|
Chat OT
|
|
Topic Started: Jan 30 2013, 10:20 PM (723,316 Views)
|
|
Guest
|
Mar 25 2013, 01:25 PM
Post #3466
|
|
Unregistered
|
who gave all the creeps and trolls the link for this place ?
|
|
|
| |
|
Guest
|
Mar 25 2013, 01:52 PM
Post #3467
|
|
Unregistered
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Artichoke
|
Mar 25 2013, 05:18 PM
Post #3468
|
|
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
- Posts:
- 7,116
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Jan 30, 2013
|
- HolyYoong
- Mar 25 2013, 08:46 AM
Spoiler: click to toggle oh that 'kiddo' word. i miss being called kiddo too, although i hate it every time people call me that. sorry
Spoiler: click to toggle Stop apologising for your opinions, it's fine to say things like that. Ain't nobody gonna get mad at you, girl. Should I call you something else, instead?
- Mar 25 2013, 10:46 AM
lol idek why we need to discuss why tlc is dead (though of course this is the chat thread and y'all go ahead) but i personally disliked how rei handled things and thought the occasions on which her and windmill decided to "troll" the trolls by going along with their wank were just mindboggling and immature of them.
They did some things I disagreed with, but I think that it's incredibly difficult for either of them to be the sole causal factor. It's like debates in history - everything contributed, we can all agree on that, but to what extent each individual aspect can be blamed is always going to bring attention to discrepancies of opinion. I think Rei was a catalyst, and a stubborn one, but I don't particularly think she on her own was the main reason behind this.
|
|
|
| |
|
HolyYoong
|
Mar 25 2013, 05:42 PM
Post #3469
|
|
My shupanova
- Posts:
- 3,191
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #70
- Joined:
- Feb 1, 2013
|
- Artichoke
- Mar 25 2013, 05:18 PM
- HolyYoong
- Mar 25 2013, 08:46 AM
Spoiler: click to toggle oh that 'kiddo' word. i miss being called kiddo too, although i hate it every time people call me that. sorry
Spoiler: click to toggle Stop apologising for your opinions, it's fine to say things like that. Ain't nobody gonna get mad at you, girl. Should I call you something else, instead? oh you still can call me kiddo if you want too. i don't mind
|
|
|
| |
|
HolyYoong
|
Mar 25 2013, 05:48 PM
Post #3470
|
|
My shupanova
- Posts:
- 3,191
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #70
- Joined:
- Feb 1, 2013
|
have you heard rumours about these two? they look hot together, i'm gonna ship this lol
|
|
|
| |
|
Artichoke
|
Mar 25 2013, 05:52 PM
Post #3471
|
|
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
- Posts:
- 7,116
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Jan 30, 2013
|
- HolyYoong
- Mar 25 2013, 05:48 PM
have you heard rumours about these two? they look hot together, i'm gonna ship this lol Who're they? And kiddo it is, kiddo. :gaypimp:
|
|
|
| |
|
HolyYoong
|
Mar 25 2013, 05:54 PM
Post #3472
|
|
My shupanova
- Posts:
- 3,191
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #70
- Joined:
- Feb 1, 2013
|
- Artichoke
- Mar 25 2013, 05:52 PM
- HolyYoong
- Mar 25 2013, 05:48 PM
have you heard rumours about these two? they look hot together, i'm gonna ship this lol
Who're they? And kiddo it is, kiddo. :gaypimp: :gaypimp: nine muses. Short hair is eunji and the long hair is hyuna
|
|
|
| |
|
Artichoke
|
Mar 25 2013, 05:56 PM
Post #3473
|
|
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
- Posts:
- 7,116
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Jan 30, 2013
|
- HolyYoong
- Mar 25 2013, 05:54 PM
:gaypimp: nine muses. Short hair is eunji and the long hair is hyuna To Google!
Also has anyone read On Liberty? I need to criticise Mill but it's difficult because I agree with him.
|
|
|
| |
|
Guest
|
Mar 25 2013, 06:32 PM
Post #3474
|
|
Unregistered
|
- Artichoke
- Mar 25 2013, 05:56 PM
- HolyYoong
- Mar 25 2013, 05:54 PM
:gaypimp: nine muses. Short hair is eunji and the long hair is hyuna
To Google! Also has anyone read On Liberty? I need to criticise Mill but it's difficult because I agree with him. Yep, fire away. It's been a year since i read him sort of kind completely, but i'm still familiar with him. This is chat, so its okay right?
|
|
|
| |
|
Artichoke
|
Mar 25 2013, 06:34 PM
Post #3475
|
|
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
- Posts:
- 7,116
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Jan 30, 2013
|
- Guest
- Mar 25 2013, 06:32 PM
Yep, fire away. It's been a year since i read him sort of kind completely, but i'm still familiar with him. This is chat, so its okay right? So... Any criticisms I can talk about? The only one that I can think of is that the distinction between harm and offense is too murky.
|
|
|
| |
|
Guest
|
Mar 25 2013, 07:22 PM
Post #3476
|
|
Unregistered
|
- Guest
- Mar 24 2013, 04:12 AM
The Prussian flag is fucking nuts. A hundred points for Ravenclaw~! (Too bad the country didn't last.)  I like you.
|
|
|
| |
|
Guest
|
Mar 25 2013, 07:22 PM
Post #3477
|
|
Unregistered
|
all these trolls we've been having don't surprise me it's spring break after all kids are finally free from school.
|
|
|
| |
|
Guest
|
Mar 25 2013, 07:33 PM
Post #3478
|
|
Unregistered
|
so this is a bit of the top of my head. I also get confused with the whole concept of liberty itself, since when you study such things you look at golden-oldies (mills, rousseau etc) then the 20th century 'pessimists' as i like to call them and then the 80's articles, hence its a bit muddled but at least it should give you a few ideas
Spoiler: click to toggle
Some bits are copied from past essays. the numbers are points you may wish to considr
First of all, we look at Mill's definition of liberty as ' the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual’- his acknowledgement of freedom is based upon an individualistic perspective, where one is free unless they face external obstacles (of the human kind) that coerce them to do other than their will.
1) are there any other types of obstacles besides those imposed of the human kind, that mill refers to, that may also affect our liberty?
We now tend to distinguish between two types of liberties (these theories were advanced by Isaiah Berlin and Charles Taylor, both accessible reads. Negative liberties is one where there is an external constraint. For example, if someone locks the door and I can't get out, then I am constrained by other people. Positive liberty defines a much more subtle constraint. It states that when we do no carry out our true desires then we are not free. Imagine a smoker, he is negatively free because nobody is forcing him to smoke but he is not positively free because he is a victim of his addiction. This is also similar to Marx argument and his statement of 'religion being the opium of the masses'. The idea is that we are constrained under an illusion of our desires. Poor people do not rebel because they have been 'brainwashed' to believe that is their place in society (marxist view), they do not have positive liberty although nobody is forcing them to be poor, but perhaps they do not have the education to realize their true desires. This of course, does cause a grey area that at your level, you don't need to get to. But it also brings into accoutn another important question. Is it not the case that the concept of 'true desires' can in itslef be a constraint? how can you know people's true desires? Does that not leave way for a tyrannical structure where people are told what their 'true desires' ought to be?
Mill sometimes falls victim to this accusation, as he for example, advocates a large tax levy on 'stimulants beyond moderation'. This is an example of a conception of the greater good and it is contradictory with his initial statement of the harm-principle. Any time you see a 'conception of the good' you must remember the debate of the 'true desires'. It has been argued that even libertarian have a a conception of the good. They advocate the harm principle and tolerance, but thus exclude fanaticism and intolerance. This leads us to a paradoxical statement, that everyone in a liberal society is already a liberal and so it's not really the unicorn land it preaches to be. For example, any religious leader, though they may be fanatical, if they live in a liberal society they must have adopted the mentality to a certain point, to the point where they state, okay, i disagree with your religion in private but im not going to take any action against it. Like with homosexuality, i disapprove of your behaviour but im not going to act on it.
I guess the main point here is the evidence of the use of a conception of the good and how that may also affect our liberty in a positive way despite other evidence, such as the harm principle, the need for education to achieve self-reflection may point otherwise. Even though he argues for a non ideological common good, this itself may be ideological
2) what exactly constitutes harm? I shall answer this from the point, can speech harm?
Mill advocates complete freedom of expression. It's seen as vital for democracy since democracy means equal representation and thus opinions and thoughts should have equal values such that none can be restricted. Two problems with the relevant literature. People who write, ie academics like mill, will always advocate freedom of speech as it shall allow them to write (there is a vested interest here). this leads to two assumptions, whatever is good for the academic is good for the rest and that academics are right or know the truth- noth of which are debatable. Know then, that mill is biased to begin with.
Mill does accept some limitations on speech though. He expresses three cases- one in which the opinion expressed is right, the second one where it is wrong and the third one, where two opinions share some truth between them. In the first scenario, speech can only improve the welfare of society as a whole since we learn the truth. In the second case, Mill states wrong opinions highlight the importance of the truth to begin with, contribute to our understanding of our thoughts or ‘truths’ as they are challenged and it also strengthens the truth, since we understand it’s inner workings and thus no longer take it for granted as a passed down doctrine that may eventually erode it’s true meaning. Mill’s example for this case is the doctrine of Christianity, stating, that should it have been allowed to be challenged, Christianity would have been strengthened and the modern teachings would have followed the ‘original version more closely’. Moving away from the value of opinions as truth, Mill also highlights the importance of free speech as mental exercise for society. Also, he argues that free speech could actually cease, or help to stop, sectarianism within society as people become more tolerant of other people’s opinions. The only speech that Mill believes should be stopped is that which directly attacks those who hold different opinions.
But can it harm? Mill's main argument is 'moral progress' (jonathan wolff) where we learn form mistakes of past doctrines. However, it may also mean that falsehood may prevail.
(sorry at some bits, im just lazy and copying my work)
Right now, we are only analyzing scenarios where we have a true opinion that is under attack by false opinions due to freedom of speech. But what makes this truth true to begin with? There are very few opinions in society that are tautological. Thus, one of the problems of restricting speech is the standards used, which inevitably, would tend to be subjective. Furthermore, should we only judge opinions based on their truth value, or like Mill said, should we also judge views based on their usefulness to society (since we have exposed before that false opinions may actually be beneficial). It is also clear that the government is not infallible in deciding either usefulness or truths of opinions and there have been many examples throughout history, like the suppression of Galileo’s ideas, although it is also true we know have more sound knowledge and experience to make those judgment. Finally, Mill argues that just because government is not infallible, does not mean it should not make decisions based on such matters, after all, the role of government is to provide some judgment and we would like to think that usually they get it right. (argument in favour of free speech)
(copying in again, sorry its just too much, also lol at the snsd reference, i wonder if i did it on purpose?)
What about the cases where we have no clear ‘truth’ values or opinions? One case study is the Salman Rushdie case with ‘The Satanic Verses’. First of all, let us look at all the scenarios stated by Mill when speech should be restricted; when it causes harm to the interests of others (a large part of his liberalism theory) and when preventing offense. These two concepts- offense and harm, pose certain difficulty. There are few actions that are purely self-regarding and that only affects us individuals and surely, we would also be able to find people who feel ‘offended’ or ‘harmed’ by our actions. So we must delimit the meanings of these two words. By offense, we exclude the sense of offense where the only interest that is being harmed is the interest of not feeling offended. On the other hand, it is hard to establish a definition of harm, for example, if the blood pressure of a local community increases whenever they see adverts of cucumbers, would that be considered harmful enough to restrict cucumber advertising? After all, free speech in itself cannot harm, since words cannot exactly carry knives around, although it can for example, encourage physical harm of one ethnic group to another. As seen in Joel Feinberg’s ‘Harmless immoralities and offensive nuisances’ we also apply two standards- the standard of universality in which the offense is not limited to a particular group, so as to avoid catering what we might consider the ‘extremes’ and harming the median majority in the process, and the standard of reasonable avoidability- that is freedom of speech would be allowed if the people who may be harmed or offended by it can reasonably avoid it.
So we can use the two standards to decide when speech can cause harm and when it should be restricted. However, one of the reasons why free speech is considered a democratic characteristic was due to its implied meaning of equality. Now while every opinion may be equal, minorities tend to be at a disadvantage, but under our universality standard, speech should not be restricted in order to protect them. This brings around the problem of which opinions should be protected and which should be restricted. There are also two important implied assumptions, one is the paternalistic (mill gets accused of this a lot!) view mentioned before that whatever moral leaders or academics say is good for the community since it is good for themselves- a statement reached by turning the importance of free speech away from the public sphere- community view to the private sphere –the right for individuals to express themselves-, the other assumption is that anyone that needs to reply to an opinion to defend themselves will be able to do so. So should the government allow complete free speech, allow speech that goes in accordance with the majority under the standards of universality and avoidability, should it protect every group in society by banning opinions that may be considered offensive or ‘harmful’- and what exactly should be considered ‘harmful’- or should it strive to protect groups which are in the minority and so with less resources, such as media attention, to themselves?
So i guess, the point here is the problem with minorities under such egalitarian conditions.
The problem really is that speech does not itself harm, but the consequences that arise from speech do. So for example, hate speech that incites violence. The counter argument against it deals with the chain of events. For example, if a man at a market starts saying how all bankers should be rounded up and another man does the same speech but outside a banker's house, and a revolt breaks out against bankers leading to them being killed do both men have the same blame. One just spoke in the market place, so the chain of events until the violence actually broke out is longer than the man who did it outside a banker's house. You could also trace back the speaker's ideas to someone else and thus even regress in the chain of events, so a problem is that if we do punish speech for its consequences at which point should we cut the chain of events. However it is clear that speech cannot be completely unregulated as seen by minorities etc. Also, why should we not value the interest of not feeling offended- cucumber advertising etc
So there, its a bit all over the place since i was just copying bits at some point, and the question wasnt so much a criticism of mil but i hoped it helped. I got a bit bored towards the end but basically summary points
does mill have a conception of the good- tax on stimulants, liberalism as a conception of the good, is non ideological conception really possible? why shouldn't we value the interest of not feeling offended what about minorities, is an egalitarian system really the best, do some people not deserve special protection, do opinions really all have the same value falsity may also prevail, we have no real standard to judge what is true and no other types of power- positive liberty. also fear as a constrain on liberty
hoped it helped (looking back at it, i'm not so sure) mill's a fucking pretentious boring writer, takes so long to say one thing
|
|
|
| |
|
Guest
|
Mar 25 2013, 08:16 PM
Post #3479
|
|
Unregistered
|
my vag MV :gaypimp:
|
|
|
| |
|
Artichoke
|
Mar 25 2013, 08:41 PM
Post #3480
|
|
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
- Posts:
- 7,116
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Jan 30, 2013
|
- Guest
- Mar 25 2013, 07:33 PM
so this is a bit of the top of my head. I also get confused with the whole concept of liberty itself, since when you study such things you look at golden-oldies (mills, rousseau etc) then the 20th century 'pessimists' as i like to call them and then the 80's articles, hence its a bit muddled but at least it should give you a few ideas Spoiler: click to toggle
Some bits are copied from past essays. the numbers are points you may wish to considr
First of all, we look at Mill's definition of liberty as ' the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual’- his acknowledgement of freedom is based upon an individualistic perspective, where one is free unless they face external obstacles (of the human kind) that coerce them to do other than their will.
1) are there any other types of obstacles besides those imposed of the human kind, that mill refers to, that may also affect our liberty?
We now tend to distinguish between two types of liberties (these theories were advanced by Isaiah Berlin and Charles Taylor, both accessible reads. Negative liberties is one where there is an external constraint. For example, if someone locks the door and I can't get out, then I am constrained by other people. Positive liberty defines a much more subtle constraint. It states that when we do no carry out our true desires then we are not free. Imagine a smoker, he is negatively free because nobody is forcing him to smoke but he is not positively free because he is a victim of his addiction. This is also similar to Marx argument and his statement of 'religion being the opium of the masses'. The idea is that we are constrained under an illusion of our desires. Poor people do not rebel because they have been 'brainwashed' to believe that is their place in society (marxist view), they do not have positive liberty although nobody is forcing them to be poor, but perhaps they do not have the education to realize their true desires. This of course, does cause a grey area that at your level, you don't need to get to. But it also brings into accoutn another important question. Is it not the case that the concept of 'true desires' can in itslef be a constraint? how can you know people's true desires? Does that not leave way for a tyrannical structure where people are told what their 'true desires' ought to be?
Mill sometimes falls victim to this accusation, as he for example, advocates a large tax levy on 'stimulants beyond moderation'. This is an example of a conception of the greater good and it is contradictory with his initial statement of the harm-principle. Any time you see a 'conception of the good' you must remember the debate of the 'true desires'. It has been argued that even libertarian have a a conception of the good. They advocate the harm principle and tolerance, but thus exclude fanaticism and intolerance. This leads us to a paradoxical statement, that everyone in a liberal society is already a liberal and so it's not really the unicorn land it preaches to be. For example, any religious leader, though they may be fanatical, if they live in a liberal society they must have adopted the mentality to a certain point, to the point where they state, okay, i disagree with your religion in private but im not going to take any action against it. Like with homosexuality, i disapprove of your behaviour but im not going to act on it.
I guess the main point here is the evidence of the use of a conception of the good and how that may also affect our liberty in a positive way despite other evidence, such as the harm principle, the need for education to achieve self-reflection may point otherwise. Even though he argues for a non ideological common good, this itself may be ideological
2) what exactly constitutes harm? I shall answer this from the point, can speech harm?
Mill advocates complete freedom of expression. It's seen as vital for democracy since democracy means equal representation and thus opinions and thoughts should have equal values such that none can be restricted. Two problems with the relevant literature. People who write, ie academics like mill, will always advocate freedom of speech as it shall allow them to write (there is a vested interest here). this leads to two assumptions, whatever is good for the academic is good for the rest and that academics are right or know the truth- noth of which are debatable. Know then, that mill is biased to begin with.
Mill does accept some limitations on speech though. He expresses three cases- one in which the opinion expressed is right, the second one where it is wrong and the third one, where two opinions share some truth between them. In the first scenario, speech can only improve the welfare of society as a whole since we learn the truth. In the second case, Mill states wrong opinions highlight the importance of the truth to begin with, contribute to our understanding of our thoughts or ‘truths’ as they are challenged and it also strengthens the truth, since we understand it’s inner workings and thus no longer take it for granted as a passed down doctrine that may eventually erode it’s true meaning. Mill’s example for this case is the doctrine of Christianity, stating, that should it have been allowed to be challenged, Christianity would have been strengthened and the modern teachings would have followed the ‘original version more closely’. Moving away from the value of opinions as truth, Mill also highlights the importance of free speech as mental exercise for society. Also, he argues that free speech could actually cease, or help to stop, sectarianism within society as people become more tolerant of other people’s opinions. The only speech that Mill believes should be stopped is that which directly attacks those who hold different opinions.
But can it harm? Mill's main argument is 'moral progress' (jonathan wolff) where we learn form mistakes of past doctrines. However, it may also mean that falsehood may prevail.
(sorry at some bits, im just lazy and copying my work)
Right now, we are only analyzing scenarios where we have a true opinion that is under attack by false opinions due to freedom of speech. But what makes this truth true to begin with? There are very few opinions in society that are tautological. Thus, one of the problems of restricting speech is the standards used, which inevitably, would tend to be subjective. Furthermore, should we only judge opinions based on their truth value, or like Mill said, should we also judge views based on their usefulness to society (since we have exposed before that false opinions may actually be beneficial). It is also clear that the government is not infallible in deciding either usefulness or truths of opinions and there have been many examples throughout history, like the suppression of Galileo’s ideas, although it is also true we know have more sound knowledge and experience to make those judgment. Finally, Mill argues that just because government is not infallible, does not mean it should not make decisions based on such matters, after all, the role of government is to provide some judgment and we would like to think that usually they get it right. (argument in favour of free speech)
(copying in again, sorry its just too much, also lol at the snsd reference, i wonder if i did it on purpose?)
What about the cases where we have no clear ‘truth’ values or opinions? One case study is the Salman Rushdie case with ‘The Satanic Verses’. First of all, let us look at all the scenarios stated by Mill when speech should be restricted; when it causes harm to the interests of others (a large part of his liberalism theory) and when preventing offense. These two concepts- offense and harm, pose certain difficulty. There are few actions that are purely self-regarding and that only affects us individuals and surely, we would also be able to find people who feel ‘offended’ or ‘harmed’ by our actions. So we must delimit the meanings of these two words. By offense, we exclude the sense of offense where the only interest that is being harmed is the interest of not feeling offended. On the other hand, it is hard to establish a definition of harm, for example, if the blood pressure of a local community increases whenever they see adverts of cucumbers, would that be considered harmful enough to restrict cucumber advertising? After all, free speech in itself cannot harm, since words cannot exactly carry knives around, although it can for example, encourage physical harm of one ethnic group to another. As seen in Joel Feinberg’s ‘Harmless immoralities and offensive nuisances’ we also apply two standards- the standard of universality in which the offense is not limited to a particular group, so as to avoid catering what we might consider the ‘extremes’ and harming the median majority in the process, and the standard of reasonable avoidability- that is freedom of speech would be allowed if the people who may be harmed or offended by it can reasonably avoid it.
So we can use the two standards to decide when speech can cause harm and when it should be restricted. However, one of the reasons why free speech is considered a democratic characteristic was due to its implied meaning of equality. Now while every opinion may be equal, minorities tend to be at a disadvantage, but under our universality standard, speech should not be restricted in order to protect them. This brings around the problem of which opinions should be protected and which should be restricted. There are also two important implied assumptions, one is the paternalistic (mill gets accused of this a lot!) view mentioned before that whatever moral leaders or academics say is good for the community since it is good for themselves- a statement reached by turning the importance of free speech away from the public sphere- community view to the private sphere –the right for individuals to express themselves-, the other assumption is that anyone that needs to reply to an opinion to defend themselves will be able to do so. So should the government allow complete free speech, allow speech that goes in accordance with the majority under the standards of universality and avoidability, should it protect every group in society by banning opinions that may be considered offensive or ‘harmful’- and what exactly should be considered ‘harmful’- or should it strive to protect groups which are in the minority and so with less resources, such as media attention, to themselves?
So i guess, the point here is the problem with minorities under such egalitarian conditions.
The problem really is that speech does not itself harm, but the consequences that arise from speech do. So for example, hate speech that incites violence. The counter argument against it deals with the chain of events. For example, if a man at a market starts saying how all bankers should be rounded up and another man does the same speech but outside a banker's house, and a revolt breaks out against bankers leading to them being killed do both men have the same blame. One just spoke in the market place, so the chain of events until the violence actually broke out is longer than the man who did it outside a banker's house. You could also trace back the speaker's ideas to someone else and thus even regress in the chain of events, so a problem is that if we do punish speech for its consequences at which point should we cut the chain of events. However it is clear that speech cannot be completely unregulated as seen by minorities etc. Also, why should we not value the interest of not feeling offended- cucumber advertising etc
So there, its a bit all over the place since i was just copying bits at some point, and the question wasnt so much a criticism of mil but i hoped it helped. I got a bit bored towards the end but basically summary points
does mill have a conception of the good- tax on stimulants, liberalism as a conception of the good, is non ideological conception really possible? why shouldn't we value the interest of not feeling offended what about minorities, is an egalitarian system really the best, do some people not deserve special protection, do opinions really all have the same value falsity may also prevail, we have no real standard to judge what is true and no other types of power- positive liberty. also fear as a constrain on liberty
hoped it helped (looking back at it, i'm not so sure) mill's a fucking pretentious boring writer, takes so long to say one thing
Thanks a lot!
I'll have a read later, after I finish this documentary.
|
|
|
| |
|
Guest
|
Mar 25 2013, 09:56 PM
Post #3481
|
|
Unregistered
|
- Guest
- Mar 25 2013, 07:22 PM
- Guest
- Mar 24 2013, 04:12 AM
The Prussian flag is fucking nuts. A hundred points for Ravenclaw~! (Too bad the country didn't last.) 
I like you. Lol, thanks. I have something to do that should've been done two weeks ago but this place is so distracting. I think I'm gonna go work on that for a while. Toodles.
|
|
|
| |
|
Taengoo
|
Mar 25 2013, 11:59 PM
Post #3482
|
|
- Posts:
- 1,031
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jan 30, 2013
|
So, stepho just said she needed a break I hope she's alright I'm waiting for her to show up
|
|
|
| |
|
Artichoke
|
Mar 26 2013, 12:00 AM
Post #3483
|
|
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
- Posts:
- 7,116
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Jan 30, 2013
|
- Taengoo
- Mar 25 2013, 11:59 PM
So, stepho just said she needed a break I hope she's alright I'm waiting for her to show up Ah, I see. Good luck to her, then.
Also, this makes me proud, for some reason.
|
|
|
| |
|
Guest
|
Mar 26 2013, 12:04 AM
Post #3484
|
|
Unregistered
|
- Guest
- Mar 25 2013, 01:25 PM
who gave all the creeps and trolls the link for this place ? Pagecatch this thread bb and you will learn of all those unsung heroes when you read their victory posts. :wink:
|
|
|
| |
|
Guest
|
Mar 26 2013, 12:07 AM
Post #3485
|
|
Unregistered
|
btw, what do you guys (europeans) think about eurovision song contest? will you watch it this year?
|
|
|
| |
|
Artichoke
|
Mar 26 2013, 12:08 AM
Post #3486
|
|
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
- Posts:
- 7,116
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Jan 30, 2013
|
- Guest
- Mar 26 2013, 12:07 AM
btw, what do you guys (europeans) think about eurovision song contest? will you watch it this year?  I think it's a hilarious joke.
...But I'll watch it anyway in the hopes that we'll win it.
|
|
|
| |
|
Guest
|
Mar 26 2013, 12:11 AM
Post #3487
|
|
Unregistered
|
- Artichoke
- Mar 26 2013, 12:08 AM
- Guest
- Mar 26 2013, 12:07 AM
btw, what do you guys (europeans) think about eurovision song contest? will you watch it this year? 
I think it's a hilarious joke. ...But I'll watch it anyway in the hopes that we'll win it. lol i kind of agree with you, i didn't even watch it last year (usually i do watch it, though)
my country's only won once
|
|
|
| |
|
Sooyoung
|
Mar 26 2013, 12:11 AM
Post #3488
|
|
Flawless.
- Posts:
- 270
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #48
- Joined:
- Jan 31, 2013
|
- Guest
- Mar 26 2013, 12:07 AM
btw, what do you guys (europeans) think about eurovision song contest? will you watch it this year?  I watch it all the time, just so I can laugh at how bad the UK are and how it's all about politics. We always give the Irish points but they don't give us any. =_=
Edited by Sooyoung, Mar 26 2013, 12:12 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Guest
|
Mar 26 2013, 12:15 AM
Post #3489
|
|
Unregistered
|
- Guest
- Mar 25 2013, 10:46 AM
lol idek why we need to discuss why tlc is dead (though of course this is the chat thread and y'all go ahead) but i personally disliked how rei handled things and thought the occasions on which her and windmill decided to "troll" the trolls by going along with their wank were just mindboggling and immature of them. Occasions? It was like once with the Taeny trolling and I agree it was immature as hell but no less immature than those who decided to troll with Taeny in the first place. Tit for tat. :teehee: Still scratching my head with that one tbh but wth this is like old milk.
|
|
|
| |
|
Guest
|
Mar 26 2013, 12:38 AM
Post #3490
|
|
Unregistered
|
- Sooyoung
- Mar 26 2013, 12:11 AM
- Guest
- Mar 26 2013, 12:07 AM
btw, what do you guys (europeans) think about eurovision song contest? will you watch it this year? 
I watch it all the time, just so I can laugh at how bad the UK are and how it's all about politics. We always give the Irish points but they don't give us any. =_= Are you that male reg dan from TLC? Don't lie.
|
|
|
| |
|
Artichoke
|
Mar 26 2013, 12:40 AM
Post #3491
|
|
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
- Posts:
- 7,116
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Jan 30, 2013
|
- Guest
- Mar 26 2013, 12:38 AM
Are you that male reg dan from TLC? Don't lie. x2
|
|
|
| |
|
Guest
|
Mar 26 2013, 12:41 AM
Post #3492
|
|
Unregistered
|
- Guest
- Mar 26 2013, 12:38 AM
- Sooyoung
- Mar 26 2013, 12:11 AM
- Guest
- Mar 26 2013, 12:07 AM
btw, what do you guys (europeans) think about eurovision song contest? will you watch it this year? 
I watch it all the time, just so I can laugh at how bad the UK are and how it's all about politics. We always give the Irish points but they don't give us any. =_=
Are you that male reg dan from TLC? Don't lie. i wanted to ask about that since the first post he/she posted.
|
|
|
| |
|
Guest
|
Mar 26 2013, 12:42 AM
Post #3493
|
|
Unregistered
|
- Artichoke
- Mar 26 2013, 12:00 AM
- Taengoo
- Mar 25 2013, 11:59 PM
So, stepho just said she needed a break I hope she's alright I'm waiting for her to show up
Ah, I see. Good luck to her, then. Also, this makes me proud, for some reason. are you from manchester?
i have friends who live in the spring gardens area
|
|
|
| |
|
Guest
|
Mar 26 2013, 12:42 AM
Post #3494
|
|
Unregistered
|
- Guest
- Mar 26 2013, 12:38 AM
- Sooyoung
- Mar 26 2013, 12:11 AM
- Guest
- Mar 26 2013, 12:07 AM
btw, what do you guys (europeans) think about eurovision song contest? will you watch it this year? 
I watch it all the time, just so I can laugh at how bad the UK are and how it's all about politics. We always give the Irish points but they don't give us any. =_=
Are you that male reg dan from TLC? Don't lie. sudden clarity clarence moment!
i like to watch it with my flatmates, though i didn't last year cause i was locked up in my room finishing an essay. i just went towards the end, and only because i had seen that my country had done surprisingly well, better than the uk, and thought id rub it in. h
|
|
|
| |
|
Artichoke
|
Mar 26 2013, 12:43 AM
Post #3495
|
|
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
- Posts:
- 7,116
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Jan 30, 2013
|
- Guest
- Mar 26 2013, 12:42 AM
are you from manchester? i have friends who live in the spring gardens area I am a thoroughbred Manc, yes! I have a weird mixture of hatred and pride for this city. :gaypimp:
|
|
|
| |
|
Guest
|
Mar 26 2013, 12:48 AM
Post #3496
|
|
Unregistered
|
Arti, is there any graphs to your latest poll?
|
|
|
| |
|
Guest
|
Mar 26 2013, 12:49 AM
Post #3497
|
|
Unregistered
|
- Artichoke
- Mar 26 2013, 12:43 AM
- Guest
- Mar 26 2013, 12:42 AM
are you from manchester? i have friends who live in the spring gardens area
I am a thoroughbred Manc, yes! I have a weird mixture of hatred and pride for this city. :gaypimp: Cool I've never been though, all I know is my friends like the nightlife and i've saw corrie haha
|
|
|
| |
|
Artichoke
|
Mar 26 2013, 12:50 AM
Post #3498
|
|
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
- Posts:
- 7,116
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Jan 30, 2013
|
- Guest
- Mar 26 2013, 12:48 AM
Arti, is there any graphs to your latest poll?  Oh, right! I'll get making the sexuality ones after I finish this psych essay, yes! It shouldn't take too long.
|
|
|
| |
|
Artichoke
|
Mar 26 2013, 12:51 AM
Post #3499
|
|
nam fuit ante Helenam cunnus taeterrima belli causa
- Posts:
- 7,116
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Jan 30, 2013
|
- Guest
- Mar 26 2013, 12:49 AM
Cool  I've never been though, all I know is my friends like the nightlife and i've saw corrie haha It's... either really shitty or really good, depending. Since it's me, I know next to nothing about the nightlife, and what little I do know is learned vicariously through family and friends, but... It's a decent enough city, even if it is home to the Jeremy Kyle show and all the grotesque munters that feature on it.
|
|
|
| |
|
Guest
|
Mar 26 2013, 12:53 AM
Post #3500
|
|
Unregistered
|
- Guest
- Mar 25 2013, 08:16 PM
so this is pretty fucking awesome. same alma mater as azealia banks, too, who I love. definitely gonna follow her now.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|