Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

for the Athiests, ect..Follow

#102 Jul 14 2005 at 10:23 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
How about explaining scientificallly how we came to post at the same exact time.


Thu, Jul 14th 11:22 AM2005 | IP: Logged | Reply to this | Send PM
By: EvilPhysicist




Posted @ Thu, Jul 14th 11:22 AM2005 | IP: Logged | Reply to this | Send PM | Edit Post
By: Kelvyquayo the Hand
Scholar








I didn't even know you were on.


spoooooooooooky oooooooooooo

God must be beind iT!!11

Edited, Thu Jul 14 11:25:06 2005 by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#103 Jul 14 2005 at 10:30 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
No, just a glitch in the Matrix.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#104 Jul 14 2005 at 10:46 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
kelv has repeatedly said that conciousness is "physicslly impossible" when that very idea is unscientifically based and completely ludacrous. And no matter how many times people tell him that concet is so far out wack, he continues to stand by it. By the 20th post i kinda got annoyed at his complete unwillingness to admit his rather huge error in interpretation of pretty much all physics.



First off you meat-headed ****-sack, find where I EVER said that consciousness is Impossible.

I am pointing out that there is no basis in Physics for their to be a force known as consciousness.

Consciousness being somting more than a series of chemical reaction!!!

YOU are telling me in ONE sentence that we don't know WAHT it is.

and THeN you tell me that science can explain it.


ALL that science can explain is that those chemical reaction exists. it does NOT explain that those chemical reactions are anything more than JUST PHYSICAL CHEMICAL REACTIONS.

WHERE in this series of reactions does some force known as consciousness come into play??

YOU say that these reactions are the cause of pain and joy, by WAHT IS FEELING THE EMOTION? The Brain? the Brain IS waht IS causing it!! So waht is it that the Brain is ACting Upon???

It must be a seperate consciousness! That is the only logical conclusion that I can see.


You are arguing that these chain reactions ARE the consciousness? EXPLAIN how that makes sense.





NOW

If you tell me that you believe that human beings are biological robots, all actions and reactions merely resulting from chemical reactions, the JUST SAY IT.

DO NOT tell me that you I am a fool for not accepting that a series of physical reactions SOMEHOW magically create an undetectable sentient psycological state.

My statements are FAR more logical.

I'm saying:
Nature has no known precedent for any force that we see as consciousness spontainiously being created. (just saying that "it's there" doesn't cut it). Therefore it more likely comes from somthing that we have not been able to observe yet.

You are saying:
Consciousness equals physical reactions.
It's ungrounded. HOW can physical reaction cause somthing that is NOT physical?

Waht is making me feel? Waht decides? Do PLANTS make desicions of waht side of the window they are going to go toward to get to the sun?



Like I said, Tell me that you believe that we are nothing but Biological robots, no different than Insects and Cancer and I'll shut up about it.


For the record, I'm neer even claimed to hold this theory to heart, After all, I believe that all matter/energy are vibrating notes in a giant song Smiley: lol
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#105 Jul 14 2005 at 10:57 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
It's the rabies, dude, making you crazy.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#106 Jul 14 2005 at 11:07 AM Rating: Decent
conciousness is not a force, it is a collection of neural impulses. its that simple, thats it, end of story.

kelv said:
First off you meat-headed sh*t-sack, find where I EVER said that consciousness is Impossible.

Do you not read your own posts? I would cut and paste them all in this section, but then this reply would be to long so i urge the readers to just read all of kelv's previous post.

kelv then said:

Consciousness being somting more than a series of chemical reaction!!!

YOU are telling me in ONE sentence that we don't know WAHT it is.

and THeN you tell me that science can explain it.



1. Consciousness is nothing more than a serioes of chemical reactions, get over it, its the truth, im sorry to dissapoint you.
2. I never said we dont know what it is, in fact i told you many times what consiouness is, you just wont accept it, so you can accept that or say its magic.

kelv then further displayed his ignorance of the subject:

YOU say that these reactions are the cause of pain and joy, by WAHT IS FEELING THE EMOTION? The Brain? the Brain IS waht IS causing it!! So waht is it that the Brain is ACting Upon???

To survive, your body has developed certain chemical outputs to stimulate your body into action. Fear, adrenaline, pain, joy. As your brain interprets signals, reactions are made, certain chemical outputs are triggered and you feel a sensation that urges your body to react. Its actually quite facinating, your brains natural regualtion systems signals the trigger for these outputs, then your brains higher reasoning section interprets the response as a feeling or emotion. Perhaps if you would read a bit on the subject like ive asked you to, you would understand these rather basic concepts.

the rest of kelv's post really lacks any clarity or logic to even cut and paste and reply, so i just leave you with this.

kevl: i think the point is you see consiousness as something more than just a chemical reaction, well, im sorry to burst your bubble, but its not. As you put it we are all just biological robots responding to directed stimuli lol. Your attempts at catergorizing consiousness as something non-physical only display your ignorance of the subject. Again i say this not to be offensive, but to desperately try and get you to open a book on the subject before debating it.






#107 Jul 14 2005 at 11:37 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
we are all just biological robots responding to directed stimuli



Very well. I don't believe it because I see no difference between your 'chemical brain reactions' and say.. lightning burning a tree...

and the state of lightning striking a tree could be said to be just as conscious as a brain.


but like I said, admit that that is waht you think and I'll shut up about it. So there you go.


although i would NOT count a series of chemical reactions as consciousness.

Basically you are saying that you do NOT believe in consciousness. You believe in PRE-Programed chemical processes and we are somhow fooled into thinking that we are making desicions and loving and hating things, wehn really it's all just a buncha pre-determined calulated responses.

If you would have said "No" in your first post on this thread it would prolly have been much shorter.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#108 Jul 14 2005 at 11:43 AM Rating: Decent
lol, who said anything about predetermed?
and just because i view consiouness as a collection of neural impulses (which is what it is), doesnt mean i dont believe in conciousness. Just because you wont accept the definition of something doesnt mean i dont understand or believe it.

What your post should have been labled is: Atheist, do you believe in the soul, that seems to be what your trying to pull out of this. Your trying to put a physicality on the idea of "conciousness" instead of labeling it as a biproduct of higher reasoning.

TO answer that i say no, i do not believe in a Soul, we are nothing but animals, biological robots lol.

#109 Jul 14 2005 at 11:45 AM Rating: Default
Quote:
TO answer that i say no, i do not believe in a Soul, we are nothing but animals, biological robots lol.


so do you believe the mind and the brain are different things or the same?
#110 Jul 14 2005 at 11:48 AM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
Your trying to put a physicality on the idea of "conciousness" instead of labeling it as a biproduct of higher reasoning.




Smiley: confused

YOU are the one putting physicality on th idea of consciousness. I am saying that it is somthing seperate from the physical/chemical/electo-magnetic and that these things are merely evidence of the processes involved but do not denote an actual force that equals our ability to "think" about things.


Waht is "higher reasoning"? So just another fancy term for a buncha sploodge sliding around in your brain?

Edited, Thu Jul 14 12:56:14 2005 by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#111 Jul 14 2005 at 12:03 PM Rating: Decent
kelv: again, your trying to make it more than it is, but whatever, believe what you want, we are all made up of magic fairy energy.

and yes, higher reasoning is just another fancy name for "all that ******* moving around up there".

Teleah: the brain is the organism which handles the processes. The mind is a psychological term used to describe the total conciousness of a person, their personality, thoughts, emotions, what makes that person unique. In a sense they are the same, but are used to specify wether talking about bio-chemical reactions or psychological ones.
#112 Jul 14 2005 at 12:03 PM Rating: Decent
I'm still curious to know how, being that we are biological robots, who evolved from the tinest microbes, came to build churches or paint sunsets.

Based on the fact that all evolution must stem from the basic survival instincts, where does man get the desire to do and see things that are completely un-necessary for survival?

Also, what about fun? Animals do things for fun, but humans are the only creatures I can think of that will purposely put ourselves in danger for the pursuit of fun. Being that this behavior goes against basic survival instincts, isn't it safe to say there's something different about us? Some chemical or spritual make-up that seperates us from all the other animals?

Personally, I find it hard to believe that we all started from galactic sludge, simply based on the fact that we live 99% of our lives chasing not those things needed for survival, but those things which bring us pleasure. For the purposes of this argument I won't say what I think it is, because it would de-rail the conversation. But I do think that consiousness, or the soul, or whatever you want to call it, does exist.

After all, if we were just biological robots, why would anyone smoke? It goes completely against instinct, and is nothing more than a slow suicide.






Ah, slow, sweet suicide. I love you Malboro's!
#113 Jul 14 2005 at 12:23 PM Rating: Decent
allen wrote
--------------------------------------------------------------
I'm still curious to know how, being that we are biological robots, who evolved from the tinest microbes, came to build churches or paint sunsets.

Based on the fact that all evolution must stem from the basic survival instincts, where does man get the desire to do and see things that are completely un-necessary for survival?

Also, what about fun? Animals do things for fun, but humans are the only creatures I can think of that will purposely put ourselves in danger for the pursuit of fun. Being that this behavior goes against basic survival instincts, isn't it safe to say there's something different about us? Some chemical or spritual make-up that seperates us from all the other animals?

Personally, I find it hard to believe that we all started from galactic sludge, simply based on the fact that we live 99% of our lives chasing not those things needed for survival, but those things which bring us pleasure. For the purposes of this argument I won't say what I think it is, because it would de-rail the conversation. But I do think that consiousness, or the soul, or whatever you want to call it, does exist.

After all, if we were just biological robots, why would anyone smoke? It goes completely against instinct, and is nothing more than a slow suicide
---------------------------------------------------------------

as we evolved our reasoning skills increased. By this we found more efficient ways to meet our basic needs to survive. This was a arduous and slow process, and as we increased our reasoning skills and thus our knowledge of our surroundings, so did our ability to more efficiently supply our needs. Given that we can now work as a society and help each other meet certain needs(farmers, electricians, home builders) we now how extra time in which we have nothing to do but amuse ourselves. these "amusements" are some of the things that set us apart from lower animals: painting, music, reading.

you can see this through history, the farther back in time you go, the more a culture has to focus on surviving, and less on amusement. I doubt you will find any great works of art in cave men times. If you would notice, we find cave drawings and pots to show their integration of reasoning into their system, a way of holding water in hardened clay, and drawing events using various colors.
as you move through history you will see these things advance, all the way up to today where the majority of our lives is spent determining how to amuse ourselves.


Try looking at it from an unbiased point of view, i have found when looking at evolution from a religios point of view, many people will not accept it. Even when i was a christian i believed in evolution, for if god(s) created this universe, then he/she/it did so using the physical laws that they so brilliantly established. But, as stated in an earlier post, evolution isnt really a question, we did evolve, we are just still trying to figure out the exact steps. I dont mind if you believe in god, but i assure you, if he/she existed, he would never want you to deny the evidence at hand and simply clothe yourself in ignorance.


Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Shake off the fears or servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.



Edited, Thu Jul 14 13:25:23 2005 by EvilPhysicist
#114 Jul 14 2005 at 12:48 PM Rating: Default
Quote:
Even when i was a christian i believed in evolution, for if god(s) created this universe, then he/she/it did so using the physical laws that they so brilliantly established. But, as stated in an earlier post, evolution isnt really a question, we did evolve, we are just still trying to figure out the exact steps. I dont mind if you believe in god, but i assure you, if he/she existed, he would never want you to deny the evidence at hand and simply clothe yourself in ignorance.


you see the problem that comes for that line of thinking is that evolution thats God completely out of the equation, it is not surprising that you no longer believe in God, that and evolution has no more been proven then God's existance has...it all boils down to which you have faith in, do you have faith in evolution and believe that it will some day be proven or have faith that God created the universe and all that is in it
#115 Jul 14 2005 at 1:15 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Kelvyquayo the Hand wrote:
YOU are the one putting physicality on th idea of consciousness. I am saying that it is somthing seperate from the physical/chemical/electo-magnetic and that these things are merely evidence of the processes involved but do not denote an actual force that equals our ability to "think" about things.

Not "separate from", but a result of.

It's still just a matter of attributing the currently unknown to The Great Googly-Moogly, instead of realizing we simply haven't figured it out yet. It looks for all the world like you're approaching the discussion with the assumption that our scientific processes and technology are never going to get any more advanced.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#116 Jul 14 2005 at 1:31 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,101 posts
Telleah wrote:
Quote:
Even when i was a christian i believed in evolution, for if god(s) created this universe, then he/she/it did so using the physical laws that they so brilliantly established. But, as stated in an earlier post, evolution isnt really a question, we did evolve, we are just still trying to figure out the exact steps. I dont mind if you believe in god, but i assure you, if he/she existed, he would never want you to deny the evidence at hand and simply clothe yourself in ignorance.


you see the problem that comes for that line of thinking is that evolution thats God completely out of the equation, it is not surprising that you no longer believe in God, that and evolution has no more been proven then God's existance has...it all boils down to which you have faith in, do you have faith in evolution and believe that it will some day be proven or have faith that God created the universe and all that is in it


You really should do some sort of research before you start spouting crap such as this. Evolution has been proven. It's called Micro Evolution. Macro Evolution, however, which tries to explain the major jumps and changes such as fish all of a sudden growing feet, has not been proven.
#117 Jul 14 2005 at 1:38 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
You really should do some sort of research before you start spouting crap such as this. Evolution has been proven. It's called Micro Evolution. Macro Evolution, however, which tries to explain the major jumps and changes such as fish all of a sudden growing feet, has not been proven.


yes, i thought that it was understood that i was talking about about macro evolution...sorry you didn't get that...i'll try to remember that one word "macro" in the future
#118 Jul 14 2005 at 1:39 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,101 posts
Telleah wrote:
Quote:
You really should do some sort of research before you start spouting crap such as this. Evolution has been proven. It's called Micro Evolution. Macro Evolution, however, which tries to explain the major jumps and changes such as fish all of a sudden growing feet, has not been proven.


yes, i thought that it was understood that i was talking about about macro evolution...sorry you didn't get that...i'll try to remember that one word "macro" in the future


That "one" word makes a difference you freaking tool.
#119 Jul 14 2005 at 1:53 PM Rating: Good
ya telleah, i really dont think you should say evolution is as unproven as god lol. there is so much dam evidence behind evolution, we are just trying to peice it all together, again i say there is NO question wether we evolved. Comparing it to something that has absolutely no proof like "god" is a very drastic an s unwarranted stetp. again i say please try and look at these things from an unbiased point of view, dont let christianity blind you from known facts such as:
1. there was a big bang (fact)
2. we did evolve (fact)
3. religion was created by man( fact)

now if you want to derive god out of something else, go ahead, but dont deny any of the above facts. its quite funny though how after showing a person that religion is wrong they still base their beleifs on "the universe is just to complex to have happened", when that arguement is the EXACT same thing as saying "i dont feel like taking the time to learn and question, so ill attribute it to some highre power idea that i got from that fake religion".
#120 Jul 14 2005 at 2:11 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,961 posts
It's not yet a fact that there was a big bang (though I believe in that explanation/theory), if you're being totally honest. Scientists just hold that as the most sound theory of how the universe was created. The question is what exactly "Big banged" and how was that created in the first place. If you've read the book "Angels and Demons" (the prequel to "The Da Vinci Code"), there's a lot of theoretical talk of anti-matter, and creating something out of nothing.

Anyway, Allenj, as to your questions, people paint sunsets because they find enjoyment from it. They do death-defying acts as a thrill seeking venture, to feel alive. Some people don't feel fully alive without some kind of thrill in their lives. Those people don't end up not feeling alive, sometimes end their lives, seeing no purpose in living. A lot of people are satisfied in life through jobs, family, sports, friends, etc, but others just feel the need for more. They need more excitment to feel the need to survive, and thus that's with the theory that everything we do tends to be in correlation with our "Survival Instincts".

As to how everyone is different, and no-two people are exactly the same, it's really all about how the brain develops. Everyone develops differently, being influenced heavily by genes and outward influences, such as family, environment, nourishment, teaching, etc.

Even though it's extremely fictional, I really wish the Ender's Saga's explanation involving philotes was really what happened in ourselves. It seems like an increadibly reasonable assumption, that for everything in the universe there is an opposite...so, there has to be an opposite of the universe itself, where nothing has a location, everything is everywhere, matter can be called up from out of nothing, etc. Extremely fairytale explanation, but that'd be increadibly cool if it was actually true.
#121 Jul 14 2005 at 2:17 PM Rating: Good
how it happened is the theory, whether we expanded from a some explosion is not. and books like "angels and demons" use half theories and partial understandings to manipulate the reader into thinking the book is plausible
#122 Jul 14 2005 at 3:24 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
31 posts
Kelvyquayo the Hand wrote:
DO NOT tell me that you I am a fool for not accepting that a series of physical reactions SOMEHOW magically create an undetectable sentient psycological state.
I guess this is one of the things I just don't get yet from Kelv. I honestly don't mean to be a smartass -- actually this is getting straight to the heart of the matter (so to speak).

If the thing you are talking about is non-physical and "undetectable" then how do you even know it exists? Please tell me exactly what "consciousness" refers to in your opinion. Of course the definition should not include anything measurable or otherwise material in nature, or you will be clearly contradicting yourself.

Also, bible refrences or appeals to faith will probably not go over well, either.
____________________________
33 rdm
15 blm
15 war
7 bst
2 whm (lol)
{Rank 5} {Can I have it?} /cry
#123 Jul 14 2005 at 3:43 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,813 posts
Kelvy wrote:
If you are suggesting that our consciousness EQUALS those reactions, then you are saying that consciousness should be able to develop as a result of any other series of chemical reactions.

Logical fallacy again there, Kelv :/. A more accurate statement would be that since our consciousness EQUALS these reactions, consciousness should be able to develop as a result of another IDENTICAL (or almost identical) series of chemical reactions, not just any random ones.

Kelvy wrote:
Very well. I don't believe it because I see no difference between your 'chemical brain reactions' and say.. lightning burning a tree...

and the state of lightning striking a tree could be said to be just as conscious as a brain.

You wouldn't say that if you had ever taken a class or read any books about how the brain works. I'm a computer scientist, but even my freshman biology class covered and confirmed most of what EvilPhysicist is saying. He just makes himself sound kinda arrogant in the way he presents it.

Kelvy wrote:
Basically you are saying that you do NOT believe in consciousness. You believe in PRE-Programed chemical processes and we are somhow fooled into thinking that we are making desicions and loving and hating things, wehn really it's all just a buncha pre-determined calulated responses.

We've been saying that it's chemical processes all along, but nowhere did we ever say that they were pre-programmed. The chemical processes are all responses to external stimuli that travel through our nerve system to our brain.

If you want to attribute God or the idea of a Soul to explain our higher thought processes which science hasn't found a 100% concrete answer for yet, that's fine. A lot of people do, and everyone's entitled to their beliefs. It's false to say that the laws of physics directly contradict the existence of consciousness as a function of our brains, though.

Allenj wrote:
Based on the fact that all evolution must stem from the basic survival instincts, where does man get the desire to do and see things that are completely un-necessary for survival?

Also, what about fun? Animals do things for fun, but humans are the only creatures I can think of that will purposely put ourselves in danger for the pursuit of fun. Being that this behavior goes against basic survival instincts, isn't it safe to say there's something different about us? Some chemical or spritual make-up that seperates us from all the other animals?

Actually, this can be explained by chemical reactions in the brain as well. Engaging in dangerous, "life-threatening" activities causes your brain to release large amounts of adrenaline and endorphins (feel free to make any minor corrections to this, Evil - it's been awhile since I took any sort of Bio class) which make you feel a variety of strong emotions. Usually fear, while you are engaging in the activity itself, followed by a strong sense of relief/euphoria that you "survived". It's that feeling of euphoria that thrillseekers try to achieve. Even when the activity that you're participating in is relatively safe like riding a rollercoaster, your brain is subconsciously tricked into thinking that you're doing something dangerous, giving you that adrenaline rush.

Allenj wrote:
After all, if we were just biological robots, why would anyone smoke? It goes completely against instinct, and is nothing more than a slow suicide.

Same deal, nicotine is a drug that affects the brain, making you feel pleasure. Why haven't humans evolved so that we have a genetic predisposition to avoid these "suicide sticks"? Simple. It takes millions of years for an evolution like this to occur, and humans have only been smoking for maybe a few thousand years at most.

Just because we're "biological robots" doesn't mean that we behave rationally or think logically all the time. We are governed by the chemicals in our brains. The balances of these chemicals are different in each person.
#124 Jul 14 2005 at 4:15 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
godammit, too much to read






In a nutshell, I should have said "detectable by physical means"





Yes Of course I am speaking of a SOUL. waht's my name?

I believe in an immortal soul that trancsends time and space.



but the argument is that a simple series of mechanical preocesses do NOT make up this soul.


I realize it'sall based on faith, but the point is that you CANNOT DISPROVE IT based on Biology or Physics. YOu cannot disprove the Soul to me.

now to read all of the hateSmiley: wink
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#125 Jul 14 2005 at 4:21 PM Rating: Decent
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Quote:
1. there was a big bang (fact)
2. we did evolve (fact)
3. religion was created by man( fact)




come on, you have no absolute proof of ANY of these.






..but on that note you have no absolute proof in ANYTHING do you, even that you are really here... so it really is all just fun and games, no one can ever truly prove anything to anyone, save for on superficial levels.




Quote:
for if god(s) created this universe, then he/she/it did so using the physical laws that they so brilliantly established. But, as stated in an earlier post, evolution isnt really a question, we did evolve, we are just still trying to figure out the exact steps. I dont mind if you believe in god, but i assure you, if he/she existed, he would never want you to deny the evidence at hand and simply clothe yourself in ignorance.


EvilPhisicist, are you implying that somone who believes in the unseen must always "clothe themselves in ignorance" and shun all science?

fu[b][/b]ck you buddy
you say, "I don't mind if you believe in God" and then call people ignorant for doing so.

Ignorant in waht I must ask? If we are capapble of seeing NAtural Laws as seperate from Direct acts of God, then WAHT ARE WE INGNORANT OF??

I Do NOT think that physics are wrong, I am pointing out the vast room for so much more, God is a generic term for it. If is the unknow pattern that make all of this happen, wehn be figure out that pattern I will stop calling it God.



Edited, Thu Jul 14 17:31:27 2005 by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#126 Jul 14 2005 at 4:25 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Kelvyquayo the Hand wrote:
but the argument is that a simple series of mechanical preocesses do NOT make up this soul.

Our argument being that the "soul" is an extraneous entity, considered only to explain what our technology has yet to discover - how exactly the bio/electrical impulses result in consciousness, emotions, etc.

Quote:
I realize it'sall based on faith, but the point is that you CANNOT DISPROVE IT based on Biology or Physics. YOu cannot disprove the Soul to me.

Religion, it would seem, is the logical fallacy at hand.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 150 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (150)