| Author
|
Thread |
  |
|
Jon;
Joined: 13 Oct 2008
Posts: 13966
|
quote:
Originally posted by hassan-i-sabbah
also why are behaviors that develop organically from human social interaction, such as monogamy, "unnatural?" it's not like some outside force imposed monogamy on humans against our will, it naturally evolved from the dynamic interaction of social forces throughout history.
how organic is it really when people largely fail at it?
_________________
"i don't have pet peeves, i have major psychotic fucking hatreds"
|
Fri Aug 08, 2014 11:48 am |
|
|
hassan-i-sabbah
Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 27424
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon;
quote:
Originally posted by hassan-i-sabbah
also why are behaviors that develop organically from human social interaction, such as monogamy, "unnatural?" it's not like some outside force imposed monogamy on humans against our will, it naturally evolved from the dynamic interaction of social forces throughout history.
how organic is it really when people largely fail at it?
its organic in the sense that it is the established social norm for human sexual relationships and people strive to subscribe to that norm as an ideal, even if their actions fall short because humans are weak and flawed
_________________
quote:
Originally posted by turtleman
A normal person wouldn't say that in real life because it's ridiculous and insulting. Yet here you are spouting the most hateful garbage that your demons can muster out of your darkened soul. All because of the internet.
|
|
Fri Aug 08, 2014 11:49 am |
|
|
hassan-i-sabbah
Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 27424
|
the relationship between monogamy and non-monogamy is not oppositional, it is dialectic. it is the default behavior of the common human heterosexual male to have sex with as many partners as possible to increase the chances of reproduction and in particular to pass on his traits. however, this drive, when not controlled, comes with dramatically negative social costs, just as other drives, such as the drive to commit violence against others for protection or personal gain, also have negative social costs when not restrained or controlled in some way. therefore, monogamy emerges as a way to channel this natural human drive in a more productive and harmonious way. or if you are more cynical you can say it emerges as a way to use those drives to control people or whatever, but either way it doesn't make sense to call it "unnatural" or to act as if the fact that humans tend to seek other partners invalidates the concept of monogamy
_________________
quote:
Originally posted by turtleman
A normal person wouldn't say that in real life because it's ridiculous and insulting. Yet here you are spouting the most hateful garbage that your demons can muster out of your darkened soul. All because of the internet.
|
|
Fri Aug 08, 2014 11:53 am |
|
|
Jon;
Joined: 13 Oct 2008
Posts: 13966
|
quote:
Originally posted by hassan-i-sabbah
quote:
Originally posted by Jon;
quote:
Originally posted by hassan-i-sabbah
also why are behaviors that develop organically from human social interaction, such as monogamy, "unnatural?" it's not like some outside force imposed monogamy on humans against our will, it naturally evolved from the dynamic interaction of social forces throughout history.
how organic is it really when people largely fail at it?
its organic in the sense that it is the established social norm for human sexual relationships and people strive to subscribe to that norm as an ideal, even if their actions fall short because humans are weak and flawed
who's to say it's that's the universal ideal for people though?
_________________
"i don't have pet peeves, i have major psychotic fucking hatreds"
|
|
Fri Aug 08, 2014 11:58 am |
|
|
hassan-i-sabbah
Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 27424
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon;
quote:
Originally posted by hassan-i-sabbah
quote:
Originally posted by Jon;
quote:
Originally posted by hassan-i-sabbah
also why are behaviors that develop organically from human social interaction, such as monogamy, "unnatural?" it's not like some outside force imposed monogamy on humans against our will, it naturally evolved from the dynamic interaction of social forces throughout history.
how organic is it really when people largely fail at it?
its organic in the sense that it is the established social norm for human sexual relationships and people strive to subscribe to that norm as an ideal, even if their actions fall short because humans are weak and flawed
who's to say it's that's the universal ideal for people though?
i didn't argue that it was, i only argued that it is wrong to say that it is unnatural, or that it is wrong or flawed simply because it goes against certain biological impulses.
_________________
quote:
Originally posted by turtleman
A normal person wouldn't say that in real life because it's ridiculous and insulting. Yet here you are spouting the most hateful garbage that your demons can muster out of your darkened soul. All because of the internet.
|
|
Fri Aug 08, 2014 12:00 pm |
|
|
Jon;
Joined: 13 Oct 2008
Posts: 13966
|
quote:
Originally posted by hassan-i-sabbah
the relationship between monogamy and non-monogamy is not oppositional, it is dialectic. it is the default behavior of the common human heterosexual male to have sex with as many partners as possible to increase the chances of reproduction and in particular to pass on his traits. however, this drive, when not controlled, comes with dramatically negative social costs, just as other drives, such as the drive to commit violence against others for protection or personal gain, also have negative social costs when not restrained or controlled in some way. therefore, monogamy emerges as a way to channel this natural human drive in a more productive and harmonious way. or if you are more cynical you can say it emerges as a way to use those drives to control people or whatever, but either way it doesn't make sense to call it "unnatural" or to act as if the fact that humans tend to seek other partners invalidates the concept of monogamy
i'll have to think about this for awhile, i started off trolling and now i'm genuinely interested.
_________________
"i don't have pet peeves, i have major psychotic fucking hatreds"
|
|
Fri Aug 08, 2014 12:03 pm |
|
|
woofy
Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Posts: 463
|
Thread of the Day.
|
|
Fri Aug 08, 2014 5:28 pm |
|
|
Aerasal
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 3437
|
Jon must get so many girls it's insane.
|
|
Fri Aug 08, 2014 8:12 pm |
|
|
hassan-i-sabbah
Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 27424
|
quote:
Originally posted by woofy
Thread of the Day.
I think we all learned something today.
_________________
quote:
Originally posted by turtleman
A normal person wouldn't say that in real life because it's ridiculous and insulting. Yet here you are spouting the most hateful garbage that your demons can muster out of your darkened soul. All because of the internet.
|
|
Fri Aug 08, 2014 9:12 pm |
|
|
ChrisLui
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 2688
|
Wanting to stick your dick in everything isn't just something coded into your DNA either. You're bombarded every day with calls to "Enjoy!" and "Live life to the fullest!" (by engaging in meaningless acts of instant gratification that do nothing but leave you feeling empty again, so you come back for more and more and more). Look at the slogan for that ridiculous web site Ashley Madison (Life is short. Have an affair).
I can't find the article anymore but it described the Elliot Rodger murders in terms of this. His failure to "enjoy" and "fuck some bitches" the way "everyone else is" contributing to his mental state.
|
|
Mon Aug 11, 2014 1:51 pm |
|
|
hassan-i-sabbah
Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 27424
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisLui
Wanting to stick your dick in everything isn't just something coded into your DNA either.
i agree, i was just trying to use the same vocabulary/shorthand jon was using. i do think that the "natural" state of the male sex drive is generally aggressive and promiscuous relative to monogamous ideals tho so i think my point re: dialectic between this drive and the socially constructed "monogamous" drive is still valid
these "natural" (genetic is probably a better term) drives tend to be treated differently by society depending on the values of the given society and also the place of the individual within that society, i.e. a monk is expected to practice extreme discipline towards them, a husband less extreme discipline, a young man relatively little discipline. the current default approach towards male sexuality under neoliberal postmodernity combines extreme exploitation, celebration, and magnification of these drives by the ruling class controlled mass media in pursuit of profit and the continuation of patriarchal capitalist hegemony, while at the same time imposing certain restrictions on patriarchal sexuality in the form of a more "inclusive" and thus more sustainable model of sexual politics. the interplay of these dialectical forces, where you have young men who have in one breath have their violent sexual impulses celebrated and in the next are told that those impulses must be restrained, is what leads to things like men's rights activists. dudes grow up on porn and have their entire gendered sexual identity defined by dominance over women, and then when you start talking about even milquetoast, mainstream liberal feminist ideas, it is deeply offensive because a very important part of their identity is now inextricably associated with male dominance and patriarchy. IMHO.
_________________
quote:
Originally posted by turtleman
A normal person wouldn't say that in real life because it's ridiculous and insulting. Yet here you are spouting the most hateful garbage that your demons can muster out of your darkened soul. All because of the internet.
|
|
Mon Aug 11, 2014 1:58 pm |
|
|
ChrisLui
Joined: 13 Dec 2003
Posts: 2688
|
ya i knew you wouldn't be under the impression that our behaviour/desires are only a result of our DNA. it was more in response to some of the other posts.
i don't know too much about men's rights groups but from what i've seen they're making ridiculous excuses for their own failures. they're the man, they should be able to choose who they want to fuck and when they want to fuck them. this failure to live up to some bs idealistic version of masculinity seems like the main issue to me but again i'm not too up to date with this stuff. do you have examples for this: "...while at the same time imposing certain restrictions on patriarchal sexuality in the form of a more 'inclusive' and thus more sustainable model of sexual politics...".
p.s. this reminds me of a quote i read from spring breakers lol...have you seen this movie?
quote:
Originally posted by Alien
This is the fuckin' American dream. This is my fuckin' dream, y'all! All this sheeyit! Look at my sheeyit! I got... I got SHORTS! Every fuckin' color. I got designer T-shirts! I got gold bullets. Motherfuckin' VAM-pires. I got Scarface. On repeat. SCARFACE ON REPEAT. Constant, y'all! I got Escape! Calvin Klein Escape! Mix it up with Calvin Klein Be. Smell nice? I SMELL NICE! That ain't a fuckin' bed; that's a fuckin' art piece. My fuckin' spaceship! U.S.S. Enterprise on this shit. I go to different planets on this motherfucker! Me and my fuckin' Franklins here, we take off. TAKE OFF! Look at my shit. Look at my shit! I got my blue Kool-Aid. I got my fuckin' NUN-CHUCKS. I got shurikens; I got different flavors. I got them sais. Look at that shit, I got sais. I got blades! Look at my sheeyit! This ain't nuttin', I got ROOMS of this shit! I got my dark tannin' oil... lay out by the pool, put on my dark tanning oil... I got machine guns... Look at this, look at this motherfucker here! Look at this motherfucker! Huh? A fucking army up in this shit!
|
|
Mon Aug 11, 2014 2:34 pm |
|
|
hassan-i-sabbah
Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 27424
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisLui
i don't know too much about men's rights groups but from what i've seen they're making ridiculous excuses for their own failures. they're the man, they should be able to choose who they want to fuck and when they want to fuck them. this failure to live up to some bs idealistic version of masculinity seems like the main issue to me but again i'm not too up to date with this stuff. do you have examples for this: "...while at the same time imposing certain restrictions on patriarchal sexuality in the form of a more 'inclusive' and thus more sustainable model of sexual politics...".
well by "imposing certain restrictions" i mostly just mean fairly typical and accepted mainstream "feminist" sexual politics nowadays, things like men are not entitled to sex, its inappropriate to sexually harass women just because you want to, rape is a serious problem for women, women are generally disadvantaged and oppressed by society relative to men, basically all the typical kind of stuff that these people freak out about and say is feminism gone crazy or whatever. these aren't really extremist ideas, but again, when your entire sexual identity is defined by pornography and thus extreme sexual domination of women, and even associating rape and sexual violence against women with sex in general, relative to that it does seem kind of extreme. you've come to associate the fulfillment of one of your most imperative biological drives with extreme patriarchal violence, and then when you're done jerking off you find yourself in the "real world" where extreme patriarchal violence like that is ostensibly not acceptable. and on top of that someone might say you're actually a bad person for expecting women to be your personal rape dolls. some people don't take this very well
disclaimer: i have not read anything specifically saying these sorts of things recently or not so recently that i can remember, these are just off the top of my head thoughts
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisLui
p.s. this reminds me of a quote i read from spring breakers lol...have you seen this movie?
ya that was my fave movie last year
_________________
quote:
Originally posted by turtleman
A normal person wouldn't say that in real life because it's ridiculous and insulting. Yet here you are spouting the most hateful garbage that your demons can muster out of your darkened soul. All because of the internet.
|
|
Mon Aug 11, 2014 2:46 pm |
|
|
Jon;
Joined: 13 Oct 2008
Posts: 13966
|
quote:
Originally posted by hassan-i-sabbah
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisLui
Wanting to stick your dick in everything isn't just something coded into your DNA either.
i agree, i was just trying to use the same vocabulary/shorthand jon was using. i do think that the "natural" state of the male sex drive is generally aggressive and promiscuous relative to monogamous ideals tho so i think my point re: dialectic between this drive and the socially constructed "monogamous" drive is still valid
these "natural" (genetic is probably a better term) drives tend to be treated differently by society depending on the values of the given society and also the place of the individual within that society, i.e. a monk is expected to practice extreme discipline towards them, a husband less extreme discipline, a young man relatively little discipline. the current default approach towards male sexuality under neoliberal postmodernity combines extreme exploitation, celebration, and magnification of these drives by the ruling class controlled mass media in pursuit of profit and the continuation of patriarchal capitalist hegemony, while at the same time imposing certain restrictions on patriarchal sexuality in the form of a more "inclusive" and thus more sustainable model of sexual politics. the interplay of these dialectical forces, where you have young men who have in one breath have their violent sexual impulses celebrated and in the next are told that those impulses must be restrained, is what leads to things like men's rights activists. dudes grow up on porn and have their entire gendered sexual identity defined by dominance over women, and then when you start talking about even milquetoast, mainstream liberal feminist ideas, it is deeply offensive because a very important part of their identity is now inextricably associated with male dominance and patriarchy. IMHO.
this owns, when is next issue of feminist magazine coming out so i can read the rest of it?
_________________
"i don't have pet peeves, i have major psychotic fucking hatreds"
|
|
Mon Aug 11, 2014 4:11 pm |
|
|
hassan-i-sabbah
Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 27424
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon;
quote:
Originally posted by hassan-i-sabbah
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisLui
Wanting to stick your dick in everything isn't just something coded into your DNA either.
i agree, i was just trying to use the same vocabulary/shorthand jon was using. i do think that the "natural" state of the male sex drive is generally aggressive and promiscuous relative to monogamous ideals tho so i think my point re: dialectic between this drive and the socially constructed "monogamous" drive is still valid
these "natural" (genetic is probably a better term) drives tend to be treated differently by society depending on the values of the given society and also the place of the individual within that society, i.e. a monk is expected to practice extreme discipline towards them, a husband less extreme discipline, a young man relatively little discipline. the current default approach towards male sexuality under neoliberal postmodernity combines extreme exploitation, celebration, and magnification of these drives by the ruling class controlled mass media in pursuit of profit and the continuation of patriarchal capitalist hegemony, while at the same time imposing certain restrictions on patriarchal sexuality in the form of a more "inclusive" and thus more sustainable model of sexual politics. the interplay of these dialectical forces, where you have young men who have in one breath have their violent sexual impulses celebrated and in the next are told that those impulses must be restrained, is what leads to things like men's rights activists. dudes grow up on porn and have their entire gendered sexual identity defined by dominance over women, and then when you start talking about even milquetoast, mainstream liberal feminist ideas, it is deeply offensive because a very important part of their identity is now inextricably associated with male dominance and patriarchy. IMHO.
this owns, when is next issue of feminist magazine coming out so i can read the rest of it?
It's a monthly, so next month.
_________________
quote:
Originally posted by turtleman
A normal person wouldn't say that in real life because it's ridiculous and insulting. Yet here you are spouting the most hateful garbage that your demons can muster out of your darkened soul. All because of the internet.
|
|
Mon Aug 11, 2014 4:42 pm |
|
|
Jordan4385
Joined: 11 Jun 2003
Posts: 116
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aerasal
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan4385
quote:
Originally posted by Aerasal
I'd feel the same way. I feel bad enough eating meat considering how the animals were treated, but it's cooked, prepared, right in front of me and delicious. I'd never be able to slaughter my own animals, especially pigs. they're pretty cool. humans are going to rot in hell for how they've treated each other and animals on earth.
get your vagina out of here bro.
yeah, I know right. I'm a huge pussy because I think it's wrong to torture animals simply for our convenience.
omg for our convenience? are you kidding? 1000 years ago we were all still just trying to survive. spending days searching for our next kill just so we can eat one more time.
|
|
Wed Aug 13, 2014 11:58 am |
|
|
Jordan4385
Joined: 11 Jun 2003
Posts: 116
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon;
shut up faggot, fuck as many women as possible with my big dick
proof or it never happened. queer.
|
|
Wed Aug 13, 2014 12:00 pm |
|
|
hassan-i-sabbah
Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 27424
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan4385
omg for our convenience? are you kidding? 1000 years ago we were all still just trying to survive. spending days searching for our next kill just so we can eat one more time.
Wow...really makes you think.
_________________
quote:
Originally posted by turtleman
A normal person wouldn't say that in real life because it's ridiculous and insulting. Yet here you are spouting the most hateful garbage that your demons can muster out of your darkened soul. All because of the internet.
|
|
Wed Aug 13, 2014 12:01 pm |
|
|
TheDRAX
Joined: 28 Feb 2008
Posts: 1906
Location: Dallas, Texas |
Hmm... I don't think the HOA would approve of the DNA testing in my raised vegetable garden
also - Woofy wins.
|
|
Wed Aug 13, 2014 1:12 pm |
|
|
Aerasal
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 3437
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan4385
quote:
Originally posted by Aerasal
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan4385
quote:
Originally posted by Aerasal
I'd feel the same way. I feel bad enough eating meat considering how the animals were treated, but it's cooked, prepared, right in front of me and delicious. I'd never be able to slaughter my own animals, especially pigs. they're pretty cool. humans are going to rot in hell for how they've treated each other and animals on earth.
get your vagina out of here bro.
yeah, I know right. I'm a huge pussy because I think it's wrong to torture animals simply for our convenience.
omg for our convenience? are you kidding? 1000 years ago we were all still just trying to survive. spending days searching for our next kill just so we can eat one more time.
you clearly didn't understand. we could be humane to animals we eat or use, but we aren't. it's cheaper and more convenient to not care about their welfare. get it now?
|
|
Wed Aug 13, 2014 3:02 pm |
|
|
Jordan4385
Joined: 11 Jun 2003
Posts: 116
|
Sure it is but, it doesn't mean I do that. MAYBE my family gets their chicken directly from the person who kills it. MAYBE they let their chickens roam free for several years before murdering them in the night. MAYBE we buy free range eggs. MAYBE we buy grass fed beef. MAYBE. Is that humane enough for you? IF i let my chickens roam, love them and feed them good food, use their eggs until they are nice and fat, then chop their head off?
How would u like for me to kill them exactly.
|
|
Wed Aug 13, 2014 4:57 pm |
|
|
Aerasal
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 3437
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan4385
Sure it is but, it doesn't mean I do that. MAYBE my family gets their chicken directly from the person who kills it. MAYBE they let their chickens roam free for several years before murdering them in the night. MAYBE we buy free range eggs. MAYBE we buy grass fed beef. MAYBE. Is that humane enough for you? IF i let my chickens roam, love them and feed them good food, use their eggs until they are nice and fat, then chop their head off?
How would u like for me to kill them exactly.
I'm not even sure what you're rambling about exactly.
IF i let my chickens roam, love them and feed them good food, use their eggs until they are nice and fat, then chop their head off?
uh actually, yeah, that'd be very humane. are you not versed in what factory farming is?
|
|
Wed Aug 13, 2014 7:08 pm |
|
|
Jordan4385
Joined: 11 Jun 2003
Posts: 116
|
No im very versed in this. This is why i have made the decision to never buy factory meat again. and only buy the best local meat possible. And to grow as much food as we possibly can. So why are you after ME?
|
|
Wed Aug 13, 2014 7:39 pm |
|
|
Jon;
Joined: 13 Oct 2008
Posts: 13966
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aerasal
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan4385
quote:
Originally posted by Aerasal
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan4385
quote:
Originally posted by Aerasal
I'd feel the same way. I feel bad enough eating meat considering how the animals were treated, but it's cooked, prepared, right in front of me and delicious. I'd never be able to slaughter my own animals, especially pigs. they're pretty cool. humans are going to rot in hell for how they've treated each other and animals on earth.
get your vagina out of here bro.
yeah, I know right. I'm a huge pussy because I think it's wrong to torture animals simply for our convenience.
omg for our convenience? are you kidding? 1000 years ago we were all still just trying to survive. spending days searching for our next kill just so we can eat one more time.
you clearly didn't understand. we could be humane to animals we eat or use, but we aren't. it's cheaper and more convenient to not care about their welfare. get it now?
capitalism is only concerned with profit, profit over everything even an animal or person's well-being.
_________________
"i don't have pet peeves, i have major psychotic fucking hatreds"
|
|
Wed Aug 13, 2014 8:39 pm |
|
|
Aerasal
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 3437
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon;
quote:
Originally posted by Aerasal
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan4385
quote:
Originally posted by Aerasal
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan4385
quote:
Originally posted by Aerasal
I'd feel the same way. I feel bad enough eating meat considering how the animals were treated, but it's cooked, prepared, right in front of me and delicious. I'd never be able to slaughter my own animals, especially pigs. they're pretty cool. humans are going to rot in hell for how they've treated each other and animals on earth.
get your vagina out of here bro.
yeah, I know right. I'm a huge pussy because I think it's wrong to torture animals simply for our convenience.
omg for our convenience? are you kidding? 1000 years ago we were all still just trying to survive. spending days searching for our next kill just so we can eat one more time.
you clearly didn't understand. we could be humane to animals we eat or use, but we aren't. it's cheaper and more convenient to not care about their welfare. get it now?
capitalism is only concerned with profit, profit over everything even an animal or person's well-being.
yah i know
|
|
Wed Aug 13, 2014 10:12 pm |
|
|
woofy
Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Posts: 463
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon;
quote:
Originally posted by Aerasal
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan4385
quote:
Originally posted by Aerasal
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan4385
quote:
Originally posted by Aerasal
I'd feel the same way. I feel bad enough eating meat considering how the animals were treated, but it's cooked, prepared, right in front of me and delicious. I'd never be able to slaughter my own animals, especially pigs. they're pretty cool. humans are going to rot in hell for how they've treated each other and animals on earth.
get your vagina out of here bro.
yeah, I know right. I'm a huge pussy because I think it's wrong to torture animals simply for our convenience.
omg for our convenience? are you kidding? 1000 years ago we were all still just trying to survive. spending days searching for our next kill just so we can eat one more time.
you clearly didn't understand. we could be humane to animals we eat or use, but we aren't. it's cheaper and more convenient to not care about their welfare. get it now?
capitalism is only concerned with profit, profit over everything even an animal or person's well-being.
sad, isn't it??
|
|
Wed Aug 13, 2014 11:17 pm |
|
|
hassan-i-sabbah
Joined: 10 Nov 2006
Posts: 27424
|
Communism will win.
_________________
quote:
Originally posted by turtleman
A normal person wouldn't say that in real life because it's ridiculous and insulting. Yet here you are spouting the most hateful garbage that your demons can muster out of your darkened soul. All because of the internet.
|
|
Thu Aug 14, 2014 5:13 am |
|
|
Fast Luck
Joined: 11 Oct 2001
Posts: 22805
Location: Penis |
quote:
Originally posted by Jordan4385
No im very versed in this. This is why i have made the decision to never buy factory meat again. and only buy the best local meat possible. And to grow as much food as we possibly can. So why are you after ME?
I think because you called him Vagina.
_________________
i zero bagged your mother
quote:
Originally posted by Fast Luck
hassan-i-asher: majorin in takin pictures
dreamin bout wayne from catalina wine mixers
listen little friend stay outta the deep end
cuz you're less street than vampire weekend
|
|
Thu Aug 14, 2014 9:34 am |
|
|
Jon;
Joined: 13 Oct 2008
Posts: 13966
|
_________________
"i don't have pet peeves, i have major psychotic fucking hatreds"
|
|
Sun Aug 17, 2014 9:06 pm |
|
|
|
Warcraft Occult Forum Index
-> Moderated General Discussion
