Total posts: 365
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Well, we'll see. Maybe before the end of DP1 I might change my vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
His beginner series games all had 12 people. 3 of which were scum. Almost every time
So, how does having 9 out of 12 people being town mean there's almost a 50% chance like you said in comment 188?
Created:
Posted in:
But, I'll stick to VTNL for now, since it is still DP1, and I don't consider this quite enough compelling.
Created:
Posted in:
Seems awfully strange Wylted would claim a percentage chance for the town to be correct or wrong, right? Only mafia members would know the odds.
Created:
Posted in:
Why 50% chance? We don't know how many mafia members there are, do we?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
This is true. But it's assuming the town actually lynches a mafia member and not a town member.
It's quite a risk. If it goes well, yes, the town will end up better. If not, then it will be quite a blunder.
It's quite a risk. If it goes well, yes, the town will end up better. If not, then it will be quite a blunder.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If we don't use the DP to scum hunt then we lose.
Sure, it makes sense the town to do this in later day phases. DP1 doesn't make sense to start this though. There's too much risk for the town to lynch a fellow town member in DP1.
Why do we need to do it for DP1?
Why do we need to do it for DP1?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Lol, wtf man, now you're making me feel like this is a derogatory term or something, since you feel sorry for me falling under it.
I'm not gay, but technically I think I fall under "gender queer" or "agender", since masculinity and feminity don't matter to me, nor do I feel like I fit under either. But anyways, this is kind of distracting from the game. Just to be clear, this isn't a claim about what character I am. This is me personally(hence I have "other" under gender for this website).
I'm not gay, but technically I think I fall under "gender queer" or "agender", since masculinity and feminity don't matter to me, nor do I feel like I fit under either. But anyways, this is kind of distracting from the game. Just to be clear, this isn't a claim about what character I am. This is me personally(hence I have "other" under gender for this website).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Nah, this person is definitely not from the Americas, neither born nor currently living on either of the American continents.Rishi Idnani is from New York. So do you care to take your soft claim of not being from. the Americas back?
Twink is not an insult. Just like the term bear is not an insult. It is just a way homosexuals classify each other to explain their tastes in men
Alright, I'm not familiar enough with gay culture, or LGBTQ culture for that matter, even though I technically fall under it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Okay here is a thread where bsh1 states he is a twink but also states he hates twinks
That thread is years old, man. Actually, so is that debate you linked earlier. I have no reason to believe this is all true today. People change over time, particularly as they age and mature. BSH1 is probably no exception. I don't get why we are going after this frankly. It seems like grasping at straws.
Also, this is one of the first times I've heard of the term "twink"(if I have before, I don't remember it very well), I get the impression this is derogatory and meant as an insult to gays. Is it?
Also, this is one of the first times I've heard of the term "twink"(if I have before, I don't remember it very well), I get the impression this is derogatory and meant as an insult to gays. Is it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Thoughts on F4 saying bsh1 called O'pry not attractive when bsh1 clearly calls him attractive in the following thread page 7 of the comments
I might have to inveatigate F4 more. I don't know enough history of them to conclude that they were lying or just simply mistaken. If F4 was aware of this beforehand, that would help me decide on that.
Created:
Posted in:
Sorry for a somewhat late response. But jeez, 7 pages already and it's only been like 3 hours of the dp.
At any rate, I've read and analyzed some of the comments, but given this is DP1, I never see merit in lynching in the first-day phase. All we can go on is people's words. I require something more concrete than that, so I'm not going to change this, and my vote is a...
VTNL
Choose to believe me or not, but my person is not from one of the American continents. That's all I'll say for now.
At any rate, I've read and analyzed some of the comments, but given this is DP1, I never see merit in lynching in the first-day phase. All we can go on is people's words. I require something more concrete than that, so I'm not going to change this, and my vote is a...
VTNL
Choose to believe me or not, but my person is not from one of the American continents. That's all I'll say for now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Hopefully, you won't need subs. Everyone try to be active, post maybe at least twice a day(irl) during the day phases.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, given I was at one point a Brony, though I'm not now, I can't take it off my list even though I don't enjoy it today since, at that time, it probably consumed most of my life. Assuming you want ones that historically are our favorites, including current ones, and not only current ones, then my list is as follows:
1) My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic
2) Rick and Morty
3) Danny Phantom
4) Archer
5) Golan the Insatiable (only the original 6 episodes since they fucked up the re-makes of it)
If you mean ones that I would most enjoy today, then MLP will definitely be taken off, as most "child-like" cartoons(Danny Phantom too then) since I've seen to have grown out of them. So that list would then become:
1) Rick and Morty
2) Archer
3) Golan the Insatiable
4) Disenchantment5) Futurama
Created:
Posted in:
Not sure if the above should be considered a spoiler. I didn't say anything one wouldn't otherwise know if they read the official summaries of the episode(I mean, you'll know Kelly gets stuck in this time travel stuff from a summary of that episode, so I don't think a spoiler warning is needed)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
...that of how two completely different cultures would go about learning about each other when they have little to no frame of reference... If you just want a funny comedy with throwaway gags about a silly Kermit doll then this show has it. If you want something that does have some thinkers in it though, it has that too.
Yes, that theme seemed to have been explored throughout the entire show. I of course didn't mean to imply there weren't philosophical topics, of course though. Given the time travel stuff that happens with Kelly, well there's lots of philosophical questions there too. In that episode with the time capsule, it was interesting to view texting from a standpoint of centuries in the future where it may not even be a thing anymore, but is an integral part of our lives.
The reason why I say Star Trek is better at making one think over it, is since it does take these questions more seriously rather than in a humorous light, that, in my opinion, is more thought provocative. The fact these philosophical questions are observed humorously is great and made me want to continually watch The Orville, don't get me wrong, but it made me personally more likely to brush aside these topics due to the levity. Way after the fact, as you said, I'm now considering them with more thought and realizing how much of a mind-blower they were. Star Trek, I'd say, makes you consider these questions while watching it. This is just me though, maybe you pondered over the philosophies in The Orville as they were being laid out, but I found I didn't until I analyzed the episode after the fact.
Created:
Posted in:
No spoilers in this comment, really, but for people who haven't seen episodes, if you talk specifics, it may be best to give a spoiler warning... that said... let's move on
So, I will start this by saying that as a kid, I only ever watched TOS, TNG, and Enterprise. Sadly, my dad didn't expose me to other generations of Star Trek. So recently I started watching all series in order of release and, as I'm typing this, I'm watching DS9 Episode 2, so this is a new experience for me. I've heard LOTS of good things about DS9, almost everyone BUT my dad agrees it's the best generation of Star Trek, which is why I'm jokingly angry at him for not exposing me to it as a kid lol. For whatever reason, he said it was his least favorite Star Trek gen.
Anyways, I was also watching The Orville while going through TNG. I gotta say, I kind of appreciate the less-formal, more wacky/humorous take given in The Orville. However, Star Trek, I notice, presents philosophical questions much better. The Orville is more entertaining, so for entertainment, thus far, it ranks highest for me for this genre. TNG, so far, ranks highest for being thought-provoking, but already episode 1 of DS9 is competing with some of the top thought-provoking TNG episodes lol, given it pretty much puts a question to time and space, and I found myself, yet again, almost having a metaphysical crisis just from a freaking episode on a TV. It opened up really well that I am now captivated to the series just from the first episode. If DS9 continues like this, it will replace TNG for me for being philosophically thought-provocative. So yeah, that's the main difference between the appeals of those two series(Orville and Star Trek) in my opinion. Depending on whether you want more entertainment or having your mind blown, would determine which you prefer.
Anyways, your guys' thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
We can discuss all topics related to Star Trek, The Orville, and any and all space-exploring shows.
Created:
Screw it, I'll create an even broader thread for all sci-fi, space exploring shows.
Created:
Can this thread be used for all things Star Trek, or only the transporters? If the latter, I'll create a new "All things Star Trek" thread then. Might want to anyways given the last comment before mine on this one was 148 days ago lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I caught that, but I didn't want to assume you did that specifically to claim being red leader for our game here lol. You didn't change it to that just recently, I hope? This is just an odd coincidence?
Because it's even more meta that I was blue team leader and targeted you first night phase given the Empire's symbol is represented with blue.
Edit: While I edited this, I presume since it's not in-game, that's okay right? I forgot to add in the part about targeting him first NP
Edit: While I edited this, I presume since it's not in-game, that's okay right? I forgot to add in the part about targeting him first NP
Created:
Posted in:
And I even gave them a possible cover: I made it seem like I was really interested in a red team-only NK, so yellow may have thought I was the new red team leader.
That would have been their smart move.
That would have been their smart move.
Created:
Posted in:
Honestly, I don't know why at all red team chose to VTNL. I mean, if they would have went along with VTL'ing yellow, they would have had the sole NK. As I said in DP2, VTNL was only appealing to yellow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It could have worked if blue and red both shot yellow but...
I didn't expect them to do that lol. They made it clear they didn't want to listen to blue team, so I chose not to target either of the yellow members we had confirmed since I figured red team wouldn't. The other issue is we had a few players who said very little. Since Wylted and I were two of the more vocal players, I figured we'd be targeted, and we were. So, given I expected that worst-case scenario, there was no point for me to target one of the two confirmed yellow team players.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Hmm, I don't know. I'm kind of just brainstorming lol. Maybe I'd like it more. It depends on how it would turn out.
Created:
Posted in:
Plus, a team leader may accidentally target a fellow team member, so if that team leader finds out the person they targeted did not die, and their team was the only one with bulletproof status, that reveals info interestingly enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
What about if you adjusted the bulletproof rule to allow the team who had a member lynched to use it whenever they wanted instead? So, for each time a member is lynched on their team, they get "1 bulletproof" point to spend at a later time at their leisure.
Created:
Posted in:
Actually, I think I have an idea how to improve this. Is anyone here familiar with the board game Shadow Hunters?
It's a little similar to Mafia I would say, though there are some differences. Anyways, it is also team-based, where teams are generally even and members are semi-informed like in this version of Mafia. However, there are only two teams directly opposed to one another. So in a 9 player game, you'd have two teams of 3, while the other three players are considered "Neutral" who each have their own separate goal in order to win. The two teams would win by eliminating the other team, like in this mafia.
Maybe you don't like the idea(it may be changing it too much), but it definitely makes it more appealing to make a hard claim, because really only 3 people out of the nine would want you dead if you make such a claim. The others may be on your side or just not interested in killing you in order to win.
What you guys think?
Maybe you don't like the idea(it may be changing it too much), but it definitely makes it more appealing to make a hard claim, because really only 3 people out of the nine would want you dead if you make such a claim. The others may be on your side or just not interested in killing you in order to win.
What you guys think?
Created:
Posted in:
But yeah, I gotta say for this one, it's definitely not a good idea to make hard claims in DP1, for the reason Speed race said above. In the normal mafia, it could work to make a hard claim on DP1, but this one proved to not be a good idea to do that.
If there was some way to implement other roles that may or may not be in play, that would help too. Probably only want to do one of these suggestions though, not both. Doing both may imbalance it the other way.
If there was some way to implement other roles that may or may not be in play, that would help too. Probably only want to do one of these suggestions though, not both. Doing both may imbalance it the other way.
Created:
Posted in:
While designing the setup I considered having the goon know their deputy but the deputy not knowing their goon or something like that but decided against it.
I think this would have made more sense. It would have made it a better option for leaders to claim to be on the same side as someone else. With both lowers of a team knowing each other, it pretty much means that's not smart to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Yeah, I was one of the only people who wasn't clearly siding with someone lol.
That indicates a leader. I only expressed skepticism. I considered the idea of claiming to be on the same team as someone else, but that could also easily backfire. This type of Mafia, I have to say, carries way more risks than others I've been in.
That indicates a leader. I only expressed skepticism. I considered the idea of claiming to be on the same team as someone else, but that could also easily backfire. This type of Mafia, I have to say, carries way more risks than others I've been in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Well, I think I tried all I could do given my team outed themselves early :P I'm sure you guys didn't realize I was blue until DP2's VTNL or thereabouts, and at that point, I knew it was over for my team anyways. The only strategy I foresaw having any chance of working was what I said above, and it was a huge gamble, and I was wrong sadly. I was hoping Oro was a red lesser.
Created:
Posted in:
Yeah, I kind of determined my team was screwed after Wylted and Grey outed themselves. This doesn't quite work the same as regular Mafia, and I figured that out. But I don't totally blame them. Based on how different this was from regular mafia, it's hard to gauge a good strategy.
I determined Wylted was on my team, so I decided to be very opposed to them in DP1, even almost lynching him. Figured that would make others believe I'm not blue. Sadly, since Yellow was ahead in DP2, my only chance was hoping Ormogi wasn't red team leader and making red team think I was the leader while convincing them to lynch yellow. Presumably, Wylted would have been Red's NK under such a scenario. That was pretty much the only chance at blue winning, and once everyone else VTNL'd, I knew my team was screwed, and decided to try to take red down with us lol
I determined Wylted was on my team, so I decided to be very opposed to them in DP1, even almost lynching him. Figured that would make others believe I'm not blue. Sadly, since Yellow was ahead in DP2, my only chance was hoping Ormogi wasn't red team leader and making red team think I was the leader while convincing them to lynch yellow. Presumably, Wylted would have been Red's NK under such a scenario. That was pretty much the only chance at blue winning, and once everyone else VTNL'd, I knew my team was screwed, and decided to try to take red down with us lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Sure, you can send me a link. I mean, I'm still going to keep an apointment with a neurologist to for my seizures though.
Created:
Posted in:
So yeah, I targeted Club for that reason, or the small chance he was yellow(though I had a feeling he wasn't)
Created:
Posted in:
I figured since no one listened to me for lynching yellow, I'd just make red team lose with blue
Created:
Posted in:
What is death and what do you do when you die?,
First, death would be the end of the functioning of the human body - both the heart and brain would cease all activity. It is unclear to me whether I can consider "the self" attached to the body. To see more on what I mean, read my post about this here. I cannot answer what happens to the self after the self's body dies. I can guess. I'm someone who came close to death. After a near-death experience some 5+ years ago, my heart had stopped beating for ~20 seconds. Of course, since I'm here talking to you, I was resuscitated. During this whole time, including hours before and hours after, I have absolutely no memory, and thus those hours of my life are just empty. It's as though I had a break in my life.
Death may just mean one is nothing, no longer sentient, conscious, alive. Or, if the self is somehow a non-biological/material entity that occupies the body, well, then it could mean an after-life I suppose. I would not know. Perhaps "the self" is not made of matter, maybe dark matter or something.
Created:
Posted in:
Also, yeah, I'm not sure it makes sense to punish them for voting on unrated debates. TBH, I have one unrated debate I'd like to get any votes I possibly can due to that I was doing it for mere practice and to help get criticism of it. It's a position I'm not sure I hold which I argued for. I'd like some more feedback in addition to what my contender pointed out, and certainly being lax with enforcing that rule on unrated debates could help encourage more feedback. But certainly, for the rated ones, since they matter, they shouldn't be allowed.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't think the mods should be the one to enforce special rules. This is coming from someone whom, every debate I've had, I list special rules. The voters ought to decide that.
With Wylted's point, I might suggest something where a warning message pops up to new users if they try to vote if you don't like the idea of outright banning new users from doing so until they meet the requirements.
Created:
Posted in:
I wish I was Canadian. Healthcare sucks in the US.
Created:
Posted in:
Lets start with your first sentence "self is both body and brain"
Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I was going to get to it. I just had other things I wanted to comment on or write first.
The first two paragraphs in it I would have to disagree. I'm not sure there is much for me to reply to, given it's mostly just statements without reason.
The third paragraph I agree with.
While I may have not responded to your comment until now, you also had not responded to my OP either.
The first two paragraphs in it I would have to disagree. I'm not sure there is much for me to reply to, given it's mostly just statements without reason.
The third paragraph I agree with.
While I may have not responded to your comment until now, you also had not responded to my OP either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Indeed, I would agree. With these psychological "disorders" there is likely some imbalance in the brain that we are not aware of yet.Often times what people label psychological disorders and or mental illnesses are simply imbalances and the conditions of the organs and glands, clean those up and your operation and functions return as normal.
The reason you can have these experiences is because your conscious being exists independent of the human body you are currently maintaining, believe it or not the soul is not restricted to just the perception and senses of the body.
Yes, this is something I'm considering is a real possibility and may be reality.
As for the remainder about a creator/god, I'm not ready to come to that conclusion and consider is a bit premature. Other than that, I've not found anything particularly objectionable you suggested here, so I mostly agree or am neutral to what you've said.
As for the remainder about a creator/god, I'm not ready to come to that conclusion and consider is a bit premature. Other than that, I've not found anything particularly objectionable you suggested here, so I mostly agree or am neutral to what you've said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Looking over the first page, I don't see too much similarity between this thread and that one. It is a somewhat similar topic, but asking "who are you?" does not really mean the same thing as "What is the self?". People are responding with identities in that one whereas I'm more referring to a "self" as in the feeling of self and how it is different from the body. Of course, maybe this discussion is later in that thread, but I am not particularly interested in continuing to read it.
I did not plagiarize if that is what you're insinuating. People can think of similar topics and ideas though. I can assure you this is my own thoughts that may have been influenced by a myriad of life experiences though(so there is bound to be some similarity between what I said here and things in philosophy and other places)
I did not plagiarize if that is what you're insinuating. People can think of similar topics and ideas though. I can assure you this is my own thoughts that may have been influenced by a myriad of life experiences though(so there is bound to be some similarity between what I said here and things in philosophy and other places)
Created:
Posted in:
So, this is something I've pondered over ever since I was a child and never figured out. I know it seems like a basic question that "normies" probably feel they have the answer to.
But, let me explain something here. I'm someone with a dissociative disorder, sometimes experiencing what is known in psychology as "depersonalization". I suppose everyone might experience it once or a few times in their life, but it's a fairly common experience for me. Perhaps some kind of drug could reproduce the effect, so if anyone has experienced what I'm going to describe, let me know and what your thoughts are on this.
So, during such occurrences, the best way to describe what is happening is that the "self" disconnects from one's body. You essentially become an outside observer to one's own body. There was a recent groundbreaking study in neuroscience about a year ago looking at patients with various disorders which caused involuntary movement or a feeling of a loss of free will, which seem to have pinpointed a region of the brain responsible for feeling "free will" or like one is in control of their body. [1] [2] One must ask, what does this mean then? These patients still felt a sense of self as do I when I dissociate or seize(been having recent seizures as well where I feel not in control of course). In each case, I still feel alive, that I'm myself, but it's as though the self is an outside observer to my body during this time.
If one's connection to one's body is controlled by one's brain, then is the self not actually connected to the body otherwise? And if not, why does the self still exist under such a circumstance? Is the entirety of the brain's neurochemistry what makes oneself the self? This can't be the case as those who lose such connections, like those with alzhemier's, still report to be themselves, albeit they lose functionality and connections in the brain.
Let's see what you all think.
But, let me explain something here. I'm someone with a dissociative disorder, sometimes experiencing what is known in psychology as "depersonalization". I suppose everyone might experience it once or a few times in their life, but it's a fairly common experience for me. Perhaps some kind of drug could reproduce the effect, so if anyone has experienced what I'm going to describe, let me know and what your thoughts are on this.
So, during such occurrences, the best way to describe what is happening is that the "self" disconnects from one's body. You essentially become an outside observer to one's own body. There was a recent groundbreaking study in neuroscience about a year ago looking at patients with various disorders which caused involuntary movement or a feeling of a loss of free will, which seem to have pinpointed a region of the brain responsible for feeling "free will" or like one is in control of their body. [1] [2] One must ask, what does this mean then? These patients still felt a sense of self as do I when I dissociate or seize(been having recent seizures as well where I feel not in control of course). In each case, I still feel alive, that I'm myself, but it's as though the self is an outside observer to my body during this time.
If one's connection to one's body is controlled by one's brain, then is the self not actually connected to the body otherwise? And if not, why does the self still exist under such a circumstance? Is the entirety of the brain's neurochemistry what makes oneself the self? This can't be the case as those who lose such connections, like those with alzhemier's, still report to be themselves, albeit they lose functionality and connections in the brain.
Let's see what you all think.
Created:
Posted in:
It raises the question of if there is somehow, for a lack of a better term, "a spirit"?
I mean, if you re-create someone with all the memories, genes, neuro-connections as another, but both exist I can't imagine the self controlling both "people". It seems like a logical impossibility, and in order for it to make sense, we have to consider that the feeling of life and control of such bodies are from two different "people" or "spirits". What makes you, you? What makes the self oneself? If I suddenly were made up of every piece of matter you are, would you control both of us? If the answer is no, it leads to a conclusion that there's something more to us than simply matter. If that's the case, then yeah, teleporting would essentially mean killing the self and creating someone else with your body, memories, and previous neuroconnections.
If you've ever dissociated, you feel like you've lost connection with your body. But it doesn't make complete sense, because you still have a sense of self it's just that self is not present in that body. So what is the self? I'm also assuming you've dissociated before and to this degree. According to psychiatrists, I have some dissociative disorder myself, so this is a semi-normal occurrence for me.
Created:
Posted in:
I can't help but think absurdism, deconstruction, and subjectivism are inter-connected as philosophies. Deconstruction essentially leads someone to realize everything has a start point, or postulate people just accept to be true despite that in order to prove or disprove the postulate, it requires a paradox. For example, the postulate of "My senses/perception are/is accurate and true" is a postulate in that it is the very first claim someone can make in order to make further claims (i.e the existence of other things). However, to prove or disprove that statement requires those same senses/perception. Thus deconstruction would lead to that postulate if we break down just about any argument that something "is" unless one is claiming "the mind is/exists". At any rate, if deconstruction leads to that, then it would lead to the conclusion of subjectivism in that one can't prove things objectively exist(or don't exist for that matter). This can lead to absurdism, as one would come to a realization of the absurdity of living through life, acting as though every certainly exists(we all do after all) even though we can't prove them to from a philosophical standpoint.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
Goals I've already met(in no particular order) :
- Finished various video/computer games, such as those in the Ace Attorney series, Zelda,Mario games, etc
- Graduated High School
- Acquired an Associate degree in psychology
- Became an Eagle Scout
- Got married
- My first job
- I'm sure when I was like 4 I had a goal of making my first friend, ofcourse I have already(would be pretty sad otherwise)
Goals yet to met, In order of when I am to complete them:
- Win the game of Forum Mafia I'm in
- Figure out what's going on in my head and get it treated(been experiencing unexpected seizures it seems, never known to have seizures before). Given the background knowledge in cognitive science I have, I suspect they are localized to my left brain hemisphere(the right side of my body is what is affected usually), starting in the frontal lobe(they start with mood changes and issues with judgment) and going to the occipital lobe(the seizures end in hallucinations usually) Only reason this isn't my first listed goal is that my appointment with a neurologist is later than when the game of Mafia I'm in is likely to end lol. Order of when I am to have these goals done, of course, doesn't indicate order of importance. Obviously, this would be number one in such an order
- Probably finish some other games I'm playing and may play, I can't predict what games I'm going to be involved in yet
- Finish schooling for a double major in Philosophy and Neuroscience
- Get accepted into a Ph.D program for the interdisciplinary field of cognitive science
(apologies for the break in format. I think the ordered lists options above don't go beyond 5)
6. Other miscelleneous, unforeseen goals
7. Finish that Ph.D
8. Move to a country with a better healthcare system than the US, probably Italy.
9. Miscellaneous goals
10. Help develop sentient, true AI.
11. Find a way to merge my mind with it, and transfer myself to an android. Fuck humanity. (yes, this is literally one of my motivations for wanting this. I hate humanity to the point I don't want to be human anymore. Though at times I also love it... a love-hate relationship with humanity is what I have. )
Created:
Posted in:
It would be hilariously fitting if you have some philosophy celebrities in this though, and I get Albert Camus, given a sketch of him is my current profile picture XD
Created: