Wiegraf's Posts

Nairaland Forum › Wiegraf's Profile › Wiegraf's Posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 (of 162 pages)

Christianity Etc › Re: Some Nairaland Atheists Are The Most Arrogant Cowards Ever! by wiegraf: 3:56pm On Aug 14, 2012

manmustwac: The topic was started by a non muslim called tidytim & tidytim = frosbel. And it was mukina who moved it to the islamic section on 22 June.

Ha ha
Learn something new every day. I even suspected, but failed sad

Thanks

Christianity Etc › Re: Evolutionist: How Do You Explain Human Lifespan? by wiegraf: 3:04pm On Aug 14, 2012*

Mr_Anony: Perhaps I should come in here,
First of all, I'd like to say that "evolution" is not my forte and I am quite ignorant on such matters. Perhaps someone would like to educate me and clear my confusion.
Please correct me where I am wrong and try to get the idea of what I am about as I may be mistaken as regards using the correct terms.

I am made to understand that evolution is a mindless random process where natural selection allows for the best adaptation to survive i.e. be passed on to the next generation.

So here is my question:
On a very basic level, I am made to understand that one of the characteristics of living things is that they respond to stimuli i.e. there is a stimulus and then the organism responds and adapts to it.
Evolution by natural selection to me contradicts this claim as it seems to imply that living things do not respond to stimuli, rather they throw up random events and the ones that per chance survive the stimuli become the way the organism adapts.

Can someone be so nice as to explain?

If I understand correctly the problem you have with evolution having no purpose is that most organisms in nature have a strong will to live, as such you believe evolutions role/purpose is to supply the various life forms with the necessary equipment to achieve this?

If that's where you see the problem, I think you are quite close but just missed a turn or two. Maybe you're mixing up a few things. I'm going to state some very basic stuff, bear with it, it will all combine later.

It's all about probabilities, you're not a clone of course. The odds of this gene showing up in offspring are higher if one its recent ancestors has that gene, but occasionally completely new genes show up etc. Just have in the back of your mind that it's all probabilities.

Now say a mother of whatever species gives birth to two kids, one is unable to feel pain, the other can. These two get near a fire, the one that can feel pain backs up, pain indicating danger. The other, sadly, becomes lunch for the rest of family. Now as the one which could not feel pain dies off, the odds of that gene being spread reduce. The one that feels pain has kids and they are more likely to have genes like hers, ie, they will feel pain.

Now all these traits which a lot of animal species have with regards to self-preservation (females seeking out the strongest available mate, fear, pain, aggressive males, tools needed for hunting, even social traits) are inherited. It's not that some of their ancestors or current members of the species were/are not born with other traits (in fact I think there are some people born without the ability to feel pain, but I would have to confirm), its that they die out. If you couldn't feel hunger you'd suddenly die because you were not aware that you needed food, and starved yourself to death. If you weren't physically tough you'd die out (if you relied on strength for survival ie) as the bigger animals would probably monopolize resources, or kill you for whatever reasons. If the female doesn't seek out the stronger males, chances are greater of her having weaker (as far as survival is concerned) offspring, thus there is less of a chance of this type of females spreading, instead the hustling female is the one that becomes dominant. If a member wasn't particularly interested in mating, then it wouldn't have children, end of the line (in fact, this a problem apparently with atheists, there are more atheists now then ever, but our ratio is actually reducing because religious have a lot more kids)

In essence, most of the time, it's the biological life forms with the more selfish traits that survive and spread their genes ( I would imagine this is one of the reasons dawkins calls his book the selfish gene, though I've not read it). Thus evolution may seem to have a purpose, it doesn't. It just so happens that the more 'selfish' life forms are the ones with a higher chance of surviving, and indeed do so, hence their ubiquity. Their genes instill a goal/purpose in them: to survive. Evolution could care less.

Of course how one chooses to view this spiritually is left to himself/herself, but science is perfectly happy as is. Determinism vs free will would surely give a lot of people sleepless nights (include inherent chance in quantum mechanics).

Random: asking if evolution, a mechanical, inanimate natural process (or group of processes) has a purpose is a bit like asking what is the suns purpose in shining. It doesn't have one. When gravity, matter etc combine in a certain way they form a star, which constantly emits energy among other things, as by products. Thank @deity they do (if you've got the 'selfish' survival genes) as if nature didn't work that way, you wouldn't be here. But obviously, it doesn't have a purpose, it just is, a by product of energy in our universe. Variety of life is a by product of the evolutionary processes, simple. In fact, they are the logical outcome when look at artificial breeding today as a demonstration, natural selection, genetics, survival of the fittest, geography, millions of years for it to simmer etc etc. The more intelligent ID supporters could try to wiggle in some clock maker setting off these processes, but that actually complicates rather than simplifies. For instance, who/ what made the clock maker? The judeo-christian god wouldn't qualify as a clock maker imo anyways because of the problem of evil, among other things. But let me end the ramble here. I'll clear it up but need to be away for a bit.

Also I'm not a pro, so of course verify. Your thoughts?

Edit: clarity, grammar

Christianity Etc › Re: Some Nairaland Atheists Are The Most Arrogant Cowards Ever! by wiegraf: 1:50pm On Aug 14, 2012

manmustwac: Which topic was this? Can you procide the link? Maybe I removed it by mistake.

www.nairaland.com/996678/islam-psychologically-damaged-me-depression

There you go, good sir. I found it puzzling, though I am new here so I might be missing something. If this is official policy though then it would be seriously flawed imo. Of course like you say it could just have been an oversight.

Christianity Etc › Re: Calling The Humanist Bluff. by wiegraf: 1:34pm On Aug 14, 2012

@purist
I should have given up then and there. It was folly to continue, but my naivete got the best of me. I'm now convinced that only a davidylan can defeat a davidylan.

At least I will always have that post you highlighted to demonstrate just how black white is in his brain.

By the way @ mr anony did you figure out why I say evolution is purposeless. I could explain my view on athe other thread and we could slug it out, I get your view, etc? I would have yesterday when you asked but I was having a nasty case of davidylan.

Christianity Etc › Re: Evolutionist: How Do You Explain Human Lifespan? by wiegraf: 8:16pm On Aug 13, 2012

davidylan: that's the problem. Because many of you are here with a "atheists = winner/logical/reasonable" while "christians = lazy/illogical/complacent" mentality... it has become very hard to actually learn anything new.I didnt win, the only reason i responded is that for far too long... many stayed silent while you folks just ranted away regardless of how meaningless and contradictory your point was. As long as you included some high fallutin scientific jargon, it didnt matter if you had no grasp of your subject... others just assumed you must be right. It is no wonder many of you arrogantly assume your IQs are higher just by virtue of being atheist.

Just imagine a computer science undergraduate student like SimonAndal coming here to bleat about evolution!

You didn't win, yet you took a victory lap. How very davidylanish. Do pls inform me if there's ever a chance of me being affected by your work.

Christianity Etc › Re: Evolutionist: How Do You Explain Human Lifespan? by wiegraf: 7:59pm On Aug 13, 2012

davidylan: This is a rambling incoherent statement. They are NOT looking at shortlived genes actually (i think you shld really read up on the C.elegans research before posting here again) but looking at how various factors contribute to prolonging the lifespan of an organism... such factors include regulating endcaps of genes, calorie restriction etc. Google pls... you're begining to sound dumb.

Yawn. what exactly is your point? You said and i QUOTE - So even if a human lifespan where somehow flawed, it would just mean we haven't been lucky with getting optimal genes. And indeed, we haven't in many ways.

So somehow you're implying that we may not have a long lifespan because our genes arent optimal? What exactly does that piece of mumbo jumbo mean? What is your frame of reference with regard to an optimal gene? One that divides forever?

that seems to be your forte so far and you're doing very good. keep it up.

You win, I give up. I tried to reply but it was just much.. Could you at least let me know if you're working on a product that might affect me so I know to stay away?

Christianity Etc › Re: Evolutionist: How Do You Explain Human Lifespan? by wiegraf: 7:29pm On Aug 13, 2012

davidylan: Dont get ahead of yourself... you obviously NEVER made such a suggestion, what you did was piggyback on a sarcastic comment i made to you earlier that we should be going to look at the galapagos tortoise since for the clue to longevity based on your harebrained statement that lifespan is determined by how optimal our genes are.

What you "suggested" is that we should be looking at turtle genes (since they have optimal genes hence their long lifespan)... what is remarkable is that scientists are actually doing the EXACT OPPOSITE! They are looking at the genes of an organism that lives no more than 3 weeks max from birth to death to study how we can improve life expectancy in man!

It obviously is an indication that you truly DO NOT KNOW anything about this subject.

Christianity Etc › Re: Evolutionist: How Do You Explain Human Lifespan? by wiegraf: 6:49pm On Aug 13, 2012

davidylan: Dont get ahead of yourself... you obviously NEVER made such a suggestion, what you did was piggyback on a sarcastic comment i made to you earlier that we should be going to look at the galapagos tortoise since for the clue to longevity based on your harebrained statement that lifespan is determined by how optimal our genes are.

What you "suggested" is that we should be looking at turtle genes (since they have optimal genes hence their long lifespan)... what is remarkable is that scientists are actually doing the EXACT OPPOSITE! They are looking at the genes of an organism that lives no more than 3 weeks max from birth to death to study how we can improve life expectancy in man!

It obviously is an indication that you truly DO NOT KNOW anything about this subject.

Hmmm, you're saying they are looking at genes of other characteristic of some species to try and understand aging? They are looking at short-lived ones rather than long-lived ones though for whatever reasons? Interesting, apart from them considering those with a short lifespan rather than those with longer ones, that sounds remarkably similar to what I said.

They've never considered studying other species? Did I say anywhere that they should start with the long-lived ones, or that is the only place they should look? Did I ever say they have optimal genes, or imply that there is anything wrong with current human aging? You think its harebrained to assume genes have a lot to do with our lifespan? Just after stating that you repeat, again, that science is looking at genes to study lifespan.

If you don't want to be insulted (despite seemingly begging for it) please don't make moronic posts. I'm not the most mature so you're making this difficult for me, as I have to expend energy restraining myself. Please try to stop being a ginormous baby.

Christianity Etc › Re: Euthanasia ''mercy Killing'' How Justifiable Can It Be? by wiegraf: 2:35pm On Aug 13, 2012

E_monkey: @bold,
I don't think anything is 100% certain, including medical diagnosis, so there can't really be a 'by all accounts' situation. There can be misdiagnosis and you can't be sure that a cure for what they suffer from cannot be discovered in future, like I said before.

Human beings are programmed to be innately self preservative, a person wanting to end their existence is likely to be an indication of a mental disorder or a temporary error of judgement and that person might have a change of heart after considering their situation more carefully. Life cannot be gotten back when lost. You can't risk ending a person's life by euthanasia when it is possible that they are requesting suicide hastily (maybe due to unrealistic pessimism) without carefull consideration of their situation. Yes, it is their life, but some circumstances call for the family making decisions for that person.

Agreed.

First point, true you can never be 100 percent sure (of anything imo) but if all manner of specialists and what not have been called in and the patients chances are considered terminal, then I think its safe to agree with their prognosis as final.

Second point, you rightly highlighted 'likely', this might not be the case and you've acknowledged that. As for family, again, it would depend on the case.

I'm not for just killing everyone who brings a case. You don't imply that of course but just want to make that clear. Think panels and checks etc. Realistically, in the third world this won't be possible mostly for logistical reasons, but in the developed word it could work (and it does in some european countries I think)

Edit: also, there will be mistakes made, no doubt. But the gain of a graceful and painless demise for many others would be worth.

Christianity Etc › Re: Evolutionist: How Do You Explain Human Lifespan? by wiegraf: 2:12pm On Aug 13, 2012*

Me, insulting, why I didn't notice. I did notice you labeling my reasoning stoopid. After that you posted a reply in which you confirm that an approach similar to what I suggested is in fact being used. In other words, it was completely useless post in which you repeated an idea similar to mine, then you accused me of having nothing to say. The rest of your post was something about your personal life, why should I care?

Christianity Etc › Re: Evolutionist: How Do You Explain Human Lifespan? by wiegraf: 1:51pm On Aug 13, 2012

davidylan: So the turtle or galapagos tortoise has optimal genes then? Perhaps we should go to them for the solution to longevity no? I laugh at the stu[i]pi[/i]dity on display on this thread.

You should ask for a refund from your schools. You should also stay out of the way of science so it could work on gene therapy to fix the areas in your brain responsible for logical reasoning.

But yes if living long is your purpose, looking at the turtle etc genes (among other things) for hints on how to achieve this would not be a bad idea

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Some Nairaland Atheists Are The Most Arrogant Cowards Ever! by wiegraf: 1:34pm On Aug 13, 2012

You really don't need the details to criticize it. I suppose it is fine for practical reasons as some seem completely unable to speak normal so you have to quote their books. But by arguing from that angle you give the books/traditions credence they don't deserve in most discussions concerned with secular issues.

Then again, sadly, most people who need the discussion to drop to that level would miss that point

, so maybe no harm done in those situations. The smarter ones will pick up on this though.

Christianity Etc › Re: Evolutionist: How Do You Explain Human Lifespan? by wiegraf: 12:28pm On Aug 13, 2012

And I'd just like to add, despite the fact that many don't like to hear it, evolution has no purpose. It isn't purposely looking to make you the perfect organism. This is more or else chance. So even if a human lifespan where somehow flawed, it would just mean we haven't been lucky with getting optimal genes. And indeed, we haven't in many ways. The human design isn't exactly flawless you know?

Christianity Etc › Re: Euthanasia ''mercy Killing'' How Justifiable Can It Be? by wiegraf: 11:18am On Aug 13, 2012

E_monkey: Anesthetics could lessen the pain. Wouldn't that be preferable to suicide?

Discoveries are being made everyday. A new scientific/medical way of helping him recover could be discovered the next day after he is killed. What then?

No. Religion is not the only reason why the family would want to keep their relative one alive. They might actually love the person enough to want to keep them alive.

Very true.
I don't believe euthanasia should be legalized. There is always a solution to problems and medical conditions/ailments can be cured only that cures for some ailments have not been found.

Anesthetics could indeed lessen the pain, but it still doesn't take it away. One could still be living a pretty terrible life despite anesthesia (opiates in particular, I'm looking at you). So yes suicide would be preferable in some situations.

Discoveries are made every day, true, but supposing the patient has little time left by all accounts, and there's no cure on the horizon? For patients with say full paralysis even, I say they be given the option of deciding if they are willing to wait for a cure with low odds of materializing or just ending it. It is the patients life after all, not the families or the states. They have no right to dictate how he/she lives it, and they'd be forcing the patient against his/her will in some situations.

Where do I say only religion is the only reason the family might want to keep him alive?

Oh yes it would be really difficult to implement, but I still believe it should. In cases where for instance there's a good chance of a cure arriving before death, then the patient probably shouldn't be given the option. There are various other scenarios, regardless its worth a shot.

Christianity Etc › Re: Calling The Humanist Bluff. by wiegraf: 10:25am On Aug 13, 2012*

If your stance is that rather than letting it be (to chance, god, fate or whatever) we have to try to better the situation of humanity, then I would imagine it becomes a case of finding the best method to achieve that. Reason, logic with an objective bent (knowledge of the objectively verifiable combined with reason/logic, I suppose) strike me as the better options and in fact seem to have proven themselves these last 500 years or so.

I am one of those 99.99 percent people though. 'This statement is a lie', etc. It is just more practical to me to operate as if 99.99 % = 100 %

Edit: to clarify I wouldn't call it faith, if its been objectively verified, than using the word faith might be inappropriate. The kind of knowledge is an issue, and that's what my post is about

Christianity Etc › Re: Euthanasia ''mercy Killing'' How Justifiable Can It Be? by wiegraf: 10:02am On Aug 13, 2012

From what I understand it is a crime in most countries. Why not use an example outside of a combat situation? The rules are different during such scenarios.

Personally, I approve of assisted suicide under certain conditions, like if the patient is in considerable pain or handicapped with very little chance of recovery and is of sound mind and makes it clear that this is her/his decision for instance. If refused, at that point s/he is being left alive to alleviate the grief of friends/family or to satisfy their religious believes, which I think is very cruel. Enforcing this policy though would be rife with complications.

Christianity Etc › Re: Calling The Humanist Bluff. by wiegraf: 9:31am On Aug 13, 2012

^^
What do you mean?

Christianity Etc › Obama On Usa, Democracy And Church And State by wiegraf(op): 8:53am On Aug 13, 2012

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXcvbnzNIjg&feature=share

Thoughts?

Edit: link

Foreign Affairs › Re: Women-only City Planned For Saudi Arabia by wiegraf: 8:20am On Aug 13, 2012

tpia@:
^

the lady with that name is supposed to be saudi arabian, i believe.

Oops, my bad. You are correct. I hope she isn't some sort of persecuted minority, though that wouldn't change the gravity of the issue.

Christianity Etc › Re: Some Nairaland Atheists Are The Most Arrogant Cowards Ever! by wiegraf: 8:15am On Aug 13, 2012

The other day, some teenager was complaining about being persecuted because she was being open about her doubt of islams tenets. She posts it here, with the aim of getting advice from atheists, somehow the thread ends up in the islamic section.

If one can't see how wrong that is, well, I'm speechless. Perhaps someone could explain to me why it was so?

Foreign Affairs › Re: Women-only City Planned For Saudi Arabia by wiegraf: 7:51am On Aug 13, 2012

tpia@:
the name doesnt sound arabic/islamic at all.

anyone know what it means?

Iirc afghanis aren't arabs, like iranians. So the name is not islamic but it could farsi, or whatever her tribe is.

And all many of you took out of this is lesbianism?

I find it rather odd that a lot of people insist on mixing religion with politics.

Christianity Etc › Re: Calling The Humanist Bluff. by wiegraf: 7:34am On Aug 13, 2012*

davidylan: The usual atheist escapist drivel. Not a surprise. Finding an atheist willing to defend his incomprehensible illogic is a feat of monumental proportions. For someone who supposedly has a lot to do, you certainly do find plenty of time to post factless claims around here. When challenged, all we get is mishmash of either "go and read" or "i dont want to spoonfeed you". Nothing new.

I didnt start the thread. merely noted the glaring absence of scientific atheist gurus who seem to only show up when its time to bash the bible.

True that anony asked for your opinion... shame you fail woefully at backing up that "opinion". You would have been better off just keeping quiet since you dont seem to have a clue what it is you speak about.

Just note though, I never said I had a lot to do (though I actually do)

Edit: I see you still barking about another thread. That doesn't have anything to do with you being incredulously wrong in this one, you know? You're in essence doing what you accuse me of, avoiding the issue.

I'll leave you alone, for now.

Christianity Etc › Re: Calling The Humanist Bluff. by wiegraf: 7:18am On Aug 13, 2012

davidylan: odd considering those same people spend inordinate amounts of time bleating about a religion they claim not to care about. You all seem to have no productive things to do until you are forced to defend your positions... then suddenly you're either all too busy or more than willing to move to another thread to continue the usual empty pontificating. There is a thread going on right now asking for the evolutionary explanation for differences in lifespan... its barely struggling to go beyond the first page since atheists are conspicuously absent. Funny you're all congregating on the "bash christianity" threads.

#deity, don't ignore the rest of the post oga. If the task requires too much effort for little gain, then one moves on, simple economics. In this case educating you requires far too much energy expended on one person, frankly expecting that is being selfish (its a huge problem with our society imo, ie, people not pulling their weight). And if you actually know you are wrong but are just being disingenuous...

Edit:
Did you start the evolution thread? That could explain a lot. Though it could be a variety of other reasons.

As for bashing, you asked for my opinion, then threw it out for subjective reasons. Actually anony asked for it, but you sort of too. You might have a case there at least if you look hard enough

Christianity Etc › Re: Calling The Humanist Bluff. by wiegraf: 6:49am On Aug 13, 2012

davidylan: unfortunately that process has not held up to careful scrutiny when it comes to the piffle most atheists like you spew here. the vast majority of you are mere copy-pasters and know very little about the science you tout. Of course as soon as you shift the burden of proof to the atheist, the coward takes off and runs. So much for the "beauty of science".

I think its that people have more productive things to do, your case may to be too far gone to merit help from the average. It would be selfish to ask one to help you (at least without some sort of financial incentive), it likely requires Jesus-level altruism.

Christianity Etc › Re: Calling The Humanist Bluff. by wiegraf: 6:34am On Aug 13, 2012

davidylan: and i suppose you prefer pseudo-science for totally empirically sound reasons right? Yeah color me naive.
Religious belief/faith is a subjective matter. It is not and has never been dependent on logic or reason. The burden of proof is on you to show how science totally invalidates the faith-based belief system.

We established first that if you're posing the question to an atheist, then we are being strictly objective (or as much as we can)

I accept science as my currency, not pseudo-science. That's the beauty of the scientific method, if a theory/hypothesis doesn't stand up to rigorous testing, then its more or else out the door (as far as mainstream is concerned). You get empirical evidence you can bring it back and we all discuss and test, if you're right then your hypothesis is elevated to theory. Enough of that, you know this.

Ah, I didn't even read your post completely and I just started replying you my good dictator. You say the burden of proof rests on me... Well I'm off. Maybe I should have paid attention to talk of your crazy

Christianity Etc › Re: Calling The Humanist Bluff. by wiegraf: 5:57am On Aug 13, 2012

davidylan: it doesnt have to be special to you to be special to others no?

What is the context here? Because you're just admitting you prefer it for subjective reasons

Christianity Etc › Re: Calling The Humanist Bluff. by wiegraf: 9:26pm On Aug 12, 2012

davidylan: the only thing i could understand from this post was that you of course are on the side of man being moral by default. Aside from that, you just rambled on without making a coherent point.

I hope you aren't trolling, that isn't very good you know? If you really don't understand then let's establish something first. A question posed to an atheist means we are being objective here.

Religion is not a conscious entity. It is a tool created and used by man, sometimes nefariously, sometimes for good. When you say religion is the source of morality you are saying man, using religion as a tool, is the source of morality. The post you make to reply this wasn't made by your computer, well it was, but is more accurate to say it was made by you using your computer as a tool.

I think this should be clearer, yes?

davidylan: Morality without christianity is relative. For example... the aztecs think it is morally ok to sacrifice young virgin girls to the gods... what about you?

That, good sir, is just plain hubris. It should read "Morality is relative". That is all. How in the world is christianity more special than any of the myriad unverified religions?

Christianity Etc › Re: Calling The Humanist Bluff. by wiegraf: 6:38pm On Aug 12, 2012

davidylan: that's typical for threads where macdaddy01 shows up. It just devolves into meaningless chatter.

As i understand it, the question is whether present day moral codes of conduct are a product of christianity/religion so to speak or a basic human trait.

The video will have to wait till I get home, but if morality a product of religion I believe that implies man is incapable of being moral by default. We could go on about morality being absolute or not, or how that implies people who've never been exposed to religion are inherently immoral (ha ha not at all, even elephants show empathy, by whose standards? That's rather silly imo) but to someone looking at it from my angle (and that of most atheists): religion was created by man. By extension, even if religion created morality (sort of absurd), that was just man using religion to create morality.

The issue of absolute morality though perhaps should be settled if you guys wish to continue this. And that's a nasty conundrum if we're to be brutally objective methinks

Christianity Etc › Re: Calling The Humanist Bluff. by wiegraf: 6:01pm On Aug 12, 2012

I have no idea what the argument is about at the moment.

Do you guys actually know?

Christianity Etc › Re: Religion And Personality by wiegraf(op): 5:21pm On Aug 12, 2012

NFs , xNFx, the Idealists

Hippies...

Well no, but my P moment of inspiration has now run out.. I'm now too bored to continue... I'll be back..

Christianity Etc › Re: Religion And Personality by wiegraf(op): 5:16pm On Aug 12, 2012

Next group as far as population is corncerned, are the xSxP, SPs or Artisans

They generally provide the bang. A practical bent, generally fun loving people interested in the here and now. Lots of artists, musicians, sports men etc in this group.

They all have ADD

Christianity Etc › Re: Religion And Personality by wiegraf(op): 4:53pm On Aug 12, 2012

For ease, the types are usually grouped, a certain group tends to behave this way, or that way etc..

We have, first group xSxJ, (x is always used to indicate variable, either of the options in this case), SJs aka The Guardians

The most populous, sjs run life's daily engine, more or else. Studious, traditional, play the 'safe' route people. Mind numbingly dull jobs like accounting for instance they handle effortlessly. They aren't called guardians for nothing, for instance getting them to open up their minds to religions other than their parents is nigh on impossible. They just can't help it for the most part (its more complicated than that, but you get the picture).

They are the bane of xNTPs, who must experiment with everything (just for science) only to meet a scowling sj reprimanding them because, well, just because really. I really can't tell why -_- . xNTJs on the other hand use them as minions in their usual quests for world domination

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 (of 162 pages)