Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #10026  
Old 06-14-2012, 09:58 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There are no exceptions to this law of our nature. We are compelled to desire what we believe to be the most preferable choice even though it might look like it's the worst possible choice to others
That simply cannot be known. It is not testable. The very most you could ever say is that there is a consensus amongst many people or whatever. This is no different than saying that God exists.

There are many things we cannot know, peacegirl. If they cannot be known and tested they cannot be called laws without exception.
No, this is very testable LadyShea. This is an invariable law that has no exceptions and it can be empirically proven. That's what this discovery is about; showing that when this law becomes a permanent condition of the environment, we can prevent man from desiring to move in the direction of hurting others with a first blow in order to derive greater satisfaction.
Reply With Quote
  #10027  
Old 06-14-2012, 09:58 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It makes me think that this thread is going be another futile effort that should never have started to begin with
This is the same group of people with the same questions and criticisms you have been unable to adequately respond to all this time, did you think those questions and criticisms would change just because you decide to drop topics when you can't respond?
It's not that I haven't been answering them; it's that you have a confrontational style which prevents the conversation from moving forward. As I keep repeating, you don't ask, you tell. You're not being receptive, which will prevent you from understanding these concepts. And as a result you'll continue to call them assertions.
That's a crackpot red flag, right there. If it takes some special mindset to understand or accept, then it's probably woo.

It shouldn't matter what I do or don't do, the ideas should stand on their merits, and they do not stand up to the slightest criticism.
Reply With Quote
  #10028  
Old 06-14-2012, 10:00 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It makes me think that this thread is going be another futile effort that should never have started to begin with
This is the same group of people with the same questions and criticisms you have been unable to adequately respond to all this time, did you think those questions and criticisms would change just because you decide to drop topics when you can't respond?
It's not that I haven't been answering them; it's that you have a confrontational style which prevents the conversation from moving forward. As I keep repeating, you don't ask, you tell. You're not being receptive, which will prevent you from understanding these concepts. And as a result you'll continue to call them assertions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
That's a crackpot red flag, right there.

It shouldn't matter what I do or don't do, the ideas should stand on their merits, and they do not stand up to the slightest criticism.
They do stand for themselves, but if you're unwilling to hear him out without rushing to judgment, which you are doing, you will never grasp these principles. You just now did the exact thing that I was calling you out on. You said that these ideas don't stand up to the slightest criticism, which is a ridiculous statement.
Reply With Quote
  #10029  
Old 06-14-2012, 10:01 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

No, this is very testable LadyShea. This is an invariable law that has no exceptions and it can be empirically proven.
Oh? Please tell me any possible test that could prove that man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, given that satisfaction cannot be empirically observed or objectively measured.

Any kind of test at all provided it has scientifically valid parameters and data collection methods.

While you're at it, devise a test for the proposition "God exists"
Reply With Quote
  #10030  
Old 06-14-2012, 10:05 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

No, this is very testable LadyShea. This is an invariable law that has no exceptions and it can be empirically proven.
Oh? Please tell me any possible test that could prove that man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, given that satisfaction cannot be empirically observed or objectively measured.

Any kind of test at all provided it has scientifically valid parameters and data collection methods.
There are methods that could prove that what Lessans is demonstrating is valid, but more importantly people need to understand the veracity of these two principles which lead to his discovery. It really doesn't require data collection, but it can be tested empirically if scientists want to go that route. I have no doubt that not only will his discovery be confirmed valid, but that it won't require that much to get this transition off the ground. Right now, you still don't have a basic foundation of what this discovery is about, so you are skeptical. But your skepticism will lessen once you understand these principles in depth.
Reply With Quote
  #10031  
Old 06-14-2012, 10:08 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
there are definite ways to prove that man can only move in one direction
Weasel, you need to know NOW what kinds of tests could possibly be conducted if you are going to assert it is testable NOW. So what ways are there?

So, please tell me any possible test that could prove that man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, given that satisfaction cannot be empirically observed or objectively measured.

Any kind of test at all provided it has scientifically valid parameters and data collection methods.

While you're at it, devise a test for the proposition "God exists"
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (06-14-2012)
  #10032  
Old 06-14-2012, 10:12 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

No, this is very testable LadyShea. This is an invariable law that has no exceptions and it can be empirically proven.
Oh? Please tell me any possible test that could prove that man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction, given that satisfaction cannot be empirically observed or objectively measured.

Any kind of test at all provided it has scientifically valid parameters and data collection methods.

While you're at it, devise a test for the proposition "God exists"
This can only be tested indirectly. It can be shown that under changed environmental conditions people will be unable to move in the direction of greater satisfaction in hurting others when all justification has been removed. It would be the worst possible choice, and we can't move in the direction of what is least satisfying when a more satisfying alternative is available, remember? I can't wait for the day that this is proven true, for then you won't have a bad word to say and that in itself will be an accomplishment. :)
Reply With Quote
  #10033  
Old 06-14-2012, 10:16 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Do you think everyone should stop responding to your posts or answering your questions due to your demeaning attitude?

You are failing miserably in every area. At least your father limited his failures to the topics he chose to write about.
I'm affectionately laughing at you. You have gone beyond the boundaries of what you can apparently handle (which doesn't even relate to your true intellectual capacity), and you hate me as a consequence. But the truth is I don't hate you, or even dislike you. I just don't think you get it.
Notice how you just weaseled again?

No, I have not gone beyond my boundaries, and no, I certainly do not hate you. And that question you just weaseled out of answering:

Do you think everyone should stop responding to your posts or answering your questions due to your demeaning attitude?
My demeaning attitude is a reaction to your demeaning attitude, but you only see mine, not yours. Eventually, this attitude would get most people upset, even the most serene among us. So you'll have to excuse me for being human.
Is there some particular reason why you can never answer a direct question?

Do you think everyone should stop responding to your posts or answering your questions due to your demeaning attitude? [Y/N]
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #10034  
Old 06-14-2012, 10:19 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This can only be tested indirectly.
Then the proposition "man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction" is NOT empirically provable as you claimed, nor can you even think of a possible scientifically valid test of this proposition.
Reply With Quote
  #10035  
Old 06-14-2012, 11:35 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This can only be tested indirectly.
Then the proposition "man is compelled to move in the direction of greater satisfaction" is NOT empirically provable as you claimed, nor can you even think of a possible scientifically valid test of this proposition.
I just told you that you can't test people moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, but you can determine this indirectly. I feel like you don't even hear a word I say. You just react.
Reply With Quote
  #10036  
Old 06-15-2012, 02:29 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
I just told you that you can't test people moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, but you can determine this indirectly. I feel like you don't even hear a word I say.
I read it just fine, but what you said is incorrect, as I pointed out in my response

Determination through indirect means is not empirical proof, nor a scientifically valid test

This means, of course, the proposition cannot be empirically proven as you claimed and is, instead, ultimately not scientifically testable as I said. Just like the proposition "God exists"
Reply With Quote
  #10037  
Old 06-15-2012, 03:29 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There are no exceptions to this law of our nature. We are compelled to desire what we believe to be the most preferable choice even though it might look like it's the worst possible choice to others
This is an invariable law that has no exceptions and it can be empirically proven. That's what this discovery is about; showing that when this law becomes a permanent condition of the environment, we can prevent man from desiring to move in the direction of hurting others with a first blow in order to derive greater satisfaction.

This is 'bullshit', any 'Invariable law of nature' would be in force whether people believed it or not, whether people accepted it or not. That we need to accept it and the 'powers that be' must enforce it, means that it is a belief without proof, and not any kind of natural law. That it needs to be accepted by everyone for the benefits to be manifest indicates that it is a failable social norm that will only work if everyone accepts it. The smallest flaw in the population or the weakest member and the whole house of cards will come tumbeling down. Not surprising as the house would be built of all jokers.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-15-2012)
  #10038  
Old 06-15-2012, 06:48 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I already addressed Angakuk's question about choices that are equal in value. I don't think he understood that this makes no difference.
And I am pretty sure that peacegirl didn't understand why it does make a difference.

I would like to point out that peacegirl's ability to recall and refer to that particular conversation is further evidence that her memory failures are mostly a matter of convenience.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
  #10039  
Old 06-15-2012, 01:35 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I already addressed Angakuk's question about choices that are equal in value. I don't think he understood that this makes no difference.
And I am pretty sure that peacegirl didn't understand why it does make a difference.

I would like to point out that peacegirl's ability to recall and refer to that particular conversation is further evidence that her memory failures are mostly a matter of convenience.
Actually, Lessans stated emphatically that anything done by others or to others doesn't even apply. You have created something to argue about that has nothing to do with these principles Angakuk, and because of this you refuse to listen with a sickening self-righteous attitude. Who are you to come off telling other people that you read the book? You're a liar and you know it. You have now committed yourself to rejecting this book or else be embarrassed. You are not a good representative of God himself. Am I being blasphemis? Oh well, I will state my truth knowing that Lessans was right all along. What do you have say to defend yourself Angakuk? This is so disturbing because you're now turning into a fraud, in God's name. How sick is that?
Reply With Quote
  #10040  
Old 06-15-2012, 02:03 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

LOL, Angakuk has some criticisms of the book so he's committing fraud in God's name?

Wow, peacegirl....you just go for the most histrionic place you can think of don't you?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-15-2012), Spacemonkey (06-15-2012)
  #10041  
Old 06-15-2012, 02:24 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
I just told you that you can't test people moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, but you can determine this indirectly. I feel like you don't even hear a word I say.
I read it just fine, but what you said is incorrect, as I pointed out in my response

Determination through indirect means is not empirical proof, nor a scientifically valid test

This means, of course, the proposition cannot be empirically proven as you claimed and is, instead, ultimately not scientifically testable as I said. Just like the proposition "God exists"
Oh really? So are you saying that when there is no more war as a direct result of this discovery, which proves conclusively that man can only move in one direction, which is not to hurt others with a first blow, that this will not be proof enough? What are you saying LadyShea, because I don't think you even know yourself. :(
Reply With Quote
  #10042  
Old 06-15-2012, 02:27 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
LOL, Angakuk has some criticisms of the book so he's committing fraud in God's name?

Wow, peacegirl....you just go for the most histrionic place you can think of don't you?
He is acting as a representative of God, and he is not being truthful to me or to anyone by attacking Lessans the way he has. So yes, I am standing by my words that he is hiding behind his title. So go defend him LadyShea. You're all cronies, which is why group think will ruin any chances of me sharing this discovery with you in a fair discourse.
Reply With Quote
  #10043  
Old 06-15-2012, 02:51 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
I just told you that you can't test people moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, but you can determine this indirectly. I feel like you don't even hear a word I say.
I read it just fine, but what you said is incorrect, as I pointed out in my response

Determination through indirect means is not empirical proof, nor a scientifically valid test

This means, of course, the proposition cannot be empirically proven as you claimed and is, instead, ultimately not scientifically testable as I said. Just like the proposition "God exists"
Oh really? So are you saying that when there is no more war as a direct result of this discovery, which proves conclusively that man can only move in one direction, which is not to hurt others with a first blow, that this will not be proof enough? What are you saying LadyShea, because I don't think you even know yourself. :(
Predicting possible, not actual, future states of society that are contingent on people accepting the proposition as true without it being proven valid first, is not a scientifically valid nor empirical test of the proposition.

Simplified: What you believe, by faith, will happen at some point in the future is NOT a test that has scientifically valid parameters and data collection methods.

You've moved it now. Instead of devising a possible test to prove or disprove the existence of God, you need to devise a possible test to prove or disprove the existence of Heaven.

Last edited by LadyShea; 06-15-2012 at 03:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-15-2012)
  #10044  
Old 06-15-2012, 02:58 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
LOL, Angakuk has some criticisms of the book so he's committing fraud in God's name?

Wow, peacegirl....you just go for the most histrionic place you can think of don't you?
He is acting as a representative of God, and he is not being truthful to me or to anyone by attacking Lessans the way he has. So yes, I am standing by my words that he is hiding behind his title. So go defend him LadyShea. You're all cronies, which is why group think will ruin any chances of me sharing this discovery with you in a fair discourse.
His discussions here at FF are not conducted in his official capacity as a pastor. Additionally, there is no reason to believe at all he is not being truthful in expressing his opinions.

You're just lashing out in a histrionic way, as usual, because you can't defend Lessans ideas rationally.

You think we're the problem for all these imaginary readers you are worried about. You don't think they'll see your ravings as juvenile hissy fits?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-15-2012)
  #10045  
Old 06-15-2012, 03:47 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

It is widely held that man's greatest motivator is fear. I personally hold this idea as well (along with the idea that fear is the base source of all "evil"). We can see the fear principle at work in the consumer marketplace, in politics, and in daily living.

So, Lessans thought greater satisfaction is the dominant force in decision making, I think less fear is the dominant force in decision making.

Compare and contrast these two propositions, and devise a test to prove or disprove one over the other.

"People are compelled to choose that which is thought will move them in the direction of greater satisfaction"

"People are compelled to choose that which is thought will lead to the less feared outcome"

Last edited by LadyShea; 06-15-2012 at 04:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10046  
Old 06-15-2012, 04:46 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
I would like to point out that peacegirl's ability to recall and refer to that particular conversation is further evidence that her memory failures are mostly a matter of convenience.

And this along with her willfull ignorance and other atributes that have been repetedly pointed out, would seem to lead away from mental illness, to the conclusion that she is only in it for the money. Lessans motivations, on the other hand are less discernible. If sales were sucessful he had no need of money, though it is possible that he just wanted more, and his Billard Championship gave him a claim to fame. That would leave the very real possibility that it was just a colossal joke.
Reply With Quote
  #10047  
Old 06-15-2012, 06:58 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I already addressed Angakuk's question about choices that are equal in value. I don't think he understood that this makes no difference.
And I am pretty sure that peacegirl didn't understand why it does make a difference.

I would like to point out that peacegirl's ability to recall and refer to that particular conversation is further evidence that her memory failures are mostly a matter of convenience.
I explained the fact that two things being the same in preference doesn't change the fact that we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, regardless of which motion we make at any given moment, and I also explained the fact that when Lessans said "nothing can make man do anything against his will," he wasn't referring to what others do to him, because then it's not his will. He did mention this.
Reply With Quote
  #10048  
Old 06-15-2012, 07:02 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
It is widely held that man's greatest motivator is fear. I personally hold this idea as well (along with the idea that fear is the base source of all "evil"). We can see the fear principle at work in the consumer marketplace, in politics, and in daily living.
I agree with you here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So, Lessans thought greater satisfaction is the dominant force in decision making, I think less fear is the dominant force in decision making.
Where's the conflict? There are motivating forces, for certain, that compel us to stay away from things feared, or to move toward things preferred. Fear is a very strong emotion and we will do almost anything to avoid it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Compare and contrast these two propositions, and devise a test to prove or disprove one over the other.
"People are compelled to choose that which is thought will move them in the direction of greater satisfaction"

"People are compelled to choose that which is thought will lead to the less feared outcome"
[/quote]

Devise a test? For what? These two thought systems are complementary. To move away from something feared is the lesser of two evils, and to move toward something that is desired is the greater of two goods, but both are in the direction of greater satisfaction.
Reply With Quote
  #10049  
Old 06-15-2012, 07:04 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Devise a test? For what?
Because you have asserted that Lessans' proposition is empirically provable and testable. Devise a test that can prove or disprove either of those or prove one is more true than the other.

I think "greater satisfaction" is faulty and "less fear" is not.
Reply With Quote
  #10050  
Old 06-15-2012, 08:10 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
I would like to point out that peacegirl's ability to recall and refer to that particular conversation is further evidence that her memory failures are mostly a matter of convenience.

And this along with her willfull ignorance and other atributes that have been repetedly pointed out, would seem to lead away from mental illness, to the conclusion that she is only in it for the money. Lessans motivations, on the other hand are less discernible. If sales were sucessful he had no need of money, though it is possible that he just wanted more, and his Billard Championship gave him a claim to fame. That would leave the very real possibility that it was just a colossal joke.
After ten years of this nonsense only a mentally ill person would think there is money to be made.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.77772 seconds with 14 queries