|
|
| Page 3 of 4 |
|
|
 Posted: Mon, 18th Feb 2013 23:52 Post subject: |
|
 |
On topic, I have 1-2 friends, that get very offended when the term porn is concerned. Just showing them porn is a huge fucking offence for them... 
At this fucking age and time, you find porn repulsive?!?!
I think something is wrong with them. Either they are too much under pressure by society or compensating for some of their problems.. 
| Lutzifer wrote: | | and yes, mine is only average |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11549
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2013 04:32 Post subject: |
|
|
I hate to jump in late and ALSO be off topic..but I could help but to respond.
| Casus wrote: |
We stand apart from animals through our mental capacities. I already made that clear. I don't think it's a very hard concept to grasp.
|
Only because we have nothing higher to compare ourselves to..On a ultimate scale of 'mental capabilities' we are just animals that learned to use tools, and be self aware...we aren't 'separate' because we learned to smash rocks with bigger rocks, and acknowledge we are an individual doing so.
We are no more separate from animals, than apes are from toads..they are much more highly mentally capable than toads..does that mean they could separate themselves from toads as not being 'part of that animal group'.
| Casus wrote: |
I'm not ignoring anything. YOU are ignoring that it's a theory by considering the theory of evolution a factual and objective truth.
|
Its not factual? we have seen and caused it to happen, dogs & cats, are our creation thru forced breeding and selective genes.
Our forcing of bacteria to propagate as more disinfectant resistant variants due to over use of cleaners, I can give literally 1000's of examples that reinforce and confirm it. Where is the disproof or uncertain variables to dismiss it?
Its stood the test of time, cannot be proven falsifiable despite the ENORMOUS effort and possible ways it could be shown to be.
I think you have the term 'theory' confused with its timeframe. it was coined as a theory, and the name unfortunately stuck with it into current day when used in laymen terms.
But lets go with its a theory, as it IS a 'argument' stance held to what makes a theory fact. We can say its a theory, that has not had one counter argument to dismiss or counteract its claims. So its a 'truth' as in it hasn't failed any test, many many many tests, its been put up against.
So if its just a theory, there must be counter theories..what are some of them you put weight into?
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11549
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2013 04:46 Post subject: |
|
|
| pistolshrimp wrote: |
The only thing I disagree with is that relationships are getting more complicated. Define you relationship anyway you want. No one is holding a gun to your head if you don't conform. In the western world anyway.
Whats the point in all of this? I'd be a little more interested to hear who people are personally going against the grain. |
I agree..do as you please. They are only getting more complicated in the fact people want to narrow the wiggle room they have.
I think its a simple conflict of desires to make more of ourselves, and that action being rewarded by the brain as pleasure as a drive to do it..vs the complications of possession, kinship, and attachment a higher state of connotative thinking brings between 2 people if they so desire it.
To each their own I say, if 2 people want to be monogamous, so be it. if they agree to see 2 new people each week separately..so be it. Its just a subject that's a judgement call of each individual.
I no more care if someone prefers to eat only one style of meat, any less than I care if they sleep with only one person.
I mean in the end, who you rub body parts with, does it really matter?  In the end its not any different than shaking hands with 40 people a week...other than one has a given stigma imposed upon it by mass judgement of it being taboo and the assumption that since its personally/not personally emotional for you, that it has to be for others.
If we considered shaking hands a very emotional and personal thing we only did with people we really care about..it would have this same dilemma attach to it too, of those that sees those that shake hands outside their bond as 'wrong'.
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24656
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2013 08:06 Post subject: |
|
|
| Casus wrote: | | Frant wrote: | | If you think we are a separate entity from animals, I'd LOVE to hear your biological, physiological, evolutionary and logical reasoning about that. You talking from an anthropocentric point of view, that we aren't part of the world of animals but are enlightened or something different. I disagree, we just increased our development thanks to the rapid development of our brains from necessity and diet. There are species that have been around for millions of years since they've reached their potential and are perfectly developed for their environment. No need for them to evolve further unless changes force them to. |
I honestly don't care if we call ourselves animals - except that it would be extremely confusing.
We stand apart from animals through our mental capacities. I already made that clear. I don't think it's a very hard concept to grasp.
As for evolution stagnating for some animals - that's hardly very useful for them, since we could eliminate them all at will, and we're very much a part of the environment. Evolution wouldn't do shit for them there. |
Then you don't understand the theory correctly. And if you set limits on what's part on the animal kingdom based on some arbitrary selection, like for instance our mental capabilities (which I think you overestimate a bit or give too much value since we're still, below our cognitive abilities, controlled by instincts surrounded by various layers of developed/taught norms and social constructs). But this is moot since you're still 100% anthropocentric.
| Casus wrote: | | Quote: | | Example: evolution isn't always a slow eon-sized event, certain changes can happen during half a century. A butterfly in England that usually had bright colourful wings that only lived in a certain area changed after a coal mine started and black coal dust and coal ore was stored in their habitat. It took a couple of decades and a new butterfly had suddenly been found. It was basically the same butterfly as the bright colourful butterfly but with pitch black wings. It adapted through fast evolution. If I could be arsed I'd look up the scientific papers and results, but I can't remember the name of the butterfly species or where in England this happened. |
Very interesting, but I don't see how it relates to anything in our discussion. |
It was just one of many many examples of other species being adaptable, something we share with even butterflies.
| Casus wrote: | | Frant wrote: | | Then you can just ignore all science since most of it is still based on theories (physics is based on basic theories of the 4 forces, relativity etc..) as well as anything based on any theory. |
I'm not ignoring anything. YOU are ignoring that it's a theory by considering the theory of evolution a factual and objective truth. |
If I considered it anything but a theory I wouldn't call it a theory. But it's a strong theory and there are no other viable alternatives. We cannot create new theories just to fit your anthropocentric views (unless you believe in creationism and intelligent design, those are purely anthropocentric, that we ARE separate from animals, that Earth was made for man 6000-8000 years ago etc...). We share 99% of our genome with chimps (as well as morphological biological likeness), yet we're somehow distinctly different, ie. our intellect is what makes us non-animals? When would you say we left the animal kingdom and became something else? When we reached the Homo Habilis stage? Earlier? Later? Any particular moment where we switched from ape to man? Got any idea?
| Casus wrote: | | Quote: | | The difference here is that we have millions of years of evidence behind evolution that support it, making it a very strong theory that only religious zealots would deny. It's as close to fact that any theoretical framework could get before becoming fact. |
Yes, evidence that is subject to our interpretation - which is subject to our capacity to perceive and analyse.
I'm sure you think we're infallible - but I don't. No wait, actually, don't you find it ironic that you're defending a human construct so admirably as infallible - all the while denying how different we are from animals - and how we're all basically messed up morons?
I find that slightly amusing, really. |
I find it mostly annoying that you're rhetoric capabilities don't seem to stretch further than to reinterpret what I've written and then claiming I wrote something I never did. The most ironic thing is that you claimed you were sure I think we're infallible when I'm the one that has from the start posted arguments to the opposite.
| Casus wrote: | | Quote: | | Anyway, it seems you didn't really understand what I said about why humans got big brains as it's primary survival tool while other species got other tools to survive in their particular environments. |
Why don't you think I understand? What makes you say that?
What does it matter where we got our brains from? I really don't see why that matters.
What matters is that we have them - and that's why we stand apart from animals.
We could both be the product of evolution - and yet stand apart, or don't you think so? |
Each species stand apart from each other. They all have different tools, different heritage, different development paths, different specialisations. What makes humans so special (besides being at the top of the food chain which in itself serves to remind us we're all part of one big ecosystem, developed in shared environments). We stand apart from every species as much as they stand apart from each other.
| Casus wrote: | | Quote: | | I've never ignored our positive accomplishments, but this is the bitching thread which already started with a discussion on human fallibilities, something I expanded on and posed some possible explanations for. |
Yeah, this is the thread where you consider the theory of evolution infallible - a theory constructed by humans.
Something doesn't quite fit here  |
Same rhetoric flaw again. I know the difference between a theory and law. Still, WE have nothing else to go on unless we're religious zealots trying to put some random god into the equation. And since it's so well researched, with tons and tons and tons of examples and proof, it's as near law as it can be. That's why the worlds scientists don't question the theory, yet you do just that because you use it as a tool to negate my arguments. It IS a theory, but it is a scientific theory which is completely different from when a layman/non-scientist says "it's just a theory".
| Casus wrote: | | Quote: | | If there are problems, they are negative, and then we have to focus on improving the negative aspects. |
Yes, when we're trying to solve them. Here, we're talking about how human beings potentially stand apart from animals. As such, we need to consider all the ways in which that might be the case - which would include the positive aspects. |
And you think we're even close to trying to solve any major issue? The difference is that our brains are complex in some ways yet we're still controlled by ego to the point where we can't help but do damage to ourselves, the animal kingdom and the planet. Most other species live in specialised environments (they've developed their skills in such environments that they basically fit perfectly into that environment which is why I said there's no point for a certain organism to change if it's reached it's sweet spot).
An article I read a short while back claimed we're actually devolving. Our lives no longer contain the challenges our brains were made for, we've made life too easy and comfortable, with new issues popping up because of it. And in a globalist world we all feel so insignificant that we have no effect or can do anything, giving up before we even start to change things. And we just go along for the ride, accepting the horrors, injustice and bullshit going on in the world. That's not particularly enlightened is it? Individuals may be enlightened, but in a population of soon 7 billion that enlightenment drowns instantly. Governments are focused on power and control and use the intelligent resources to strengthen power and control. Not very enlightened in the big picture.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11549
Location: Florida, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2013 09:53 Post subject: |
|
|
| pistolshrimp wrote: | | Maybe they find it degrading over the real thing. Perhaps they think you are the one compensating. |
I disagree. Calling a topless male model in jeans - porn and that you despise it, is overreacting.
I think that when you jump the gun at the near motion of something, you are suppressing your own feelings, maybe because you're afraid of them.
| Lutzifer wrote: | | and yes, mine is only average |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24656
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2013 09:54 Post subject: |
|
|
| StrEagle wrote: | | pistolshrimp wrote: | | Maybe they find it degrading over the real thing. Perhaps they think you are the one compensating. |
I disagree. Calling a topless male model in jeans - porn and that you despise it, is overreacting.
I think that when you jump the gun at the near motion of something, you are suppressing your own feelings, maybe because you're afraid of them. |
That string of reasoning is defensive in a weird way. Nvm.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2013 10:30 Post subject: |
|
|
| Frant wrote: | | Then you don't understand the theory correctly. And if you set limits on what's part on the animal kingdom based on some arbitrary selection, like for instance our mental capabilities (which I think you overestimate a bit or give too much value since we're still, below our cognitive abilities, controlled by instincts surrounded by various layers of developed/taught norms and social constructs). But this is moot since you're still 100% anthropocentric. |
Arbitrary selection?
I don't think you understand what arbitrary means - and I don't think you have any idea about whether I overestimate or underestimate our mental capacities. Arbitrary would be if I was alone in this - but the majority of the human race would agree that we stand apart from animals in a significant way. Certainly, it's no more arbitrary than saying our mental capacity and potential is no more than that of an animal.
All I've said is that we FAR exceed any animal in that way - and since you're not a moron, I know you agree.
That is not arbitrary and it's not a trivial difference. It's THE difference.
| Quote: | | If I considered it anything but a theory I wouldn't call it a theory. But it's a strong theory and there are no other viable alternatives. We cannot create new theories just to fit your anthropocentric views (unless you believe in creationism and intelligent design, those are purely anthropocentric, that we ARE separate from animals, that Earth was made for man 6000-8000 years ago etc...). We share 99% of our genome with chimps (as well as morphological biological likeness), yet we're somehow distinctly different, ie. our intellect is what makes us non-animals? When would you say we left the animal kingdom and became something else? When we reached the Homo Habilis stage? Earlier? Later? Any particular moment where we switched from ape to man? Got any idea? |
You're using the theory as an infallible basis for your view of life. That's the problem.
I use a theory as a theory - meaning it could be wrong, and that we should always be prepared for it being incomplete.
It's dangerous to trust ourselves on a level where we forget how flawed we are - and how wrong we can be.
Who cares how much of our genome we share with chimps? Do you think our genome is certain to be all that we are? So, you consider our mental capacity and our civilisation including all our science and its application that 1%?
Do you think that's an accurate reflection of how we stand apart?
| Quote: | | I find it mostly annoying that you're rhetoric capabilities don't seem to stretch further than to reinterpret what I've written and then claiming I wrote something I never did. The most ironic thing is that you claimed you were sure I think we're infallible when I'm the one that has from the start posted arguments to the opposite. |
That goes both ways, doesn't it. I mean - you have this image of me as someone who thinks the world of our capacity - and you keep harping on your favorite word anthropocentric - without having any basis whatsoever. All I'm saying is that we stand APART from animals - not that we're more worthy or more important.
I think animals are exactly as worthy as human beings are - but they don't share our mental capacity - or at least there's no sign that they do.
So, your fantasy about me thinking otherwise is quite annoying.
Anyway, I specifically pointed out that I know you think we're not infallible - that was the irony - but you missed that.
| Quote: | | Each species stand apart from each other. They all have different tools, different heritage, different development paths, different specialisations. What makes humans so special (besides being at the top of the food chain which in itself serves to remind us we're all part of one big ecosystem, developed in shared environments). We stand apart from every species as much as they stand apart from each other. |
That's where we disagree. We stand apart because of what we can do and what we can accomplish.
That doesn't mean we're worth more - or that we're necessarily "special" - but we certainly stand apart from animals in a way that no animal stands apart from another animal. Because they can't do or accomplish anything on the same level as human beings.
| Quote: | | Same rhetoric flaw again. I know the difference between a theory and law. Still, WE have nothing else to go on unless we're religious zealots trying to put some random god into the equation. And since it's so well researched, with tons and tons and tons of examples and proof, it's as near law as it can be. That's why the worlds scientists don't question the theory, yet you do just that because you use it as a tool to negate my arguments. It IS a theory, but it is a scientific theory which is completely different from when a layman/non-scientist says "it's just a theory". |
You're right - we have nothing else to go on in terms of origin of the species and the changes we perceive. But that doesn't mean we need to use it as our guide in life, as it's not all-encompassing. To do so, means that you think "the best we have" in a limited field is what we should settle with for all our considerations - and not try to go beyond it, or at least contemplate going beyond it.
In fact, you seem to use it as a straightjacket where evolution is THE factor in how you think of human beings overall. It's like you're completely denying how our brain enables us to do something that's utterly beyond (or utterly different - if you insist) that of ANY animal. You know this - you're just being stubborn.
Lots of scientists question it - and they do so daily. Perhaps not the premise - but all the conclusions.
| Quote: | | And you think we're even close to trying to solve any major issue? The difference is that our brains are complex in some ways yet we're still controlled by ego to the point where we can't help but do damage to ourselves, the animal kingdom and the planet. Most other species live in specialised environments (they've developed their skills in such environments that they basically fit perfectly into that environment which is why I said there's no point for a certain organism to change if it's reached it's sweet spot). |
I think we're much, much closer than we were in the stone age, yes. I also think we have a very long way to go.
| Quote: | | An article I read a short while back claimed we're actually devolving. Our lives no longer contain the challenges our brains were made for, we've made life too easy and comfortable, with new issues popping up because of it. And in a globalist world we all feel so insignificant that we have no effect or can do anything, giving up before we even start to change things. And we just go along for the ride, accepting the horrors, injustice and bullshit going on in the world. That's not particularly enlightened is it? Individuals may be enlightened, but in a population of soon 7 billion that enlightenment drowns instantly. Governments are focused on power and control and use the intelligent resources to strengthen power and control. Not very enlightened in the big picture. |
Have I used the word enlightened at any point in this discussion?
No, because I don't think it's appropriate.
I'm talking about potential - and that's all.
I've already said that I think very little of our species - CONSIDERING our potential.
But I don't think we're devolving. I understand why someone clinging to our human construct called the theory of evolution would consider that to be true - but I don't.
I think our understanding is such - that we're now starting to see how corrupt we are, where we used to be so ignorant as to actually believe in what we were doing. I think we're getting close to collectively realising how flawed we really are - and from there, we have the potential to change. I say "we" - but I mean the majority. We've always had individuals smart enough to realise these things - but we're getting closer to a level of widespread information where the majority will have no choice but to accept how flawed we really are.
That's what I think.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2013 10:40 Post subject: |
|
|
| DXWarlock wrote: | Only because we have nothing higher to compare ourselves to..On a ultimate scale of 'mental capabilities' we are just animals that learned to use tools, and be self aware...we aren't 'separate' because we learned to smash rocks with bigger rocks, and acknowledge we are an individual doing so.
We are no more separate from animals, than apes are from toads..they are much more highly mentally capable than toads..does that mean they could separate themselves from toads as not being 'part of that animal group'. |
You're stating an opinion with no support.
Interesting, but that's about all it can be.
I find it sad that you look at the human race and our civilization - including our ability to communicate through the internet as we're doing now - as not standing more apart from an ape, than an ape stands apart from a toad.
All I can say is that I disagree.
| Casus wrote: | Its not factual? we have seen and caused it to happen, dogs & cats, are our creation thru forced breeding and selective genes.
Our forcing of bacteria to propagate as more disinfectant resistant variants due to over use of cleaners, I can give literally 1000's of examples that reinforce and confirm it. Where is the disproof or uncertain variables to dismiss it?
Its stood the test of time, cannot be proven falsifiable despite the ENORMOUS effort and possible ways it could be shown to be.
I think you have the term 'theory' confused with its timeframe. it was coined as a theory, and the name unfortunately stuck with it into current day when used in laymen terms.
But lets go with its a theory, as it IS a 'argument' stance held to what makes a theory fact. We can say its a theory, that has not had one counter argument to dismiss or counteract its claims. So its a 'truth' as in it hasn't failed any test, many many many tests, its been put up against.
So if its just a theory, there must be counter theories..what are some of them you put weight into? |
Did you miss where I said I think it's a sound theory? I guess so.
All I'm saying is that it's important to remember that it's a theory. People often forget that - even if they use the word. They forget that it might be wrong or incomplete - and that aspects of it are questioned all the time.
Facts are nothing but perceptions we haven't been able to disprove. They're not objective truths - and they could be completely and utterly false - we just might not have the capacity to recognise it. We may never attain that capacity, either.
There's also a HUGE difference between a sound theory - and sound conclusions based on your own personal understanding of that theory.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frant
King's Bounty
Posts: 24656
Location: Your Mom
|
| Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2013 11:02 Post subject: |
|
|
| Casus wrote: | | You're stating an opinion with no support. |
That's what you've done from the start... Glass house and all that you know?
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2013 11:10 Post subject: |
|
|
| Frant wrote: | | Casus wrote: | | You're stating an opinion with no support. |
That's what you've done from the start... Glass house and all that you know? |
So that's where we're going now.
Well, it's been fun.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14392
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14392
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2013 18:18 Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I'd say entering a debate with the intention of "winning" - as in being right no matter what - is a sure road to defeat. Because then the motivation will corrupt your honesty - and your arguments will be tainted, as they're about trying to win and not to represent what you really think.
Personally, I think this is a matter of subjective positions that can never truly be right or wrong.
I think we stand apart from animals in a very significant way - and I think it makes a lot of sense to separate us from that world.
But I can see the validity of the opposing viewpoint. I recognise how we CAN seem like animals - and how it can make sense to put us into the same category. It's just not something I would do myself.
As for Fisk and his comments - I can't take them seriously. They don't seem to carry any weight that I can recognise.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2013 18:20 Post subject: |
|
|
| Casus wrote: |
Personally, I think this is a matter of subjective positions that can never truly be right or wrong.
|
I guess you are the exception that proves the rule then. 
As for whether "we stand apart from animals", yes we do because of our third brain. We use written language, we build and use instruments to accomplish tasks, and we invent complex structures of behavior that limit our lives. But apart from that, we are animals. Put a new born baby in a flock of wolves, and it will grow up and accept and behave like wolves. It won't invent an airplane, it won't start talking a language by random chance, if it survives it will try and behave like a wolf. We adapt well, just like any animal does.
The thing is though, using animal behavior as a base to (for example) behave like one (ie. kill whenever, fuck whenever, etc.) is no different than following the social norms of marriage. Otherwise, which animal do you pick to assimilate? The swan? Swans live in pairs for their whole lives. The spider? Some spider females kill their male counterparts after having sex. So what about the animal that we share 99% of our genes with?
Somewhere there is an influence affecting our choices, and if we aren't aware of them in our decision making, we fall victims to them. This never was an excuse to behave like an animal, it was a strong reaction against norms governing individuals, be they "oh I'm a dog" or "Oh, I'm a chaste monk who flogs himself because of 'nay, the sins of the flesh".
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
Last edited by fisk on Tue, 19th Feb 2013 18:29; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2013 19:38 Post subject: |
|
|
You've got to get closer, or you won't get your treat.
That's a good doggie... Come to Casus!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
| Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2013 19:47 Post subject: |
|
|
| Casus wrote: | You've got to get closer, or you won't get your treat.
That's a good doggie... Come to Casus! |
Clinging to that act will not detract from your failure and only furthers your embarrassment.
But of course, Mr. Subjective can keep pretending 1+1 is 50 "for you" if you want to stick to that delusion.
Yes, yes I'm back.
Somewhat.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2013 19:50 Post subject: |
|
|
Aww, that's cute.
One more time, and you might even start believing it yourself.
Then we can start trying something convincing - and your opinion will end up mattering a little bit.
If you're really lucky - you'll get your treat for learning a new trick!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DXWarlock
VIP Member
Posts: 11549
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Posted: Tue, 19th Feb 2013 19:50 Post subject: |
|
|
How did we go from sexual acts talk, to someone hand feeding fisk treats?
oh wait, that COULD be a sexual act I guess..
(me pictures fisk naked on a bearskin rug, casus feeding him chocolate strawberries)
-We don't control what happens to us in life, but we control how we respond to what happens in life.
-Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times. -G. Michael Hopf
Disclaimer: Post made by me are of my own creation. A delusional mind relayed in text form.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisk
Posts: 9145
Location: Von Oben
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 3 of 4 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
