New
Apr 11, 2013 4:43 AM
#1
Discuss. |
Apr 11, 2013 4:55 AM
#2
Define cruel and define nature. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Apr 11, 2013 5:05 AM
#3
Nature includes animals and I'm pretty sure we are animals.... |
Apr 11, 2013 5:14 AM
#4
Speaking of rationalizing... |
sexual incest in nisomonogatari - no one bats an eye romance incest in SAO - everyone loses their minds |
Apr 11, 2013 5:19 AM
#5
katsucats said: Define cruel and define nature. Nope. It is a valid question by itself. bergil said: This is a dumb thread. For starters nature is neutral not cruel. No. |
TheOttocratApr 11, 2013 5:25 AM
Apr 11, 2013 5:32 AM
#6
imo : The only people who would be fine in a world where murder&harm are okay to do are sadomasochists and sociopaths. |
GhostonyApr 11, 2013 8:22 AM
sexual incest in nisomonogatari - no one bats an eye romance incest in SAO - everyone loses their minds |
Apr 11, 2013 5:33 AM
#7
Ghostony said: imo : The only people who would be fine in a world where murder&harm are okay to do are sadomasochists and sociopaths. It seems you have a misconception about sado-masochists. |
Apr 11, 2013 5:40 AM
#8
bergil said: Ghostony said: imo : The only people who would be fine in a world where murder&harm are okay to do are sadomasochists and sociopaths. It seems you have a misconception about sado-masochists. Yeah Ghostony didn't mean to talk about you. But seriously, nature in itself has no sapience so it isn't culpable for its actions. By the way, this is the part where TheAutocrat starts spouting an entire essay of refutation and doesn't say anything with 98% of his words. At some point we'll probably get some others here uselessly trying to talk sense into him followed by a mod locking this topic after X number of pages. Just nod your head and smile... |
Apr 11, 2013 5:43 AM
#9
What do you mean? Human society in itself is a miniature of 'chains of nature'. Thus its condition is not less cruel or merciful than those of wild animals. |
The most important things in life is the people that you care about |
Apr 11, 2013 5:45 AM
#10
Because all man should be kind and loving to all his fellow man. What does the merciless wrath of nature have anything to do with how man acts and the morality behind man's actions? |
Apr 11, 2013 5:45 AM
#11
Resurrected said: But seriously, nature in itself has no sapience so it isn't culpable for its actions. By the way, this is the part where TheAutocrat starts spouting an entire essay of refutation and doesn't say anything with 98% of his words. At some point we'll probably get some others here uselessly trying to talk sense into him followed by a mod locking this topic after X number of pages. Just nod your head and smile... By "doesn't say anything with 98% of his words" you must mean not saying anything that you already didn't know, which is subjective anyway. I'd ask you to prove your claim otherwise. And if your claim is sound, then it's still an appeal to probability. You do not have the information even required to make a judgment about the future. |
Apr 11, 2013 5:49 AM
#12
TheAutocrat said: No question is valid if you can't define its terms. Are words valid by themselves without definition? Language isn't self-evident. Ask a baby what a word means and even he will laugh at you.katsucats said: Nope. It is a valid question by itself.Define cruel and define nature. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Apr 11, 2013 5:53 AM
#13
katsucats said: TheAutocrat said: No question is valid if you can't define its terms. Are words valid by themselves without definition? Language isn't self-evident. Ask a baby what a word means and even he will laugh at you.katsucats said: Nope. It is a valid question by itself.Define cruel and define nature. Webster's provides your validation. If I were to define it using my own ideas that would only serve to provide a basis for subjective criticism and topic. Rather, if you use your logic to account for all possibilities and conceptualize ideas yourself, then that is a more productive outcome. |
LunaApr 12, 2013 2:17 AM
Apr 11, 2013 6:04 AM
#14
Nature is not cruel. At least that's what I'd say.. |
Apr 11, 2013 6:07 AM
#15
TheAutocrat said: So your question is either:katsucats said: Webster's provides your validation.TheAutocrat said: No question is valid if you can't define its terms. Are words valid by themselves without definition? Language isn't self-evident. Ask a baby what a word means and even he will laugh at you.katsucats said: Nope. It is a valid question by itself.Define cruel and define nature. If I were to define it using my own ideas that would only serve to provide a basis for subjective criticism and topic. Rather, if you use your logic to account for all possibilities and conceptualize ideas yourself, then that is a more productive outcome. A. Why should man not be just as disposed to inflict pain or suffering as the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing? B. Why should man not be just as disposed to inflict pain or suffering as the external world in its entirety? And the answer is: A. Man must be as disposed to inflict anything as the inherent constitution of himself. B. The external world in its entirety includes man so it is impossible for man to be disposed to inflict as much of anything than a larger category which is inclusive of man. And since those definitions were plucked right out of the Webster dictionary, you have no possible rebuttal. Good day. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Apr 11, 2013 6:09 AM
#16
Man is cruel, not nature. |
Idle_HandsApr 11, 2013 6:16 AM
Konbu is important |
Apr 11, 2013 6:12 AM
#17
I'll add something to contribute to this thread: Lotka-Volterra equation. The economic or resource 'predation' in human society strongly resembles predator-prey interactions found in the wilds. |
The most important things in life is the people that you care about |
Apr 11, 2013 6:14 AM
#18
katsucats said: TheAutocrat said: So your question is either:katsucats said: Webster's provides your validation.TheAutocrat said: No question is valid if you can't define its terms. Are words valid by themselves without definition? Language isn't self-evident. Ask a baby what a word means and even he will laugh at you.katsucats said: Nope. It is a valid question by itself.Define cruel and define nature. If I were to define it using my own ideas that would only serve to provide a basis for subjective criticism and topic. Rather, if you use your logic to account for all possibilities and conceptualize ideas yourself, then that is a more productive outcome. A. Why should man not be just as disposed to inflict pain or suffering as the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing? B. Why should man not be just as disposed to inflict pain or suffering as the external world in its entirety? And the answer is: A. Man must be as disposed to inflict anything as the inherent constitution of himself. B. The external world in its entirety includes man so it is impossible for man to be disposed to inflict as much of anything than a larger category which is inclusive of man. And since those definitions were plucked right out of the Webster dictionary, you have no possible rebuttal. Good day. Ah but I do, katsu... You see, you only gleaned some things my comment denoted. I said "If I were to define it using my own ideas that would only serve to provide a basis for subjective criticism and topic. Rather, if you use your logic to account for all possibilities and conceptualize ideas yourself, then that is a more productive outcome." See it now? Tut, tut, "bad day" for katsu-chan? |
Apr 11, 2013 6:23 AM
#19
Because we're better than that. |
Come visit my town // I apologize in advance for my second-rate English Join my fan club // Improve the transport network |
Apr 11, 2013 6:41 AM
#20
QueenJenny said: Because we're better than that. This was the answer I was expecting. Why do you say that? |
LunaApr 12, 2013 2:20 AM
Apr 11, 2013 6:52 AM
#21
The reason why we should be better than nature is because modern society would not be able to operate if this was the case. We would find it incredibly hard to progress as a species if laws were nonexistent. Animals of course murder, steal and rape, not something we should wish to allow for the reason I listed above, among others. |
LunaApr 12, 2013 2:22 AM
Apr 11, 2013 6:53 AM
#22
Who's to says that man isn't as cruel as nature already? |
LunaApr 12, 2013 2:22 AM
Apr 11, 2013 6:58 AM
#23
TheAutocrat said: katsucats said: TheAutocrat said: No question is valid if you can't define its terms. Are words valid by themselves without definition? Language isn't self-evident. Ask a baby what a word means and even he will laugh at you.katsucats said: Nope. It is a valid question by itself.Define cruel and define nature. Webster's provides your validation. If I were to define it using my own ideas that would only serve to provide a basis for subjective criticism and topic. Rather, if you use your logic to account for all possibilities and conceptualize ideas yourself, then that is a more productive outcome. Webster's definition of 'cruel'. Definition of CRUEL 1 : disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings <a cruel tyrant> 2 a : causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain <a cruel joke> b : unrelieved by leniency <cruel punishment> Webster's definition of 'nature'. I've highlighted the definition I assume OP is referring to. Definition of NATURE 1 a : the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing : essence b : disposition, temperament 2 a : a creative and controlling force in the universe b : an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual 3 : a kind or class usually distinguished by fundamental or essential characteristics <documents of a confidential nature> <acts of a ceremonial nature> 4 : the physical constitution or drives of an organism; especially : an excretory organ or function —used in phrases like the call of nature 5 : a spontaneous attitude (as of generosity) 6 : the external world in its entirety 7 a : humankind's original or natural condition b : a simplified mode of life resembling this condition 8 : the genetically controlled qualities of an organism 9 : natural scenery Answer: The natural world is not predisposed to inflict pain and/or suffering. It is merely an accidental byproduct, like everything else in the universe. Whether or not mankind should or should not be be considerate of the subjective suffering of other creatures is an irrelevant question as there is no such thing as objective value. One is not better than the other. Not suffering is not better than suffering. |
LunaApr 12, 2013 2:24 AM
> The Fellow MAL Users Social Link has reached level 6! > Your power to create Forum Posts of the Anime Arcana has grown! |
Apr 11, 2013 7:28 AM
#24
Why is this even a discussion, we are just as cruel as nature if not worse, nature is neutral and does what is best, we do what is in our best interests and say fuck you to the rest of the world, even to our own kind. I don't think nature could top that. Not sure if that is even on topic, the thread title gave me a headache and it is late.. but w/e. |
Apr 11, 2013 9:30 AM
#25
what do you mean by nature? man is part of nature, unless you have some specific definition of nature that you want to use. and are you trying to say that it is possible for a concept such as nature to be cruel? by cruel do you mean something like "predilection for inflicting suffering, pain, etc" or simply "relentless, brutal, etc" in any case, this is a vague question. also, the only way you can argue this is by bringing subjective value into the discussion. last time i heard we dont know of any objective value lol |
Apr 11, 2013 10:11 AM
#26
is this another dumb thread of defining something for 15 pages lmao and then categorizing and breaking down cruelty and nature into linguistic sub atoms |
Apr 11, 2013 10:16 AM
#28
anyways op is leaving himself to such stupid derailings because the question is stupid and vague |
Apr 11, 2013 12:21 PM
#29
Zeally said: is this another dumb thread of defining something for 15 pages lmao and then categorizing and breaking down cruelty and nature into linguistic sub atoms Zeally said: I'm surprised we haven't seen essay arguments yet.anyways op is leaving himself to such stupid derailings because the question is stupid and vague Alright my answer? QueenJenny said: Because we're better than that. |
Apr 11, 2013 2:14 PM
#30
To say we are better than doesn't sound right in my ears, what is better? I think we can say we are more civilised than that, obviously. Civilisation doesn't mean that we are better than nature, it just means we made rules, and became a large group. |
Apr 11, 2013 2:46 PM
#31
Game Theory! Ok, so basically life is made of continuous and indefinite interactions between beings, but more importantly genes in the form of "prisoners dilemmas". These are specifically non-zero sum games where each party can choose to cooperate or defect. there are 4 possible outcomes: If both parties cooperate they will receive a mutual benefit of decent worth. Now there are the two possibilities were one party chooses to cooperate, but the other chooses to defect. In these scenarios the defector stands to gain greatly from their deception completely at the cooperators expense (the fools payoff). Then of course there is the situation were If both parties defect they will both lose to some degree, but it will not be as bad for either as long as they aren't caught in the fools payoff. So logically the best move is to defect. If you open yourself up to a cooperation you might end up getting the fools payoff which is way worse than the double defection situation and hey you might even get lucky and reap the highest benefit. However, when the game is repeated an indefinite number of times (almost any interaction in society and nature can fit this model, so it happens a lot!) Strategies which favor fairness (willing to cooperate first vs. trying to deceive as much as possible) and forgiveness (willing to cooperate if a previously deceitful opponent tries to cooperate) statistically seem to work out best. http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ308/tesfatsion/axeltmts.pdf |
Apr 11, 2013 2:57 PM
#32
MyLonesomeCowboy said: Game Theory! Ok, so basically life is made of continuous and indefinite interactions between beings, but more importantly genes in the form of "prisoners dilemmas". These are specifically non-zero sum games where each party can choose to cooperate or defect. there are 4 possible outcomes: If both parties cooperate they will receive a mutual benefit of decent worth. Now there are the two possibilities were one party chooses to cooperate, but the other chooses to defect. In these scenarios the defector stands to gain greatly from their deception completely at the cooperators expense (the fools payoff). Then of course there is the situation were If both parties defect they will both lose to some degree, but it will not be as bad for either as long as they aren't caught in the fools payoff. So logically the best move is to defect. If you open yourself up to a cooperation you might end up getting the fools payoff which is way worse than the double defection situation and hey you might even get lucky and reap the highest benefit. However, when the game is repeated an indefinite number of times (almost any interaction in society and nature can fit this model, so it happens a lot!) Strategies which favor fairness (willing to cooperate first vs. trying to deceive as much as possible) and forgiveness (willing to cooperate if a previously deceitful opponent tries to cooperate) statistically seem to work out best. http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ308/tesfatsion/axeltmts.pdf And what's all that got to do with this thread? |
Apr 11, 2013 3:00 PM
#33
TheAutocrat said: This was the answer I was expecting. Why do you say that? Because I believe all humans are inherently good. |
Come visit my town // I apologize in advance for my second-rate English Join my fan club // Improve the transport network |
Apr 11, 2013 3:06 PM
#34
TheAutocrat said: I see that you've reiterated what I've already done. Why even bother starting a discussion if you're afraid of being criticized for your ideas? You might as well just stand on the sidelines and watch the big boys talk.katsucats said: TheAutocrat said: So your question is either:katsucats said: Webster's provides your validation.TheAutocrat said: No question is valid if you can't define its terms. Are words valid by themselves without definition? Language isn't self-evident. Ask a baby what a word means and even he will laugh at you.katsucats said: Nope. It is a valid question by itself.Define cruel and define nature. If I were to define it using my own ideas that would only serve to provide a basis for subjective criticism and topic. Rather, if you use your logic to account for all possibilities and conceptualize ideas yourself, then that is a more productive outcome. A. Why should man not be just as disposed to inflict pain or suffering as the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing? B. Why should man not be just as disposed to inflict pain or suffering as the external world in its entirety? And the answer is: A. Man must be as disposed to inflict anything as the inherent constitution of himself. B. The external world in its entirety includes man so it is impossible for man to be disposed to inflict as much of anything than a larger category which is inclusive of man. And since those definitions were plucked right out of the Webster dictionary, you have no possible rebuttal. Good day. Ah but I do, katsu... You see, you only gleaned some things my comment denoted. I said "If I were to define it using my own ideas that would only serve to provide a basis for subjective criticism and topic. Rather, if you use your logic to account for all possibilities and conceptualize ideas yourself, then that is a more productive outcome." See it now? Tut, tut, "bad day" for katsu-chan? |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Apr 11, 2013 3:40 PM
#35
QueenJenny said: TheAutocrat said: This was the answer I was expecting. Why do you say that? Because I believe all humans are inherently good. You must be insane to be able to look at the world and come to that conclusion. Observation: There has never been a single moment in human history when someone wasn't killing someone else. Conclusion: We're all inherently good. |
> The Fellow MAL Users Social Link has reached level 6! > Your power to create Forum Posts of the Anime Arcana has grown! |
Apr 11, 2013 3:44 PM
#36
Vinter said: Now I agree with you here Vinter, but we shouldn't be so quick to jump into asshole mode. Think Hanasaku Iroha baby, Hanasaku Iroha.QueenJenny said: TheAutocrat said: This was the answer I was expecting. Why do you say that? Because I believe all humans are inherently good. You must be insane to be able to look at the world and come to that conclusion. Observation: There has never been a single moment in human history when someone wasn't killing someone else. Conclusion: We're all inherently good. |
Apr 11, 2013 3:45 PM
#37
bergil said: Ghostony said: imo : The only people who would could have the possibility to be fine in a world where murder/harm inflict suffering(and be inflicted upon) are okay to do are sadomasochists and sociopaths. It seems you have a misconception about sado-masochists. Fixed? I'm basically just saying a person would either have to not have feelings or enjoy pain; to even consider the idea of cruelty being not a bad thing in general. |
GhostonyApr 11, 2013 3:49 PM
sexual incest in nisomonogatari - no one bats an eye romance incest in SAO - everyone loses their minds |
Apr 11, 2013 3:48 PM
#38
Humans have minds. Nature doesn't. Humans can use their minds to be good people and create morals. Nature can't. So why should humanity act like nature? Humanity can be good, so why not be good? |
Apr 11, 2013 3:56 PM
#39
Vinter said: QueenJenny said: TheAutocrat said: This was the answer I was expecting. Why do you say that? Because I believe all humans are inherently good. You must be insane to be able to look at the world and come to that conclusion. Observation: There has never been a single moment in human history when someone wasn't killing someone else. Conclusion: We're all inherently good. I was making a joke :P. You might've missed this thread. |
Come visit my town // I apologize in advance for my second-rate English Join my fan club // Improve the transport network |
Apr 11, 2013 3:58 PM
#40
Are you implying that humans should be less cruel? ^^ |
Apr 11, 2013 3:59 PM
#41
DarChronicle said: Are you implying that humans should be less cruel? ^^ Me? I didn't know it was an implication, but that's basically what I think. I think humans should try their hardest to be as kind, nice, and nonviolent as possible. Humans should use their power of having morals. |
TrishaCatApr 11, 2013 4:05 PM
Apr 11, 2013 3:59 PM
#42
QueenJenny said: Vinter said: QueenJenny said: TheAutocrat said: This was the answer I was expecting. Why do you say that? Because I believe all humans are inherently good. You must be insane to be able to look at the world and come to that conclusion. Observation: There has never been a single moment in human history when someone wasn't killing someone else. Conclusion: We're all inherently good. I was making a joke :P. You might've missed this thread. Ah, so it's Nicole I should be quoting. xD |
> The Fellow MAL Users Social Link has reached level 6! > Your power to create Forum Posts of the Anime Arcana has grown! |
Apr 11, 2013 8:04 PM
#43
because if you play with fire, you'll get burned. Nature is much more crueler than man and as humans, most of us stand no chance against large animals. |
. |
Apr 11, 2013 9:02 PM
#44
bergil said: MyLonesomeCowboy said: Game Theory! Ok, so basically life is made of continuous and indefinite interactions between beings, but more importantly genes in the form of "prisoners dilemmas". These are specifically non-zero sum games where each party can choose to cooperate or defect. there are 4 possible outcomes: If both parties cooperate they will receive a mutual benefit of decent worth. Now there are the two possibilities were one party chooses to cooperate, but the other chooses to defect. In these scenarios the defector stands to gain greatly from their deception completely at the cooperators expense (the fools payoff). Then of course there is the situation were If both parties defect they will both lose to some degree, but it will not be as bad for either as long as they aren't caught in the fools payoff. So logically the best move is to defect. If you open yourself up to a cooperation you might end up getting the fools payoff which is way worse than the double defection situation and hey you might even get lucky and reap the highest benefit. However, when the game is repeated an indefinite number of times (almost any interaction in society and nature can fit this model, so it happens a lot!) Strategies which favor fairness (willing to cooperate first vs. trying to deceive as much as possible) and forgiveness (willing to cooperate if a previously deceitful opponent tries to cooperate) statistically seem to work out best. http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ308/tesfatsion/axeltmts.pdf And what's all that got to do with this thread? Uh it's a highly mathematical and scientifically reasoned argument for why humans should not be cruel. Duh. |
Apr 11, 2013 9:12 PM
#45
MyLonesomeCowboy said: If only real life were as neat...Uh it's a highly mathematical and scientifically reasoned argument for why humans should not be cruel. Duh. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Apr 11, 2013 11:00 PM
#47
First I'd like to address this: "Because we're better than that" What does this even mean? Who are we trying to impress? How does acting against nature in the form of imperforate kindness makes us and it "good"? Try this perspective: Nature is quite harmonious and balanced till man decides to interfere and change it to suit his needs. Survival of the fittest was the rule even for humans not so long ago, but because man fears death he tries to conquer it. As far as humans go, survival of the fittest is no longer an issue. Mores the pity. By constantly inundating our species with cures for common ailments which in the past could have been fatal to the weak, we have allowed our children to grow up without basic immunities to those same ailments. Man in his egotistical sense of domination of the natural world thinks that all things must adhere to his laws. When nature goes against man and his laws, it is considered to be out of balance. The truth is that man is out of balance and nature is trying to re-balance him. I am aware that nature is neutral and balanced, or we just assume that all things natural are this and do not try to quantify the balance because it is our unquantifiable by our capabilities? It's easy to assume nature is neutral, but you give me more examples of natures benevolence than cruelty and I'll be damned. The things is, there must be a balance. This question isn't stating that nature is completely cruel or completely unkind. It's saying nature is objective and that we should utilize cruelty for the sake of that and kindness otherwise. Even if someone was to give me the argument: "Cruelty causes pain and pain is bad" Well, it is true pain gives us negative emotions by majority, and that would hinder our objectives, however like I said, we should be cruel subjectively to each for the sake of objectivity. I.e. Slavery is productive and perhaps should be utilized whilst the common man should be kind to each other to make people happy. If we didn't have objective of power to actualize truth, why would pain be considered bad or wrong? |
Apr 11, 2013 11:05 PM
#48
MusicalWonders said: because if you play with fire, you'll get burned. Nature is much more crueler than man and as humans, most of us stand no chance against large animals. large animals the largest animal where i live is a black bear and you can easly beat thoes to death with a baseball bat(trust me on this one) |
Lord_JoshuaApr 11, 2013 11:14 PM
dont ask questions, just do answers |
Apr 11, 2013 11:53 PM
#49
Cruelty depends on one's view of the world. Morals passed down through generations make us believe humans around the world are cruel and put on a fake mask to act kindly next to their peers. Humans, "bad" or "nice", it all depends on their background. Nurtured the "bad" way, they are confronted to see the world differently than another nurtured in a "nice"/favorable environment. Nature is not acting, it is simply reacting. Humans are the same. We are given a fake sense of "free will", believing we have the choice to decide what we do, contributing to the definition of what cruelty really is : starting by being out of the norm. For instance, it is cruel in many people's eyes to punish a crime with death, even if the crime was meaningless, but go back in the past to find out it was not cruel at all with the same circumstances (aside from the law). Does time magically turn events less cruel? Logically, it doesn't. Nature can't be cruel and, by that conclusion, humans can't be either. Considering we all react due to a reason; may it be the environment, the past, the encounters, the flaws of birth, everything is explainable. To be just as cruel as nature means not being cruel at all, which is impossible if your standards for cruelty is performing acts of "evil" or inflicting crucial damage to one's emotions. Had humans been able not to perform "cruelty" would be "cruel" in itself. Sometimes forcing yourself to do something you can't might inflict more damage than it should. In a society where cruelty is almost non-existent, any fragment of madness will be considered cruelty. Humans are in need of defining right and wrong, to demonstrate who is superior, who to trust, who to live up to. Without "cruelty", if it was possible, humanity could not live. Conclusion: What the fuck are you guys reading, go watch anime already yotta baka! edit : TheAutocrat, have you ever considered watching Psycho-Pass? I think you fit Makishima Shougo's personality quite well. I wonder where you acquired all of that knowledge to refute others around you, in an antisocial manner, being 1 year younger than me. I actually have a tendency to feel bad about you, sorry (I was not trying to insult you, for the record). |
blobApr 12, 2013 12:00 AM
_____________________________________________________________ Come visit the Rec club! Everyone gets confused as to what they want to watch or read next. :T Here is the Official Rec Club list of Recommendations! |
Apr 11, 2013 11:59 PM
#50
Cruelty and pain are subjective. Conclusion: TheAutocrat needs a dictionary. |
My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
More topics from this board
» Is this forum dead? It seems like it.DesuMaiden - 41 minutes ago |
4 |
by RedBarometria
»»
10 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » strawberry, chocolate or banana milk?bobbysalmon - 1 hour ago |
6 |
by Zarutaku
»»
13 minutes ago |
|
» Will aliens finally appear this century?Absurdo_N - Apr 7 |
44 |
by _Nemrod_
»»
20 minutes ago |
|
» How do you process death?Lightskynight - Apr 14 |
34 |
by Uksi
»»
38 minutes ago |
|
» what is your favorite ice cream flavor? ( 1 2 )removed-user - Apr 5 |
57 |
by starshiiine
»»
45 minutes ago |