|
SedanChair posted:Correct, because without them these bigoted nerd scientists would never have been able to figure it out. They'd be criticizing Arabs for not praying to Jupiter and blaming their lack of belief in Jupiter for suicide bombings. They're joiners with simple minds. I was being sarcastic and you know it, and you're being obtuse to my point. One of the most obvious components of New Atheism, if we can agree on any in this thread, is that it is largely responsible for popularizing atheism for this and future generations. Much of what we now take for granted as "textbook" atheistic thought, nowadays, has been spread by these guys. It becomes difficult to say "Well of course water is wet" when people quote from the works of the vanguard of the New Atheist movement, because it is the same movement which is largely responsible for the flourishing and public engagement of these ideas.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
They've popularized a new cover for bigotry, that's all. Their followers are no better informed, smarter or more rational than religious believers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:I was being sarcastic and you know it, and you're being obtuse to my point. One of the most obvious components of New Atheism, if we can agree on any in this thread, is that it is largely responsible for popularizing atheism for this and future generations. Absolutely not. People like Dawkins have turned atheism into a bad joke. The only thing they are responsible for is the birth of the fedora-tipping atheist douchebag and the subsequent memes mocking them. They have done more harm than good in promoting atheism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Do you disagree that religion has been a core component of tradition, culture and society for thousands of years; the very same three things which drive human social development? When a child is born, are they born as homophobes or are they socialized into being them? Religion may affect behavior but not necessarily and sometimes the effects are not bad. Someone who considers themselves religious but doesn't take scripture literally probably won't become homophobic because of their religion - and even then some devout Christians are not homophobic. The OP took the effort to make this thread specifically about New Atheists rather than "atheists". The distinction is important because you can't say anything about atheists - apart from them not beveling in a God - just like it's meaningless to talk generally about religious people or theists. Your objection relates to fundamentalism or toxic religion or whatever label people prefer. It's not a semantic detail - it's a completely different discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Let me try and simplify it for you, then: what is the objective, scientific definition of a perfectly good and perfectly bad world? I already stated this. Worst World: A world where as many people as possible suffer as much as humanly possible for as long as humanly possible. Best World: The exact loving opposite.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Absolutely not. People like Dawkins have turned atheism into a bad joke. The only thing they are responsible for is the birth of the fedora-tipping atheist douchebag and the subsequent memes mocking them. They have done more harm than good in promoting atheism. This is all ~~in your opinion~~ bullshit. The fact that we're even here discussing this topic is testament to the rhetorical traction and media attention that New Atheism has garnered for atheistic thought. Your denial of this is yet another point on your pile of shitposts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Yes, it was those thinkers from millennia ago who are to thank for the saturation of atheist ideology in contemporary media. I mean I would have said that was Capitalism more than anything but that's just me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:I already stated this. And how do you prove this is the worst possible world scientifically?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:This is all ~~in your opinion~~ bullshit. It's also ~~in your opinion~~ that Dawkins, Harris, and the rest are anything other than bigots who aren't half as smart as they think they are. The difference between us is that my opinion is right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And how do you prove this is the worst possible world scientifically? Try describe to me a world which is worse than this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And how do you prove this is the worst possible world scientifically? You're posting in it. Just kidding, but seriously now, everyone's acting like dicks, over-simplifying society. We're a very complex species with extremely complex interactions. You really can't boil it all down into a post. For all our complaining however, look at how we lived in the past and how we live now - life as a human is pretty drat sweet. Sure, there's a lot of bad bad awful stuff, but we'll get there, baby steps. And "baby steps" doesn't mean "destroy all religion" by the way, deep down what you want to solve is the communication problem that we humans have, which is as old as our species. It is a problem of selfishness and otherizing. It's a problem of barriers between individuals. Rakosi posted:Try describe to me a world which is worse than this. Oh come on now, you're being silly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Oh come on now, you're being silly. No, I'm really not. I'm arguing in good faith. The point of the definition of the worst possible world, that I gave, is that there cannot rhetorically be a worse world than that, which is not covered by the definition i gave.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Try describe to me a world which is worse than this. Don't try and shift the burden of proof, kiddo. You made the positive claim, you support it with evidence. The argument from ignorance isn't going to help you here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I asked the same thing and I'm really curious whether he backpedals or doubles down. This has been addressed well enough by other posters; I want to go at this from a different angle though. Let's say there was some fact we discovered that was really uncomfortable and controversial - I dunno, let's say we can scientifically prove that women are worse drivers than men. We design the experiment, control for other variables, duplicate it many times. Let's even say we got to the root cause, that it's something to do with diminished activity or size in area of the brain responsible for spatial reasoning or reaction time or something. The point is we establish it as indisputable fact. How would you want that fact expressed so as to be non-controversial? Obviously something stupidly provocative like "Headline: Those Dumb Bitches are lovely Drivers, Like We Men Always Knew" wouldn't work. Something on the other end, like "In repeated experiments a correlational relation between the relative sizes in the such-and-such cortex between the studied species of male and female humans provides statistical data concerning the matter of blah blah blah..." is also a little unworkable, as it's so bogged down with jargon as to be indecipherable. "Women aren't as good at driving as men" comes off as a little blunt. So how could I possibly form that sentence to get you to not react with immediate disgust, but to not only understand precisely what is being said, but also take it into serious consideration? Anos posted:Religious belief doesn't necessarily affect behavior. Most, if not all, religious institutions clearly seek to control behavior. How can you type those two sentences back to back and not realize they are incompatible? Religion doesn't affect behavior, but it affects behavior in a certain way? I think if your point was to distinguish "personal belief" from "preached doctrine", the point is really moot - either one is precisely the thing New Atheists rail against, and often the latter leads to the former. OwlFancier posted:Yes faith is not rational. You don't need to write a book to say that. In 2004 you did, and pointing it out got a significant number of religious people to realize it and also realize they had a problem with it. Religious people, even ones that claim to believe "on faith", always have something they think constitutes proof, even if it's just a vague "good feeling" in church. We all want to have good reasons for what we think. Woozy posted:Okay let's do this instead. Suffering rocks! It owns! I love suffering. You are wrong because suffering is by definition something unwanted. You are probably confusing this with, say, pain, and asking: what if I'm a masochist? Well then "pain" is not "suffering" for you. Claiming to have found a form of suffering you enjoy is like claiming you have found a tall thing which is short. One thing you might legitimately criticize Harris for is his heavy reliance on thought experiment to explore his arguments. This isn't illegitimate, say, but possibly annoying on the part of the reader. But responding to philosophical thought experiment meant to establish a framework with "you can't prove this because there are no 'evil' particles" is missing the point so broadly I'm surprised you're still on the same planet. SedanChair posted:Gee how did we ever decide suffering was bad for anyone to experience, and not just people who weren't slaves and gladiators? It must have been some form of proto-science. I think you're agreeing with me on the above point. Woozy posted:You're doing the same thing he is, which is utterly failing to understand the actual enormity of the is-ought gap. The question isn't merely difficult, its non-sensical. Your best and worst possible worlds are populated by value judgments about this one. Harris goes to great lengths to address this. He makes the point that value judgments lie at the heart of every discipline without the same scrutiny having to be applied to them by those that doubt moral reality. Like, in physics, there is a value placed on evidence and observation. No one ever claims to be a physical relativist by asking for proof that proof is valuable, or if there are (I can just feel the Wiki link to the one exception incoming), they are laughed out of the room. The idea that morality relates to the continuum of human and animal suffering and wellbeing relies on similar "value judgments" (e.g. "suffering is bad") that are bizarrely subject to criticisms ("oh yeah? Well what if I say....IT ISN'T???") that would be nonsensical in any other field of discourse. If you don't think suffering is bad, I invite you to prove it. And I don't mean, "well, it led to something good later", I mean the suffering itself, in the moment, as it is still happening. If you're willing to bite the bullet here and say "fine, I discard the value axioms of morality, as well as all other scientific disciplines", then I guess you've just discovered nihilism, but I wonder how you can move in this world while asking questions like, "what if my concept of being healthy is bleeding profusely from infected open wounds??"
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Don't try and shift the burden of proof, kiddo. You made the positive claim, you support it with evidence. The argument from ignorance isn't going to help you here. The proof is that it is literally impossible to describe a worse possible world that what I gave. Try it, and you'll get your proof.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:This has been addressed well enough by other posters; I want to go at this from a different angle though. Let's say there was some fact we discovered that was really uncomfortable and controversial - I dunno, let's say we can scientifically prove that women are worse drivers than men. We design the experiment, control for other variables, duplicate it many times. Let's even say we got to the root cause, that it's something to do with diminished activity or size in area of the brain responsible for spatial reasoning or reaction time or something. The point is we establish it as indisputable fact. Woah, back up there buckaroo, what experiments did Harris do that proves scientifically that Jews are partially responsible for the holocaust? Because the problem with what he said isn't just that it's victim blaming but also that it's completely baseless, so it can't be compared to your example of women conclusively having been proved to be worse drivers. So this is an atrociously bad comparison.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:The proof is that it is literally impossible to describe a worse possible world that what I gave. Try it, and you'll get your proof. Again, the argument from ignorance isn't valid evidence. Come on, sport, I bet if you try real hard with the Ol' thinker you can come up with something to support your case!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:In 2004 you did, and pointing it out got a significant number of religious people to realize it and also realize they had a problem with it. Religious people, even ones that claim to believe "on faith", always have something they think constitutes proof, even if it's just a vague "good feeling" in church. We all want to have good reasons for what we think. No you didn't, secularity did not start when The God Delusion was published and it will not rule supreme because of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:The proof is that it is literally impossible to describe a worse possible world that what I gave. Try it, and you'll get your proof.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Let me go ahead and respond to the OP since it struck me as having value. It may have been revealed as a stalking horse for "how can we be polite about calling Islam a subhuman ideology" but let me put that to the side. Thanks for participating, but please stop this thinly-veiled-high-five thing where you go "well, everyone's probably right that the OP is a bad person, haha just wanted to make sure everyone knew I thought that before commenting because otherwise they might jump down my throat too". Just say what you intend to say. Oh, and also: that is not what it was, thank you for once again conflating "this ideology may have some ill effects" with "the people that practice the ideology should be subjugated because I hate them". quote:Religious expression is only a reflection of what is inside of people already. If you're inhumane, you'll participate in the inhumane forms and aspects of religion. If you value human rights, you'll gravitate towards the religious teachings and practices which have been developed to promote human rights. It's no different than politics, and to lots of people nowadays the feelings they get from politics and religion are probably the same. I think that's naive bullshit. Are you trying to say people would already go to church, so they find the religion that goes to church? That they'd already abstain from premarital sex, so they find the religion that preaches against premarital sex? Why would any believer ever struggle to "follow God's laws" if God's laws are just the things they liked to do already anyway? Why is it so easy to admit that a belief like "my house is on fire" will directly result in a person's actions, but a belief like "God exists and wants me to do X" never affects behavior at all, nope, no one is ever motivated to do anything on this basis, it's just a reflection of what they wanted to do already? Do beliefs have consequences, and if so, why are religious beliefs exempt from this causal relation? Please answer this, because the thousand times I've asked it so far it's gone unanswered.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Again, the argument from ignorance isn't valid evidence. Come on, sport, I bet if you try real hard with the Ol' thinker you can come up with something to support your case! Er, where is the ignorance. I gave you the definition but for some reason you aren't accepting it. Here it is again, the worst possible world: quote:A world where as many people as possible suffer as much as humanly possible for as long as humanly possible. You are attempting, badly, to dodge even engaging in the definition I've given you. You are asking me for an example of the worst possible world and I have given you one sentence which covers it without using integers like "bad +1". This is provably, in every possible domain of discourse, the worst possible world able to be described in English. There is no argument from ignorance going on here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
twodot posted:I hereby declare that the world you and I exist in is worse than your hypothetical worst world. Through what evidence can you prove me wrong? Because I look around at the world and I can prove to you that it is not a world where the most amount of people suffer as much as they can for as long as they can- Me and my family being happy is not the most amount of people suffering as much as humanly possible. The words were chosen carefully so that, in English, it is difficult if not impossible to actually describe a worse possible world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Woah, back up there buckaroo, what experiments did Harris do that proves scientifically that Jews are partially responsible for the holocaust? Because the problem with what he said isn't just that it's victim blaming but also that it's completely baseless, so it can't be compared to your example of women conclusively having been proved to be worse drivers. So this is an atrociously bad comparison. I am not saying these are analogous. I am asking a different question. You know this. Stop dodging difficult topics. OwlFancier posted:No you didn't, secularity did not start when The God Delusion was published and it will not rule supreme because of it. Compare American society in the 80s with regards to religion and American society in the 2010s and ask yourself if they are different. You know you are oversimplifying the point by paraphrasing what I said to "secularity started with the God Delusion", so stop it. It's really easy to disagree with someone's position when you excise any nuance from it and end up with a stupid statement that is obviously untrue. twodot posted:I hereby declare that the world you and I exist in is worse than your hypothetical worst world. Through what evidence can you prove me wrong? The fact that you are incorrect? "Prove to me that this green thing is not red". Hmm gee you sure got me there, better get the beakers out to disprove something that is best answered by "it isn't".
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:The proof is that it is literally impossible to describe a worse possible world that what I gave. Try it, and you'll get your proof. I'm starting to wonder if you know what the scientific method is. There is no way to use science to say that suffering is worse than its absence. Our classification of suffering as bad comes from the way it makes us feel. Many societies have prospered, and this one prospers, with a clear distinction between those who should be protected from suffering and those whose lot it is to suffer so that others can live comfortable lifestyles. You and I have decided this is repugnant, but it wasn't science that led us to this, it was the legacy of humanism, strongly influenced by the message of Jesus. GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I think that's naive bullshit. Are you trying to say people would already go to church, so they find the religion that goes to church? That they'd already abstain from premarital sex, so they find the religion that preaches against premarital sex? Why would any believer ever struggle to "follow God's laws" if God's laws are just the things they liked to do already anyway? Why is it so easy to admit that a belief like "my house is on fire" will directly result in a person's actions, but a belief like "God exists and wants me to do X" never affects behavior at all, nope, no one is ever motivated to do anything on this basis, it's just a reflection of what they wanted to do already? Do beliefs have consequences, and if so, why are religious beliefs exempt from this causal relation? Please answer this, because the thousand times I've asked it so far it's gone unanswered. Stated beliefs are nothing more than a cover for our animal instincts. Within Christianity you have Fred Phelps and Martin Luther King Jr. Within Islam you have ISIS and the Zakat Foundation. In those places where ISIS is operating, there are always civilians who deplore their actions and cite verses to show their hypocrisy. Most religions are broad enough to encompass the entire spectrum of human values, and people segregate themselves to different points on that spectrum. Do they teach their children humanity or brutality using religious frameworks? Of course. But to get hung up on the religion itself is foolish. They'd be deploring gays and beheading people, or housing the homeless and building schools, with different frameworks. What really drives people is individual relationships.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Because I look around at the world and I can prove to you that it is not a world where the most amount of people suffer as much as they can for as long as they can- Me and my family being happy is not the most amount of people suffering as much as humanly possible. edit: And look, I'm not even bothering to ask you to define suffering in a universal way, the problems here should be obvious. twodot fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jul 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:No, I want to hear more about how you got "literal evil particles" from what Sam Harris said. Don't dodge. There's no dodge.? Answer the question. What observable phenomenon, which exists and will continue to exist long after any subjective interpretation of its existence, provides us with the insight that lets us claim "suffering is wrong" and also be describing a truth? Uroboros posted:I honestly don't get how the first quote is so contentious and how it leads to such an utter pile of drivel that is the second quote. Might as well just quit my job at the Division of Public health, who am I to say clean drinking water leads to greater human happiness, I'm just pulling it out my rear end! You should absolutely quit your job as a philosopher because "greater human happiness" is no more an objective or empirical moral goal than "everything should suffer and bleed all the time". All three of you are pulling the same poo poo. First you project your own values onto the world without so much as an argument, declare them "universal", and then go on to conflate objectivity and universality without ever realizing you've uttered something controversial.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Er, where is the ignorance. You are saying "I can't think of a worse definition, ergo one does not exist". It's exactly the same as saying "I can't think of an answer besides 'God did it', ergo God did it". Shocking that you so easily use the same arguments you wouldn't accept from a theist. Almost like there's not much difference between you and them... GAINING WEIGHT... posted:I am not saying these are analogous. I am asking a different question. You know this. Stop dodging difficult topics. Ok, then I don't give a gently caress about your new topic, because you're pretty blatantly asking this new question for no other reasons than to try to move away from admitting you agree the Jews were partially responsible for the Holocaust.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:You are wrong because suffering is by definition something unwanted. You are probably confusing this with, say, pain, and asking: what if I'm a masochist? Well then "pain" is not "suffering" for you. Claiming to have found a form of suffering you enjoy is like claiming you have found a tall thing which is short. This is a deeply unscientific description of suffering. Again, look at how the value (unwanted) is already embedded in the "fact" from which this version of morality appears to spring. Once again, it's not merely hard to find moral claims that everyone would agree with. That's not even the bar! The problem is to find moral claims which would be true even if there were no one around to agree with them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:The fact that you are incorrect? "Prove to me that this green thing is not red". Hmm gee you sure got me there, better get the beakers out to disprove something that is best answered by "it isn't".
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'm starting to wonder if you know what the scientific method is. There is no way to use science to say that suffering is worse than its absence. Our classification of suffering as bad comes from the way it makes us feel. Many societies have prospered, and this one prospers, with a clear distinction between those who should be protected from suffering and those whose lot it is to suffer so that others can live comfortable lifestyles. You and I have decided this is repugnant, but it wasn't science that led us to this, it was the legacy of humanism, strongly influenced by the message of Jesus. Your comment that science cannot say that suffering is worse than its absence is contentious, to say the least. Where do you even get that from? Are you asking me to prove a negative? Linguistically (a science!) there is no better way to describe the worst possible world than the definition I gave. What exactly do you want as prove? I have been asked to set down goal posts on the worst possible, and best possible worlds. I did so, and I feel like no one has yet offered better goal posts so far. So, why is the conversation still being stalled? twodot posted:But I think human suffering is good, so the fact that this world has less human suffering is just more evidence this world is worse than your hypothetical. I directly desire you and your family to not be happy. But I don't, so it's still not even close to the worse possible world, let alone exceeding it. Are you even reading what I wrote? "The most amount of people" allows for psychologically hosed up people that you are representing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Your comment that science cannot say that suffering is worse than its absence is contentious, to say the least. Where do you even get that from? Are you asking me to prove a negative? No, I'm asking you to use science instead of jabbering and "this is what it is because it is what it is." It's your job to figure out how to provide a scientific proof that suffering is better than its absence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No, I'm asking you to use science instead of jabbering and "this is what it is because it is what it is." Uhhh. Science usually waits for someone to come along with a better idea or disprove it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
You haven't even presented a hypothesis to be tested.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Uhhh. Science usually waits for someone to come along with a better idea or disprove it. Actually science does its own legwork. You're thinking of lazy shits who's only interaction with science is liking "I loving Love Science" on Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:But I don't, so it's still not even close to the worse possible world, let alone exceeding it. Are you even reading what I wrote? "The most amount of people" allows for psychologically hosed up people that you are representing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Technically a definition of a worse possible world would be "Like Rakosi's definition, but worse".
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
Woozy posted:
This statement is utter nonsense and clearly demonstrates you have no clue what is being said. Are you saying there are no clearly right or wrong ideas when comes to the well being of humans? Because if that is the case this conversation is done, because you're insane. I'd simply ask how you make value judgements day to day when comes to determining right and wrong, but I assume the answer is you flip a coin like loving two face.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You haven't even presented a hypothesis to be tested. Yes I loving have, hahahah. For the third time. "A world where as many people as possible suffer as much as humanly possible for as long as humanly possible." as a definition of the worst possible world. There is no possible expression to describe a worst possible world. Either you, or Who Not Now or twodot either gives one or they shut the gently caress up and we can move the conversation on to the point that was being made?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Harris goes to great lengths to address this. He makes the point that value judgments lie at the heart of every discipline without the same scrutiny having to be applied to them by those that doubt moral reality. Like, in physics, there is a value placed on evidence and observation. No one ever claims to be a physical relativist by asking for proof that proof is valuable, or if there are (I can just feel the Wiki link to the one exception incoming), they are laughed out of the room. The idea that morality relates to the continuum of human and animal suffering and wellbeing relies on similar "value judgments" (e.g. "suffering is bad") that are bizarrely subject to criticisms ("oh yeah? Well what if I say....IT ISN'T???") that would be nonsensical in any other field of discourse. If you don't think suffering is bad, I invite you to prove it. And I don't mean, "well, it led to something good later", I mean the suffering itself, in the moment, as it is still happening. Oh please lol. He goes to some lengths to mention it while never once showing any indication that he understands why its a problem. Is the argument here really "it's unfair to hold us to a high standard of proof for outrageous claims?" Look its one thing to think you'll just get away with reducing the entire normative world to questions about ~suffering~, but your very next move can only be to fart and shrug at questions of how to populate the world of the suffering without the benefit of subjectivity. I mean presumably it just doesn't strike you as controversial when Harris breaks out the highlight reel of Muslim crimes against humanity to constitute the meaning of suffering because you agree with him. What options are available to those who don't already think like he does? This is the sort of dispute anything called science would ordinarily have some power to arbitrate. Woozy fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Jul 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:13 |
|
|
Rakosi posted:Yes I loving have, hahahah. Who What Now posted:Technically a definition of a worse possible world would be "Like Rakosi's definition, but worse". There you go, champ.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 17:51
|
|