User Tag List

First 81617181920 Last

Results 171 to 180 of 205

  1. #171
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    You can't speak impersonally about articles of faith. Economic models are tied to political ideology, which these Ns have embraced with a True Believer's zeal... and you can't reason someone out of a position they weren't reasoned into in the first place.

    Instead of exchanging ideas, they're now looking for any reason they can find that shows that you're wrong. Debate on the Internet is a mug's game.
    I'd say the libertarian insistence on unconditionally placing right to personal property above all other rights is rather an article of faith in itself.

    It's cool if that's the #1 value to you, but it's not to everyone and it's kind of smugly arrogant to imply that your value system is more reasonable or that you haven't placed arbitrary faith in it the way everyone else has.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #172
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I'd say the libertarian insistence on unconditionally placing right to personal property above all other rights is rather an article of faith in itself.

    It's cool if that's the #1 value to you, but it's not to everyone and it's kind of smugly arrogant to imply that your value system is more reasonable or that you haven't placed arbitrary faith in it the way everyone else has.

    It's not. Rights are rights. The right to personal property is a human right, and a precious one. It's no higher on the libertarian chain than the right to a speedy trial, though. That's what you aren't getting. If something is a RIGHT, it is something that is unalienable. The point is not an arcane one. "The right to life" is not a right to government health care (nor is it a right for fetuses to be brought to term, IMHO). It's a right to your own life, and that means that it can't be taken away by anyone, including the government, without due process. Personally, I am not even a fan of the death penalty, although I am not against it in principle. This is not a semantic issue. You seem to be operating from a completely different concept of what rights human beings have. That would go a long way toward explaining your attitude regarding what I believe. A right is not "something that it would be nice for everyone to have, but that can be taken away when expedient."
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  3. #173
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I'd say the libertarian insistence on unconditionally placing right to personal property above all other rights is rather an article of faith in itself.

    It's cool if that's the #1 value to you, but it's not to everyone and it's kind of smugly arrogant to imply that your value system is more reasonable or that you haven't placed arbitrary faith in it the way everyone else has.
    Libertarians are many Internet chat board participants' favorite straw men.

  4. #174
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    It's not. Rights are rights. The right to personal property is a human right, and a precious one. It's no higher on the libertarian chain than the right to a speedy trial, though. That's what you aren't getting. If something is a RIGHT, it is something that is unalienable. The point is not an arcane one. "The right to life" is not a right to government health care (nor is it a right for fetuses to be brought to term, IMHO). It's a right to your own life, and that means that it can't be taken away by anyone, including the government, without due process. Personally, I am not even a fan of the death penalty, although I am not against it in principle. This is not a semantic issue. You seem to be operating from a completely different concept of what rights human beings have. That would go a long way toward explaining your attitude regarding what I believe. A right is not "something that it would be nice for everyone to have, but that can be taken away when expedient."
    Except 'human rights' are an abstract concept which don't really exist.

    If we go back to before culture, let's just say we're living in caves again. We're all humans, yet we have no 'human rights'. We have no right to life, we have no right to property, we have no right to government, etc.

    Furthermore, every right, by definition, must have set boundries. And those boundries are fluid rather than static... the right to vote wasn't a right at all for a long time. The right to even life wasn't even fully applied until recently to many groups, and still isn't recognized fully.

    A "right" is also, by definition, either A: an entitlement, or B: a permission. The latter completely goes against yeur percieved values. The former, is subjective.

    The 'right' to life is great... but it has exceptions. Death penalty, war, self defense, etc. There are ways yeu're allowed to make exceptions to another party's 'right' to life. Most of these are considered 'justifiable', but that's no more than excuses.

    Even to attempt to claim that they're universal is silly, as they're not. Even today, modern world, rights are varied across the board throughout multiple regions, religions, cultures and countries.

    Even the 'right to life' is not a universal concept in all religions and cultures. There have been those in which self sacrifice is pretty much expected; the value of the one is less than the value of the many, or the whole. In these cases, it's not a human right at all.

    So then, where do these magical human rights come from? From the culture that decided upon them, in line with that culture's cultural beliefs. As such, it's really not appropriate to call them "human" rights, as they aren't rights by default to all humans at all, but rather cultural in origin, definition and implementation.

    It'd be really great if we could all agree on basic concepts like we should all be allowed to live without fear of being killed by someone else, but that's really not something that can be granted. Human nature is still very animalistic; we lie, steal, kill, and revel in hatred, maliciousness and cruelty for our own gain.

    As soon as yeu have to list a single exception to a rule, it's no longer a basic human right anymore. If there's a culture which disagrees with it, then it's no longer a human right to all humans.

    If we consider them to be CULTURAL rights, rather than HUMAN rights, it's still the issue that they're really not universal enough even there to apply fully. As long as the death penalty exists, yeu literally don't really have the 'right' to life in the states, because that right can be overridden or removed legally.

    In essence, rights, in their fundamental form, exist as a statement of "I think I should be allowed to have this stuff". The definition of the stuff yeu're allowed to have is subject to change; the definition of whot yeu think is also subject to change. In fact, whether it's even using whot yeu think as a basis, is also subject to change.

    As such, sadly, human rights is merely a phraze with only contextual meaning. It's neither absolute, nor universal. It's like "good" and "evil", both highly subjective concepts, yet defined in terms of absolutes.

    If we have the right to life, why then do we not also have the right to death? Death is a part of life; why am I not allowed legally to opt for assisted suicide over torture? I mean it's perfectly legal to force someone to stay alive when they don't want to, even if they're in ridiculous amounts of pain, but only if they're not a criminal. If they'd done something illegal, they wouldn't be allowed to be tortured. But it's alright to torture grandma because she didn't commit a crime >.>; Does the right to life allow OTHER people to enforce life upon yeu, even if yeu don't want it?

    If so, then wouldn't property be the same way? Couldn't we then therefore FORCE people to accept property they don't desire as well? Heeeei I have this radioactive waste here... mind if I dump it in yeur yard? Well toughbeans, it's property, and I'm giving it to yeu, like it or not >=O Yeu have the right to property, but not the right to give it away so THERE!

    By the same line of reasoning, one should have the right to control their own life, to decide if they have life or not. Yet suicide's actually illegal in many areas, though since the mid-1900's, gradually it was declassified as a felony. Such makes one wonder though, if it's truly a RIGHT, can the classification of it, or the legal matters surrounding it, truly change?

    Were it a true 'right', then the answer would be no. An inalienable human right would be something that all humans have access to from birth, without exception, nor debate.

    Oh well, so human rights don't exist, and are just a nice notion we like to fantasize about.

    That being said, rules and laws enforcing the values of a community or culture, or even a religion, come close enough that, for the most part, this distinction doesn't matter so much.

    The 'right' to life, is not really so much a 'right', as a value inherent to our current society. Change society, and the value may change with it, and so too, would the supposed right. It's still a concept that is rather valued by *US* though, so in terms of our own little slice of the world, it's heavily enforced and maintained. Though... the definitions of "human" have been subject to change as well. It's funny how someone can claim human rights, yet deprive them from other humans... by claiming that they aren't human to justify such.

    In any case, human rights are moreso cultural values than intrinsic, unassailable universal rights. It doesn't mean they're any less important, it just means we have to realize that even the things we take for granted are not quite as set in stone as we'd like to delude ourselves into believing.

  5. #175
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Katsuni View Post
    In any case, human rights are moreso cultural values than intrinsic, unassailable universal rights.
    Hmmm. I don't think the Founders understood them this way.

  6. #176
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    It's not. Rights are rights. The right to personal property is a human right, and a precious one.
    Really? The libertarian socialists don't think so. What evidence have you that you are more empirically correct than they?

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    It's no higher on the libertarian chain than the right to a speedy trial, though. That's what you aren't getting.
    Well, here we have a contradiction in terms. If rights are unalienable, what happens when two rights conflict? You have a right to private property and others have a right to life. What happens when these rights conflict? What if we run into a situation where saving someone else's life depends on taking away some of your private property?

    Now the law has to make a judgment call. I believe in the concept of private property too, but rights can't all be 100% unalienable because there'd be no solution whenever one of your rights comes into conflict with someone else's.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    If something is a RIGHT, it is something that is unalienable. The point is not an arcane one. "The right to life" is not a right to government health care (nor is it a right for fetuses to be brought to term, IMHO). It's a right to your own life, and that means that it can't be taken away by anyone, including the government, without due process. Personally, I am not even a fan of the death penalty, although I am not against it in principle. This is not a semantic issue. You seem to be operating from a completely different concept of what rights human beings have. That would go a long way toward explaining your attitude regarding what I believe. A right is not "something that it would be nice for everyone to have, but that can be taken away when expedient."
    Your belief in these unalienable rights is arbitrary and faith-based. Rights are a human-invented concept that only exist in whatever way humans choose to interpret them.

    I happen to agree with many such rights, but it'd be silly of me to insist that my belief in such rights is not arbitrary--because it absolutely is. There is nothing proving that these rights exist beyond the fact that people made them up and say they do. They don't just exist as an intrinsic property of the universe; they're an entirely human construct.

    The idea that all rights are totally unalienable at all times is great in theory; the problems come when you try to apply it in practice. No matter which way you slice it, someone is going to feel like his rights are being violated due to the inevitable conflict between different people's rights. This is what happens countless times across the nation every day in the court system--judges and juries must look at all the conditions on a case-by-case basis and decide whose right is going to take precedence. At the end of the day, someone has to lose. If rights and laws were that simplistic and cut-and-dry, we wouldn't even need a court system to make case-by-case judgment calls--it'd just be obvious in every situation and the entire judicial branch would be obsolete.

    This conflict between competing rights alone makes it impossible for any right to apply 100% of the time. Again, good principles, no sense of practical limitations on them.

    Even "due process" is a subjective concept--you're holding these truths "self-evident" the way the founding fathers did, but they're really not self-evident truths of the universe, just human-invented ideals that seem pretty useful and so we try to approximate them in practice as best we can. This requires compromise--which, if you're insistent on never giving up any of your rights no matter what other rights are conflicting with them--is always going to leave you feeling cheated.

    You're operating on a lot of arbitrary internal assumptions about the nature of your rights as a human being without any real basis beyond "I really, really think I should have them!"

    How is this sense of arbitrary entitlement any different from that of the far left that you so love to hate? Your ideals are just as arbitrary and faith-based as theirs.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  7. #177
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Really? The libertarian socialists don't think so. What evidence have you that you are more empirically correct than they?
    Pure Merc's statement was a deduction. You can't produce evidence for a deduction.

    The fact that you asked him for evidence even though no evidence could be possibly found to prove his point makes me think you are merely trying to make him look like an ass.

    If you disagree with what he said, please feel free to create an argument, not critique the way he makes his.

    Well, here we have a contradiction in terms. If rights are unalienable, what happens when two rights conflict? You have a right to private property and others have a right to life. What happens when these rights conflict? What if we run into a situation where saving someone else's life depends on taking away some of your private property?
    Just because two rights can come into conflict with each other doesn't mean that this fact negates their existence as a natural human right.

    Just because I have a right to property which may conflict with your right to live (if you tresspass on my land and I shoot you), does not mean that those rights are any less meaningful. Just because you trespass doesn't mean that you also don't have your right to life, it just means that you forfeited that right when you violated my right to property.

    Now the law has to make a judgment call. I believe in the concept of private property too, but rights can't all be 100% unalienable because there'd be no solution whenever one of your rights comes into conflict with someone else's.
    Unalienable, means that you can never take the rights away, not that the rights are never allowed to conflict with one another.

    If you extrapolate your argument, there would be NO fundamental rights because a situation can (almost) always arise wherein one right will conflict with another.

    Your belief in these unalienable rights is arbitrary and faith-based. Rights are a human-invented concept that only exist in whatever way humans choose to interpret them.
    Have you said anything of substance or just appealed to vague concepts of rhetoric. You are making assumptions about where Pure Merc is coming from. We know how far assumptions get you.

    I happen to agree with many such rights, but it'd be silly of me to insist that my belief in such rights is not arbitrary--because it absolutely is. There is nothing proving that these rights exist beyond the fact that people made them up and say they do. They don't just exist as an intrinsic property of the universe; they're an entirely human construct.
    So, and let me get this strait, anything that is man made doesn't exist.

    Wow powerful stuff.

    The idea that all rights are totally unalienable at all times is great in theory; the problems comes when you try to apply it in practice. No matter which way you slice it, someone is going to feel like his rights are being violated due to the inevitable conflict between different people's rights.
    Rights exist on a continuum. They exist for everyone all the time, but depending on the facts of the situation, some rights must give way to others. This is how the law works. Not everything is a black and white argument.

    Even "due process" is a subjective concept--you're holding these truths "self-evident" the way the founding fathers did, but they're really not self-evident truths of the universe, just human-invented ideals that seem pretty useful and so we try to approximate them in practice.
    So, the fact that these rights are man made makes them unimportant.

    Are you saying that even though these rights have given us over 200 years of (mostly) sound judicial practice they mean nothing?

    You're operating on a lot of arbitrary internal assumptions about the nature of your rights as a human being without any real basis beyond "I really, really think I should have them!"
    No, as I have just shown, it is you making the assumptions.


    I'm flabbergasted at some of the posts in this thread.

  8. #178
    . Blank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    I'm not disputing the information. You're being as petty as he is - particularly if you actually read all of the posts preceeding this one.
    I haven't, and no I'm not; I'm trying to point out that what you're arguing about is a non-issue, in the hopes that you guys would just shut the fuck up so hopefully what was once a decent thread can get back on topic and be interesting again, but I can see that isn't going to happen.

    Good day.
    Ti = 19 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Te = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ne = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fi = 15 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Si = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ni = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Se = 11[][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fe = 0

    -----------------
    Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
    Man got to sit and wonder why, why, why;
    Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
    Man got to tell himself he understand

  9. #179
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Pure Merc's statement was a deduction. You can't produce evidence for a deduction.
    The point was to illustrate that by declaring rights 100% inalienable, he's declaring his position to be factual when it's really not. I keep pointing out that some of these concepts are largely up to interpretation and one's own perception and value set, and he just keeps bluntly declaring that I'm wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The fact that you asked him for evidence even though no evidence could be possibly found to prove his point makes me think you are merely trying to make him look like an ass.

    If you disagree with what he said, please feel free to create an argument, not critique the way he makes his.
    I can smell ENTJ brand Bullshit™ from a mile away. What are you, Jaguar's troll account?

    You bring up a great point here, which makes me wonder why you didn't delete this first section of your post after reading the rest of mine. Do you remember what I did in rest of my post/this thread? I laid out my argument in pretty extensive terms.

    So given that, why would you bother to point this out when it's obvious that I actually am providing an argument? Is it because you "merely want to make me look like an ass"? Which would make you a hypocrite for complaining that I'm doing it?



    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Just because two rights can come into conflict with each other doesn't mean that this fact negates their existence as a natural human right.
    No, but it does mean there are some situations where one is going to have to be stifled in favor of the other, which necessitates that rights cannot all be held true 100% of the time under all possible conditions.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Just because I have a right to property which may conflict with your right to live (if you tresspass on my land and I shoot you), does not mean that those rights are any less meaningful. Just because you trespass doesn't mean that you also don't have your right to life, it just means that you forfeited that right when you violated my right to property.
    You forfeited your right to keeping 100% of your income when you were born into a representative democracy with a government. You have two options: vote for candidates to change that government or go live on an island where you can live out libertarian fantasies (and keep 100% of the coconuts you picked that year!) until your heart's content.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Unalienable, means that you can never take the rights away, not that the rights are never allowed to conflict with one another.

    If you extrapolate your argument, there would be NO fundamental rights because a situation can (almost) always arise wherein one right will conflict with another.
    Good work, Sherlock.



    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Have you said anything of substance or just appealed to vague concepts of rhetoric. You are making assumptions about where Pure Merc is coming from. We know how far assumptions get you.
    This isn't even coherent enough for me to discern meaning from.



    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    So, and let me get this strait, anything that is man made doesn't exist.

    Wow powerful stuff.
    If that's getting it straight, I'm horrified to consider what getting it wrong would be like for you.



    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Rights exist on a continuum. They exist for everyone all the time, but depending on the facts of the situation, some rights must give way to others. This is how the law works. Not everything is a black and white argument.
    No shit? That (in addition to the idea that rights are arbitrarily created by man and do not exist independently of his interpretation) is the crux of my argument. Thanks for restating it.


    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    So, the fact that these rights are man made makes them unimportant.

    Are you saying that even though these rights have given us over 200 years of (mostly) sound judicial practice they mean nothing?
    Dear God, no. How could you read that into my post at all?

    I'm saying that while rights have value, there will necessarily arise situations in life where someone's right will be trampled because someone else's right is judged to take greater precedence. Members of the American Libertarian Party tend to get incensed whenever this happens to them (especially involving taxes) and insist that they're being somehow singled out for unfair treatment, when in reality they're just going through the same shit everyone else goes through--sometimes your rights trump someone else's, and sometimes theirs trump yours. That's what happens when you have to deal with different people's interpretations of the same concepts.

    It doesn't by any means mean that "rights are unimportant" or "rights don't exist" or any of the other nonsense you seem intent on shoving into my mouth; it just means that there will invariably be situations in life where your right to something is deemed less important than someone else's right that conflicts with yours, and that this is just a normal part of life that Members of the American Libertarian Party would do well to just grow up and deal with.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    I'm flabbergasted at some of the posts in this thread.
    I'm flabbergasted at ENTJs' extraordinarily poor Ji!
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  10. #180
    Striving for balance Little Linguist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    xNFP
    Posts
    6,885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elaur View Post
    So in honor of the "I don't like my prof I think he should be fired" thread I started considering if it is actually a difference in generations. I recently read about how the 20 somethings have a totally different work ethic than the boomers and it's causing problems in the workplace.

    Survey Reveals Alarming Lack of Generational Workplace Interaction | workforce.com

    Is one little article about it. I need to find the original but I can't remember where I read it.

    Basically the idea is that the youngins think that they don't have to work if they don't like the work, they don't think they have to work hard, all the time.

    I will look for the article but I wanted to start a thread on it.

    Added:
    Do you think there is a difference in the generations?
    Is this a good or bad thing?
    How is it going to affect American companies?


    And a bonus question:
    Why do so many people live in their parent's basements now?
    It's quite alarming, to be sure, although I would say it is at least partially the BOOMERS' fault!

    On the one hand they educated us with their '68er, laissez-faire mentality, and now they have to pay the price. Very few moral values are taught; that is left to the schools, where it is too late. People just sit their kids in front of the TV to zone out and stuff.

    Structure that is taught at school is not reinforced in the home, which makes it pointless. If a teacher indicates that a parent's son/daughter may actually NOT be a genius, but is rather disruptive in class despite numerous attempts and method to calm the kid down - it is the TEACHER'S fault. WHY DID MY KID GET A C???? My GENIUS CHILD??? Let him be and let him draw, disrupt others, and play with the fairies.

    On the other hand, you have other boomers who are just TOOOO damned ambitious. They work so hard and strive to earn money, money, money that they never spend time with their kids. So these kids grow up not knowing how to make a cohesive argument or discussion because their parents never took the time to talk to them, sit down and have a family meal and discuss, etc.

    People are dehumanized into machines constructed for making money to the point where all creativity is drummed out of them at the core level. Achieve, achieve, achieve!!! Make, make, make!!! Do, do, do!!! Don't sit quietly and THINK or CONTEMPLATE!!! That's LAZINESS!!! Pfft. Whatever.

    Of course there were those few of us who were educated and raised in a conservative manner who definitely pull our own weight, work towards what we aspire, and generally have a great work ethic. At the same time, our parents taught us morals and principles; they taught us how to have a backbone but still be compassionate. They inspired us to dream and to achieve - to work, but also to play.

    In addition, some people also rebel against their parents' so-called values and become great scholars and workers. They fight against incredible odds to reach heights no one would have imagined due to a strong inner core.

    All in all, I think this generation has the ability to be successful - not only materially, but also mentally, spiritually and developmentally. However, this modern generation often has to fight the tide of liberal '68 values on the one hand and crazy pressured ambitious nuts on the other. There is no balance, and like any ecosystem without balance, a society is likely to collapse under the weight of disequilibrium.


    Extra credit:

    Many younger people have decided to stay with their parents nowadays, which begs the question why this trend has developed. Strenuous economic conditions, a lack of personal responsibility, and a lack of self-confidence or a strong core can all contribute.

    First, take a look at our economic situation: Many young people can simply not afford to have their own housing. If you have a job where you earn 1600 euros gross, you'll get about 900 euros net. From that, you have to pay bills like rent, electricity, phone, etc. as well as food and clothing. Almost impossible. In fact, I know a friend of mine who had her own place but had to move back with her parents because she could not afford the costs.

    Second, many people who can afford their own housing opt not to do so due to lack of personal responsibility. Indeed, why should they move out when Mommy and Daddy take care of everything? Unless these individuals have some kind of external pressure, the inertia of just staying in their comfort zone keeps them from actually breaking out and trying something new.

    Then, these two trends lead to the third element, which is a lack of self-confidence or inner strength. If individuals do not have the financial means to be independent and the pressure is lacking, more than likely people will start to become dependent. They think they need their families, and they feel that they are UNABLE to live on their own, which is really a shame. This feeling fuels a growing fear of breaking off; therefore, young people get trapped in a vicious circle of dependence where family members are either unable or unwilling to break it.

    As we can see, it is not an easy matter, but if young people want to truly experience life for themselves, they must break out into new territory. After all, we live only once, and it would be a shame to waste the opportunities we have on trivial fear.
    If you are interested in language, words, linguistics, or foreign languages, check out my blog and read, post, and/or share.

Similar Threads

  1. Why are NT's so rare as the main characters?
    By great_bay in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 09-16-2017, 01:51 AM
  2. [sx] Why are sx-doms so common in typology communities?
    By Octavarium in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 03-11-2015, 10:08 PM
  3. So, Why Are You Up So Early/Late?
    By RansomedbyFire in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-21-2007, 03:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO