TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- intelligently designed fish
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Wow, whats wrong with you.

Your ignorance is what's wrong with me; you poison this entire world with your bullshit.

You're still talking to me about the subjectivity of science in the face of religion?

I don't give a shit about either science nor religion nor philosophy; they're different tools to look at the world.

I don't give a shit about your narrowminded virtual reality that you've created for yourself.

Don't you fucking dare say "what's with you" to me, like some fucking zealot in Isabella's spain seeking out heretics.

Fuck you, you hypocrite.


PS: Did you really think I was trying to "disprove gravity"? Are you really that fucking stupid?

You just miss the point every time. You can't see past your own glaring errors, and that's why you will never be the person to come with any decent idea regarding anything, much less gravity or your structure of reality.

You're a follower, a tool. Band together all you want; a million of you won't equal even one god-damned free-thinker.

I can't believe I'm sharing this planet with such disfunctional, neurotic bipeds.



excuse my frustration...

there are just too many of you.

and obviously there is something wrong with things for things to be the way they are.

i don't expect you to come to a grand revelation overnight... i'd just like you at least try; it's about not being a selfish prick. think of the other human beings sharing this planet with you and having to deal with this great big stasis of progress.


bah, i hate how mean i feel writing this, because i know you're all sharp people with the capability to empathize exactly with what i'm try to say; maybe i'm just no good at getting across the ideas in my head.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Your ignorance is what's wrong with me; you poison this entire world with your bullshit. You're still talking to me about the subjectivity of science in the face of religion? I don't give a shit about either science nor religion nor philosophy; they're different tools to look at the world. I don't give a shit about your narrowminded virtual reality that you've created for yourself. Don't you fucking dare say "what's with you" to me, like some fucking zealot in Isabella's spain seeking out heretics. Fuck you, you hypocrite. PS: Did you really think I was trying to "disprove gravity"? Are you really that fucking stupid? You just miss the point every time. You can't see past your own glaring errors, and that's why you will never be the person to come with any decent idea regarding anything, much less gravity or your structure of reality. You're a follower, a tool. Band together all you want; a million of you won't equal even one god-damned free-thinker. I can't believe I'm sharing this planet with such disfunctional, neurotic bipeds. excuse my frustration... there are just too many of you. and obviously there is something wrong with things for things to be the way they are. i don't expect you to come to a grand revelation overnight... i'd just like you at least try; it's about not being a selfish prick. think of the other human beings sharing this planet with you and having to deal with this great big stasis of progress.

Wow, you remind me of when i was in high school and i went with the whole, "oh everything is subjective" to attack all the people that dared argument against me. I've read the philosophy and the religion behind your reasoning, you think what your writing down is something new? Please, be a bit more realistic. "Free thinker" eh? You really think you arrived at all those "illuminated" thoughts all by yourself eh? Makes you feel self righteous dont it? Pathetic.

Save your bullshit diatribe for some other person. I've been where you are and noticed that it doesnt serve any purpose and sadly its not practical for my life goals to "rediscover" the world every day. You want to do it? Feel free to do it, but your never going to be able to prove that science is inferior to any other system of thought, and for that matter, your never going to be able to prove that the other "angles" in which information can be viewed are more useful. Shove your sophomoric recycled oshoist ideas up wherever they fit the less

Edit: And just in case you really think you're that much of a "free thinker", let me know and ill quote quite a few books that propagate exactly the same mindless propaganda you do. "Everything we use to measure things is constructed by ourselves and hence biased" Fuck, if everyone adhered to your standards we would never get anywhere. And if believing science is more useful than philosophy and religion makes me a tool, then goddamn i must be a sledgehammer.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Wow, you remind me of when i was in high school and i went with the whole, "oh everything is subjective" to attack all the people that dared argument against me. I've read the philosophy and the religion behind your reasoning, you think what your writing down is something new? Please, be a bit more realistic. "Free thinker" eh? You really think you arrived at all those "illuminated" thoughts all by yourself eh? Makes you feel self righteous dont it? Pathetic. Save your bullshit diatribe for some other person. I've been where you are and noticed that it doesnt serve any purpose and sadly its not practical for my life goals to "rediscover" the world every day. You want to do it? Feel free to do it, but your never going to be able to prove that science is inferior to any other system of thought, and for that matter, your never going to be able to prove that the other "angles" in which information can be viewed are more useful. Shove your sophomoric recycled oshoist ideas up wherever they fit the less Edit: And just in case you really think you're that much of a "free thinker", let me know and ill quote quite a few books that propagate exactly the same mindless propaganda you do. "Everything we use to measure things is constructed by ourselves and hence biased" Fuck, if everyone adhered to your standards we would never get anywhere. And if believing science is more useful than philosophy and religion makes me a tool, then goddamn i must be a sledgehammer.

I don't mean to just argue with you...

I'm only upset because I love science.

You also don't really know how or why I think about any given subject, since you've misinterpreted alot already and never bothered to ask.

cheers

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby I don't mean to just argue with you... I'm only upset because I love science. You also don't really know how or why I think about any given subject, since you've misinterpreted alot already and never bothered to ask. cheers

Dude you really confuse me hehe, oh well

quote:

Originally posted by Moongoose Just a thought i had for a while, not really that important in this discussion but still... I find it funny how creationists think that since we havent found a transitiona fossil yet evolution must be wrong and therefore creation (ID) must be right. I mean like finding that precise fossil you need is easy stuff. I just sat down to study and i cant find my notes that i made yesterday and all Im talking about is a bunch of paper hidden somewhere in my 4m x 3m room, not a fossil that could be hidden anywhere on the face of the planet, hell it could be on the bottom of the deepest ocean where we will not be able to get to it for another thousand years but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist, just that we havent found it yet

Ohh the Giant Spagehtti Monster argument!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Failing to address my direct replies to your posts do not contribute to your argument in any way. Kindly attempt to respond if you could, sir.

Why should I respond to garbage?

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ For someone who does not believe in "absolute morals" they have no moral responsibilities except that which they make for themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Incorrect. I have responsibilities to uphold all laws society creates because not only is it in my own personal interest to do so whether it be to protect me or my family, but also to have a more cooperative and progressively forward society rather than one based on selfish anarchy and subjectivism of morality. Again this can be argued without any absolute moral authority from a God to answer to.

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ The basis of your arguement hinges upon the belief that society is more important than the individual, because if it is not than society's laws create no responsibility on the individual to act in any certian way.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Incorrect. That was not a statement of neither the society nor the individual being more important over the other.

I put forth the statement:
"For someone who does not believe in "absolute morals" they have no moral responsibilities except that which they make for themselves."

You said that such a statement was incorrect in that such a person has moral responsibilities from the society they are in. That person has a responsibility to, or in other words "should" follow the laws of society. The two reasons you gave for this are it is in the persons best interest and "to have a more cooperative and progressively forward society".


Whether or not it is the best interest of the individual to follow the laws of society cannot be argued with any semblance of objectiviy if you do not say whether or not the individual is more important than society. To give specific examples of times when you see it as beneficial to the individual if pointless becuase you assume that what you see as best or beneficial everyone else does as well. The infinite variety of moral or legal decisions with the infinite possible consequences viewed through the diverse points of views of each person cannot decide whether it is beneficial to be law abiding without first agreeing on whether the individual is more important than society. This ties into your second reason why a person has a responsibility to follow societies' laws.

"to have a more cooperative and progressively forward society" in the second reason you put forth. If you are to take this issue separate from the issue of importance and leave that issue unresolved, then I ask: Why does the individual have a responsibility to promote a "more cooperative and progressively forward society"? You would most likely fall back on your first reason and say it is in his best interest. This is were I say says who? and thus my statement "that many people do not agree with [you]" Why do I say this? Becuase of garbage like this:

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Surely you're not going to give me a fallacy of argumentum ad populum, are you? I know many people that stick their fries in Wendy's Frosty's too, so what? To what basis do these "many people" support your argument with evidence?

You say you want evidence? What evidence did you bring up to support your initial points? None. Your posts in this thread have the audacious tone of "I am right and you are wrong", and the way you present your arguements implies that you think the opinions you hold are the gospel truth. It seems you try to convince yourself of this with phrases like: "a fallacy of argumentum ad populum" or "a straw man" that do not serve any purpose but to remind yourself of your "greatness" and to further cloud the arguement. Whether or not I know what these phrases should mean is irrelevant, this is a message board with people from all walks of life and to use such phrases does not necessarily help to convey the idea you are trying to get across. I was not using the "fallacy of arguemntum ad populum" to support my arguement but to show you that your arguement, which you had provided no evidence for, was not widely seen as the gospel truth.

Now back to the discussion. Why does the individual have a responsibility to promote a "more cooperative and progressively forward society"? This again cannot be argued unless we first have decided whether or not the society is of prime importance, to separate the two is to enter into the realm of pure opinion. Opinion is present in all these arguements but will be the only platform we have to argue from if we cannot agree on which is more important.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Incorrect. That was not a statement of neither the society nor the individual being more important over the other. In fact, one could argue that it benefits the individual just as much as society to follow such laws, but I really wasn't intending on such an argument here. I was merely pointing out that such decisions were not based on a moral authority. I would also add that is not exclusive in of itself - decisions made of right and wrong were also based upon my own past experiences. For example, having too many drinks the night before an exam - if my exam score is poor, it would serve me well to consider not having too many drinks before the next exam. I would therefore pass that class and have a better grade if I didn't destroy myself prior to an exam.

"In fact, one could argue that it benefits the individual just as much as society to follow such laws, but I really wasn't intending on such an argument here."
So what? I could argue that the moon is made of cheese. Bringing this up in such a way adds nothing to this discussion.

"I was merely pointing out that such decisions were not based on a moral authority."
What decisions? When did this turn into a discussion about "decisions"? This has been a discussion about "moral responsibilities" and where they come from; it has never been a discussion about specific decisions. Which ties into your crap about drinks and a test. What does doing well on an exam have anything to do with "moral responsibilites"? Maybe you are trying to show that each decision has a "right and wrong" consequence. Why would you be trying to say this since it has nothing to do with "responsibility", I do not know. However who decides what is "right" and what is "wrong"? You said you base it off of your past experiences. Good for you, do I care about your past experiences and the things you have inferred from them? No. Your past experiences and having inferred something from them do not constitute evidence even for your irrelevant rambling on "right and wrong". Why even in your example the question of importance comes up: Which is more important drinking or getting good grades? This parallels the same conundrum we have in our discussion about "moral responsibilities", if we cannot agree on the relative importance of things then we cannot proceed with our discussion.

I fear to state my definition of "absolute moral authority" because I do not wish to argue about that issue. I am sure that my definition of "absolute moral authority" and your definition are similar enough to not cause missunderstanding. And if you dont think so then read a freaking dictionary and I am sure that will put you close enough to "my" definition of absolute moral authority to avoid missunderstanding.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Perhaps you should explain yourself with more evidence supporting such arguments before we could go any further.

In this discussion no one has brought up or "complained" about relevant evidence,other than your "complaining". So far this has been of discussion mainly of logic, reasoning, viewpoints and precedent, so if you want evidence lead by example.

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ Why should I respond to garbage?

It appears that seems to be your word of the day. It also appears to be rather habitual of you to simply call one's argument something derogative without successfully addressing that argument in any way.

Perhaps such habits could be broken in the future, because I will not allow you to sidestep my direct responses to your points, which I'll again address below.

quote:

I put forth the statement: "For someone who does not believe in "absolute morals" they have no moral responsibilities except that which they make for themselves." You said that such a statement was incorrect in that such a person has moral responsibilities from the society they are in. That person has a responsibility to, or in other words "should" follow the laws of society. The two reasons you gave for this are it is in the persons best interest and "to have a more cooperative and progressively forward society". Whether or not it is the best interest of the individual to follow the laws of society cannot be argued with any semblance of objectiviy if you do not say whether or not the individual is more important than society. To give specific examples of times when you see it as beneficial to the individual if pointless becuase you assume that what you see as best or beneficial everyone else does as well.

Hmm, perhaps you can attempt to give a counterexample that might explain how being lawless and not abiding by societal rules/laws somehow benefits not just the individual but society as well? You are correct that I assume as much, and unless you can somehow demonstrate how lawlessness holds more benefit to the individual and society then I would contend my premise is correct.

quote:

The infinite variety of moral or legal decisions with the infinite possible consequences viewed through the diverse points of views of each person cannot decide whether it is beneficial to be law abiding without first agreeing on whether the individual is more important than society.

To which you have not explained in any way why this is so in your point of view. On the one hand I must admit that I almost admire your mere handwave to any given examples that demonstrate a point that runs counter to your premise. But what really tickles me here is that your continual attempts to define my position by agreeing to your own definition here without defining your position in the first place. So let me be quite clear with what I'm asking of you:

Explain in concise terms why you believe I must state whether or not the individual is more important than society. If you can accomplish this then perhaps you can be a bit more clear on what you are attempting to argue. But given your record on failing to define yourself as we witness a little later, I'm not terribly hopeful.

quote:

This ties into your second reason why a person has a responsibility to follow societies' laws. "to have a more cooperative and progressively forward society" in the second reason you put forth. If you are to take this issue separate from the issue of importance and leave that issue unresolved, then I ask: Why does the individual have a responsibility to promote a "more cooperative and progressively forward society"? You would most likely fall back on your first reason and say it is in his best interest.

Not just the individuals interest, but society's interest as well. Is this really that difficult to understand?

quote:

This is were I say says who? and thus my statement "that many people do not agree with [you]" Why do I say this? Becuase of garbage like this: You say you want evidence? What evidence did you bring up to support your initial points? None.

I gave you examples that ran counter to your central claim that society is ultimately governed by an ultimate moral authority. Did you somehow miss that?

And merely asking me for evidence when confronted to produce some of your own, again, does not help your argument in any way. Surely you can do better?

quote:

Your posts in this thread have the audacious tone of "I am right and you are wrong", and the way you present your arguements implies that you think the opinions you hold are the gospel truth.

It would do you more credit to your argument if you would try your darnest not to appeal to emotion here and stick to the arguments I have given to you at hand. I hold no opinion on who is right or wrong on anything here, rather, I challenge your arguments of an absolute moral authority based on their merits or lack thereof and have deemed it fallacious by demonstrating otherwise. Up to this point you have done absolutely zilch in coming up with any evidence to support an absolute moral authority. Instead you attempt to turn the argument around and ask me for evidence of my own.

I did so. Now please address those arguments at hand and do us all a favor by demonstrating with supporting evidence that an absolute moral authority exists.

quote:

It seems you try to convince yourself of this with phrases like: "a fallacy of argumentum ad populum" or "a straw man" that do not serve any purpose but to remind yourself of your "greatness" and to further cloud the arguement.

Are you a bit new to debating? Have you not heard of these phrases?

quote:

Whether or not I know what these phrases should mean is irrelevant, this is a message board with people from all walks of life and to use such phrases does not necessarily help to convey the idea you are trying to get across.

Oops, apparently not. Perhaps a quick Google or Dictionary.com would best suit you here?

quote:

I was not using the "fallacy of arguemntum ad populum" to support my arguement but to show you that your arguement, which you had provided no evidence for, was not widely seen as the gospel truth.

Incorrect again, bub. YOU stated:

quote:

I shall just point this out for now and say that many people do not agree with the importance of society over the indvidual.

To which defines to a "T" a logical fallacy of arguing via population, i.e. "many people see it this way.....". If "many people" do not agree with such an idea, then do yourself a favor and demonstrate:

1. What those people disagree with in detail

2. Who the hell are these people and be sure to support their arguments

Lastly, I don't seem to recall holding that argument of society being more important in the first place. Perhaps you can point that argument out that I made that describes this in detail? I advocate a mutual benefit of society helping the individual just as much as the individual helping society. Why is this so difficult to understand for you?

quote:

Now back to the discussion. Why does the individual have a responsibility to promote a "more cooperative and progressively forward society"? This again cannot be argued unless we first have decided whether or not the society is of prime importance, to separate the two is to enter into the realm of pure opinion. Opinion is present in all these arguements but will be the only platform we have to argue from if we cannot agree on which is more important.

Let's stop there for a moment. Let's go back to something you said here in your hopes of defining and framing my argument earlier:

quote:

The basis of your arguement hinges upon the belief that society is more important than the individual, because if it is not than society's laws create no responsibility on the individual to act in any certian way.

From this perspective it appears you are trying to state the following about my argument (which wasn't what I was arguing in the first place and stated as such, but I'll get to that later):

1. Society is more important than the individual
2. If society is not more important than the individual (and hence the individual is more important than society), the laws that govern society have no bearing on that individual to act in any certain way (by society's standards, I assume).

Is this in essence what you are stating? If so, the problem with #2 is a number of things � how do we define "more important"? In what way? Regardless, obviously society must rely on the individual in some meaningful and cooperative fashion otherwise there would be no society in the first place, therefore society cannot be more important versus the individual. However, if an individual is more important than society, then the individual would likely not have formed society at all and would therefore continue existence without being in the confines of a society, therefore the individual cannot be more important than society. So a mutual benefit has been created where one is no more "important" versus the other.

Now, if you believe in some way, shape, or fashion that an absolute moral authority (i.e. God) had something to do with fashioning such a relationship, or if you believe that God had anything to do with creating societal laws in any way, then I would like you to demontrate evidence to support that conclusion.

If you cannot support it, why are you even arguing in the first place? Or am I incorrect in your contention about God's involvement with societal laws? And finnally, why have me agree on such an initial premise in the first place when you haven't even supported that premise or tied it to your conclusion that society is run by an absolute moral authority? Perhaps you should do that before further discussion?

quote:

"In fact, one could argue that it benefits the individual just as much as society to follow such laws, but I really wasn't intending on such an argument here." So what? I could argue that the moon is made of cheese. Bringing this up in such a way adds nothing to this discussion.

Well it's pretty difficult trying to figure out what exactly you are contending in the first place. My initial statement was this:

quote:

I have responsibilities to uphold all laws society creates because not only is it in my own personal interest to do so whether it be to protect me or my family, but also to have a more cooperative and progressively forward society rather than one based on selfish anarchy and subjectivism of morality. Again this can be argued without any absolute moral authority from a God to answer to.

And again you stated:

quote:

The basis of your arguement hinges upon the belief that society is more important than the individual, because if it is not than society's laws create no responsibility on the individual to act in any certian way.

To which I replied that my original statement:

quote:

I have responsibilities to uphold all laws society creates because not only is it in my own personal interest to do so whether it be to protect me or my family, but also to have a more cooperative and progressively forward society rather than one based on selfish anarchy and subjectivism of morality. Again this can be argued without any absolute moral authority from a God to answer to.

was not a statement of the individual being more or less important over society. I then further opined that an argument can be made that a mutual benefit can occur and supported that benefit with examples.

YOU, on the other hand, have not demonstrated ANY FUCKING EVIDENCE that defines your central argument of a moral authority governing society. Attacking another individual's argument (erroneously) does not positively support your own argument. Surely you understand this fallacy in debating?

quote:

"I was merely pointing out that such decisions were not based on a moral authority." What decisions? When did this turn into a discussion about "decisions"? This has been a discussion about "moral responsibilities" and where they come from; it has never been a discussion about specific decisions.

Are you trying play ignorance here? It's becoming borderline tedious. Can you tell me how one can have a responsibility to be moral without making a decision on an action that demonstrates such responsibilities? That is what I was referring to in regards to "decisions". And why are you so against discussing specific decisions or examples utilized to support an argument? How fucking difficult is that to grasp? Seriously, get a grip.

quote:

Which ties into your crap about drinks and a test. What does doing well on an exam have anything to do with "moral responsibilites"? Maybe you are trying to show that each decision has a "right and wrong" consequence. Why would you be trying to say this since it has nothing to do with "responsibility", I do not know.

Please tell me you're joking.

Doing well on an exam does not have anything to do with "responsibility?" What the fuck? Do I not have a responsibility to myself to do well on an exam? Do I not have a responsibility to my wife and our life with a stable career that ultimately entails me doing well on an exam? Do I not have a responsibility to my future patients (and hence SOCIETY) by knowing what the hell I am talking about that was covered on an exam that I should commit to long-term memory?

Do you even know what you are arguing about in the fucking first place?

Can you please cut the bullshit and define for us all with positive verifiable evidence how society is somehow governed by God and his moral authority?

quote:

However who decides what is "right" and what is "wrong"? You said you base it off of your past experiences. Good for you, do I care about your past experiences and the things you have inferred from them? No.

If you are my future patient, or if your wife, daughter or family member are one of my patients, you damn well better care about whether or not I learn from my mistakes and not go out and screw myself up the night prior to an exam.

quote:

Your past experiences and having inferred something from them do not constitute evidence even for your irrelevant rambling on "right and wrong". Why even in your example the question of importance comes up: Which is more important drinking or getting good grades?

To summarize once again: obviously it's important that I get good grades so that I benefit not must myself and my family but my future patients and hence society in general.

Then again, killing time arguing such silly asinine points with twits like yourself are compelling me to believe drinking supercedes grades right now.

quote:

This parallels the same conundrum we have in our discussion about "moral responsibilities", if we cannot agree on the relative importance of things then we cannot proceed with our discussion.

To which you have not defined your own position in the slightest sense. So save us all the time and do so now. Perhaps then we can move forward. Otherwise the insistent smokescreen bullshit you have given up to this point will not help either one of us.

quote:

I fear to state my definition of "absolute moral authority" because I do not wish to argue about that issue.

But you seem quite happy in your attempts to bash those who do not believe in an "absolute moral authority", I think it's only relevant to see how you define such a belief. Or am I incorrect in stating this is your belief in the first place? Is there an alternative thought that you have not stated? I do not wish to create a false dichotomy here, so if there is another alternative plausible contention other than an absolute moral authority that you are arguing for, I'd like to hear it.

quote:

I am sure that my definition of "absolute moral authority" and your definition are similar enough to not cause missunderstanding. And if you dont think so then read a freaking dictionary and I am sure that will put you close enough to "my" definition of absolute moral authority to avoid missunderstanding.

Again I think it's relevant and appropriate to hear what YOUR personal definition is here, rather than send me off to chase down an encyclopedia. Surely you can answer this one little question without having me ask you a fourth time?

quote:

In this discussion no one has brought up or "complained" about relevant evidence,other than your "complaining". So far this has been of discussion mainly of logic, reasoning, viewpoints and precedent, so if you want evidence lead by example.

I believe I have done so with my examples, something you have failed to even muster on your own. Perhaps it's time to cease with your bullshit and attempt to give examples that demonstrate your point of an absolute moral authority, rather than attempt pretty fruitlessly to tear down one's arguments against your baseless contention.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Haha, well that's a pretty instructive paradox I guess. We can't ever say "absolutely" that there are no absolutes because that would be a self-defeating logical proposition (if absolutes don't exist, how could we know that absolutely?), but I still think it is possible to say that absolutes don't exist without having to reach that sort of internal, logical impasse. It is impossible to prove an absolute without invoking another absolute and it is impossible to prove that absolute without invoking yet another absolute and so on. So, at least on the basis that it would be impossible to prove that an absolute absolutely exists without deferring to an infinite regression of absolutes, we can say safely, I think, that there can be no absolutes.

How can absolutes not exist, yet, to say that, "absolutes don't exist.", is in and of itself, and absolute statement? If everything were relative, then, relatively, absolutes could exist.

???

quote:

All mathematics is tautological and so it is only "absolute" in the most meaningless of senses. Saying that "2+2=4" is the equivalent of saying "4=4", which in turn is the equivalent of saying "x (as we have defined it) = x (as we have defined it)". If what I said before (about it only being possible to prove an absolute if you invoke another absolute) is true, then this proves my theory: you invoke the number 4 as an absolute and prove that it is absolute by equating it with itself. The number 4 will absolutely always equal the number 4. This mathematical "absolute" merely boils down to the premise that all things must necessarily be what they are: this is no great revelation (although it is no small matter in an epistemological sense either, admittedly) and this sort of absolute does not advance our knowledge in any way at all. It's an absolute, sure, but only on the most meaningless, superficial level possible.

"According to The Borgen Project, over 800 million people across the globe live in hunger." -Hunger

This statement is absolute if I understand it. The only thing relative about it is the relativity of hunger around the world, as in, hunger is relative to the regions of the world, and class demographics.

*Thread spinoff*

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.