Jaw Dropping Stupidity

_{Barry Arrington

August 22, 2016

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Sometimes a materialist will post a comment, and I will read it and then just sit there with my mouth literally agape, wondering at the sheer stupidity on display. I got that treat today when Rationalitys bane posted this gem:

we are much better off not pretending that morality is objective and live our lives knowing that we all bear responsibility for everything that we do in our lives.

Jack Kreb quoted RB’s little aphorism and added: “Excellent statement.”

So let me get this straight fellas. Morality is entirely subjective. If this means anything, it means that we are not accountable to any standard of objective moral truth, because no such standard exists. According to my dictionary “responsibility” means “the state or fact of being responsible, answerable, or accountable.” But wait a minute. You just said we are not accountable to a standard of moral truth, because no such standard exists.

RB’s statement boils down to this. We are better off not pretending we are accountable and live our lives knowing we are accountable.”

*palm forehead*

Comments

JAD, I am in principle always open to fresh evidence and argument at worldviews level. However, in so thinking I cannot escape a basic fact: I should be in a grave 40+ years ago now, apart from a miracle of guidance in answer to my mom's prayer of surrender -- that was the very day that with doors shut on every hand, a door literally stood open before us with an "angel" announcing the way forward that I have no doubt saved my life. So for me, if your worldview has in it no room for prompt answers to prayer in the name of the risen Christ, that worldview cannot answer to the basic fact that I am here to hold a discussion. And that is before, e.g. we find the self-referential, self-falsifyingly irretrievable incoherence and utter lack of ability to found moral government -- thus, responsible, rational freedom (a prior necessity for actual reasoned discussion rather than a cave of delusions) -- exhibited by evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers. KFkairosfocus_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

WJM @ #52:
Philosophically, the terms refer to two different things; one is that there is no god; the other is that everything that occurs does so because of the happenstance behavioral interactions of matter and that nothing exists outside of that. Is god necessarily a supernatural being? Does “atheistic” only refer to a lack of belief in god? I’ve made it a habit to use the two somewhat redundant terms (or to use “atheistic naturalism”) to ward off some of the terminological hair-splitting atheists and materialists often engage in to avoid meaningful debate.
Indeed, “terminological hair splitting” along with other blatant forms of obfuscation is typically as far as any internet atheist is willing to take a “discussion.” The question is why? I am here to have meaningful discussion and debate. I have said many times before that for me as a Christian truth trumps faith. However, most of the atheist drive-by’s and trolls who show up here have no clue what Christian theists (or other kinds of theists) really believe nor do they have any idea how argue against those beliefs. I am willing to change my mind if I am presented with valid arguments backed with real reasons and evidence. However, just showing up here and declaring yourself an atheist is not a sufficient reason for me to change my mind and accomplishes very little except to demonstrate that internet atheists are either irrational, resentful or scared. The only question is, which is it? Maybe one of them can enlighten us about their true motives.john_a_designer_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

Andre: "We have hit the abyss..." The abyss was hit since that first lady who doubted what God had said, but things got really bad when her stupid husband ignored God's words too. As Jeremiah said, our hearts are sick beyond natural cure. Only a supernatural remedy can save us. We should know it.Dionisio_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

WJM,
if the law is entirely subjective, one would assume that, representing different different clients in different cases, Pindi would argue for law X in one case if it benefitted his client, and passionately against law X if it benefited the other client. Would Pindi passionately argue that sex with minors should be legal, if that position would benefit his client? Would he argue that Jews should not be considered fully human, if that would benefit his client? One wonders just how far Pindi is willing to take his concept of subjective justice and law.
One wonders if the law schools really bring out the implications of such might and manipulation make right "ethics" for want of a better term. Our civilisation is currently reaping the consequences of such marches of ruinous folly. (Or should I be echoing BA and speak of "jaw- dropping stupidity" or the like. Folly is ruinously stupid in the end.) KFkairosfocus_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

I simply can not wait to see what's going to happen with the mother and son who wants to get married, the progressive left aka materialists and the like is in a situation they will not be able to recover from, on what ground will you deny a mother and son who love each other from getting married? They fit the exact criteria and argument that legalized gay marriage....... Two consenting adults that love each other that is not hurting anybody else...... On what possible grounds will they be able to deny these two loving human beings from getting married? We have hit the abyss......Andre_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

KF: Pindi doesn't really care what the law is or where it comes from or what justifies it as long as he can make a living using the legal system on behalf of his clients. Pindi said:
When I am arguing with another lawyer or a judge I am arguing (passionately) my opinion about what the law should be in the given situation. It’s entirely subjective.
So, if the law is entirely subjective, one would assume that, representing different different clients in different cases, Pindi would argue for law X in one case if it benefitted his client, and passionately against law X if it benefited the other client. Would Pindi passionately argue that sex with minors should be legal, if that position would benefit his client? Would he argue that Jews should not be considered fully human, if that would benefit his client? One wonders just how far Pindi is willing to take his concept of subjective justice and law.William J Murray_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

Dionisio, Philosophically, the terms refer to two different things; one is that there is no god; the other is that everything that occurs does so because of the happenstance behavioral interactions of matter and that nothing exists outside of that. Is god necessarily a supernatural being? Does "atheistic" only refer to a lack of belief in god? I've made it a habit to use the two somewhat redundant terms (or to use "atheistic naturalism") to ward off some of the terminological hair-splitting atheists and materialists often engage in to avoid meaningful debate.William J Murray_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

Pindi, our civilisation is collapsing -- start with, demographically (ponder our geostrategic circumstances also . . . ) -- and manipulation of law is leading the charge (start with 800+ million [by reasonable estimate on Guttmacher institute's 50 million per year] aborted under false colour of law in the past generation, multiplied by the blinding and utterly corrupting effects of such mass blood guilt in a truly en-darkened, we love our Plato's Cave shadow shows age). A legal-political system that sustains the worst holocaust in history under false colour of law is utterly bankrupt and leading in a civilisational march of ruinous folly. The loss of grounding for justice in root reality directly due to the dominance of evolutionary materialistic scientism has fatally destabilised the edifice and handed over the keys of control to amoral nihilists who implicitly base themselves on might and manipulation make 'right,' 'truth,' 'rights' etc. But then there is such a wonderful south wind blowing, let us sail out, never mind weeping Jeremiah (or that silly, useless star-gazer) off in the corner there. KFkairosfocus_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

HeKS @44: It seems these people think that "logical consequence" = "how one must actually behave", and so if they do not actually behave that way while holding the belief in question, then the logic must be wrong. This is why virtually every atheist on boards like respond to arguments about logical consequences of atheism/materialism as if you've made claims about their actual behavior. Pindi @45: Pindi apparently hopes that offering a vague notion of intellectual academics/philosophers that supposedly agree with him/her and disagree with those presenting detailed arguments here will be accepted in lieu of an actual rebuttal. Pindi seems to think this deferment to vague authority (that supposedly makes argument on behalf of his views) relieves him of the obligation in a debate or discussion to actually present and rationally defend his own views or to present a rational rebuttal of the arguments by others here. He/she then attempts to make excuses for being unable to properly defend his/her views by first insisting he/she is "comfortable" with his/her inability to comprehend certain things about life, and then defending that life of comfortable ignorance by insisting that everyone else is just as ignorant about things as he/she is. This relieves Pindi of the intellectual obligation of actually understanding his views and their logical entailments and arguing them himself because, well, he thinks other really smart people do and surely have presented their arguments somewhere. The result of all this is Pindi immunizing himself against actually having to present an argument or a rebuttal at all by pre-emptively dismissing the whole thing entirely and excusing himself from any obligation to defend or explain his perspective. Yes, Pindi has a right to his/her life of philosophical ignorance comforted by the vague idea that somewhere surely some academics have supported his views, and surely that gives Pindi plausible reason to hold on to atheism and materialism, even though Pindi doesn't really understand nor can argue such philosophical justifications himself.William J Murray_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

KF, WJM, HeKS, Please, help me to learn and/or understand some terminology: I've seen the expression 'atheistic materialism' used in some comments here. Is there a case of 'theistic materialism'? Another question: Are the blog and books referenced here: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/a-third-way-of-evolution/#comment-615822 in the group 'non-materialistic atheism' ? Are these three classification groups: 1. Materialism (which is implicitly atheist) 2. 'non-materialistic atheism' 3. Theism (which is implicitly non-materialistic) valid? Are there others? Thank you.Dionisio_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT}

KS as someone who has studied, and now practices law, I can confidently tell you that western jurisprudence is not collapsing. Far from it. The rule of law is still one of the most effective mechanisms we have ever invented at keeping chaos and collapse at bay. In my opinion. And of course we invented law. You think it would exist without human beings?Pindi_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT}

PS: Plato's warning from 2350 years ago:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
The roots of the current chaos and collapse of Western jurisprudence are not hard to find.kairosfocus_{August 24, 2016
August
08
Aug
24
24
2016
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT}

Pindi, that you imagine the law is invented by people, rather than that lawfulness and law depend on underlying principles of justice tied to the nature of the human being and thence rights as binding moral expectations driven by the inherent dignity of the human being, leads to the precise problem that so often comes up, might and manipulation make 'right' etc. Ontology and broader metaphysics with relevant ethics sets the context for sound law as Plato argued long since in The Laws bk x. KFkairosfocus_{August 24, 2016
August
08
Aug
24
24
2016
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT}

HeKS, You seem to think that you have the one correct answer to very complex philosophical problems that are actually unresolved. The views that you dismiss as naive, illogical, and anti-intellectual, are in fact held by many people who have thought about them as long and as deeply as you, and are no doubt as intelligent as you, but have not come to the same conclusions as you. I personally haven't sprung up in the wake of Dawkins. I have never read him and am not the least bit interested in what he has to say. I have formulated my views over my 51 years of life so far. I have thought long and hard about these things, and yet I don't see absurdities. I see strangeness and incomprehensibility, yes but nothing that sames absurd. You are frustrated that people like me don't get it. Despite the fact that you have exposed me to the truth. But maybe what seems so obvious and true to you, is not in fact. Maybe you are wrong. Or is that not possible? I am comfortable in accepting that I can't answer many fundamental aspects of life and the universe. I don't believe anyone can comprehend quantum physics; you just have to accept it for what it is. I don't believe anyone can comprehend the singularity in the big bang. Or for that matter the inside of an atom. I don't know whether we have libertarian free will, and if we don't, how it appears as though we do - what the mechanism is that produces that effect. But could you explain a bit more why you believe that if atheism and materialism are true, the world and us are utterly foreign and incomprehensible absurdities? And could you reference some of the academic atheists who recognise these truths?Pindi_{August 24, 2016
August
08
Aug
24
24
2016
09:04 PM
9
09
04
PM
PDT}

WJM, This discussion is a good example of the thing that frustrates me about the "modern" atheists that seem to have sprung up in larger numbers in the wake of Dawkins and friends over the last decade. They seem generally oblivious regarding the logical entailments of an atheistic and materialist worldview. They think that the world is essentially as it seems and as theists hold it to be, just without God and miracles and stuff. And when it comes to morality, they tend to think and speak as though Subjective Morality is essentially the same as Objective Morality, just without the bit about God setting the moral standard and with humans setting the standard instead. They exist in blissful ignorance of the fact that if atheism and materialism are true, the world around us and we ourselves are utterly foreign and incomprehensible absurdities that bear no resemblance to our experience and that we can't even coherently talk about and that we can't even have real thoughts about and that Subjective Morality and Objective Morality share little more than the word "morality" while being conceptually separated by an infinite and unbridgeable gap. And what of those atheists who are exposed to the truth of these matters by those of us here and elsewhere who care to discuss these issues seriously? They assert that these logical entailments are not really entailments of atheism and materialism at all. And why? Well, you see, because they don't personally hold to these views and neither do their atheist friends, apparently unaware that it is perfectly possible for humans to hold logically inconsistent beliefs. Academic atheists widely recognize these truths, but the average internet atheist seems immune to these realities ... perhaps because they realize that if they let these truths sink in then they would find it impossible to continue holding to their naive and ultimately anti-intellectual brand of atheism.HeKS_{August 24, 2016
August
08
Aug
24
24
2016
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

I guess the roadblock for real discussion for me is the continual pronouncements you make about what the “atheist materialist” worldview means.
If by "pronoucements" you mean "the conclusions I have reached about the logical consequences of the premise of atheistic materialism", okay.
Your opinion on that (and yes, you are arguing an opinion)...
I'm not sure what you mean by this. What else would anyone argue, orther than a view or judgement about a proposition? Seems extremely trivial to state that people argue opinions (as if there's something else they could be arguing).
... comes across as arrogant and dismissive,
I'm hardly responsible for what you imagine my character to be like from textual posts.
not to mention completely unlike what my atheist materialist worldview and life are really like.
I make cases about what what an atheistic materialist should act like if the acted in accordance with the logical consequences of their views. A large portion of my arguments rest upon the fact that atheists do not actually act like that - only sociopaths do. So, of course your atheist friends don't act as I (and others, including many famous atheists) logically conclude should be their behavior if they behaved consistently with atheistic materialism. The fact that your friends don't act "that way" supports my argument; it doesn't rebut it.
So given that, its probably best I do desist in discussing things with you.
As you wish.William J Murray_{August 24, 2016
August
08
Aug
24
24
2016
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

Origines, I am a lawyer. The law is invented by human beings. Some of it is codified in statute books. Some of it is decided on by by judges. In fact, it is all ultimately decided on by judges as statutes are limited by words and novel factual situations and legal arguments arise all the time. When I am arguing with another lawyer or a judge I am arguing (passionately) my opinion about what the law should be in the given situation. It's entirely subjective. The law is not written in stone but made up by human beings. Whether my opinion wins the day or not may have serious consequences for my client and other people. So no, it's not all ice cream flavours. Fyi, maybe you should heed wjm's advice about serious discussion also.Pindi_{August 24, 2016
August
08
Aug
24
24
2016
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

WJM, I guess that is a fair enough criticism. I apologise for my facetiousness. I guess the roadblock for real discussion for me is the continual pronouncements you make about what the "atheist materialist" worldview means. Your opinion on that (and yes, you are arguing an opinion) comes across as arrogant and dismissive, not to mention completely unlike what my atheist materialist worldview and life are really like. So given that, its probably best I do desist in discussing things with you.Pindi_{August 24, 2016
August
08
Aug
24
24
2016
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

Off topic:
The Machine that Fuels ATP Synthase - August 24, 2016 Excerpt: Complex I is a huge enzyme, one of the largest in the cell. In mammals, it has 14 core subunits and 31 "supernumerary" (fancy word for "extra") subunits, adding up to a whopping mass of 980 kilodaltons (kDa). (A Dalton is about the mass of a hydrogen atom; technically, 1/12 the mass of a carbon atom.) Such high mass implies over 7,000 properly-sequenced amino acids. That's one huge machine, considering the average size of an enzyme is about 300-400 amino acids. The bacterial Complex I, lacking many of the supernumerary subunits, is still gigantic, weighing in at 550 kDa.,,, The authors point out two other observations of interest for intelligent design. One is that mutations in these machines cause disease and death; they cannot tolerate much change, meaning that the specificity in the amino acid sequence is vital to the function.,,, The other observation is that the machines have to be assembled to work in the first place. It's like Scott Minnich's comment in Unlocking the Mystery of Life that the assembly instructions for the bacterial flagellum are even more complex than the machine itself. A machine needs a plan (encoded in DNA). It needs materials that must be delivered to the right place at the right time, in the right quantities. The parts have to be assembled in a coordinated sequence. Each step requires inspection, so that the cell doesn't waste time building something that won't work. That's true of Complex I and the entire factory of machines in the electron transport chain that make life possible. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/08/the_machine_tha_1103089.html
bornagain77_{August 24, 2016
August
08
Aug
24
24
2016
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

Pindi
"If you feel out of your depth engaging in serious debate with those who congregate here to hold such discussions, perhaps you should seek a site more suitable to your inclinations. I suggest celebrity, food or music fan sites would be a more appropriate venue for “arguing” about personal preferences."
Ouch, That's Gonna Leave A Mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WDKivqFOgA Pindi, here are a few sites that will take your mind off that throbbing pain that you are now feeling in your head:
Celebrities http://www.people.com/people/ 20 Awesome Food Magazines You Should Be Reading (If You're Not Already) http://firstwefeast.com/eat/20-awesome-food-magazines-you-should-be-reading-if-youre-not-already/ The Best Fan Sites Web Directory http://www.bestfansites.org/ Music Fan Sites http://www.bestfansites.org/music/
bornagain77_{August 24, 2016
August
08
Aug
24
24
2016
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Wjm to be honest I think you spend too much time thinking about your “metaphysical ideology” instead of just living it. Do you ever allow yourself to indulge in humour?
Believe it or not, Pindi, it is possible to lead a full, satisfying life brimming with love, joy & humor AND introspectively examine metaphysical beliefs and assumptions AND contribute serious arguments about serious topics on sites dedicated to such endeavors. Is that your purpose here? To be funny and light and ridicule via implied disparagement about the quality of life of those you disagree with and rebut your comments with serious argument? I don't begrudge you your light-hearted superficiality, Pindi, but why come to a serious site for intellectual debate and then avoid it while implying those who partake are somehow otherwise deficient in their lives? My wife of 26 years and I have 6 children, 13 grandchildren and 1 great-grandchild. We regularly have family get-togethers and watch movies and football together. I'm relatively successful working from home and have decent to great relationships with all offspring and their significant others. My life is more joyful than I could have imagined it would be. Humor is a big part of our lives, but I do understand that there is a time and place for humor and a time and place for serious discussion. It has been my experience that those who attempt to laugh off serious discussion and imply some deficit in others for being serious are only hiding their own insecurity with regard to the topic being discussed. If you feel out of your depth engaging in serious debate with those who congregate here to hold such discussions, perhaps you should seek a site more suitable to your inclinations. I suggest celebrity, food or music fan sites would be a more appropriate venue for "arguing" about personal preferences.William J Murray_{August 24, 2016
August
08
Aug
24
24
2016
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT}

Pindi: Fair enough.Autodidaktos_{August 24, 2016
August
08
Aug
24
24
2016
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT}

Pindi@
William J Murray: “I can’t for the life of me imagine a life so utterly devoid of substance that one would spend any time nonsensically arguing about personal preferences”.

Pindi: As I said, we are very different. I spend a lot of my time doing this.
Pindi: chocolate icecream is better than strawberry any day! Pindi's friend: No, strawberry icecream is always better. Pindi: I'm being serious here, chocolate icecream is better than strawberry any day! Pindi's friend: No, it is isn't! Pindi: It is! Pindi's friend: Nope! Pindi: I have to go now, but I do hope we can continue this captivating discussion in the near future.Origenes_{August 24, 2016
August
08
Aug
24
24
2016
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PDT}

Wjm to be honest I think you spend too much time thinking about your "metaphysical ideology" instead of just living it. Do you ever allow yourself to indulge in humour?Pindi_{August 24, 2016
August
08
Aug
24
24
2016
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT}

Auto @32. Ok, well like wjm, you are different to me. I use the word "better" in a much broader sense. I would never say, to use a common example here "chocolate icecream is better than strawberry any day! And by that I mean better for me!" I would take that as read.Pindi_{August 24, 2016
August
08
Aug
24
24
2016
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PDT}

Pindi said:
Fyi, imho gang-bangers do not belong in the same category as Nazis and jihadists.
They all belong in exactly the same category as everyone else under atheistic materialism, but seeing as you don't really think your metaphysical ideology through, there's no end to the nonsense you feel "perfectly fine" blurting out in support of your superficial perspective.William J Murray_{August 24, 2016
August
08
Aug
24
24
2016
02:05 AM
2
02
05
AM
PDT}

"Every time you say something is better than something else are you asserting that it is objectively better?" Obviously? What else does the word 'better' mean in such a statement other than an objective claim, unless you qualify it by saying "better for me"?Autodidaktos_{August 24, 2016
August
08
Aug
24
24
2016
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT}

Classical theist and Christian here, and while I would agree pursuing Virtue pleases God, it is not because it pleases God that knowledge, fortitude, temperance and justice are virtues, it's because these things are self-evidently good in themselves. Not even God could declare pursuing them to be non-virtuous.Autodidaktos_{August 24, 2016
August
08
Aug
24
24
2016
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT}

Hi WJM: No, I don't spend any time thinking about the nihilistic ramifications of my world view. I wouldn't say I avoid it though. Wow, I mention returning Olympians and you start talking about Nazis, jihadists, and gang-bangers! You are strange, Fyi, imho gang-bangers do not belong in the same category as Nazis and jihadists. No, cherry pie doesn't inspire me. Where did you get that weird idea? "Perfectly fine" means perfectly fine. You don't have that expression in the US? You said: "I can’t for the life of me imagine a life so utterly devoid of substance that one would spend any time nonsensically arguing about personal preferences". As I said, we are very different. I spend a lot of my time doing this.Pindi_{August 23, 2016
August
08
Aug
23
23
2016
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

Here is a picture of Pindi in mid-air wondering how he got into such an awkward position with WJM http://djphillipfromgalt.hot1035radio.com/images/2013/02/Olympic-Wrestling.bmpbornagain77_{August 23, 2016
August
08
Aug
23
23
2016
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply