusions from? How do you assert these things as true?

Are you saying that the UK doesn’t have a reputation for being the most violent country in the EU?

You’re trying to reverse the onus of finding evidence to deny your assumption rather than providing me reason to believe you in the first place.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 02:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
Cloak - 15 June 2013 12:09 PM

People are in debt because of consumerism, a product of capitalism. The recession was caused by capitalism out of control. Wages have declined or remained stagnant because it is more profitable to keep them that way, thus capitalism.

Consumerism is a product of human nature. All people like to have goods and services. What is bad isn’t consumerism, but rather crass materialism. Wages do not decline or remain stagnant in a market economy because it is profitable to do that. Businesses have to compete and due to competition and productivity, incomes have continually increased throughout history.

Public education is indeed horrible. I run into kids who have just graduated who can barely write a complete sentence without mispelling something or engage in intermediate algebra.

I am no expert, but I think part of the problem here is the inability to discipline students these days.

We’ll have to agree to disagree then, regarding whether economic inequality is a chief cause of violent societies but I think there’s been enough research to confirm the correlation.

Why is it then that we see riots breaking out in the much more “equal” societies, such as the UK, France, Sweden, etc…over the past decade. We don’t see this happen in the supposedly much more unequal America. If one counts the 1992 Los Angeles riots, that had to do with rage on the part of blacks over the Rodney King police officers getting off, because the LAPD has a history of being racist.

The problem with arguing a “correlation” is that it ignores the other causes of violence in America and also doesn’t take into account that its measure for inequality might be completely incorrect.

And you can’t compare the rate of technological advancements that we’ve made over the past several decades to that which we made at the beginning of the industrial revolution. That is the nature of exponential growth. Yes, we were able to bounce back when the ATM put over 250,000 bank tellers out of the job, but what about Foxconn’s plan to replace 1 million production jobs with fully automated robots? There comes a point when you have to admit that job growth can’t keep up with automation anymore.

I don’t know. We’ll have to see. As said, this has been a concern since the beginning of the industrial revolution. A feature of market capitalism is creative destruction, i.e. old industries die and new industries are born.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 02:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19
Scott Mayers - 15 June 2013 02:07 PM
Cloak - 15 June 2013 11:16 AM

“Environmental and genetic differences would just replace itself as major causes”?

What exactly are you talking about, and why do you think it’s so constant/static?

Domestic affairs such as personal relationship struggles and problems is one example. It already is the most common concern for violence and 911 calls. If a society were all economically balanced (such as not having to worry about struggling for survival income), then their time would be more open to social concerns which means there would be an increase in problems proportionate to social issues. Thus, more domestic violence.

Differences such as your physical (genetic) appearances would have a higher impact too in causing social imbalances.

This is just an assertion. Many domestic affairs are the results of economic problems, so even those would reduce. What evidence do you have to support your claim that reducing violence by solving it economically would automatically cause it to increase? I’m still not convinced.

[ Edited: 15 June 2013 02:24 PM by Cloak ]
 Signature 

Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.

- Bruce Lee -

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 02:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19
Scott Mayers - 15 June 2013 02:10 PM

You’re trying to reverse the onus of finding evidence to deny your assumption rather than providing me reason to believe you in the first place.

No I’m not, I just didn’t realize that you didn’t have the ability to google it yourself. It’s not that hard to find.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1445042/Britain-the-most-violent-country-in-western-Europe.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

http://www.realnewsreporter.com/?p=11732

 Signature 

Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.

- Bruce Lee -

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 02:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2753
Joined  2011-11-04
LogicMan - 15 June 2013 11:14 AM
TimB - 14 June 2013 09:42 PM

It is true that income inequality is associated with more violence as well as a host of other health and social problems.  It is also true that higher per capita gun ownership is associated with higher rates of homicide.  If we were able to effectively address one and only one of these two problems, I would suggest that the clear choice would be to address income inequality.

BTW, countries with left-leaning legislatures tend to have less economic inequality.

There is no such thing as “income inequality.” That is just a construct ...

I don’t know why I bother to respond to some of your assinine declarations.  I guess it is that I am simply overwhelmed by the audacity of some of the statements that you come up with.  And that I am concerned as I have heard that the really big lies are the ones that people are most likely to believe.

It is a real phenomenon that wealth is becoming concentrated in the hands of a decreasing percentage of the population.  It is, also, a real phenoenon that REAL income in the US has stayed the same for 90% of the population since 1968 and that REAL income for the top 10% has tripled since the early 80’s.

It is also a real phenomena that where these disparities are increasing that social problems, health problems and violence are increasing.

Note the following from wikipedia on Income Inequality:

Among the effects of inequality researchers have found include higher rates of health and social problems, and lower rates of social goods,[83] a lower level of economic utility in society from resources devoted on high-end consumption,[84] and even a lower level of economic growth when human capital is neglected for high-end consumption.[85]...
British researchers Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett have found higher rates of health and social problems (obesity, mental illness, homicides, teenage births, incarceration, child conflict, drug use), and lower rates of social goods (life expectancy, educational performance, trust among strangers, women’s status, social mobility, even numbers of patents issued) in countries and states with higher inequality

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 02:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2240
Joined  2012-10-27
Cloak - 14 June 2013 09:13 PM
Lois - 14 June 2013 08:01 PM

Stay in Canada.

I don’t think you’re understanding my point though. If the real issue is inequality, then just trying to remove guns doesn’t solve the issue. Violence will still increase. Has not Canada enjoyed a lot more equality than the US until recent years? If so, then those numbers still support my point: inequality makes societies more violent. All this talk about guns, in my opinion, is really beside the point.

The US is one of the most stressed and unequal countries in the developed world. Violence is going to happen. Knowing this, I’d rather have something to protect my family with.

Please explain what you mean about equality increasing in Canada.

We’ve had similar rates of gun deaths in the US for decades.  Is keeping guns available to almost anyone going to fix that problem or is it likely to make it worse?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 02:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19

Consumerism is a product of human nature. All people like to have goods and services. What is bad isn’t consumerism, but rather crass materialism. Wages do not decline or remain stagnant in a market economy because it is profitable to do that. Businesses have to compete and due to competition and productivity, incomes have continually increased throughout history.

Consumerism is not a product of human nature. It’s a product of the psychological manipulation of marketing and advertising. And like I said, sure capitalism has helped in the past, but that is no longer the case. Concentration of wealth and power is always the ultimate outcome of such systems, because some people are just better than others at competing. A system that is based completely around free-trade will inevitably lead to human exploitation and social stratification.

I am no expert, but I think part of the problem here is the inability to discipline students these days.

No, it’s a combination of today’s modern public education methods being grossly outdated and the increasing focus on testing and rote memorization above all else. Even libertarians like yourself recognize this, which is why they want to privatize education as they believe it would increase efficiency.

Why is it then that we see riots breaking out in the much more “equal” societies, such as the UK, France, Sweden, etc…over the past decade. We don’t see this happen in the supposedly much more unequal America. If one counts the 1992 Los Angeles riots, that had to do with rage on the part of blacks over the Rodney King police officers getting off, because the LAPD has a history of being racist.

The problem with arguing a “correlation” is that it ignores the other causes of violence in America and also doesn’t take into account that its measure for inequality might be completely incorrect.

The reason they break out more in countries outside of America is because 1) most people in the US don’t recognize what is happening as clearly as the rest of the world does. They are still stuck arguing about secondary issues like gun control and which party is more evil. They have successfully been polarized. 2) They still believe that the “American Dream” (work hard and you’ll succeed) is still possible, and that there is some kind of way to “fix” this govt to work for them, so they choose to just wait until the next election.

And I’m not saying that inequality is the only cause. I’m saying that it is one of the chief causes for a violent society.

I don’t know. We’ll have to see. As said, this has been a concern since the beginning of the industrial revolution. A feature of market capitalism is creative destruction, i.e. old industries die and new industries are born.

That only happens when people play by the rules. Market economics is more theory than reality. If you want to see how things really work in the market, ask a professor in Business, not an economist. Market manipulation tactics are nothing more than just good business. Right now, we are watching the increasing power of monopolies, oligopolies, and cartels happen right before our eyes. You can blame govt all you want, but the reason govt doesn’t work for us is because they have also been monetized and turned into another market commodity. This is the true reality of capitalism.

[ Edited: 15 June 2013 02:51 PM by Cloak ]
 Signature 

Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.

- Bruce Lee -

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 02:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4140
Joined  2008-08-14
TimB - 15 June 2013 02:39 PM
LogicMan - 15 June 2013 11:14 AM
TimB - 14 June 2013 09:42 PM

It is true that income inequality is associated with more violence as well as a host of other health and social problems.  It is also true that higher per capita gun ownership is associated with higher rates of homicide.  If we were able to effectively address one and only one of these two problems, I would suggest that the clear choice would be to address income inequality.

BTW, countries with left-leaning legislatures tend to have less economic inequality.

There is no such thing as “income inequality.” That is just a construct ...

I don’t know why I bother to respond to some of your assinine declarations.  I guess it is that I am simply overwhelmed by the audacity of some of the statements that you come up with.  And that I am concerned as I have heard that the really big lies are the ones that people are most likely to believe.

It is a real phenomenon that wealth is becoming concentrated in the hands of a decreasing percentage of the population.  It is, also, a real phenoenon that REAL income in the US has stayed the same for 90% of the population since 1968 and that REAL income for the top 10% has tripled since the early 80’s.

It is also a real phenomena that where these disparities are increasing that social problems, health problems and violence are increasing.

Note the following from wikipedia on Income Inequality:

Among the effects of inequality researchers have found include higher rates of health and social problems, and lower rates of social goods,[83] a lower level of economic utility in society from resources devoted on high-end consumption,[84] and even a lower level of economic growth when human capital is neglected for high-end consumption.[85]...
British researchers Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett have found higher rates of health and social problems (obesity, mental illness, homicides, teenage births, incarceration, child conflict, drug use), and lower rates of social goods (life expectancy, educational performance, trust among strangers, women’s status, social mobility, even numbers of patents issued) in countries and states with higher inequality

Well done TimB!  Especially the part about the “big lies”.  Although I don’t know if “Logic"Man really believes this stuff(Kool-Aid) or if he just is a
propagator.  Who knows, it’s hard to know how people can believe all of this ideological rhetoric.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 02:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19
Lois - 15 June 2013 02:45 PM
Cloak - 14 June 2013 09:13 PM
Lois - 14 June 2013 08:01 PM

Stay in Canada.

I don’t think you’re understanding my point though. If the real issue is inequality, then just trying to remove guns doesn’t solve the issue. Violence will still increase. Has not Canada enjoyed a lot more equality than the US until recent years? If so, then those numbers still support my point: inequality makes societies more violent. All this talk about guns, in my opinion, is really beside the point.

The US is one of the most stressed and unequal countries in the developed world. Violence is going to happen. Knowing this, I’d rather have something to protect my family with.

Please explain what you mean about equality increasing in Canada.

We’ve had similar rates of gun deaths in the US for decades.  Is keeping guns available to almost anyone going to fix that problem or is it likely to make it worse?

Again, as I’ve said over and over again, placing further restrictions on responsible gun owners in a society with increasing inequality, border problems, and easy access to millions of firearms is not going to solve the problem. It is going to compound it.

And I never said that “equality is increasing in Canada”. I said that Canada’s equality levels have been higher than the US’ for decades, and that the gap/disparity is only recently starting to close.

 Signature 

Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.

- Bruce Lee -

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 5
3