Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
So... ableist, racist, perhaps homophobic, and upholds pedophilia.... quite the resume that is
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I could antithetically hold a solipsist point of view, and argue that only in my mind is such a thing true - that there is, in fact, another name that would be relegated to the real debateart.com
Created:
Posted in:
I made my own game, kinda, its not very well developed - and I was only playing with a website I found.
I thought it would be nice to ask for feedback, its not complete by any means, but its bare bones are laid.
Created:
Posted in:
I would disagree that the source of wanting yourself to not suffer cannot be held within the trait of not wanting others to suffer - and while I agree that a psychological route is what I should take if I wanted the empirical truth of the matter, I have already conceded such a thing to be a truth, just not one that I'm particularly interested in. I don't have the time to get as in depth as I can responding to your post, but I do appreciate the time you obviously spent thinking it up. Perhaps I will later respond in greater depth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Indeed. I fail to see the relevance of such a statement, perhaps you wouldn't mind enlightening me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
well actually the relatively sparse air particles reflect the photons which we would call blue, which would not actually inform something as "being" blue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
One of his interpretations of his research was flawed then, that does not mean that research is flawed. Many racist people will misinterpret research to conclude racist things, heck, we had a good example here look up MegatowDemon, he's a perfect example, but you see his research could be perfect and his interpretation wrong in that regard, Darwin isn't a social scientist, and never purported to be one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
All of the programs, first of all, are not widely used by all animators/graphic designers - especially animators (who are in the same field) - furthermore, they all work on a stylized foundation - which you have not addressed. Yes, it has become easier to polish detail, but there has to be detail there in the first place.
This is like me saying that because there are tables, desks are obsolete, or because there are boots, shoes are obsolete.
More accurately, that because table legs are a thing, tables are obsolete, one supports the other - and your slippery slope fails to account for that
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Neither of those things has to do with graphic design - furthermore, we've had AI capable of human speech that was indistinguishable from a human - the only remaining link is having it blog it down - are you now arguing that journalists are obsolete?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Again. You can do the same thing with wix, in fact, even faster and more specific - furthermore - no - I am informing you that the field of graphic artists will not be heavily affect by such a thing - you are aware that creating textbook, boring images has almost nothing to do with graphic design? Please demonstrate that AI will gain the ability to create detailed stylistic work - you have failed to do such a thing.
You are committing a slippery slope fallacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So do you have any actual rebuttals? Because if I had only said that, then fine - spite and all that - but I brought up several points -do you have a defence of your claim? You have spite and nothing to actually back it up - if Fauxlaw or Undefeatable were to have spite fine, even though I disagree with both on a number of issues, at least they substantiate their claims with more than a youtube video
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
COMPUTER PROGRAMMERS AND WEB DESIGNERS ARE OBSOLETE
And I suppose Wix does the same thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
ARTISTS AND DESIGNERS ARE OBSOLETE
Watching the video.... no, no they certainly aren't - first off - the framing of each picture is noticeably plain - it doesn't have the capabilities of intensive stylization, nor does it have any amount of coordination in unique anatomy - furthermore - who do you think programmed it? Hm? There are perhaps one or two things in there I would call, "good" and only hesitantly, people who design characters? Completely fine! People who make amount of intensive backgrounds? Also fine! It is very clear that you don't know what you're talking about here bud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I suppose the act of investigating oneself can be accomplished by investigating others. I find it often the case that we are more easily persuaded by mirrors of ourselves than introspection. You're much more willing to call your siblings arrogant than yourself and after that, it's as simple as identifying a link. Furthermore, if you care for another then it would be in your best interest (mentally) to investigate them, I would not call that a waste of time. Perhaps others might call investigating others a lost cause, or, as you have yourself, a waste of time, but I find the investment endlessly engaging and fascinating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Um, I think there should be a feature that allows moderators to reduce the time for an interlocutor to respond if said interlocutor's account was banned.
For example: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2839-the-universe-is-probably-older-than-10-000-years
Also if a debate ends on a no-vote tie (and it wasn't a forfeited debate) that a moderator could vote on it.
Created:
Posted in:
So... woo boy, its only been since September that I've joined the site - that's 6 months - and I've already seen this site radically change, I've seen multiple users come and go, etc, etc.. I saw some worry that this site was going downhill, and I think I disagree, I wasn't around for the "golden age of DDO" so I don't know how it compares. I would also just like to thank this entire site, it helped sharpen me from a kid with some decent ideas and no direction into an, at least, competent debater. The community, the engagement, and the wide variety of ideas.
If one was simply content to stay where nobody disagreed with them, there would be no intelligent growth, the key of developing is challenging yourself! So thanks, even the people I've come to dislike, because our many hundreds of back and forth have helped develop me into who I am today, and I like that person. It's also taught me quite a lot of things about people on the internet, things I thought I knew... well, they were reinforced. Anyway, its been a ride and I intend to keep on, though my activity may wax and wane, I'm at least trying to keep a presence.
Despite that rambling thanks, I want to know what people think: do you think this site is more alive than it's been? Dying? Or just in the middle?
Created:
Posted in:
Things move, obviously, you move, I move, the world moves. Pedestrians move about their day through the bustling streets of their home, birds soar overhead with a destination in mind, cats flee from their sight of sun-bathing. Things move. However, to say that the only movement in the world is physical would be to dramatically underestimate the movement in the world. It would be an intellectual crime to acknowledge that there is more to this mediocre spheroid of rock and water than what physically moves. There are, after all, such things as humans - who are physically advanced enough to create systems, deep, interlocking systems, which move as well. They don't just move forward or backward, horizontally or vertically, straight or diagonally, they move... inward.
inward? Yes. Inward is the right word for it, systems are, usually, constructed to solve a problem, resolve a conflict. Humans naturally seek out the most efficient way to do such a thing, and thus, systems develop - they move - inward. They become more efficient, they start to contain more and more of the characteristics of a system. Perhaps my language is abstract and unclear, allow me to illustrate my meaning. I mean to move, as in to change purpose, to move location, or to develop. By inward I mean closer to one's identity or self, that can be physically or metaphorically the case. Thus, whenever a system begins to resolve conflicts more efficiently, it is moving, inward. Though there are systems which move outward in more than a physical sense, the goal of a system is only accomplished by moving - inward - becoming more efficient, remember that.
There are millions of systems on the earth, natural ones, such as the human biological system, and man-made ones; such as traffic laws. There are numerous examples of both, but I want to focus in on man-made systems. That does beg the question here, why would humans construct systems? I answered this, of course, to resolve issues, specifically issues which the natural order of things could not fix. Whenever individualistic collection was not efficient enough to feed a group of humans, they devised collective gathering groups, whenever even those failed they began to delegate - the ones most suited for their task be sent to do it - it is a tragically underappreciated step in the course of human speciation - the ability to delegate - one of the first human systems. There is, which I have failed to mention before now, a key difference in natural systems and man-made ones.
Man. Humans are the obvious difference, not just in that humans being the creator of such systems, but humans are the upkeepers of such systems. Natural systems work according to natural laws, which are inflexible, they do not change by thought or action, they simply are. Humans on the other hand? They are full of potential and ruin, just as great as they are evil, just as they are merciful, and just as awful as they are commendable. They change, and the ways they upkeep systems also change, and who upkeeps systems change - this is something which, today, we see as natural. As one human becomes unfit for duty, unwilling to perform it, or bad at its duty, another replaces it - however, this was not always - and is not even always - the case. There is a multitude of examples, but I think the best would be the pharaohs of ancient egypt.
They were politically powerful individuals, in charge of one of the greatest nations in the ancient world - they had a military might to be reckoned with, and minds which not even the brutes of forces could disseminate. They created some of the most brilliant architecture in the history of the world. More than just powerful, in their day, they were said to be gods! They had come from the heavens to enforce it's sacred plan onto it's people. As one can guess, these self-identifying god's were less than willing to give up power, so unwilling, in fact, that they would purposely practice copulation with blood relatives, the closer to them, the better in their eyes. They wanted their power to never leave their veins, and for a long time of history, this story repeated itself, not just in egypt, but all over the world. The keepers of systems wanted to stay in power.
They wanted, much like their natural counterparts, to be the keeper forever, for the power it afforded is extremely tempting for the most disciplined of individuals, much less humankind. Unlike their natural counterparts, however, they had wills and wants, and bodies which decayed at a relatively exordinate rate. As humans always have though, we adapted, we learned to pass power - at first it was only to those from us, but then it expanded to those like us, and then to those who thought like us, and know it has advanced to those who are chosen to replace us. We know of this system as a presidency and a democratic election. We have advanced far from the days of pharaohs and incest to maintain power, though some would argue perhaps not that far given... ahem... recent leaders, anyways....
That brings up another question, one which I will not answer, one which I am satisfied, for now, to leave a philosophic pondering, if a system is meant to be a resolution to the problems of a world, and to become more efficient is to move inwards, then what will that look like for our leaders, is a democratic election the inwards movement of the system of leaders? Does it matter if such a thing is efficient? I suppose that's more than one question, but they all come from the same place, questioning the systems which govern our day to day life. To question is to expand one's base of knowledge, and that's certainly one thing I want to do, the greatest feats of human thought come from these systems, so surely to question them is to engage with these great thinkers, no? Aside aside, I do wonder... what is the future of these systems?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Canceling and discrediting scientific work does not relate - Darwin is not an authority in the societal study - if his racism biased his research, then we throw it out - unfortunately for you, scientific work cannot be canceled, and his work is primarily on finches and other species with phenotypes which are easily observed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I meant in reference to the why I want to avoid suffering, I explained that that explanation wasn't sufficient for me - I apologize for the bite, I'm a tad stressed
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
And yet another who has not read or followed the entire thing. Though I didn't mention where I got the pills from. I know, psychologically, why I have attacked as I do - I've gone to therapy regularly for the past couple of years - they recommended i be on anti-depressants. And some medicine only affects the symptoms, but that is not true of all medicine. Furthermore, some ailments can only be mitigated not cured - I haven't been able to afford therapy for the past couple of years, but on top of that I find it incredibly difficult to resolve my psychological issue
TLDR: I'm working on it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
You know, for my pure spite and arrogance I would vote on the debate - I suppose I am listening
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I already expressed knowledge of such notions.... that isn't the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Thank you, I certainly do practice a lot of breathing exercises, all "Meditating" is for me is sitting down, and breathing deeply through my nose and out my mouth, I also ensure that I'm breathing with my chest and not my stomach, and yeah, I really do need to - I'm able to get by without pills, but it sucks - and my anxiety shoots through the roof.
Created:
Posted in:
As most know, or at least some, I'm still in high school and I still do high school stuff on the regular. What I don't think a lot of people know is that I regularly take anti-depressants, no no not because I'm suicidal or anything (though there could be an argument for me being depressed), its mostly because of my extreme anxiety. It allows me to function without having attacks where I pass out because of hyperventilation. I've come to live with the fact that I am extremely anxious, anywho, I did not take it this morning. I'm not quite sure why, probably because of a mix of being in a rush and oversleeping, but I wasn't able to take it.
I had an awful day, though I managed to avoid passing out on someone, yay, and as soon as my mother was available I asked if she could bring me the medicine (I most certainly don't trust myself to drive in the state), and my mother quickly brought it to me, much to my gratefulness. I excused myself from class and settled on in a corner so that I could take the pill (again, very anxious in general, but even more so about taking pills in public), but as I brought the small capsule to my lips a thought crossed my mind. Why? It would be of the utmost arrogance to assume that such a question was original or even pertinent, but it stuck all the same.
Why?
Why was I taking this pill? To curb my anxiety? Why was it necessary? Because I could barely function without it... what about the people with a lack of medication and similar shortcomings? I knew them to exist, did they just weather on? Did they just die of a heart attack one day? Why did I want to function? The answer seems obvious, but for the life of me, I couldn't think of an answer that wasn't inherently axiomatic or circular. Perhaps I was being exceedingly silly, but I resolved to not take that medicine until I could think of an answer. So, I went to the restroom and did a small amount of mediation, tried to center my breathing, and calm myself, I wobbly, but surely, returned to class.
My college arithmetics professor was going on about solving systems of inequalities and graphing them, but I was far from attentive. My mind was on the questions I had provided to myself. Why? Why did I want to avoid suffering? Because it was evolutionarily instilled in me? That was perhaps an answer, and it fit my naturalistic worldview quite well. That did, of course, lead to another question, well why then did I evolve to avoid suffering, that answer was even more obvious because if my ancestors hadn't then they wouldn't have lived. The answer was not new, it was not revolutionary, I had known it beforehand; however, it did not satisfy me.
I was not looking for some metaphysical understanding or explanation, nor some appeal to a god or great figure, I simply wanted a philosophic reason of why I avoid pain. I've argued at length with other debaters on the site about subjective morality, but my answers were usually all scientific in nature. I wanted to go further, to think deeper. Before I knew it I was hyperventilating, I laughed, in my pursuit to find out why I was suffering, I had perpetuated my suffering. That reminded me of the phrase, "ignorance is bliss", which of course made me think, "And knowledge is cursed", and despite the, frankly, biblical undertones of such a message it still resonated inside of me.
Would the answer to why I wanted to avoid suffering bound to cause me endless suffering. That thought, that realization, sparked another question. Why did I care? Why did I care that I wanted to avoid pain and suffering - it should be enough to know that I want to, no? Well, no, not if I want to explain why you ought to others. That made me realize that the question came from external sources, not internal ones. I was asking myself the question, not in response to my suffering, but in my attempt to explain the concept of suffering to others. I would not call myself an altruist by any means, though I attempt to help others all I can, it is certainly not all I can.
That made the realization surprising. I cared about my own suffering because other people suffered. Ah, when its put like that, I suppose its just empathy huh? Let's tie it allll up, bring it back to the very beginning. Why did I want to avoid suffering? Because I wanted other people to avoid suffering. Although it doesn't seem quite a sequitur yet, it is where I am currently. Thanks for reading this long rambling post, if you did. I'm marking this my journal of sorts. All of you get to be subject to my inner thoughts during the day, whipee, I need to cope with stress somehow.
PS: I did end up taking the pill like an hour later
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Personally, I had some troubles with that, coming out that is, especially to my uber-religious dad. I did come out, and I won't share what the people close to me reacted, because everyone's close ones are different and you know them best. Even though we don't agree on a lot of stuff, I do want to voice my support for you, take your time - you own no one your identity.
Created:
-->
@Lemming
I go from forum to forum, people have multiple interest
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Sure, but if it were to actively MAKE those things then it wouldn't be perfect... you know, because it did something which wasn't perfect
Created:
-->
@Undefeatable
Stop adding rules, it makes your arguments inflexible. If someone's counter isn't solid enough you do fine, but if you stick to an argument so concretely you aren't able to rebuke your opponents arguments, you seem to fall apart a tad at the end, like you don't want to "seal" the deal, I guess.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I mean... the entire "expired label" on food can be kind of arbitrary, sure in some instances its actually useful, but its mostly used for profit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Things like Dumbo are typically considered implicitly racist, as in its subtext contributes to a racist stereotype in people's mind.
Also - completely off point, but for a while people didn't like it because in one interpretation Dumbo and co. got high, and in another they got drunk - I don't think that's why it was scrubbed this time, just a little tidbit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
There's a core problem with that, and that is that is also eliminates all pleasure - furthermore, you are removing all pleasure from individuals with moral value - which is inflicting more suffering. Even if it isn't conscious suffering.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yeah... how can you say that you have the right to life, but then say that its a privilege to have water? I don't get it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Incorrect - because you are taking an outcome, something that we assume, and asserting that it applies before the big bang - of course our assumptions will always be true - because we assume them - that is not to say they are TRUE, it means to you it makes no practical difference. However the things which INFORM logic break down, and you failed to address that. That shows that you are deliberately ignoring my reasoning, for what reason? I could assert more than a couple.
You are ignoring the second principle of logic - soundness. Which the truth of the matter asserted and the validity of the premises built upon the conclusion. You cannot come to any conclusions using logic which are sound UNLESS you have information or precedents to draw from, THEREFORE you cannot use deduction or induction, ERGO logic breaks down. Address that please, or this whole thing is done here.
TLDR: A=A is assumed, so of course it applies - it is however impossible to KNOW that A is A, or that A equals A, because we have no data or precedent from before the big bang.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nuclear was necessitates mass destruction - furthermore - it is possible to do many good things through war - it is impossible to do these things through nuclear war.
Furthermore, either answer my previous questions or I'm done here - I am not doing this song and dance again
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
IF you define murder like that - which I clarified that I don't neccessarily
Furthermore - demonstrate the claim: "It is impossible to derive motive" go ahead, do it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Conventional War - the benefit from waging war can possibly outdo the negatives from war
Nuclear War - everyone loses necessarily - there are no benefits
Very easy bud - furthermore, you have not substantiated your claims, do not shift the goal post
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
2. A better argument than the first one - however vigilante justice does not necessarily equate to murder - furthermore this is only using the legal definition of murderVigilante justice often includes (de facto) murder. For example, "self-defense" is (de facto) murder UNLESS magical "motive" can be "proved" ("self-defense" is vigilante justice).
"Often includes (de facto) murder" demonstrate that claim - and your "example" is based on a supposition that you can't prove motive, which you can. Furthermore, you completely ignored the second part of my argument - the whole legal definition thing.
3. This should be a simple simple ethics impact check - is information more important or bodily agency, long-term physical and mental condition, the possibility of death. Information will rarely if ever be worth that - this is absurd.It would be nice if everyone agreed with you, but unfortunately, the people extracting information do not maintain the slightest concern for individual sovereignty.
Cool, I don't care - demonstrate that the "not having concern" is justified ethically, because that doesn't rebuke my argument.
4 & 5: SOME INDIVIDUALS do not equate to EVERY INDIVIDUAL AS PART OF A GROUP - this is the saddest argument - stop.The most common counter-argument to individualism is that ALL CLASSES OF HUMANS ARE EQUALLY CAPABLE OF ALL TASKS (and this equalism claim is demonstrably false).
This does not address my argument. Please stop with your red herrings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
1 - Threat of Nuclear War is fundamentally different from Nuclear War - this is sad 3RU7ALIt is impossible to have a nuclear war without the capability and credible threat of a nuclear war.It is impossible to have a nuclear war without the capability and credible threat of a nuclear war.AND while maintaining the capability and credible threat of a nuclear war it is impossible to simultaneously fully mitigate the risk of an ACTUAL nuclear war.The threat (and the benefits of a threat) are inextricably linked to the likelihood of actual nuclear war.AND nuclear war is NOT somehow either more or less moral than any other type of war.(IFF) any war is justifiable (THEN) nuclear war is justifiable
It is impossible to have a nuclear war without the capability and credible threat of a nuclear war.
Capability AND threat - oh, and the threat has to be credible? This is an obvious extrapolation from your first suggestion
AND while maintaining the capability and credible threat of a nuclear war it is impossible to simultaneously fully mitigate the risk of an ACTUAL nuclear war.
Because Nuclear war and the threat of nuclear war are different - the threat of nuclear war is simply not suffcient to justify ACTUAL NUCLEAR WAR - you have lost sight of the subject.
The threat (and the benefits of a threat) are inextricably linked to the likelihood of actual nuclear war
The cons of a nuclear war FAAAR outweigh the benefits of the threats of one - one is mass destruction - the other is getting countries to back off of petty deals.
AND nuclear war is NOT somehow either more or less moral than any other type of war.IFF) any war is justifiable (THEN) nuclear war is justifiable
Demonstrate that claim, and this is begging the question of course if "ANY TYPE OF WAR" is justifiable then nuclear war is justifiable, nuclear war is a part of "any type of war", any type of war is what I don't accept - this is a sad collection of non-sequiturs and false equivalences.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Thank you for the advice, I'll be sure to be even more careful with that - though I do believe in this particular instance I think it was sufficient there, but I will be sure to double check.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Original Topics:
1. Nuclear war is good2. Murder is good3. Rape is good4. Women are inferior to men5. Some races are superior to others
Proposed arguments:
1. Threat of nuclear war maintains peace2. Vigilante justice is a human right3. Credible threat of torture can be an effective interrogation technique4. Some individuals are better suited to particular tasks than other individuals5. Some individuals are better suited to particular tasks than other individuals
1 - Threat of Nuclear War is fundamentally different from Nuclear War - this is sad 3RU7AL
2. A better argument than the first one - however vigilante justice does not necessarily equate to murder - furthermore this is only using the legal definition of murder
3. This should be a simple simple ethics impact check - is information more important or bodily agency, long-term physical and mental condition, the possibility of death. Information will rarely if ever be worth that - this is absurd.
4 & 5: SOME INDIVIDUALS do not equate to EVERY INDIVIDUAL AS PART OF A GROUP - this is the saddest argument - stop.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
You seem to have a hard time grasping this -
IF our mathematics break down THEN we have no way of gathering information
THEREFORE we have no data nor precedent to draw from to make deduction or induction, ERGO, logic breaks down.
Furthermore, the concept of an uncaused "being" has not only no substantiation, but it is logically incoherent. To suggest that there is an uncaused causer would suggest that there is causality in the first place - we have literally no reason to think that a "god" set off the big bang, well no more than we do for a pencil or (insert any noun) created the universe. You see - it is impossible for there to be a "mind" without a body - before the big bang there was nowhere for a body to be - as a mind necessarily requires a physical manifestation, it is literally impossible for a god to exist.
So, if you accept materialism, there is no possible way for there to be a god, because that god would necessarily have to "exist" before "existing" was possible, even if you don't accept materialism it is still impossible for something to exist whenever there is something that does not apply to logic - physics simply don't work there - and the laws we have in the post-big bang universe, do not apply there. We have no reason to accept that a god exists at all - and we have reason to think that this god doesn't exist in this universe either. Reason being?
IF an immaterial being was to make something, THEN they could definitionally not create material things without being material itself - the only being that had the potential to cause the big bang has to be immaterial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bringerofrain
Mm, there are certainly arguments for all of the topics brought up - whether they're actually good is another matter entirely. Perhaps someone with an intermediate knowledge of philosophy could argue for the topics with success; however I often find that if you have even a grasp of the concept they are arguing for they are immediately revealed as having no idea what they're talking about. There is a very good reason why most philosophers don't find these things as justifiable - closer inspection against most "shock and awe" arguments are simply not valid.
Created:
Posted in:
A pertinent question then, to everybody who's seen or followed my debates: what areas would you suggest I need to improve in? What areas do you think I do well enough on and need to emphasize? Feedback is always nice.
Created:
Posted in:
We'll see how long it lasts, but as of right now: March 5th, 2021 - 5:36 am CST I've made it to the top 10 debaters on the site, yipee.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Says you - as you argue that homosexuality is a choice.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
sourcing is not the only way to provide substantiation for a claim
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I know you know what a BoP is, the "place" where you make a claim is irrelevant you will always have a burden to demonstrate disputable claims. In order for your words to have any persuasive power they must demonstrate any claims - and ignoring entire key points of my rebuttal is not sufficient to fulfill your BoP.
IF you wish to convince another person to your perspective through reason, THEN you must fulfill your BoP when you make any claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
My point is that you do need to keep the hierarchy - its bullshit. The entire concept of keeping people beneath you is incorrect, caste systems are still caste, no matter how you dress it up
Created: