View Poll Results: Who wins?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • Post 1 - Turkafinwë

    1 10.00%
  • Post 2 - Akar

    2 20.00%
  • Post 3 - CommodusIV

    0 0%
  • Post 4 - ep1c_fail

    0 0%
  • Post 5 - PointOfViewGun

    1 10.00%
  • Post 6 - Roma_Victrix

    1 10.00%
  • Post 7 - Cyclops

    3 30.00%
  • Post 8 - sumskilz

    2 20.00%
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: POTF 25 - Vote

  1. #1
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,424

    Default POTF 25 - Vote


    POTF Voting Rules - Public or private messages asking for a vote for a candidate post are forbidden. Violators (and their posts) may not participate in the running contest.

    -Users have one vote each, and may vote for their own
    post.

    -Use of alt accounts in the voting round is forbidden.

    -Users may not reveal who they voted for in this thread or elsewhere in the POTF forum

    -While explicitly asking for votes is not allowed, advertising the competition is permitted and encouraged.


    Turkafinwë - What would it take for you to change your stance on religion?
    Post 1
    To be honest, it will have to be some pretty convincing stuff. Like for the god-creature to come down and appear before me after which he will probably have to convince me why I should worship him as a God, which is an entirely different discussion. The nature of this "God" then would be something I would be very interested in finding out.

    I was raised as a Catholic, went to Catholic school and to church when I was young, up until I was 14 or so. For me it always was more of a cultural thing than a strictly religious thing. I was baptized at birth and followed catechesis and underwent Confirmation but I can't say I really believed in the Catholic dogma, or any other for that matter. It was, as I say, more of a cultural and societal thing to do, everyone did it when I went to school. As for the belief if there is something out there, like a god-creature which created the universe and humans (because that is what the theology of the Abrahamic faiths is all about), I can only say that I don't know. There might be something, there might not be and if there is something greater than us, which is entirely plausible, would we consider it (a) God or just a more powerful alien species? (The Aesir were a people humans considered gods but they were not gods to themselves, they were just the Aesir just like you had the Älves and Jötunns. The only reason we see them as gods is because they can do things we can't. Where would be draw the line between powerful alien or God?) The way I look at religion is that it is comforting to think there is a greater purpose to human life than just, the purpose we ourselves give to life, and that is what religion provides for many.

    It would be comforting for some and horrifying for others (or perhaps a bit of both), I think, to find proof that we were created by some being for their purposes. It would give us, as a species, a whole other perspective on life.


    Akar - Do knowledgeable ex-atheists exist?
    Post 2
    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    The Bible does provide objective moral standards; the problem is that we interpret those standards both subjectively and imperfectly.
    Is it subjective and imperfect to consider genocide to be morally wrong? At what point does god stop getting a free pass for doing stuff just because he's more perfect?

    This is why scripture is always subject to more perfect explanation.
    Also just happens to make it easier to always change the interpretation to match whatever the argument requires.


    A genetically distinct human life is created at the point of conception.
    Yeah, just like when a chicken lays an egg. But you're not a militant vegan or anything. "genetically distinct human life" is a meaningless phrase and benchmark.

    There is nothing "disingenuous" about equating the destruction of individual humans at the very beginning of their development (a phase common to all human life) with the destruction of individual humans at a later stage of their development.
    There absolutely is.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_t...n_of_pregnancy

    "There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a human becomes viable.[15] A 2015 study found that even with active treatment, no infants born at less than 22 weeks survived, at 23 weeks survival without severe impairment is less than 2%, and at 25 weeks, up to 30% might survive without severe impairment.[16][17] According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 24 weeks of gestation survived,"

    There's nothing "individually human" about them. They have no personality or emotion, no sentience. They are aware of nothing and are nothing more than a tumor or growth. You're aborting something that is at that point essentially a parasite, with the active infanticide of an entire nation's babies. I don't think it's a stretch at all to call it disingenuous. It's a woman's right to choose what happens to her body. It is not god's right to commit genocide, no matter how badly he wants Canaan for his Jews.


    And since 2d. and 3d. trimester abortions can often involve the fetus having its limbs ripped off and its skull crushed, I don't see that it is much different from being "dashed against the rocks". I would show you a video, but since even drawn interpretations are deleted for "gore", I can't.
    Just because abortion can look messy doesn't make it morally or medically wrong. A vast majority of medical procedures look pretty "gorey" to the outside observer. Ever seen someone get a steel rod put into their leg? They literally use a giant hammer. Claiming that abortions are messy is a classic move by those against a women's right to choose, but it's a totally moot and irrelevant point. It's like comparing a surgeon amputating a limb with a murderer cutting your leg off while you're still alive. The action is technically the same, but aside from that the two things are unrelated.

    If you want to compare videos I think there's a few of the genocide in Rwanda laying around that show genocide and infanticide are a bit more serious than a controversial medical procedure.


    CommodusIV - How true is the Bible?
    Post 3
    You know, people might have a bit of a problem, just a bit if they are being coerced by a divine entity (not that most people have any true reason to believe he is as you would claim he is at a logical level save for revelations that must be received case by case to have any credibility) with no real evidence. "Believe me, I'm not gonna give you proof, but look at the books where I up their lives and call everyone and their descendants guilty if they don't". Disbelief is a natural, even logical reaction in a society that has gone beyond superstitious crowd-think to determine how things in life work. We are a race at our peak when we do things with substantive reason, not with crowd mentality. This is not so much a matter of science as a matter of basic reasoning. If you aren't given a direct revelation, you have no good reason to believe, and the revelation must be overwhelmingly convincing (though some standards are higher than others) to not chalk down to other things we know to be possible. This, mind you, is not a slam against God as a concept, but God as being who you would preach him to be acting as you'd think he'd be (and saying 'him' already assumes quite a lot).

    Convincing people of the Truth of the Bible is going to take more than "look at people in a book who were tortured for eternity because they exercised a bit of free will". Tell you what. Convince me. Unless you would also say that belief must work on a case by case revelation basis, or at least offer something more than "look around you, duh". I'm not impressed by the argument mustered here, but perhaps you have something else that will stand to a deductive mind. And yes, I'm specifically asking you to convince me, or digress. You spend enough time here that I have to think you'd at least attempt the former.


    ep1c_fail - Do knowledgeable ex-atheists exist?
    Post 4

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    And then you scampered away from the argument when I replied
    Weak bait, but I'll bite. I did not reply initially for three reasons: (1) the points you've raised have been repeatedly rebuked in the D&D (and in real life) previously; (2) the purpose of introducing abortion was to expose your self-defeating claims of "self-evident" moral standards, not to discuss the finery of the issue; (3) the topic of the thread doesn't tend itself toward a debate about abortion.

    Nevertheless, since you are clearly eager to hear my rationale, I will provide it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Akar View Post
    Yeah, just like when a chicken lays an egg. But you're not a militant vegan or anything.
    It's precisely because I do not find birdlife to hold an equivalent value to human life that I'm not a militant vegan. And since I know you are content to consume poultry and dairy products but not human flesh (either of an embryo or born person) I'd say that, despite your failed attempts to show hypocrisy on my part, we hold a similar standard here.

    "genetically distinct human life" is a meaningless phrase and benchmark.

    1. A genetically distinct life is more commonly referred to as an organism; a genetically distinct human life can therefore be (and scientifically is) classified as a human organism or human being. Arguing that this categorization (which applies beyond humanity) is "meaningless" is either delusional or, as I suspect is the case, a form of mindless gainsaying.

    2. According to your own "I only accept scientifically verifiable information" standard, any and all moral benchmarks can be dismissed as "meaningless". So to pretend as if those who disagree with your preferred benchmark vis-a-vis abortion (for which you can provide no objective accounting) are being "disingenuous" is itself disingenuous.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_t...n_of_pregnancy

    "There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a human becomes viable.[15] A 2015 study found that even with active treatment, no infants born at less than 22 weeks survived, at 23 weeks survival without severe impairment is less than 2%, and at 25 weeks, up to 30% might survive without severe impairment.[16][17] According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 24 weeks of gestation survived,"
    I'm not sure what the purpose of pasting wiki information about "viability" is. The term doesn't imply that humans which are not viable outside of the womb are valueless; you're simply extrapolating a subjective moral judgement from it - ie. that only humans which can survive independently are deserving of the right to life. This position can be easily rebuked by highlighting that foetuses which are viable as well as birthed infants and vulnerable adults cannot survive independently either.

    There's nothing "individually human" about them.
    A zygote is a genetically distinct human life form (organism) at the earliest stage of development (a phase common to all humanity). All of the building blocks for adult life (unique DNA) are present. Hair colour, eye colour, gender, heritable personality traits, potential height, etc. have already been determined. Therefore, the claim that there is nothing "individually human" about zygote is both scientifically and morally false.

    They have no personality or emotion, no sentience. They are aware of nothing and are nothing more than a tumor or growth.
    Even were I to accept the premise that "sentience" is the only valuable element of life, your point would still be irrelevant. The expectation that the zygote/embryo/foetus will, as a consequence of its inherited genetics, rapidly develop observable "personality, emotion, sentience" etc. is more than enough to justify its right to life.

    You're aborting something that is at that point essentially a parasite, with the active infanticide of an entire nation's babies.I don't think it's a stretch at all to call it disingenuous. It's a woman's right to choose what happens to her body.
    1. By referring to the unborn as "parasites" (a sordid attempt to devalue the life) you're inadvertently conceding that zygotes/embryos are distinct organisms and defeating your own argument that pregnancies concern only the physiology of one organism (ie. the mother). You are also implying that you would support abortion up until the moment of pregnancy (since according to your rationale the foetus would remain a "parasite" until that point). This contradicts your previously implied position that an embryo gains value when it shows signs of brain functionality (sentience) or is viable outside of the womb.

    2. The ability to use protection or remain abstinent is the bodily choice that people have; there is no moral theory, other than self-defence, which provides a "right" to destroy an innocent human being.

    It is not god's right to commit genocide, no matter how badly he wants Canaan for his Jews.
    God neither commits nor commands genocide: his orders refer to the purging of wickedness. The account of Sodom's destruction - wherein the Lord promised to spare the city for the sake of ten good men - offers a clear insight into this issue.



    Just because abortion can look messy doesn't make it morally or medically wrong. A vast majority of medical procedures look pretty "gorey" to the outside observer. Ever seen someone get a steel rod put into their leg? They literally use a giant hammer. Claiming that abortions are messy is a classic move by those against a women's right to choose, but it's a totally moot and irrelevant point. It's like comparing a surgeon amputating a limb with a murderer cutting your leg off while you're still alive. The action is technically the same, but aside from that the two things are unrelated.

    If you want to compare videos I think there's a few of the genocide in Rwanda laying around that show genocide and infanticide are a bit more serious than a controversial medical procedure.

    You're the one who introduced violent imagery ("dashed against the rocks") in an attempt to draw a distinction between contemporary and historic forms of infanticide. Your clear implication was that the historic killing of infants was somehow more abhorrent because of its violent nature, even though many contemporary abortive procedures involve the tearing of limbs from the abdomen and the crushing of skulls. So don't now turn around and pretend that I'm the one who sought to play an emotive trick or claim that "just because abortion can look messy doesn't make it morally wrong" as if you hadn't just tried to argue the opposite with regard to ancient infanticide.


    PointOfViewGun - Turkey opens its borders for refugees to go to Europe.
    Post 5

    Quote Originally Posted by ioannis76 View Post
    Let's see. One is a statement made by Soylou, who happens to be a minister in Erdogan's government, stating that the influx of "refugees" will destabilize the economies and governments of Europe, another one is a video, apparently posted by the "refugees" themselves, of them discharging a weapon in the Greek-turkish border, obviously against the Greek police.
    Both pretty much demolish the far left and Turkish narrative of peaceful, poor refugees, trying to find a better life in Europe. What do we do when we can't answer video evidence? We call it "ridiculous" and be done with them. I'm surprised nobody used the word "fascist" so far.
    Weapon? You make it sound like they were launching grenades on Greek border guards. The video featured a bunch of people firing a tear gas launcher. You repeatedly tried to claim in this thread that Greeks were sustaining live fire. If that really happened the Greek government would move mountains to make it the narrative in the media. Yet, no such thing even appears in the Greek media. Greek spheres in Twitter is following a completely different path though. Many are hijacking the situation using old or outright fake footage and you're buying into it. Just like how you used that excavator video that was 2 years old without acknowledging it the slightest there are many people who use fake videos to create a narrative.

    I don't see what's so problematic about Soylu's comments. He's pointing out how incapable the Europeans can be with handling refugees. It can easily get out of hand like it did at the Syrian border and its consequences within the current political environment can affect a lot of governments in Europe.[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by ioannis76 View Post
    If the turkish economy is going that bad, then maybe Turkey should stop spending money on buying weapons and sustaining wars overseas and buying drill ships in order to use them for illegal drillings on other people's EEZs. Harming the turkish economy will only hamper Turkey's capability of making war, which is actually a good thing.
    As for "refugees" let Turkey send as many as she likes. They will stay on the turkish side of the border, whether Turkey likes it or not.
    What will happen if a million of them bang up on that small strip of border? Would you want the Greek border guards to simply annihilate them with machine gun fire?


    Roma_Victrix - USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread
    Post 6
    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    Obama was sane and awesome.
    Sanders the commie on the other hand, told an American citizen that was a political prisoner in Cuba that he doesn't see anything wrong with Cuba in his face when he was in Cuba to negotiate his release in 2014. He was also praising Castro's Cuba since the 80s.
    What a hilarious argument considering how Obama and Biden made incredibly similar gushing comments about Cuba and Castro when we temporarily reopened relations with Cuba. What a silly non-issue this is and again, anyone under the age of 45 or who isn't a Cuban Republican living in Florida doesn't give two craps about Fidel Castro. They care about the rising cost of health insurance premiums/deductibles and medical bankruptcies when the entire nation is in the midst of a pandemic. Talk about hilariously dumb priorities, Alhoon.[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    Nope, his stance is further left than the communist party of Greece. (My sister's parents in law are in the Communist Party of Greece, and they don't go that far left).
    It's really hard to take anything you say seriously at all with grotesquely hyperbolic statements like this. It's especially hysterical considering how more than half of Bernie's ideas and opinions wouldn't make it through Congress, either the House or Senate, and an American president only has so much political capital to get key pieces of legislation passed. At best Bernie would get college-free tuition and Medicare for All in his first term, plus minor concessions on a Green New Deal to combat climate change, but you need 60 Senators (!!!) just to pass anything. Which means convincing some Republicans on the other side of the aisle to join in.[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    Sure, those are the sane ones. Now, let's add to these the following:
    - Has been praising the Sandinistas in Nicaragua in the 80s.
    - Has been supporting Castro's Cuba since the 80s and he still does (2020) + telling a poor political prisoner that he doesn't see anything wrong with Cuba (2014).
    I think Ludicus did a fairly decent job rebutting this above, but again I reiterate: who aside from cranky, grey-haired, aging and dying Boomers and Cold War warriors cares one iota about Sandinistas? For that matter Bernie's stance on Latin America has largely been to not interfere directly in their affairs, unlike people to the right of Bernie who want to continue insane Banana Republic foreign interventionism that led to the Sandinistas in the first place.[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    - Supports a wealth tax of 1% per year for large fortunes that can go up to 8%
    - Supports the mandatory breaking up of big banks: "Too large to fail = too large to exist".
    The 1% and even 2% wealth tax was supported by Elizabeth Warren , is fast becoming part of the Democratic Party platform and Democrats polled across the board want the same thing. Even Biden is open to taxes on the wealthy, so again, what a hilariously moot point. Also, were you alive in 2008 when the financial recession and meltdown occurred? We Americans live in a country that is near lawless when it comes to financial sector regulations (Dodd–Frank not going nearly far enough). The giant multinational corporate banks based in the US are absolutely too big for their own good and a danger to the rest of the economy, as proven time and time again, and it doesn't take a degree in economics to see that.[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    - Supports unionization in all large-ish companies with union representatives having a seat on the board.
    Heaven forbid those smelly poor people should have a seat at the table and enter the presence of real humans (i.e. rich people) and offend their nostrils with the plebeian smell of the metro train they used to ride to work instead of a limousine. Your anti-union attitude is very revealing, by the way. It's almost as if you don't realize the Democratic Party in the United States, at least historically, has been the party for unions and for that matter this country used to have incredibly strong unions until the Reagan era demolished them.[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    - Supports companies that are over 100M in revenue to give 2% of their stock to workers per year till 51% on top of their salaries... but was willing to back down to 20%.
    - Supports a minimum wage that is making sense for NYC and LA but not for low income areas.
    Again, pretty hard to take you seriously when you are against increasing the minimum wage, which is something EVEN JOE BIDEN SUPPORTS and is supported by an enormous majority of Democrats per polling data, many of whom cannot afford to buy a house and on average are much poorer than their parents or grandparents at the same age. It's almost like the Democrats want to make sensible decisions to rebuild the middle class. Meanwhile, Scrooge McDuck wants to swim in oceans of gold coins and deny people a meager increase to their minimum wage that doesn't even cover the entire cost of paying rent, food, bills, childcare, etc.[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    Not even the Communist party of Greece goes as far as to demand companies to turn over their stock to employees.
    So... no. Sanders isn't just "medicare for all" and "forgive student debt". He's as far left as one can go.
    In her post above, Morticia (Carmen Sylva) pretty much annihilated whatever silly point you were trying to make here, so bravo to her and Ludicus. Heaven forbid workers should own 20% of stocks in the companies they toil for, in some cases barely making a living wage while the CEOs have golden parachutes in the sum of hundreds of millions of dollars even if they screw up and bankrupt the company. It's almost as if you don't understand the insidious amounts of wealth inequality and disparity between workers and executives in the United States versus an actual sane country like Japan.

    "As far left as one can go..." how immensely disingenuous is this and irresponsible at that, since this basically tries to conflate Sanders with freaking communists like Lenin or people who want entire government planned command economies with no private industry and no real private property, ala the Soviet Union. That's what "as far left as one can go" means, Alhoon. Bernie Sanders doesn't have plans to take over the grocery store. Both he AND Elizabeth Warren wants to break up big tech companies like Facebook because of the dangers they pose to society as monopolies, much like Teddy Roosevelt breaking up the big trusts at the turn of the 20th century (when we apparently had more common sense about national security). If you see that as a bad thing then I don't know what to say to you beyond your position being hopelessly out of touch with reality and the majority opinion of the American electorate via polling. Meanwhile, you're crying about worker representation on corporate boards as people are going to die from lack of universal healthcare that you and millions of other Europeans (+Canadians, Australians, Japanese, South Koreans, etc.) enjoy without issue.


    Cyclops - Do knowledgeable ex-atheists exist?
    Post 7
    Quote Originally Posted by z3n View Post
    Optical illusions exist so some caution can be prescribed.

    However, since it is not an absolute mistrust, you must believe something and not nothing? You must for example, believe that you're not talking to yourself as you type on your keyboard and then press the Post button.
    Yes even self belief is an act of faith, and the dark hole of solipsist doubt is a repugnant place for me.

    I do have faith that I know things, even though I don't know how I know them. I agree with CommodusIV's skepticism about knowledge and appearances but it doesn't erode faith necessarily.

    I use the (admitted flawed) analogy of Cyclops Jnr's experience. He can't remember learning to talk but talk he does. He doesn't understand how me leaving for work leads more or less directly to chocolate cake for him but he's sensing a relationship and accepts that explanation from me. he sometimes ventures little explanations, often repeating some homily of mine before launching into absurd fantasy like "Scientists say dinosaurs lived one hundred million thousand ago, but now there are birds, because the meteor was cold". He's getting there, by which i mean to a place where he can debate the ideas in his sentence with me.

    Like Jnr I plaster half understood explanations over my ignorance, and the rest I make up. There's instinct and some sort of groupthink thing that happens with humans on top of "reason" as an individual might exercise it. Some people "know" there's a god or God or gods or whatever, with great certainty. Given the uncertainty and faith base of my own reasoning, who am I to deny them theirs?

    There's also the arena of reason as a (more or less) shared discipline. Taking on faith that we somewhat understand one another because we evolved that way (or God created us that way, or both) then I'm happy to argue the toss of Biblical phraseology, text analysis, history and archaeology. I think the "feeling of rightness" that might lead an atheist to openly mock the sanity of a person of faith is the same "feeling of rightness" that might get a witch tied to a stake so there are real political implications to our epistemological approaches.

    If you say "the Bible is true" and by that you mean "this version, glossed this way, with this praxis applied" then the implications range from a tolerant benevolent society to a living Hell. In precisely the same way the statement "the Bible is false" does too.


    sumskilz - Coronavirus outbreak - From China to the World.
    Post 8

    For context:
    Quote Originally Posted by Exarch View Post
    The idiot ing President of America is killing Americans by mis-prescribing hydroxychloroqine; i may have some differences with americans on this site but not enough to want any of them to die.


    DO NOT TAKE ANY MEDICATIONS UNLESS PRESCRIBED BY A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    An actual prescription is needed to buy hydroxychloroquine.
    Quote Originally Posted by Exarch View Post
    You can't legally acquire either drug without a prescription from a medical practitioner. Hydroxychloroquine is already being prescribed for COVID-19 based on preliminary research. The FDA has approved it for compassionate use. This study found hydroxychloroquine to be effective against COVID-19 and even more so in combination with azithromycin. The sample size was small and the control group wasn't randomized. That said, more research is well warranted. I couldn't find out whether or not the FDA has approved the combination for compassionate use, but there certainly are some experts arguing in favor of them doing so.


    This is what Trump tweeted:
    HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine. The FDA has moved mountains - Thank You! Hopefully they will BOTH (H works better with A, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents).....


    ....be put in use IMMEDIATELY. PEOPLE ARE DYING, MOVE FAST, and GOD BLESS EVERYONE!
    His praise is apparently a reference to his earlier tweet about the FDA having approved hydroxychloroquine for compassionate use cases. I suppose it could be misunderstood if someone doesn't know the context, but I suspect most who are just looking for something else to be indignant about are deliberately misunderstanding it.


    We're meant to believe that Trump's tweet is responsible for two Nigerians in Lagos overdosing on chloroquine. Which is a reasonable assumption knowing that Trump's tweets are widely regarded as a legitimate source of medical advice around the world.


    I'm from Seattle. I wouldn't want to be there right now. I expect it will get a lot worse.


    Israel banned flights from East Asia in mid-February, and no one who had been to an infected country within the last 14 days could enter without being quarantined. Soon after, only residents and citizens could enter the country going straight into quarantine. At the beginning of March, all schools and universities were closed. We've been in almost complete lockdown for roughly the last two weeks. Most of the newly identified cases were already in quarantine. The High Court has granted the government permission to use counterterrrosim techniques to track the spread. With the assumption that most people carry their phones with them everywhere, anytime anyone tests positive, everyone whose phone has been in close enough proximity to the infected person's phone is put in quarantine. Even so, it's still not completely contained.


    I'm in a pretty decent place to wait this thing out. Eleven floors up, and along the Mediterranean, so the air is pretty fresh. It's not even like being stuck indoors, because an entire wall of my living room is sliding glass doors that open to a deck.

  2. #2
    mishkin's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    The Tribunal
    Posts
    13,020

    Default Re: POTF 25 - Vote

    Voted
    So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. (Revelation 3:16).

  3. #3
    Akar's Avatar Faustian Bargain Maker
    Citizen Censor

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    13,251
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: POTF 25 - Vote

    Voted.

    Join the Thema Devia Discord here.
    If you would like a TWC Wiki page made for you click here
    Son, Heir, and Wartime Consigliere of King Athelstan

    Proud Adopted Patron of Cope






  4. #4
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Civitate

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    7,231
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: POTF 25 - Vote

    Voted
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  5. #5
    Turkafinwë's Avatar The Absurdist
    Civitate

    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    1,638

    Default Re: POTF 25 - Vote

    Voted.

    (Thanks mishkin for reminding me)

    Chapter XXVII: The Choice
    #JusticeForAkar #JusticeForCal #JusticeForCookie #JusticeForAthelchan



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •