CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
People Are Dumb And This Site Proves It
Hi there.
Nobody can win a debate here because when one side proves their point the other becomes dishonest. I believe this evidences that debate has become a confrontation of ego rather than a confrontation of theories.
Let me present my experiences from last night as an example. I was attacked for six hours with misrepresentation and misunderstanding for simply explaining the principle of relative time. According to Einsteinian theory, there is no universal clock. All points in time exist simultaneously just as all coordinates in space exist simultaneously. One consequence of this is a phenomena known as time dilation, which theorises that any two frames of reference can exist at different points in time relative to each other. Hence, if I skip from one to the other I can move either backwards or forwards through time, relative to the other, dependent upon whether the place I move to is chronologically behind or ahead the place I came from. Hence, I can say:-
If point A is the Earth and point B is a neutron star (where gravity radically slows down time).
If it is 5pm on Earth and 4pm on the neutron star.
If I travel from point A to point B I have therefore moved back in time one hour relative to point A.
Based on a misunderstanding of what time travel actually means, I was given a six thousand word lecture from xMathFanx, who previously I had a great deal of respect for, and as per usual I had Amarel in the background using misrepresentation and Thesaurus.Com to pretend he had some form of counterargument.
If you are a physicist and want to criticise my rather basic understanding of physics, then absolutely fair enough. But xMathFanx is a philosopher and Amarel is simply a fascist who specialises in misrepresenting other people's arguments. I have a first class degree in journalism and I specialised in science journalism. In fact, that is not entirely accurate, because I specialised in physics journalism. Short of being an actual physicist, you are not going to find anybody more qualified to explain relativity to you. But these idiots think they can get away with a ten minute session on Google and use it to win a debate against someone who has had 4 years of training on the specific subject they are arguing about.
Honestly, I'm beginning to see the utter futility of arguing with people here.
Most debate websites are glorified chat rooms. And most chat rooms exist just for wise@asses to sound off and upstage each other.
If you see graffiti in a toilet stall, or across and old brick wall, and you notice parts are crossed off and written over in a game of one upsmanship, then you're having an experience close to a debate website. If you throw serious academic discussion up on the wall and come back to see "fart" defacing it then yes the critic was juveline in their response and yes you were foolish for believing no respondent was going to do that.
Depends on the audience/judge. In a university debate team contest with a trained judge in the back of the room you are right. In the court of public opinion with every average Joe Schmoe listening and making up their own mind then more often then not you are wrong. Heck, just look at who the President is now.
So tell me, is a chat room like CreateDebate more like a university debate contest or more like a popularity contest of soundbytes and personalities?... (Hint, it's the latter)
In the court of public opinion with every average Joe Schmoe listening and making up their own mind then more often then not you are wrong. Heck, just look at who the President is now.
My argument was that this should not be happening, not that it is not happening. That is the central premise of the thread itself. For ideologues debate has become about using persuasion to push an agenda, while for others it is still about honest analysis of the facts. The process of debate itself has, to a large extent, been hijacked and usurped by egotists.
1) If a society values free expression then you have to allow it all to come out, whether it's any good or not.
2) People vote with their feet, meaning they stay or go after they see what's going on. Are there enough hard core academic types to keep a site like this going with serious topics? Probably not. I have yet to see any debate websites (and this is my third long time site) which attracted anyone with serious academic credentials to routinely spend time in here discussing. Instead, the feet you keep seeing showing up in here are trolls and the people who whack the trolls.
3) This isn't high tea at the Ritz. Or a roundtable brain trust. To be either of those things clientelle would have to be restricted and significant structure imposed on the process. To achieve that you basically need to start your own debate website from scratch, custom invite only those you want there, and full time monitor as the administrator to keep everything prim and proper. Good luck with that.
I don't come here for the high quality of debate but rather the high quantity of it.
Lol. The thing is, I'll debate politics and morality with people all day, because there is no universally accepted correct answer. But I draw the line when people want to debate the laws of physics with me.
I keep seeing science as a debate topic...and all I can think is...the science itself is not debatable. If you disagree with a scientific conclusion, you test it. You may disprove it, but that's not a debate - that changes science. That's how science works.
Every scientific debate...when you look at them...they either want to deny science, or they want to substitute junk science...which isn't science, to begin with.
I keep seeing science as a debate topic...and all I can think is...the science itself is not debatable.
This is precisely my point, although I should add that we were debating scientific theory rather than practice. But even so, the theory clearly demonstrates who is correct:-
General Relativity says that the closer you are to a heavy mass, such as Earth, the slower time will move for you. This means that a clock on a satellite orbiting the Earth will run faster relative to one on the ground.
If the GPS satellites didn’t correct for the time difference due to relativity, then the signals sent to your device from the satellite would read a false time, your device would calculate the distance wrong and wouldn’t know where you were.
I assume he was denying science, and/or injecting junk science...whether he knew it or not. When I was little, I wanted to be a physicist. I did have the potential...in spades, in fact...but my life took a different turn, and I didn't study it. I wouldn't be able to follow a significantly deep discussion...or debate...on physics.
You should check out the debate he is referencing which is hosted by mathfan, it’s pretty interesting. You’ll find that Nomenclature is confused about time dilation versus time travel. He actually does exactly what he is complaining about here, which is kind of funny.
For what it's worth, I find time travel phenomenally confusing, so I stay out of it. I have a decent understanding of the tau effect, but then I heard that damn song, "I'm my Own Grandpa", and I've never been the same since.
You should check out the debate he is referencing which is hosted by mathfan, it’s pretty interesting. You’ll find that Nomenclature is confused about time dilation versus time travel. He actually does exactly what he is complaining about here, which is kind of funny.
Exactly. Just like he is confused about the Laws of Thermodynamics, ect. He then proceeds to "double-down" and whine endlessly about the matter.
Exactly. Just like he is confused about the Laws of Thermodynamics, ect.
I am not confused about the laws of thermodynamics and this is the second time in half an hour you have tried to resurrect the same dead debate from two weeks ago which you lost because -- shock and awe -- you pretended to know more than you actually did. Your very first reply to me in that debate was to confuse biological DNA with the mathematical set of instructions responsible for processing it, and that was after I specifically explained this mistake in the very same post you replied to!
Your argument was absurd because all known codes are products of invention and intent, but you want to presume, with absolutely no evidence to support your theory, that this one (i.e. the genetic code) was simply floating around in space.
You have convinced yourself that due to your "credentials" as a Science journalist, that you are an authority on these topics.
If you are science journalist that specializes in Physics, then go back to college for Physics and you will very quickly be confronted by how little you know, and how far away you are from the level of abstract reasoning necessary to understand these topics.
to confuse biological DNA with the mathematical set of instructions responsible for processing it, and that was after I specifically explained this mistake in the very same post you replied to
You are partially correct about this, I misused the terminology of genetic code at one point, you then pointed it out, I referred to a textbook Genetics and saw this. This however in no way grants your claim that "Francis Crick is wrong" about the possibility of a genetic code arising in nature due to physical processes in the absence of artificial intervention (which is indeed a fantastical, Conspiracy Theory type claim, and you would be rightly corrected and laughed out of the room if you ever seriously made your argument on this matter to one of my Chem. professors).
I am not confused about the laws of thermodynamics
Yes, you are.
Listen, just go back to school for Physics (if that is what you are most interested in) it will be a very enlightening/enriching experience for you. Even if you fail out in the first year (which seems possible), then you are still going to learn a lot from the experience which will most definitely adjust your thinking and behavior thereafter for the better.
You have convinced yourself that due to your "credentials" as a Science journalist, that you are an authority on these topics.
@xMathFanx.
You have convinced yourself that due to your lack of "credentials" as a science journalist, that you are an authority on these topics.
You claim to be a fan of maths and yet you seem blissfully unaware of the concept of balancing an equation.
If you are science journalist that specializes in Physics, then go back to college for Physics
I genuinely hope you are going to present a better argument than, "You have more training in this subject than I do therefore you're wrong and need to go back to college for physics." Because that one is kind of silly.
You are partially correct about this
Oh, I am? Well, thank you Mr I Have Absolutely No Qualifications In Science But I Am Nevertheless Going To Speak Like A Pompous Clown With A Trumpet Up His Sphincter. I really appreciate being patronised by a nitwit who refuses to be corrected, even when his eyes are forced to look at the information which corrects him.
I misused the terminology of genetic code at one point
That is one way of describing the incident. Another is that you misused the terminology of genetic code immediately after I had warned against misusing the terminology of genetic code. If one doesn't purposefully butcher this fact in half it becomes clear that you don't even bother reading/understanding the things you reply to before disagreeing with them.
This however in no way grants your claim that "Francis Crick is wrong" about the possibility of a genetic code arising in nature
If Francis Crick used that argument then it is simply the age-old "anything is possible, nothing is a fact" pseudo-philosophical platitude which has been repackaged and relabelled for public consumption. In reality, you can't lock information behind a door and distribute keys without having the intent to lock information behind a door and distribute keys. In reality, computers don't program themselves.
Yes, you are.
Oh just fuck off. You're really getting on my nerves tonight because you sound exactly like Amarel. You don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about so drop the authoritative tone you bloody nincompoop.
The simple truth is, having a degree in Journalism in no way credentials you as having any knowledge or first hand experience in science. Now, if you specialize in Physics journalism, then you know it is better to have at least an undergrad. in Physics compared to nothing if this is the subject matter that you are going to be reporting on. Therefore, it would be responsible of you to go back to school for Physics (or another discipline in science) in order to be properly qualified to do your job. Aren't you interested in learning real Physics?
I submit that you are intimidated/scared of going back to school for Physics/Science because deep down you know that you would be confronted by the fact that you are a Physics journalist then sitting in intro Science/Math courses (getting your first taste of real science) where you deeply struggle to keep up with what is going on, would be afraid whether you are "cut-out" for making it through the program or not, and be confronted by how little you know and far away you are from understanding the topics you are reporting on.
I think you owe it to yourself and your readership to undertake this project and you know it, although you do not want to admit it to yourself because that would actually require a lot of real work, discipline, humility, courage, ect.
You have convinced yourself that due to your lack of "credentials" as a science journalist, that you are an authority on these topics
What kind of degree do you have Nomenclature? How many times does he have to tell you he's studying physics at university? I bet he has more education in physics than your sorry ass, you are educated to baby talk the public about physics, not to actually understand it to the extent of being a real physicist.
I genuinely hope you are going to present a better argument
I genuinely hope you are going to get testicular cancer, he is more educated than you.
A Pompous Clown With A Trumpet Up His Sphincter.
I knew your "brotherhood" with Mathfan wouldn't last long the moment I realized he wasn't an imbecile. If you really think about it, all of your attacks can be applied to you more than him.
you don't even bother reading/understanding the things
Semantical nit pickery will get you no where. He didn't actually say anything incorrect in any tangible way, he just failed at presenting his ideas with a totally idiot proof level of nuance that couldn't be spun into a web of deceit by scum like you.
computers don't program themselves.
DNA didn't program itself either, the "code" in DNA is the result of a gradual process that occurred in a complex chemical environment, you are a creationist. If you believe the annunaki made our genetic code then who made theirs? Is there an infinite chain of creators? Somewhere along the line a code HAS to form naturally to create an intelligent being to create the codes that where created deliberately. This is why your logic is non existent and your obsession with codes is futile.
You don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about so drop the authoritative tone you bloody nincompoop.
Man, I would like to see you impaled on a spike bleeding out of your anus with ice picks in your eyeballs. I would dip my bread in your blood and eat your liver with a side of goat testicles.
DNA didn't program itself either, the "code" in DNA is the result of a gradual process that occurred in a complex chemical environment
That claim is demonstrably false. If it were true, then the genetic code would continue to evolve like everything else continues to evolve. The genetic code does not evolve because it did not evolve into being. You might as well try to argue that Morse Code evolved into being on its own. In fact, given the sheer complexity of the genetic code, that would actually be considerably more credible.
Unless you want me to ban you, stop hiding your argument behind a wall of personal insults.
If you believe the annunaki made our genetic code then who made theirs? Is there an infinite chain of creators?
Dumbee Dumbee Dumbee show me your sense and lemme see if it can spell 'common' .
Your brain told you this question is intelligent right?
Oh dear... ! pityful.
So we know humans are made up of coding, but how do you know for annunaki/whatever that guy is? is it necessary for that whoever to also posses genetic coding because humans posses some? why?
you think no being can exist without DNA?or genetic coding?
My consciousness has no DNA.
i can sit in a public place like America's got talent show with loud music and cheering with my eyes wide opened fixed on the performer with all my body senses present but my consciousness wouldn't be there.
With the right body posture, yet my mind of consciouness might be organising things at home for an event, organising an office project so complete that when i get outta there i will be going to do the work straight without difficulty. The body and it's DNA didn't contribute to that. All they know is to have 10fingers, 2 eyes, nose, mouth , teeth, etc.. people can have all these intact and unharmed but can yet be declared dead because they are not responsive, (how come? i mean they have every part of the body ) consciousness left.
Your brain told you this question is intelligent right?
Not only that, but he's quite purposefully misrepresenting the conversation we had. I didn't tell him I believe aliens created the genetic code. I just told him that it was possible, and I certainly didn't mention any "annunaki".
Besides which, his fallacious mockery could equally be applied to computers. Computers were invented by humans? Well, who made humans? Is there an infinite chain of creators?
He's really exposed himself as an ignorant, dishonest narcissist these past couple of days.
Yes the world is full of morons and it seems that every single one of them is online.
As for me, I'm not actually here for serious debate. I'm more interested in observing the insanity and being entertained by it from a safe distance.
I do find myself offended by those who engage in malicious attacks and often respond to that so I do engage them occasionally but for the most part I simply have a life long interest in insanity and this is the laziest way I know of to observe it.
As for me, I'm not actually here for serious debate. I'm more interested in observing the insanity and being entertained by it from a safe distance.
Brother, this is the only logical response to the insanity of the human race. You have to be a spectator rather than a participant, to paraphrase the late great George Carlin.
There are currently millions if not billions of mentally ill people that are hearing a voice that they say is God. Many more think they are Jesus. I guess we should believe in God because of them? Lmfao
It depends on who you interact with. But i treat this more as a debate forum than any kind of arena of intellectual debate. You do a little back and forth with someone until someone concedes (rare), someone gives up, someone disappears for a huge sum of time, or the debate disolves into insults.
Someone else said it above. Its quantity over quality.
I think it really depends on who you are debating against. There are a few people on here that I find highly enjoyable to debate against, we don't always agree but then that's the whole point. Granted for as many people that are on here there are only a few but I think it's really a matter of knowing who you want to debate and who isn't worth the time and who debates a certain way.
I think it really depends on who you are debating against.
I suppose that is true. My problem is that whenever I post anything I usually have to deal with it being deliberately misrepresented by the likes of bronto and Amarel. I then make another post to clarify where and how I am being misrepresented and then of course that post too gets misrepresented, and so on, ad infinitum.
I know how frustrating that is. There is one on here that does that quite often, short of calling him out on it there isn't much one can do about it other than ignore or try to clarify as best you can so that others know what you mean while not trying to deliberately misrepresent what they say either. You may not be able to clear it up enough for them but for everyone else you can try.
It is not so much that people are dumb it is people, like the OP, who resort to name calling and childish fits that make this site undebatable. Don't get me wrong, you are not the only one, many on here do the exact same thing. That is why I will never respond to one of your posts ever again.
But xMathFanx is a philosopher and Amarel is simply a fascist who specialises in misrepresenting other people's arguments. I have a first class degree in journalism and I specialised in science journalism. In fact, that is not entirely accurate, because I specialised in physics journalism. Short of being an actual physicist, you are not going to find anybody more qualified to explain relativity to you. But these idiots think they can get away with a ten minute session on Google and use it to win a debate against someone who has had 4 years of training on the specific subject they are arguing about
I formally study Math/Physics at a major Uni. in the US instructed by Physicists/Mathematicians from Harvard, Cambridge, Berkeley, Princeton, other elite schools, and moderate level schools (i.e. Ohio State, ect.) I'm friends with people in the process of getting their PhD's in specialized areas of Math/Physics and other sciences. To say that you are more "credentialed" in Physics because you have a Journalism degree is laughable at best.. You don't have any experience in real science and are simply bolstering the point I made about the pride you take in not testing your knowledge and being confronted by your own misconceptions... I'll let other members of this forum decide who tends to reason with more clarity of mind between you and I and evaluate your claims accordingly..
It would not surprise me in the least if you were a science journalist, since one of the major problems about educating the public in science is that we have k-12 teachers, journalists, spokesmen, ect. talking about scientific disciplines as though they were an authority on the matter who do not even have any direct experience with real/technical science nor degrees in a scientific discipline (i.e. they are not properly educated/credentialed to do much of the "reporting" that they do). Rather, many of these "responsible" spokesmen of science read some Pop. Science books, documentaries, talks, ect. or just have a degree in Education (if they are part of the k-12 system) and think "they more or less understand it".
You have asserted on this site a deep misunderstanding of the Laws of Thermodynamics, as well as expressed your incredulity about what can occur naturally in nature (e.g. codes). Try and take that to a credible academic institution assert that to people such as my professors and see what happens... (Hint: You would be put in your place very quickly).
Note: k-12 teaching and science journalism is a very laudable profession. However, if you are going to be a Chemistry teacher, than get at least an undergraduate degree in Chemistry (preferably higher as time progresses), not simply an Education degree. Likewise, if you are going to be a Science Journalist, then get at least an undergraduate degree in science (e.g. Physics, Math, Chem, Bio, Neuro, ect.) and preferably continue with that education in graduate school so that you are actually qualified to report on these subjects
You make some excellent points, here. Math used to be the thing I could rely on most, incidentally - my scores were rather insane...but I couldn't get the instruction when I needed it, and slowly lost interest. Pretty much the same happened in science, too - as I became more interested in computer science, and just computers in general. I tried getting back into math, but after being out of it for so long, calculus stumped me.
I have two points in this - though there is rampant stupidity on this site, there are some damn smart people. You'd be one of them.
My other point - damn straight they need to keep up with scientific knowledge, and that's a challenge for anybody, even professionals. My life story is damn sure a testament to that.
I formally study Math/Physics at a major Uni. in the US instructed by Physicists/Mathematicians from Harvard, Cambridge, Berkeley, Princeton, other elite schools, and moderate level schools (i.e. Ohio State, ect.)
I think the difference between us is probably that I am not a liar.
You are just being stupid. I have already proved that you do not understand the concepts you are talking about, so telling transparent lies about yourself only further exposes you as the child you -- only minutes ago -- claimed me to be. Just for a start, you post here every day and have posted here every day for months. That is entirely logically inconsistent with the notion that you study anything at uni, let alone maths/physics, which I happen to know from colleagues takes up more time than a person actually has in their day.
In fact, let's continue our critical analysis of your claim with another line of reasoning. You have written quite a lengthy post in which you purport at the very beginning to be studying maths/physics. So why is your entire post after this claim an egregious personal attack? Why does it contain no maths or physics? Why do you throw a temper tantrum instead of simply and precisely debunking the premise I included in the OP?
Shall I tell you why?
Because you are a liar. That's why.
I was wrong about you and ordinarily I believe myself to be a good judge of character. Either you have some kind of mental problem, someone has hijacked your account, or you are just a duplicitous twerp with the emotional intelligence of a five year old goat.
Nobody can win a debate here because when one side proves their point (note: bronto butchers the quote here, but it continues, "the other becomes dishonest")
You've never proven a point.
Which kind of proves the point really, doesn't it?
had Amarel in the background using misrepresentation and Thesaurus.Com to pretend he had some form of counterargument.
So you debated against the dictionary....again....
He debated against the dictionary definition of defense in another debate. By the time he was done, he had created a word salad consistent with his being an actual zoo chimp.
So you debated against the dictionary....again....
So you don't understand the difference between a thesaurus and a dictionary? One is for finding synonyms and the other is for defining words. Run along now, little troll.
In fact, that is not entirely accurate, because I specialised in physics journalism. Short of being an actual physicist, you are not going to find anybody more qualified to explain relativity to you.
1)Bwahahahaha! Says the person with 105.654321 puppet accounts...
2)That journalism degree will ... well, let's just say...you might as well have saved your tuition money and went directly to McDonalds to work. Well, this explains why you want Socialism. You know you'll never make a dime as a journalist, and you want the laborers to buy your lunches for you.
Honestly, you are a childish ignoramus. Your "proofs" include fringe Conspiracy Theory lunacy and then you throw a temper tantrum when someone doesn't surrender to your fantastical claims. For example, codes cannot be found in nature if they are not artificially constructed, your abuse of the Laws of Thermodynamics, 9-11 conspiracies, ect. Moreover, when a person does challenge your patently absurd "truths" it clearly strikes a nerve in you, and you proceed to show the world how emotionally unstable you are and the depth of your delusive dogmatic beliefs. None of this would fly in a serious intellectual arena (you wouldn't even be able to get away with it on the PhysicsForum.com let alone a serious academic environment)..
The respect I have for you is that your way of thinking and knowledge base extends beyond that of the general public and you demonstrate justified moral outrage toward many of the extreme social/political injustices/dysfunctions present in the world (i.e. your "heart" is in the right place). You have worth while contributions, however you are drastically overestimating your abilities/reasonableness based on the fact that you are more intelligent/sensible compared to the typical member of the general populace or below (who are incomprehensibly ignorant and stupid).
Bronto isn't even necessarily completely wrong about you in some areas, although I do not at all agree with nor support his antics either.
Honestly, you are a childish ignoramus. Your "proofs" include fringe Conspiracy Theory lunacy and then you throw a temper tantrum when someone doesn't surrender to your fantastical claims.
Oh yes. Clearly, I am the one making fantastical claims, Mr. I Study Physics At Harvard. Clearly, I am the one throwing a temper tantrum. That must be why everything you have written in the last half an hour has viciously attacked me.
You are being so stupid, obnoxious and childish that I refuse to believe you are the same xMathFanx I usually converse with. I am going to hope that you are simply the same idiotic troll who tried to hijack my own username and write posts on my behalf.
That said, I'm going to ban you, because you are attacking me with slanderous nonsense and debating absolutely nothing.
(you wouldn't even be able to get away with it on the PhysicsForum.com let alone a serious academic environment)..
I actually referenced Physics.Org earlier in the thread when I was busy proving you wrong. Obviously you missed it. Must have been that spectacular eye-twitch problem you have whenever anybody wins a debate with you.
General Relativity says that the closer you are to a heavy mass, such as Earth, the slower time will move for you. This means that a clock on a satellite orbiting the Earth will run faster relative to one on the ground.
if the GPS satellites didn’t correct for the time difference due to relativity, then the signals sent to your device from the satellite would read a false time, your device would calculate the distance wrong and wouldn’t know where you were.
Amarel is simply a fascist who specialises in misrepresenting other people's arguments
Amarel is not a fascist, that is another unwarranted slander product of the emotional outbursts from a man-child. He simply leans more to the "right" on the political spectrum.
Believe me. Amarel is a fascist. I'm so confident I don't even have to use italics.
that is another unwarranted slander product of the emotional outbursts from a man-child.
No, what you are doing is actually a fascist technique in itself, since you are purposefully creating a problem in order to give yourself a proposed moral basis for an attack. In fact, your personal insults are downright hypocritical, given that you are the one slinging them, yet I am apparently the "man-child".
Do not embarrass yourself further. You have already shown yourself to be an intellectual troglodyte who resorts to fanatical personal attacks when things do not go his way in a debate.
Believe me. Amarel is a fascist. I'm so confident I don't even have to use italics
No, you throw that term around far to loosely in quite an unethical way I would add. That is why I said Bronto is not entirely wrong about you (amongst other reasons), although he is a bully and I do not support his tactics (nor in any way all of his views with respect to you).
No, you throw that term around far to loosely in quite an unethical way I would add.
Fascism has nothing to do with ethics you sophist turnip licker. Fascism is a political ideology.
That is why I said Bronto is not entirely wrong about you
Bronto is entirely wrong about everything. Acquiring the truth from his posts requires a similar formula to Amarel's. You simply turn them upside down and read them backwards.
