Christianity is to blame

UnDinkstered

The Christian Crusader
UnDinkstered said:
Player said:
Oh no, man, go further. Let me see if there will be any other rhetoric beyond "This priest has rаped a child. - Jokes on you, Christianity is against rаpe". Because I am talking about very obvious toolbox of mass manipulation tools rooted in modern social-cultural DNA. And you are responding with some semi manufactured phrases of good boy parishioner. It is not very cool of you, you know. I won't respond for your mountain of """"wrong"""". I just make one simple example for brothers which reading this thread.

In my first statement I very blatantly imply that myth about how the God is born from virgin woman for modern people must sound like anecdote. The old anecdote about girl who has adultery and lied about it so shamelessly, she unintentionally started a new religion. Because that is how it exactly sounds without magic, fog, mirrors and flying tiger. Religion which is against adultery need to think about how its fairy tales sound more. But it won't. Because people would rather believe in any sort of ridiculous lies than allow themselves a single critical thought. Because this lies originates from fuсking institution which has monopoly on moral superiority because of several hundred years of brand loyalty from their customers.

How you respond to this simple implication which require minimal erudition to understand.

Wrong. Christianity is against adultery.

Brother... I believe incels need to stick together, and we need to seek more things that we can agree upon. I believe we can find something other to agree upon. But in this case. In this thread. I am sorry, but fuck you.
""This priest has rаped a child. - Jokes on you, Christianity is against rаpe""
Priests that rаpe children aren't even 0.1% of the whole priest population. The actual percentage is around 0.0009%. The correlation with priests and rаpe is so low that it is not even going inside anyone but complete maniacs heads. To that, those priests who do rаpe children get excommunicated, thrown to jail, sometimes rаped or killed there, and that is justice if you ask me. Shamed. Stripped from privileges. Excommunicated from religion. Jailed, often either for lifetime or death sentence, and during that sometimes killed or rаped by other inmates, same goes for black rapists who make up almost 30% of TOTAL rаpes. 30% and that is in 2016 in USA alone vs 0.0009% worldwide alltime. Even native americans made up half of rаpes that priests did, and that was all in just one year!

Seriously dude, you're anti-theist, using the most retаrded comparisons and arguments "Oh look, do you see that these people made up 0.0009% of all rаpes! They're the worst!" - tier. You've picked the worst example possible to explain anything, and certainly nothing you just did, you could pick anything else and I'm certain it would make your point at least a little bit more legitimate than it is now. You've only proven how much uneducated you are about the religious personnel itself, good job - you're an idiot.

"Because I am talking about very obvious toolbox of mass manipulation tools rooted in modern social-cultural DNA."
"modern social-cultural DNA"
>Christianity having any real influence in the leftist mindset.
We live in a secular continent, both North America and Europe. Christianity has no real power here compared to what it had before. This religion has been leveled down to just that, a religion, a belief, and you're somehow trying to make it look like they're the new world order who is controlling everything and destroying everything as we speak. Your arguments are completely out of the reality when you base them on falsehood, how can I argue further when the base for your arguments is something that is just not real?

>In my first statement I very blatantly imply that myth about how the God is born from virgin woman for modern people must sound like anecdote.
No. Jesus birth from virgin Woman is not a myth, it is a miracle, such is Jesus existence before you even go to imply that I argue that it's not a myth, there's also Roman sources who imply the same thing that Jesus Christ did exist, and perhaps if I recall correctly even discuss His biography. If you take that as a "myth", then you're only proving my earlier points that you base your beliefs on nothing but falsehood, and that I could continue going further with your arguments, but I'm pretty sure I would rest my case with the same verdict, I would just repeat myself with words you've already heard, and explanations I have already explained. And yet you argue for critical thought, how ironic is that, the dunning-Kruger effect on its finest. I rest my case.

"It is literally some analogue of Nietzsche's "God is Dead" by definition. The Enlightenment had eliminated the possibility of the existence of God. "
mfw you don't even understand what Niezsche meant

View attachment 10779
Plus one must recognise that other Abrahamic religions recognise Jesus as a prophet, although not the messiah. My speculation is that all faiths are pulling from the same power source but with different stories and interpretations.
Islam I believe also treats Jesus as one of the prophets or the angels, can't recall exactly.
 

Player

Incels.Net Novice
Player said:
  1. It has started with adultery and #believeallwomen bs.
  2. Victim = God. Suffering = Divinity.
  3. It supports the science only when science doesn't argue with dogma.
  4. Murder is horrible sin. Until it is murder of non-believer.
  5. After the cult succeeded it almost immediately divided into different branches. Perfect environment for mental gymnastics about what is canon of your fate and political pandering.
  6. It has reinforced the idea of default righteousness and moral superiority of unprivileged and oppressed people.
  7. In the same time it has reinforced the idea about divine origin of supreme ruler power over regular people. Go figure.
  8. It mixes unsupported supernatural beliefs with politics and ratrace for power.
  9. It normalized split between the clergy and the flock. Donations and ѕhit. Clergy can afford orgies with wine and children, and they are still morally superior to some peasants. There is always some ridiculous story about how devil forced some priest to behave like an asshole and etc. Clergy is never wrong.
  10. The flock will protect clergy even in the face of death and madness. As Slav I can often see it in our situation with Orthodox church. Did you know that Russia has the law about insulting the feelings of believers? It is some reversed SJW ѕhit. Btw, exactly as retаrded lefties in the USA pursue the narrative about ebil Russia, in Russia retаrded conservatives pursue the exact same narrative about ebil Murica.
  11. It has the idea of mortal sin which is assigned automatically when you are born.
  12. It has concept of heretics. Everyone who doesn't worship your god is dangerous terrorist who probably eat children and fuck goats in his free time.
  13. It bashes achievements and principles of ancient (Roman) civilization.
If you ask me, it is perfect fit like lego block to lego block. The manual for modern social engineering through cults such as SJW, feminism and their flock of soyboys, cucks and of course simps. You know what they say. Woman is a new god.

Tbh, blackpill it is not about accepting ideology. It is about accepting biology. It is literally some analogue of Nietzsche's "God is Dead" by definition. The Enlightenment had eliminated the possibility of the existence of God.
This is cucked Christianity you're talking about.
The older version Christians is the identity that allowed Europe and Europeans to conquer and create colonies and influence most of the world.
Islam was the same, it conquered most of Mediterranean and destroyed the Byzantine and Persian Empires but European Christians found ways to gain power and resources elsewhere and gain the upper hand while Ottoman empire rots.

Religion is about politicizing people's need to satisfy superstitious beliefs. Like any other political groups or houses it's used as a tool many times for supremacy and control. Even buddhist monks have history of violence themselves.
And it trailblazed the way for modern elites to supremacy and control for their own gain. Politisizing people's need to feel special, victimized and morally superior.
 

Player

Incels.Net Novice
Player said:
UnDinkstered said:
1. Wrong. Christianity is against adultery.
2. Out of context, again. It is meant to give hope to those that fight, like those who fought for their families in wars, not to those that just have a victim mentality just because someone looked at them funny.
3. What dogma? That God exists/does not? There is no literal proof for or against it. Half of the things in the Bible are meant to teach people, not to make them believe "This is literal", like creating the world in 7 days, it's a metaphor for a longer period of creation that was oversimplified.
4. Wrong. Murder is a horrible sin. The only case where it can be excuses is if you are defending yourself or someone else. Crusades weren't made to just conquer the entire world, they were to safeguard the Christian soil.
5. It did get divided yes. And yes, it can be used for your advantage to revision what really is "true" about your faith, none of the faiths that become major are safe from that.
6. Slaves. During the time of Christianity slavery was allowed. Especially with policies that even those born out of a slave womb are slaves, it is obvious that they aren't privileged and oppressed, that's by default correct and I don't see any wrong with that, although I do see wrong in abusing the term that you're "oppressed" because someone used pronoun "him" instead of "her", but then again, it is fault of social degeneration and backing off from the main cores of Christian values.

I'm not even gonna go further, so far only one point had somewhat of a good observation. This is nothing but anti-christian propaganda, to be even worse, could be manipulated by the soys to be used against you all.
Oh no, man, go further. Let me see if there will be any other rhetoric beyond "This priest has rаped a child. - Jokes on you, Christianity is against rаpe". Because I am talking about very obvious toolbox of mass manipulation tools rooted in modern social-cultural DNA. And you are responding with some semi manufactured phrases of good boy parishioner. It is not very cool of you, you know. I won't respond for your mountain of """"wrong"""". I just make one simple example for brothers which reading this thread.

In my first statement I very blatantly imply that myth about how the God is born from virgin woman for modern people must sound like anecdote. The old anecdote about girl who has adultery and lied about it so shamelessly, she unintentionally started a new religion. Because that is how it exactly sounds without magic, fog, mirrors and flying tiger. Religion which is against adultery need to think about how its fairy tales sound more. But it won't. Because people would rather believe in any sort of ridiculous lies than allow themselves a single critical thought. Because this lies originates from fuсking institution which has monopoly on moral superiority because of several hundred years of brand loyalty from their customers.

How you respond to this simple implication which require minimal erudition to understand.

Wrong. Christianity is against adultery.

Brother... I believe incels need to stick together, and we need to seek more things that we can agree upon. I believe we can find something other to agree upon. But in this case. In this thread. I am sorry, but fuck you.
""This priest has rаped a child. - Jokes on you, Christianity is against rаpe""
Priests that rаpe children aren't even 0.1% of the whole priest population. The actual percentage is around 0.0009%. The correlation with priests and rаpe is so low that it is not even going inside anyone but complete maniacs heads. To that, those priests who do rаpe children get excommunicated, thrown to jail, sometimes rаped or killed there, and that is justice if you ask me. Shamed. Stripped from privileges. Excommunicated from religion. Jailed, often either for lifetime or death sentence, and during that sometimes killed or rаped by other inmates, same goes for black rapists who make up almost 30% of TOTAL rаpes. 30% and that is in 2016 in USA alone vs 0.0009% worldwide alltime. Even native americans made up half of rаpes that priests did, and that was all in just one year!

Seriously dude, you're anti-theist, using the most retаrded comparisons and arguments "Oh look, do you see that these people made up 0.0009% of all rаpes! They're the worst!" - tier. You've picked the worst example possible to explain anything, and certainly nothing you just did, you could pick anything else and I'm certain it would make your point at least a little bit more legitimate than it is now. You've only proven how much uneducated you are about the religious personnel itself, good job - you're an idiot.

"Because I am talking about very obvious toolbox of mass manipulation tools rooted in modern social-cultural DNA."
"modern social-cultural DNA"
>Christianity having any real influence in the leftist mindset.
We live in a secular continent, both North America and Europe. Christianity has no real power here compared to what it had before. This religion has been leveled down to just that, a religion, a belief, and you're somehow trying to make it look like they're the new world order who is controlling everything and destroying everything as we speak. Your arguments are completely out of the reality when you base them on falsehood, how can I argue further when the base for your arguments is something that is just not real?

>In my first statement I very blatantly imply that myth about how the God is born from virgin woman for modern people must sound like anecdote.
No. Jesus birth from virgin Woman is not a myth, it is a miracle, such is Jesus existence before you even go to imply that I argue that it's not a myth, there's also Roman sources who imply the same thing that Jesus Christ did exist, and perhaps if I recall correctly even discuss His biography. If you take that as a "myth", then you're only proving my earlier points that you base your beliefs on nothing but falsehood, and that I could continue going further with your arguments, but I'm pretty sure I would rest my case with the same verdict, I would just repeat myself with words you've already heard, and explanations I have already explained. And yet you argue for critical thought, how ironic is that, the dunning-Kruger effect on its finest. I rest my case.

"It is literally some analogue of Nietzsche's "God is Dead" by definition. The Enlightenment had eliminated the possibility of the existence of God. "
mfw you don't even understand what Niezsche meant

View attachment 10779
My god, you keep insisting on fairy tales and thinking it is argument. And even use "kruger effect" as trendy way for childish ad homenim just like Reddit soyboys. Next thing you would say I am incel or something. Maybe I was wrong about you after all.

Don't worry. I make it even simplier this time. Open "God is dead" article on Wikipedia. Read a couple of first lines. You are welcome.
 
Last edited:

UnDinkstered

The Christian Crusader
UnDinkstered said:
Player said:
Oh no, man, go further. Let me see if there will be any other rhetoric beyond "This priest has rаped a child. - Jokes on you, Christianity is against rаpe". Because I am talking about very obvious toolbox of mass manipulation tools rooted in modern social-cultural DNA. And you are responding with some semi manufactured phrases of good boy parishioner. It is not very cool of you, you know. I won't respond for your mountain of """"wrong"""". I just make one simple example for brothers which reading this thread.

In my first statement I very blatantly imply that myth about how the God is born from virgin woman for modern people must sound like anecdote. The old anecdote about girl who has adultery and lied about it so shamelessly, she unintentionally started a new religion. Because that is how it exactly sounds without magic, fog, mirrors and flying tiger. Religion which is against adultery need to think about how its fairy tales sound more. But it won't. Because people would rather believe in any sort of ridiculous lies than allow themselves a single critical thought. Because this lies originates from fuсking institution which has monopoly on moral superiority because of several hundred years of brand loyalty from their customers.

How you respond to this simple implication which require minimal erudition to understand.

Wrong. Christianity is against adultery.

Brother... I believe incels need to stick together, and we need to seek more things that we can agree upon. I believe we can find something other to agree upon. But in this case. In this thread. I am sorry, but fuck you.
""This priest has rаped a child. - Jokes on you, Christianity is against rаpe""
Priests that rаpe children aren't even 0.1% of the whole priest population. The actual percentage is around 0.0009%. The correlation with priests and rаpe is so low that it is not even going inside anyone but complete maniacs heads. To that, those priests who do rаpe children get excommunicated, thrown to jail, sometimes rаped or killed there, and that is justice if you ask me. Shamed. Stripped from privileges. Excommunicated from religion. Jailed, often either for lifetime or death sentence, and during that sometimes killed or rаped by other inmates, same goes for black rapists who make up almost 30% of TOTAL rаpes. 30% and that is in 2016 in USA alone vs 0.0009% worldwide alltime. Even native americans made up half of rаpes that priests did, and that was all in just one year!

Seriously dude, you're anti-theist, using the most retаrded comparisons and arguments "Oh look, do you see that these people made up 0.0009% of all rаpes! They're the worst!" - tier. You've picked the worst example possible to explain anything, and certainly nothing you just did, you could pick anything else and I'm certain it would make your point at least a little bit more legitimate than it is now. You've only proven how much uneducated you are about the religious personnel itself, good job - you're an idiot.

"Because I am talking about very obvious toolbox of mass manipulation tools rooted in modern social-cultural DNA."
"modern social-cultural DNA"
>Christianity having any real influence in the leftist mindset.
We live in a secular continent, both North America and Europe. Christianity has no real power here compared to what it had before. This religion has been leveled down to just that, a religion, a belief, and you're somehow trying to make it look like they're the new world order who is controlling everything and destroying everything as we speak. Your arguments are completely out of the reality when you base them on falsehood, how can I argue further when the base for your arguments is something that is just not real?

>In my first statement I very blatantly imply that myth about how the God is born from virgin woman for modern people must sound like anecdote.
No. Jesus birth from virgin Woman is not a myth, it is a miracle, such is Jesus existence before you even go to imply that I argue that it's not a myth, there's also Roman sources who imply the same thing that Jesus Christ did exist, and perhaps if I recall correctly even discuss His biography. If you take that as a "myth", then you're only proving my earlier points that you base your beliefs on nothing but falsehood, and that I could continue going further with your arguments, but I'm pretty sure I would rest my case with the same verdict, I would just repeat myself with words you've already heard, and explanations I have already explained. And yet you argue for critical thought, how ironic is that, the dunning-Kruger effect on its finest. I rest my case.

"It is literally some analogue of Nietzsche's "God is Dead" by definition. The Enlightenment had eliminated the possibility of the existence of God. "
mfw you don't even understand what Niezsche meant

View attachment 10779
My god, you keep insisting on fairy tales anf thinking it is argument. And even use "kruger effect" as trendy way as for ad homenim just like Reddit soyboys. Maybe I was wrong about you after all.

Don't worry. I make it even simplier this time. Open "God is dead" article on Wikipedia. Read a couple of first lines. You are welcome.
You argue for wikipedia page whereas you haven't even read one of its chapters, especially the beginning. No for real, you are under dunning kruger effect, you read like 5 words from that wikipedia page and then said "yep, that sure does fit within my agendarino pupperino" without reading the interpretation, let alone thinking on your own, because let me quote "Critical thinking" is what you lack, because ironically, a Christian has to tell you that you're irrational, where you use arguments that contradict themselves. You are a joke.
 

Player

Incels.Net Novice
UnDinkstered said:
Player said:
Oh no, man, go further. Let me see if there will be any other rhetoric beyond "This priest has rаped a child. - Jokes on you, Christianity is against rаpe". Because I am talking about very obvious toolbox of mass manipulation tools rooted in modern social-cultural DNA. And you are responding with some semi manufactured phrases of good boy parishioner. It is not very cool of you, you know. I won't respond for your mountain of """"wrong"""". I just make one simple example for brothers which reading this thread.

In my first statement I very blatantly imply that myth about how the God is born from virgin woman for modern people must sound like anecdote. The old anecdote about girl who has adultery and lied about it so shamelessly, she unintentionally started a new religion. Because that is how it exactly sounds without magic, fog, mirrors and flying tiger. Religion which is against adultery need to think about how its fairy tales sound more. But it won't. Because people would rather believe in any sort of ridiculous lies than allow themselves a single critical thought. Because this lies originates from fuсking institution which has monopoly on moral superiority because of several hundred years of brand loyalty from their customers.

How you respond to this simple implication which require minimal erudition to understand.

Wrong. Christianity is against adultery.

Brother... I believe incels need to stick together, and we need to seek more things that we can agree upon. I believe we can find something other to agree upon. But in this case. In this thread. I am sorry, but fuck you.
""This priest has rаped a child. - Jokes on you, Christianity is against rаpe""
Priests that rаpe children aren't even 0.1% of the whole priest population. The actual percentage is around 0.0009%. The correlation with priests and rаpe is so low that it is not even going inside anyone but complete maniacs heads. To that, those priests who do rаpe children get excommunicated, thrown to jail, sometimes rаped or killed there, and that is justice if you ask me. Shamed. Stripped from privileges. Excommunicated from religion. Jailed, often either for lifetime or death sentence, and during that sometimes killed or rаped by other inmates, same goes for black rapists who make up almost 30% of TOTAL rаpes. 30% and that is in 2016 in USA alone vs 0.0009% worldwide alltime. Even native americans made up half of rаpes that priests did, and that was all in just one year!

Seriously dude, you're anti-theist, using the most retаrded comparisons and arguments "Oh look, do you see that these people made up 0.0009% of all rаpes! They're the worst!" - tier. You've picked the worst example possible to explain anything, and certainly nothing you just did, you could pick anything else and I'm certain it would make your point at least a little bit more legitimate than it is now. You've only proven how much uneducated you are about the religious personnel itself, good job - you're an idiot.

"Because I am talking about very obvious toolbox of mass manipulation tools rooted in modern social-cultural DNA."
"modern social-cultural DNA"
>Christianity having any real influence in the leftist mindset.
We live in a secular continent, both North America and Europe. Christianity has no real power here compared to what it had before. This religion has been leveled down to just that, a religion, a belief, and you're somehow trying to make it look like they're the new world order who is controlling everything and destroying everything as we speak. Your arguments are completely out of the reality when you base them on falsehood, how can I argue further when the base for your arguments is something that is just not real?

>In my first statement I very blatantly imply that myth about how the God is born from virgin woman for modern people must sound like anecdote.
No. Jesus birth from virgin Woman is not a myth, it is a miracle, such is Jesus existence before you even go to imply that I argue that it's not a myth, there's also Roman sources who imply the same thing that Jesus Christ did exist, and perhaps if I recall correctly even discuss His biography. If you take that as a "myth", then you're only proving my earlier points that you base your beliefs on nothing but falsehood, and that I could continue going further with your arguments, but I'm pretty sure I would rest my case with the same verdict, I would just repeat myself with words you've already heard, and explanations I have already explained. And yet you argue for critical thought, how ironic is that, the dunning-Kruger effect on its finest. I rest my case.

"It is literally some analogue of Nietzsche's "God is Dead" by definition. The Enlightenment had eliminated the possibility of the existence of God. "
mfw you don't even understand what Niezsche meant

View attachment 10779
Plus one must recognise that other Abrahamic religions recognise Jesus as a prophet, although not the messiah. My speculation is that all faiths are pulling from the same power source but with different stories and interpretations.
It is partly correct. Much depends on the location.

Abrahamic religions took enormous chunk of mythology from pagan beliefs of ancient age. Ressurecting god is common trope. Just google it up guys.
 

Player

Incels.Net Novice
Player said:
UnDinkstered said:
""This priest has rаped a child. - Jokes on you, Christianity is against rаpe""
Priests that rаpe children aren't even 0.1% of the whole priest population. The actual percentage is around 0.0009%. The correlation with priests and rаpe is so low that it is not even going inside anyone but complete maniacs heads. To that, those priests who do rаpe children get excommunicated, thrown to jail, sometimes rаped or killed there, and that is justice if you ask me. Shamed. Stripped from privileges. Excommunicated from religion. Jailed, often either for lifetime or death sentence, and during that sometimes killed or rаped by other inmates, same goes for black rapists who make up almost 30% of TOTAL rаpes. 30% and that is in 2016 in USA alone vs 0.0009% worldwide alltime. Even native americans made up half of rаpes that priests did, and that was all in just one year!

Seriously dude, you're anti-theist, using the most retаrded comparisons and arguments "Oh look, do you see that these people made up 0.0009% of all rаpes! They're the worst!" - tier. You've picked the worst example possible to explain anything, and certainly nothing you just did, you could pick anything else and I'm certain it would make your point at least a little bit more legitimate than it is now. You've only proven how much uneducated you are about the religious personnel itself, good job - you're an idiot.

"Because I am talking about very obvious toolbox of mass manipulation tools rooted in modern social-cultural DNA."
"modern social-cultural DNA"
>Christianity having any real influence in the leftist mindset.
We live in a secular continent, both North America and Europe. Christianity has no real power here compared to what it had before. This religion has been leveled down to just that, a religion, a belief, and you're somehow trying to make it look like they're the new world order who is controlling everything and destroying everything as we speak. Your arguments are completely out of the reality when you base them on falsehood, how can I argue further when the base for your arguments is something that is just not real?

>In my first statement I very blatantly imply that myth about how the God is born from virgin woman for modern people must sound like anecdote.
No. Jesus birth from virgin Woman is not a myth, it is a miracle, such is Jesus existence before you even go to imply that I argue that it's not a myth, there's also Roman sources who imply the same thing that Jesus Christ did exist, and perhaps if I recall correctly even discuss His biography. If you take that as a "myth", then you're only proving my earlier points that you base your beliefs on nothing but falsehood, and that I could continue going further with your arguments, but I'm pretty sure I would rest my case with the same verdict, I would just repeat myself with words you've already heard, and explanations I have already explained. And yet you argue for critical thought, how ironic is that, the dunning-Kruger effect on its finest. I rest my case.

"It is literally some analogue of Nietzsche's "God is Dead" by definition. The Enlightenment had eliminated the possibility of the existence of God. "
mfw you don't even understand what Niezsche meant

View attachment 10779
My god, you keep insisting on fairy tales anf thinking it is argument. And even use "kruger effect" as trendy way as for ad homenim just like Reddit soyboys. Maybe I was wrong about you after all.

Don't worry. I make it even simplier this time. Open "God is dead" article on Wikipedia. Read a couple of first lines. You are welcome.
You argue for wikipedia page whereas you haven't even read one of its chapters, especially the beginning. No for real, you are under dunning kruger effect, you read like 5 words from that wikipedia page and then said "yep, that sure does fit within my agendarino pupperino" without reading the interpretation, let alone thinking on your own, because let me quote "Critical thinking" is what you lack, because ironically, a Christian has to tell you that you're irrational, where you use arguments that contradict themselves. You are a joke.
Argumentum ad verecundiam + usual ad hominem. You really can't argue with me on the same level, do you?
 

UnDinkstered

The Christian Crusader
UnDinkstered said:
Player said:
My god, you keep insisting on fairy tales anf thinking it is argument. And even use "kruger effect" as trendy way as for ad homenim just like Reddit soyboys. Maybe I was wrong about you after all.

Don't worry. I make it even simplier this time. Open "God is dead" article on Wikipedia. Read a couple of first lines. You are welcome.
You argue for wikipedia page whereas you haven't even read one of its chapters, especially the beginning. No for real, you are under dunning kruger effect, you read like 5 words from that wikipedia page and then said "yep, that sure does fit within my agendarino pupperino" without reading the interpretation, let alone thinking on your own, because let me quote "Critical thinking" is what you lack, because ironically, a Christian has to tell you that you're irrational, where you use arguments that contradict themselves. You are a joke.
Argumentum ad verecundiam + usual ad hominem. You really can't argue with me on the same level, do you?
You base your arguments on falsehoods. If your arguments are incorrect, I point that out. If I add an insult to that, only to further point out how wrong you are - take it as you want if you wish - it doesn't contradict what i pointed out, it doesn't eliminate my point. It, at worst, only shows that I lack respect toward you. Other than that, That is a fallacy fallacy.
 

Lordgoro

"You Are What I WRITE"
  1. It has started with adultery and #believeallwomen bs.
  2. Victim = God. Suffering = Divinity.
  3. It supports the science only when science doesn't argue with dogma.
  4. Murder is horrible sin. Until it is murder of non-believer.
  5. After the cult succeeded it almost immediately divided into different branches. Perfect environment for mental gymnastics about what is canon of your fate and political pandering.
  6. It has reinforced the idea of default righteousness and moral superiority of unprivileged and oppressed people.
  7. In the same time it has reinforced the idea about divine origin of supreme ruler power over regular people. Go figure.
  8. It mixes unsupported supernatural beliefs with politics and ratrace for power.
  9. It normalized split between the clergy and the flock. Donations and ѕhit. Clergy can afford orgies with wine and children, and they are still morally superior to some peasants. There is always some ridiculous story about how devil forced some priest to behave like an asshole and etc. Clergy is never wrong.
  10. The flock will protect clergy even in the face of death and madness. As Slav I can often see it in our situation with Orthodox church. Did you know that Russia has the law about insulting the feelings of believers? It is some reversed SJW ѕhit. Btw, exactly as retаrded lefties in the USA pursue the narrative about ebil Russia, in Russia retаrded conservatives pursue the exact same narrative about ebil Murica.
  11. It has the idea of mortal sin which is assigned automatically when you are born.
  12. It has concept of heretics. Everyone who doesn't worship your god is dangerous terrorist who probably eat children and fuck goats in his free time.
  13. It bashes achievements and principles of ancient (Roman) civilization.
If you ask me, it is perfect fit like lego block to lego block. The manual for modern social engineering through cults such as SJW, feminism and their flock of soyboys, cucks and of course simps. You know what they say. Woman is a new god.

Tbh, blackpill it is not about accepting ideology. It is about accepting biology. It is literally some analogue of Nietzsche's "God is Dead" by definition. The Enlightenment had eliminated the possibility of the existence of God.
 

Player

Incels.Net Novice
Player said:
UnDinkstered said:
You argue for wikipedia page whereas you haven't even read one of its chapters, especially the beginning. No for real, you are under dunning kruger effect, you read like 5 words from that wikipedia page and then said "yep, that sure does fit within my agendarino pupperino" without reading the interpretation, let alone thinking on your own, because let me quote "Critical thinking" is what you lack, because ironically, a Christian has to tell you that you're irrational, where you use arguments that contradict themselves. You are a joke.
Argumentum ad verecundiam + usual ad hominem. You really can't argue with me on the same level, do you?
You base your arguments on falsehoods. If your arguments are incorrect, I point that out. If I add an insult to that, only to further point out how wrong you are - take it as you want if you wish - it doesn't contradict what i pointed out, it doesn't eliminate my point. It, at worst, only shows that I lack respect toward you. Other than that, That is a fallacy fallacy.
Of course diminishing dogma is falsehood for the flock. They must protec! It is like infamous Board_Gaming respond to brothers at r/IncelsWithoutHate that their arguments are invalid because "not all women are like that". Man, you literally said in this thread that I am wrong because fairy tale myth is truth. It speak volumes about why we are having this conversation in the first place. Besides "fallacy fallacy" is cringy excuse for such primitive fallacies as... just personal attack... and just appeal to authority. It is one big nothing burger in the end of the day.
 

KhhvForEternity

Incels.Net Master
UnDinkstered said:
Player said:
My god, you keep insisting on fairy tales anf thinking it is argument. And even use "kruger effect" as trendy way as for ad homenim just like Reddit soyboys. Maybe I was wrong about you after all.

Don't worry. I make it even simplier this time. Open "God is dead" article on Wikipedia. Read a couple of first lines. You are welcome.
You argue for wikipedia page whereas you haven't even read one of its chapters, especially the beginning. No for real, you are under dunning kruger effect, you read like 5 words from that wikipedia page and then said "yep, that sure does fit within my agendarino pupperino" without reading the interpretation, let alone thinking on your own, because let me quote "Critical thinking" is what you lack, because ironically, a Christian has to tell you that you're irrational, where you use arguments that contradict themselves. You are a joke.
Argumentum ad verecundiam + usual ad hominem. You really can't argue with me on the same level, do you?

Player said:
UnDinkstered said:
You argue for wikipedia page whereas you haven't even read one of its chapters, especially the beginning. No for real, you are under dunning kruger effect, you read like 5 words from that wikipedia page and then said "yep, that sure does fit within my agendarino pupperino" without reading the interpretation, let alone thinking on your own, because let me quote "Critical thinking" is what you lack, because ironically, a Christian has to tell you that you're irrational, where you use arguments that contradict themselves. You are a joke.
Argumentum ad verecundiam + usual ad hominem. You really can't argue with me on the same level, do you?
You base your arguments on falsehoods. If your arguments are incorrect, I point that out. If I add an insult to that, only to further point out how wrong you are - take it as you want if you wish - it doesn't contradict what i pointed out, it doesn't eliminate my point. It, at worst, only shows that I lack respect toward you. Other than that, That is a fallacy fallacy.
I'm all for intellectual debate but from my point of view it seems the argument you are having isn't even founded on any sort of level playing field of discourse, one of you is talking about the failures of modern cucked Christianity (which is limited within itself because of all of the different denominations) - plus could you not argue that the failure of Christianity is that is was just, less Christian? It's lost it's original face and values and no longer controls society. Medieval Christianity had people shitting in their pants, if you didn't show up for church on Sunday your sad peasant family got fined. Even worse, threatened with murder if you didn't turn up for a number of weeks. People deeply believed in hell. Sin was serious business.
Now girls in Catholic schools are doing butt sex on the daily.
Second. One is arguing from the point of original Christianity which does not at all correspond with today's religious landscape where Christianity has essentially become a joke, a corporation- particularly in the united states. How many "Catholics" in Italy have premarital sex? Probably many.
The only denomination I can consciously call to mind as having any sand left is Orthodox, at least they have the gall to keep Chechnya at bay and keep on breeding.
 

Player

Incels.Net Novice
Player said:
UnDinkstered said:
You argue for wikipedia page whereas you haven't even read one of its chapters, especially the beginning. No for real, you are under dunning kruger effect, you read like 5 words from that wikipedia page and then said "yep, that sure does fit within my agendarino pupperino" without reading the interpretation, let alone thinking on your own, because let me quote "Critical thinking" is what you lack, because ironically, a Christian has to tell you that you're irrational, where you use arguments that contradict themselves. You are a joke.
Argumentum ad verecundiam + usual ad hominem. You really can't argue with me on the same level, do you?

You base your arguments on falsehoods. If your arguments are incorrect, I point that out. If I add an insult to that, only to further point out how wrong you are - take it as you want if you wish - it doesn't contradict what i pointed out, it doesn't eliminate my point. It, at worst, only shows that I lack respect toward you. Other than that, That is a fallacy fallacy.
I'm all for intellectual debate but from my point of view it seems the argument you are having isn't even founded on any sort of level playing field of discourse, one of you is talking about the failures of modern cucked Christianity (which is limited within itself because of all of the different denominations) - plus could you not argue that the failure of Christianity is that is was just, less Christian? It's lost it's original face and values and no longer controls society. Medieval Christianity had people shitting in their pants, if you didn't show up for church on Sunday your sad peasant family got fined. Even worse, threatened with murder if you didn't turn up for a number of weeks. People deeply believed in hell. Sin was serious business.
Now girls in Catholic schools are doing butt sex on the daily.
Second. One is arguing from the point of original Christianity which does not at all correspond with today's religious landscape where Christianity has essentially become a joke, a corporation- particularly in the united states. How many "Catholics" in Italy have premarital sex? Probably many.
The only denomination I can consciously call to mind as having any sand left is Orthodox, at least they have the gall to keep Chechnya at bay and keep on breeding.
You need to understand that I argue beyond religion. My thread is about how to make people believe in things, how to control them.

How it is done in religion is what people are used to. So now, because of it, there is like unspoken set of rules about how to make your own cult and make it flourish.
 
Last edited:

KhhvForEternity

Incels.Net Master
KhhvForEternity said:
Player said:
Argumentum ad verecundiam + usual ad hominem. You really can't argue with me on the same level, do you?


I'm all for intellectual debate but from my point of view it seems the argument you are having isn't even founded on any sort of level playing field of discourse, one of you is talking about the failures of modern cucked Christianity (which is limited within itself because of all of the different denominations) - plus could you not argue that the failure of Christianity is that is was just, less Christian? It's lost it's original face and values and no longer controls society. Medieval Christianity had people shitting in their pants, if you didn't show up for church on Sunday your sad peasant family got fined. Even worse, threatened with murder if you didn't turn up for a number of weeks. People deeply believed in hell. Sin was serious business.
Now girls in Catholic schools are doing butt sex on the daily.
Second. One is arguing from the point of original Christianity which does not at all correspond with today's religious landscape where Christianity has essentially become a joke, a corporation- particularly in the united states. How many "Catholics" in Italy have premarital sex? Probably many.
The only denomination I can consciously call to mind as having any sand left is Orthodox, at least they have the gall to keep Chechnya at bay and keep on breeding.
You need to understand that I argue beyond religion. My thread is about how to make people believe in things, how to control them.

How it is done in religion is what people used to. So now, because of it, there is like unspoken set of rules about how to make your own cult and make it flourish.
I would rather take from a range of different practices rather than just limit myself. Alchemy, Kabbalah, Sufism, Thelema, take from it all I say
 

Player

Incels.Net Novice
Player said:
You need to understand that I argue beyond religion. My thread is about how to make people believe in things, how to control them.

How it is done in religion is what people used to. So now, because of it, there is like unspoken set of rules about how to make your own cult and make it flourish.
I would rather take from a range of different practices rather than just limit myself. Alchemy, Kabbalah, Sufism, Thelema, take from it all I say
I'd say you can take from them as from regular myths, old philosophy and literature. But god forbid to use them as manual for action. I believe as humans we should control our magical thinking.

It is all fun and games untill preaching turns into propaganda.
 

KhhvForEternity

Incels.Net Master
KhhvForEternity said:
Player said:
You need to understand that I argue beyond religion. My thread is about how to make people believe in things, how to control them.

How it is done in religion is what people used to. So now, because of it, there is like unspoken set of rules about how to make your own cult and make it flourish.
I would rather take from a range of different practices rather than just limit myself. Alchemy, Kabbalah, Sufism, Thelema, take from it all I say
I'd say you can take from them as from regular myths, old philosophy and literature. But god forbid to use them as manual for action. I believe as humans we should control our magical thinking.

It is all fun and games untill preaching turns into propaganda.
yes but how do we go out to "seek magic" it is much easier to just take from the old
 

Player

Incels.Net Novice
Player said:
KhhvForEternity said:
I would rather take from a range of different practices rather than just limit myself. Alchemy, Kabbalah, Sufism, Thelema, take from it all I say
I'd say you can take from them as from regular myths, old philosophy and literature. But god forbid to use them as manual for action. I believe as humans we should control our magical thinking.

It is all fun and games untill preaching turns into propaganda.
yes but how do we go out to "seek magic" it is much easier to just take from the old
Maybe by creating it.

Just be a degenerate atheist bro
I will be degenerate atheist for feminiѕts and SJWs by denying their fate.
 

UnDinkstered

The Christian Crusader
UnDinkstered said:
Player said:
Argumentum ad verecundiam + usual ad hominem. You really can't argue with me on the same level, do you?
You base your arguments on falsehoods. If your arguments are incorrect, I point that out. If I add an insult to that, only to further point out how wrong you are - take it as you want if you wish - it doesn't contradict what i pointed out, it doesn't eliminate my point. It, at worst, only shows that I lack respect toward you. Other than that, That is a fallacy fallacy.
Of course diminishing dogma is falsehood for the flock. They must protec! It is like infamous Board_Gaming respond to brothers at r/IncelsWithoutHate that their arguments are invalid because "not all women are like that". Man, you literally said in this thread that I am wrong because fairy tale myth is truth. It speak volumes about why we are having this conversation in the first place. Besides "fallacy fallacy" is cringy excuse for such primitive fallacies as... just personal attack... and just appeal to authority. It is one big nothing burger in the end of the day.
"Of course diminishing dogma is falsehood for the flock. They must protec! It is like infamous Board_Gaming respond to brothers at r/IncelsWithoutHate that their arguments are invalid because "not all women are like that". Man, you literally said in this thread that I am wrong because fairy tale myth is truth."

Strawman plus leveling my point just to one argument, do I really have to dissect your comment to prove to everyone here why you are wrong? Your response to my arguments is mock - that's it, a mock. To that, you're using a false equivalence, saying that my actions are equivalent of his, where I have never even said anything remotely close to that when it comes to Christianity in possibly any meaning.

"Man, you literally said in this thread that I am wrong because fairy tale myth is truth."

Again, strawman, I haven't said that this "fairy tale" is objectively all true, I have only argued that you're wrong for including birth as part of that "fairy tale", even though it was documented even by the Romans, and there is no counter-evidence that would prove otherwise. For the Virgin Mary, I only argued in a sense of literacy of the Bible, for a reason, as you """didn't understand it""" to put it without being rude, just like Nietzsche's quote.

"It speak volumes about why we are having this conversation in the first place. Besides "fallacy fallacy" is cringy excuse for such primitive fallacies as... just personal attack... and just appeal to authority."

>Logical fallacies for thee, but not for me - your wicked mentality

No, that doesn't work like that, and again, you put it out of context and you use it as a strawman to try and prove an unprovable point. Again, let me tell you why you're wrong here, I used "fallacy fallacy", as you're using an argument, that I'm using logical fallacies, and you're using it to destroy my whole point, even though that fallacy of speak of wasn't even the core of my point, you miss the simple logic with a base, and extension to it. Take a tree, for example. You pointed out that I used logical fallacies, which in this case, is a personal attack. I admit I called you an idiot, and so, you did cut off a branch of the tree, but not the tree itself. The basic logic here is that this personal attack wasn't a base for any of my arguments, I didn't argue "you're retаrded therefore X is true", I argued "X is true because of Y and Z. Dude, you're seriously retаrded"

You know, I will even teach you the logical basics just in case you will be mistaken, take it as a good wish.

"X is true" < That is my claim, my base of the point - the core of it.
"Because Y and Z" < Those are my arguments, my second wall of the core, a tree branch, a hand from the arm - an extension.
"Dude you're seriously retаrded" < This is my insult, not even related in how accurate my points or arguments are, only a sign of my lack of respect towards you.

If you point out that "Dude you're seriously retаrded" is not a valid argument, then good job, because it wasn't meant to be in the first place, because it's not even related in how correct or wrong my point is. But if you argue "You said that I'm retаrded, therefore, your claim X, and your arguments Y and Z are wrong" then, unfortunately, you are wrong, because as I explained, you would need to destroy my point to automatically destroy all of the extensions, look at a tree, if you cut off a branch, will the whole tree fall? No. Same works here, it's really basic logic many seem to not follow.

"Appeal to authority"

Where exactly? Even is so, it is not inherently bad. Because "Appeal to Authority" depends on context, and by itself isn't wrong.

"X is true because Y said that"
Just because Y said that X is true, doesn't automatically mean that X must be true, or must be false, what matters is the arguments, the evidence. If you use someone's arguments and evidence to prove that X is true, you don't automatically lose and fail to prove it, which by itself lacks any logical coherence. Would use someone else's building plans to make a building make the building fail and crumble? No. In fact, it could even be the best building in the world based on a scenario. Would using math to prove if something could be done within a certain limit of time that was first used by someone else make your point invalid? Again, no, it would not. So saying "b-b-b-but mah appeal to authority" doesn't prove anything at all. It's just a buzzword, as it just a word that has been commonly used, and unfortunately, without even good backing, which also works against it when it comes to public relations.
 

Player

Incels.Net Novice
Player said:
UnDinkstered said:
You base your arguments on falsehoods. If your arguments are incorrect, I point that out. If I add an insult to that, only to further point out how wrong you are - take it as you want if you wish - it doesn't contradict what i pointed out, it doesn't eliminate my point. It, at worst, only shows that I lack respect toward you. Other than that, That is a fallacy fallacy.
Of course diminishing dogma is falsehood for the flock. They must protec! It is like infamous Board_Gaming respond to brothers at r/IncelsWithoutHate that their arguments are invalid because "not all women are like that". Man, you literally said in this thread that I am wrong because fairy tale myth is truth. It speak volumes about why we are having this conversation in the first place. Besides "fallacy fallacy" is cringy excuse for such primitive fallacies as... just personal attack... and just appeal to authority. It is one big nothing burger in the end of the day.
"Of course diminishing dogma is falsehood for the flock. They must protec! It is like infamous Board_Gaming respond to brothers at r/IncelsWithoutHate that their arguments are invalid because "not all women are like that". Man, you literally said in this thread that I am wrong because fairy tale myth is truth."

Strawman plus leveling my point just to one argument, do I really have to dissect your comment to prove to everyone here why you are wrong? Your response to my arguments is mock - that's it, a mock. To that, you're using a false equivalence, saying that my actions are equivalent of his, where I have never even said anything remotely close to that when it comes to Christianity in possibly any meaning.

"Man, you literally said in this thread that I am wrong because fairy tale myth is truth."

Again, strawman, I haven't said that this "fairy tale" is objectively all true, I have only argued that you're wrong for including birth as part of that "fairy tale", even though it was documented even by the Romans, and there is no counter-evidence that would prove otherwise. For the Virgin Mary, I only argued in a sense of literacy of the Bible, for a reason, as you """didn't understand it""" to put it without being rude, just like Nietzsche's quote.

"It speak volumes about why we are having this conversation in the first place. Besides "fallacy fallacy" is cringy excuse for such primitive fallacies as... just personal attack... and just appeal to authority."

>Logical fallacies for thee, but not for me - your wicked mentality

No, that doesn't work like that, and again, you put it out of context and you use it as a strawman to try and prove an unprovable point. Again, let me tell you why you're wrong here, I used "fallacy fallacy", as you're using an argument, that I'm using logical fallacies, and you're using it to destroy my whole point, even though that fallacy of speak of wasn't even the core of my point, you miss the simple logic with a base, and extension to it. Take a tree, for example. You pointed out that I used logical fallacies, which in this case, is a personal attack. I admit I called you an idiot, and so, you did cut off a branch of the tree, but not the tree itself. The basic logic here is that this personal attack wasn't a base for any of my arguments, I didn't argue "you're retаrded therefore X is true", I argued "X is true because of Y and Z. Dude, you're seriously retаrded"

You know, I will even teach you the logical basics just in case you will be mistaken, take it as a good wish.

"X is true" < That is my claim, my base of the point - the core of it.
"Because Y and Z" < Those are my arguments, my second wall of the core, a tree branch, a hand from the arm - an extension.
"Dude you're seriously retаrded" < This is my insult, not even related in how accurate my points or arguments are, only a sign of my lack of respect towards you.

If you point out that "Dude you're seriously retаrded" is not a valid argument, then good job, because it wasn't meant to be in the first place, because it's not even related in how correct or wrong my point is. But if you argue "You said that I'm retаrded, therefore, your claim X, and your arguments Y and Z are wrong" then, unfortunately, you are wrong, because as I explained, you would need to destroy my point to automatically destroy all of the extensions, look at a tree, if you cut off a branch, will the whole tree fall? No. Same works here, it's really basic logic many seem to not follow.

"Appeal to authority"

Where exactly? Even is so, it is not inherently bad. Because "Appeal to Authority" depends on context, and by itself isn't wrong.

"X is true because Y said that"
Just because Y said that X is true, doesn't automatically mean that X must be true, or must be false, what matters is the arguments, the evidence. If you use someone's arguments and evidence to prove that X is true, you don't automatically lose and fail to prove it, which by itself lacks any logical coherence. Would use someone else's building plans to make a building make the building fail and crumble? No. In fact, it could even be the best building in the world based on a scenario. Would using math to prove if something could be done within a certain limit of time that was first used by someone else make your point invalid? Again, no, it would not. So saying "b-b-b-but mah appeal to authority" doesn't prove anything at all. It's just a buzzword, as it just a word that has been commonly used, and unfortunately, without even good backing, which also works against it when it comes to public relations.
Now you are just repeating yourself. I double dare you to answer at least one of my statements without mountain of unfocused demagogy right from the textbook. Just one.
 

UnDinkstered

The Christian Crusader
UnDinkstered said:
Player said:
Of course diminishing dogma is falsehood for the flock. They must protec! It is like infamous Board_Gaming respond to brothers at r/IncelsWithoutHate that their arguments are invalid because "not all women are like that". Man, you literally said in this thread that I am wrong because fairy tale myth is truth. It speak volumes about why we are having this conversation in the first place. Besides "fallacy fallacy" is cringy excuse for such primitive fallacies as... just personal attack... and just appeal to authority. It is one big nothing burger in the end of the day.
"Of course diminishing dogma is falsehood for the flock. They must protec! It is like infamous Board_Gaming respond to brothers at r/IncelsWithoutHate that their arguments are invalid because "not all women are like that". Man, you literally said in this thread that I am wrong because fairy tale myth is truth."

Strawman plus leveling my point just to one argument, do I really have to dissect your comment to prove to everyone here why you are wrong? Your response to my arguments is mock - that's it, a mock. To that, you're using a false equivalence, saying that my actions are equivalent of his, where I have never even said anything remotely close to that when it comes to Christianity in possibly any meaning.

"Man, you literally said in this thread that I am wrong because fairy tale myth is truth."

Again, strawman, I haven't said that this "fairy tale" is objectively all true, I have only argued that you're wrong for including birth as part of that "fairy tale", even though it was documented even by the Romans, and there is no counter-evidence that would prove otherwise. For the Virgin Mary, I only argued in a sense of literacy of the Bible, for a reason, as you """didn't understand it""" to put it without being rude, just like Nietzsche's quote.

"It speak volumes about why we are having this conversation in the first place. Besides "fallacy fallacy" is cringy excuse for such primitive fallacies as... just personal attack... and just appeal to authority."

>Logical fallacies for thee, but not for me - your wicked mentality

No, that doesn't work like that, and again, you put it out of context and you use it as a strawman to try and prove an unprovable point. Again, let me tell you why you're wrong here, I used "fallacy fallacy", as you're using an argument, that I'm using logical fallacies, and you're using it to destroy my whole point, even though that fallacy of speak of wasn't even the core of my point, you miss the simple logic with a base, and extension to it. Take a tree, for example. You pointed out that I used logical fallacies, which in this case, is a personal attack. I admit I called you an idiot, and so, you did cut off a branch of the tree, but not the tree itself. The basic logic here is that this personal attack wasn't a base for any of my arguments, I didn't argue "you're retаrded therefore X is true", I argued "X is true because of Y and Z. Dude, you're seriously retаrded"

You know, I will even teach you the logical basics just in case you will be mistaken, take it as a good wish.

"X is true" < That is my claim, my base of the point - the core of it.
"Because Y and Z" < Those are my arguments, my second wall of the core, a tree branch, a hand from the arm - an extension.
"Dude you're seriously retаrded" < This is my insult, not even related in how accurate my points or arguments are, only a sign of my lack of respect towards you.

If you point out that "Dude you're seriously retаrded" is not a valid argument, then good job, because it wasn't meant to be in the first place, because it's not even related in how correct or wrong my point is. But if you argue "You said that I'm retаrded, therefore, your claim X, and your arguments Y and Z are wrong" then, unfortunately, you are wrong, because as I explained, you would need to destroy my point to automatically destroy all of the extensions, look at a tree, if you cut off a branch, will the whole tree fall? No. Same works here, it's really basic logic many seem to not follow.

"Appeal to authority"

Where exactly? Even is so, it is not inherently bad. Because "Appeal to Authority" depends on context, and by itself isn't wrong.

"X is true because Y said that"
Just because Y said that X is true, doesn't automatically mean that X must be true, or must be false, what matters is the arguments, the evidence. If you use someone's arguments and evidence to prove that X is true, you don't automatically lose and fail to prove it, which by itself lacks any logical coherence. Would use someone else's building plans to make a building make the building fail and crumble? No. In fact, it could even be the best building in the world based on a scenario. Would using math to prove if something could be done within a certain limit of time that was first used by someone else make your point invalid? Again, no, it would not. So saying "b-b-b-but mah appeal to authority" doesn't prove anything at all. It's just a buzzword, as it just a word that has been commonly used, and unfortunately, without even good backing, which also works against it when it comes to public relations.
Now you are just repeating yourself. I double dare you to answer at least one of my statements without mountain of unfocused demagogy right from the textbook. Just one.
no, ya wrong, here you go
 
Top