|
ThirdPartyView posted:Bootstraps yourself into True Freedom by entering into indentured servitude, baby. A perfect system is one that will defend a person, should he impregnate his 12 year old masseuse, his right to tell that slut bitch and her stupid loving kid to pound dirt and kick rocks.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:51 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Yes, I do, and that's exactly my point. In the US we manage to do a pretty good job of not completely ruining the environment by having semi-effective regulation, and we put a stop to the worst offenses. In states with little or no regulation, the damage is way worse. In an ideal state, the regulation would be totally effective. In an ancap society, there would be no regulation: the rape would be at its worst and ongoing. That's not a very good point. As things stand now, anyone with political connections (or enough money to buy them) can pollute as much as they want, and you think the fact that there's a system to bribe away before polluting makes extorting everyone alright, because without it the system would not exist? You think extorting everyone is justified because *there's a chance* that the government would prevent a small company from polluting, even though the same company will be able to pollute once it grows big enough? I guess it's alright for me to take all your money then, because you *might* some day buy a gun and shoot someone! But I'm tired of arguing against all the *potential* negative consequences that you think *not* extorting mankind would cause. Let's go back to where we started, because no one answered the question: If you believe in Cause X, but your best friend doesn't, do you want him thrown in jail for not supporting the cause? The only moral and reasonable answer is "No", and once you've arrived at it, you'll have to reject governments (because you're not a complete retard and you accept that we all have the same rights, and that if violating your friend's rights is wrong, so is violating anyone else's, right?). Do you think you're a thinker? "You" as in everyone here. Do you think AnCaps are idiots and wrong about everything? -Well go ahead and call Stefan Molyneux to educate him then. He's got a call-in show twice a week, and anyone who wants to debate him gets to the front of the line. Obviously, since you're right and he's wrong, you'll have no problem beating him in a debate, right? Here you go: https://freedomainradio.com/ Somehow I suspect you don't feel like doing that.. :P Do you think Austrian economics is bullshit? -Go ahead and see for yourself then: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmT6-ChKpaiIVu2fhEIsNtQ .. They've got shitloads of material where they explain things in an easy to understand way. Go tell them why they're wrong, and why you know better. -Don't feel like doing that? :P Is it enough for you that someone declares that Austrians are idiots? Does that mean it's actually true? Or do you think you might want to see for yourself? .. Do you think you're a thinker? Here's a wild unsubstantiated claim: If you actually go through enough Austrian economics material, you'll eventually understand that governments are only harmful to the well-being of everyone on the planet, even from a purely economic standpoint (ie. disregarding the NAP altogether). Don't believe that? -Go ahead and prove me wrong then! *Think* for yourself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:You're overcomplicating things. If you're a moral person, you don't have the choice of "letting" your neighbour "choose a form of civil disobedience". If he wants to disobey the government, you have no right to prevent him, because that would require aggressing against him (ie. forcing him to obey the government). This reply still boggles my mind. It just doesn't make any sense. So if he is going to disobey the government, thereby harming me and/or others, don't I have the moral right in this libertarian fantasy world to exert force against him to protect myself? Calling the authorities does not count as aggressing against him either. "Hey, IRS. My neighbor hasn't paid taxes in ten years, and he brags about it everyday." And yes, I would encourage any person who is having second thoughts about where their taxes go to understand the full range of options, including civil disobedience, even if I don't agree with their issue. It's their right, but they need to be aware of what people who choose to do that might face. I couldn't force them to do civil disobedience, but that doesn't even make sense. In this world can neighbors be neighborly or not?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:I've already covered it. We all know aggressing against people is immoral. Stop spewing distraction bullshit. I do not actually know this. For that matter, Socrates/Plato did not claim to know this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Here's a wild unsubstantiated claim: If you actually go through enough Austrian economics material, you'll eventually understand that governments are only harmful to the well-being of everyone on the planet, even from a purely economic standpoint (ie. disregarding the NAP altogether). Don't believe that? -Go ahead and prove me wrong then! *Think* for yourself. Being a deadbeat dad is in my economic best interests.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:That's not a very good point. As things stand now, anyone with political connections (or enough money to buy them) can pollute as much as they want, and you think the fact that there's a system to bribe away before polluting makes extorting everyone alright, because without it the system would not exist?  Nobody cares about some lovely radio show you listen to or books you read. This thread is about debating libertarian ideas, so go post some. I'll start: absolute property rights are immoral because people are sentient and things aren't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:But I'm tired of arguing against all the *potential* negative consequences that you think *not* extorting mankind would cause. So you're completely uninterested in discussing reality, you don't care how your proposals will work in the real world, or whether they'll actually create a better society; because you've made an a priori moral assertion and anything that violates it is Wrong no matter the outcome. This is a religion. And that's fine, plenty of people have religions and they're a source of great spiritual comfort. But they shouldn't inform policy, no matter how much religious people want to ban gays or end public education, because policy needs to be based on what works in the real world, not what would work in a world where your religion were true. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
How are contracts signed under undue pressure or by people who can't read handled in libertopia? Like, is "I didn't realize that was in the contract until after I signed it" or "This person lied when they read the contract to me" a valid excuse? President Kucinich fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Let's go back to where we started, because no one answered the question: If you believe in Cause X, but your best friend doesn't, do you want him thrown in jail for not supporting the cause? The only moral and reasonable answer is "No", and once you've arrived at it, you'll have to reject governments (because you're not a complete retard and you accept that we all have the same rights, and that if violating your friend's rights is wrong, so is violating anyone else's, right?). Of course, I don't want him thrown in jail, but if he believes it should be legal to drive drunk, then no, I'm not getting angry at government for him being an irresponsible, vile bastard. Jail might be what he needs to understand that some of his stupid ideas can really hurt people. If he goes to jail because he was performing civil disobedience against the war in Afghanistan, I will do my part to make sure he is supported and is receiving good legal counsel. I will celebrate that he is acting with convinction. Your examples don't make any sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Just be patient for a bit, his last answer was only an hour ago. You were so right my friend. I'm sorry for ever doubting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The next day China and Russia invade the west coast. How does your society then protect itself? A free society would do their best to assassinate the invading country's psychopath leader(s), because that's the single most efficient and effective way of stopping the war. Who wants to lead a country into a war where he himself will be the opposing side's primary target? -Why that would be no one, of course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:A free society would do their best to assassinate the invading country's psychopath leader(s), because that's the single most efficient and effective way of stopping the war. Who wants to lead a country into a war where he himself will be the opposing side's primary target? -Why that would be no one, of course. What society?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Caros posted:You were so right my friend. I'm sorry for ever doubting. Sadly, I'm almost done wasting time on you all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:A free society would do their best to assassinate the invading country's psychopath leader(s), because that's the single most efficient and effective way of stopping the war. Who wants to lead a country into a war where he himself will be the opposing side's primary target? -Why that would be no one, of course. Gosh, why didn't the people of Syria think of that!? How peaceful is Libya now that Qaddafi has been assassinated? Extremely peaceful or totally peaceful? Al Queda in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan along with the Taliban halted operations on what day? President Kucinich fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:
Sorry, but you don't get to dictate the discussion just because you started losing. It doesn't work like that here! -EDIT- shiranaihito posted:A free society would do their best to assassinate the invading country's psychopath leader(s), because that's the single most efficient and effective way of stopping the war. Who wants to lead a country into a war where he himself will be the opposing side's primary target? -Why that would be no one, of course. Haha, and how do they do that, exactly? Seriously, this is just adorable. shiranaihito posted:Sadly, I'm almost done wasting time on you all. "  Stop bringing up perfectly valid criticisms against my views or else I'm gonna take my ball and go home! "You're like a stupider but more adorable Jrod. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
DP
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Sadly, I'm almost done wasting time on you all.  You're not just ideologically bankrupt, you're also a weak human being. But I repeat myself. Edit: Would you say you have a higher time preference for not being devastated by people who are politically opposed to you whom have spent a million more times thinking about your intentions than you yourself have?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
RocketLunatic posted:Of course, I don't want him thrown in jail, but if he believes it should be legal to drive drunk, then no, I'm not getting angry at government for him being an irresponsible, vile bastard. Jail might be what he needs to understand that some of his stupid ideas can really hurt people. You're conflating behaviour that poses no threat to anyone with behaviour that does. Wanting to keep your property poses no threat to anyone, but driving around drunk does. Only the latter is something that it's justified for other people to intervene in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:That's not a very good point. As things stand now, anyone with political connections (or enough money to buy them) can pollute as much as they want, and you think the fact that there's a system to bribe away before polluting makes extorting everyone alright, because without it the system would not exist? I knew it. I knew it, I knew it, I KNEW IT! Shiranaihito, are you aware you are supporting one of the worlds most vocal misogynists? A man who was a headline speaker at the first annual 'A Voice for Men' conference, who dedicates a large part of his work to demeaning and insulting women on a near daily basis? I brought it up earlier in this thread but I don't blame you for not reading through it before posting. Lets look at this for starters: quote:On Marriage: That's their entire job, 'yes' or 'no' Put some false eyelashes on, push your tits up and say yes or no. That's their loving job, yes or no. And that's the foundation of just about everything that goes on in the world, is the woman saying yes or no. quote:On Marriage again: Do you want to be this vagina parasite that inhales wallets up her cooch without even crouching? eeek, some sort of reverse vacuum cleaner that Hoovers coins out of penises? I mean that's not what you want, right? You don't want to be that! Like, we (men) don't know what it's like to get paid for having an organ. quote:On wives and children: "Well if they chose a man who's not around, then they are still responsible for that choice... the woman is the gatekeeper, because the woman is the one who suffers a lot more of the pregnancy. Historically what would hapen prior to the welfare state is the woman who got pregnant outside of wedlock... would go on vacation.. give birth to the child, the child would be given up for adoption, which was in the best interest of the child, because children who are adopted into two parent households do just fine. They do just fine relative to everybody else. quote:Stefan Molynuex about his mother:"Yes she is! That's why she's not loving DEAD now! The bond was strong enough that I didn't loving kill her, and that's my forgiveness." You ask why we don't think you are serious when this is the sort of person that you hold up as a pinnacle of your ideology? A hate speech spewing cult leader? As for his debating 'statists' on his show? I've listen to Stefan Molyneux on and off for years now. Apart from a handful of formal debates with Sam Seder and others, Molyneux does not debate people in any real sense. He invites them on his show and shouts them down, usually while calling them names.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:You're conflating behaviour that poses no threat to anyone with behaviour that does. Wanting to keep your property poses no threat to anyone, but driving around drunk does. Only the latter is something that it's justified for other people to intervene in. Why do you want to be an immoral leech and steal from the government, sucking up it's resources and all the things it provides you without paying for it in return. It's you, you're the only immoral one here. You literally want to be a professional thief.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Today I learned that a party made up of pedophiliatic deadbeat dads and unrepentant drunk drivers will stop all wars and solve the middle east crisis involving ISIS, Al Queda, and the civil war in Syria.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Sorry, but you don't get to dictate the discussion just because you started losing. It doesn't work like that here! I'm not dictating anything, I'm just withdrawing my participation. Can you tell the difference? You're free to circle jerk for 59 more pages (like you had before I came in), and no doubt you will! Who What Now posted:" Now if only you could point out how and why that's what happened. But you can't. Who What Now posted:You're like a stupider but more adorable Jrod. Somehow the fact that calling me names is not an argument just keeps eluding the folks on SA. Though to be honest, I didn't expect anyone here to be able to think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Sadly, I'm almost done wasting time on you all. Are you planning on addressing the large post wherein I point out why you are wrong, largely in polite language? Or are you just planning on coming in here, stating your case and then taking your ball and going home because of a 'tone' argument? Seriously, I'm happy to have you here. Feel free to ignore posters who insult you but be honest. If you are here to debate, then discuss the actual criticisms of your beliefs when they are presented rather than smugly state your superiority and pretend that you won an argument. Here, I'll repost the thing for you so you don't even have to go look. 30 new posts in the last 2 hours? Jrodefeld must be back!  Wait.. Who the gently caress is this guy with the vaguely japanophile name?! The gently caress is this! Where is my Jrodefeld entertainment!?  shiranaihito posted:Hi, I'm an AnCap/Voluntarist/Sane Person. This is a contradiction in terms. Sorry, I'll try to keep the Ad Hominems down to be fair but I personally believe that there is something wrong with AnCaps in the same way that there is something wrong with cult followers. I say this as a former Ancap. quote:One of your members gifted me a membership, so I figured I might as well make your brains hurt a bit. How nice of them.  quote:I'll try to keep this brief to avoid wasting way too much time. For starters, you'll find that your example is a bad one because most people in this thread or on these forums do not support the sort of foreign interventions you're talking about. Starting from a position of "Hey, what if you really loved that thing you hate" is a weird debating tactic. That said, I am not the one deciding these issues. We are. We as a society decide whether to go to war, or what have you as per the whole 'democracy' thing. quote:(Please refrain from de-railing the conversation with "externalities" etc. That's a separate issue) I'd argue it isn't but fine. quote:Now then, here's the important part: Are *you* willing to let *me*, in turn, decide how to use *my* money? Are you willing to let me *not* support the war in Afghanistan, and refrain from participating in funding it? Or do you want me to be *forced* to support it, even though I don't want to? No, I am not willing to let you decide how to distribute your taxes (or keep them however the case may be.). Apparently talking to me is now pointless, but lets assume for just a moment that we aren't writing off the 70% of the US population that thinks paying taxes is a civic duty. Because that is pretty hosed up. I also wouldn't let you choose to opt out of food stamps, or social security, or heating assistance for the poor. I'm a firm believer in a democratic society, and a democratic society in which everyone has a veto over where their taxes go leads to a stupid situation in which people pay for the things they personally want while essential programs like social security go unfunded. Before I continue, I want to clarify something. What is property to you, and how do you determine what belongs to who? To me (really to everyone) property rights are a societal creation, the same thing as money. Just like the USD is actually just a piece of paper we instill with value via an agreement between people, your property is only your property because of an agreement between people. If you own a house, you have the right to defend that house because society agrees that the house belongs to you. If you, on the other hand, simply declared that something was your property without any basis in social agreement, this would not be the case. This is true even in libertarian property systems. You might be like Jrodefeld and have a big explination as to how property is actually some universal constant because you pissed on the ground and mixed your blood with it in a voodoo ritual. But the defining factor is whether other people honor your property rights, not whatever moral reasoning you come up with to explain them. If your moral reasoning was sufficent cause for something to belong to you, then it would apply in todays situation as well, but it does not, because society does not necessarily agree with it. Since property breaks down to 'what belongs to who', and is totally at the whim of society, then society is also clearly capable of deciding that the money you pay in taxes is not actually money that belongs to you. We can decide that the government (yet another social creation, just like money or property) has a moral right to collect taxation. They might even phrase it like: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. So why do you believe that taxation is somehow exempt from this societal agreement? We make all sorts of agreements with one another, and taxation is just one of many. quote:Otherwise, we've just established you're actually an anarchist - you just didn't know it yet. You see, every single tax dollar spent means that we've been *forced* to support whatever the dollar was spent on. If you accept that we all have the right to use our property as we see fit, then you cannot support the state any longer (because the state is based on violating that right). The issue of force is another trixie little libertarian thing where you like to redefine a term to mean something it doesn't in practice. I've mentioned this a bunch in the thread, but I'll bring it up with you here. In your society, you have the right to defend your property with force. If someone steps on your land you can remove them, if they resist you can call someone to force them off. If they get violent you can kill them. Libertarians fully believe in the usage of force to protect what belongs to them. As I mentioned above however, the argument for the state is that what you see as 'theft' only works because you are attempting to redefine what belongs to whom. Under our current moral and legal framework your taxes do not belong to you. You can argue that the framework is wrong, but then the question becomes, why? Why is your moral framework somehow better than the one accepted by the vast majority of Canadians, Americans, British, French and so forth? As for your Mafia comparison. Is my condo association the mafia? They take money from me simply for owning a home inside the condo association, and they can take more or less depending on a democratic agreement between tenants. They can spend it on things I think are stupid, and I only have the say that my vote allows. You might argue that I chose to live there, but that applies to you just as well. If you argue that you were born here and thus don't have a choice, I'll go one further. What if I had a child who inherited my home after my death? They'd have all the same obligations that I have now, the condo board would legally be allowed to take money from them for owning the home. Is that theft? quote:Even sociopaths know that extortion is immoral, they just don't give a gently caress. But if you're not one, it will be clear to you that: Man, like... don't be a sheep! Free your mind! You are making a lot of assertions that are not backed up by anything except a moral view based on a priori assumptions. The problem is that your whole argument only works if we agree with those assumptions. If for example, we don't agree that Taxation is extortion because we believe in a social contract then the above reads like this: -Taxation is legal -Extortion is immoral -Governments are based on taxation (=/= extortion) -Governments are moral. You have to do better than throwing out your warped view of legality. I've told a lot of ancaps over the years that if they want any chance at EVER having their ideology taken seriously, they need to show how it would somehow be better than what we have currently. Because a moral argument based around 'CAPITALISM IS THE BEST!' isn't going anywhere. Please, tell me where I am wrong here. Make an actual argument rather than spewing talking points and telling us how we are all evil and wrong. Caros fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Is a common past-time at Valhalla DRO! President Kucinich posted:How are contracts signed under undue pressure or by people who can't read handled in libertopia? Valhalla DRO only recognizes contract signed with a blood pact.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Actually, producing anything with slave labour is massively less productive than people producing things out of their own will, pursuing their own personal gain (like we all do). This is only true if the production you're talking about is something that people will do of their own free will. Some activities are incredibly profitable but so unpleasant and/or dangerous that free laborers will avoid them. e.g. sugar/cotton/tobacco cultivation, or sex work. Also, even though slaves are theoretically less dedicated to their work, they are unable to refuse demands made of them by their owners, so in practice they can be made dramatically more productive than free laborers. Caribbean sugar plantations averaged 100% turnover in the labor force every 10 years, because they literally worked the slaves to death. This allowed them to achieve productivity that would have been flatly impossible with free labor. This was demonstrated very effectively when slavery was banned within the British Empire, and sugar cultivation in their Caribbean holdings collapsed because the labor force refused to do it, no matter the wages on offer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:I'm not dictating anything, I'm just withdrawing my participation. Can you tell the difference?  WE AREN'T ARGUING WITH YOU, WE ARE MOCKING YOU BECAUSE YOU AREN'T SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THE CRITICISMS WE HAVE.I hope this clears things up. -EDIT- Seriously, we have given you only the easiest, most softball questions and criticisms and you haven't given a single legitimate counter-argument or rebuttal. The best you've done is "nuh-uh" and "no u". Who What Now fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:I'm not dictating anything, I'm just withdrawing my participation. Can you tell the difference? So you read the thread but posted that shitheap of a post anyway? Wow, you're even more of an idiot than I thought.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:You're conflating behaviour that poses no threat to anyone with behaviour that does. Wanting to keep your property poses no threat to anyone, but driving around drunk does. Only the latter is something that it's justified for other people to intervene in. How so? Freedom to opulence and hoarding poses no threat to, say, a homeless person starving in the streets? We don't live in a world where poor people can just go outside the city and kill mobs for gold -- every parcel of land is claimed, and someone has dibs on every dollar of production.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:So you read the thread but posted that shitheap of a post anyway? Wow, you're even more of an idiot than I thought. He didn't read the thread, there was clearly only a 70% self congratulatory post and a 30% useless shitlord Ancap posting ratio.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Heavy neutrino posted:How so? Freedom to opulence and hoarding poses no threat to, say, a homeless person starving in the streets? We don't live in a world where poor people can just go outside the city and kill mobs for gold -- every parcel of land is claimed, and someone has dibs on every dollar of production. If you sheeple would only open your eyes, you'd realize that resource scarcity doesn't exist. It also helps when you automatically assume poor people aren't actually "people".
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Hey guys, stop bugging me for keeping my fertilizer warehouse near the orphanage, I'm not hurting anyone!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Caros posted:I knew it. I knew it, I knew it, I KNEW IT! Oh please. You know nothing. As I suggested in the post you're responding to, *how about just loving seeing for yourself?* Watch this and see if you still feel like calling him a misogynist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGcpdjVY1FI .. Also, I *dare* you not to laugh at his jokes. Or, again, if someone calls him a misogynist, do you think that makes it true? Do you *think*? Caros posted:You ask why we don't think you are serious when this is the sort of person that you hold up as a pinnacle of your ideology? A hate speech spewing cult leader? Oh? You must have been listening to another Stefan Molyneux then, because I've watched a shitload of his videos and have never seen what you described. And again, feel free to call him and debate him. It should be easy for you! Why would you not want to achieve such a glorious conquest? Imagine being the guy who slew the AnCap cult leader in a debate!! :P Oh but for some reason, you don't feel like doing that.. :P .. But you're right, and he's wrong. You just don't want to test that. But you're right, and you're capable of independent thought. Yes..
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:You're conflating behaviour that poses no threat to anyone with behaviour that does. Wanting to keep your property poses no threat to anyone, but driving around drunk does. Only the latter is something that it's justified for other people to intervene in. Your own goofy words - "If you believe in Cause X, but your best friend doesn't, do you want him thrown in jail for not supporting the cause?" - so we are talking about causes, right? You just moved the goalposts. But yes, if my best friend confides that he is not paying his taxes (which has happened in real life to me), I would advise him to get it sorted out with the government, or otherwise he's going to have to pay in one way or another. And I would tell him that he is reading bad websites and misguided philosophers out of touch with reality. He is a deadbeat too and a leech on society. That isn't always immoral, if you are disabled or have a good reason, but it would be in his case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Okay yeah definitely a troll.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Seriously, we have given you only the easiest, most softball questions and criticisms and you haven't given a single legitimate counter-argument or rebuttal. The best you've done is "nuh-uh" and "no u". Point to a specific "nuh-uh" of mine, tell me why it's a "nuh-uh" and tell me exactly why I'm wrong. Or admit you can't think or debate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
shiranaihito will help eliminate resource scarcity regarding non potable water and child masseuses. Praise Shiranaihito.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
I've seen that video before. I can say with 100% certainty that he is objectively a misogynist and extremely unfunny.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Oh please. You know nothing. Hey, I'm kind of bored with your smugness, do you think you could tell me about how Molyneux would allocate the electromagnetic spectrum? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Real talk; how much fracking waste water should I feed to my concubines?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:51 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Haha, and how do they do that, exactly? Pretty sure the answer is Valhalla DRO.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:31
|
|
