Sociopath Community

MartinLooterKing:
How would he take a stronger stance as an example?

Legga:
In fact, I submit that Inquirer has moved the goalpost at every turn of the debate and backed out on specific claims and requests he's made. When all else failed, he tried to appeal to reputation heuristics -- that he's somehow special and needs to be
taken more seriously than I.
What actually happened in that debate, from my perspective, is that I had posted a list of Swedes as a part of my paper. Inquirer found the list to be incorrect.
He made fun of me by stating how I got some of the members' nationalities incorrect. He continued to egg on, telling me he'd bump the thread like a trophy. He insinuated I should be embarrassed by the line of reasoning that led to my list, and for `getting
the nationality of people wrong.`
To add final salt to the wound, he made fun of me by demanding evidence for the list of Swedes that I had posted, which he strongly suspected I couldn't provide.
However, he fucked up at the last gasp by stating I just need to ask him for the `correct` list of Swedes. I asked, and he posted.
Then I asked him to provide evidence, the very thing he had demanded I provide in his malicious victory glee.
But *he himself* failed to provide any evidence. For what he was calling me an idiot over are things *he himself* can't do, and this is why we've been laughing at how he's called himself an idiot by his own logic.
Instead of coming up with good evidence, or admitting he fucked up, he has spent *months* trying to convince people he hasn't contradicted himself by constant attempts to post-rationalize away the reasons that led to his contradiction.

MartinLooterKing:
Legga, you talk about ad populum embarrassment type of tactics, and now you are saying you have been laughing at him, this is not an argument. Lets keep emotions and machiavellianism out of here

Legga:
Sure, thank you Moderator.

MartinLooterKing:
My first question is, what are the differences between your and his lists and what do you guys list as evidence for them?

Legga:
I have no issue with the notion that I may could have gotten some people's nationalities wrong; I didn't defended that stance (Edvard being an exception), nor did I debate it for more than one or two responses in that 45-page topic.

MartinLooterKing:
But yes you providing some nationalities as wrong does not automatically mean you are not right about the swedish ones
Or certain ones

Legga:
On the other hand, Inquirer *has* both accepted that he needs to provide evidence or admit he contradicted himself, claimed that I am an idiot for not providing `Inquirer evidence`, and asserted that he will provide more stringent evidence for his list
if it is demonstrated that a more stringent standard than that of `Inquirer evidence` is possible (which I demonstrated).
I submit that everything after the request for evidence me feeding Inquirer his own medicine and Turncoat pointing out the various fallacies Inquirer has committed while trying to re-define the terms of the debate through post-rationalization.
So, my argument is essentially:
Inquirer has not debated the stance he just put forth, he has debated something different.
And anyone who looks through the 40 pages of that debate topic would understand this.

MartinLooterKing:
"17:12 Legga: And anyone who looks through the 40 pages of that debate topic would understand this."
ad populum again

Legga:
Not quite, Moderator

MartinLooterKing:
If both of you have provided evidence to each others criteria, but both of you disagree with, you are either moving goalposts to try to win the argument or you did not actually manage to provide evidence in each others criteria.

Legga:
One of my arguments in that topic is: if Inquirer can call me an idiot for not providing `Inquirer evidence` (a standard he arbitrarily made up), then I can apply the same logic to state that he is an idiot for not providing verifiable evidence.
And later a standard of evidence called `John Johnson evidence`
Because this guy John Johnson barged in

Inquirer:
Just let him finish. (in response to his own cheerleaders)

Legga:
and asked Inquirer to provide John Johnson evidence of him, just as Inquirer had barged in to demand Inquirer evidence of me.
and later asked*
Alright, thanks, Inquirer, for being patient. I've a bunch of questions for you based on your opening.
However, how do you want to go forward?

MartinLooterKing:
"Verifiable evidence" is just as malleable in criterias as "Inq evidence". You need an external criteria.
That is provided by neither of you

Inquirer:
First of all, I guess I don't really see what was wrong with my description of your argument.

Xadem:
You go forward by Jim deciding where the question round begins and ends, after that both provide closing statements. Is how I envision it.

MartinLooterKing:
I want them to act naturally then I intervene where I see holes

Xadem:
Fair enough

MartinLooterKing:
Also make demands on evidence

Inquirer:
I think Legga and I can ask each other questions politely.

Legga:
My stance was not that there is no reasonable standard, it was not that everyone needs to adhere to verifiable evidence, and it was not that my list is better than your list.
My stance was essentially inspired by Bayesian logic, which I've gone on about for a long time.

Inquirer:
Okay, but when you've clearly been unreasonable in the past and I state, over and over, that I'm looking for reasonable evidence from you

MartinLooterKing:
That's a trap right there. Ask for "reasonable" evidence, get it, call it "unreasonable"
Inquirer: why don't you just say that there is a "reasonable" standard of evidence here that we can agree on? Instead of

Legga:
I declare that's an ad hominem and we didn't debate that.

Inquirer:
shooting down everything I say? Because I clearly state what I'm looking for. (what)

Legga:
Instead, I debated specific things that you had agreed to.
So can I explain my stance?
I'm not shooting down everything you say.

Inquirer:
Sure.

MartinLooterKing:
You both are vomiting subjectivity and value judgements all over the place.
Just make your points

Legga:
I never debated the stance `there can be a reaonable standard of evidence.` I debated your claim that I must provide Inquirer evidence.
Moreover, can you actually point to a place where I say `there can't be a reasonable standard of evidence?`
Have I actually said that even once?
I don't want to put you on the spot. However, I'm telling you that you've misunderstood what I've been telling you.
Since we can't go and check the topic now
someone can fact-check what I'm saying.

Inquirer:
And I think you purposely misunderstood what I asked of you to in order to make it into "Inquirer evidence" so you could argue it from the position you have.

Legga:
after the fact.
Okay, so let me test if that's the case.
I don't want to go into machine gun shooting mode where we just try to corner each other
Instead, let me ask you: What is your best understanding of what `post-rationalization` means?

Inquirer:
Alright.

MartinLooterKing:
thats irrelevant

Inquirer:
Coming up with reasons for doing something after it happened.

MartinLooterKing:
Who the evidence criteria belongs to does not matter, what matters is what each thinks is sufficient probable cause for each others claims
Which you both made alot of with no concrete backing

Legga:
Right, or making excuses after the fact.
That's correct, and I think we agree.

Inquirer:
I assume you think I did that?

Legga:
What do you think would be a good `method` to see if someone has post-rationalized?
Well, let's see.

Inquirer:
I don't know lol.
Just speak your mind.

Legga:
I can come up with one and let's see what you think
An example of post-rationalization would be, for example, that someone states that they have psychic powers. Once subjected to a test, they say `I really meant to say that I have psychic powers *but only when people around me believe in me`
It's probably a sloppy definition.
So, I recognize that I can't read people's mind.
So it's difficult to tell, conclusively, if a person has post-rationalized away some reasons.
However, a common problem with post-rationalization is that it creates holes in what they've said previously. For example, in that example, if the person had said `my psychic powers always work`
then I would say that there's *some* evidence that the person has post-rationalized. However, it may not be conclusive.

MartinLooterKing:
What is the "i have psyhic powers" and what is the "i only have em when people believe me" here? replace the slots with what he said

Legga:
He could just say `well I didn't mean it, don't take it so literally.`
Sure, so in Inquirer's case
i have psychic powers = you need to provide evidence
I only have em when people believe me = I only meant reasoning
However, I want to finish
Even if I *say* that he's post-rationalized. There's no way for me to conclusively prove it.
And so I will leave it to every person to judge based on their understanding of Inquirer's personality traits, what he's said, etc.

MartinLooterKing:
It is enough to show a point where he asked for "hard-line" evidence and then flipping it to "reasoning" later

Legga:
Yes.

Inquirer:
No offense but this seems like a long-winded way to say you don't believe me.

Legga:
Well, before I get to the Moderator's question

Inquirer:
Early in the thread I did use the word "evidence". When you took that to mean hard/stringent evidence I explained myself.

Legga:
would you accept, Inquirer, that if someone states one thing, and then backs out of it by re-defining the terms, that this counts as some evidence that the person has post-rationalized?

Inquirer:
No.

Legga:
Why not?

MartinLooterKing:
Evidence has a very clear line in chalk meaning

Legga:
Then how would you tell someone has post-rationalized? Is it just impossible?

Inquirer:
It is impossible. But you can usually tell when the actual argument changes that something else changed.

Legga:
I'm not saying that it `must` be conclusive evidence. But if it happens on several occasion, over and over, then would you say that it counts as at least some evidence?

Inquirer:
But my argument never changed.

Legga:
Well, ok, let's see if that's the case I guess then.

MartinLooterKing:
That does not count as evidence but it does rise eyebrows

Legga:
You admit that you asked me for evidence, correct?
what did you mean by that

Inquirer:
I apologize for using a word that made it seem like I meant something I did not, but that was on like page 10.
I directly afterwards explained I meant I wanted anything tangible that would indicate you had good reasons to believe what you did.

Legga:
Okay.

MartinLooterKing:
To play devils advocate for inq, he could also mean: "well, if not evidence, then at least something reasonable to make it probable??? anything????"

Legga:
Let me respond to that then
See, the problem here is that, if you *had* meant evidence in the traditional sense of the word, you would've been caught, correct?
And I agree that you did clarify what you meant, that you were asking for `reasoning`

Inquirer:
Yes, if I had meant evidence in that sense then I would've argued against myself.

Legga:
Evidence being, for example, asking you to dig up a post to prove someone is Swedish, then, would count as `evidence` in the traditional meaning of the term, I guess?
which is not what you wanted to say.

Inquirer:
Right. It's not what I asked for.

Legga:
I see. So why did you ask me `to point to where Ed/MissC has said they're Swedish`?
Again, I'm not trying to corner you or anything. I'm just trying to understand.
Because that explanation is consistent with the post-rationalization hypothesis.

Inquirer:
Well, this can go either way depending on what you would've said. But I wanted to hear a reasonable line of thinking from you.

Legga:
But are you not asking me for the traditional definition of evidence
?

Inquirer:
And since I know, and most of the forum knows, that Ed hid his nationality like no other I'd like you to explain where and in what context he suddenly claimed to be Swedish.

Legga:
well, traditional evidence
I see. But then you admit you did ask me for the evidence in the traditional sense, and not merely to provide `reasoning`?
Perhaps this is more of an oversight
I'm not trying to back you into a corner, I'm fully willing to admit
that this is also consistent with just you being absent-minded

Inquirer:
I feel like this turns into semantics.

Legga:
or not rigorous enough

MartinLooterKing:
It is completely semantics. In fact a the moment Legga is arguing with himself, providing examples of Inquirer asking for "reasonable" while claiming hes asking for "evidence".

Legga:
But I'd like you to acknowledge that you did request me to provide evidence, not merely reasoning. Again, I'm not trying to put you on the spot.

MartinLooterKing:
arguing against himself*

Inquirer:
Evidence, in the way I used it, is a catch-all word for reasoning/proof/reasonable anecdotes/whatever.

Legga:
We can also move on, with this being unresolved. I'm willing to let that pass if you like.
Well, did you yourself point to where the the people on your list have claimed to be Swedish?

Inquirer:
It was not however a demand for you to dig up posts or hand me voice recordings.

Legga:
Alright then. Well, I don't want us to get stuck. So let's take another example then.

Inquirer:
So, I clearly listed what I could provide for each Swedish member.
If you accepted my standard we could've dug into that.

Legga:
Yes, but you failed to provide what you yourself asked me to provide.
But again, I don't want to get stuck.

Inquirer:
I don't think I did. I listed Swedes and I gave you my reasoning for why i did so. Then I said this is the kind of hard evidence I can find to back them up.

Legga:
I am fully willing to admit that you could've been just loose with words there.
What was that hard evidence?

MartinLooterKing:
17:54 Legga: I am fully willing to admit that you could've been just loose with words there.
Why are you begging him to throw the towel?

Legga:
I'm letting him have a pass.
If he wants to continue on that topic I'd be willing to

Inquirer:
That hard evidence would've been posts, perhaps chat logs, other members' recollections, possible Swedish members I could find and have come back etc.

Legga:
Alright, so I take it you will point me to where the people you listed have spoken Swedish, at the very least.
As per your own request.

Inquirer:
I could, Legga, but then we'd move away from the actual point we got stuck on.

Legga:
However, I'm not going to continue with this. You just said that you did not ask for evidence in the traditional sense of, for example, pointing to specific posts. Now you admit you did.

Inquirer:
I think I've explained what I meant by "evidence".
And I think it's consistent with my argument in the thread.

Legga:
anyway, go ahead and have the final word. I don't think this point is worth getting stuck on, as you say, since there are more interesting things.
Alright, are you OK with moving on? I wanted to address one thing you said. Then maybe you can talk for a bit.

Inquirer:
I sort of see this as central, but sure.

Legga:
Let's say that I will now acknowledge your definition of evidence.

Inquirer:
Alright.

Legga:
Alright, so you said `my list was built on nonsense` which was essentially all you've been saying in the debate, correct? I don't want to misrepresent you.
in your opening.
And you've been saying more or less the same thing in many places during the whole debate thread.
So I want to understand: Is it that you essentially made fun of me because I didn't do my due research, but instead posted a shitty list?

Inquirer:
Yes. Not every person on the list, but the list as a whole.

Legga:
Alright, so when you were ridiculing me for `getting MissC's nationality wrong`, that's essentially where you were coming from?

Inquirer:
I think you've been arguing in bad faith for years and on purpose.

Legga:
Right, and I don't have much of an issue with that.
statement

Inquirer:
So, do you think it's reasonable to dismiss you out of hand until you do start to show you're serious?
Because that's where I was heading.
It's like giving up on a flat earther after numerous bad arguments.

Legga:
Sure. You could choose to dismiss me out of hand. However, can you answer the question?

MartinLooterKing:
Ad hominems and self-set standards

Inquirer:
I think I did. But yes, that's basically where I was coming from.
I think I can expect you to be more reasonable, in this case by showing you based your picks on more than just pulling them out of thin air.

Legga:
Right.
And what were my reasons?

Inquirer:
Are you saying your list was reasonable in your view?

Legga:
I'm asking you what my reasons were.

Inquirer:
I'd have to go back to the thread. But I'm not sure if this is leading somewhere.

Legga:
I didn't give them.

MartinLooterKing:
I am still here btw lol. I am waiting to see if Legga will succesfully paint inq in a corner
or fail

Inquirer:
You've actually been a good mod.

Xadem:
You're doing a good job pointing out the fallacies Jim
Yes

Turncoat:
Agreed

Legga:
Agreed.
You claim that your stance has been, since the start, that I didn't do my `due research`, showcased by the fact that my reasons were nonsensical.

MartinLooterKing:
the perks of growing up with a bpd psycho mother

QuietBeef:
Agreed.
Jim is good at this.

Legga:
how did you conclude my reasons were nonsensical, when I never gave them?

Inquirer:
You did give some reasons. And refusing to give more (ie. having none) are also nonsensical.

Legga:
If your main point is that I have been jumping into conclusions and didn't do my due research, then isn't that precisely what you've done if that really were your stance?
I mean, I submit that your stance has been post-rationalized after you were cornered.

Inquirer:
How did I jump into conclusions and failed to do research?

Legga:
How is it logically coherent that you can find my reasons for `thinking that MissC is Swedish` unreasonable, when I never gave those reasons?
Did you just assume it?

Inquirer:
Because you refused to give any?

MartinLooterKing:
Can't expect to have someone think you are black when you dont tell em whether you are employed or not.
guess your race*

Legga:
Yes, but you said specifically that you found my `reasons` to be unreasonable.
You didn't say that I didn't give enough evidence, and that's why you found it unreasonable.

Inquirer:
This is semantics and nitpicking again.

MartinLooterKing:
Not explaining your reasons is unreasonable

Legga:
Well, actually you did, but we can get into it.
Alright so you submit it's semantics.
I submit that it's post-rationalization because you wanted to change the topic of the debate.
So let me ask another connected question: Have I even once in that debate `debated` this stance of yours?

Inquirer:
Lol.

MartinLooterKing:
"I was not unreasonable / unevident, I was hiding them"
meh

Inquirer:
If I argue a certain thing and explain it to you a number of times because we get stuck, and you keep not really responding to me, I don't think you can hide behind "I debated my own thing".

Legga:
No, I'm collecting supporting evidence to the hypothesis that you've been switching topics and backed out on claims you yourself specifically made.
While it's certainly not conclusive evidence, people can decide what they think.

Inquirer:
Then yes, I think you have.
By trying to make it into something else and by ignoring certain points.

Legga:
I have debated your stance?
Can you think of the specific thing I've said that made you think that? I'm not expecting you to be a wikipedia, ofc, so feel free to pull it off the top of your head.

Inquirer:
Sure, but not fully.

Legga:
I.e., what specific point have I contested that led you to believe that
You can also just post it later, again, I'm not trying to back you into a corner.
Or maybe I've done it implicitly?
I'm just trying to understand where you get this, because I don't remember debating that stance even once. So that's the reason I think that you've post-rationalized the topic of the debate away. If I never debated something, how can it be the topic?

Inquirer:
That's difficult to point to like this. It's more that it's done through ignoring certain points I've made so you can continue yours.
Or that you try to find loopholes to prove something in a legalistic sense, even though I don't see how it actually changes anything.

Legga:
Yes, but how can it *possibly* be the topic, if I never debated it?
So let me try to explain what I think is happening.

Inquirer:
I could possibly believe you if you never meant to debate my stance. I've said multiple times that I think we're operating from different premises.
But I am suspicious because you've been dishonest in the past and
because I explained myself so many times.

Legga:
dishonest? But not contesting something I could've even agreed on?
by not*

Inquirer:
For specifics I'd need to go and look.

Legga:
My take is: You have made claims B, and C. I contested B, and C. As a defense, you made claim A. I never contested A. You decided that the topic is about A, after the fact.

Inquirer:
But I think most of it is us reading or interpreting words and concepts differently.

Legga:
Sure, that's fine.
Or perhaps you made the claim A earlier. However, it can not possibly be the debate topic if I didn't contest it.

Inquirer:
And I think I started the topic as A, explained it was A over and over and you still treated it like B or C.

Legga:
Which, in my opinion, is your way of post-rationalizing the fact that you lost claims B and C.

MartinLooterKing:
Getting a little meta there now

Legga:
Okay, thank you Mr. Moderator.
Sure, I think that both hypotheses are possible, Inquirer. I'm not saying this is definitive proof of post-rationalization.

Turncoat:
It's kinda not hard to go meta when Inq by his own admission keeps saying he'd "have to go look" without doing it. [only input stepping back now]

Legga:
like I fully admitted in the beginning, without being able to read minds, I can't tell.
I do accept him checking it later on.
Ok Inquirer, do you have questions for me?
I don't want to do all the questioning, it's supposed to be a fair duel.

MartinLooterKing:
Oh, I thought he was gonna go take a look. Such a liar.

Legga:
We can check later
:P

Inquirer:
I could go look, I'm just wondering if it's going to lead somewhere.

Legga:
Nah you can do that later Inq, I don't have that much time.
Do you have questions for me?

Inquirer:
Because a big problem here is you replying to my posts and claims in a way where it is not apparent at first that you're arguing a different thing.

Legga:
or other things you wanted to address? I still have more things I wanted to discuss, but I think it's been my turn for a while, so..

MartinLooterKing:
I am nearing to my verdict too
Say your last words
One of you is going to leave without e-rep

Inquirer:
Lol.

Legga:
Moderator gone wild.

MartinLooterKing:
Maybe to never return

Legga:
lol
Like I said, I don't see this as a way to `expose` Inquirer, just an opportunity to chat.

Inquirer:
Okay, famous last words.

Legga:
I do want to go through a couple more things before this is over
I think Inq's been quite charitable with the discussion.

Inquirer:
Oh, want to do that first?

Legga:
Well I was thinking I'd give you a chance to ask me something, but if you want me to continue I can go ahead

Inquirer:
Sure, go ahead.

Legga:
Alright. So continuing with my post-rationalization hypothesis.

MartinLooterKing:
We can just settle a score for tonight

Inquirer:
Jim can decide at half-time or whatever, yes.

Legga:
Sure why not

MartinLooterKing:
Two eastern europeans 1 cup

Legga:
Okay so TC said that you've been fighting ghosts, repeatedly, in the topic. What do you think he meant?

Inquirer:
The same thing I've been saying, that we've come at this from different premises.
It became a tug of war over defining the debate.

Legga:
Yes, and then you said that I did not understand your stance.
Which lead to our mutual misunderstanding, to quote your words

Inquirer:
Yes, because if you did you'd see you were fighting ghosts too.

Legga:
Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?

Inquirer:
Your whole John Johnson evidence, for instance, is meaningless if we're trying (and can be expected to) to find a reasonable standard of evidence.

Legga:
Sorry I'm not following you.

Inquirer:
Alright, so
if my argument is about reasonableness, and I propose a standard for that, then coming up with undefined "John Johnson evidence" and claim it's equally reasonable is nonsense.
It's like when you were trying to say stating no reasons cannot be unreasonable because you never stated any.

Legga:
Well, I never said that.

MartinLooterKing:
but you did

Legga:
I said, specifically, that concluding that my reasons were unreasonable without knowing those reasons is contradictory, and I said that it was something your attempt at post-rationalization missed.

Inquirer:
Isn't that the same thing?

Legga:
No, because if you don't know what the reasons are, then how can you find those reasons unreasonable?

MartinLooterKing:
there are no reasons until you provide them

Legga:
exactly.

Inquirer:
It's unreasonable to not give reasons.

Legga:
But you claimed, specifically, that my reasons were unreasonable.

Inquirer:
Dude.
That is shortcut for saying not stating reasons is unreasonable and stating bad ones is unreasonable.

Legga:
What I'm saying is that this is consistent with the notion that you post-rationalized away the topic of the debate. I'm not claiming that you did, because I can not read your mind.

Inquirer:
And I'm saying this is consistent with the fact that you miss the forest for the trees.

Legga:
And I'm happy for you to not accept this as evidence.
Except I'm not claiming that you did definitely post-rationalized away the reasons.

Inquirer:
Or notion, rather.

Legga:
I'm saying it's one among many things consistent with that hypothesis.

Inquirer:
You are arguing I did.
I am arguing you kept missing my point in the thread when I think you shouldn't have.

Legga:
I am providing `evidence` in the Bayesian sense.
I am not saying `look at this example, therefore Inquirer post-rationalized`
I'm saying `these are the facts that support the hypothesis that you did.`
Because, let's face it, I can't read your mind.
So I have to go with what you've said.

Inquirer:
That seems like a fancy way of saying "this is what I think and here are my reasons".

Legga:
Sure, I like fancy language.
I'm like Jordan Peterson reborn.

Inquirer:
I also can't read your mind, but I've similarly made the argument that you either willfully or by accident missed my point.

Legga:
Anyway, let me see what your original question was before we go on a tangent
Okay, well, let's agree on something here then.
You say I've missed your point.

Inquirer:
We should wrap this up soon btw.

Legga:
Agreed.
If you have two people debating, and one of them addresses specific points the other person is making, and one is essentially contesting an argument the other one never made.
In the meantime, the other person is essentially telling you `I have no issue with the point you're making`
for pages and pages
then how can that person be wilfully ignored your argument? I specifically said `proving that Inquirer evidence is better does not prove its validity`, which you said was your stance.
I mean, I tried to explain this over so many pages, that you're fighting ghosts. TC did it, too.

Legga: 
Okay enough rant from my side. We can take a look later.
I want to wrap this up.
So one more question:

Inquirer:
First of all I don't agree "one of them" addressed specific points while the "other" contested an argument never made.

MartinLooterKing:
Ok inq, are you ready?

Inquirer:
Eh, shouldn't I reply to the above?

MartinLooterKing:
After you finish

Legga:
Yeah, sure, but make it quick. I need to go soon.

Inquirer:
Lol.

Legga:
and I haven't even gotten to my main point.

Inquirer:
Should we just pause then?
You're not at your main point yet?

Legga:
No, I'm not
I guess I could ask what argument you contested then (if it's your view you did)

Inquirer:
Last word and then continue?

Legga:
Sure

Inquirer:
I'd rather do last word, pause for later and let Jim decide half-time winner.

Legga:
by last words you mean your response to this topic, I guess? Sure, I don't want to misrepresent you.

MartinLooterKing:
I think this is enough for today *takes inq and legga off the keyboard*

Legga:
half-time? I'm kind of hoping this isn't going to take that long lol.
Thank you, Moderator.

MartinLooterKing:
"I had much longer and bigger debates"

Inquirer:
You're not even at your main point yet lol.

Legga:
Go ahead Moderator.

MartinLooterKing:
alright *ahem* so

Legga:
and thank you for your patience

MartinLooterKing:
posted

The Original Argument

The Challenge

The Results

Thanks for compiling this, Turncoat

Cringe. Omg turncoat this has to be the most cringiest fucking load of shit I’ve ever read. Why are you even on the internet get the fuck off.

And why is a notorious child pornography poster still allowed to post here wtf lol.

KluKluxKlan said: 

notorious

lol