Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

mrjawapa · 2018-06-07 01:39:46

azurepudding wrote:

people are actually defending hitler

No one here is defending Hitler.

azurepudding · 2018-06-07 01:43:07

mrjawapa wrote:

azurepudding wrote:
people are actually defending hitler
No one here is defending Hitler.

then what the heck was that

lex · 2018-06-07 01:59:28

azurepudding wrote:

i can't believe people are actually defending hitler and so i'll save myself some time here as arguing for the sake of arguing is annoying
that doesn't explain anything. it was claimed opinions can't be wrong, i listed an example of a wrong opinion. how is that apples to oranges? it's more like you claimed apples are always red but i countered with an apple that is green or yellow. a yellow/green apple is not an orange, it's an apple.

I don't think anyone is defending hitler directly. The argument you are trying to make is that there are some objective opinions saying hitler being evil is an example of an objective opinion.

The thing is there is no such thing as objective right and wrong. Humans certainly have some form of morals hardwired into us but they are relatively flexible. I am a pacifist but I would kill in self defense. An honest man would steal if that was the only way he could eat. Society shapes and codifies our morals through social norms and laws. While Hitler's opinions are more or less 100% unacceptable in our society today, he was almost successful. We have no evidence that what he was trying to achieve wouldn't "work" for the people who got to stay in his territory. There are many(crazy) people today who advocate for a "white nation", they truly believe that if they had a country free to themselves they could create a utopia.

See to people who disagree with hitler like you and me his actions are barbaric, but to people who believe in a "white nation"(or in his time a unified germany) it was a sacrifice that had to be made for prosperity of his people.

While it's hard to say the end justifies the means to something you disagree with, the history of any powerful country in the world will show you that the road to prosperity is usually through the destruction of another people.

To end let me just say that I am a jewish, gay disabled, and a socialist. I would have been killed 4 times over in nazi germany. I do not agree with anything hitler did. The more I learn about the world the more I think the way for humanity to prosper is to remove the things that divide us rather than divide ourselves. I just wanted to post this because you seem to be misunderstanding the point the other guy was trying to make.

TaskManager, Slabdrill, Luka504, mutantdevle

Norwee · 2018-06-07 02:02:44

Hitler was an avid supporter of animal rights and orchestrated many progressive reforms. He was heavily anti-tobacco and limited it’s usage through campaigns that recognized it’s detrimental effects to ones health. He truly loved his wife and he united the German peoples and healed Germany’s badly mangled economy at an time when the rest of the world was facing an deep economic crisis.

Btw i’m basically only focusing on the good things he did... but he doesn’t seem so evil now does he? It all depends on perspective.

azurepudding · 2018-06-07 02:15:19

lex wrote:

azurepudding wrote:
i can't believe people are actually defending hitler and so i'll save myself some time here as arguing for the sake of arguing is annoying
that doesn't explain anything. it was claimed opinions can't be wrong, i listed an example of a wrong opinion. how is that apples to oranges? it's more like you claimed apples are always red but i countered with an apple that is green or yellow. a yellow/green apple is not an orange, it's an apple.
I don't think anyone is defending hitler directly. The argument you are trying to make is that there are some objective opinions saying hitler being evil is an example of an objective opinion.
The thing is there is no such thing as objective right and wrong. Humans certainly have some form of morals hardwired into us but they are relatively flexible. I am a pacifist but I would kill in self defense. An honest man would steal if that was the only way he could eat. Society shapes and codifies our morals through social norms and laws. While Hitler's opinions are more or less 100% unacceptable in our society today, he was almost successful. We have no evidence that what he was trying to achieve wouldn't "work" for the people who got to stay in his territory. There are many(crazy) people today who advocate for a "white nation", they truly believe that if they had a country free to themselves they could create a utopia.
See to people who disagree with hitler like you and me his actions are barbaric, but to people who believe in a "white nation"(or in his time a unified germany) it was a sacrifice that had to be made for prosperity of his people.
While it's hard to say the end justifies the means to something you disagree with, the history of any powerful country in the world will show you that the road to prosperity is usually through the destruction of another people.
To end let me just say that I am a jewish, gay disabled, and a socialist. I would have been killed 4 times over in nazi germany. I do not agree with anything hitler did. The more I learn about the world the more I think the way for humanity to prosper is to remove the things that divide us rather than divide ourselves. I just wanted to post this because you seem to be misunderstanding the point the other guy was trying to make.

the difference in those examples is necessary vs unnecessary actions. Self defense is necessary, stealing to keep from starving can be necessary if no other option is available, but committing genocide is not necessary. Even with their twisted beliefs, it was not necessary. And to insist something must be done when it's not, is wrong.

and even if genocide is subjectively wrong, i really don't think it's appropriate to argue whether it is or not. it's like if someone said "Rape/murder is wrong," and then someone countering "Well actually..." just no. no thank you. no.

NorwegianboyEE wrote:

Hitler was an avid supporter of animal rights and orchestrated many progressive reforms. He was heavily anti-tobacco and limited it’s usage through campaigns that recognized it’s detrimental effects to ones health. He truly loved his wife and he united the German peoples and healed the badly mangled economy at an time when the rest of the world was facing an deep economic crisis.
Btw i’m basically only focusing on the good things he did... but he doesn’t seem so evil now does he? It all depends on perspective.

That's not so much a perspective but a massive overlook of all the wrong he did.

TaskManager · 2018-06-07 02:33:24

azurepudding wrote:

the difference in those examples is necessary vs unnecessary actions. Self defense is necessary, stealing to keep from starving can be necessary if no other option is available, but committing genocide is not necessary. Even with their twisted beliefs, it was not necessary. And to insist something must be done when it's not, is wrong.

who are you to decide whats necessary and what isnt?

azurepudding wrote:

and even if genocide is subjectively wrong, i really don't think it's appropriate to argue whether it is or not. it's like if someone said "Rape/murder is wrong," and then someone countering "Well actually..." just no. no thank you. no.

you sound really brainwashed right now, refusing to accept any of the arguments provided because they dont recognize hitler as ultimate objectively evil person
despite it was you who brought it up initially
also lol

lex · 2018-06-07 02:52:33

azurepudding wrote:

the difference in those examples is necessary vs unnecessary actions. Self defense is necessary, stealing to keep from starving can be necessary if no other option is available, but committing genocide is not necessary. Even with their twisted beliefs, it was not necessary. And to insist something must be done when it's not, is wrong.
and even if genocide is subjectively wrong, i really don't think it's appropriate to argue whether it is or not. it's like if someone said "Rape/murder is wrong," and then someone countering "Well actually..." just no. no thank you. no.

I'm going to have to fully disagree with your second point. If we label a topic as something that cannot be discussed you are creating a massive problem down the road. Society and concepts change over time, we need to be able to talk about and understand the moral implications of even the most difficult topics.

I think we should drop the hitler talk too, but you never really baked up your point that "opinions can be objective".

Gotta point out that you did a really weird logic loop.

IanJanes: opinions can be wrong
mrjawapa: opinions are subjective
azurepudding : hitler had objectively wrong ideas
many people now: opinions are subjective, even hitler's
azurepudding: well we shouldn't talk about hitler...

Luka504, TaskManager

mrjawapa · 2018-06-07 02:59:38

lex wrote:

azurepudding: well we shouldn't talk about hitler...

tru

this is getting a little far from the LGBT debate

lex, Luka504, mutantdevle

azurepudding · 2018-06-07 03:11:17

TaskManager wrote:

azurepudding wrote:
the difference in those examples is necessary vs unnecessary actions. Self defense is necessary, stealing to keep from starving can be necessary if no other option is available, but committing genocide is not necessary. Even with their twisted beliefs, it was not necessary. And to insist something must be done when it's not, is wrong.
who are you to decide whats necessary and what isnt?

when the topic is mass murder for a "pure" race, yeah, i do get to say that is unnecessary. and so does everyone else.

TaskManager wrote:

azurepudding wrote:
and even if genocide is subjectively wrong, i really don't think it's appropriate to argue whether it is or not. it's like if someone said "Rape/murder is wrong," and then someone countering "Well actually..." just no. no thank you. no.
you sound really brainwashed right now, refusing to accept any of the arguments provided because they dont recognize hitler as ultimate objectively evil person
despite it was you who brought it up initially
also lol

brainwashed for thinking hitler was evil.. yeah sure. i brought it up because that is an easy wrong opinion to bring up, as the argument was that opinions can't be wrong. but they can be.

lex wrote:

azurepudding wrote:
the difference in those examples is necessary vs unnecessary actions. Self defense is necessary, stealing to keep from starving can be necessary if no other option is available, but committing genocide is not necessary. Even with their twisted beliefs, it was not necessary. And to insist something must be done when it's not, is wrong.
and even if genocide is subjectively wrong, i really don't think it's appropriate to argue whether it is or not. it's like if someone said "Rape/murder is wrong," and then someone countering "Well actually..." just no. no thank you. no.
I'm going to have to fully disagree with your second point. If we label a topic as something that cannot be discussed you are creating a massive problem down the road. Society and concepts change over time, we need to be able to talk about and understand the moral implications of even the most difficult topics.
I think we should drop the hitler talk too, but you never really baked up your point that "opinions can be objective".
Gotta point out that you did a really weird logic loop.
IanJanes: opinions can be wrong
mrjawapa: opinions are subjective
azurepudding : hitler had objectively wrong ideas
many people now: opinions are subjective, even hitler's
azurepudding: well we shouldn't talk about hitler...

but that didn't happen, i never said we should stop talking about hitler. i said it wasn't appropriate to argue a technicality in hitler's favor, if opinions are always subjective. which they can be objective.

lex · 2018-06-07 03:27:39

if opinions are always subjective. which they can be objective.

You have provided no real evidence of this, if something is objective it is no longer an opinion.

people believe the world is flat, there is scientific evidence it is not. these people do not have objectively false opinions, they simply believe something objectively false. you can disagree with evidence for something, but that's a belief not an opinion.

azurepudding · 2018-06-07 03:33:33

lex wrote:

if opinions are always subjective. which they can be objective.
You have provided no real evidence of this, if something is objective it is no longer an opinion.
people believe the world is flat, there is scientific evidence it is not. these people do not have objectively false opinions, they simply believe something objectively false. you can disagree with evidence for something, but that's a belief not an opinion.

the fact(!) they believe the world is flat is true. that is a fact. but their belief is actually wrong. so it is a wrong opinion, but it is true that they have that opinion.

also you claimed there is no such thing as objective right or wrong. So if we use that logic, you are neither right or wrong, it's just your opinion. and so you can't logically disagree with me, as I would also be neither right or wrong. And then there is no point in arguing whatsoever, as everything is an opinion and facts do not exist. But that doesn't make sense. Objectivity must exist then.

lex · 2018-06-07 04:12:41

also you claimed there is no such thing as objective right or wrong. So if we use that logic, you are neither right or wrong, it's just your opinion. and so you can't logically disagree with me, as I would also be neither right or wrong. And then there is no point in arguing whatsoever, as everything is an opinion and facts do not exist. But that doesn't make sense. Objectivity must exist then.

beliefs and opinions are not the same thing. factual knowledge is neither of those things. moral right and wrong is yet another concept all together.

I believe people are good. It is my opinion that socialism is economical superior. I know for a fact that Justin Trudeau is the prime minister of canada. (In my culture)It is right to say thank you and wrong to murder.

I'm really not gonna reply anymore because your logic hurts my head there. Opinions and facts are not the same thing. Opinions being subjective is not an opinion. It is the definition of an opinion. When you scientifically prove something that people have opinions on it becomes a fact/false. I really do not want to explain the basics of epistemology right now.

azurepudding · 2018-06-07 04:37:31

lex wrote:

also you claimed there is no such thing as objective right or wrong. So if we use that logic, you are neither right or wrong, it's just your opinion. and so you can't logically disagree with me, as I would also be neither right or wrong. And then there is no point in arguing whatsoever, as everything is an opinion and facts do not exist. But that doesn't make sense. Objectivity must exist then.
beliefs and opinions are not the same thing. factual knowledge is neither of those things. moral right and wrong is yet another concept all together.
I believe people are good. It is my opinion that socialism is economical superior. I know for a fact that Justin Trudeau is the prime minister of canada. (In my culture)It is right to say thank you and wrong to murder.
I'm really not gonna reply anymore because your logic hurts my head there. Opinions and facts are not the same thing. Opinions being subjective is not an opinion. It is the definition of an opinion. When you scientifically prove something that people have opinions on it becomes a fact/false. I really do not want to explain the basics of epistemology right now.

Beliefs are opinions, you can even look them up and see that they are synonyms, if you want to play definitions. You claim opinions can't be wrong, because people have them. But that is different, having an opinion is different from whether the opinion is true, false, or neither. if a person believes A, then it is true that their opinion is A. But that does not necessarily mean that the opinion cannot be wrong. I think you are misunderstanding me as you keep giving this strawman argument. I argue "X", you counter "Not Y"..

I was only using your logic against you there, so if that's what hurts you head.. it's hurting mine too.

lex · 2018-06-07 04:56:52

if a person believes A, then it is true that their opinion is A.

yes, that was never a question.

You claim opinions can't be wrong, because people have them.

No, I claim opinions can't be wrong because that's what an opinion is. If someone believes something something that is objectively false they are simply wrong, they do not have an objectively wrong opinion. Opinions can be morally wrong but morals are subjective.

azurepudding · 2018-06-07 05:28:48

lex wrote:

if a person believes A, then it is true that their opinion is A.
yes, that was never a question.
You claim opinions can't be wrong, because people have them.
No, I claim opinions can't be wrong because that's what an opinion is. If someone believes something something that is objectively false they are simply wrong, they do not have an objectively wrong opinion. Opinions can be morally wrong but morals are subjective.

If someone has a belief that is wrong.. how is that not an objectively wrong opinion? opinion and beliefs are synonymous. they literally mean the same thing. "It is my belief the earth is flat" is another way to word "It is my opinion the earth is flat." If a belief can be wrong, so can an opinion.

lex wrote:

if a person believes A, then it is true that their opinion is A.
yes, that was never a question.

when you believe something, that is a belief in something. so it seems you agree with me.

edit: opinion and belief mean the same, according to google, thesaurus.com, merriam dictionary.. and so on. they're the same thing. this is getting kinda silly tho. an opinion can be wrong and we should speak out against wrong opinions/beliefs if they are harmful as to not spread misinformation.

Ratburntro44 · 2018-06-07 05:34:36

"opinion" is variously used to describe both normative propositions and attitudes

whether ethical sentences are propositions or attitudes (i.e., whether they are truth-apt) is not a settled matter in philosophy but there are serious arguments for both sides (though the view of ethical sentences as being truth-apt is the more common one)

if you use "opinion" to refer to a truth-apt normative claim then it can be true or false

if you use "opinion" to refer to a non-truth-apt sentence then it can't (that's what truth-apt means)

also "opinion" is occasionally used to refer to positive claims but at that points it's just kind of stupid because those are definitely truth-apt

Luka504 · 2018-06-07 08:35:24

There is a pretty noticeable difference between opinions and beliefs. That being that opinions are formed based on the evidence and experience you have and how you interpret them. However, people interpret the same facts in different ways, which is why we have the massive spectrum of opinions we have.
Let's take a simple case. You like fuji apples because you've eaten many in the past and your opinion is that they are good. Someone else who's tasted fuji apples has the opinion that fuji apples are bad. Neither of them are wrong, yet neither are correct. There's no objective agreement on whether fuji apples taste good or bad.

Beliefs, on the other hand, do not require any physical evidence, you just believe it because you want to believe it. However if evidence comes along that proves that the belief is correct, then that belief turns into a fact. However, if evidence suggests that their belief is wrong, that belief is still just that - a belief. The only difference is some people will stop having that belief because there's evidence to suggest that it's wrong. But they don't have to.
Let's take your flat Earth example. Even though there is rock-hard evidence that the earth isn't flat, people still believe it is. Because they want to believe it's true.

tl;dr - Opinions can't be wrong, but beliefs can.

azurepudding · 2018-06-07 08:53:42

Luka504 wrote:

There is a pretty noticeable difference between opinions and beliefs. That being that opinions are formed based on the evidence and experience you have and how you interpret them. However, people interpret the same facts in different ways, which is why we have the massive spectrum of opinions we have.
Let's take a simple case. You like fuji apples because you've eaten many in the past and your opinion is that they are good. Someone else who's tasted fuji apples has the opinion that fuji apples are bad. Neither of them are wrong, yet neither are correct. There's no objective agreement on whether fuji apples taste good or bad.
Beliefs, on the other hand, do not require any physical evidence, you just believe it because you want to believe it. However if evidence comes along that proves that the belief is correct, then that belief turns into a fact. However, if evidence suggests that their belief is wrong, that belief is still just that - a belief. The only difference is some people will stop having that belief because there's evidence to suggest that it's wrong. But they don't have to.
Let's take your flat Earth example. Even though there is rock-hard evidence that the earth isn't flat, people still believe it is. Because they want to believe it's true.
tl;dr - Opinions can't be wrong, but beliefs can.

dictionaries don't agree with you, but there are different kinds of opinions and beliefs. one who likes those apples and one who doesn't both have a different opinion/beliefs, and neither of them are wrong. that is a subjective opinion and belief. as in their opinion, the apples taste great or terrible, and they also believe that they are great or terrible. those who believe the world is flat have an objectively wrong opinion. and it's not only wishful thinking, they honestly believe it is flat. and that is a wrong opinion. and you have a definition there that involves the word it defines.. "believe: when you want to believe something" ...but whatever, it's just semantics at this point. i will continue believing that opinions and beliefs are the same, but regardless, that means that beliefs can be wrong, and if we can all agree on that then this silly argument over a word's meaning is over. when in doubt, the dictionary is there, and that's that.

Luka504 · 2018-06-07 09:05:32

Azurepudding wrote:

dictionaries don't agree with you

Azurepudding wrote:

when in doubt, the dictionary is there, and that's that.

You do realize that dictionaries aren't objective facts, right? Dictionaries were written by humans, which means that they are contaminated with the writer's opinions, thus making them non-objective.

Azurepudding wrote:

those who believe the world is flat have an objectively wrong opinion.

Those who believe the earth is flat have an objectively wrong belief. Key difference.

Azurepudding wrote:

and it's not only wishful thinking, they honestly believe it is flat. and that is a wrong opinion.

wrong belief*

Azurepudding wrote:

i will continue believing that opinions and beliefs are the same

Good for you.

Azurepudding wrote:

that means that beliefs can be wrong, and if we can all agree on that then this silly argument over a word's meaning is over.

Just because beliefs can be wrong doesn't mean opinions can. This argument still isn't done.

Xfrogman43 · 2018-06-07 09:53:50

source: https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/te … pop12d.cfm

Luka504

azurepudding · 2018-06-07 10:49:38

Luka504 wrote:

Azurepudding wrote:
dictionaries don't agree with you
Azurepudding wrote:
when in doubt, the dictionary is there, and that's that.
You do realize that dictionaries aren't objective facts, right? Dictionaries were written by humans, which means that they are contaminated with the writer's opinions, thus making them non-objective.
Azurepudding wrote:
those who believe the world is flat have an objectively wrong opinion.
Those who believe the earth is flat have an objectively wrong belief. Key difference.
Azurepudding wrote:
and it's not only wishful thinking, they honestly believe it is flat. and that is a wrong opinion.
wrong belief*
Azurepudding wrote:
i will continue believing that opinions and beliefs are the same
Good for you.
Azurepudding wrote:
that means that beliefs can be wrong, and if we can all agree on that then this silly argument over a word's meaning is over.
Just because beliefs can be wrong doesn't mean opinions can. This argument still isn't done.

just as your definition can also be contaminated by your opinion or belief? and same with the bit frogman posted there. you can't say don't listen to dictionary definitions, then.. use your own definitions. "A is wrong, because A is true." or "We can't use definitions because they are wrong, therefore I will use a definition for my point." that is how words lose their meaning.

and yeah, it's done, because if you believe definitions are subjective, and if we are arguing over definitions, then there can't be any real argument anymore. because you are arguing the very thing you are arguing against.. it's a contradiction. This is just arguing for the sake of arguing and isn't a productive use of time anymore. If you throw out definitions, argument is literally impossible.

LukeM · 2018-06-07 11:17:57

Wow, this argument has gone on so long I can't remember what you were originally trying to say...

Anyway, I think I agree with Luka that 'the earth is flat' is a belief and can therefore be wrong, and 'Hitler did nothing wrong' is an opinion so can't be right or wrong, although it can be so widely considered wrong that it's effectively wrong, even if it is an opinion.

And yes, pretty much everything Hitler did is a matter of perspective, if you completely ignore the morals of what he did then it was actually a good thing, even the killing disabled people etc, in modern times there isn't much danger of death, so detrimental traits like being disabled don't mean that you will probably die anymore. I know this is a good thing, but you could look at it as evolution stopping, as that requires the less healthy people to die. Hitler probably thought that he was just helping evolution by killing the people he believed were less efficient uses of Germany's resources.

NOTE: I do NOT agree with what I just said, it's just an example of how everything relies on how you look at things.

TaskManager, Luka504, some woman, mutantdevle

TaskManager · 2018-06-07 11:32:09

azurepudding wrote:

when the topic is mass murder for a "pure" race, yeah, i do get to say that is unnecessary. and so does everyone else.

No cause you weren't present here, even if you will say that, it's still your opinion from your point of view, someone else will have a different one

azurepudding wrote:

brainwashed for thinking hitler was evil.. yeah sure.

Lol what? Re-read my sentence please

azurepudding · 2018-06-07 11:42:13

LukeM wrote:

Wow, this argument has gone on so long I can't remember what you were originally trying to say...
Anyway, I think I agree with Luka that 'the earth is flat' is a belief and can therefore be wrong, and 'Hitler did nothing wrong' is an opinion so can't be right or wrong, although it can be so widely considered wrong that it's effectively wrong, even if it is an opinion.
And yes, pretty much everything Hitler did is a matter of perspective, if you completely ignore the morals of what he did then it was actually a good thing, even the killing disabled people etc, in modern times there isn't much danger of death, so detrimental traits like being disabled don't mean that you will probably die anymore. I know this is a good thing, but you could look at it as evolution stopping, as that requires the less healthy people to die. Hitler probably thought that he was just helping evolution by killing the people he believed were less efficient uses of Germany's resources.
NOTE: I do NOT agree with what I just said, it's just an example of how everything relies on how you look at things.

If he truly thought he was doing good, he had some very inhumane ways of murdering.

TaskManager wrote:

azurepudding wrote:
when the topic is mass murder for a "pure" race, yeah, i do get to say that is unnecessary. and so does everyone else.
No cause you weren't present here, even if you will say that, it's still your opinion from your point of view, someone else will have a different one
azurepudding wrote:
brainwashed for thinking hitler was evil.. yeah sure.
Lol what? Re-read my sentence please

I read it just fine, but I believe there was a misuse of "brainwash" there.

And since when am I not allowed to voice my opinion on something? The murder of millions of innocents was wrong. Wow, how dare me think that. For some reason you make it seem as if finding genocide wrong is more villainous than an actual genocide itself. And you have the nerve to call me the brainwashed one.

mrjawapa · 2018-06-07 12:09:23

azurepudding wrote:

Wow, how dare me think that. For some reason you make it seem as if finding genocide wrong is more villainous than an actual genocide itself

Quit making **** up and trying to be a victim.

Nobody said anything remotely close to that.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#126 2018-06-07 01:39:46

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#127 2018-06-07 01:43:07

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#128 2018-06-07 01:59:28

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#129 2018-06-07 02:02:44, last edited by Norwee (2018-06-07 02:05:43)

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#130 2018-06-07 02:15:19

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#131 2018-06-07 02:33:24

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#132 2018-06-07 02:52:33, last edited by lex (2018-06-07 02:53:34)

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#133 2018-06-07 02:59:38

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#134 2018-06-07 03:11:17, last edited by azurepudding (2018-06-07 03:31:21)

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#135 2018-06-07 03:27:39

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#136 2018-06-07 03:33:33

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#137 2018-06-07 04:12:41

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#138 2018-06-07 04:37:31

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#139 2018-06-07 04:56:52

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#140 2018-06-07 05:28:48, last edited by azurepudding (2018-06-07 08:11:06)

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#141 2018-06-07 05:34:36

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#142 2018-06-07 08:35:24, last edited by Luka504 (2018-06-07 08:35:48)

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#143 2018-06-07 08:53:42

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#144 2018-06-07 09:05:32

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#145 2018-06-07 09:53:50

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#146 2018-06-07 10:49:38, last edited by azurepudding (2018-06-07 12:07:51)

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#147 2018-06-07 11:17:57

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#148 2018-06-07 11:32:09

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#149 2018-06-07 11:42:13

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

#150 2018-06-07 12:09:23

Re: Random LGBT+ debates 'n stuff

Board footer