ChatGPT says it so it must be true bro
When it comes to explaining scientific facts, ChatGPT is infinitely truer than the Bible or any other religious text that claims we were created from scratch.
Your "scientific facts" are just as religious as the bible
Yes, facts derived from empirical data that can be proven mathematically are definitely on the same level as divine revelation.
In all seriousness, I don't deny that the current scientific establishment has an agenda and is in many ways anti-science, with its dogmatic views that harshly reject all non-mainstream theories, but that alone is not enough to dismiss centuries of scientific research and experimentation.
That one user that’s really anti-life is pretty high iq.
scientists.is
it's trained on extreme amounts of peer reviewed science papers. you can ask it for sources. you can google its output.
the bible offers nothing in comparison when it comes to explaining reality. there are 2500 gods. 35,000 denominations just in christianity. if you think that your specific belief is the ultimate truth of the universe, you're brainwashed. look at my thread to challenge your belief
God or Eternal Universe/Multiverse?
God as an answer has problems: The paradox of omnipotence (Can God create a rock so heavy He cannot lift it?) The problem of divine foreknowledge and human freedom (If God knows the future, is free will an illusion?) The issue of eternal punishment for finite sins The challenge of...
incels.is
so your smartphone, internet access, electricity, medicine, technologies etc. are all religious beliefs, too? they must run on magic lol
A lot of users here aren't actually blackpilled. They're just merely aware of its existence.
I am retarded
What? High IQ might be a reason for inceldom and the Autism, low T, or other mental problems which often go along with high IQ definitely don't help either.
It's only proven if you believe jews. If you do you're own research you'll find many strange items that disprove it.
Besides, logic. Such as where are the missing link species?
Ofc, adaptation is a real thing. But it hardly proves evolution. It just proved adaptation.
Besides, logic. Such as where are the missing link species?
Ofc, adaptation is a real thing. But it hardly proves evolution. It just proved adaptation.
Christcuck.is Evolution is a proven fact
Agreed OP but seeing your ER pfp is kinda funny at the same time because ER himself was an autist idiot who didnt know how good he had it 
Other than that you re right. Many retards here. If they are annoying you. Its better to put them on ignore.
Other than that you re right. Many retards here. If they are annoying you. Its better to put them on ignore.
People in the science community call anyone who believes in that theory evolutionists because science doesn't actually support the theory of evolution.
Unironically.
Unironically.
Even though there is supposedly a lot of evidence supporting evolution, I will still take that theory with a grain of salt until I myself have done my research. Evolution is a belief just like any other religion and I will see it that way until I have made my own experiences with this topic. That is my stance
Well, we don't know how accurate those religious scriptures really are. Wh knows how many times has the bible been edited. Atleast science gives you mostly testable evidence, meanwhile religious scriptures are basically just dogmas you are supposed to magically believe in without much concrete proof
Can you link us some articles and studies that make good arguments against the theory of evolution?
Didn't you claim you had an IQ of 115 in some other thread? What is it then? Am I mixing you up with someone else?- Claims fish somehow managed to survive on land & develop lungs.
- Calls me low IQ. Ok there bro
View attachment 1295914
My IQ is 98 by the way.
Plz elaborate saar
Its fake bhai
Evidence? Data? I'm open to both theories btw
N
Incel trait: You have an iq of below 90
Caged really hard at their explanations
"I cant observe the evolution happening before me so its false,btw i believe in jewish brainwashing(religion)"
N
What teat is this- Claims fish somehow managed to survive on land & develop lungs.
- Calls me low IQ. Ok there bro
View attachment 1295914
My IQ is 98 by the way.
N
Most based used i seen here so far
based , evolution is real asf cant believe we have niggas denying it in 2024 ovER bhai
You denied it yourself jfl
idk why you’re surprised, christcucks have never believed in evolution. Also nice to see that you brought up that theory in science isn’t the same as theory in everyday language. Theories in science have countless evidence to support them
Percentage of scientists who accept evolution
98% of scientists affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science believe that humans evolved over time.
Unironically true. Christcucks are completely brainwashed
"Bro God made us in his own image from dust, stop believing in utter non-sense theories like evolution which are not even proven"
https://www.youtube.com/@RTB_official https://www.youtube.com/@creationministriesintl These channels have many such videos.
View: https://youtu.be/zSGGnx2dT3k
View: https://youtu.be/Y0tQQCfrAK0
View: https://youtu.be/D9zL-f8lSZk
View: https://youtu.be/VzJu-eskIH4
Sure these are all opinions and theories also, my point isnt that evolution is debunked, but that isnt proven, its not a written in stone fact. I simply cannot ignore the evidence for intelligent design, evolution requires way too many coincidences.
Contrair to popular beliefs many scientists and mathematicians were Christians (like Pascal, Kelvin, Newton, Kepler itd) or Judaism practicing Jews, thus believing in God. Science being the opposite of religion attitude is something that came not so long ago. If God is real and He created everything, then science cannot disprove God, because science explains the works of God, imo eventually science will prove God.
You will rarely see christians attacking people who solely believe in science, im talking about here also, but you will see the opposite alot. Even though the reputation that we christians get defensive and hostile when our beliefs are questioned, again its the opposite, its always the evolutionists throwing insults and hostility towards christians. Its obvious who gets buthurt when their beliefs are challenged, in this case its even more retarded because no one questioned science, but simply disagreeing in the terms of evolution and @beyondschizo started throwing insults and calling names. How can someone take seriously anyone who acts like an angry 5yo.
Atheists always used the "If God is real, show me God, where is God?" Same could be said "If Evolution is real, show me Evolution, where is Evolution?" My opinion is lack of evidence for something doesnt proves the non existence of that thing. Imo in science and understanding of everything around us humans barely scratched the surface.
Last edited:
Also saying "you cannot be blackpilled and religious at the same time, youre bluepilled tee hee" is such a bullshit, blackpills leans much more toward Bible which teaches that humans are corrupted degenerates which live primarily for their own enjoyment in being evil, contrair to Old Earth and Evolution which teaches that everything happened by chance and that humans are driven by their innate drive to improve and live on as a better specie. Blackpill leans more toward Biblical theres no coincidences and miracles. Foids destroying their lives by fucking their eyes out, aborting hundreds of Chad's babies and dying childless or birthing subhumans to betabuxxers is against eugenics.
evolution is not scientifically falsifiable since if it is true, literally everything is evolution, including me writing this, technology, any behavior, literally everything would be evidence for evolution. Thats why its been called a tautology. It can not be disproven on its own grounds, since literally every piece of counter-evidence would be proof of evolution. This is fallacious of course.
For example both creationist and evolutionists often use the same evidences to claim their point is right. How is this possible? It is possible because the evidence does not speak for itself, which is something evolutionists often ironically claim, while accusing christians of using the bible as self evident truths.
Fore example here we can see someone post this cartoon:
Notice they take "facts" as a self-evident maxim that just exists and is without a doubt true. So if the cartoon was written by someone with more than 2 braincells it would actually sound like this:
Left picture: "The scientific method: Here is arbitrary interpretation. What facts can we draw from it?"
Right picture: "the creatoinist metho: Here is the arbitrary interpretation. What facts can we draw from it?"
(This is why protestant way of viewing the bible does not work. You need correct interpretation, which you wont get from everyone interpreting it how they want. Thats why theres 30k protestant denominations)
I can interpret the bible however I want, just as I can fabricate any scientific proof I want by interpreting the data. Thats why every study has a "discussion" section. For example I could easily use fossils and fit them into the christian worldview. I could also make up a new hypothesis and fit fossils into that. It does not matter.
Thats why a good debater will not use these types of arguments anyway because they don't prove anything. They dont prove christianity, they dont prove evolution. Even if I grant you that fossils exist and are so and so old bla bla - how does it follow from this that evolution is true, and not some alternative hypothesis? Just ask evolutionists this, what is the competing scientific hypothesis for evolution? They cant say creationism, I specified "scientific." They wont be able to name any, because they literally think evolution is a self-evident maxim and no other explanation can explain their basic observations.
Here is an example. Initially they claimed chimpanzee and human DNA are extremely similar, which proves a common ancestor. Then they found evidence of the opposite, but just re-interpeted this contradictory evidence as being "evidence of rapid evolutionary divergence."
So when we find DNA similarities = evolution.
When we find DNA differences = evolution.
Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content - PubMed
The human Y chromosome began to evolve from an autosome hundreds of millions of years ago, acquiring a sex-determining function and undergoing a series of inversions that suppressed crossing over with the X chromosome. Little is known about the recent evolution of the Y chromosome because only...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The evidence always proves evolution, because scientists presuppose evolution is true, so everything just seems to support evolution.
We can also quote evolutionists themselves saying they have no clue:
From: "The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur" (shes an evolutionist)
And that is excluding the philosophical challenges of evolution leading to breakdown of metaphysics, like mind not being able to exist, personhood, free will etc.
For example in order to say "there is an external world" you would have to be apart from the external world. But if you think everything is just matter in motion, shaped by chance, then there is no "you" anymore, everything is one. There is no "you" regarding the "world" - the environment and person become one. Its a form of monism, a primitive religious belief where everything taken to be one thing, in this case matter. So in order to have a "you" there has to be some part of a human that is not identical to the environment, aka a mind.
Evolutionist at this point appeal to dumb shit like "emergent properties" which makes no sense, because properties are not physical, but metaphysical. And also, matter relies on properties, even something as basic as "existence" is a property of a thing. Yet they claim that properties "emerged from matter" - how exactly did "existence" emerge from matter before existence was a thing?
Here is a good example of this in action, count the contradictions:
View: https://youtu.be/gKysIfmo6LA
“My mind is what my brain does.”
“My mind doesn’t exist.”
"The mind is an emergent property."
Further, what they are appealing too - "emergentism" was literally created as a debunk of materialism when it comes to theory of mind, they just dont seem to know this.
On the basis of evolution, no debate is possible, as evolution removes any basis for morality. Religions, warfare, technology, homosexuality, heterosexuality - it would all be just evolution, neither good nor bad. On this basis, you can not defend any position. Why is anything bad or good? Its just evolution baby! Why should I not believe in something wrong, especially if it benefits me? If I am an incel and I think joining a religion will increase my chances of marriage and sex, why would that be bad?
Evolution also removes any distinctions between species btw, since all labels attributed to species are just arbitrary. Everything breaks down to being one, ultimately. For example, IMO until the late 1800s they were still discussing whether whales are fish or not. Crocodiles are differentiated from alligators by arbitrary markers like having an extra tooth somewhere. Thats like irish people are different species from british people because they are shorter on average or something.
Even a non-religious skeptic can easily reduce evolution or any other secular worldview to total absurdity and mainstream philosophers know that, see quote:
Philosophy of Information (Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Band 8),
Pieter Adriaans (PhD in theoretical computer science at the University of Amsterdam)Johan van Benthem (Professor of logic at the University of Amsterdam at the Institute for Logic, Language and Computation and professor of philosophy at Stanford University)
I would also say, reading this will help massively to deal with philosophical approach to all these questions.
Appeal to nature - Wikipedia
Is–ought problem - Wikipedia
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia
We also dont observe things like causality. Causal relations between events are presupposed, not scientifically verified. Just like you can not verify logic in a scientific experiment. You can also not verify the external world existing. And even if you grant the external world exists and sense data is coming in, you can still question whether that sense data is even sensible - see "myth of the given" or "myth of obviousness."
Here is an evolution debate where the philosophical approach is used in defense of Christianity:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0YImTpyvjw
Last edited:
evolution is not scientifically falsifiable since if it is true, literally everything is evolution, including me writing this, technology, any behavior, literally everything would be evidence for evolution. Thats why its been called a tautology. It can not be disproven on its own grounds, since literally every piece of counter-evidence would be proof of evolution. This is fallacious of course.
For example both creationist and evolutionists often use the same evidences to claim their point is right. How is this possible? It is possible because the evidence does not speak for itself, which is something evolutionists often ironically claim, while accusing christians of using the bible as self evident truths.
Fore example here we can see someone post this cartoon:
View attachment 1301176
Notice they take "facts" as a self-evident maxim that just exists and is without a doubt true. So if the cartoon was written by someone with more than 2 braincells it would actually sound like this:
Left picture: "The scientific method: Here is arbitrary interpretation. What facts can we draw from it?"
Right picture: "the creatoinist metho: Here is the arbitrary interpretation. What facts can we draw from it?"
(This is why protestant way of viewing the bible does not work. You need correct interpretation, which you wont get from everyone interpreting it how they want. Thats why theres 30k protestant denominations)
I can interpret the bible however I want, just as I can fabricate any scientific proof I want by interpreting the data. Thats why every study has a "discussion" section. For example I could easily use fossils and fit them into the christian worldview. I could also make up a new hypothesis and fit fossils into that. It does not matter.
Thats why a good debater will not use these types of arguments anyway because they don't prove anything. They dont prove christianity, they dont prove evolution. Even if I grant you that fossils exist and are so and so old bla bla - how does it follow from this that evolution is true, and not some alternative hypothesis? Just ask evolutionists this, what is the competing scientific hypothesis for evolution? They cant say creationism, I specified "scientific." They wont be able to name any, because they literally think evolution is a self-evident maxim and no other explanation can explain their basic observations.
Here is an example. Initially they claimed chimpanzee and human DNA are extremely similar, which proves a common ancestor. Then they found evidence of the opposite, but just re-interpeted this contradictory evidence as being "evidence of rapid evolutionary divergence."
So when we find DNA similarities = evolution.
When we find DNA differences = evolution.
Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content - PubMed
The human Y chromosome began to evolve from an autosome hundreds of millions of years ago, acquiring a sex-determining function and undergoing a series of inversions that suppressed crossing over with the X chromosome. Little is known about the recent evolution of the Y chromosome because only...
The evidence always proves evolution, because scientists presuppose evolution is true, so everything just seems to support evolution.
We can also quote evolutionists themselves saying they have no clue:
From: "The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur" (shes an evolutionist)
And that is excluding the philosophical challenges of evolution leading to breakdown of metaphysics, like mind not being able to exist, personhood, free will etc.
For example in order to say "there is an external world" you would have to be apart from the external world. But if you think everything is just matter in motion, shaped by chance, then there is no "you" anymore, everything is one. There is no "you" regarding the "world" - the environment and person become one. Its a form of monism, a primitive religious belief where everything taken to be one thing, in this case matter. So in order to have a "you" there has to be some part of a human that is not identical to the environment, aka a mind.
Evolutionist at this point appeal to dumb shit like "emergent properties" which makes no sense, because properties are not physical, but metaphysical. And also, matter relies on properties, even something as basic as "existence" is a property of a thing. Yet they claim that properties "emerged from matter" - how exactly did "existence" emerge from matter before existence was a thing?
Here is a good example of this in action, count the contradictions:
View: https://youtu.be/gKysIfmo6LA
“My mind is what my brain does.”
“My mind doesn’t exist.”
"The mind is an emergent property."
Further, what they are appealing too - "emergentism" was literally created as a debunk of materialism when it comes to theory of mind, they just dont seem to know this.
On the basis of evolution, no debate is possible, as evolution removes any basis for morality. Religions, warfare, technology, homosexuality, heterosexuality - it would all be just evolution, neither good nor bad. On this basis, you can not defend any position. Why is anything bad or good? Its just evolution baby! Why should I not believe in something wrong, especially if it benefits me? If I am an incel and I think joining a religion will increase my chances of marriage and sex, why would that be bad?
Evolution also removes any distinctions between species btw, since all labels attributed to species are just arbitrary. Everything breaks down to being one, ultimately. For example, IMO until the late 1800s they were still discussing whether whales are fish or not. Crocodiles are differentiated from alligators by arbitrary markers like having an extra tooth somewhere. Thats like irish people are different species from british people because they are shorter on average or something.
Even a non-religious skeptic can easily reduce evolution or any other secular worldview to total absurdity and mainstream philosophers know that, see quote:
Philosophy of Information (Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Band 8),
Pieter Adriaans (PhD in theoretical computer science at the University of Amsterdam)Johan van Benthem (Professor of logic at the University of Amsterdam at the Institute for Logic, Language and Computation and professor of philosophy at Stanford University)
I would also say, reading this will help massively to deal with philosophical approach to all these questions.
Appeal to nature - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Is–ought problem - Wikipedia
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia
We also dont observe things like causality. Causal relations between events are presupposed, not scientifically verified. Just like you can not verify logic in a scientific experiment. You can also not verify the external world existing. And even if you grant the external world exists and sense data is coming in, you can still question whether that sense data is even sensible - see "myth of the given" or "myth of obviousness."
Here is an evolution debate where the philosophical approach is used in defense of Christianity:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0YImTpyvjw
Thanks, i read all of it, i will look into it more detailed. Things which personally offend me in this kind of things: Claims that religion in based solely on faith, evolution is based on facts, automatically they see you as low iq backminded ape. Saying thats its only cultural "If you were born on Tibet, you would be a Budhist" Same could be said "If you were raised in Amish community you wouldnt believe in evolution" How they will believe in literally anything except existence of God, like multiverse of simulation but God is too unrealistic. I know that many arguments that Christians use like you see creation, there must be creator, intelligent design, early church martyrs, doesnt nececeraly prove the existence of the Abrahamic God. Both require to believe in the evidence and interpretation of the evidence presented to you.
Yeah there's even evidence and proof of evolved humans. I don't like forcing my beliefs on people but there's alot of data to back up evolution and debunk Christianity.
My knowledge is not nearly enough to claim anything as a fact. That day i was pissed because he humiliated me in front of everyone in two threads, guy clearly has something against me for no reason known to me (i have a guess) Science being true is not Evidence against God. Two cells joining and working together is not an evidence against God.
From my perspective that looks like saying: the baker didnt made the bread, the yeast ate the sugar which was dissolved in water and released gasses which made the flour fill with air pockets and then the heat baked it. Thus bread came into existence. I know its a stupid analogy but thats my pov, still dont believe in life being millions of years old and one kind/ specie whatever evolving into another and fully believe in God. I will look more into it. I know also that saying in the beginning was God who created everything doesnt sounds nothing more realistic than In the beginning was nothing and nothing exploded into something. Because what was before nothing? What was before God? He is eternal so He doesnt needs before and after, same argument could have been said for energy.
Evolution is a lie made to turn men in to atheist soyboys on Retarddit
evolution is not scientifically falsifiable since if it is true, literally everything is evolution, including me writing this, technology, any behavior, literally everything would be evidence for evolution. Thats why its been called a tautology. It can not be disproven on its own grounds, since literally every piece of counter-evidence would be proof of evolution. This is fallacious of course.
For example both creationist and evolutionists often use the same evidences to claim their point is right. How is this possible? It is possible because the evidence does not speak for itself, which is something evolutionists often ironically claim, while accusing christians of using the bible as self evident truths.
Fore example here we can see someone post this cartoon:
View attachment 1301176
Notice they take "facts" as a self-evident maxim that just exists and is without a doubt true. So if the cartoon was written by someone with more than 2 braincells it would actually sound like this:
Left picture: "The scientific method: Here is arbitrary interpretation. What facts can we draw from it?"
Right picture: "the creatoinist metho: Here is the arbitrary interpretation. What facts can we draw from it?"
(This is why protestant way of viewing the bible does not work. You need correct interpretation, which you wont get from everyone interpreting it how they want. Thats why theres 30k protestant denominations)
I can interpret the bible however I want, just as I can fabricate any scientific proof I want by interpreting the data. Thats why every study has a "discussion" section. For example I could easily use fossils and fit them into the christian worldview. I could also make up a new hypothesis and fit fossils into that. It does not matter.
Thats why a good debater will not use these types of arguments anyway because they don't prove anything. They dont prove christianity, they dont prove evolution. Even if I grant you that fossils exist and are so and so old bla bla - how does it follow from this that evolution is true, and not some alternative hypothesis? Just ask evolutionists this, what is the competing scientific hypothesis for evolution? They cant say creationism, I specified "scientific." They wont be able to name any, because they literally think evolution is a self-evident maxim and no other explanation can explain their basic observations.
Here is an example. Initially they claimed chimpanzee and human DNA are extremely similar, which proves a common ancestor. Then they found evidence of the opposite, but just re-interpeted this contradictory evidence as being "evidence of rapid evolutionary divergence."
So when we find DNA similarities = evolution.
When we find DNA differences = evolution.
Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content - PubMed
The human Y chromosome began to evolve from an autosome hundreds of millions of years ago, acquiring a sex-determining function and undergoing a series of inversions that suppressed crossing over with the X chromosome. Little is known about the recent evolution of the Y chromosome because only...
The evidence always proves evolution, because scientists presuppose evolution is true, so everything just seems to support evolution.
We can also quote evolutionists themselves saying they have no clue:
From: "The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry by Suzan Mazur" (shes an evolutionist)
And that is excluding the philosophical challenges of evolution leading to breakdown of metaphysics, like mind not being able to exist, personhood, free will etc.
For example in order to say "there is an external world" you would have to be apart from the external world. But if you think everything is just matter in motion, shaped by chance, then there is no "you" anymore, everything is one. There is no "you" regarding the "world" - the environment and person become one. Its a form of monism, a primitive religious belief where everything taken to be one thing, in this case matter. So in order to have a "you" there has to be some part of a human that is not identical to the environment, aka a mind.
Evolutionist at this point appeal to dumb shit like "emergent properties" which makes no sense, because properties are not physical, but metaphysical. And also, matter relies on properties, even something as basic as "existence" is a property of a thing. Yet they claim that properties "emerged from matter" - how exactly did "existence" emerge from matter before existence was a thing?
Here is a good example of this in action, count the contradictions:
View: https://youtu.be/gKysIfmo6LA
“My mind is what my brain does.”
“My mind doesn’t exist.”
"The mind is an emergent property."
Further, what they are appealing too - "emergentism" was literally created as a debunk of materialism when it comes to theory of mind, they just dont seem to know this.
On the basis of evolution, no debate is possible, as evolution removes any basis for morality. Religions, warfare, technology, homosexuality, heterosexuality - it would all be just evolution, neither good nor bad. On this basis, you can not defend any position. Why is anything bad or good? Its just evolution baby! Why should I not believe in something wrong, especially if it benefits me? If I am an incel and I think joining a religion will increase my chances of marriage and sex, why would that be bad?
Evolution also removes any distinctions between species btw, since all labels attributed to species are just arbitrary. Everything breaks down to being one, ultimately. For example, IMO until the late 1800s they were still discussing whether whales are fish or not. Crocodiles are differentiated from alligators by arbitrary markers like having an extra tooth somewhere. Thats like irish people are different species from british people because they are shorter on average or something.
Even a non-religious skeptic can easily reduce evolution or any other secular worldview to total absurdity and mainstream philosophers know that, see quote:
Philosophy of Information (Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Band 8),
Pieter Adriaans (PhD in theoretical computer science at the University of Amsterdam)Johan van Benthem (Professor of logic at the University of Amsterdam at the Institute for Logic, Language and Computation and professor of philosophy at Stanford University)
I would also say, reading this will help massively to deal with philosophical approach to all these questions.
Appeal to nature - Wikipedia
Is–ought problem - Wikipedia
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia
We also dont observe things like causality. Causal relations between events are presupposed, not scientifically verified. Just like you can not verify logic in a scientific experiment. You can also not verify the external world existing. And even if you grant the external world exists and sense data is coming in, you can still question whether that sense data is even sensible - see "myth of the given" or "myth of obviousness."
Here is an evolution debate where the philosophical approach is used in defense of Christianity:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0YImTpyvjw
Interesting. Maybe you should make a thread about this topic since it's also tied with the blackpill up to an extent
You are brainwashed by Jews silly goy
I think it is mean that you're shaming them by revealing their usernames.
The results are less than almost half. It's 75:25 right now. But that might be because you advertised it here so more people voted for evolution.
But I'll have to agree that evolution is proven. It is named a theory but it is also considered scientific fact by scientists.
The results are less than almost half. It's 75:25 right now. But that might be because you advertised it here so more people voted for evolution.
But I'll have to agree that evolution is proven. It is named a theory but it is also considered scientific fact by scientists.
IQ copers are silly.
Accept you enjoy pointless debates.
Accept you enjoy pointless debates.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
