Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #80 on: November 29, 2015, 05:59:25 PM »
this discussion probably can't go anywhere if you really believe that islam is an ideology of global domination because the koran says so.
If you'd like to propose an alternative standard for establishing what Islam is, you're welcome to try. But yeah, I doubt you'll be able to get anywhere there without making up a new Islam.

The Koran is the final authority on the tenets of Islam...Islam is largely inseparable from the Koran.

Once we start seeing vigilante western Christian groups crashing into buildings in Saudi Arabia and blowing themselves up in Turkey trying to kill as many people as they can, I might start taking your point more seriously. Of course, that's never going to happen, because western culture does not rely on the Koran.

ok.  this conversation isn't going to go anywhere.

it certainly doesn't delineate violent extremists from non-violent extremists like they're doing here with christians.
At this point, it's clear that you're trying to conflate "Republicans", "Christians" and "Planned Parenthood opponents".

Justify this.

we absolutely can't get anywhere in this discussion if you don't see the relationship between the christian belief, pro-life belief, and 20th century american conservatism in general.  on what do you think the pro-life platform is based?

As usual, liberals decided to turn a tragedy into their usual "lol Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America xDDDD" shtick, and Republicans have to defend themselves.

sorry, but you'll have to point me to the passage where i said anything at all like "Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America."  or even intimated that.  the most negative thing i've said about the gop so far is "lol irony" and "gop rhetoric toward islam is p negative tbqh."  wow i can just feel the vitriol...

So you are conflating Kinzinger's views with GOP's. Got it.

he's a gop politician.  your argument at this point is that i should not assume that a gop politician shares common political beliefs with the gop.  jesus christ.

In any case, what you're describing is not irony. The term you're actually looking for is "double standard".

the double standard is what i find ironic, dummy.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10847
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #81 on: November 29, 2015, 08:18:38 PM »
ok.  this conversation isn't going to go anywhere.
Fair enough, I'll chalk it down to you having redefined "Islam" in your mind. It's such a worrisome trend among American neoprogressives.

we absolutely can't get anywhere in this discussion if you don't see the relationship between the christian belief, pro-life belief, and 20th century american conservatism in general.
To remind you, you already said this, and I already explained why I'm not okay with you shifting the goalposts:
it also can't go anywhere if you're unwilling to entertain the possibility that the decision to massacre an abortion clinic maybe intersects with christianity and the bible at some point.
I'm happy to entertain the possibility. I'm not happy to assume it and take it for granted while the bodies are still warm. We're also discussing Republicans, not Christianity. Sure, they "intersect" to some extent, but the focus is important.

on what do you think the pro-life platform is based?
Once again you remind yourself of the substance of my objection. The pro-life platform is irrelevant here until evidence to the positive is presented. The burden of proof lies on liberals as the accusers, which Kinzinger pointed out. You find this "ironic" for some reason, but you seem to be completely unable to justify your assumptions without first taking them for granted.

"Pro-lifers are all Christian and this guy was a Christian and therefore a pro-lifer. How do I know he was a Christian? Well, he was a Republican. How do I know he was a Republican? Well, duh, where do you think pro-lifers come from?"

No, Gary, this is not how this works. If you have absolutely no evidence, then you shouldn't be making dumb accusations. If you can't justify your accusations, just admit it. After all, you're okay with being wrong.

sorry, but you'll have to point me to the passage where i said anything at all like "Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America."  or even intimated that.
You, sir, need to stop trying to twist everyone's words around. It never ends well for you. It's not just that it reflects very poorly on your sense of integrity, you're simply not skilled enough to trick people.

I never suggested that you, personally, prompted Kinzinger's response. As far as I can tell, it was the executive team of Planned Parenthood who invoked this very common trope. See, the problem here is that you see me talking about "liberals", but you think "oh shit, he must be talking about me!". You then respond as if I targeted you personally. In other words, you fail to "delineate" between groups, subgroups, and individuals. How "ironic".

he's a gop politician.  your argument at this point is that i should not assume that a gop politician shares common political beliefs with the gop.  jesus christ.
Are you really stupid enough to assume that all Republicans agree on all issues? You're talking about half of your country's political spectrum.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 08:20:29 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #82 on: November 29, 2015, 08:47:01 PM »
Quote from: SexWarrior
Were you intentionally setting yourself up for a "dayum those dumb lib'ruls" rant, or are you just very forgetful?

That said, I still think you're horribly wrong. There's nothing surprising, controversial, ironic, hypocritical or whatever going on here. As usual, liberals decided to turn a tragedy into their usual "lol Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America xDDDD" shtick, and Republicans have to defend themselves.

Fair enough, I'll chalk it down to you having redefined "Islam" in your mind. It's such a worrisome trend among American neoprogressives.

Once again you remind yourself of the substance of my objection. The pro-life platform is irrelevant here until evidence to the positive is presented. The burden of proof lies on liberals as the accusers

See, the problem here is that you see me talking about "liberals", but you think "oh shit, he must be talking about me!".

yeah i can't imagine how i got that idea

it took you longer than usual this time to make up a bogus reason to call me dishonest
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10847
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #83 on: November 29, 2015, 08:52:50 PM »
yeah i can't imagine how i got that idea
I genuinely can't, so if you can come up with a reason which doesn't involve you spectacularly fucking up, please go ahead. Alternatively, please put some action behind your words of "I'm okay with being wrong", and simply apologise for the clearly unintended confusion you've been causing.

It seems like you're committing the exact fallacy you were originally accusing Kinzinger of. In all the sentences you've quoted, I went out of my way to make it abundantly clear when I refer to you specifically, an when I cast general judgement upon liberals/neoprogressives/Democrats. It would take some serious mental gymnastics to conflate the two.

it took you longer than usual this time to make up a bogus reason to call me dishonest
Oh, no, I thought you were being dishonest from the get-go. But, as you may remember, we have an agreement under which I give you undue amounts of the benefit of the doubt to allow you to defend yourself.

This is also why I focused on your ineptitude, rather than lack of integrity. The latter is already sufficiently well established.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 08:58:38 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #84 on: November 29, 2015, 09:45:04 PM »
In all the sentences you've quoted, I went out of my way to make it abundantly clear when I refer to you specifically, an when I cast general judgement upon liberals/neoprogressives/Democrats. It would take some serious mental gymnastics to conflate the two.

i disagree.  to me, statements like, "Were you intentionally setting yourself up for a "dayum those dumb lib'ruls" rant, or are you just very forgetful?" sound pretty strongly as if you're grouping me in with "liberals," the group of people you identify as calling republicans terrorists.

the sentence in question reads like this to me: "I think you're wrong: there's nothing ironic here. As usual, liberals decided to turn a tragedy into their usual "lol Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America xDDDD" shtick."

it may be obvious to you that you're not lumping me in with the "usual" liberal rhetoric of "lol republicans are terrorists," but since i'm not in your brain reading your thoughts, the statement is at best ambiguous, and it absolutely reads to me as "i think you're wrong; as usual, a liberal is calling republicans terrorists." i can only interpret what you write, not what you think.  this is especially true since, up to this point, we haven't been talking about any other "liberal" response to the video other than my one snarky remark.  so if you're not talking about my remark in the context of liberals being overly critical of conservatives or calling them terrorists or whatever, who were you talking about?  what are liberals saying in the wake of this attack that you believe is overly critical/labeling them as terrorists?

but cool, i accept that you're not grouping me in with the folks who call republicans terrorists.  done deal.  as usual, you could have resolved this with the sentence, "I'm not saying that you personally call republicans terrorists."  that would have cleared things up nicely.

it took you longer than usual this time to make up a bogus reason to call me dishonest
Oh, no, I thought you were being dishonest from the get-go. But, as you may remember, we have an agreement under which I give you undue amounts of the benefit of the doubt to allow you to defend yourself.

This is also why I focused on your ineptitude, rather than lack of integrity. The latter is already sufficiently well established.

haha no u

you don't actually have to give me the benefit of any doubts or whatever agreement you're talking about.  you just say, "that's not what i said; i said x/y/z."  try it sometime.  i assure you, as i've assured you before, that i'll never respond with "no you can't do that you already said it haha gotcha."  i'll always respond, as i have this time, with "here's why i thought you meant that, but nbd let's just move on from here."

as usual, though, i suspect that this is less about the argument and more about derailing the conversation into an abyss you know i'll fall for.  your next post will prove me right by being just a string of personal attacks.  watch it happen.  it's almost...formulaic.

Are you really stupid enough to assume that all Republicans agree on all issues? You're talking about half of your country's political spectrum.

this to me is where you and blanko are fundamentally misunderstanding my snarky remark.  it doesn't matter what kinzinger's specific beliefs are, it doesn't matter than the gop is has some ideological diversity, it doesn't matter what the assailants specific religious beliefs were, and it doesn't matter if democrats also do ironic things.

the irony to me is that a member of a group widely regarded as being unwilling to distinguish between violent and non-violent muslims is extolling folks to make that distinction for christians.  it's funny to me because i so very, very often hear the gop, and conservative pundits, lambast democrats precisely for trying to make that distinction.  not universally, but very often.  it's ironic to me because i think neither christians, nor muslims, nor their respective religious texts, are inherently violent.

none of the other shit about how not all republicans are the same, or how the koran's core tenant is violence, or how we don't we don't know x/y/z about the assailant, is relevant to what i find ironic about kinzinger's statement.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 10:55:53 PM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #85 on: November 29, 2015, 09:47:04 PM »
In all the sentences you've quoted, I went out of my way to make it abundantly clear when I refer to you specifically, an when I cast general judgement upon liberals/neoprogressives/Democrats. It would take some serious mental gymnastics to conflate the two.

i disagree.  to me, statements like, "Were you intentionally setting yourself up for a "dayum those dumb lib'ruls" rant, or are you just very forgetful?" sound pretty strongly as if you're grouping me in with "liberals," the group of people you identify as calling republicans terrorists.

the sentence in question reads like this to me: "I think you're wrong: there's nothing ironic here. As usual, liberals decided to turn a tragedy into their usual "lol Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America xDDDD" shtick."

it may be obvious to you that you're not lumping me in with the "usual" liberal rhetoric of "lol republicans are terrorists," but since i'm not in your brain reading your thoughts, the statement is at best ambiguous, and it absolutely reads to me as "i think you're wrong; as usual, a liberal is calling republicans terrorists." i can only interpret what you write, not what you think.  this is especially true since, up to this point, we haven't been talking about any other "liberal" response to the video other than my one snarky remark.  so if you're not talking about my remark in the context of liberals being overly critical of conservatives or calling them terrorists or whatever, who were you talking about?  what are liberals saying in the wake of this attack that you believe is overly critical/labeling them as terrorists?

but cool, i accept that you're not grouping me in with the folks who call republicans terrorists.  done deal.  as usual, you could have resolved this with the sentence, "I'm not saying that you personally call republicans terrorists."  that would have cleared things up nicely.

Quote
it took you longer than usual this time to make up a bogus reason to call me dishonest
Oh, no, I thought you were being dishonest from the get-go. But, as you may remember, we have an agreement under which I give you undue amounts of the benefit of the doubt to allow you to defend yourself.

This is also why I focused on your ineptitude, rather than lack of integrity. The latter is already sufficiently well established.

haha no u

you don't actually have to give me the benefit of any doubts or whatever agreement you're talking about.  you just say, "that's not what i said; i said x/y/z."  try it sometime.  i assure you, as i've assured you before, that i'll never respond with "no you can't do that you already said it haha gotcha."  i'll always respond, as i have this time, with "here's why i thought you meant that, but nbd let's just move on from here."

as usual, though, i suspect that this is less about the argument and more about derailing the conversation into an abyss you know i'll fall for.  your next post will prove me right by being just a string of personal attacks.  watch it happen.  it's almost...formulaic.

This post is the most ironic thing in the history of everything.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7184
    • View Profile
Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #86 on: November 29, 2015, 10:07:25 PM »
People like garygreen are the reason we're going to end up with Donald "The Unstumpable" Trump.

Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #87 on: November 29, 2015, 10:24:36 PM »
[Idiots] like garygreen are the reason we're going to end up with Donald "The Unstumpable" Trump.

this make no sense.  even if i granted you that i'm an idiot, my brand of idiocy gets us bernie, not trump.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Fortuna

  • *
  • Posts: 2053
    • View Profile
Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #88 on: November 29, 2015, 11:06:43 PM »
Carrying children is a social responsibility, like paying taxes or registering for selective service.
"The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." -Henry David Thoreau

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #89 on: November 29, 2015, 11:11:09 PM »
Carrying children is a social responsibility, like paying taxes or registering for selective service.

Not according to law.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7184
    • View Profile
Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #90 on: November 29, 2015, 11:19:36 PM »
[Idiots] like garygreen are the reason we're going to end up with Donald "The Unstumpable" Trump.

this make no sense.  even if i granted you that i'm an idiot, my brand of idiocy gets us bernie, not trump.

Sanders' supporters are, hilariously enough, preventing Sanders from getting into office.

Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #91 on: November 29, 2015, 11:41:57 PM »
frankly i'll be happy with anyone who isn't named ted cruz
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10847
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #92 on: November 30, 2015, 12:12:51 AM »
i disagree. [...]
Your behaviour reflects on other liberals. The behaviour of other liberals does not (by default) reflect on you. This is common sense, and your lack of understanding of this simple concept is the root of this entire discussion.

but cool, i accept that you're not grouping me in with the folks who call republicans terrorists.  done deal.  as usual, you could have resolved this with the sentence, "I'm not saying that you personally call republicans terrorists."  that would have cleared things up nicely.
No, it wouldn't have. More importantly, no, it didn't. Me saying that "I never suggested that you, personally, prompted Kinzinger's response. As far as I can tell, it was the executive team of Planned Parenthood who invoked this very common trope. See, the problem here is that you see me talking about 'liberals', but you think 'oh shit, he must be talking about me!'. You then respond as if I targeted you personally. In other words, you fail to "delineate" between groups, subgroups, and individuals. How 'ironic'." resulted in you immediately dismissing my clarification, and then complaining that I should have provided it.

As usual, this could have been resolved by you responding to what people are actually saying, and not to strawmen you constructed.

haha no u

you don't actually have to give me the benefit of any doubts or whatever agreement you're talking about.  you just say, "that's not what i said; i said x/y/z."  try it sometime.  i assure you, as i've assured you before, that i'll never respond with "no you can't do that you already said it haha gotcha."  i'll always respond, as i have this time, with "here's why i thought you meant that, but nbd let's just move on from here."
Please review the following chain of events. Here's me telling you what I didn't and did say.

I never suggested that you, personally, prompted Kinzinger's response. As far as I can tell, it was the executive team of Planned Parenthood who invoked this very common trope. See, the problem here is that you see me talking about "liberals", but you think "oh shit, he must be talking about me!". You then respond as if I targeted you personally. In other words, you fail to "delineate" between groups, subgroups, and individuals. How "ironic".

And here is your response. Compare and contrast it to "no you can't do that you already said it haha gotcha." as well as "here's why i thought you meant that, but nbd let's just move on from here."

Quote from: SexWarrior
Were you intentionally setting yourself up for a "dayum those dumb lib'ruls" rant, or are you just very forgetful?

That said, I still think you're horribly wrong. There's nothing surprising, controversial, ironic, hypocritical or whatever going on here. As usual, liberals decided to turn a tragedy into their usual "lol Republicans are the biggest terrorist group in America xDDDD" shtick, and Republicans have to defend themselves.

Fair enough, I'll chalk it down to you having redefined "Islam" in your mind. It's such a worrisome trend among American neoprogressives.

Once again you remind yourself of the substance of my objection. The pro-life platform is irrelevant here until evidence to the positive is presented. The burden of proof lies on liberals as the accusers

See, the problem here is that you see me talking about "liberals", but you think "oh shit, he must be talking about me!".

yeah i can't imagine how i got that idea
You see, the problem here is that you're a living contradiction. You went well out of your way to try and shit on me clarifying what I did and didn't say, only to then suggest that this clarification would have sorted everything out. It's really not hard to conclude that you're dishonest and that you have a very poor recollection of the conversation to date.

as usual, though, i suspect that this is less about the argument and more about derailing the conversation into an abyss you know i'll fall for.  your next post will prove me right by being just a string of personal attacks.  watch it happen.  it's almost...formulaic.
Yes. You will ignore the facts of the matter and the arguments that I brought to the table. You will ignore that you were entirely wrong about whether or not a clarification on my part would have helped, even though we know it actually didn't. You will not reflect on your character, your assumptions, or your accusations. Instead, you will point out that I called you dishonest and that I claimed your memory is a bit shit.  Or you'll pick on that little "living contradiction" rant, objecting to some of the words used rather than the meaning behind them. Finally, you might go super-meta on me and claim that this very paragraph is one huge personal attack!

It really is rather formulaic, but I'm not the one at fault here.

the irony to me is that a member of a group widely regarded as being unwilling to distinguish between violent and non-violent muslims is extolling folks to make that distinction for christians.
He is not doing that. At the time of your posting, we didn't even know that the assailant was a Christian. Right now, the dominant theory is that he was shocked with the leaked PP videos, but even that isn't completely confirmed yet.

You simply made up a story in your mind, and you're trying to spread it ahead of the facts. This is dangerous, because it creates interesting beliefs along the lines of "Mike Brown dindu nuttin". That's why you're getting called out on your shit.

it's ironic to me because i think neither christians, nor muslims, nor their respective religious texts, are inherently violent.
Have you read either of them?

It's a bit like me saying that I don't think Harry Potter lived in England at some point during his life. It's not a claim I can honestly make, having read at least one of the HP books.

Your wishy-washy feels and thoughts about what a book says are quite insignificant when contrasted with the actual printed book.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2015, 12:28:45 AM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #93 on: November 30, 2015, 01:22:24 AM »
Here's me telling you what I didn't and did say.
I never suggested that you, personally, prompted Kinzinger's response. As far as I can tell, it was the executive team of Planned Parenthood who invoked this very common trope. See, the problem here is that you see me talking about "liberals", but you think "oh shit, he must be talking about me!". You then respond as if I targeted you personally. In other words, you fail to "delineate" between groups, subgroups, and individuals. How "ironic".

except that that's not precisely what happened.  you conveniently left out the part where you call me a liar with no integrity.  that's pretty relevant.  your actual response was,

"You, sir, need to stop trying to twist everyone's words around. It never ends well for you. It's not just that it reflects very poorly on your sense of integrity, you're simply not skilled enough to trick people....I never suggested..."

i told you that "what's not what i meant" will merit a positive response from me.  i didn't say that "that's not what i meant you liar" would elicit the same.  like most people, being inaccurately called a liar it tends to evoke sarcasm and vitriol from me.

either way, i still didn't stop you from clarifying what you wanted to say.  i pointed to the specific things you said that made me think you were grouping me with the gop=terrorists folks.  you were calling me dishonest, so it seemed pretty apropos to point out that my response was based on specific things you said, not just some shit i made up in my head.  i did this very sarcastically because you were being a dick.  hence the sentence, "yeah i can't imagine how i got that idea," or, put another way, "here are the things that gave me that idea."  but fair enough, i forgot to add the "but fine let's move on from here" explicitly to the end of that post.  i figured it was implied by the lack of any sentence like "gotcha haha can't take it back now" or anything else of the sort.  it wasn't a gotcha; it was a very sarcastic explanation that no, i was not just making things up.

you're not actually such a brilliant writer that it's impossible for anyone to misunderstand you. 

Compare and contrast it to "no you can't do that you already said it haha gotcha." as well as "here's why i thought you meant that, but nbd let's just move on from here."

my response was closest to "here's why i thought you meant that" while omitting the nbd let's just move on from here, although that was also said in my very next post.

You simply made up a story in your mind, and you're trying to spread it ahead of the facts. This is dangerous, because it creates interesting beliefs along the lines of "Mike Brown dindu nuttin". That's why you're getting called out on your shit.

whether or not the assailant was christian isn't relevant to what i find ironic.  let's forget about religion for the moment and just talk about specific beliefs.  kinzinger is saying that very many people believe abortion is a moral evil, a belief they share with the assailant, and we should not conflate them with people who also advocate and commit violence.  likewise, there are very many people who believe that america is a moral evil, a belief they share with jihadists, and we should not conflate them with people who also advocate and commit violence.  i find it ironic that a lawmaker from a group known for lambasting people who say the latter would say the former.

it's ironic to me because i think neither christians, nor muslims, nor their respective religious texts, are inherently violent.
Have you read either of them?

It's a bit like me saying that I don't think Harry Potter lived in England at some point during his life. It's not a claim I can honestly make, having read at least one of the HP books.

Your wishy-washy feels and thoughts about what a book says are quite insignificant when contrasted with the actual printed book.

i don't think any books have inherent meaning.  that's nonsense.

even if i did, your sole argument reduces to "the koran says kill infidels in it somewhere so that's what mulsims believe," which is pathetic and stupid.  it simply ignores the 1.5 billion counterexamples who aren't jihadists.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #94 on: November 30, 2015, 01:43:38 AM »
a more tangible example: if keith ellison, literally just hours after the paris attacks, "while the bodies were still warm," while police and fire resuce was still ongoing, had gone on cnn and said, "If somebody is targeting west, it’s not indicative of what folks that are opposed to what some of the practices the west commits, of how we feel. We see these practices and that is something many of us have a legitimate concern about. That doesn’t mean we’re gonna take guns and walk into a suburb of paris."

the gop would have crushed ellison.  mercilessly.  i don't even get how that's deniable.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #95 on: November 30, 2015, 01:48:47 AM »
It is deniable if it doesn't happen.

*

Offline Fortuna

  • *
  • Posts: 2053
    • View Profile
Re: "Planned Parenthood"
« Reply #96 on: November 30, 2015, 08:42:29 AM »
We love to exploit things that are less intelligent than us. It's just in our genes.
"The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." -Henry David Thoreau