use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g.reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
reddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
see the search faq for details.
advanced search: by author, community...
1,768 users here now
Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.
Please link directly to any images or use imgur to avoid being flagged as blogspam
Recommended reading and viewing
Thank you notes
Related Subreddits <--the big list
Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net
Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv
Read The FAQ
Submit Rage Comic
Submit Facebook Chat
Submit Meme
Submit Something Else
reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›
The black cat (imgur.com)
submitted 17 hours ago by RebekahRave
[–]thenaterator 64 points65 points66 points 15 hours ago
Whoever made this clearly doesn't understand philosophy. In addition, I doubt they actually know what metaphysics is.
[–]squigs 22 points23 points24 points 14 hours ago
They don't know what theology is either.
[–]CantHugEveryCat 17 points18 points19 points 13 hours ago
Neither science nor cats.
[–]therestruth 6 points7 points8 points 10 hours ago
Where is a fixed version?
[–]Lunights 6 points7 points8 points 13 hours ago
Might as well throw in the color black and dark rooms.
[–]Corrinth 2 points3 points4 points 12 hours ago
At least he still knows what a flashlight is.
[–]NanduDas 1 point2 points3 points 12 hours ago
Does he?
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 10 hours ago
Science is more like looking for a black cat in a dark room by firing a revolver wherever you heard the last meow and feeling like you're doing better than the rest because half the chambers are empty.
[–]TommaClock 0 points1 point2 points 9 hours ago
And then you shoot the cat, it dies, and you proclaim victory.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 hours ago
If you can call a dark room full of cat piss that now has a dead cat in it a victory... Maybe that's too philosophical...
[–]TommaClock 1 point2 points3 points 7 hours ago
that's too scientific...
FTFY
[–]thenaterator -2 points-1 points0 points 11 hours ago
Absolutely true.
[–]ubermenchy 3 points4 points5 points 10 hours ago
I am glad, so glad that this is the top comment. The post is ignorance, painful and upsetting.
[–]Iliketrains 2 points3 points4 points 12 hours ago
Or 'pataphysics, but then again, nobody does
[–]bhaku 1 point2 points3 points 9 hours ago
Sure we do, I for one know a lot about 'pataphysics.
Like for example, did you know that the french word for 'pataphysics is 'pataphysique?
And the term was coined and the concept created by French writer Alfred Jarry (1873–1907), who defined 'pataphysics as "the science of imaginary solutions, which symbolically attributes the properties of objects, described by their virtuality, to their lineaments."
You might also share the knowledge with me about how the practitioners of 'pataphysics are called, 'pataphysicians or 'pataphysicists.
[–]Iliketrains 3 points4 points5 points 8 hours ago
There are also things called 'pataphors, which I find interesting and maybe useless. I think it's where you take a metaphor and put it into more literal terms, but I'm not entirely sure.
Metaphor: Tom felt so miserable, for Jane was a world away.
'Pataphor: Tom was on Earth while Jane was on Mars, making Tom very miserable since there is no air on Mars and Jane was sure to die.
lol that was my try at a 'pataphor.
[–]bhaku 1 point2 points3 points 8 hours ago
Wow, that's really... unnecessary, but I guess its a fun thing to tell about.
By the way, if it wasnt obvious enough: I don't know anything about 'pataphysics. I copied that stuff straight off wikipedia.
[–]lorefolk 2 points3 points4 points 9 hours ago
They also don't understand that it's enough that religion claims to find the cat, without arguing whether the cat is in there or not.
[–]ohfail 0 points1 point2 points 6 hours ago
I'm still wondering why the cat is using a flashlight.
[–]JasonMacker 20 points21 points22 points 14 hours ago
Not this shit again.
Philosophy and metaphysics (which is a subset of philosophy) are useful tools to examine the world with.
Rationalism, please.
[–]qspec02 0 points1 point2 points 10 hours ago
I will see your Rationalism and raise you Empiricism!
[–]JasonMacker 4 points5 points6 points 9 hours ago
The point is that I'm sick and tired of this denouncement of philosophy and metaphysics as being nonsensical.
[–]qspec02 6 points7 points8 points 9 hours ago
I agree 100%. I am a big reader of Philosophy (and I hold a degree in it).
We live under a system that really exalts science which is okay, but it is often to the exclusion of other methods (and questions). This is partially due to the almost immediate results that science gets (when compared with Philosophy).
But we should remember that many scientific lines of inquiry began and were advanced by philosophical thinking and questions.
The computers we are using owe quite a bit to philosophy (logic, modal logic, advanced mathematics). Calculus owes its inception to philosophers (Leibniz and Newton). Our judicial system (and government as a whole) owe philosophy (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, amongst others). Virtually any knowledge we have about the Universe is overtly philosophical (and merely supported by science and math).
I really wish the scientific minded would not exclude philosophy (in much the same way the religious exclude philosophy). That said, I rest contented knowing that the greats of science exist both as scientists and philosophy.
I am an ardent defender of philosophy. That said, I was just trying to be cute (although... I do typically side with empiricism over rationalism).
[–]tuscanspeed 2 points3 points4 points 7 hours ago
So what you're saying is that people talk about and think about things before attempting to put them into action, or make decisions.
That said, I rest contented knowing that the greats of science exist both as scientists and philosophy.
That said I'm actually a bit shocked it's taken any other way.
[–]ReDyP 12 points13 points14 points 12 hours ago
I really really hate this repost. It is beyond ignorant, and for some reason it keeps getting up votes. I am a trained scientist, but I have to ask: Why the hell is a philosophical approach below a scientific? Since when is this a fucking hierarchy? How can science answer questions about morality, self, and purpose? Above all, the most annoying thing about this repost is that it assumes science is not a type of philosophy employed to understand the natural world. Science is a subset of philosophy.
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
[–]Corrinth -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 hours ago
How can science answer questions about morality?
You're welcome.
[–]Callidor 7 points8 points9 points 11 hours ago
Have you read The Moral Landscape? Sam Harris is a neuroscientist and a philosopher, and the book is an argument for Utilitarianism, a philosophical position which states that the morality of an act is determined by the amounts of suffering and/or well-being it causes.
That's not to say that Harris doesn't adopt a scientific approach to this question (or to the questions he examines in his other works of philosophy). His thesis is essentially that well-being can be measured objectively by using scientific tools like MRI scans etc.
But if what you're trying to suggest is that Harris is a scientist who somehow does away with that pesky philosophy nonsense, then you're deeply mistaken, both about what sorts of things science and philosophy are, and about Harris as an individual.
[–]Corrinth 2 points3 points4 points 11 hours ago
I was not attempting to discredit the uses of philosophy, but merely to argue that, yes, morality is scientifically quantifiable, which is something that Harris argues in the book. Quite successfully, in my opinion.
[–]qspec02 2 points3 points4 points 9 hours ago
Only in some sense. He has a pretty set meta-ethical position... namely that of a Utilitarian.
Many a deontologist (a stance that I think makes more sense than Utilitarianism) would argue saying that morality cannot be scientifically quantifiable (or qualified for that matter).
The same goes for moral nihilists.
I typically avoid books like this for that reason alone. Buying into another person's meta-ethical position is really no different than buying into someone's religious position (at least as far as morality is concerned).
[–]JasonMacker 0 points1 point2 points 9 hours ago
Sam Harris was panned by moral philosophers... and he was wholly dismissive of the works of the philosophy community... who didn't take to kindly to being called "boring":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Landscape#Reviews
Imagine a sociologist who wrote about evolutionary theory without discussing the work of Darwin, Fisher, Mayr, Hamilton, Trivers or Dawkins on the grounds that he did not come to his conclusions by reading about biology and because discussing concepts such as "adaptation", "speciation", "homology", "phylogenetics" or "kin selection" would "increase the amount of boredom in the universe". How seriously would we, and should we, take his argument?[36]
[–]TimetogetDownvoted 1 point2 points3 points 11 hours ago
And why exactly are you so quick to assume that the maximization of happiness/pleasure/utility, is the answer to morality?
[–]Corrinth 0 points1 point2 points 11 hours ago
Happiness and pleasure are a misrepresentation of the theory Harris puts forth. Morality is that which causes the least amount of suffering for the least amount of people. Or at least this is his contention.
Why are you so quick to assume that he's wrong?
[–]TimetogetDownvoted 0 points1 point2 points 11 hours ago
Maximizing pleasure and/or minimizing suffering are each forms of maximizing utility. It forms a theory called utilitarianism. Why am I so quick to assume that utilitarianism is flawed? I'm not. I'm a philosophy major and as part of my major I've read shit loads of very logical and very convincing critiques of utilitarianism and I've read other competing moral theories which are in my opinion much more convincing than utilitarianism as utilitarianism can lead to some clearly fucked up and immoral things.
Let me offer a famous thought-experiment to illustrate a clear issue with utilitarianism:
Say that there is a doctor with 5 patients. Each patient is missing a different vital organ and will die very soon as they cannot get a donor. The doctor than notices a healthy jogger run by. The jogger has all the right organs and is very healthy, he'd be an excellent donor. The only issue is, taking 5 vital organs out of the jogger would obviously kill him. The doctor has the means the kill the jogger without anyone ever knowing. Killing the jogger would mean that the suffering caused by one death would occur. Not killing the jogger would mean that the suffering of 5 deaths would occur. Thus the utilitarian doctor decides to murder the jogger and distribute his organs.
If you think that it is immoral to kill the jogger, then you cannot assume that utilitarianism is always correct and thus cannot be the proper moral theory-- especially since it is easy to come up with a bunch more examples, many of them famous, of utilitarianism leading to some fucked up things.
[–]Corrinth 0 points1 point2 points 10 hours ago
Absolute utilitarianism is not a perfect "one size fits all" system of morality, but in general I find it superior than any of the alternatives I've seen. Certainly better than any religious morality.
[–]TimetogetDownvoted 0 points1 point2 points 10 hours ago
Well being better than religious morality is really besides the point. And if utilitarianism is not a "perfect 'one size fits all' system of morality" than what is and what is the standard by which systems of morality should be judged?
Also, if utilitarianism isn't a proper way to judge every single instance, then how do you know when you can use the science to quantify morality? Surely it would be by another, greater moral system.
If you can only apply utilitarianism as an aspect of another moral system, then wouldn't it be best to discover and study the other moral system to follow? It seems as if that moral theory would be the one to follow and it would be merely coincidental if the better moral theory merely happens to coincide with utilitarianism on certain occasions.
If utilitarianism is reduced to something which may just so happen to coincide with what is correct, then it is really not something worth proving scientifically and working into our every day lives, negating the usefulness of what is proved in the book.
Thus the utilitarian doctor decides to murder the jogger and distribute his organs.
The solution is that utilitarianism can also be pragmatic: would the people of a society really be happy with their lives if they know that they can be seized at any moment and have their organs harvested?
You're right, a naive felicitic calculus is unwieldy and can lead to some strange notions. But let's be a bit honest here and admit that utilitarianism has evolved and adapted since Bentham:
http://www.raikoth.net/consequentialism.html#objections
7.5: Wouldn't utilitarianism lead to healthy people being killed to distribute their organs among people who needed organ transplants, since each person has a bunch of organs and so could save a bunch of lives? We'll start with the unsatsifying weaselish answers to this objection, which are nevertheless important. The first weaselish answer is that most people's organs aren't compatible and that most organ transplants don't take very well, so the calculation would be less obvious than "I have two kidneys, so killing me could save two people who need kidney transplants." The second weaselish answer is that a properly utiltiarian society would solve the organ shortage long before this became necessary (see 8.3) and so this would never come up. But those answers, although true, don't really address the philosophical question here, which is whether you can just go around killing people willy-nilly to save other people's lives. I think that one important consideration here is the heuristic-related one mentioned in 6.3 above: having a rule against killing people is useful, and what any more complicated rule gained in flexibility, it might lose in sacrosanct-ness, making it more likely that immoral people or an immoral government would consider murder to be an option (see David Friedman on Schelling points). This is also the strongest argument one could make against killing the fat man in 4.5 above - but note that it still is a consequentialist argument and subject to discussion or refutation on consequentialist grounds.
7.5: Wouldn't utilitarianism lead to healthy people being killed to distribute their organs among people who needed organ transplants, since each person has a bunch of organs and so could save a bunch of lives?
We'll start with the unsatsifying weaselish answers to this objection, which are nevertheless important. The first weaselish answer is that most people's organs aren't compatible and that most organ transplants don't take very well, so the calculation would be less obvious than "I have two kidneys, so killing me could save two people who need kidney transplants." The second weaselish answer is that a properly utiltiarian society would solve the organ shortage long before this became necessary (see 8.3) and so this would never come up.
But those answers, although true, don't really address the philosophical question here, which is whether you can just go around killing people willy-nilly to save other people's lives. I think that one important consideration here is the heuristic-related one mentioned in 6.3 above: having a rule against killing people is useful, and what any more complicated rule gained in flexibility, it might lose in sacrosanct-ness, making it more likely that immoral people or an immoral government would consider murder to be an option (see David Friedman on Schelling points).
This is also the strongest argument one could make against killing the fat man in 4.5 above - but note that it still is a consequentialist argument and subject to discussion or refutation on consequentialist grounds.
[–]TimetogetDownvoted 0 points1 point2 points 9 hours ago
My argument dealt with the morality of one particular act. I also included that the doctor could do this undetected, so nobody would have that fear.
In that case, then no, I wouldn't consider the killing of the jogger to be immoral.
But the bigger issue is, who cares what the answers to these constrained and wholly unrealistic thought experiments? What does the answer to this question really matter when it comes to how to find solutions to moral problems in the real world?
Let's not get too wrapped up in the hypotheticals, and instead use utilitarianism to promote solutions to real-world problems. And this is something that I think Sam Harris tried to do but failed miserably because he didn't want to give credit to the giants (Bentham, Mill, Kant, etc.) whose shoulders he stood on when he wrote this book. And it backfired very horrendously for him.
Secular morality really does need a reboot, but Harris isn't the one for it.
[–]ReDyP 0 points1 point2 points 4 hours ago
Read Spinoza. Nuff' said.
Also, if you don't like thought experiments, then consider this argument very famously delivered by Immanuel Kant, widely considered to be the greatest modern philosopher.
He argued that pleasure or lack of suffering was not the highest end and not good merely in itself without qualification. For something to be good in and of itself, it has to be that adding that thing always leads to something being better, and never leads to anything being worse. Utility does not meet the qualification because if someone takes great pleasure in doing awful things, it makes the deed seem worse. The coolness of a murderer makes him worse than if he suffers from his act and takes no pleasure in it.
For something to be good in and of itself, it has to be that adding that thing always leads to something being better, and never leads to anything being worse.
This was pretty much exactly what Harris argued, was it not?
Utility does not meet the qualification because if someone takes great pleasure in doing awful things, it makes the deed seem worse. The coolness of a murderer makes him worse than if he suffers from his act and takes no pleasure in it.
You keep equating happiness/pleasure with lack of suffering, and the examples you give clearly illustrate why it is important to make a distinction between the two. Prevention of suffering should (in my opinion) be the chief concern of morality, whereas happiness/pleasure are neither moral nor immoral.
[–]TimetogetDownvoted 1 point2 points3 points 10 hours ago
Harris viewed lack of suffering as the thing that is good without qualification. A good in itself. Kantians (amongsts others) would certainly contest that.
It's very controversial whether the difference between lack of suffering and happiness/pleasure has moral weight. John Stuart Mill, certainly the most famous and influential utilitarianist, would argue that neither cultivation of happiness or prevention of the reverse of happiness has more moral weight than the other.
In fact, the vast majority of utilitarian philosophers agree that there is no difference. The only ones that I know of who see a morally relevant difference are those who argue that happiness is impossible and thus lack of suffering is the best definition of utility.
[–]Corrinth 0 points1 point2 points 9 hours ago
Kantians (amongsts others) would certainly contest that.
But what would the argument be?
It's very controversial whether the difference between lack of suffering and happiness/pleasure has moral weight.
It's an important distinction to make because happiness and pleasure are such subjective terms. You could without much difficulty find individuals who derive pleasure from the infliction of suffering on others. You gave the example of a gleeful murderer earlier. If the promotion of happiness is a moral qualifier, you could argue that his actions are not immoral, which they very clearly are.
Physical suffering, however, is universal, objective rather than subjective.
I already told you the argument. Kant argued that utility is not always good without qualification because if someone does a wicked act and is happier, or suffers less, do to it, it makes them seem worse to non-biased observers. If someone is deeply depressed, and killing someone is enough to get them out of suffering from depression, it makes the killer worse. I've never head of an interpretation of his work which would not allow that lack of suffering is the same as gaining pleasure. He saw neither of those things as good in themselves without qualification as he believed that the one and only thing good in itself is a good will.
Happiness and pleasure are not necessarily subjective terms. The fact that not everyone enjoys the same things is not enough to make them subjective. In fact, you could even find in one's brain the chemicals that show if they are happy or not.
Wait--- are you talking only about physical suffering? Well that's certainly flawed! Are you saying that as long as I don't harm somebody's body I am not doing them harm? If I pickpocket them or if I trick them into some binding and clearly immoral contract, then what I am doing is not wrong so long as I do not physically harm their bodies? I'm curious what defense could possibly exist for this notion.
Kant argued that utility is not always good without qualification because if someone does a wicked act and is happier, or suffers less, do to it, it makes them seem worse to non-biased observers.
I don't necessarily agree with that. I would say that an action's morality is more depending on the results than on the motivations of the person committing the action. To return to the example we've been using, a murder committed gleefully is no more immoral in my opinion than a murder committed out of indifference. The immorality of the action comes from the victim's life being taken from him or her, and the victim would be equally dead regardless of whether or not the killer took any pleasure in the act.
If someone is deeply depressed, and killing someone is enough to get them out of suffering from depression, it makes the killer worse.
Again, I disagree with this. The killer's motivations are irrelevant, unless he is acting in some form of self-defense.
I've never head of an interpretation of his work which would not allow that lack of suffering is the same as gaining pleasure.
So?
Happiness and pleasure are not necessarily subjective terms. The fact that not everyone enjoys the same things is not enough to make them subjective.
I disagree with this as well.
Wait--- are you talking only about physical suffering? Well that's certainly flawed!
No. I specifically said physical suffering in order to make a distinction from psychological or emotional suffering, as the root causes of those are less universal than are the causes of physical suffering.
Are you saying that as long as I don't harm somebody's body I am not doing them harm?
No.
[–]Hellstruelight 3 points4 points5 points 13 hours ago
Obviously ignorant post is obviously ignorant.
[–]WorkingMouse 1 point2 points3 points 13 hours ago
Wasn't right the first time, not right the fifth time.
[–]Silberchen 0 points1 point2 points 11 hours ago
The more I think about this analogy, the less sense it makes...
[–]Evagelos 1 point2 points3 points 11 hours ago
I found the cat. Without a flashlight. Fuck off OP
[–]natholomew 1 point2 points3 points 10 hours ago
The cat should be fairly easy to find, since it is using a flashlight.
Making statements with bad grammar is like being in a dark room and looking for cat-shaped potato chips.
[–]BLOOODBLADE 0 points1 point2 points 9 hours ago
No it's difficult, especially since the cat is using the flashlight like a club, jumping on your back and beating you over the head a few times then running away and waiting for another chance to strike It all happens so fast that you don't notice until it's all over
[–]ImNoScientician 2 points3 points4 points 8 hours ago
Black cats can't use flashlights. They don't have opposable thumbs.
[–]Psycho5275 0 points1 point2 points 8 hours ago
cat, using a flashlight
[–]TimetogetDownvoted 2 points3 points4 points 11 hours ago
This analogy is beyond terrible. The contrast of philosophy and science here makes it out as if science and philosophy have the same purpose, and as if science is necessarily better than philosophy.
The author has no clue at all whatsoever what metaphysics is. Metaphysics is essentially asking what the nature of something is or what it's like. How the hell is that like looking for in a dark room for a black cat which isn't there?
The contrast of metaphysics and theology also makes it as if the two are in any way similar.
This post is garbage. Heavily reposted garbage.
[–]owlsrule143 1 point2 points3 points 11 hours ago
This is a really old repost. Same comments seem to be coming up about how the philosophy and metaphysics analogies are off. The religion and science ones are correct though. I'd say just forget about the philosophy and metaphysics parts of this (even though the picture is really old and op here didn't make it) but if you must.. Philosophy is like being in a dark room with a flashlight looking for a theoretical cat
[–]RebekahRave[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 hours ago
I just found it on stumbleupon and thought reddit would like it, I don't go through reddit archives to make sure what I post is all original, like reddit seems to expect. The theology, science, and philosophy part was mainly what I was posting about, I'm not experienced in metaphysics, but I agree with what you're saying.
[–]McProDG 0 points1 point2 points 10 hours ago
what they all have in common? black cats are bad luck
[–]volcomma5ter 2 points3 points4 points 9 hours ago
Theology would be telling someone else there's a black cat in the room, when you've never actually found it.
[–]Glennsguitar 0 points1 point2 points 9 hours ago
That's just like...your opinion man.
[–]thatguywiththeposts -1 points0 points1 point 9 hours ago
Repost
[–]squeakythepin 1 point2 points3 points 9 hours ago
if the room is dark, why would it matter what color the cat is?
[–]Amryxx 0 points1 point2 points 8 hours ago
What is the "black cat" supposed to represent in this analogy?
[–]Tropolist 0 points1 point2 points 8 hours ago
How can science find a black cat if it doesn't have a non-black non-cat for control?
[–]Cyril_Clunge 0 points1 point2 points 6 hours ago
Erm... the bit about Theology is wrong. I'm tired and lazy so I'll just steal a bit from wikipedia.
It is the systematic and rational study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truths.
[–]daxarx 0 points1 point2 points 4 hours ago
This doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
If you say anything at all about gods or their nature, including many atheist positions, you are engaged in theology...
[–]cryptobomb 0 points1 point2 points 4 hours ago
My god (pun intended), what a load of bullshit. I think science would be more like checking the dark room with a flashlight to see ANYTHING that is there.
[–]Furydwarf 0 points1 point2 points 4 hours ago
Searching in a dark room for a black cat, turns out the cats in the other room
[–]bmatto 0 points1 point2 points 4 hours ago
Philosophy translates to love of wisdom and has 3 main branches.
Logic is the tool of the philosopher - WHY THE FUCK AM I IN A DARK ROOM WITH A BLACK CAT?
[–]xJammr98x 0 points1 point2 points 3 hours ago
I just look for the cats glowing eyes
[–]morninghighs 0 points1 point2 points 3 hours ago
this is quite some potatocountin' shizzle right here
[–]Xenonym 0 points1 point2 points 2 hours ago
Placing science, philosophy, metaphysics, and theology (three of which overlap in many ways, and one of which exists in a fantasy world of its own) into a hierarchy of importance is impossible. To do it with a simplistic analogy is both impossible and absurd. Science can be used to observe and analyze the universe, and ultimately to construct descriptions of the universe based on this analysis, but how could we analyze anything properly without understanding the logic that underlies analysis? In order to understand the world around us, we must first understand the means by which we come to understand things, which is the dominion of philosophy.
[–]CliftonForce 0 points1 point2 points 2 hours ago
I'd add: "And Engineering is using that flashlight to find the light switch."
all it takes is a username and password
create account
is it really that easy? only one way to find out...
already have an account and just want to login?
login
[–]thenaterator 64 points65 points66 points ago
[–]squigs 22 points23 points24 points ago
[–]CantHugEveryCat 17 points18 points19 points ago
[–]therestruth 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]Lunights 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]Corrinth 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]NanduDas 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]TommaClock 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]TommaClock 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]thenaterator -2 points-1 points0 points ago
[–]ubermenchy 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]Iliketrains 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]bhaku 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Iliketrains 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]bhaku 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]lorefolk 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]ohfail 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]JasonMacker 20 points21 points22 points ago
[–]qspec02 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]JasonMacker 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]qspec02 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]tuscanspeed 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]ReDyP 12 points13 points14 points ago
[–]Hellstruelight 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]WorkingMouse 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Silberchen 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Evagelos 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]natholomew 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]BLOOODBLADE 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]ImNoScientician 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Psycho5275 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]TimetogetDownvoted 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]owlsrule143 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]RebekahRave[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points ago
[–]McProDG 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]volcomma5ter 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Glennsguitar 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]thatguywiththeposts -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]squeakythepin 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]Amryxx 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Tropolist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Cyril_Clunge 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]daxarx 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]cryptobomb 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Furydwarf 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]bmatto 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]xJammr98x 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]morninghighs 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Xenonym 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]CliftonForce 0 points1 point2 points ago