If Fox News is like someone shitting in your living room, listening to Alex Jones is like installing an open sewer that runs straight into your hot-tub and then spending two hours a day stewing in his bubbling poop.
I wouldn't like this art he's speaking of at all but I am so against censorship I believe it has a right to exist - originally posted on this page by scumgod13
@s420s666s91 I agree, Artists such as Goya have painted rotting flesh/dismembered bodies/maggots hundreds of years before Alex Jones was alive in the 'Disasters of War' series. Of course many people said this was not art at the time (oh how wrong they were)..I love Alex Jones and respect his opinions on everything else.
BUILDING 7 WASNT HIT!! NORAD WAS TOLD TO STAND DOWN!!! JET FUEL DOSENT MELT STEEL!! BIN LADENS FAMILY WAS ALLOWED TO FLY OUT OF THE U.S.A !! WAKE UP FOOLS!!! PLEASE WAKE YOUR IGNORANT ASSES UP!!
interesting, its true though, i went to the Whitney in NYC a couple of times for their annualy art show, 90% of the work was death, killing, skulls, cows, maggots, etc, Rich people going "wow"
I make Art in order to question the world around me, as much - and maybe more than Alex does. Im no maggot worshipper. My work is in the same vein as many of the artists he mentions..their work, and its abject nature is rather a reaction to the classical constraints of the Art establishent (i.e. the use of blood.. marc quinn ( a cast of his head made from his own blood).flies as in damien hirsts life cycle work is used in a way to upset the posh upper class global elite) thats my 2 cents anyway
@tomwhittaker69 your conscience convicted you to justify what you are doing because, innately, you know its wrong. Tying a dog up and not feeding it until it dies is not art, maggots covering the body of a child is not art. The Mona Lisa is art, the Cistine Chapel is art, Monet is art
@snappa52 As you fail to notice in your uneducated comment I am not a maggot worshipper. I am a great fan of Alex Jones, 'Terrorstorm' and the 'Obama Deception' are seminal works of free speech and deserve more recognition than they have achieved to this date. However, I feel for you, your experience of Art is very narrowminded, the works you mention (mona lisa, cistine chapel) are indeed works of Art but they were done centuries ago, how are they at all relevant to todays population?
@snappa52 Secondly Monet, an artist you obviously hold in high regard, was lampooned by the Paris Art establishment early in his career.. His style of Impressionism was laughed at by many classical painters of the time (they said all his paintings appeared unfinished because he was interested in how the texture of paint could resemble things i.e. lillies etc.) Artists are used to these kinds of comments when they do something new, we have been getting them for centuries..
@snappa52 Thirdly, I know through my connections in the art world, and through the opinions of many art blogs and magazines that the work involving the dog is not accepted by the art world what-so-ever,it was a cruel and despicable act that we all believed gave art a bad name. It is wrong to judge millions of artists all over the world by the works of one or two people.In conlusionArt isessentially the same as free speech - either everything is okay to say, or nothing is. Thats the way it works.
@snappa52 ''your conscience convicted you to justify what you are doing because, innately, you know its wrong..'' You know nothing about me, I am just a comment on the internet to you, so please do not tell me what I know and dont know.. because ultimately, you have never met me and are in no position to comment. I will be happy to discuss Art with you however :)
@tomwhittaker69 reject what you said about this so called maggot art and things like it and we can have a discussion. if you consider a represenation of a child covered in maggots art we have nothing to discuss
@snappa52 No, the idea of the world is that anyone can have an opinion, and that opinion may be different to the one you hold, that is free speech/free expression. Therefore I refuse to reject what I have said about Art so far because it is my opinion. Also I have not stated at any point in the last few comments about liking children covered in maggots... Now that I have made this clear maybe you have another educated response..? I thought not.
@tomwhittaker69 I'm not stopping you from doing anything, but I won't have a conversation with someone so immoral. You said that you work with pieces of "art" in this genre, so you might want to check again Master Educator
@snappa52 You commanded me to reject my opinions.. I call that trying to stop me thinking something at the very least. How am I so immoral? You know nothing of my beliefs apart from those on art. And you are correct I did say I make art in that genre, but just to stop misinterpretation.. nothing using bodily fluids, animals, maggots or children. However Francisco Goya made work in that genre though,in the early 1800's!!! this kind of art is not new.
@tomwhittaker69 you may be an artist, but you need reading comprehension. I said for us to start a dialogue you would have to reject your past comments on controversial art in the comment string of this video.
@snappa52 1. I will not change my opinion unless I am challenged intellectually on the points I have made and can be proven to be wrong..especially those about prominent artists (Goya, Monet..) and how their work was at first considered 'degenerate art' hundreds of years ago..
2. We are already in a dialogue.
3. Be specific, use evidence, and say why the points I have made are wrong
@snappa52 I agree,morals should always play a part in life..and so should human rights, such as freedom of speech, and freedom of expression.. If you censor stuff like this, then whoever holds that power is likely to abuse it and become part of the problem of which alex speaks.'Death culture' is not from modern art..Think of the hundreds of military conflicts in history. art was very different before then.the roots of cubism and abstraction came from the chaos. The world is always full of death.
@snappa52 Once again you ignore my factual points and attack me with trivial allegations. At no point during any of my comments do I play a victim, I simply make the point that with freedom of speech, and even more so with freedom of expression that Artists have the right to make work about any subject they like (within explicit moral boundaries). What is possibly more human than protecting my human rights? (yes, freedom of expression is a fundamental human right)
@tomwhittaker69 you play the victim by alleging that I'm infringing on your freedom of speech. Artists who deal in the death culture are not artists, they are shock jocks
@snappa52 ...and you have to have some knowledge to have a firm grasp of historical truth. This is called being intellectual and making an informed decision. You need to watch some Richard Dawkins.
@tomwhittaker69 richard dawkins is a self aggrandizing pseudo intellectual. Being intellectual, you would see that glorifying death is counterproductive. It makes the people who participate in that industry desensitized to death
Dawkins at no point wishes to hyperbolise himself, I disagree with that. I merely used him as an example of how to form a opinion based on well tested and documented facts. But how to also be open to them changing when someone comes along with better evidence. However, in response to you, I think that nobody glorifies death more than religion, which it has done for centuries. I make art about Death, and am I still scared of it? Yes. Do I want to die? No. So much more than art to blame.
@tomwhittaker69 Dawkins behavior was thought to be so embarassing and circus like that he was removed from the honorary professorship that he held. Atheists are embarassed by his bombastic behavior. Atheists have killed more people than all of the religious wars combined, especially in the 20th century. The religion you allude to, Christianity, is a religion of life. It was co-opted for a time by politicians. Judeo-Christian principles founded the country you live in.
@snappa52 Some atheists think he is a little over the top with his views, but all he does really is to take a position similar to religious nuts, i.e. he believes in what he says so much he will not listen to anyone else. Atheists may have killed more people in your opinion than all wars put together, but what about the centuries of religious war.. the crusades etc. that went on before the 20th century..
@tomwhittaker69 religious nuts were pioneers in physics, astronomy, and art. Johannes Kepler was a priest and he contributed more to natural science, physics and mathematics than Dawkins could ever dream of. What do atheists have to say? there is nothing new, they make light of the people who have faith, spend all of their time on a hedonistic diatribe without aknowledging that the Judeo-Christian ethic shaped and formed their world view. they sound like elitist snobs
@snappa52 Sorry for the late reply. Johannes Kepler was certainly a pioneer of astronomy/astrology, and did discover some important things, namely the laws of planetary motion disproving the bible in Job I think it is where it says that the earth is 'hanging' or 'fixed' in position. Where Kepler fails is when he weaves religion into his findings, stating that he beleived the world was created by intelligent design, surely contradicting his religious standing at the time.
@tomwhittaker69 believing in God does not affect his work at all, but atheism is clouding your judgement. Einstein toyed with the idea of deism, Newton was Christian, and it did not affect their science in a bad way at all. I stand by my comment, Kepler is a vastly more important scientists than Dawkins. Job is a translation, when you are an expert in Hebrew or Aramaic feel free to commentate on what is a contradiction and what is not. Until then you should defer to the people who are qualified
@snappa52 Atheism allows me to be open to debate and to challenge orthodox views, if that is clouded judgement then I do not know what is. Einstein did toy with the idea of deism, himself being Jewish, but he stumbled on the greater question.. if there is a creator, then who created the creator? And in answer to your other point, Job is a translation, and it was the experts translation that I was using for the basis of my argument. Are you qualified?
@snappa52 Atheism allows me to be open to debate and to challenge orthodox views, if that is clouded judgement then I do not know what is. Einstein did toy with the idea of deism, himself being Jewish, but he stumbled on the greater question.. if there is a creator, then who created the creator? And in answer to your other point, Job is a translation, and it was the experts translation that I was using for the basis of my argument. Are you qualified?
@tomwhittaker69 the "who created the creator" was his musing. a creator does not need to be created. There is no contradiction with God and science, but people in your clique have a problem with the strict morality the Bible provides. Whether you admit it or not, you are still governed by the principles of the Bible in your personal life and public life. Atheism does not provide for morality. I'm qualified to tell you that you need to go to a concordance to look at the intent of Job.
@snappa52 Atheists are just as moral as Theists. The Bible does not govern my personal life in any way, it is just 'common sense' to not kill and to not steal etc. It is wrong to account that with the bible, its simply one of the first times it was written down. You should read 'What an Atheist Ought to Stand For' 1999 by Richard Carrier, its a manifesto of what many atheists believe and shows your views to be unfounded.
@tomwhittaker69 I'm not saying an atheist can't be moral, but its not derived from the atheist belief system, you borrow from the Judeo-Christianity ethic that you ridicule. The governing authority for an atheist is survival of the fittest, so to kill, or to steal or whatever you like is acceptable because the fittest rise to the top through evolution. Common sense does not sanction you against stealing or killing, morality does. "common sense" is accepting that you might go to jail for killing
@snappa52 I think you are getting confused between Evolution and Atheism, they are completely different things. Atheism is not modelled on evolution and does not profess to explain the origins of the universe or life itself, it is merely the rejection of the belief in deity's and other supernatural powers. God is not necessary for morality. I wondered how long it would take for you to bring up the Axiological argument.
@tomwhittaker69 no, darwin begs the question of atheism. God was necessary for the moral foundations of our culture. You are now sitting on God's lap to spit in his face
@snappa52 Darwin first realised the brutality of nature, and lead him to challenge his own religious views.This is not a bad thing! Especially as he was confronted with such extraordinary evidence, take the bones in your arm.. the same bones appear in all other mammals but in different sizes and shapes.That could definately be argued as begging the question of no divine intervention, as it shows evidence of common ancenstry. What you fail to see is that morals evolved too.
@tomwhittaker69 or the bones in the arm could be evidence of a design template. we could go back and forth like this all day. What I find unbearable is death "art". I dont care if your an atheist, but you could at least try to be the first atheist who is not a condescending snob
@snappa52 We finally agree on something,we could go back and forth like this all day?So why do we not not try and learn to accept each others views as being different, and work from there.What I also find unbearable is your tolerance of Art, you fail to see the parallel between freedom of expression and freedom of speech, something which Alex Jones vehemently defends ps I do notcall a well researched argument for which I presented actual evidence,instead of just offensive jargon,'condescending'
@snappa52 I s'pose I could also say.. What about fossils? But I bet you would retort with 'God put them there to test us' - even with Dinosaurs I bet. I have a different world view than yours, even a different belief system, but that does not make me any less human.. I even make Art that is sometimes about death which again does not make me any less human, for death is a human truth. If you are a true follower of your religion, Christianity, then forgive me.
@tomwhittaker69 i dont have a problem with scientific theories or mathematics. I have a problem with people who are self styled elitists, like you. You did not refute anything that was said in this video, but you took the time to be an apologist for it. Now you are portraying people who have faith as liliputian, when it is you who is small minded. You are a typical self styled liberal, a person who looks down on the world as backward when its you who is out of touch with reality
@snappa52 No, you deff have a problem with scientific theories because they contradict your religious views,thats what we have been discussing.And how is a poor art student, like myself,a member of a self styled elite?I express what I want to say in a picture or an installation piece and thats wrong?I think its called freedom of expression,a human right.I did refute many things Alex says in the video,especially when I talk about classically 'abject' work by Goya etc.It is you who do not respond.
@snappa52 I made the point about bones in the arm appearing in all mammals as evidence for evolution, and you said this could have been evidence for intelligent design.. there is a contradiction there.. and just to correct you.. I am Mr.Atheologian.
@tomwhittaker69 you can't just "say" there is a contradiction, you have to prove it. I said there could be proof for a design template in the instance of a mammal's arm. how is that a contradiction?
@snappa52 Wow, you must have been hard work at school. The contradiction is because evolution in turn disputes the view that a creator designed each thing in nature to be exactly how it is.. (intelligent design, design template.. your view.etc.) .Evolution says that all mammals, and indeed every living thing, came from common ancestors which evolved into separate forms of life, and so they therefore share some physical traits.. such as bone structure in mammals.. It contradicts design theory.
@tomwhittaker69 the evolutionary theory is not a static theory, it changes with every bit of new information scientists find. to cite this theory as the beginning and end of the matter doesnt do the scientific process justice. its the best scientists can describe things now with the information they have. Why is bone structure in mammals a contradiction? you can't derive something from nothing, and if you can prove that something derives from nothing I would like to hear it
@snappa52 Moreover, as I do not think I explained it well. You believe God created everything as it is (i.e. it all suddenly appeared).. Evolutionary Biologists, Biologists etc. believe that life changed gradually over millions of years.. with common ancestors evolving into completely separate organisms and therefore sharing traits such as bone structure etc. The contradiction is with creationism.
@tomwhittaker69 I've never said that it suddenly appeared, and the bible does not say that. You can't derive something from nothing. Someone had to be the impetus behind the big bang, someone had to set the spark of life. I'm not aware of any scientific experiment that witnessed life springing from nothingness
@snappa52 Creation is described in Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 as occurring in six "days"... and on the last day god rested.. etc you must know that.. And you are right, there is no scientific experiment/theory that tries to prove life sprang out of nothingness in its finished form..I do not see what that proves though. And why does someone have to be the impetus behind the big bang?Explain. Science does not pretend to know the answers to everything.
@tomwhittaker69 That is the english transliteration, use a concordance. After you read what the word "days" transliterates back into hebrew/aramaic, we'll discuss it further. There has to be an impetus behind the big bang, if not it defies all of the laws of physics. I've never said that claimed science know everything, I said that you are using the theory of evolution to explain what can't be explained through the natural order
@snappa52 It can be argued, for example, that our moral conscience was evolutionarily selected for, especially in light of animal behavior which is suggestive of a rudimentary “moral conscience.” Chimpanzees exhibit what appears to be fear and shame when they do something that violates the rules of their group. Should we conclude that chimpanzees fear God? Or is it more likely that such feelings are natural in social animals and that they have no knowledge of God? This applies to humans too.
@tomwhittaker69 its been argued? I have proof that says atheists dont believe in God, but they believe in Darwin's evolutionary theory. The theory says "survival of the fittest". yet, you live under the Judeo-Christian foundations of the west. that is something I find hard to reconcile
@snappa52 You have already commanded me to reject my opinions once and now you still find it so unbearably hard that someone has a view different than yours? Thats fascism. And how does survival of the fittest contradict your 'Judeo-Christian' foundations? Surely you see how life is modelled on that principle to this day, especially in Western Geopolitics and Economy..? Now im not saying that is a good thing, but when you realise that it influences all life, you will be astounded.
@snappa52 No fascism is a right wing radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology. I am not acting like a victim, im actually using facts to back up my arguments, you use quasi-facts and ignore the ones that prove you wrong about your supposed 'death culture'.
@tomwhittaker69 You have the freedom to speak, I have the freedom not to listen. That is not fascist. You've written little essays void of fact, its all cojecture and opinion. glorifying death through art is not a public service
@snappa52 Well, at least I have taken the time to present a balanced summary of my beliefs. At no point have I mentioned anything about public service.. or even glorifying death. Death is simply a part of life, and artists make work about life - I am sure you will try to prove this wrong using the very limited view of contemporary art that you know. All I am saying is, and I think you are saying this back to me in a different form, dont make judgements in an area where you have no knowledge.
@snappa52 I also have the freedom to make art about anything I like. You may have the freedom not to listen, but I have listened to you and everything you have had to say about my life.. Even though I dont agree with it. I also would like to take this time to thank you for challenging my views, its healthy and part of life.. However after many of your pockmarked retorts you have only served to reinforce my own beliefs. Art does not glorify death, there is so much more than art to blame first.
@tomwhittaker69 I've never said that "art" as a group glorifies death. You make a habit of stating things you would like me to have said, so that you can debate yourself. I've said that you, by participating in this genre, aid the group that glorifies death and killing. Our culture glorifies death instead of exulting life
@snappa52 You also told me 'your conscience convicted you to justify what you are doing because, innately, you know its wrong' which actually, grammatically, makes no sense.. and those were your first few words! I said I make work within the same 'vein'.. I meant it as a broad term as I also make lots of other work which is completely unrelated to it.. I think to say that Western culture glorifies death instead of life is wrong however.It does in some, and not in others. Do not generalise.
@tomwhittaker69 I've already said that atheists borrow their morality from Judeo-Christians. That doesnt mean they are not moral, it means their belief system, atheism, does not provide morality.
@snappa52 You are again getting confused... Atheism was never intended to influence morality, it assumes that we are all naturally moral and have enough common sense to know not to kill, steal, etc. What i am saying is that just because Atheism provides no strict guidelines on morality, it does not mean that its followers are completely immoral. You are confusing atheism with a religion of some kind, it is not. It is simply the disbelief in the existence of a deity, and nothing more.
@tomwhittaker69 I've never said that atheist are immoral, they can be very moral. I can speak for myself, thank you. You berate people for their belief in God on one hand, and live by the moral code created by Judeo-Christians in the other. That is the point, you have to sit on God's lap to attempt to spit in his face
@snappa52 You said atheists have killed more people than any other religion put together, which is of course an attack upon atheists morality.the people of whom you spoke did not commit those crimes because of atheism, they did it for other reasonspolitical ones mainly.As I again return to points I made weeks ago it can be argued that morality was evolutionary selected for.Chimps exhibit what appears to be fear/shame when they violate the rules of their group, do you conclude chimps fear god?
@snappa52 Well its not a very good rebuttal. To this date nobody has ever committed atrocities in the name of Atheism, but yet scores of examples can be given for atrocities committed in the name of religion.
@tomwhittaker69 "nobody has ever committed atrocities in the name of Atheism"
That is a straw man arguement, i've never said anything like that. Monarchs forcing their subjects to fight and kill with the threat of death, imprisonment, or hell is not remotely of the Christian doctrine. its a co-opting of faith system for personal gain. Crusaders couldnt even read the NT, so they were naive and fooled.
@snappa52 You said to me, in order to justify one of your principles, that atheists have killed more people in the 20th century than anyone else... I cant find the original message or I would quote it. This is wrong, nobody on record has ever committed atrocities in the name of atheism.. The crusaders were religious zealots who forced their principles on cultures that had their own beliefs... The crusades were initiated by the church!
@tomwhittaker69 i certainly said atheist, but i've never intimated atheists killling in the name of atheism. I've already touched on the crusades, maybe you should read that again
@snappa52 Well you change your view now of course, but the context which you used it in was definately 'atheists killing in the name of atheism' after I stated that during the crusades men killed and subjugated others in the name of religion.. something which cannot be denied.
@snappa52 I do not admonish people for their beliefs..whatever their culture I accept that people have views different to mine.. its part of being liberal. All I have done is appear on a youtube comment saying I like Alex Jones and many of his views, but I do not agree with his views on contemporary art.. and it lead to this. If you really are a true follower of your faith, then forgive me.. forgiving is one of the pillars of christianity, or am I mistaken?
@tomwhittaker69 the moral code being evolutionally selected for flies in the face of natural selection. if survival of the fittest is your pillar, you should be able to act however you want.
@snappa52 Again you misunderstand 'Survival of the fittest'.. It was coined to explain 'Natural Selection' by Herbert Spencer after Darwin, but became open to abuse as the definition of Natural selection is a 'natural process resulting in the evolution of organisms best adapted to their environment'..Not 'you can do anything want, kill, steal, rape etc because I am fitter than you' (a view also held by social darwinists who had little to do with Darwin)
@tomwhittaker69 survival of the fittest is manifested through eugenics, and Darwin was one of the first to dabble in it as his family didnt marry outside of the immediate family to create a superior person. If humans are part of the natural order, suvival of the fittest has to apply, otherwise you are borrowing from the Judeo-Christian ethic again. people best adapted to the environment, under survival of the fittest, should be able to do anything to ensure their progency survives
@snappa52 Again, ypu ignore what I have said. Any animal that survives long enough to reproduce is seen as 'fit' - it is applied to humans in terms of reproduction.. but not in human law! Darwin never meant his theory to be used to explain all of human nature.. It was the social darwinists.. who came much later who used to term as you do, to justify all actions. ..it does not mention a key requirement for natural selection, namely the requirement of heritability.
@tomwhittaker69 if humans are part of the natural order, why would it not apply to them? heritability for humans would be to subdue others to offer a more suitable life for your progeny to reproduce
@snappa52 Natural Selection is all about reproduction, and passing on of characteristics into the genepool.. It applies to humans in the sense of reproduction, wealthy individuals are now seen as attractive etc. But modelling the 'survival of the fittest' principal in a political sense, which is what I was trying to explain, is wrong. Heretability, in definition, is the passing of characteristics between generations to create genetic variation. It does not mean to 'subdue others'...
@snappa52 It is social darwinism that attempts to 'subdue others' and pays no attention to altruism in humans.. something that should have died out if the natural world was actually modelled on their 'survival of the fittest' principle. For do we feel sad when others are sad, or care for those who are sick when it is of no benefit to us, why not just 'subdue them'.. in your eyes. if the world is as you say then altruism would not exist.
@tomwhittaker69 the governor is conscience and a divine moral law, not synapses firing a certain way or chemical reactions in the brain. Its not in my eyes because it is not my world view, this is your world view. You believe in a world devoid of a divine creator, so nature becomes the governor in His place. If nature is the governor then there is survival of the fittest and whatever it takes to pass your genes forward to the next generation will be done to ensure that.
@snappa52 Again, your confused. Look up the origins of the term 'survival of the fittest'.. it is not even part of Darwins theory.. instead he uses the term Natural Selection because it better describes his ideas. The Nazi's like survival of the fittest though, and so do you.
@tomwhittaker69 Darwins theory isnt used anymore, its a hybrid of some of his theories and new theories that have proven him wrong. Are you really out of arguements already? you've been building straw man after straw man, and now its the nazi ad hominem card. The theory of evolution has evolved beyond Darwin, a learned naturalist like yourself should know that
@snappa52 Straw man? I don't think so. Not once have I mentioned that Darwin is the be all and end all on evolution.. The theory was written a while ago now, before any serious medical knowledge about genes and DNA came about.. He knew he couldnt explain everything.. Research since then, such as that done by Richard Dawkins and many other notable scientists has filled in the gaps in Darwin's theory, as opposed to proving it wrong..
@snappa52 Well, as I said, Darwin was effectively working with no knowledge of DNA and many other scientific concepts that aid the understanding of evolution at a molecular level. Darwin has not been proved wrong as such, but rather the gaps in his theory have been filled in by later research.
@snappa52 ..modern studies have filled in the gaps in Darwin's theory rather than proving him wrong. This is because Darwin was working with no knowledge of things like bacteria, and dna.. Modern studies have shed even more light on the subject so that we now understand it better than ever.. in other words arguing that Darwin was wrong is a bit like saying the world is 'flat' nowadays.
@tomwhittaker69 Darwin thought because a man and an ape had a head, arms, and legs, we must come from a common ancestor. DNA evidence proved him wrong. His grandfather came up with the theory of evolution anyway. Darwin grew up believing in the evolutionary theory.
@snappa52 That is not the main reason he knew we evolved from apes.. but it is one of them.. How has the DNA evidence proved him wrong? You cannot just 'say' he is wrong, you need to back it up.. as I said get some debating skills..
@tomwhittaker69 don't lecture me on debating skills, yours consists of making things up and debating yourself as if I made the claim. Where is the link that shows the great leap from ape to man?
@tomwhittaker69 If I was going to prove something historically i would need a series of links that lead me to my conclusion. These two finds that you've mentioned are pieces to a puzzle, not a conclusive part of a series of finds that lead us to where we are now. I don't dispute some sort of evolution occurred, or can occurr, I just dont subscribe to the line mainstream evolutionists do
@snappa52 'Pieces of a puzzle'.. exactly right. I believe I made the same point too at an earlier time.. If you believe in some form of evolution then why have you agued with great vigour against it in your previous messages..? Very confusing, sir.
@snappa52 The two finds are not conclusive proof, you are right. But in the case of the 'Australopithicus'.. it is a creature that is neither human nor ape more of a 50/50 mix.. It is great circumstantial evidence for evolution in humans and proves that our genetic ancestry was a rich, diverse and full of many different types on the 'homo' genus.
@snappa52 Making things up? You can look up all of my facts because they are true.. Unlike you I don't just say things are true, Im well read enough to be able to back my points up.. I invite you to take any point I have made and challenge it.. I will prove that is is not made up and is based on evidence and logic.
@snappa52 1. Charles Darwin knew nothing of genetics, the closest he came was to a 'blending' of characteristics.The problem with this, which Darwin appreciated, was that after a few generations any variation would be blended away, giving natural selection nothing to work on. Darwin devoted much thought to this issue, but never found a satisfactory answer..
@snappa52 No you didnt say he knew anything about genetics, but it was part of my point directed back at you. And if you can back your point up about science proving him ignorant with real facts then I welcome you to take that line of debate with me... I'm pretty sure you won't and can't..
@tomwhittaker69 your strategy is to avoid and deflect. You dont answer my points completely, you introduce other things that i've never mentioned, and you argue with yourself over the new informaiton you've introduced. I don't need to look back at your posts to figure that out
@snappa52 At least when you make a point I answer it.. such as the great link question.. or your point on on survival of the fittest.. I actually reply and bring up other points that are related to the topic that prove you wrong. If you would like to continue this by email I would be more than happy to do so, its not really fair for us to use up all this guys comment wall.
@tomwhittaker69 didnt prove me wrong, without a higher power good and evil is completely subjective. Good would be relative to what you perceive is best for you, bad would be what is worst for you. Science can only say one person was more successful because he passed on his genes, and the way he felt about it was nothing more than chemical reactions in his brain. When you bring a system of morality into the equation, you borrow from the Judeo-Christian ethic, which shaped the culture of the west
@snappa52 You see, this is where we differ. My opinion is that morality, while tied to religion, existed in some form before any of them began to preach their forms of morality. Also the widespread understanding of contemporary civilization holds that, over the course of the modern age, theology has been replaced by philosophy, an orientation toward the past by an orientation toward the future, traditional teachings by subjective evidence, fidelity to origins by innovation, and so on..
@snappa52 In "The Laws" Plato does indeed take a dim view of atheists and also writes, at length, how they should be punished or rehabilitated.However for someone who was born 427- 428 BC(before christ)and to use the term 'atheist' in the same way we do today is wholly improbable.What you meant in response as an 'atheist' is the modern understanding of the word (non-belief in the Christian..at least the Abrahamic god common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam). In this sense Plato is an atheist.
@tomwhittaker69 the first rule of textual criticism is to go off of what is written, not to interpolate. You dont know Plato's mind, but you do know what he wrote, stick with that. Nietzche, Sartre, Engels, Marx, all grew up in a society that based its law on the Judeo-Christian ethic. They are borrowing from the source they try to discredit.
@snappa52 I know what he wrote, and his birth date!427-428BC.Around four hundred years before the founding and rise of Christianity!!!!.A time when people worshipped the gods of the ancient world.How on earth could he have not been an atheist in the modern sense?,the same sense in which you used the term.When Plato talks about atheists,he is talking about non-believers in the gods of the ancient world.The first rules of textual criticism are surely to getyour facts right and to not generalise..?
@tomwhittaker69 before Christianity, after Judaism. Christianity is a sect of Judaism. My facts are correct. Atheism does not discriminate against any belief in God, so its all relevant
@snappa52 Were they not just 'free-thinkers' born into a world dominated by religion? Did they have any choice as to what culture they were born into?
Philosophers who came before religion, especially the Judeo-Christian religions of which you defend, talked about morality at a length.(There is a whole branch of philosophy entitled 'moral philosophy'). Socrates, someone you mentioned earlier, and even Aristotle.. began to discuss human morality long before religion ever did.
@tomwhittaker69 Aristotle was not an atheist. you are making another straw man with the culture they were born into. Atheism does not have a belief system apart from what they received from the Judeo-Christian ethic
@snappa52 I never said he was an atheist.. If you had read what I said then you would understand my point. I merely said Aristotle talks about morality long before Christianity and without the influence of any religion..
@snappa52 Implicit in Aristotle's writings is the attitude that every aspect of human life and society may be an appropriate object of thought and analysis; the notion that the universe is not controlled by blind chance, by magic, or by the whims of capricious deities, but that its behavior is subject to rational laws, and the belief that it is worthwhile for human beings to conduct a systematic inquiry into every aspect of the natural world.
@tomwhittaker69 rational laws? newton, kepler, capernicus, and galileo were all rational thinkers with a faith in God, that rationale you tried to slip in is stale.
@snappa52 Yes, rational. And Galileo? Possibly the worst example to use.. he was imprisoned by the church for suggesting the earth went around the sun.
@tomwhittaker69 the church imprisoned him, but the Catholic Church is not Jesus and did not affect his faith. There is no biblical evidence they could use to proport that the heavenly bodies traveled around the earth, that was church doctrine, not biblical
@snappa52 The Church imprisoned him.. the church are supposed to be Gods representatives on the earth.. The Pope is supposed to be chosen by God to this day... The Bible was used as evidence to imprison Galileo at the time.. .Your views are unfounded on this subject.
@snappa52 'Church Doctrine' still gets in the way to this day.. which is why the Catholic church has a bandwagon of paedophile padre's that it protects and is lead by an ex-member of the Hitler Youth.
This does not make any sense.. please explain what you mean by: 'Atheism does not discriminate against any belief in God, so its all relevant'. My point was that if Plato suddenly travelled through time today, and you told him about Christianity, then he would almost certainly not believe you.. notably because he was born 420 years or so before christ is supposed to have walked the earth.. Plato believed in Zeus etc. Therefore, in our understanding of the term, he is an Atheist.
@tomwhittaker69 atheism is against all forms of organized religion, so everyone's faith is pertinent. Judaism was around when Plato was walking the earth, christianity is a sect of Judaism
@snappa52 Plato uses the term in a different way...the Greeks believed in multiple gods (Zeus, Hera) but those gods never enforced morality onto them.They never received a set list of what is right and what is just. They simply used their own moral codes and followed their own laws (made by man!)No god came down and told them what was right and wrong and yet they had perhaps one the greatest, most successful, advanced and philosophically aware civilizations of the ancient world.
@tomwhittaker69 The Greek society becoming preeminent was because of Solon's reforms, and they didnt last long as a preeminent philosophical culture. We had to get the writings of the ancient greeks from the Muslim areas. Success is longevity, and the Greece you are talking about didnt last long once it reached it's philosophical awareness. You are parsing when you try to differentiate between levels of faith.
@snappa52 You completely dismiss the influence Ancient Greece has had on the West.It is noted by many historians as the seminal culture that laid the foundations of Western Civilisation..Which is why we still read the works of their philosophers...Why we still celebrate their olympic games etc.There are no levels of faith,all beliefs are equal,including atheism.It is my contention that Ancient Greece has had just as much effect on the West,if not more,than your proposed 'Judeo-Christian ethic'
@tomwhittaker69 I didnt dismiss anything, if it was not for alexander or rome the greek ideals would have stayed in greece. There were no democratic systems within the west until the English, Dutch, and Americans. Christianity is not a political system of national governance, it's for personal governance. The greeks provided a political framework, the Judeo-Christian ethic supported that through their adherence to everyone being equal supported democratic systems
@snappa52 "Success is longevity, and the Greece you are talking about didnt last long once it reached it's philosophical awareness." If you measure a country by how long it lasts rather than the culture it produces then surely Ancient Rome was a more successful country than modern day America (because its older).
As you see, there is no logic in your argument for: "Success is longevity".
The early ideas of democracy, and representation were founded in Ancient Athens. Man can govern himself.
@tomwhittaker69 we've been at this for a while, please use the arguements I present and not what you perceive them to be. ask a question if you are not sure what I mean.
@snappa52 Yes, we have been at this for a while. We can continue this by email at any time.. just ask for my address.. then we can get past this annoying character limit. There is so much more I need to say.
You can't stop us.
You monkeys are going to continue to dance for us.
There are many lulz to be had on this rotten skull of a planet.
You "people" are pathetic.
I'm sorry you can't see the humor and delight in death.
AnonymousElektron 2 months ago
If Fox News is like someone shitting in your living room, listening to Alex Jones is like installing an open sewer that runs straight into your hot-tub and then spending two hours a day stewing in his bubbling poop.
asubjectiveopinion 5 months ago
Modern art is disgusting! Vincent Van Gogh... now HE was a good artist!
JamesHolman1000 6 months ago
CHINESE COCKSUCKER EATING A BABY?! AAAAAAAH! FUCK THAT SHIT!
BoxingPride 6 months ago
A BIll Hicks wannabe...'wannabe' the key word here, lol!
coeyp 8 months ago
eewwwhhh ! eeawwwhhh! Sexual excitement, eeaaahhh eaaaahhhh eaaaahhhhhhhh!!!
savemyplaylist 9 months ago in playlist Alex Jones
LOL. Clever trolls are clever.
Gettinghitonattheban 10 months ago
There is no god, you worm
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
Comment removed
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
it's grotesque art. who cares what alex jones thinks! hes a crazy conservative fucktard
scatcoitus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I wouldn't like this art he's speaking of at all but I am so against censorship I believe it has a right to exist - originally posted on this page by scumgod13
this is not spam.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
I wouldn't like this art he's speaking of at all but I am so against censorship I believe it has a right to exist.
scumgod13 1 year ago 3
i can not belive the world is as half fucked up as he makes it sound.. there no way Maggot worshippers really exist, its just not human.
s420s666s91 1 year ago
@s420s666s91 I agree, Artists such as Goya have painted rotting flesh/dismembered bodies/maggots hundreds of years before Alex Jones was alive in the 'Disasters of War' series. Of course many people said this was not art at the time (oh how wrong they were)..I love Alex Jones and respect his opinions on everything else.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
BUILDING 7 WASNT HIT!! NORAD WAS TOLD TO STAND DOWN!!! JET FUEL DOSENT MELT STEEL!! BIN LADENS FAMILY WAS ALLOWED TO FLY OUT OF THE U.S.A !! WAKE UP FOOLS!!! PLEASE WAKE YOUR IGNORANT ASSES UP!!
TheJFLAMEZ 1 year ago
"They are the Rotten Flesh Maggot Cult" xD jajaja lmfao!!!
semillasdelorto 1 year ago
Yeah, because Damien Hurst can really choose his own name before he's even born...
exendar 1 year ago
interesting, its true though, i went to the Whitney in NYC a couple of times for their annualy art show, 90% of the work was death, killing, skulls, cows, maggots, etc, Rich people going "wow"
newwavefuture 1 year ago
I make Art in order to question the world around me, as much - and maybe more than Alex does. Im no maggot worshipper. My work is in the same vein as many of the artists he mentions..their work, and its abject nature is rather a reaction to the classical constraints of the Art establishent (i.e. the use of blood.. marc quinn ( a cast of his head made from his own blood).flies as in damien hirsts life cycle work is used in a way to upset the posh upper class global elite) thats my 2 cents anyway
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 your conscience convicted you to justify what you are doing because, innately, you know its wrong. Tying a dog up and not feeding it until it dies is not art, maggots covering the body of a child is not art. The Mona Lisa is art, the Cistine Chapel is art, Monet is art
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 As you fail to notice in your uneducated comment I am not a maggot worshipper. I am a great fan of Alex Jones, 'Terrorstorm' and the 'Obama Deception' are seminal works of free speech and deserve more recognition than they have achieved to this date. However, I feel for you, your experience of Art is very narrowminded, the works you mention (mona lisa, cistine chapel) are indeed works of Art but they were done centuries ago, how are they at all relevant to todays population?
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@snappa52 Secondly Monet, an artist you obviously hold in high regard, was lampooned by the Paris Art establishment early in his career.. His style of Impressionism was laughed at by many classical painters of the time (they said all his paintings appeared unfinished because he was interested in how the texture of paint could resemble things i.e. lillies etc.) Artists are used to these kinds of comments when they do something new, we have been getting them for centuries..
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@snappa52 Thirdly, I know through my connections in the art world, and through the opinions of many art blogs and magazines that the work involving the dog is not accepted by the art world what-so-ever,it was a cruel and despicable act that we all believed gave art a bad name. It is wrong to judge millions of artists all over the world by the works of one or two people.In conlusionArt isessentially the same as free speech - either everything is okay to say, or nothing is. Thats the way it works.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@snappa52 ''your conscience convicted you to justify what you are doing because, innately, you know its wrong..'' You know nothing about me, I am just a comment on the internet to you, so please do not tell me what I know and dont know.. because ultimately, you have never met me and are in no position to comment. I will be happy to discuss Art with you however :)
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 reject what you said about this so called maggot art and things like it and we can have a discussion. if you consider a represenation of a child covered in maggots art we have nothing to discuss
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 No, the idea of the world is that anyone can have an opinion, and that opinion may be different to the one you hold, that is free speech/free expression. Therefore I refuse to reject what I have said about Art so far because it is my opinion. Also I have not stated at any point in the last few comments about liking children covered in maggots... Now that I have made this clear maybe you have another educated response..? I thought not.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 I'm not stopping you from doing anything, but I won't have a conversation with someone so immoral. You said that you work with pieces of "art" in this genre, so you might want to check again Master Educator
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 You commanded me to reject my opinions.. I call that trying to stop me thinking something at the very least. How am I so immoral? You know nothing of my beliefs apart from those on art. And you are correct I did say I make art in that genre, but just to stop misinterpretation.. nothing using bodily fluids, animals, maggots or children. However Francisco Goya made work in that genre though,in the early 1800's!!! this kind of art is not new.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 you may be an artist, but you need reading comprehension. I said for us to start a dialogue you would have to reject your past comments on controversial art in the comment string of this video.
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 1. I will not change my opinion unless I am challenged intellectually on the points I have made and can be proven to be wrong..especially those about prominent artists (Goya, Monet..) and how their work was at first considered 'degenerate art' hundreds of years ago..
2. We are already in a dialogue.
3. Be specific, use evidence, and say why the points I have made are wrong
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 its not about being intellectual, its about being immoral. The death culture is immoral
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 I agree,morals should always play a part in life..and so should human rights, such as freedom of speech, and freedom of expression.. If you censor stuff like this, then whoever holds that power is likely to abuse it and become part of the problem of which alex speaks.'Death culture' is not from modern art..Think of the hundreds of military conflicts in history. art was very different before then.the roots of cubism and abstraction came from the chaos. The world is always full of death.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 stop playing the victim, no one is talking about censoring you. I'm calling on you as a human being to act like a human being
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 Once again you ignore my factual points and attack me with trivial allegations. At no point during any of my comments do I play a victim, I simply make the point that with freedom of speech, and even more so with freedom of expression that Artists have the right to make work about any subject they like (within explicit moral boundaries). What is possibly more human than protecting my human rights? (yes, freedom of expression is a fundamental human right)
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 you play the victim by alleging that I'm infringing on your freedom of speech. Artists who deal in the death culture are not artists, they are shock jocks
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 ...and you have to have some knowledge to have a firm grasp of historical truth. This is called being intellectual and making an informed decision. You need to watch some Richard Dawkins.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 richard dawkins is a self aggrandizing pseudo intellectual. Being intellectual, you would see that glorifying death is counterproductive. It makes the people who participate in that industry desensitized to death
snappa52 1 year ago
Dawkins at no point wishes to hyperbolise himself, I disagree with that. I merely used him as an example of how to form a opinion based on well tested and documented facts. But how to also be open to them changing when someone comes along with better evidence. However, in response to you, I think that nobody glorifies death more than religion, which it has done for centuries. I make art about Death, and am I still scared of it? Yes. Do I want to die? No. So much more than art to blame.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 Dawkins behavior was thought to be so embarassing and circus like that he was removed from the honorary professorship that he held. Atheists are embarassed by his bombastic behavior. Atheists have killed more people than all of the religious wars combined, especially in the 20th century. The religion you allude to, Christianity, is a religion of life. It was co-opted for a time by politicians. Judeo-Christian principles founded the country you live in.
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 Some atheists think he is a little over the top with his views, but all he does really is to take a position similar to religious nuts, i.e. he believes in what he says so much he will not listen to anyone else. Atheists may have killed more people in your opinion than all wars put together, but what about the centuries of religious war.. the crusades etc. that went on before the 20th century..
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
Comment removed
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 religious nuts were pioneers in physics, astronomy, and art. Johannes Kepler was a priest and he contributed more to natural science, physics and mathematics than Dawkins could ever dream of. What do atheists have to say? there is nothing new, they make light of the people who have faith, spend all of their time on a hedonistic diatribe without aknowledging that the Judeo-Christian ethic shaped and formed their world view. they sound like elitist snobs
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 Sorry for the late reply. Johannes Kepler was certainly a pioneer of astronomy/astrology, and did discover some important things, namely the laws of planetary motion disproving the bible in Job I think it is where it says that the earth is 'hanging' or 'fixed' in position. Where Kepler fails is when he weaves religion into his findings, stating that he beleived the world was created by intelligent design, surely contradicting his religious standing at the time.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 believing in God does not affect his work at all, but atheism is clouding your judgement. Einstein toyed with the idea of deism, Newton was Christian, and it did not affect their science in a bad way at all. I stand by my comment, Kepler is a vastly more important scientists than Dawkins. Job is a translation, when you are an expert in Hebrew or Aramaic feel free to commentate on what is a contradiction and what is not. Until then you should defer to the people who are qualified
snappa52 1 year ago
Comment removed
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
Comment removed
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@snappa52 Atheism allows me to be open to debate and to challenge orthodox views, if that is clouded judgement then I do not know what is. Einstein did toy with the idea of deism, himself being Jewish, but he stumbled on the greater question.. if there is a creator, then who created the creator? And in answer to your other point, Job is a translation, and it was the experts translation that I was using for the basis of my argument. Are you qualified?
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@snappa52 Atheism allows me to be open to debate and to challenge orthodox views, if that is clouded judgement then I do not know what is. Einstein did toy with the idea of deism, himself being Jewish, but he stumbled on the greater question.. if there is a creator, then who created the creator? And in answer to your other point, Job is a translation, and it was the experts translation that I was using for the basis of my argument. Are you qualified?
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 the "who created the creator" was his musing. a creator does not need to be created. There is no contradiction with God and science, but people in your clique have a problem with the strict morality the Bible provides. Whether you admit it or not, you are still governed by the principles of the Bible in your personal life and public life. Atheism does not provide for morality. I'm qualified to tell you that you need to go to a concordance to look at the intent of Job.
snappa52 1 year ago
Comment removed
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@snappa52 Atheists are just as moral as Theists. The Bible does not govern my personal life in any way, it is just 'common sense' to not kill and to not steal etc. It is wrong to account that with the bible, its simply one of the first times it was written down. You should read 'What an Atheist Ought to Stand For' 1999 by Richard Carrier, its a manifesto of what many atheists believe and shows your views to be unfounded.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 I'm not saying an atheist can't be moral, but its not derived from the atheist belief system, you borrow from the Judeo-Christianity ethic that you ridicule. The governing authority for an atheist is survival of the fittest, so to kill, or to steal or whatever you like is acceptable because the fittest rise to the top through evolution. Common sense does not sanction you against stealing or killing, morality does. "common sense" is accepting that you might go to jail for killing
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 I think you are getting confused between Evolution and Atheism, they are completely different things. Atheism is not modelled on evolution and does not profess to explain the origins of the universe or life itself, it is merely the rejection of the belief in deity's and other supernatural powers. God is not necessary for morality. I wondered how long it would take for you to bring up the Axiological argument.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 no, darwin begs the question of atheism. God was necessary for the moral foundations of our culture. You are now sitting on God's lap to spit in his face
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 Darwin first realised the brutality of nature, and lead him to challenge his own religious views.This is not a bad thing! Especially as he was confronted with such extraordinary evidence, take the bones in your arm.. the same bones appear in all other mammals but in different sizes and shapes.That could definately be argued as begging the question of no divine intervention, as it shows evidence of common ancenstry. What you fail to see is that morals evolved too.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 or the bones in the arm could be evidence of a design template. we could go back and forth like this all day. What I find unbearable is death "art". I dont care if your an atheist, but you could at least try to be the first atheist who is not a condescending snob
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 We finally agree on something,we could go back and forth like this all day?So why do we not not try and learn to accept each others views as being different, and work from there.What I also find unbearable is your tolerance of Art, you fail to see the parallel between freedom of expression and freedom of speech, something which Alex Jones vehemently defends ps I do notcall a well researched argument for which I presented actual evidence,instead of just offensive jargon,'condescending'
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
Comment removed
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@snappa52 I s'pose I could also say.. What about fossils? But I bet you would retort with 'God put them there to test us' - even with Dinosaurs I bet. I have a different world view than yours, even a different belief system, but that does not make me any less human.. I even make Art that is sometimes about death which again does not make me any less human, for death is a human truth. If you are a true follower of your religion, Christianity, then forgive me.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 i dont have a problem with scientific theories or mathematics. I have a problem with people who are self styled elitists, like you. You did not refute anything that was said in this video, but you took the time to be an apologist for it. Now you are portraying people who have faith as liliputian, when it is you who is small minded. You are a typical self styled liberal, a person who looks down on the world as backward when its you who is out of touch with reality
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 No, you deff have a problem with scientific theories because they contradict your religious views,thats what we have been discussing.And how is a poor art student, like myself,a member of a self styled elite?I express what I want to say in a picture or an installation piece and thats wrong?I think its called freedom of expression,a human right.I did refute many things Alex says in the video,especially when I talk about classically 'abject' work by Goya etc.It is you who do not respond.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 how do they contradict my religious views? name a few examples, Mr. Theologan
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 I made the point about bones in the arm appearing in all mammals as evidence for evolution, and you said this could have been evidence for intelligent design.. there is a contradiction there.. and just to correct you.. I am Mr.Atheologian.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 you can't just "say" there is a contradiction, you have to prove it. I said there could be proof for a design template in the instance of a mammal's arm. how is that a contradiction?
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 Wow, you must have been hard work at school. The contradiction is because evolution in turn disputes the view that a creator designed each thing in nature to be exactly how it is.. (intelligent design, design template.. your view.etc.) .Evolution says that all mammals, and indeed every living thing, came from common ancestors which evolved into separate forms of life, and so they therefore share some physical traits.. such as bone structure in mammals.. It contradicts design theory.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 the evolutionary theory is not a static theory, it changes with every bit of new information scientists find. to cite this theory as the beginning and end of the matter doesnt do the scientific process justice. its the best scientists can describe things now with the information they have. Why is bone structure in mammals a contradiction? you can't derive something from nothing, and if you can prove that something derives from nothing I would like to hear it
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 Moreover, as I do not think I explained it well. You believe God created everything as it is (i.e. it all suddenly appeared).. Evolutionary Biologists, Biologists etc. believe that life changed gradually over millions of years.. with common ancestors evolving into completely separate organisms and therefore sharing traits such as bone structure etc. The contradiction is with creationism.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 I've never said that it suddenly appeared, and the bible does not say that. You can't derive something from nothing. Someone had to be the impetus behind the big bang, someone had to set the spark of life. I'm not aware of any scientific experiment that witnessed life springing from nothingness
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 Creation is described in Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 as occurring in six "days"... and on the last day god rested.. etc you must know that.. And you are right, there is no scientific experiment/theory that tries to prove life sprang out of nothingness in its finished form..I do not see what that proves though. And why does someone have to be the impetus behind the big bang?Explain. Science does not pretend to know the answers to everything.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 That is the english transliteration, use a concordance. After you read what the word "days" transliterates back into hebrew/aramaic, we'll discuss it further. There has to be an impetus behind the big bang, if not it defies all of the laws of physics. I've never said that claimed science know everything, I said that you are using the theory of evolution to explain what can't be explained through the natural order
snappa52 1 year ago
Comment removed
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@snappa52 Again you ignore my points about art.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
p.s.s. For someone who did not think this was even a dialogue, you were very condescending to me aswell.. it works both ways pal.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@snappa52 It can be argued, for example, that our moral conscience was evolutionarily selected for, especially in light of animal behavior which is suggestive of a rudimentary “moral conscience.” Chimpanzees exhibit what appears to be fear and shame when they do something that violates the rules of their group. Should we conclude that chimpanzees fear God? Or is it more likely that such feelings are natural in social animals and that they have no knowledge of God? This applies to humans too.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 its been argued? I have proof that says atheists dont believe in God, but they believe in Darwin's evolutionary theory. The theory says "survival of the fittest". yet, you live under the Judeo-Christian foundations of the west. that is something I find hard to reconcile
snappa52 1 year ago
Comment removed
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@snappa52 You have already commanded me to reject my opinions once and now you still find it so unbearably hard that someone has a view different than yours? Thats fascism. And how does survival of the fittest contradict your 'Judeo-Christian' foundations? Surely you see how life is modelled on that principle to this day, especially in Western Geopolitics and Economy..? Now im not saying that is a good thing, but when you realise that it influences all life, you will be astounded.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 stop acting like a victim. its fascism when you are forced to do something
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 No fascism is a right wing radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology. I am not acting like a victim, im actually using facts to back up my arguments, you use quasi-facts and ignore the ones that prove you wrong about your supposed 'death culture'.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 You have the freedom to speak, I have the freedom not to listen. That is not fascist. You've written little essays void of fact, its all cojecture and opinion. glorifying death through art is not a public service
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 Well, at least I have taken the time to present a balanced summary of my beliefs. At no point have I mentioned anything about public service.. or even glorifying death. Death is simply a part of life, and artists make work about life - I am sure you will try to prove this wrong using the very limited view of contemporary art that you know. All I am saying is, and I think you are saying this back to me in a different form, dont make judgements in an area where you have no knowledge.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@snappa52 I also have the freedom to make art about anything I like. You may have the freedom not to listen, but I have listened to you and everything you have had to say about my life.. Even though I dont agree with it. I also would like to take this time to thank you for challenging my views, its healthy and part of life.. However after many of your pockmarked retorts you have only served to reinforce my own beliefs. Art does not glorify death, there is so much more than art to blame first.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 I've never said that "art" as a group glorifies death. You make a habit of stating things you would like me to have said, so that you can debate yourself. I've said that you, by participating in this genre, aid the group that glorifies death and killing. Our culture glorifies death instead of exulting life
snappa52 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@snappa52 You also told me 'your conscience convicted you to justify what you are doing because, innately, you know its wrong' which actually, grammatically, makes no sense.. and those were your first few words! I said I make work within the same 'vein'.. I meant it as a broad term as I also make lots of other work which is completely unrelated to it.. I think to say that Western culture glorifies death instead of life is wrong however.It does in some, and not in others. Do not generalise.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 please dont talk to me about grammar when you have trouble figuring out when to use "ize". Maybe you mean logically?
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 You did say an atheist can't be moral... 'Atheism does not provide for morality.' look two messages up.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 I've already said that atheists borrow their morality from Judeo-Christians. That doesnt mean they are not moral, it means their belief system, atheism, does not provide morality.
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 You are again getting confused... Atheism was never intended to influence morality, it assumes that we are all naturally moral and have enough common sense to know not to kill, steal, etc. What i am saying is that just because Atheism provides no strict guidelines on morality, it does not mean that its followers are completely immoral. You are confusing atheism with a religion of some kind, it is not. It is simply the disbelief in the existence of a deity, and nothing more.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 I've never said that atheist are immoral, they can be very moral. I can speak for myself, thank you. You berate people for their belief in God on one hand, and live by the moral code created by Judeo-Christians in the other. That is the point, you have to sit on God's lap to attempt to spit in his face
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 You said atheists have killed more people than any other religion put together, which is of course an attack upon atheists morality.the people of whom you spoke did not commit those crimes because of atheism, they did it for other reasonspolitical ones mainly.As I again return to points I made weeks ago it can be argued that morality was evolutionary selected for.Chimps exhibit what appears to be fear/shame when they violate the rules of their group, do you conclude chimps fear god?
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 no, its not an attack on atheists morality, its a rebuttal for the crusades and the like.
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 Well its not a very good rebuttal. To this date nobody has ever committed atrocities in the name of Atheism, but yet scores of examples can be given for atrocities committed in the name of religion.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 "nobody has ever committed atrocities in the name of Atheism"
That is a straw man arguement, i've never said anything like that. Monarchs forcing their subjects to fight and kill with the threat of death, imprisonment, or hell is not remotely of the Christian doctrine. its a co-opting of faith system for personal gain. Crusaders couldnt even read the NT, so they were naive and fooled.
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 You said to me, in order to justify one of your principles, that atheists have killed more people in the 20th century than anyone else... I cant find the original message or I would quote it. This is wrong, nobody on record has ever committed atrocities in the name of atheism.. The crusaders were religious zealots who forced their principles on cultures that had their own beliefs... The crusades were initiated by the church!
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 i certainly said atheist, but i've never intimated atheists killling in the name of atheism. I've already touched on the crusades, maybe you should read that again
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 Well you change your view now of course, but the context which you used it in was definately 'atheists killing in the name of atheism' after I stated that during the crusades men killed and subjugated others in the name of religion.. something which cannot be denied.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 I've never intimated that atheists kill for atheism, you are projecting that on me
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 As I said, I cannot find the original message and want to be 100% sure of what you wrote.. if you post it again I can reply to it.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@snappa52 I do not admonish people for their beliefs..whatever their culture I accept that people have views different to mine.. its part of being liberal. All I have done is appear on a youtube comment saying I like Alex Jones and many of his views, but I do not agree with his views on contemporary art.. and it lead to this. If you really are a true follower of your faith, then forgive me.. forgiving is one of the pillars of christianity, or am I mistaken?
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 there is nothing to be forgiven, you havent done anything to me. You're trying to bait me with that comment, or am I mistaken?
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 I live by a moral code that was evolutionally selected for, not a Judeo-Christian doctrine.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 the moral code being evolutionally selected for flies in the face of natural selection. if survival of the fittest is your pillar, you should be able to act however you want.
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 Again you misunderstand 'Survival of the fittest'.. It was coined to explain 'Natural Selection' by Herbert Spencer after Darwin, but became open to abuse as the definition of Natural selection is a 'natural process resulting in the evolution of organisms best adapted to their environment'..Not 'you can do anything want, kill, steal, rape etc because I am fitter than you' (a view also held by social darwinists who had little to do with Darwin)
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 survival of the fittest is manifested through eugenics, and Darwin was one of the first to dabble in it as his family didnt marry outside of the immediate family to create a superior person. If humans are part of the natural order, suvival of the fittest has to apply, otherwise you are borrowing from the Judeo-Christian ethic again. people best adapted to the environment, under survival of the fittest, should be able to do anything to ensure their progency survives
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 Again, ypu ignore what I have said. Any animal that survives long enough to reproduce is seen as 'fit' - it is applied to humans in terms of reproduction.. but not in human law! Darwin never meant his theory to be used to explain all of human nature.. It was the social darwinists.. who came much later who used to term as you do, to justify all actions. ..it does not mention a key requirement for natural selection, namely the requirement of heritability.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 if humans are part of the natural order, why would it not apply to them? heritability for humans would be to subdue others to offer a more suitable life for your progeny to reproduce
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 Natural Selection is all about reproduction, and passing on of characteristics into the genepool.. It applies to humans in the sense of reproduction, wealthy individuals are now seen as attractive etc. But modelling the 'survival of the fittest' principal in a political sense, which is what I was trying to explain, is wrong. Heretability, in definition, is the passing of characteristics between generations to create genetic variation. It does not mean to 'subdue others'...
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@snappa52 It is social darwinism that attempts to 'subdue others' and pays no attention to altruism in humans.. something that should have died out if the natural world was actually modelled on their 'survival of the fittest' principle. For do we feel sad when others are sad, or care for those who are sick when it is of no benefit to us, why not just 'subdue them'.. in your eyes. if the world is as you say then altruism would not exist.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 the governor is conscience and a divine moral law, not synapses firing a certain way or chemical reactions in the brain. Its not in my eyes because it is not my world view, this is your world view. You believe in a world devoid of a divine creator, so nature becomes the governor in His place. If nature is the governor then there is survival of the fittest and whatever it takes to pass your genes forward to the next generation will be done to ensure that.
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 Again, your confused. Look up the origins of the term 'survival of the fittest'.. it is not even part of Darwins theory.. instead he uses the term Natural Selection because it better describes his ideas. The Nazi's like survival of the fittest though, and so do you.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 Darwins theory isnt used anymore, its a hybrid of some of his theories and new theories that have proven him wrong. Are you really out of arguements already? you've been building straw man after straw man, and now its the nazi ad hominem card. The theory of evolution has evolved beyond Darwin, a learned naturalist like yourself should know that
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 Straw man? I don't think so. Not once have I mentioned that Darwin is the be all and end all on evolution.. The theory was written a while ago now, before any serious medical knowledge about genes and DNA came about.. He knew he couldnt explain everything.. Research since then, such as that done by Richard Dawkins and many other notable scientists has filled in the gaps in Darwin's theory, as opposed to proving it wrong..
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 modern studies on the theory of evolution have proven Darwin wrong in some respects, there is no disputing that.
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 Well, as I said, Darwin was effectively working with no knowledge of DNA and many other scientific concepts that aid the understanding of evolution at a molecular level. Darwin has not been proved wrong as such, but rather the gaps in his theory have been filled in by later research.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@snappa52 ..modern studies have filled in the gaps in Darwin's theory rather than proving him wrong. This is because Darwin was working with no knowledge of things like bacteria, and dna.. Modern studies have shed even more light on the subject so that we now understand it better than ever.. in other words arguing that Darwin was wrong is a bit like saying the world is 'flat' nowadays.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 Darwin thought because a man and an ape had a head, arms, and legs, we must come from a common ancestor. DNA evidence proved him wrong. His grandfather came up with the theory of evolution anyway. Darwin grew up believing in the evolutionary theory.
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 That is not the main reason he knew we evolved from apes.. but it is one of them.. How has the DNA evidence proved him wrong? You cannot just 'say' he is wrong, you need to back it up.. as I said get some debating skills..
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 don't lecture me on debating skills, yours consists of making things up and debating yourself as if I made the claim. Where is the link that shows the great leap from ape to man?
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 The great link? ever heard of 'Homo Habilis' or ' Australopithicus'..?
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 If I was going to prove something historically i would need a series of links that lead me to my conclusion. These two finds that you've mentioned are pieces to a puzzle, not a conclusive part of a series of finds that lead us to where we are now. I don't dispute some sort of evolution occurred, or can occurr, I just dont subscribe to the line mainstream evolutionists do
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 'Pieces of a puzzle'.. exactly right. I believe I made the same point too at an earlier time.. If you believe in some form of evolution then why have you agued with great vigour against it in your previous messages..? Very confusing, sir.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@snappa52 The two finds are not conclusive proof, you are right. But in the case of the 'Australopithicus'.. it is a creature that is neither human nor ape more of a 50/50 mix.. It is great circumstantial evidence for evolution in humans and proves that our genetic ancestry was a rich, diverse and full of many different types on the 'homo' genus.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@snappa52 Making things up? You can look up all of my facts because they are true.. Unlike you I don't just say things are true, Im well read enough to be able to back my points up.. I invite you to take any point I have made and challenge it.. I will prove that is is not made up and is based on evidence and logic.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 you bring points up to argue about as if I brought them up, two different things
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 As I have said prove this to me.. I don't think you will be able to.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@snappa52 1. Charles Darwin knew nothing of genetics, the closest he came was to a 'blending' of characteristics.The problem with this, which Darwin appreciated, was that after a few generations any variation would be blended away, giving natural selection nothing to work on. Darwin devoted much thought to this issue, but never found a satisfactory answer..
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 did i say he knew anything about genetics? would you rather that I say science proved him ignorant?
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 No you didnt say he knew anything about genetics, but it was part of my point directed back at you. And if you can back your point up about science proving him ignorant with real facts then I welcome you to take that line of debate with me... I'm pretty sure you won't and can't..
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tomwhittaker69 why dont you go to a dictionary and see what ignorant means and then you will understand what i'm saying
snappa52 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 your strategy is to avoid and deflect. You dont answer my points completely, you introduce other things that i've never mentioned, and you argue with yourself over the new informaiton you've introduced. I don't need to look back at your posts to figure that out
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 At least when you make a point I answer it.. such as the great link question.. or your point on on survival of the fittest.. I actually reply and bring up other points that are related to the topic that prove you wrong. If you would like to continue this by email I would be more than happy to do so, its not really fair for us to use up all this guys comment wall.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 didnt prove me wrong, without a higher power good and evil is completely subjective. Good would be relative to what you perceive is best for you, bad would be what is worst for you. Science can only say one person was more successful because he passed on his genes, and the way he felt about it was nothing more than chemical reactions in his brain. When you bring a system of morality into the equation, you borrow from the Judeo-Christian ethic, which shaped the culture of the west
snappa52 1 year ago
Comment removed
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@snappa52 You see, this is where we differ. My opinion is that morality, while tied to religion, existed in some form before any of them began to preach their forms of morality. Also the widespread understanding of contemporary civilization holds that, over the course of the modern age, theology has been replaced by philosophy, an orientation toward the past by an orientation toward the future, traditional teachings by subjective evidence, fidelity to origins by innovation, and so on..
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 Philosophy and theology go hand in hand. Were Plato, Socrates, Solon and the others atheists?
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 In "The Laws" Plato does indeed take a dim view of atheists and also writes, at length, how they should be punished or rehabilitated.However for someone who was born 427- 428 BC(before christ)and to use the term 'atheist' in the same way we do today is wholly improbable.What you meant in response as an 'atheist' is the modern understanding of the word (non-belief in the Christian..at least the Abrahamic god common to Judaism, Christianity and Islam). In this sense Plato is an atheist.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 the first rule of textual criticism is to go off of what is written, not to interpolate. You dont know Plato's mind, but you do know what he wrote, stick with that. Nietzche, Sartre, Engels, Marx, all grew up in a society that based its law on the Judeo-Christian ethic. They are borrowing from the source they try to discredit.
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 I know what he wrote, and his birth date!427-428BC.Around four hundred years before the founding and rise of Christianity!!!!.A time when people worshipped the gods of the ancient world.How on earth could he have not been an atheist in the modern sense?,the same sense in which you used the term.When Plato talks about atheists,he is talking about non-believers in the gods of the ancient world.The first rules of textual criticism are surely to getyour facts right and to not generalise..?
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 before Christianity, after Judaism. Christianity is a sect of Judaism. My facts are correct. Atheism does not discriminate against any belief in God, so its all relevant
snappa52 1 year ago
Comment removed
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@snappa52 Were they not just 'free-thinkers' born into a world dominated by religion? Did they have any choice as to what culture they were born into?
Philosophers who came before religion, especially the Judeo-Christian religions of which you defend, talked about morality at a length.(There is a whole branch of philosophy entitled 'moral philosophy'). Socrates, someone you mentioned earlier, and even Aristotle.. began to discuss human morality long before religion ever did.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 Aristotle was not an atheist. you are making another straw man with the culture they were born into. Atheism does not have a belief system apart from what they received from the Judeo-Christian ethic
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 I never said he was an atheist.. If you had read what I said then you would understand my point. I merely said Aristotle talks about morality long before Christianity and without the influence of any religion..
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 Aristotle was influenced by religion
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 Implicit in Aristotle's writings is the attitude that every aspect of human life and society may be an appropriate object of thought and analysis; the notion that the universe is not controlled by blind chance, by magic, or by the whims of capricious deities, but that its behavior is subject to rational laws, and the belief that it is worthwhile for human beings to conduct a systematic inquiry into every aspect of the natural world.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 rational laws? newton, kepler, capernicus, and galileo were all rational thinkers with a faith in God, that rationale you tried to slip in is stale.
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 Yes, rational. And Galileo? Possibly the worst example to use.. he was imprisoned by the church for suggesting the earth went around the sun.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 the church imprisoned him, but the Catholic Church is not Jesus and did not affect his faith. There is no biblical evidence they could use to proport that the heavenly bodies traveled around the earth, that was church doctrine, not biblical
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 The Church imprisoned him.. the church are supposed to be Gods representatives on the earth.. The Pope is supposed to be chosen by God to this day... The Bible was used as evidence to imprison Galileo at the time.. .Your views are unfounded on this subject.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@snappa52 'Church Doctrine' still gets in the way to this day.. which is why the Catholic church has a bandwagon of paedophile padre's that it protects and is lead by an ex-member of the Hitler Youth.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@snappa52
This does not make any sense.. please explain what you mean by: 'Atheism does not discriminate against any belief in God, so its all relevant'. My point was that if Plato suddenly travelled through time today, and you told him about Christianity, then he would almost certainly not believe you.. notably because he was born 420 years or so before christ is supposed to have walked the earth.. Plato believed in Zeus etc. Therefore, in our understanding of the term, he is an Atheist.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 atheism is against all forms of organized religion, so everyone's faith is pertinent. Judaism was around when Plato was walking the earth, christianity is a sect of Judaism
snappa52 1 year ago
Comment removed
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@snappa52 Plato uses the term in a different way...the Greeks believed in multiple gods (Zeus, Hera) but those gods never enforced morality onto them.They never received a set list of what is right and what is just. They simply used their own moral codes and followed their own laws (made by man!)No god came down and told them what was right and wrong and yet they had perhaps one the greatest, most successful, advanced and philosophically aware civilizations of the ancient world.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 The Greek society becoming preeminent was because of Solon's reforms, and they didnt last long as a preeminent philosophical culture. We had to get the writings of the ancient greeks from the Muslim areas. Success is longevity, and the Greece you are talking about didnt last long once it reached it's philosophical awareness. You are parsing when you try to differentiate between levels of faith.
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 You completely dismiss the influence Ancient Greece has had on the West.It is noted by many historians as the seminal culture that laid the foundations of Western Civilisation..Which is why we still read the works of their philosophers...Why we still celebrate their olympic games etc.There are no levels of faith,all beliefs are equal,including atheism.It is my contention that Ancient Greece has had just as much effect on the West,if not more,than your proposed 'Judeo-Christian ethic'
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 I didnt dismiss anything, if it was not for alexander or rome the greek ideals would have stayed in greece. There were no democratic systems within the west until the English, Dutch, and Americans. Christianity is not a political system of national governance, it's for personal governance. The greeks provided a political framework, the Judeo-Christian ethic supported that through their adherence to everyone being equal supported democratic systems
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 "Success is longevity, and the Greece you are talking about didnt last long once it reached it's philosophical awareness." If you measure a country by how long it lasts rather than the culture it produces then surely Ancient Rome was a more successful country than modern day America (because its older).
As you see, there is no logic in your argument for: "Success is longevity".
The early ideas of democracy, and representation were founded in Ancient Athens. Man can govern himself.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 we've been at this for a while, please use the arguements I present and not what you perceive them to be. ask a question if you are not sure what I mean.
snappa52 1 year ago
@snappa52 Yes, we have been at this for a while. We can continue this by email at any time.. just ask for my address.. then we can get past this annoying character limit. There is so much more I need to say.
tomwhittaker69 1 year ago
@tomwhittaker69 The fact is -- death is beautiful.
It's an aesthetic that requires an especially refined mind to appreciate.
Death is the desert after the feast of life.
It's the ultimate trip.
And we're all going to be exposed to it.
We're all going to be in a hole one day, alone, save for the maggots.
Just like Jesus.
Why do you people delude yourselves that you're anything other than walking meat?
We want to make our time here better.
AnonymousElektron 1 year ago
@AnonymousElektron PSEUDO PHILOSOPHER ALERT.
Pretentiousness level Red!
yakomuto 1 year ago