or the unseelie Monster Mash?

Winter's mother voiced her gloom
frozen cries rang from her tomb
whatever caused the queens amis?
"But I wrote the Unseelie Twist!"

They did the Twist,
They did the fairy twist,
The fairy twist,
Queen Mab  was really pissed,
They did the Twist
She slammed her fist,
They did the twist,
They did the fairy twise

Does that mean that Molly's lack of nookie is now considered the great hunger potato famine?

Irish historians can get surprisingly snippety about that. Whiners...

They are small potatoes. In a large close-up. *hairy eyeball*

I hate menus that do that.

Dude.  Really.  Cmon.    Youre making a big deal out of something thats small.

If I were making a big deal out of something small, I would start using provocative language, ad hominem attacks, rude capitalisation. I would stop using terms like "I believe, I feel, I think, it may be that". If I were to make a very big deal out of it, I may, possibly, even point to my sig and explicitly say it was non-applicable for this post. But it is applicable.

   You made a blanket statement that I disproved. 

Without getting into accepted standards of proof, subjectivity and relativity and such, I stated an opinion which you seem to be taking issue with. You haven't disproved as far as I can see, and although I don't think it's likely that you'll disprove it, I would like to hear, in a detailed explanation, why you disagree.

People don't use any means available to accomplish any goal. 

The word I used was "whatsoever" which is generally defined as something in the ballpark of " one or some or every or all without specification". I did not say  "all people, use every means in every case to get what they want". I have not said this, which is why you telling me that "all people use every means in every case" is not true, reads to me as a non-sequitur.

What you describe (will commit any action or use any means to accomplish any goal that strikes their fancy)

This is not what I described

is a classic sociopath.

It is. It is not, however, what I described. I was talking about psychopaths. A term which I believe has fallen into disuse among respectable psychologists, but which is usually taken to mean a person who feels little empathy for other or who enjoys making others suffer.

   Someone completely without restraint.  For them the simple fact that they CAN do something means they are entitled to do it, should they wish to.

What a sociopath appears to be.

This is not the case for normal people (ie those without a serious psychological disorder). 

While I don't agree with this, it isn't relevant to what I said, so I won't comment upon it.

However according to your logic (that people always use every available method to accomplish getting what they want)

That is almost, but not quite, exactly what I did not say.

Ive just described using all things in my power (simply taking it even though it doesn't belong to me and Ive no money to purchase it, and beating up the rightful owner when he tries to stop me) to get what I want (in this case a delicious klondike bar). 

Which is cool, but not relevant.
   

Are you seeing the problem now?

Yes. You appear not to understand the distinction between [ANY] as found in most dictionaries and [ALL] as found in most dictionaries.

You can tell by how society generally functions and doesn't revert to state of nature.  (which is kinda what youre talking about, but not really applicable if youre talking about any group of humans that exist as a society and not as individual animals beating each other with rocks for survivial.)

The existence of society is to my mind indicative of the fact the people are bastards, psychopaths, disgusting savage animals - but ones who have the rationality to agree not to kill each other because they understand that most of us can dish out much more than we can take.

People use seduction, lies, fear, suspicion etc to gain advantages. They make people feel bad, sometimes for personal gain, sometimes for nothing more than the pleasure of seeing a person cry. I think most of us are like that. Maybe you don't, do you?

Which is why I think that gaining power won't fundamentally change a person, it will simply reveal who s/he really is.

I think Harry is a person who genuinely cares about people, which is why I would not object to his acquire great power, and trust him to use it with great responsibility.

Who never uses whatsoever power they have to get what they want?

So you'd rape a woman because you desire her and you are able to physically overpower her?

Cause thats where that logic leads.    

That's quite a leap. Care to explicit your "logic" for those of us with shorter mental legs?

You quoted it and so did I:  Who would not use whatsoever power they had (like say physical strength) to get what they want (sex with a particular woman.)?

Yep, it had been posted twice and you still failed to understand.

Who never uses whatsoever power they have to get what they want.
Who never uses whatsoever power they have to get what they want.
Who never uses whatsoever power they have to get what they want.
Who never uses whatsoever power they have to get what they want.

The word WHATSOEVER puts no limits on means. The phrase "what they want" puts no limits on certain outcomes.    That means you could use any means to achieve any goal (in this instance physical strength to force sexual intercourse).
Thats the problem with making absolute statements.  I have yet to see one that fits every situation (doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but I haven't seen it)

Indeed.

We don't even have to use rape as an example if it makes you uncomfortable.  

I don't see any need to further complicate things. Let's stick with your rape example.

So. How does "logic" lead you from "Who never uses..." to me being a rapist? And how would me being a rapist change the validity of my belief that people are already savage animals, that giving one power through a Darkhallow would fundamentally change their nature?

well, sir or madam, or like neuro singular they, I'd say you are atypical of the human experience. 

I wouldn't. People enjoy destruction. They love walking in fresh snow, sitting in new cars, biting into whole apples, because the supposed untaintedness, the wholeness give them a little warm fuzzy feeling to know that they have the privilege of destroying it.

What child doesn't love winning?

Who never uses whatsoever power they have to get what they want?

the lionshare are though.   its a fairly descriptive term for someone who would use violence and terrible power for no other reason than using it gives them a swollen..... ego.   
Which is what an unrestrained deity level power with a human mind would end up at.

That would describe most people as far as I can see. The only difference seems to be in the power held.

We all know Molly has the hots for Harry, but that would be a really REALLY long time to wait for some action.

Also, Molly use pure human, with no fae in her blood. I don't believe it's possible to become fae either.

Traditionally the Daoine Sidhe are just people that hid themselves from sight and who eventually became fairies.