|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted May 12, 2010 10:56 PM |
|
|
@ Omega
What if you have a contagious desease. Would you say you should be killed, after you infected a couple of people (which was the reason they found out you were contagious)?
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted May 12, 2010 11:08 PM |
|
|
How do we determine who is beyond rehabilitation and who is salvageable? How does raping of one's own daughter make one stop being of any possible utility to society? Why shouldn't he be offered a second chance if he is not irreparable himself?
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 12, 2010 11:14 PM |
|
|
@OD
If society/government/state cannot offer protection and increases freedom, the society/government/state looses its purpose and has no valid reason to be anymore.
However, as long as society does what its purpose is, then there's no doubt it's the better alternative rather than everyone for themselves.
Of course people change, sure some don't, you evaluate the person in question, if said person is truely a too high threat to society, said person must be isolated from society until no longer is so. Said person is still a part of society though and should have all the gifts of society, like his fellow man, except being isolated. We do of course not want anyone to be locked up forever, that's what rehab is for, so said person can once again be as free as possible through the help of current society/government/state.
OD wrote:
Quote:
Employers will not want to hire you.
Employers who, assuming own a given cooperation, who do not hire for maximum profit, will eventually loose out due to not trying to adjust in accordance to the market.
OD wrote:
Quote:
Neighbors won't want you around.
So? If someone judges you upon your past, and not upon how they've experienced your actions, these person would probably not be worth having as friends in the first place.
OD wrote:
Quote:
What value does a man who rapes his own daughter have to society any more?
It's never about what one can do for society. Never about what the individual can do for the state/government/society. Always about what society/state/government can do for the individual. The question sohuld be: "what can we do for the victim, for the criminal, and for everyone else?". If we would just evaluate upon value for society, we'd start getting rid of sufficient retarded people at some point of time probably.
OD wrote:
Quote:
My client's daughter certainly won't be.
Yes it's a shame that we don't have the technology and ressources to revert every possible process. In the future, maybe we do. Maybe then, people who were raped can choose to have their memory altered, maybe the death can be ressurected, maybe doing a crime in the first place is completely impossibe, people shoots the bullet at a victim, but the victim never observe the bullet, there's no impact from the victims point of view, only from the criminals point of view. However until then, we must through our current ressources and technology act upon the world in the way we find best possible. We cannot undo those actions as of yet, but we can do our best to them never be repeated while still make sure that we're both there for the victim, the criminal and rest of society as well.
OD wrote:
Quote:
What's the point of even attempting rehabilitation in that situation?
Because then said person can be part of society once again, without the risk of something like that happens again from said person.
OD wrote:
Quote:
Why should he get a second chance when his daughter has been irreperaly damaged?
If we didn't, we'd be no better than him. An alien race from outer space would see upon us and would not be able to seperate us from him, especially if one makes the case even more general, and what stops them from doing the same mistake as us then? Judging us, like we judged as well, not seeing they're doing the exact same mistake as us.
@Mvass
No you don't.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Father
|
|
posted May 12, 2010 11:41 PM |
|
|
Omega, I never stated that locking them up would be an answer to the current challenge. I merely stated that locking them up while we develope better solutions and work on our current ones, is the better choice. Plus it is true that they DO need to be punished for such terrible crimes.
Your neighbor in this case is going to do roughly 15 years or so? If you think your neighbor is not going to come out of there a different person, I believe that you are mistaken.
This all seems to be boiling down to what we each believe from a social standpoint isn't it? Omega I don't begrudge you your feelings on this, I just simply disagree. I have been through this many times because of the history I shared with you in my last post, I have learned from those experiences and gained wisdom from them. At first, I would say a greater majority thinks the way you do, or more to the point, they react the way you have here. All that being said, however, it doesn't make it right. I firmly believe that one of the keys to society as a whole advancing will be from doing away with such responses to crimes. Capital punishment, eye for an eye, that is all way out dated and needs to be changed. Thank goodness that in many countries it already has.
Mvass, while it is true in the United States that you will lose a great majority of your "rights" after you have been convicted of a felony, it is also true that you can get them back.
Yes, the person described in Omega's example can be rehabilitated and it sounds like he will get that chance. We are already on the right track anyway, people know what is right and what is wrong over all, it's just a matter of getting through goverment red tape to get to those points 
Ohfor, despite the fact that your posts have an alarmingly high amount of quotes (makes it less enjoyable to read and a little more difficult), I thank you for your comments and I agree.
JJ, good question. 
Kek, another good point.
____________
Once Bitten,
Twice shy,
Be careful,
This one has sharp teeth.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 12:22 AM |
|
|
@JJ
Was that your intent? Did you choose to infect those people?
@Kek
A parole board makes that determination.
Why do we want to give rapists a second chance to rape again? What do you if rehabilitation fails? Try again? How many victims must there be?
@Sake
Employers frown upon hiring convicts. Why would they feel any different about sexual predators?
As to the neighbor comment, you're missing the point. What neighborhood with families who have children will want to have a sexual predator around? The sensible ones will not.
Quote:
It's never about what one can do for society. Never about what the individual can do for the state/government/society. Always about what society/state/government can do for the individual.
Do you honestly believe that? You are naive if you think the government cares about what is in YOUR best interests.
Quote:
If we would just evaluate upon value for society, we'd start getting rid of sufficient retarded people at some point of time probably.
Humanity - 52,000 years and going strong!
As to making sure that the horrible actions of rapists are never repeated again, what better way to insure that by making sure the rapist isn't given the opportunity to do so again?
As to your final point, if we don't rehabilitate a rapist, we are no better than he or she? We are violating his rights by not giving him a second chance? You have no such right to a second chance.
@Father
Quote:
Yes, the person described in Omega's example can be rehabilitated and it sounds like he will get that chance. We are already on the right track anyway, people know what is right and what is wrong over all, it's just a matter of getting through goverment red tape to get to those points
People know what is right and wrong? Then why continue to do it? Why keep giving them the chance to make the mistake?
Another example. One of my ex-clients went to jail for back child support. On 8 kids. Or was it 9? I can't remember. What has he learned? Nothing. Did he stop having kids after the 5th time he was thrown in jail for back child support, nope. He just kept having more. He's been given plenty of opportunity to change his ways, yet chooses not to.
Ah, job security. Gotta love it.  Speaking of, gotta get back to a SSI memo for a hearing tomorrow.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Father
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 12:29 AM |
|
|
It is just that your answers seem a bit "fatalist" to me. But you seem pretty dead set in your oppinion and I will respect that. But I also disagree and will hope the world never submits to that type of thinking. For that matter, I hope that poor man isn't your neighbor when he does get out. He will need one a bit more open minded, forgiving and understanding. Or maybe your stack of stones is just a bit higher than his?
LOL, me, the non-religious one sticking up for the good side. ROFL
____________
Once Bitten,
Twice shy,
Be careful,
This one has sharp teeth.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 12:32 AM |
|
|
That guy wasn't my neighbor; client's ex-husband.
I did have a neighbord similar to that growing up. A prison guard. Went to prison for 20 years for molesting a 3-year old girl at his wife's day care. I can't wait to have him reintegrated into society.
You look down on me, Father, for not being tolerant of a man who raped his own daughter? I don't think I'm the odd one here.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Father
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 12:44 AM |
|
|
I don't think your the odd one here either Omega, and that would normally worry me. However, I for one believe that there is a great deal of change coming on 2012 and as such I don't really worry too much about issues I disagree with people on.
It's not that I look down on you Omega, it's that I would hope you would find better reason to not judge this man so harshly. You keep listing examples in your various posts, yet we could both do that many times over. Don't you see? It's not the individuals, it's the system and how that system works or fails. You would have the system subverted my simply stamping out the problem, I would have the system work and yeah...well I have already stated all I would support haven't I
I'm just saying there are better ways IMHO and society seems to think so too. I have to believe that "man" is capable of further and better things. This would include those that may have personal problems. I mean heck, if they can't get better, lets just start killing off every handicap kid that is born too. Or how about taking cars away permanently for anyone that causes an accident or gets a dui. See? I just think that we CAN and will find solutions towards "world peace". Or rather, and to be more clear there, I believe that it is the world that will force us to see other solutions towards "world peace". Just a small matter of time now.
____________
Once Bitten,
Twice shy,
Be careful,
This one has sharp teeth.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 12:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Employers frown upon hiring convicts. Why would they feel any different about sexual predators?
I am not claiming that employers should hire someone they don't want to, I just claim if they don't hire after what's best in regards to the market, they'll be loosing profit.
Also I should have added, if a company is either owned by the state (whereby in principle it's the people who decide the requirements to be hired) or if the employer have someone above him, who set outs the rules for hiring, and goes against these rules when not hiring an x-convict, then it's enough to be fired, without having to fear about compesation due to illegal firing.
I claim it is so, because said person is among other things hired to hire people after a specific protocol, not living up to that protocol is not living up to what one is hired for, which is sufficient reason to fire someone.
Quote:
As to the neighbor comment, you're missing the point. What neighborhood with families who have children will want to have a sexual predator around? The sensible ones will not.
Since when was it the neighbours who decided who would be allowed to live where? Where I live, you buy a house and then you've some property through that. No one can limit you, no matter what they think about you. Well sure, if everyone goes against you, you're in trouble, but that's more like a revolution.
Quote:
You are naive if you think the government cares about what is in YOUR best interests.
If government doesn't focus on being their for its citizen, then it looses its purpose, and in time will be replaced automatically as people would grow impatient.
Quote:
Humanity - 52,000 years and going strong!
That's true, but it tells nothing about the process of how we got here. Honestly, just because it's more efficient if we kill off all the problematic guys in the short run, it does not make it okay. It's not about effeciency, it's about what you want, it's about what everyone wants. It's about getting that through the most effective method.
Quote:
As to your final point, if we don't rehabilitate a rapist, we are no better than he or she? We are violating his rights by not giving him a second chance? You have no such right to a second chance.
Why did you start to talk about rights now? Rights are given by those in power, and have nothing to do with my reasoning of why it's wrong to not give a second chance. Society is about all citizens, even those who've done wrong, trying to make sure everyone gets a as good as possible life through what we can offer, and of course what they choose themselves. If the idea of court were only for punishment and revenge, then court would be a criminal itself.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 01:45 AM |
|
|
|
totally agree with father. how can you not decide it is wrong as soon as you think about it?
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 02:03 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 02:11, 13 May 2010.
|
All this talk of second chances has awakened in me the question of whether or not a third chance should be given.
If yes, how many chances does one get and how many such crimes does one need to commit before being deemed incurable?
If not, does that mean that, practically, anyone could commit virtually any crime and get away with it quite easily as long as it was only once?
I said "any crime" because I'm, of course, supposing that this view can be broadened to other forms of criminal activity as well - provided that mercy isn't reserved solely for incestuous pedophiles.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 02:12 AM |
|
|
@Bak
What do you mean by 'getting away with it'?
If 'getting away with it' just means the combination of 1) perfoming the crime, 2) not having the crime undone and 3) not be 'punished' in a way said person feel it's a punishment, then yes sure.
However, eventhough '1)' is of course what should be prevented, we might not have the ability to do so each time as of yet. '2)' likewise should be possible, but again may be beyond our ability and '3)' is completely subjective and therefore shouldn't matter in the first place.
Heck, I'd guess that suicide terrorists belives they 'get away with it' if they die in the name of whatever reasons they had, so 'getting away with it', at least to me, untill further defined, seems very subjective and thereby not very relevant.
About amount of chances, infinite in my opinion, but it's the scientific process, measuring and evaluating probability, it's unlikely someone should be seen probable to be no threat anymore yet fail time after time, unless there's something wrong with the method to begin with and it'd be very weird if each wrong doing would not make it harder and harder to be seen as to be probably rehabed.
Edit: So eventhough no one is ever deemed incurable, breaking the law again and again make it less likely to be seen as cured the next time around (to use the terms you used).
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 02:52 AM |
|
|
Perhaps you're right, the term "getting away with it" was not entirely appropriate because I didn't know how exactly would you intend to punish the offender.
In fact, I'm still not sure I quite understand.
The very idea of punishment is that the punished person feels punished. If I want to teach my dog not to bite - please allow my analogy; if you start frowning at me for comparing dogs to humans I'll frown at you for regarding other species as inferior whereas you'll frown back at me for getting off topic and we'll drag this discussion to the swamps of confusion and pointlessness sooner than necessary - like I said, if I want to teach my dog not to bite, when it bites me, I will not pat it on the head and gently whisper that it shouldn't do that. Because it most probably won't really get the point. Of course, I won't beat it to death either. No, I'll try to find a punishment that works, and isn't unnecessarily cruel.
The punishment will of course be sizably larger if it attacks the mailman, other dogs, etc.
Also, what do you mean by someone "being less likely to seem cured the next time around"? They'll still be 're-rehabilitated' and released again, only a bit later? Or will they undergo a harsher treatment?
Another detail that fascinates me is the attitude you guys had toward Omega - if I got it right, you're basically trying to undo not only capital punishment but also any form of eventual social stigma, leaving criminals with a concerned letter in which the State hopes that he's not going to rape and kill again or else they'll have to send him another concerned letter; and not only that, but if you frown upon convicted rapists and pedophiles, you'll actually become the one that's frowned upon.
Back on the original topic - of course, we haven't specified the rehabilitation methods yet. We could turn to that bit now. Can you elaborate on how you'd rehabilitate criminals without the use of physical force or mind-altering substances/experiments and yet prevent them from just patiently waiting a few days and pretending everything's fine in order to get themselves back out in the streets and commit a crime again, effectively making rehabilitation a much shorter, friendlier and lighter version of jail?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 03:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@Mvass
No you don't.
Society is at its root based on a reciprocal social contract - you don't steal from me and I don't steal from you, I don't try to kill you and you don't try to kill me, etc. When that principle is violated, the violator gives up their rights.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 06:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@JJ
Was that your intent? Did you choose to infect those people?
Maybe the name Kent Kiehl rings a bell? The guy is studying serial offenders in New Mexico, all pretty official and well-funded. This gives an overview, if I read that right.
http://www.miller-mccune.com/legal-affairs/a-mind-of-crime-8440/
There seem to be significant brain differences to normal people - in verious degrees, so you could say there is some kind of defect or handicap there. Raping, killing, it's not necessarily a matter of intent.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 08:43 AM |
|
|
@Mvass
Don't you see by removing rights unnecessary you're actually going against the principe you stand for? To do whatever you want without coercive interference as long as you do not coerce anyone. If you remove rights that's not needed to be removed, you're actually coercing against said person.
@Bak
I don't mind your dog example, I see all life as equal, that doesn't mean there isn't a difference in mental capability though.
I honestly think the problem is that you want to condition other humans. Conditioning is a process through feelings (i.e. reward for good behaviour, punishment for bad), at which you programme a person to follow certain behavioural patterns. However for such a pattern to exist, the environment must be a trigger to this, change the environment and old ways of life (old habits/conditioning) will start fighting against the new patterns of behaviour (the new habits/conditioning). Since the enforcing environment have been removed, the new patterns will loose out, whereas the old patterns probably still are in a sufficient environment for a path in the brain to be formed.
That alone, i.e. if government should dissapear, is not the actual reason why I think the idea of punishment for conditioning people is wrong. It's wrong because it abuse peoples weaknesses, abusing that we don't have complete free will, and try to manipulate us into another state, in stead of beating the problem, we try to build up another, bigger one, that just doesn't bother us.
True you can't really see the difference between a conditioned person and a person with high free will, heck I even try to condition myself, because that's another way to actually use ones free will, but the problem is when it's forced conditioning, i.e. punishment.
It's, in my opinion, the same as a tyranni. A place where people act like they do, because of fear of what'll happen if they do wrong and because of short time enjoyments of when doing right when properly conditioned. I'd much rather want that people did threat eachother well, not due to conditioning (i.e. emotional manipulation), but due to actual agreement upon the best way to do things.
That being said, it should be included that some people have the exact problem that they can't contol their emotions, voluntary conditioning or even removing the emotion, is hopefully an option of the future.
Bak wrote:
Quote:
Also, what do you mean by someone "being less likely to seem cured the next time around"? They'll still be 're-rehabilitated' and released again, only a bit later? Or will they undergo a harsher treatment?
I mean that whatever threatment they would go through, it'd take more effort from their side towards said threatment, before being able to convince to be 'cured'. It's like when someone lies, you thrust them less and less for each time, but if they don't lie long enough you thrust them again.
However it should be mentioned that it's much easier to thrust someone who once lied, than it is to let someone who once did horrible things out again. So sure you get out the first time, repeat, get in again, now it takes longer and longer, if that means after a few times that there'll be what, 20, 30, 50 years between repeat, then I'd bet it's much better than what we see today. That being said people aren't stupid enough to always consider uncertainties towards statistical data as being completely random, so quite quickly they'd probably figure out that said person is not responding well to the given threatment under rehab and therefore will be directed through something else.
It's a process of trial and error, it might the best we can do, but we should never forget it's another human being in the process.
About the letter thing. No of course not, you isolate said person from society until no longer considered a sufficient threat to society.
And everyone are weclome to frown about whoever they want, in my opinion, that shouldn't really be saying much though.
Quote:
Can you elaborate on how you'd rehabilitate criminals without the use of physical force or mind-altering substances/experiments and yet prevent them from just patiently waiting a few days and pretending everything's fine in order to get themselves back out in the streets and commit a crime again, effectively making rehabilitation a much shorter, friendlier and lighter version of jail?
No, I can't, I have no idea.
I don't know what's really possible out there as of today. If I had a list of possibilities I could go through it and check whatever I'd find morally acceptable, but that's probably pretty much all I could do.
Though one the site of assuming sufficient ressources and technology are available, rehab should be about talking to the wants of people, getting rid of the lusts. Something like this:
Let the criminal try to see the difference, first living as they used to, then without the lusts (emotional effects) that used to drive them into what they do (a case by case study before this to find out the reasons behind the actions), then continuesly changing until the emotional triggers until actually hidding something the criminal is satisfied with (still getting all the good stuff the criminal want, yet without all the bad stuff society doesn't want). Then changing it back to the way it used to be.
Then letting the criminal go around and find out if there's any difference for said person between the two, if the criminal sees no difference and accepts such a change (must be voluntary), then all emotinoal triggers that lead to the life of crime is removed. Now it doesn't mean like removing sexual drive completely, or removing the ability to be jealous, but it does mean removing the response of when the sexual drive goes so high that someone rapes others, removing the possibility that jealousy takes control over oneself and crimes in affect happens. All voluntarily and reversible.
Now the second part is about talking to the criminals wants, i.e. his own morality if you'd like, or to say, what makes him happy. This is the part of logical approach, finding the goals of the criminal, and together find a better way of accomplish these goals.
With unlimitted ressources and technology it'd always be possible, but then again, with such, crime could be prevented completely. With limited however, there'll be cases where you just can't get through, because their only goal may in fact be what makes them criminal in the first place.
If criminality however is only a side effect, which I'm convinced is for most cases, then it's about, with guiding, to find into an environment that helps getting these goals fulfilled without doing criminal acts.
For people whose only goals makes them criminals pr. definition, one should also consider where these goals comes from, since it's unlikely people should be born with them, especially as babies seem inferior in the mental capabilities in the first place, so born with them would probably just translate to emotions and not real wants, which would be a failure of process 1, not anything to do with process 2. Therefore it's likely that you can always track back and probably find the reason for said goals, but if you can get the criminal to voluntarily change them through enough information, that I don't know, but it's at the very least the job of society/government/state to try. If it's evaluated impossible upon the ressources and technology available, then isolation is needed, but there's no one saying isolation needs to be in a small box in the middle of society. It can be at a place that seems completely identical to Earth, except this particular society is something you can't enter. Of course making sure said person have enough to survive, to be free to do what said person wants, at least have the possibilities to do so.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 08:59 AM |
|
|
Ohforf:
Right, that is what I stand for, and my position on this is quite consistent with that principle. Do what you want without coercion - but rape is certainly a form of coercion. When one coerces, one loses the right to not be coerced.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 12:51 PM |
|
|
From what you just wrote, as I see it, the statement:
Quote:
To do whatever you want without coercive interference as long as you do not coerce anyone.
Is incomplete as apparently, the past of said person matters as well.
Maybe something like: under the assumption said person never coerced before, should be added?
Quote:
When one coerces, one loses the right to not be coerced.
In my opinion, to claim that one looses the right of not being forced to do something against their will, because they themselves forced others, is in itself inseparable between revenge and meaningful action. If actions are not meaningful towards the purpose of which you want to build a society, which I understand as:
Quote:
To do whatever you want without coercive interference as long as you do not coerce anyone.
Then said society will pr. automatic be build around what its laws dictates.
One makes a type of ground pillar upon which society should be build. Freedom seems like a good idea, but of course also security, that is the freedom of not having someone to take away your freedom.
However the ground pillar is meaningless unless you apply rules and methods of which forms a society based on said ground pillar. If the rules and methods do not follow the ground pillar, then those rules and methods will build society towards another type of ground pillar.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 03:39 PM |
|
|
Ohforf wrote:
Quote:
So sure you get out the first time, repeat, get in again, now it takes longer and longer, if that means after a few times that there'll be what, 20, 30, 50 years between repeat, then I'd bet it's much better than what we see today.
After a few times? That's just not good enough for me. Coupled with this statement of yours:
Quote:
No of course not, you isolate said person from society until no longer considered a sufficient threat to society.
...which does seem rather conditioning, your theory basically comes down to a softer, shorter and less effective form of capital punishment which, if the criminal repeats his crimes over and over, reminds more and more of today's imprisonment system. Being isolated from the society by the state differs how exactly from being imprisoned?
I mean, sure, I support the idea of freedom and less conditioning too, I'm personally an anarchist, but this isn't it. I just can't bring myself to trust that pedophile rapists are willing to change if we ask them nicely enough, especially when we continuously give them chances to go out and commit the same crime again indefinitely, and still keep the system of imprisoning, just calling it differently. What's the point, then?
The only thing still holding your theory together is good faith that there is a way to convince those people not to commit crimes anymore, without executing any physical punishment or brainwashing. Until such a therapy is found and proven to be 100% effective, this entire theory cannot hold any water for me - and besides, if it was completely harmless, gentle and unconditioning, and only a few days long in the beginning, why wouldn't the entire population be subject to it? Why not take the school kids to a sort of a school trip for a few days, to convince them never to commit a crime, and cut criminal activity in its roots - if that therapy is so effective? Why wait until a person commits the crime?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 13, 2010 05:20 PM |
|
|
100% of the world population is and always will be brainwashed/conditioned.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
