If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Scientific American)   The flat earth, intelligent design, homunculi, and socialist economics. Here comes the folk science   (sciam.com) divider line 688
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

16468 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jul 2006 at 9:53 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



688 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-07-25 12:42:09 PM
Wogus
The thrust of my argument was, simply, that the general principal of "personified deity" is at the source of much unnecessary suffering.

Your argument is fine, just take out the stuff about whether or not God hears us when we pray, or whether he makes flowers bloom. God does not have any place in a scientific philosophy because science can not prove or disprove God's existance. Your argument that God doesn't exist because we have all these nifty natural laws is just as faith based as saying God must exist because he created all these natrual laws.

That said, you are entitled to your own belief or disbelief in God. I'm just trying to emphasize that faith and science are two different things.
 
2006-07-25 12:42:30 PM
Tatsuma: neither of these statments are true.

Prove it.

Or is this a case of 'your' religion being the 'right' one?
 
2006-07-25 12:44:14 PM
AtomicDragon Dude, simmer down. He was knockin' on the atheists, who have their own soapbox but mock the beliefs of others.
 
2006-07-25 12:44:29 PM
Free Radical: Yes, but I don't send them to eternal damnation if they refuse.

I do, personally

"What, you drank the last glass of orange juice? TO CHRISTIAN HELL WITH YOU*"

/* i don't mean Utah
 
2006-07-25 12:44:41 PM
Free Radical: Yes, but I don't send them to eternal damnation if they refuse.

No, what you do is you don't let 'em into your house, right?

mp3sum: How can I choose to have faith in something that is absolutely true? I have to believe, because it's true.

You have faith that it's true, don't you? You have faith that your knowledge that it's true is right. You make the choice to have faith.

Seriously, this can go on all day.
 
2006-07-25 12:44:54 PM
Tatsuma: A father doesn't know with a 100% certainty that his son will die? that's a dumb father there!

You don't seem to like it when people ignore your actual argument in favor of something trivial, so why are you doing it to me?
 
2006-07-25 12:46:45 PM
muninsfire: You've never had someone housesit for you? O.o;

I have, but I do not exact everlasting punishment for failure to follow those rules.
 
2006-07-25 12:46:46 PM
Tatsuma: "What, you drank the last glass of orange juice? TO CHRISTIAN HELL WITH YOU*"

Ok, that? That was funny.
 
2006-07-25 12:46:58 PM
muninsfire

No, there is no comparison--because you're conflating the issues of individual humans with humanity as a whole.

Are you malevolent to the rosebush when you prune it?


Specifically to the rosebush as a whole? No. But if cutting off each of those leaves resulted in the death of an innocent human, you bet your ass I would be malevolent. Most of the innocent people who get screwed couldn't care less if their death and suffering is good for humanity; they still suffer, and allowing that to happen is malevolent.

Another problem with the whole idea is that there is zero evidence that allowing all this suffering actually does anything good for humanity as a whole. After all, if god is omnipotent, I'm sure he of all things could come up with a way for humanity to progress without causing suffering. Or that "growing up" at the cost of millions-billions of lives is actually worth it.
 
2006-07-25 12:47:42 PM
IdBeCrazyIf: I have, but I do not exact everlasting punishment for failure to follow those rules.

Like I said, if they trashed the place, you wouldn't let 'em back in again [ forever! ], would you?

Just happens that if G-d doesn't want to let you in to housesit 'cuz you're a dick, you kinda cease to exist.
 
2006-07-25 12:48:24 PM
muninsfire: No, what you do is you don't let 'em into your house, right?

Yes, I keep them out of my house for all eternity!

Ummm really this is a bad analogy on many levels.

First off have you seen my house? It sure ain't heaven.

Secondly, I didn't create my friends.

Thirdly, if I was God what difference would it make if I let everyone inside my house? If they want to drink my beer and tear down my curtains I am farking God, I just make more.
 
2006-07-25 12:48:31 PM
mp3sum:

Just a personal pet peeve but please for the love of all that is holy go here

http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/

And then grab this from here

http://www.fark.com/firefox/

It'll make this thread that much easier to follow.
 
2006-07-25 12:48:39 PM
superluminal girl
I chose a religion because it agreed with what I felt in my heart to be the essence of morality, not the other way around. 1. This is a personal issue, and I don't understand why you are so against me having faith. 2. Conscience and morals are an entirely different argument.


I'm just asking why you choose to look down on others of faith when as you say, it is a personal issue? And apparently since your faith is based on your conscience and morals, it is not an entirely differnet issue.


Tatsuma [TotalFark]

A father doesn't know with a 100% certainty that his son will die? that's a dumb father there!


You say that as if you know Death is a bad thing.
 
2006-07-25 12:49:05 PM
Tatsuma: Agreed. they irritate me as well. I usually accept most of their flyers and ask for as many flyers as they can afford so I can give them to my "friends". I never mention that said "friends" are commonly called "garbage bins"

I have always wanted to hand them flyers that say "Jews for Mohammed" or better yet, "Jews for Poseiden" just to see their reactions
 
2006-07-25 12:49:40 PM
mp3sum
What's your definition of tolerance? Mine is loving and respecting people even if I disagree with them. Do I disagree with white supremacists? You bet I do. Do I want to hunt them down and murder them in their sleep? Hell, no. I would like a chance to ask them why they feel the need to hurt and even kill people based on their race.

Discriminating against people and even hurting people for their beliefs is wrong. Wanting to change their minds, I think, isn't.
 
2006-07-25 12:49:47 PM
muninsfire: And besides which, it's a parable.

It's not presented as one. Not like Jesus' parables, anyway.
Besides, a parable about how much God can submit us to in order to see how much we'll put up with is not the story of a God I care to worship. But to each their own, I guess...
 
2006-07-25 12:50:26 PM
2 sides of a coin:

heads: You see all the beautiful things in the world, and feel what it's like to be in love, which leads you to feel that there may just be something greater than yourself in order for these amazing things to exist.

tails: You live your life in constant fear of punishment for misdeeds, and constantly battle the sinners around you who will surely burn in hell for eating a hamburger on good friday.

not sure what my point is. "Heads" is something that happens naturally to many people from all times, ages and backgrounds. Whether it's "correct" or not, this is an explicitly positive event for this person.

"tails" is the result of taking these feelings just a little too seriously, and wanting to punish anyone who doesn't share these beliefs. This is the trap of organized religion. In your condemnation of everything and everyone as sinful, you yourself have become a sinner, and you're missing your one and only chance to enjoy the beauty of life.

If there is a god, did he really create us so we could worship him, grovel before him, fear him? Only being good people for the sake of avoiding eternal pain?

Surely this cannot be the way of our universe. I have "faith" that it is not.
 
2006-07-25 12:50:27 PM
Tatsuma: Read the story of Adam and Eve recently?

What does that have to do with anything?

Also, what does Jewish tradition teach that the snake was? Just a snake?
 
2006-07-25 12:50:39 PM
muninsfire: Like I said, if they trashed the place, you wouldn't let 'em back in again [ forever! ], would you?

Just happens that if G-d doesn't want to let you in to housesit 'cuz you're a dick, you kinda cease to exist.


Yeah but if you knew with absolute certainty that they were going to trash your house, and you let them in anyway, and then punished them for it eternally, I think you'd be the one that's being a dick.
 
2006-07-25 12:50:45 PM
techmom

"AtomicDragon Dude, simmer down. He was knockin' on the atheists, who have their own soapbox but mock the beliefs of others."

Seriously, I don't see any soapbox. I saw one or two immature posts and I saw a bunch of posts asking for one to use reason instead of emotion, but no soapboxes.
 
2006-07-25 12:51:02 PM
LVLLV

God isn't just concerned with humanity as a whole, he knows each person as an individual. Sometimes he allows an individual to suffer for reasons we may or may not be able to understand at this time, but it's always in the best interest of the person involved from an eternal perspective.
 
2006-07-25 12:51:07 PM
Tatsuma

LVLLN: If god really is omnipotent, then the only way he's not malevolent would be if he just brought everyone to heaven from the beginning.

Read the story of Adam and Eve recently?


I should've been more clear. From the beginning of each of their lives. Causing suffering to billions of people just because of the transgressions of 2 people over whom they had absolutely no control seems rather unjust and ultimately malevolent. Especially if the rule they broke was rather arbitrary and obviously bait.
 
2006-07-25 12:51:54 PM
LVLLN: Specifically to the rosebush as a whole? No. But if cutting off each of those leaves resulted in the death of an innocent human, you bet your ass I would be malevolent. Most of the innocent people who get screwed couldn't care less if their death and suffering is good for humanity; they still suffer, and allowing that to happen is malevolent.

It results in the death of an innocent leaf, doesn't it?

Humanity as a whole is the rosebush. Various humans may need to be pruned from time to time so that the bush as a whole remains strong and grows.

Another problem with the whole idea is that there is zero evidence that allowing all this suffering actually does anything good for humanity as a whole.

What with the tsunami--you know it's probably a good idea, now, if the water starts going waaaaaaaaay out to book it for higher ground, right?

On a less trite note, for the same tsunami, there's a better warning system being implemented. Isn't that something good for humanity?

After all, if god is omnipotent, I'm sure he of all things could come up with a way for humanity to progress without causing suffering.

What would be the point of that? If you never had any bad experiences, how would you know what the good ones are?
 
2006-07-25 12:52:08 PM
muninsfire: Like I said, if they trashed the place, you wouldn't let 'em back in again [ forever! ], would you?

Just happens that if G-d doesn't want to let you in to housesit 'cuz you're a dick, you kinda cease to exist.



Bad analogy.. a better one would be.

I let my friends come over to my house but I force them to camp in the front yard. I tell them that so long as they don't break X rules in my yard they can come into my house.

The problem being some of these rules go against the grain of what comes natural with camping like lighting a fire, or shiatting in the ground and covering it up, etc....

So I expect my friends to follow these antagonistic rules if they want to get in my house... (and even then I cannot fathom how this is being friendly to them) and if they fail to follow these rules I tell them that I'm going to force them to go to an even shiattier camp ground full of pikeys.

I mean if were going to get all metaphor and shiat, lets at least get it closer to the real thing.
 
2006-07-25 12:53:04 PM
"What, you drank the last glass of orange juice? TO CHRISTIAN HELL WITH YOU*"

this is why before I go, I randomly poison things in my cupboard and frig. That way, you may just end up there if you eat my last bowl of ice cream.

//kids make great taste testers, and you can have a new one in 9 months if they die!
 
2006-07-25 12:53:08 PM
allanhowls: It's not presented as one. Not like Jesus' parables, anyway.

I'm gonna go on a limb and assume Talmud says it's a parable. But really, though, Tatsuma, isn't saying "Talmud says it's a parable" an easy way for Rabbis of the past to say "Oy, talk about ridiculous... that one must have been a parable."

And if that's the case, where do you draw the line? Were the plagues of Egypt a parable? The mountain? Jericho?
 
2006-07-25 12:53:56 PM
AtomicDragon

LVLLV

God isn't just concerned with humanity as a whole, he knows each person as an individual. Sometimes he allows an individual to suffer for reasons we may or may not be able to understand at this time, but it's always in the best interest of the person involved from an eternal perspective.


How do you know this? I could make a lot of snarky comments right here, but I'd like to give you a chance to actually back this up.
 
2006-07-25 12:54:15 PM
Superluminal Girl: Discriminating against people and even hurting people for their beliefs is wrong. Wanting to change their minds, I think, isn't.

Needs to be repeated, this is enlightened.
 
2006-07-25 12:54:32 PM
Free Radical: Ummm really this is a bad analogy on many levels.

It's an analogy; it's not meant to be taken literally. You're being a wee bit too literal about it. Think a bit more abstractly.

allanhowls: Besides, a parable about how much God can submit us to in order to see how much we'll put up with is not the story of a God I care to worship. But to each their own, I guess...

That's not really what it's about. It's more about the difference in people who profess faith because it's expected vs. the people who profess faith and have it tested--and whose faith is stronger.

Captain Fashion: Yeah but if you knew with absolute certainty that they were going to trash your house, and you let them in anyway, and then punished them for it eternally, I think you'd be the one that's being a dick.

I know that Jim's a slob, but I figure I'll give him a chance. He trashes my house. I decide to not let him housesit again. How am I the dick?
 
2006-07-25 12:54:34 PM
mp3sum:


First you say you're a tolerant person, than you say you disagree with anyone who's not on the same page as you morally. You may want to have a nice meditative chat with yourself and figure all this out.

You're accusing superluminal girl of being inconsistent because she's not also tolerant of hate groups? Incredible.
 
2006-07-25 12:54:46 PM
WarpZone

I agree with your last post 100%. And I don't try to be a good person because I'm afraid of the punishment.

1. It feels good for me to do good things
2. I believe in God's last covenant with God's people, God commanded us to love God and to love our neighbors. Since love is something I've believed in since before I became Christian, this isn't such a hard thing for me to do.
 
2006-07-25 12:54:47 PM
muninsfire

The afterlife is where you go when you need to die.

Well if it's just somewhere to go after you die, and not some sort of attempt by god to influence our behavior, why did god tell us about it?

Regardless, if he didn't set up heaven/hell/purgatory to control us, the question remains why did he do it. Why would god think we have to go anywhere at all when we die? Every other lifeform on earth doesn't experience an afterlife, so why do we?

/I'm gonna have to quit soon or I'm going to wind up praying
//for food and shelter
 
2006-07-25 12:56:49 PM
IdBeCrazyIf: antagonistic rules

See, that's what I'm not understanding about what you're saying. What rules are antagonistic?

Don't light fires on the ground, but use the barbecue pit. Don't shiat in the rosebushes, but use the outhouse.

In a less vague sense, what are these rules you keep claiming violate the natural order? What's wrong with "Don't kill people, don't have sex with turtles, and don't go jacking other people's shiat"?
 
2006-07-25 12:56:56 PM
ImOscar

I thought that the point of the article was well made in the beginning. Namely, that evolution has provided us with brains that are geared to things that we can see, hear and touch and time spans that on scale with the human life-span.

It takes willful application of education and logic to understand things like evolution and continental drift. Many people cannot or will not make such an effort so they resort to what the author calls folk-science.
 
2006-07-25 12:57:27 PM
Thank you AtomicDragon and Cheeseburger. For a while it felt like I was yelling into a void.

/it felt good though
//need to get passionate about things every once in a while
///see, questioning and thinking about your beliefs is fun!
 
2006-07-25 12:58:39 PM
Free Spool: Why would god think we have to go anywhere at all when we die? Every other lifeform on earth doesn't experience an afterlife, so why do we?

Because we have sentience.

why did god tell us about it?

Wouldn't you like to know where the bathroom is when you have to take a dump? And what you have to do [ e.g., down the hall, to the left, jiggle the doorhandle if it's stuck; it does that sometimes ] to get there?
 
2006-07-25 12:59:07 PM
muninsfire [TotalFark]
You have faith that it's true, don't you? You have faith that your knowledge that it's true is right. You make the choice to have faith.

Seriously, this can go on all day.


Yea, it could. It's pretty simple too. Faith is knowing something to be true in the face of not having any evidence. I know it's true, just like I know gravity to be true. It's not a choice, it's True. My having faith in Hell's existence means it does exist, no ifs ands or buts. No choice.


IdBeCrazyIf
Just got it, looks awesome. But I'm working in too many tabs right now to restart firefox. I will check it later, thank you for the tip.


superluminal girl

mp3sum
What's your definition of tolerance? Mine is loving and respecting people even if I disagree with them. Do I disagree with white supremacists? You bet I do. Do I want to hunt them down and murder them in their sleep? Hell, no. I would like a chance to ask them why they feel the need to hurt and even kill people based on their race.

Discriminating against people and even hurting people for their beliefs is wrong. Wanting to change their minds, I think, isn't.


You think that labeling these people immoral in your mind isn't discriminating? The methods you utilize to change them, physical or otherwise, are violent. Mental conflict can be just as damaging, if not more so, than any physical infliction. You are no different, and yet you can't see it because of your moral superiority complex. Not a jab, just an observation.
 
2006-07-25 12:59:59 PM
mp3sum

arguing for unprovable truth right now is certainly counter-productive

Sorry but that's just not the way I see things. It takes a particular degree of intelligence to put together a valid argument (note that I'm deliberately avoiding the subjective "correct") on a topic like this one. You seem intent on attacking Tatsuma's character and I'm not going there.
 
2006-07-25 01:01:45 PM
muninsfire: Captain Fashion: Yeah but if you knew with absolute certainty that they were going to trash your house, and you let them in anyway, and then punished them for it eternally, I think you'd be the one that's being a dick.

I know that Jim's a slob, but I figure I'll give him a chance. He trashes my house. I decide to not let him housesit again. How am I the dick?


You've missed the point completely. If you're g-d, it isn't a case of he might trash your house, it's that you know for a fact that he will trash your house. If you let him housesit anyway, and then punish him eternally for something you knew for certain he would do, you're a dick.

I don't understand why this is such a difficult point to get across. Yeah if you're a human you give people a chance because you don't know what will happen, but if you're g-d and you know EVERYTHING, you should be held to a bit higher standard.
 
2006-07-25 01:03:26 PM
mp3sum: Yea, it could. It's pretty simple too. Faith is knowing something to be true in the face of not having any evidence. I know it's true, just like I know gravity to be true. It's not a choice, it's True. My having faith in Hell's existence means it does exist, no ifs ands or buts. No choice.

However, you choose to have faith, just as you choose to believe it's true. If it were incontrovertable truth that G-d necessarily exists, how could there be atheists?

Atheists exist because they have the free will to choose not to believe in G-d.

Faith and free will are not irreconcileable--they're necessarily coequal.
 
2006-07-25 01:04:13 PM
Captain Fashion: You don't seem to like it when people ignore your actual argument in favor of something trivial, so why are you doing it to me?

because you did it first. (no, you did it! I'm gonna tell my mom!). I dropped the "do bad thing angle" and I keeep the "son is gonna die one" yet you ignore that.

PC LOAD LETTER: I have always wanted to hand them flyers that say "Jews for Mohammed" or better yet, "Jews for Poseiden" just to see their reactions

I used to get my Satanic bible out. Now THAT confused them.

elchip: What does that have to do with anything?

he said "then why didn't G-d all created us in heaven?"

Also, what does Jewish tradition teach that the snake was? Just a snake?

The Evil Inclination

Cheeseburger: You're accusing superluminal girl of being inconsistent because she's not also tolerant of hate groups? Incredible.

That's why I stopped bothering ages ago.
 
2006-07-25 01:04:29 PM
LVLLN: How do you know this? I could make a lot of snarky comments right here, but I'd like to give you a chance to actually back this up.

I could say it's written in scripture, but that answer is seldom satisfying. I could say that it has been revealed to, and shared by, modern day prophets, but unless you share my religion that's just bunk to you. I suppose it's one of the neccesary traits of any God worthy of love and worship. And when I pray to God and ask him if this is true, he confirms it in his own inimitable way.
 
2006-07-25 01:05:14 PM
muninsfire

LVLLN: Specifically to the rosebush as a whole? No. But if cutting off each of those leaves resulted in the death of an innocent human, you bet your ass I would be malevolent. Most of the innocent people who get screwed couldn't care less if their death and suffering is good for humanity; they still suffer, and allowing that to happen is malevolent.

It results in the death of an innocent leaf, doesn't it?

Humanity as a whole is the rosebush. Various humans may need to be pruned from time to time so that the bush as a whole remains strong and grows.


I don't equate the "life" of a leaf with the life of a human. Some people may call me a hypocrite for that, but I'm a human, and I value their lives over others'. "Betterment of humanity" is not a valid excuse for the death and suffering of innocent humans to me.


LVLLN:Another problem with the whole idea is that there is zero evidence that allowing all this suffering actually does anything good for humanity as a whole.

What with the tsunami--you know it's probably a good idea, now, if the water starts going waaaaaaaaay out to book it for higher ground, right?

On a less trite note, for the same tsunami, there's a better warning system being implemented. Isn't that something good for humanity?


If god made sure there weren't any tsunamis, the whole point would be moot. It's like buying a bullet-proof vest from your attacker.


LVLLN:After all, if god is omnipotent, I'm sure he of all things could come up with a way for humanity to progress without causing suffering.

What would be the point of that? If you never had any bad experiences, how would you know what the good ones are?


For someone that's omnipotent, it must be a piece of cake to fix something like that without causing anyone undue pain.
 
2006-07-25 01:05:21 PM
AtomicDragon
God isn't just concerned with humanity as a whole, he knows each person as an individual. Sometimes he allows an individual to suffer for reasons we may or may not be able to understand at this time, but it's always in the best interest of the person involved from an eternal perspective.


And you know all this... how?

Superluminal Girl: Discriminating against people and even hurting people for their beliefs is wrong. Wanting to change their minds, I think, isn't.

Needs to be repeated, this is enlightened.

Might be a bit more enlightened to see that this arbirary labeling of physical violence, when compared to the accepted mode of change via mental conflict, is a little ridiculous.


Cheeseburger
You're accusing superluminal girl of being inconsistent because she's not also tolerant of hate groups? Incredible.


They hold an opinion based on personal belief just as she does. She's tolerant of herself and others like her, but not of these blokes.
 
2006-07-25 01:05:23 PM
muninsfire: It's an analogy; it's not meant to be taken literally. You're being a wee bit too literal about it. Think a bit more abstractly.

Well at some point, religion has to be literal.

The problem is; what parts are actually literal...
 
2006-07-25 01:06:15 PM
Captain Fashion: You've missed the point completely. If you're g-d, it isn't a case of he might trash your house, it's that you know for a fact that he will trash your house. If you let him housesit anyway, and then punish him eternally for something you knew for certain he would do, you're a dick.

Not quite. I know that Jim is entirely capable of trashing my house, and that he's likely to do it--but he could always have a change of heart, and exercise his free will to do good. I'm going to give him the chance to do that.

Would it be more merciful to punish him pre-emptively, and never allow him in in the first place? Or would it be right to give him the chance to excercise his free will and do the right thing?

Might I remind you that pre-emptive punishments are generally considered to be war crimes these days. ^^;
 
2006-07-25 01:06:57 PM
AtomicDragon: God isn't just concerned with humanity as a whole, he knows each person as an individual. Sometimes he allows an individual to suffer for reasons we may or may not be able to understand at this time, but it's always in the best interest of the person involved from an eternal perspective.

I have always disliked that bit. If I want to make my wife happy, I will kiss her, for example. If I were allowed the kind of behaviour above, I would hit her with a rock and then kiss her, telling her that the rock was in her interest in an eternal perspective and that she can't understand why it was needed.

God is supposedly all powerful: suffering means he either causes it, or allows it to happen. That means God cannnot be good since he allows suffering to happen. There can be no plan, no final vision, no pathway to paradise that would justify causing or allowing suffering. None. I don't have to understand or not understand the reasoning, I only need to know that suffering is wrong, and therefore cannot be used to implement any plan based on good.

The ends justify the means only if the means justify an end.

It's abused child syndrome: "oh that's ok, he meant well"
 
2006-07-25 01:08:21 PM
Tatsuma: Free Radical: If he cared he wouldn't be so keen on wiping us out everytime we don't meet his expectations.

He also wouldn't demand our loyalty as a prerequisite for entering Heaven.

neither of these statments are true.


Still waiting on an answer as to why my two statements are untrue.

I'm not being a prick I just want to know how you can answer them with such confidence.
 
2006-07-25 01:08:34 PM
Free Radical: Well at some point, religion has to be literal.

Says who? I've got a book here with me right now--the Tao Te Ching. Some people would call it a religious book. There's not a single literal sentance in it.

The problem is; what parts are actually literal...

Usually those parts that say "Thou shalt not bugger thy neighbour in the hinder parts on Tuesdays". And those usually only apply to those adherents of the faith or whatnot.
 
2006-07-25 01:09:23 PM
Because we have sentience.

Arguably so do some animals. Regardless, why does sentience require an afterlife?

Wouldn't you like to know where the bathroom is when you have to take a dump? And what you have to do... to get there?

Isn't that knowledge a method of control of who gets to use the bathroom?

/keep in mind this is all following from It's not a method of control, though. If it were, then there wouldn't be free will. Trying to help out as you bounce around other posts
 
Displayed 50 of 688 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report