/lit/ - Literature

Wrong. Rape. Murder. Fuck. Nigger. Death.

>>1482299
>Topic Relevant to my interests
??????
>Could be an idiot faggot.

>Moral are
Stopped reading there.

>>1482309
"Could be?"

>>1482310
Fine.

Morals are in fact absolute and can be derived.

They are not subjective.

Discuss.

Sounds good. I need some details though, so as to go about living the good life.

1. What are the truthmakers for moral facts?
2. In case you didn't answer it in (1), what's the ontological status of those truthmakers?
3. What are the moral facts?

reported

>>1482318

HERP DERP LOOK AT ME

I AM GUD CITIZEN

AND NEVER TROLL

What do you mean by absolute?

>>1482323
pretty much

>>1482317
Truthmaker: Physical Laws
Ontology: See above
Moral facts: I don't know. But can be derived.

the makeup of the world is a bunch of abstract laws

how about that

>>1482336

So how do we know that moral laws can be derived from physical laws? I'm not being critical of the project here, but right now you've asserted that this is possible and made no effort to prove it.

deriving stuff from social consensus and claiming it to be objective seems a bit like a circle

>>1482339
They are not abstract. Are you a physicist? If not you can't grasp the concept of abstract. They coincide with spatial conservation of fields.

>>1482347
>They are not abstract
yeah they are

>>1482347
>spatial conservation of fields
Can you elaborate?

Morals are NOT absolute. What evidence do you even have to support this claim? I recommend reading "A Very Bad Wizard" it goes into the subjectivity of morality, and how anthropologists and scientists have seen people of different cultures behave in completely different ways in controlled scenarios given the moral proscriptions of their respective societies.

However, it's nearly impossible for a human being to operate as if morality isn't objective. A person in a given society will believe their moral code is inherently correct. Even though I am aware that morality is subjective, I'm still opposed to rape, murder, and many other practices. Some practices, such as incest, have been and are practiced in some societies but forbidden in others. In someways, taste is very much related to morality. In some societies, people will drink human spit and eat insects, but these things are seen as disgustingi n and of themselves in our society. Our view is that there is something inherently disgusting about these things in and of themselves, just like we think there is something inherently wrong with a certain behavior--in reality, it is a value judgment imposed by your given society.

>>1482341
As I said I did not derive them. But I can see some emerge from the basic principles of protecting:

1) Sentience: Ability to recognize existence
2) Existence: Life
3) Product: Useful Produce of life


This is terminology. We can come to an agreement about the definitions alter.

>>1482346
Exactly.

all laws are physical laws
moral laws are laws
moral laws are physical laws

>>1482352
By an example yes. And not beyond.

Conservation of field-lines in 3D space gives rise to inverse square laws.

>>1482361
i studied Logic and this is correct

>>1482336
>>1482357
Like so many Western philosophers before you, thoughtlessly, you derive "universals" from cultural norms imposed upon your thought process. Just because you, and many of the people in your culture, consider certain "laws" intrinsic in merely existing and perceiving, does not mean people half way around the world derive the same laws.

no-one can defeat my syllogism

/end thread

>>1482357

I didn't accuse you of needing to derive them. I accused you of lacking a proof that they are derivable. This is entirely different from actually deriving them.

>life sentience product

Please explain how you can get the notion that protecting these things is a good from the physical laws. Not the derivation, but a reason to think it's possible.

At the moment, my suspicion is that you are (a) a physicalist, (b) have the intuition that morals are absolute and thus are (c) claiming that physicalism can explain the truth of your intuitions.

Yes. You're pretty much a retard, sorry.

>>1482373
Simply proves that you are incapable of understanding the scientific method.

>>1482373
>Just because you, and many of the people in your culture, consider certain "laws" intrinsic in merely existing and perceiving, does not mean people half way around the world derive the same laws.
it also doesn't mean he's not right tho

>>1482367
Just because an argument is "valid" does not make it "true."
If the premise is incorrect, the argument can be valid, but untrue.
In this case, I take issue with the premise "all laws are physical laws."

Let us be clear about what morals are in the first place. They are 'oughts'. Implicit in every moral sentence is an ought. This includes statements such as "This action is wrong" which is descriptive on first glance, however, the predicate "is wrong" amounts to an ought as well the way it is being used.

The question is, have these statements truth values? They are not tautologies. Where should we look to determine their truth values? Many people will say they can be "derived" from reason or rationality. However, this is nothing other than an appeal to intuition.

What's more, derivation would require the set of propositions from which we derive to INCLUDE oughts. Why? Because you cannot get an ought from an is. (Feel free to provide a counterexample).

The only way I see for assigning truth values to oughts is by making them conditional on the satisfaction of desires. IF you desire X, then you ought to do Y.

>>1482380
Deep&Edgy, you are the cancer killing /lit/

>>1482375
Since I did come here to get followers.. I am to be accused for your stupidity. But that's OK.

>>All literature has a political motive. - Orwell.

>>1482364
Hmmm. That still doesn't lead to a full set of physical laws.

You can get parts of field theories and thermodynamics from that, but not everything. And that's still abstract.

>>1482382
>I take issue with the premise
Another way to say this is, "stop believing things I don't believe"

game set and match

Why is James Bond opening a discussion on morality, anyway? You spy for the British government and kill people; neither of which seem very moral.

>>1482392

That... isn't even a response to my post. Go study aerospace engineering, JBLW.

>>1482395
Prove your premise, then we can talk.
The burden of proof is on you. You are making the claim.
Have you taken basic logic and critical thinking courses?
I'm guess no.

>>1482395
it'll have more impact when you say 'check aaaaaaaand mate'

>>1482395
No man. Socratic method et al is the way forward when it comes to differing opinions.

>>1482402
*I'm guessing no

>>1482406
>socratic method
more like suckratic method amirite

>>1482388
Basic premise on my side is that all Oughts should be reserved to protect the three entities I mentioned earlier:

Sentience, Life and Product.

Its a provable fact that the first two are emergent and the third is actively generated, under the premise that physical laws are objective.

>>1482416
Uh, no. Well, maybe for you since you suck at it.

>>1482419
>Its a provable fact that the first two are emergent and the third is actively generated
From a particular model which has a limited accuracy.

>>1482422
>Uh, no
ya lol

>>1482419
>3) Product: Useful Produce of life
This is a completely subjective abstraction.
What is "useful?" Useful to you? Who decides that is a useful product? What I might think is useful or what my society might think is useful might be completely useless to someone else.

This is a bad thread and you should feel bad.

>>1482374
it can be defeated simply by not accepting the premises
premise one: How can you claim that everything that qualifies as a law is a physical one? Governments create laws that aren't physical all the time
premise two: Many people don't accept that there is such a thing as moral law. For instance constructivists and relativists

Then there is the matter of the conclusion, if it can be shown to be false (and I'm not sure of anyone who believes moral laws are physical.. natural yes, but not physical), the argument is invalid, regardless of the truth values of the premises.

your syllogism is hardly a tautology

>>1482419
This doesn't address my post. I'll summurize quickly.
>Morals are 'oughts'
>Unlike mathematics, logic and empirical propositions, there is no obvious way to assign truth-values to them (this would them objective)
>You cannot derive ought from is, so this problem cannot be circumvented by starting with a set of true facts about the universe or whatever
>However, inspired by decision theory, I think truth-values can be assigned to oughts if they are conditional on desires.
>This provides a firmer grounding of morals then straightforward appeals to reason ("It's just wrong and any rational person would agree!")...
>... at the cost of being conditional on desires

>>1482442
oops, meant natural moral law in the second premise part

>>1482442
>it can be defeated simply by not accepting the premises
anything can be defeated by not accepting the premises, that's just a lame copout

>>1482460
bullshit

>>1482460

Not when the premise is baseless.

>>1482464
>baseless
Saying a premise is baseless is effectively saying that a premise has further premises that you don't accept, and so on until you get to axioms

>>1482464
Out of interest, do you study? And if so what is it?

I found your replies to the quantum mechanics thing interesting (and on the whole, surprisingly decent), even if not all the understanding was quite there yet.

This is exactly why most philosophy is bullshit. You're the cancer killing philosophy.

>>1482472
That might be what it means, but not necessarily.

>>1482460
Premise: Everything Deep&Edgy says is false or nonsense.

Validity is a non-issue. Any argument can be made valid. Soundness is what's really important.

If you disagree, you are in fact asserting that no argument can be criticised. I can provide a logically valid argument for absolutely everything.

>>1482478
>Validity is a non-issue
Whether something is valid or not depends on premises which one can agree or disagree to

>>1482489
let me put that better; validity itself is a matter of premises and axioms which may be denied arbitrarily

>>1482492
Not necessarily.

>>1482500
lol

>>1482502
I'll lol if you get past logic 101 and start writing something interesting.

>>1482504
lol

All people wearing glasses are nazis.
Trotsky wore glasses.
Trosty was a nazi.

NO ONE CAN DEFEAT MY SYLLOGISM, YOU CANNOT DISMISS THE PREMISE.

>>1482507
but that's not a sound argument yuo retard XD

>>1482508
>>1482507
It's pretty sound from where you're coming from.

>>1482510
im just glad logic doesn't tell us anything about the world, otherwise i might have to worry

>>1482513
Have you studied the origins/history of logic yet in any detail?

>>1482492

Have you ever travelled on a plane?

Don't you worry that the only thing keeping the plane from crashing or exploding is a mere series of axioms and baseless premises?

>>1482474

Yes I am studying computer science and psychology at the moment in university.

>>1482517
I can assure you, if you ever have to tackle anything like signal processing you will get a very strong grounding in aspects of Quantum Mechanics.

>>1482517
>Don't you worry that the only thing keeping the plane from crashing or exploding is a mere series of axioms and baseless premises?
No, but I do worry that the only thing propping up my pitiful western worldview is a mere series of axioms and baseless premises

>>1482492
Is this your way of saying that, really, omg, we can't know anything and, oh, what if tautologies are in fact false?

Explain why I should do or not do any action without a circular argument and I will agree with your position.

What confuses me in all these arguments is the seeming conflation between the notions of 'relative morality' and 'subjective morality'; I think moral laws can be both objective and relative.

>this thread

>>1482526
>>1482523
Looks like that's exactly what he's saying.

>>1482522
I can assure you, if you ever have to tackle anything like a football player you will get a very strong grounding in aspects of the ground.

>>1482492
My original point remains: We must allow premises to be subjected to scrutiny because every invalid argument can be made valid by adding premises.

Your earlier post that attacking premises is a cop-out is simply nonsense.

>>1482532
Where I'm from, football's a non contact sport.

And I used to be... pretty decent at tackling/stopping tackles in Rugby

>>1482526
>we can't know anything
That is only something stupid retards derive

>>1482528
don't forget infinite regresses or arbitrary foundations. Ethical proscriptive statements are washed up but ethical descriptive statements are fine.

>>1482534
>We must allow premises to be subjected to scrutiny
totally arbitrary

>Your earlier post that attacking premises is a cop-out is simply nonsense.
No shit. But what cannot be said can be shown

Great thread.

Retards in the thread finally realize the severity of Agrippa's trilemma.

>>1482539
>totally arbitrary
I don't follow. What do you mean?

>>1482540
Speak for yourself. I've been posting from a position that Greek logic is generally arbitrary and closed.

>>1482545
Can you justify that position? Please don't resort to either circularity, infinite regresses or foundations.

I blame post-modernism for this thread.

>>1482522

Thanks, i'll look forward to our signal processing lectures then. The implications of Quantum computing is extremely fascinating for me.

>agrippa's trilemma

poor man's cartesian skepticism, also coherence theories of knowledge ftw etc

>>1482542
I mean that asserting that premises be subjected to scrutiny is a matter of opinion

>>1482559
I blame post-modernism for the replies.

>>1482559
so trufax when are going to stop equating post-modernism with radical subjectivism and relativism

you are a fairly young guy so you will maybe grow out of this dogmatic asshole phase eventually

>>1482550
Why is there an excluded middle in logic?
Why are graphical arguments invalid in formal logic?
What are the origins of logic?

It's easier for you to find the answer to these two questions than for me to explain.

I can also point out that while I did say "Greek logic" as if it was one constant entity, just as we have been using the term logic here, this is of course not true.

>>1482575
two is read three...

>>1482561
first off, "arbitrary" and "a matter of opinion" mean different things
secondly, what basis do you have for saying it is only a matter of opinion whether or not people should be allowed to question the truth value of statements?
I'm sorry, but you are not /lit/'s God, to be unquestioningly believed. Neither is anyone else

>>1482561
That's the only way to scrutinize arguments (in particular, resist a conclusion). Because, as I've said before, invalid arguments can be made valid. And that's not an opinion, that's a fact about logic.

Now, unless you think logic is arbitrary and a matter of opinion, which some of your responses in this thread seems to indicate.

At, that reminds me of a great article on the problem of induction. A guy is standing on the Eiffel tower, challenging people to demonstrate to him why jumping down would be harmful to his health. Popper and others try and fail to do that...The guy jumped and died. You are that guy, but only on the internet.

>>1482571

Teenager calling others young.

laughingblondes.jpg

>first off, "arbitrary" and "a matter of opinion" mean different things
yes, but if you're not a blockhead you will understand the sense in which I am using the term, which is synonymous with "a matter of opinion", entirely disregarding the fact that what amounts to arbitrariness is itself a matter of opinion

>what basis do you have for saying it is only a matter of opinion whether or not people should be allowed to question the truth value of statements?
I have absolutely no interest in basis, nor have I presupposed any such thing at any point in this thread. I haven't even said the second thing.

>>1482559
Quantum Computers certainly interest me. Entanglement took me a while to get my head around for some reason, but the most basic descriptions are quite easy to get. I don't really get to study it anymore though.

>>1482592
>yes, but if you're not a blockhead you will understand the sense in which I am using the term
You're expecting people to be mind readers, and they're not. Stop being unreasonable and make a clear argument.

>>1482581
>That's the only way to scrutinize arguments (in particular, resist a conclusion)
No, that is a subjective methology you consider appropriate for the fulfilling of some relative end.

>that's a fact about logic.
there are no facts, there are only interpretations

>At, that reminds me of a great article on the problem of induction. A guy is standing on the Eiffel tower, challenging people to demonstrate to him why jumping down would be harmful to his health. Popper and others try and fail to do that...The guy jumped and died. You are that guy, but only on the internet.
Don't waste my time with your fucking lame anecdotes you pissant

>>1482592
>entirely disregarding the fact that what amounts to arbitrariness is itself a matter of opinion

You're entirely disregarding the fact that whether what amounts to arbitrariness is itself a matter of opinion is a matter of opinion.

>>1482602
>Stop being unreasonable and make a clear argument.
All this amounts to is you entreating me to engage in a subjective language game you happen to moreso approve of.

>>1482604
>disregarding
It's a metaphor, get over it. And thank you for agreeing with me in anycase.

>>1482603
>No, that is a subjective methology you consider appropriate for the fulfilling of some relative end.
No, it's an objective methodology that is appropriate for what I said it is.
>there are no facts, there are only interpretations
Wrong, there are facts.
>Don't waste my time with your fucking lame anecdotes you pissant
The analogy is spot on. Seems like I hit a nerve there.

>>1482606
No, it amounts to you admitting it is a language game and seeing what issues come with that. You can decide the rules of the game, but you have to make them (or at least the important ones) explicit.

>>1482592
you flippantly used the term arbitrary, then were asked to clarify (and not by me, believe it or not). yes, I must be the blockhead.
And saying that it is a matter of opinion to assert that premises should be subjected to scrutiny is pretty close to saying that people should just accept them blindly, and if they don't, it is only their opinion that the statement may be wrong.
And of course, the point of using logic is not to arrive at what (people hope) can be considered truth, or anything

>>1482609
I didn't agree with you. At any case, it's a matter of opinion whether it is a metaphor.

>>1482614
no

>>1482615
>it amounts to you admitting it is a language game and seeing what issues come with that
The issues are unequivocally clear and irreconcilable, not that they needed to be reconciled in the first place, if you understand what a language game is

>You can decide the rules of the game, but you have to make them (or at least the important ones) explicit.
who says?

>>1482629
You need to do some more research into what a language game is.

>>1482619
>you flippantly used the term arbitrary
flippantly to you maybe

>And saying that it is a matter of opinion to assert that premises should be subjected to scrutiny is pretty close to saying that people should just accept them blindly, and if they don't, it is only their opinion that the statement may be wrong
No, that's just how you interpreted what I said

>>1482637
Actually I am probably the only person on the board who knows what a language game is

Can we get back to morals? Every fucking topic is tarded up with relativism, language games, postmodernism, yadda, yadda.

>>1482629
How about this? In a game, generally there are other people playing. If you are playing a game without other people knowing, that would be trolling. And according to >>1482330, you don't do that, unless you were being imprecise again

>>1482640
You tell yourself that.

>>>1482640
Unlikely given your posts in this thread, but possible, sure.

>>1482629
>not that they needed to be reconciled in the first place, if you understand what a language game is
Who says?

>>1482646
you have no fucking idea what a language game is dude, wow

>>1482641
Okay, I deny the structuralist approaches, even the one implied to logic, in OP's post.

>>1482658
No, I think you could take that OP's point as a valid way of looking at it. What issues do you see that make you think it's not a valid point?

>>1482658
I wasn't talking about a language game, actually. Because what you've been doing in this thread couldn't possibly come close to Wittgenstein's construct.
I was working with empirical evidence that couldn't possibly be construed as a language game (since you seem to have very little working knowledge of language), and concluded that you couldn't possibly be attempting one.
And of course, as it is only a matter of opinion whether it's fair to question my premises, I guess that means I'm right no matter what you say

>>1482679
inb4 D&E can't answer a simple question about something he allegedly knows

Premise: Arguments are meaningful if the universe is Objective.

We are arguing.

>>1482690
>empirical evidence that couldn't possibly be construed as a language game
LOL SOUNDS LEGIT BRAH

>>1482699
>questioning premises
>matter of opinion
Still Right
Sweet

>>1482698
I'm not buying I argue therefore I am therefore objective reality.

I certainly don't buy the subjective objective duality.

>>1482709
let me lol some more

LOL

Premise: D&E is a raging homo.

>>1482711
It's not my fault your particular brand of logic has afforded me the online equivalent of plugging my ears and going "lalala"

>>1482731
let me lol some more

LOL

I am the best

>>1482710
Subjectivity is not an issue at all. It can exist within an entirely objective setting as a misconception of the observer.

>>1482699

>Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man

This is all Deep&Edgy has ever posted. Stop wasting your time, anon.

>>1482742
>misconception
There's your problem champ.

>>1482755
All I can say of this post is....

Nice dubs.

I will go over the foundation of morality on the basic principles I have deduced:

1) Sentience must be protected at all costs: Without it the observer is unaware that there is Observation and Its an observer.

2) Existence: Without 'Life' Sentience would be without a physical means of survival.

3) Product: Without Product observers can't modify universe to suit their survival.

>>1482753
Actually I have made several productive share threads in my time here

looks like a debate between two people ITT, but just throwing this out there:

what's the problem with establishing a morality whose goal is reducing unconsented human pain and hunger?

i was going to qualify that with "within reasonable individual and/or collective capacity", but "reasonable" sounds like the kind of word we'd debate for another 50 replies

>>1482804
Can we keep your ego out of this thread please?

Go to /soc/ and make a thread: Rate my ego!

Don't do it in my thread.

>>1482811
Good. The question is a bit out of context for this thread but my current answer is: Its not possible as of now.

>>1482814
This has nothing to do with whatever ego you suppose me to have

>>1482804
I doubt it.
>>1482787
What do you mean, "deduced"? You have done no such thing as far as I am aware. At any rate, I'm not really sure where you are going with your principles.

>>1482846
I did on perform the deduction on this thread, yes.

Where I am heading? Can you deduce it?

>>1482853
* I did Not

>>1482787
By Observation, do you mean an Ideal Observer? Or do you just mean other people?
I personally tend to agree with the moral realists as well, but I find most of the actual theories dissatisfying. What do you think can be done to reliably arrive at moral facts? It seems that you are arguing for a similar point of view to that of Boyd, but I feel all he did was say morals aren't all that different from science because science is not as reliable as we often think

>>1482853
I don't see where you performed it in the first couple of posts. The rest of this thread is dumb shit by Deep a. Edgy.

Care to link to it?

>>1482873
>The rest of this thread is dumb shit by Deep a. Edgy.
that didn't stop it from being the best material in this thread

>>1482864
Ah, that explains everything. :>

Anyway, no, I don't know where you're going with this. I'm not sure what you attempt to do. I don't see how you can cash out oughts from your principles and have them be objective. You should also clarify what you mean by objective.. the view from nowhere? Truth in the sense we consider mathematics to be true? Science?

>>1482887
Oughts are NOT cast out. They are naturally objective. And this is not mutually exclusive. Check the premise.
>>1482868
An observer simply is a body that can physically interact. That's all to it.

>>1482903
Huh? You will have to do a better job explaining yourself if you expect to be understood. Like actually answering some of my questions in some detail.

ITT half-assed philosophy of no use to anyone

>>1482903
I'm not sure I see how your version of morality helps to answer the tough dilemmas.
It looks like it requires people to act on the greater good, like utilitarianism, and not in the way their intuitions tell them.
It doesn't seem like an objective ought would be particularly motivating. ie. "Yes that may be a fact, but who cares?"
And you've still never outlined how people are supposed to obtain moral facts.
You may want to consider some reflective equilibrium, your theory doesn't need to be trashed, but maybe consider a bit more of human nature, in an emotional way, which could be due to natural selection, not just consciousness and preservation

>>1482919
Fair enough.

What do you want to know? Ask and I will try and answer.

>>1482944
Its not utilitarian if objectivity in Humans is confined to individuals as observers.

>>1482985
wait, so now you're claiming the objectivity is inherent in humans? What relevance would observation have, then, if it exists within? The observation would be redundant

>>1482999
I don't know how did you draw that conclusion. I simply said that Humans INDIVIDUALS are observers in objectivity.

>>1482999
and I'm really not trying to mess with you, I'm just really unclear about the whole theory and what it accomplishes.
I mean, now your argument sounds a lot like error theories & fictionalists, except that you're claiming there are moral facts

>>1483004
'objectivity in humans'

>>1483008
Fine. now you know what I meant.

>>1483008
but I think you're trying to say that, since our observation of the objective truths is limited, that makes it so that what is required of us isn't too much, when I think that just means that, if we were to know the whole of these objective truths, it would require too much. That doesn't sound all that attractive, as a prospect

>>1483025
Objectivity in principle is exactly about things not being attractive or ugly. But about being things as they are.

Well, fuck it, this is a shitty discussion OP.

How about this before I go out:
EVEN IF moral laws are objective, they may be (like the physical laws) far too difficult to work out precisely given all the variables for a particular situation (some situations demand action/choice: a split-second decision). How then is it useful to talk about objective moral laws when an individual cannot necessarily apply them, and then arguably cannot be held accountable to them?

so have you morons gotten past the is-ought problem yet

>>1483037
Hold them accountable to the extent of their capacity. Is is quantifiable? I do not know. But we may find it out in the future.

>>1483042
And by capacity I do not mean an inherent capacity but situational capacity. Like self-defense. Sorry for messing with the terminology.

>>1483036
but if you can claim that there is an objective good, which humans have based their concept of good off of, and that there are objective laws which humans are supposed to be able to identify, shouldn't we be able to apprehend them as good? I don't think the average person would think murdering their parent was good simply because it would provide multiple people their rations of food in a dire situation. Yet if the objective law says it is so, it is only our improper understanding of the law which makes it seem wrong. And to what point does understanding make it our duty?

>>1483042
You're not engaging a debate here OP. You're demanding people make claims that you respond to with platitudes. How about you look into that little black box of what you "do not know"?

>>1483041
Have you?

>implying there is such a property as objectivity

>>1483056
agreed
I think everyone else (except d&e) gets an A for effort, but this topic should probably just die

>>1483056
it's not even a problem for me

>>1483056
Implications being not worked out does not mean that the premise is wrong.

>>1483053

Morality is a guide not a necessity. You ought to or ought not to. You may or you may not.

it's amazing how kids get trolled by d&e when he's actually trying to make a point

>>1483074
That was a yes or no question. And appropriate answer would have been one of the following:
1. Yes
2. No
3. I don't know

>>1483079

>>1483083
I don't care

>>1483077
Oh, that changes everything
There is no reason for me to behave morally, nor to convince other people to, either.
Except that I don't like things, of course. I mean, there's some truth of the matter out there, but the only people who invoke it just care about being right.
Gotcha

>>1483089
Care enough to be on /lit/ replying to posts you don't care about.

>>1483093
>inferring specific internal states from behaviour

>>1483092
Why do you think religion exerts fear of sin?

>>1483101
You can try and make out the problem is more complicated than it is to evade it, but it's still there. You don't have to justify such trivial actions to anyone but yourself, so really the evasion is from yourself.

>>1483079
Honey, if you'd ever had an education worth it's salt, you'd see how bullshit this whole thing is.

>>1483119
im not the one arguing with d&e when he's clearly not believing what he's saying.

>>1483130
So.

You are his Gay Lover?