God? Don't be silly!

[old.Tohtori]

It's not psychology at all - you've TOLD us that you caring for others beyond your existence hinges on you being around (in some form) to be aware of the benefits. If this is wrong, please correct me.

It's wrong. Never said that. You're assuming, again.

Would that not be the same as not being able to say what morals would be without religion? How can you tell us what you would be like based on something you can never experience. I believe you said we would need a new planet to see what morals woupld be like without religion, do we not need one for you to be able to find out how you would feel?

Because i know what kind of a person i'd be because of how i was when i tried to be something i'm not.

 

[Calaen]

AH so does that mean you changed your mind about something? Like a life changing decision? That you would never ever do because you know yourself?

And you did say what Nath said you said!!!

 

[Scouse]

Because i know what kind of a person i'd be because of how i was when i tried to be something i'm not.

I disagree. You can imagine (which is what you said) what you'd be like, but chances are you'd be way wrong.

Experience changes people, permanently. We are, partly, the sum of our experiences. Our abilities are changed in a very real way depending on those experiences.

It's highly unlikely anyone could accurately estimate how people would feel if it was proven that there was no afterlife. It's even less likely that people could do it for themselves.

 

[old.Tohtori]

AH so does that mean you changed your mind about something? Like a life changing decision? That you would never ever do because you know yourself?

And you did say what Nath said you said!!!

First of all, no i didn't say that.

On the first part of your post: A: Stop bringing things i've said about myself from other threads into this, show some f*ckings forum decor. and B: I didn't always know myself as i do now. Go figure.

I disagree. You can imagine (which is what you said) what you'd be like, but chances are you'd be way wrong.

Experience changes people, permanently. We are, partly, the sum of our experiences. Our abilities are changed in a very real way depending on those experiences.

It's highly unlikely anyone could accurately estimate how people would feel if it was proven that there was no afterlife. It's even less likely that people could do it for themselves.

That's why i said imagine, i couldn't kow for a 100% fact, but i know enough how i was.

 

[nath]

It's wrong. Never said that. You're assuming, again.

Lets look at it from the other angle. If I had a son, I could treat him perfectly well but do nothing to ensure his well being after I've died. When I die - I won't give a shit obviously, because I won't exist to give a shit. However, when I'm alive I'll be aware that I've not prepared things to ensure his well being.

I wouldn't. When it came to "when i'm gone" they'd be on their own.

Could you explain this point a little further. As I currently understand it, you're saying that without a belief in an afterlife you don't care what happens to others beyond your existence.

 

[Krazeh]

It's wrong. Never said that. You're assuming, again.

Well if he's wrong then how about doing as he's asked and correcting him?? I for one would be interested to know how he's apparently misunderstood you this time because it appeared quite clear that you were of the view that if there was no afterlife there'd be no point or reason to do anything that would benefit anyone after you died, which leads to the logical conclusion that you'd only do anything to benefit someone after you died if you were around in some capacity to reap the rewards of your actions, i.e. an afterlife.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Could you explain this point a little further. As I currently understand it, you're saying that without a belief in an afterlife you don't care what happens to others beyond your existence.

Yes, i wouldn't care what happened after i'm gone. IF i was that guy.

Now IF i was that guy you so like to judge, i would be a whole different person altogether.

It's very simple.

NOW...if i made sure my son had a gazillion bucks to have a good life...what would happen after i died?

Don't know. No clue, no facts or proof. Could go on drugs, could gamble it all, could start a cult even. But i wouldn't care. The benefits are given NOW as you die happy, or rather spend your last minutes knowing, or in some cases "living in the denial state" that your son will be well fed and clothed. But you won't know that, you shouldn't care about that, because in a moment you won't.

To put it in your terms; there's no proof that what you've ensured IS ensured.

Ergo, you shouldn't care.

The benefits are to you and to you alone(what can be proven to you) so that you may spend your blisfull last moments thinking that everything is fine.

Well if he's wrong then how about doing as he's asked and correcting him?? I for one would be interested to know how he's apparently misunderstood you this time because it appeared quite clear that you were of the view that if there was no afterlife there'd be no point or reason to do anything that would benefit anyone after you died, which leads to the logical conclusion that you'd only do anything to benefit someone after you died if you were around in some capacity to reap the rewards of your actions, i.e. an afterlife.

How about people start discussing instead of taking every. single. post. i. make. apart with the thinnest comb they can find?

Every single one. Not one of my comments that are OPINIONS or how I FEEL has gone unripped.

I'll start doing that in the future. Then you'll f*cking know.

Think about your precious cause and whateverit was that you use so often against me.

"Making "sure" things are good for your son doesn't mean they will, and as such, you shouldn't care if they will or will be as time will tell that, and you won't be around(or in any form) to see it."

No one here is claiming that you have to be an asshole if you don't believe in an afterlife.

*takes a breath*

 

[nath]

You're making the leap that because you can't ensure your son (in this example) will be happy you shouldn't care? I think that's wholly illogical. Sure, you *can't* be sure, but it's likely that if you set things up to be more pleasant for loved ones after you die - they will be more pleasant. It may not work out that way but you can be fairly sure in certain things. For example, if I had a load of money and left it to my son - I could be reasonably sure that it would go to him and he would then have the money to do with as he wished. If I had a load of money and spent it on coke and hookers before I died, I could be absolutely CERTAIN the drug dealers and prostitutes weren't going to give all that money to my son when I died.

"you shouldn't care about that, because in a moment you won't."

I don't see the logic in this at all. If you care about someone, you care about them. It shouldn't matter if you're alive or dead, you want them to be taken care of and happy. We know that there are things we can do to make it better. We've seen others that have died and prepared their loved ones for the event and it has worked out better for them so why wouldn't we endeavour to do the same.

Again, I've not seen anything you've said that suggests anything other than "if I'm dead, I don't care what happens to the people around me" (if you didn't believe in an afterlife). And while there's one aspect of that that I agree with - if you don't exist, you lack the capacity to care, there's one fairly major part of it I disagree with - when you're alive you can have the foresight to know you will not always exist. This foresight + caring for loved ones = preparing things for your death to make them as happy as possible.

To go back to the analogy which actually I think works rather well. If you're in a strange country and about to leave, never to return and have some litter. You can't find a bin and it's a bit of a pain in the arse to carry it around in your pocket/look for a trash can. Would you just litter the street knowing there will be no consequences to *you*?

I wouldn't, you said that wasn't true but it just is. From what I gather from your posts you're saying without consequences to *you* (whatever they may be) you would. Again, correct me if I'm wrong - I'm finding it hard to judge your position from what you post and this is my best estimate.

 

[old.Tohtori]

If i was the person i was, i would litter if there was no consequence.

These days i pick up trash if i happen to see it.

To explain myself, might give some perspective for you;

I didn't change this due to my beliefs, but my belief in the way of life and an honorable death made it easier to change.

My belief in an afterlife(rather the way i die) helped, and i can guess(knowing myself) that i might have become better but not as "good" as i am now.

Now, if i didn't hold the way of life i do, i wouldn't(ofcourse) be who i am and i know how many people are. At heart, people are selfish bastards. I think you can agree that it takes work to be "good" in this world.

This leads to the conclusion that i wouldn't care because i would be more selfish and thought about myself more.

Note: That doesn't mean it applies to all.

Now to the original point(way back); i don't mean that one can't be caring when they're alive, but worrying about things that happen after, doesn't make sense.

Why?

Because all the answers given here apply to now and all the scenarios given apply to your benefit.

Because you can't know what happens to your "ensurement"(i know it's not a word), you shouldn't care about what the outcome is. You should care about that you DO ensure, which leads to the benefit being NOW not then.

You ensuring your kid a future, benefits you alone NOW as the future can't effect you and can't be seen/proven.

F*ck this is ahrd to explain...take a wild guess, be my guest, might help if you ask and i correct it.(no i'm not trying to take over the conversation, i'm tryign to clear the point)

 

[Scouse]

That's why i said imagine, i couldn't kow for a 100% fact, but i know enough how i was.

*Massive* cop out.

 

[nath]

Just to clear it up would you litter if there was no consequence *to you* - saying you'd litter if there was no consequence is a little different. So basically - if you littered and there were no consequences to you, no legal problems, no one finding out it was you and having a go at you - but people would be affected by the litter and dislike it. Would you do it? People would not thank you for being tidy or condemn you for littering.

Again you're taking the step from "we can't know how things will pan out, despite our best efforts" to "so we shouldn't bother". Preparing others for your death isn't a guarantee that things will turn out better for them but we can play the balance of probabilities. It is entirely likely that if we leave a will for our loved ones, the contents of that will get to those who you want.

It all amounts to this - you seem to imply that caring for people is only worthwhile if you can reap the rewards (the rewards being a sense of satisfaction). There is no sense of satisfaction in death and ceasing to exist so why bother. IF this is correct, it is a fairly hollow morality that I disagree with. If ones reason for doing good is being witness to the effects that good has, it seems like it's a selfishly driven act (which ties in with your statement previously that there are no unselfish good deeds). Real empathy doesn't require thanks - though thanks is often there and it's nice - but real empathy doesn't need it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

*Massive* cop out.

You can't tell for a 100% certainty how you'll be in a week but you can take a wild guess.

Everyone thinks different and is different, i know how i could(most likely would) have turned out without knowing it for a fact.

1: Just to clear it up would you litter if there was no consequence *to you* - saying you'd litter if there was no consequence is a little different. So basically - if you littered and there were no consequences to you, no legal problems, no one finding out it was you and having a go at you - but people would be affected by the litter and dislike it. Would you do it? People would not thank you for being tidy or condemn you for littering.

2: Again you're taking the step from "we can't know how things will pan out, despite our best efforts" to "so we shouldn't bother". Preparing others for your death isn't a guarantee that things will turn out better for them but we can play the balance of probabilities. It is entirely likely that if we leave a will for our loved ones, the contents of that will get to those who you want.

3: It all amounts to this - you seem to imply that caring for people is only worthwhile if you can reap the rewards (the rewards being a sense of satisfaction). There is no sense of satisfaction in death and ceasing to exist so why bother. IF this is correct, it is a fairly hollow morality that I disagree with. If ones reason for doing good is being witness to the effects that good has, it seems like it's a selfishly driven act (which ties in with your statement previously that there are no unselfish good deeds). Real empathy doesn't require thanks - though thanks is often there and it's nice - but real empathy doesn't need it.

1: As i am now? No. I've said it before. Last post even. As i probably would've been without major changes? Yes.

2: Didn't say "shouldn't bother" i said "shouldn't care". It's all the same if we do or don't. You can order the money to be burnt for all your afterlife cares.

3: Not implying that, again. I'm saying that if you leave someone a ton of bucks, you reap the reward already.

If you didn't give the bucks, you'd die worried and feeling guilty.
If you do, you don't.

The benefit is to YOU alone NOW. The benefits to others come later.

And a good act doesn't require thanks, but you'll be sure to wonder "why no thanks" and such if there is none. You feel better if there is one. If you give a gift out of pure kindness and someone leaves it on the table and doesn't bother with it, you WILL care.

Oh and since we're on the blamewagon: again you only nitpick on the negatives you could find.

 

[nath]

1: As i am now? No. I've said it before. Last post even. As i probably would've been without major changes? Yes.

2: Didn't say "shouldn't bother" i said "shouldn't care". It's all the same if we do or don't. You can order the money to be burnt for all your afterlife cares.

3: Not implying that, again. I'm saying that if you leave someone a ton of bucks, you reap the reward already.

If you didn't give the bucks, you'd die worried and feeling guilty.
If you do, you don't.

The benefit is to YOU alone NOW. The benefits to others come later.

And a good act doesn't require thanks, but you'll be sure to wonder "why no thanks" and such if there is none. You feel better if there is one. If you give a gift out of pure kindness and someone leaves it on the table and doesn't bother with it, you WILL care.

Oh and since we're on the blamewagon: again you only nitpick on the negatives you could find.

1. As you are now you have religion so it stands to reason you feel all that you do will be accounted for. Hypothetically - if there was no accountability would you litter?

2. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. Yes if the money was burnt after you died, you'd lack the capacity to care. However, I don't see why you shouldn't care NOW what happens later. If you care about someone you care about them - it doesn't matter whether you're going to exist in their life at all times.

3. Yes, if I have set out a will for a son I will feel a sense of satisfaction that my affairs are in order. I could do that without him knowing and it wouldn't stop me from wanting to do it though.


Now in one post you've made the point that since you won't care when you're dead (from an atheist perspective) you shouldn't care what happens to others after you're dead. You've also said that it benefits you NOW getting your affairs in order for when you die. These two points seem to be at odds with one another. Caring what happens to others after you've died benefits you now in the sense of satisfaction it brings so why shouldn't you care?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Caring what happens to others after you've died benefits you now in the sense of satisfaction it brings so why shouldn't you care?

Read:

It all amounts to this - you seem to imply that caring for people is only worthwhile if you can reap the rewards (the rewards being a sense of satisfaction).

it is a fairly hollow morality that I disagree with.

And figure it out, you tell me as you're the one disagreeing with it and basing it on "you don't reap rewards".

About point 1: answered it above as clear as day.

 

[nath]

Firstly about point 1 - I asked you to clear it up as I'm not 100% certain on your stance, otherwise I wouldn't ask. I don't want to be stuck in the cycle of making an incorrect assumption and you correcting it.

With respect to your quotes, you chopped out the bit after that I feel clears that up:

There is no sense of satisfaction in death and ceasing to exist so why bother. IF this is correct, it is a fairly hollow morality that I disagree with. If ones reason for doing good is being witness to the effects that good has, it seems like it's a selfishly driven act (which ties in with your statement previously that there are no unselfish good deeds). Real empathy doesn't require thanks - though thanks is often there and it's nice - but real empathy doesn't need it.

From the start of this particular segment of the conversation you've implied that there's no reason to care about what happens to others beyond your death as you'd not exist to reap the rewards. THAT is what I have an issue with, the need to experience rewards for being decent.

https://forums.freddyshouse.com/general-2/235705-god-dont-silly-10.html#post3502289
https://forums.freddyshouse.com/general-2/235705-god-dont-silly-11.html#post3502344
https://forums.freddyshouse.com/general-2/235705-god-dont-silly-11.html#post3502356

Those posts suggest that your reason for doing good is an awareness of what others think of you - that's a shallow and short sighted view of things. Doing good should be based around an understanding of ones effect on others.

The points you quoted don't imply that I feel the only reason to do good is to get that sense of satisfaction - I was saying that it will have an effect on you while you're alive. What you've suggested previously is that if you don't exist in an afterlife to appreciate how others are doing in your absence, concerns about others well being after you pass are not valid.

What it seems to amount to is that you don't seem to agree that one can care about the future of others if you're not going to be a part of it.

 

[Calaen]

First of all, no i didn't say that.

On the first part of your post: A: Stop bringing things i've said about myself from other threads into this, show some f*ckings forum decor. and B: I didn't always know myself as i do now. Go figure.



That's why i said imagine, i couldn't kow for a 100% fact, but i know enough how i was.

The information from the other posts is relevant unfortunately, like now you are saying that you can't 100% say anything yet you told me so on another thread that 100% fact you would never change your mind about something.

It's all if's but's and maybe's with you but a 100% backing of what you type, I notice you are swearing and being very aggresive in this thread.

I know you might mistake what I write as troll/me taking the piss and you can take it as you please I actually am trying not to derail the thread, but Nath along with a good few others have questioned and quoted the things you have said in this thread and asked you to explain yourself. However you always leave more questions than you give answers in your next post.

 

[Scouse]

You can't tell for a 100% certainty how you'll be in a week but you can take a wild guess.

Everyone thinks different and is different, i know how i could(most likely would) have turned out without knowing it for a fact.

Disagree.

You say some things but two stand out:

1) You admit that you can't predict with 100% accuracy AND say you could take a "wild guess".

There's a big difference between 100% accuracy and "wild guess". "Wild guess" is the correct one - because you may think you can predict - but you can't.

2) You say you "know how I could (most likely would) have turned out".

You can make predictions about the past *reasonably* securely compared to the future, though it's still dicey. However, predicting how things go in the future when you've had different experience is nigh on impossible.


Gah. Pretty much two ways of saying the same thing...

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'll keep it simple so you can get of that horse nath:

From the start of this particular segment of the conversation you've implied

What it seems to amount to is that you don't seem to agree that one can care about the future of others if you're not going to be a part of it.

That's wrong.

You're wrong. I don't think that. Not true. Get it?

And even THAT applies to a hypothetical situation.

Now drop it.

The information from the other posts is relevant unfortunately, like now you are saying that you can't 100% say anything yet you told me so on another thread that 100% fact you would never change your mind about something.

It's all if's but's and maybe's with you but a 100% backing of what you type, I notice you are swearing and being very aggresive in this thread.

I know you might mistake what I write as troll/me taking the piss and you can take it as you please I actually am trying not to derail the thread, but Nath along with a good few others have questioned and quoted the things you have said in this thread and asked you to explain yourself. However you always leave more questions than you give answers in your next post.

Yes, opinion on something can be a 100% but changing as a complete human being is not 100% true. I know for a FACT, 100%, absolutely, that i don't wnt my OWN kids. How is that not registering to your brain?

How about you and nath and others stop trying to blame/points/judge me and start discussing things?Do you know how to do that?

How many times have i judged you on this thread?

If i started "attacking" you the same way you do, you'd lose your temper too.

Disagree.

You say some things but two stand out:

1) You admit that you can't predict with 100% accuracy AND say you could take a "wild guess".

There's a big difference between 100% accuracy and "wild guess". "Wild guess" is the correct one - because you may think you can predict - but you can't.

2) You say you "know how I could (most likely would) have turned out".

You can make predictions about the past *reasonably* securely compared to the future, though it's still dicey. However, predicting how things go in the future when you've had different experience is nigh on impossible.

Gah. Pretty much two ways of saying the same thing...

That's what i said...when did i say my wild guess is a 100%? Or that i know exactly how i turn out?

It's a hypothetical situation and at best it's a guess.

But now i'm done with making every word i say valid and defending myself all the time.

 

[inactionman]

Exactly how I expected things to pan out. Theists end up taking it personally, go on the defensive and get offended, as their faith is a personal thing.

One suggestion Toht, learn how to debate properly (don't bother about the whole format thing though). You keep leaving far too much ambiguity in your arguments, which is what seems to have caused the current issues. It's not your fault, you were probably never taught how to debate, and that's fair enough as only people who join debating societies, lawyers, scientists, philosophers and theologists generally have to learn how to it; however it's a useful skill.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Exactly how I expected things to pan out. Theists end up taking it personally, go on the defensive and get offended, as their faith is a personal thing.

One suggestion Toht, learn how to debate properly (don't bother about the whole format thing though). You keep leaving far too much ambiguity in your arguments, which is what seems to have caused the current issues. It's not your fault, you were probably never taught how to debate, and that's fair enough as only people who join debating societies, lawyers, scientists, philosophers and theologists generally have to learn how to it; however it's a useful skill.

How can i not take personally "you don't know how to debate", or "luckily people aren't like you" or "there's something wrong with you"?

This whole thing started with an atheist taking things personally mind you.

I can debate well enough, but when everything is taken so anally, and GET personal, it gets annoying.

If people want to discuss an ISSUE, fine, but when they start talking about ME(as stated many times by the opposing side here)...well, it gets personal.

Also doesn't help people coming into every discussion with a pre-conception. If for example i took everything nath ever did or said into consideration and discussed every matter like THAT was a point, it wouldn't get very far.

What i need to learn is ignore points like others do and take things out of context.

 

[inactionman]

Picking things apart to the smallest amount of detail is one of the tools in a debate though (rebuttal). It's to be expected, and your response to it is one of the reasons why I don't think you've been trained to debate, or been exposed to 'rigorous' debate much.

As I said, it can't not get personal for you, as your faith is a personal thing and it's what you base your arguments on; so when those arguments are rebutted you get offended.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Picking things apart to the smallest amount of detail is one of the tools in a debate though (rebuttal). It's to be expected, and your response to it is one of the reasons why I don't think you've been trained to debate, or been exposed to 'rigorous' debate much.

As I said, it can't not get personal for you, as your faith is a personal thing and it's what you base your arguments on; so when those arguments are rebutted you get offended.

That's the point, you assume as many here do, that i'm your basic christian with bible in one hand. I don't base my arguments on my belief any mroe then an atheist bases his arguments on being an atheist. It doesn't get any more or less.

My faith, as has ben said many times on this thread, is not a basic theist camp. It's a way of life with the gods aspect and afterlife added on top.

It only gets personal when people GET personal, with assumptions and claims like you just did.

If you were to say;

"I don't think you understand what i meant by littering out of country, let me explain" i'd listen and discuss more.

But if you say;

"You just don't get it 'cause you're a theist", it gets personal.

Get the difference?

It's easy to ofcourse blame me for everything, granted i can't explain things as i want them at get-go, but people should take a look at themselves too.

For example;

Calaen brings another topic(i don't want my own(bloodline) kids). Then uses that to debate that because i said that with conviction, i am now "inconsistent" because i say i wouldn't know for a 100% fact how i would be if i hadn't changed like i did years back.

Those two things are not even remotely comparable, yet, here it is, used as an argument of how flimsy i am(which is as personal as it gets).

 

[old.Tohtori]

On a side-note; i think i need a FH break after too many years

May have become too (insert word here) to A: take things seriously and B: not take things seriously.

 

[inactionman]

Have I made any assumptions about your faith, no. I'm the only person on this thread, that (out of politeness, as I thought it had no real bearing on the discussion) asked you about them.

All the examples you have given to support your arguments have been based on your beliefs (your faith), and given how you've reacted when they are rebutted you have demonstrated that you have no detachment from them (which is to be expected). Another thing you are have to do as part of debating is to argue the case for something you do not believe in (sometimes as the 'devil's advocate', just to promote debate), this promotes detachment, reasoning and an understanding of opposing points of view.

I have said that theists would have difficulty understanding the atheist mindset as it's almost completely alien to them (a rational system versus an irrational system). I have made some generalisations about theists based on my previous experience of having similar discussions with people of all stripes of belief (from christians to muslims to pagans to 'spiritualists'), and from observing it being done by others . It all ended the same, due to the lack of detatchment, and lack of debating skills.

I am trying to help you, by suggesting that you pick up the skills that will help you better present your arguments, and debate them with people. This will then promote a much more interesting debate, that doesn't end up going around in circles.

And debating isn't an atheist thing by the way, some of the fiercest debaters I have ever seen were Jesuits.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Have I made any assumptions about your faith, no. I'm the only person on this thread, that (out of politeness, as I thought it had no real bearing on the discussion) asked you about them.

Yes you have, one being "your arguments are based on your faith".

And also, like i said on previous post, people should look at what they do too. I don't have the omnipotent power to derail a discussion and "ruin" it.

I appreciate the notion that i am such a master at arguing that i can derail any discussion and that i can make people agree with me by twisting things

And again, never claimed arguing is an atheist thing, i said this whole thing started by an atheist taking things personally. That's a fact.

 

[inactionman]

Gah, I give up. I dread to think how you would cope in a 'heated and rigorous' formal debate.

 

[TdC]

I think it's time to kick back with some martini's again gents.

 

[Ch3tan]

I can debate well enough, but when everything is taken so anally, and GET personal, it gets annoying.

This belongs in the quotes database, funniest thing I have read all year.

Toht, all you have done since the first few pages of this thread is; Suggest an idea, change that idea when it is argued, change it again, get into a temper tantrum when someone blows it out of the water, rinse, repeat.

You can not debate at all, you have a complete inability to back up your point of view. The break from freddyhouse idea is the only thing you have said in this thread that makes an sense. But you'll probably tell me I am assuming you wanted a break when that is not what you meant at all.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Gah, I give up. I dread to think how you would cope in a 'heated and rigorous' formal debate.

Clearly ignore all points made and just go "blah!", yeah, you're a real debater extreme.

This belongs in the quotes database, funniest thing I have read all year.

Toht, all you have done since the first few pages of this thread is; Suggest an idea, change that idea when it is argued, change it again, get into a temper tantrum when someone blows it out of the water, rinse, repeat.

You can not debate at all, you have a complete inability to back up your point of view. The break from freddyhouse idea is the only thing you have said in this thread that makes an sense. But you'll probably tell me I am assuming you wanted a break when that is not what you meant at all.

Yeah, it's all my fault. Why not, easier for you *pats head* Now you can sleep well 'cause you "pwned" me so hard.

Show me ONE point people have discussed with what i said that wasn't a "no you wrong prove it!".

And show just one example where i changed my mind instead of explained the view when asked.

Go ahead.

By the way, you did the same thing again, clinged to one single line of a post and disregarded all of the rest.

Or how about dagaffer when he confronted me of "viking way of life these days" and then ignored the answer completely?

You just can't agree with anything out of paranoia that "toht can't be right ever!"

Also i dare anyopne to take a look at themselves and point out flaws like you do of me. Guess there's nothing to point as everyone else is so f*cking perfect

 

[TdC]

rather than this becoming a world vs. Toht rant, I am severely tempted to close this thread now.

I know that there are cultural differences in discussion, and that some have had debating training at uni and some haven't, but I'm not going to have this continue when there is no point.