|
You don't even need to brainwash people to go to war, simple logic and a sense of self-preservation is all that is needed. Lets take a look at two hypothetical DROs and what they offer as they have been presented in this very thread; The Jrodefeld & Mutato United DRO Cost: Between 10.00-8000.00$Goldbux$/month, price due to fluctuate with market forces. Offers: -Will write up and/or review any and all contracts the client enters into. The DRO holds the ability to reject contracts brought forward for review, and if the client persists in signing anyway they shall be dropped immediately. Contract sessions cost between 1.00-50.00$Goldbux&/half hour. -Will arbitrate between any two clients within J&MU DRO. All decisions final and are only subject to third party review at client's expense. Arbitration sessions cost between 5.00-200.00$Goldbux&/half hour. -Will set up arbitration with a third party DRO for all disputes between J&MU DRO clients and clients of any other DRO. Costs for the third party arbitration are split between the clients, J&MU DRO assumes no liability for costs or losses from arbitration ruling. FInders fee of 3.00-75.00$Goldbux$. -Will, in very specific cases, send a Dispute Officer to the client's premises to arbitrate between a client and trespasser. One time fee of $80.00$Goldbux$ minimum, cost due to other fees as needed. -Allows you to purchase food, shelter, be employed, travel, and overall function in society. This luxury is free to the client by of the grace and goodwill of J&MU DRO. Hm. Ok, that seems all right I suppose. Could be fairly cheap, could be incredibly pricey, as determined fairly by market forces. But let's take a look at Valhalla DRO. Valhalla DRO Cost: 50.00$Goldbux$, or the head of a rival DRO officer, presented to your local Jarl. An oath of honor and fealty also required. Offers: -As much free meat as you can eat and mead you can drink. -Free shelter and clothing. -Any and all arms and armor as produced by our own gunsmiths and engineers and/or scrounged from the dead. -Glory and honor as our master strategists lead you into battle. Being lead into battle may be mandatory if a minimum of volunteers do not step forward. -All the goods and riches as you can carry after every battle. -A sense of comradery and community as you forge everlasting friendships, find love, and even raise a family in our ultra-safe Longhouse™ Compounds, which keep you safe from any weaker cowardly DROs that dare challange the might of Valhalla! Note, patrolling the outer wall or surrounding areas is highly encouraged, and not only keeps your friends and family safe, but nets a 10.00$Goldbux$/hr salary. Sign up today! Well drat. I know which one I'm joining!
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
zeal posted:A business model pioneered by Marcus Licinius Crassus, one of Julius Caesar's fellow triumvirs and his day's richest man in Rome. There was no organized fire brigade in Rome during the Republic and Crassus, as a truly innovative entrepreneur, saw a market ripe for exploitation. When fire broke out in private property within the city he'd roll up with a work gang of his own slaves and offer to put out the fire--for a negotiated fee, of course. Given their dire straits Crassus's clients often found the invisible hand of the market setting that fee extremely high, but that's just economics for you. If they refused he'd leave and take his slaves with him, and usually bought up the destroyed property on the cheap days later. Wasn't he accused of starting some of those fires too?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Actually, there's another question. How do I sue my DRO if I believe it hasn't lived up to its end of the bargain? It's obviously not going to represent me, and is another DRO really going to be eager to sign on a customer that's already shown himself to be difficult and a liability risk? And even if they would, could I get reasonable rates now that I have a "pre-existing condition" (ie, a well-funded private army that wants to head off future betrayals by its customers by "making an example" of me?) Kill your attackers and offer their weapons as a show of good faith to the local Jarl and not only shall you be protected but we will promise that you will live to piss upon the corpses of those who sought to do you harm as their DRO headquarters burn to the ground around them. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
The whole libertarian ideal of the NAP is completely unworkable because human nature is a thing that exists. If we were all enlightened pacifists or beep-boop robots then that'd be a completely different story, but we aren't. Even if only 1 out of 10 people is a violent person, those people are going to band together and run roughshod over the rest. To avoid this more people who wouldn't normally be violent will join them and then you begin having in-group and out-group mentalities which makes it trivially easy to convince people to commit violence on the outgroup. You don't need brainwashing or cult indoctrination, all you need to do is convince people that this other group is not as good and deserving of what they have as our group. And that's a thing all humans do all the time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Even if history weren't a vast and ancient conspiracy by statists to deny revealed truths, it still wouldn't matter because Hey now, that's not fair. Jrod is perfectly willing to be convinced, remember? jrodefeld posted:This is not a court of law. This is a casual discussion and debate. I don't require peer reviewed empirical studies, I would instead be quite satisfied with logical arguments that are consistent and rationally defended. We just haven't been consistent or have rationally defended our positions. Unlike Jrod who has consistently and rationally asserted that he is right and we are wrong and that it's simply obvious. So obvious he doesn't ever need to give specific examples. And he has no end of articles that he can post in full so he doesn't even need to do any sort of thinking for himself. I mean, we can't expect him to have to fully defend his own view points in his own words, the poor thing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That is probably as much of a walkback as I've ever seen, well done jrodefeld! You'll be a real anarchist in no time. A world where one is not judged for the sex, or their creed, or the color of their skin, but on whether or not they can hit a rival DRO agent from 200 yards. -EDIT- VVVVVVVV Yeah, we realize that. That's what makes post-DRO tribal fiction so compelling; its but the most entertaining and most likely scenario to arise in their worldview. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You can just stop right there. Non-traditional gender or skin color is all by itself an aggression against a Hoppean Libertarian covenant community, and the local Ko-operative Kovenant Kommunity DRO already has the right to use retaliatory force to enslave or kill this thing in self-defense just for showing its face, before it ever took a single dollar from a rich man. Does driving down property values constitute an initiation of force? Ha, what am I thinking, of course it does, so the Ko-Operative Kovenant Kommunity DRO is not only morally justified in what they are doing, but are justified in doing it preemptively.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:So does that mean if I made my Knights Templar DRO, and some of my customers decided to take up residence in Jerusalem, the holiest of Christian cities, my DRO could preemptively stop all those infidels there from lowering the property value of my client's homes (as we all know, infidels lack the moral guidance that being a Christian offers us, and so they cannot be trusted to not start murdering and stealing from my God fearing clients) by forcibly removing the offending infidels from Jerusalem? That would be a good start, but I'm worried the presence of infidels in Bethlehem might also drive down my clients property values, or at least the values would be higher if my clients felt safe from being assaulted* by infidels as they visited more of the holy lands... Yes, but then you have to worry about Templar DRO coming after you.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
"Of course you think that the sky is blue, because you were told that it was blue in a State-run school. The State has a strong incentive to indoctrinate people to believe that the sky is blue instead of orange."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Then let's suppose I had a legal dispute with a company who was represented by a bought and paid for corrupt DRO. However, MY DRO was no corrupt since I would only be paying for representation by a DRO that I felt was impartial and fair. If I was innocent of any wrongdoing, then presumably my fair and impartial DRO would find me innocent while the corrupt DRO representing the large business would find me guilty. Since this can happen, it would be stipulated in our contract with the DRO that in the event of such a case, a private independent third party arbitrator would step in and decide who was right. Each client of a DRO would already agree to the third party arbitrator and have ensured that they are fair and unbiased. Given that fact, the third party arbitrator would likely find me innocent if I had done nothing wrong and the corrupt bought off DRO would have no power over me. Unless, of course, the third-party arbitrator is also bought and paid for by the corrupt DRO without you knowing about it. And this also assumes that your own DRO wouldn't be bribed to throw you under the bus. Hell, it assumes that you know that the corrupt DRO is corrupt in the first place. How would you know this? The DRO is certainly not going to advertise this, and it will also go to great lengths to ensure that people do not slander their name. You're falsely assuming a perfect set of knowledge, which you don't even have now. You will almost certainly not have near as much knowledge in your own system. -EDIT- Actually, I don't think you've ever addressed this, and I think it's important.  Jrod, how do you get information about companies that you choose to do business with in your ideal society? How can you verify that these sources are accurate and correct?
Who What Now fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I don't assume regulations are the source of all evil. The initiation of violence, however, is immoral. State imposed regulations on the private economy are immoral because they necessitate the use of coercion. Even when the State is legitimately punishing someone who has violated the rights of another, they have to use coercion to confiscate the property of others through taxation to finance the police action. All of this is nothing but trite, meaningless garbage. No one cares what these people think or what they have to say. We only care about what you think and what you have to say. If you cannot think for yourself or articulate your beliefs in your own words then what are you doing here? If all you're interested in doing is the internet equivalent of Jehovah's Witnesses going door to door handing out copies of The Watchtower then why they hell don't you actually print out Mises.org articles and hand them out at street corners for real? You'd at least be much more intellectually honest in that endeavor, unlike here.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:This is so stupid. How do you think the rich get rich? The unjust rich are those that use the power of the State to expropriate the citizens, while the just rich are those who trade voluntarily on the market and satisfy consumers. There is no such thing as a "just" rich person. All the rich, without fail, got to where they are by unjustly stealing and exploiting from as many people as they could. One cannot both be moral and wealthy, and that you in fact equate the two as being inseparable shows your own morality is naive at best and much more likely repugnant at worst.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:That is a very good question. For a DRO it would be very easy. All their decisions and verdicts would be publicly available. Not only because the DRO themselves would want to make their record available (who would want to be a client of a DRO who hides their past verdicts?) but also because the clients of a DRO would tell others about their treatment. They would especially be vocal if they felt they were wronged and treated unfairly. I'm sure there would be websites that rank DROs and compare their track record for just verdicts. And what if I don't want my DRO to publicly broadcast the cases they take on my behalf? Does the concept of privacy of information not exist in your stateless society? Of course it doesn't, you've admitted as much before. quote:I also suspect that there will be a possibility of appeal. If you felt your verdict was unfair you could appeal to another private arbitrator who was not connected with the DRO that rendered the verdict. If they overturned the previous verdict you would clear your name and the reputation of the DRO would be damaged. But it would cost more for you and the punishment or fine you make could escalate if you are found guilty again, since you would be drawing out the process. And so once again the wealthy could just bribe the second third-party arbitrator, and not only will I be out whatever that arbitrator charged me out of pocket, but now I also run the risk of making my punishment even worse. How can you type this and not immediately realize how psychotic this sounds? quote:Why would you assume that I would have less knowledge in a free society? You realize you are talking about the State, which is the most private and secretive institution on the planet, which routinely hides relevant information from the public. They are not exactly volunteering information to the people that they need to make informed decisions. Because without the State there is no meaningful age of information, you moron. Net Neutrality would be completely and utterly eradicated in your society. This would effectively mean that any sort of replacement Market-Net programs will not allow free access to put information on it's service nor would it be cheap to view such information. Do you know what it took to make the Internet as you know it? The amount of money and effort went into laying the foundation for it? You don't just get to keep that foundation for convenience's sake in your world; that's bullshit. Your new society needs to lay brand new cables, find some way to standardize it across the continent, build cells towers, make sure that their frequencies don't interfere with one another, all of that from scratch. Do you have any idea what an undertaking that would be? So no, you don't just get to say "I'll look it up on the Internet", because that is closer to a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument than you've ever claimed; that just because easy access to information is available now does not mean that it will exist in your future society. So do some actual intellectual legwork here and think about this without a bunch of fallacious assumptions. quote:There is no guarantee that everything you read will be accurate and true, but people are constantly growing more sophisticated in fact checking and verifying the accuracy of sources. If I hear a claim about some world event on CNN, I can usually check and verify the validity of that claim with a high degree of accuracy in less than five minutes online. And, again, you can thank the DARPA for that. And you don't get to still use the Internet once it's gone. quote:Having a State is no guarantee of accurate information to say the least. The FDA allows deadly drugs on the market all the time, for just one example. Yes, they do, often because drug companies go out of their way to lie to the FDA, just like they will lie to your private inspectors. -EDIT- moller posted:To be fair, it was often their grandfather that did the dirty. And the grandson continues the exact same practices his grandfather put into motion. Passivity does not remove an ounce of culpability. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Wow, a straight up Marxist. You're going to have to make a pretty strong argument as to why becoming wealthy and being moral are mutually exclusive things. You've stated them as facts but you haven't offered anything in the way of evidence or even a logically compelling argument. Wow, if I didn't know better I'd say you were trolling, but you really do lack even the most basic level of self-awareness, don't you? jrodefeld posted:Also, "society" cannot determine that my property rights are invalid. I do not consent to this violence being perpetrated against me. If 60% of society wants to agree to a social contract, or to being subjugated by an authority, let them do it and keep me out of it entirely. Planes leave for Somalia every single day. Or any number of other nations that have very very weak States. You're free to actually put your money where your mouth is and go Galt from this State-run hellhole, but somehow I doubt you'll do it. What you don't want to admit is that you love everything that the State gives you, stability in your life, basic protections, everything that makes modern life possible really, but you don't want to pay a dime for any of it. You want to be a leech on society, taking as much from it as you can while giving as little as possible back in return. You simply aren't honest enough to admit it, and you erroneously believe that you can take a moral high ground to justify your wish to be a parasite by cloaking yourself in articles and books from Libertarian authors. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
If taxation is considered theft then a factory owner taking the excess worth of a workers labour absolutely is theft. Now, I already know what Jrod is going to say, because he's said it many times before, is that the worker has low time preference, and thus it is only fair that the owner should take that excess worth as his own as recompense for the "risk" of providing a product to consumers. And yet what he either doesn't understand or refused to acknowledge is that this logic applies equally well to the State. Taxation is fair recompense for taking on the risk of providing a stable foundation upon which all of society rests.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:what's praxelogy Libertarians kept running into a pesky problem called "logic", so they invented an alternative to it. Basically it boils down to "libertarianism=good, ergo all things good must be libertarian". It also states that empirical evidence is not sufficient to disprove praxeological axioms. -EDIT- That's what it means in practice, anyway. In theory it's the study of human action based on the axiom that humans make purposeful decisions, and that if given the same set of variables humans will always choose a certain predicted outcome or course of action. This allows you to make predictions on human behavior that is universal to all humans. But I wasn't joking when it's asserted that empirical evidence is not sufficient to disprove praxeology. That's a real thing Libertarians claim. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Draw as many conclusions are you wish from how Jrod constantly has asserted he's only concerned with internally-consistent logical arguments, and dismisses historical analysis as a waste of time. Again, to be fair, he loves historical analysis... When (he thinks) it agrees with him. Although it's becoming increasingly obvious that Jrod doesn't actually read the articles he posts, or if he does he clearly doesn't actually understand them. That's almost certainly why posts them in their entirety; he is too lazy or too incompetent to suss out the relevant portions.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:alternative currencies What possible advantage could alternative currencies ever possess that even come close to outweighing their massive downsides?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:This is like a Catholic going: I like taking communion, but I'm not up on what this substance business is and I feel apart from most other Catholics in this sense. If by "substance" you mean transubstantiation, then I know for a fact that my catholic wife and her entire family don't believe in it. I don't think I've ever met a catholic who does. Caros posted:Well the important fact is that competing currencies are absolutely legal currently, so long as they don't pretend to be USD (which generally just means don't call them 'dollars' of any sort). Oh, I don't think it should be illegal, I just saying that it's so monumentally stupid that I don't understand why anyone would do it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Something being monumentally and transparently stupid has rarely, if ever, impeded greedy idiots from trying to get rich quick. See also, any/all threads about bitcoins and other crypto-"currencies." Again, I know that people are idiots, I just don't know why they are idiots.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Yeah I thought I should add something along the lines of "and that's really pretty common" and then didn't. American Catholics have had a lot of Protestantism rub off on them. The reason I picked communion for the comparison is the whole substance thing. Transubstantiation is alien as praxeology (and in the same way!) to most people. It's that it's looking back to Aristotle stuff again. I don't think it's Protestants rubbing off on Catholics so much as it is that with a population that is generally better educated most followers realize that the idea of transubstantiation is pretty drat silly. But this isn't the right thread for this debate.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet, as I have to learn repeatedly. Well drat. This is literally the first time I've ever been sarcastic without my full knowledge. I actually don't know how to proceed.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Guys can we stop talking about drunk driving and roads for a bit? This is all just wasted effort anyway, we're going to have self-driving cars in a few decades and then you can drink and be-driven all you want Fixed for accuracy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 11:17
|
|
|
I initially thought that comparing drunk driving to murder was stupid because I assumed that drunk driving was obviously far more common than murder. However, when I looked into it I was surprised. While 14,827 homicides were committed last year, only 10,322 people were killed in an incidence of drunk driving in 2012, and I'm assuming a similar amount died last year. Now, of course, this only takes into account drunk driving deaths and not injuries or even simply incidents of known drunk driving, but I thought it was suitably interesting nonetheless.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Instead, I'll recruit slovenly, bewildered refugees from the ruins of Wal-Mart and induct them as helots into Leonidas DRO. They'll be given (well, assigned) land to farm, and learn a useful trade! In exchange...well, I'll let you read all 2800 pages of the contract yourself. Don't listen to this pretender. Valhalla DRO has a strict "Keep What You Kill™" system. For those who do not enter into Valhalla by presenting the severed head and weapon of a rival DRO officer, they will be issued one (1) M1911 pistol, two (2) fully loaded standard magazines, and one (1) aluminum bat. Valhalla DRO is nothing if not magnanimous in this regard.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 12:49
|
|
|
^^^^ Gun in one hand, bat in the other, spare magazine between the cheeks. Talmonis posted:Aluminum, not Maple? This is bad comedy. You want maple, then you gotta pony up the $goldbux$ my friend. Valhalla ain't no charity.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Oh for fucks sake. If you exist you coerce. gently caress, I'm in complete agreement with BrandorKP. I don't know what's real anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Think of it as the Americans, Iranians, and the Kurds all fighting ISIS. So in this metaphor if I'm America and Brandor is Iran, who represents the Kurds and ISIS?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I don't see how you're expecting a group of people who can't answer how they're going to string tin cans together for communication to tackle something full of coercive aggression like "I'm infected with disease and I'd like help." Libertarians have an answer to the communications systems question, and it's the same answer that they give universally for all infrastructure questions; mooch off of the infrastructure the State already built.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
spoon0042 posted:gently caress, would there be any basic research at all if it couldn't be shown to pay off next quarter? "mumble mumble time preference" -Common libertarian response
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Verizon and the other giants who "built" the infastructure and towers would lay claim to it, pay off judges to agree, and violently war with anyone who tries to argue for their "aggression". So now we're back to
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
It's good to have you here, shiranaihito. I have a few questions and then a few follow ups for you, if you're smart enough to answer. The first few are super easy! If you walk into a store and take a bunch of goods and walk out without paying, have you committed an act of aggression? Similarly, if you let's say that you walk into a store, take a bunch of goods, but then only leave $5, even though the goods are worth much much more, but then you leave anyway, is that an act of aggression? If you have someone come to your home and provide a service to you but then you refuse to pay them, is that an act of aggression? Lastly, if you give someone less money than their services are worth, is that an act of aggression?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Obviously, stealing from someone would not constitute initiating the use of force against him, but why would you not have the right to physically intervene in someone attempting to steal from you? So you agree that the government has the right to physically intervene when you attempt to steal from them by using the things that they own and the services they provide without paying a fair price for them. Fantastic, you are now a Statist!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
shiranaihito posted:Well, do you think some random cotton farm owner had the resources to catch runaway slaves by himself, or did he perhaps get some help from the government? 100% the former. It happened all the time, in fact, and is quite well documented!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
I have another question that should be easy. Assuming that you abolish the entire American government and form a free stateless society. Now I'll be kind and I'll let your stateless society keep all the infrastructure the government built for you, but all military equipment is destroyed because they have no place in a society ruled by the NAP. The next day China and Russia invade the west coast. How does your society then protect itself? -EDIT- Also, I'd like you to acknowledge that you are now a Statist. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Do you think Valhalla DRO would take defense contracts for enough Danegeld? Valhalla DRO would almost certainly be bought out by a lifetime's supply of Russian vodka for all its members.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
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
|
|