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...
2,693 users here now
Help Atheist Organizations! Voting is done: SSA: #47 with 4387 Votes FBB: #56 with 3162 Votes CC: #81 with 2248 Votes Thanks to all who voted! (full results)
Voting is done:
SSA: #47 with 4387 Votes
FBB: #56 with 3162 Votes
CC: #81 with 2248 Votes
Thanks to all who voted! (full results)
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 ›
Susan B. Anthony knew... (a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net)
submitted 10 months ago by 5hot6un
[–]eean 19 points20 points21 points 10 months ago
She was a Quaker. They're pretty cool.
Edit: actually did a wikipedia check: she was raised a Quaker, ended up with the Unitarians and then an agnostic.
[–]feartrich 5 points6 points7 points 10 months ago
semi-religious :( _ | |_quasi-religious :/ | | | |__not religious :D
[–]CoAmon 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
I'm a little confused as to how Unitarians were any less religious than Quakers. They both had some pretty strongly believed dogma.
[–]feartrich 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
nevermind i was thinking of UU
carry on... :P
[–]ourowndevices 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
What dogma are you referring to in the Quaker church?
[–]PinkySlayer 7 points8 points9 points 10 months ago
i think they take the eating of oatmeal very seriously.
[–]CoAmon 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
Swearing and oaths are expressly forbidden, truth telling is expected at all times, overwhelmingly trinitarian, prophecy in prophetic quaker communities is near required.
[–]ourowndevices 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
I'm approaching this as someone who was raised as a Quaker, and still has a very deep-seated fondness for the religion. My connection with the religion is mainly based on the fact that growing up I never felt constrained in any way by it, so I'm hesitant to use the word 'dogma' to describe Quaker traditions. I realize that the word is technically correct, but I feel like it has certain negative connotations that are inapplicable due to how the religion is actually handled in modern practice. The first two points - not swearing to tell the truth and being truthful - are essentially seen as the same thing. The second two I've never actually encountered in a modern Quaker "church". I'm assuming that by trinitarianism and prophecy you're referring to the concept that a Quaker should speak should s/he feel moved by the spirit of God. This is technically a tenet of the church, but in practice should someone speak in a Quaker meeting, it usually ends up being more of a personal reflection brought upon by the shared silence rather than a message that is viewed as an unwavering commandment from God. It's possible to apply religious connotations to the phenomenon, but it's also possible to see it simply as a product of human beings sitting around with each other and thinking about their lives. Neither of these views would be looked down upon by any congregation of Quakers I've attended.
I apologize if I read too much into your use of the word "dogma", but Quakerism has definitely had a positive impact on my life in realms completely separate from religion, and so I tend to defend it, not necessarily as a religion, but as a community of people. The Quakers that I have known have been completely accepting of me, no matter what my beliefs have been.
I do not mean to offend your sensibilities, but dogma is the word I choose to use for sets religious beliefs, practices and methods. I am unaware of any explicit negative connotations of the word in this context. I would understand the concern if I called Quakerism (is that the correct word?) dogmatic as that would imply a certain aggression, but I did not.
Oh no, you're fine. Nothing you said was offensive in the slightest and even if it were, I'm sure I'd survive.
The issue I have really stems from my own upbringing. Like I said, I was raised as a Quaker, but I was also was forced to attend Catholic services occasionally , so I tend to associate 'dogma' with the kind of unquestioning commitment that is often associated with Catholicism, and found it necessary to differentiate between the two.
[–]NerdBot9000 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
There are actually three branches of Quakerism; Evangelical, Pastoral, and Liberal. Just as in most religions, not all people who consider themselves "Quaker" adhere to a specific dogma. Liberal Quakers, in specific, are considerably more Humanist and less dogmatic than the other branches.
[–]Facio 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
I for one prefer the simplistic dogma of the Movementarians.
[–]PissingRedRainbows -8 points-7 points-6 points 10 months ago
I wouldn't say she was very cool, her argument for women suffrage was basically "Hey, the blacks can vote why can't we," she is definitely racist by today's standards.
[–]leylanna 11 points12 points13 points 10 months ago
Its just leverage. If you really study her work and stantons, you will see that they supported the movement for all people to have rights. Even more specifically when she went to rally's for black races she still had to sit in the "womens" sections, because she was not given privilege of a man..
[–]JuniperJupiter 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
We're STILL being sectioned off!
Stupid restrooms...(except on Ally McBeal...and Starship Troopers)!
[–]PissingRedRainbows -6 points-5 points-4 points 10 months ago
She actually questioned if women should support the 15th amendment based on the opinion that blacks were not supporting women's rights.
She also left the AERA to devote herself exclusively to women's rights.
So no, she definitely didn't care about anyone else's rights but her own.
[–]Rinsaikeru 9 points10 points11 points 10 months ago
Devoting herself to women's rights is not the same as not caring about anyone else's rights.
[–][deleted] 10 months ago
[deleted]
[–]Rinsaikeru 4 points5 points6 points 10 months ago
That doesn't make sense--you can't devote yourself to every cause, do you then devote yourself to none?
What kind of sense does that make?
Someone might care generally about animal welfare and specifically about puppy mills--and thus they devote their donations, time, and demonstrations to that cause. And I bet in this case you wouldn't bat an eye.
But as soon as feminists talk about making strides for women and girls there is a big hullabaloo because obviously we should all help all humans even if that idea is helplessly vague and impossible.
So please think through your pithy rewordings in future.
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
Replace every "she" or "her" with black people and every "women's rights" with "racial desegregation" and you've got the exact same point, but about black people. Your entire argument is extremely ridiculous.
[–]Rinsaikeru 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Don't you hate it when someone's response to having their assumption picked apart is to take their ball and go home? (And leave gaping holes in the discussion).
[–]Legends_Never_Die 3 points4 points5 points 10 months ago
By that logic, every minority group in American History was then a bigoted mob as well who didn't care about anyone but themselves. I don't remember a majority of African Americans petitioning for gay rights, Native American Rights, Hispanic rights, or any other rights other than for themselves.
[–]Le7 5 points6 points7 points 10 months ago
Once Elizibeth cady stanton, friend of Anthony, wrote the women's bible (omitted all anti-woman verses), most feminists abandoned her. Sad really.
[–]5hot6un[S] 10 points11 points12 points 10 months ago
Someone should write a bible with ALL the bullshit removed. I bet it would be more like a pamphlet.
[–]spencer8ab 15 points16 points17 points 10 months ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
[–]ChoHag 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 10 months ago
I was looking for this quote the other day! Even posted a thread about it. You answered my prayers (lol siike), thanks man.
[–]Timothy2_12ed 3 points4 points5 points 10 months ago
This is the background I had been using before my current one. Same text, more background-esque image.
[–]dianthe 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago*
As a Christian I have found quite the opposite to be true for me, there are many things I would like to have in my life that I know are pointless or even harmful to my relationship with God. God's will for every person is for that person to be closer to Him, so if whatever you are doing truly brings you closer to God then you are doing God's will, if it just fulfills your desires (especially at the cost of your relationship with God) then it is definitely not God's will.
My pastor (in the UK) is a missionary from USA, he had ample opportunity for wealth in USA but he chose to leave it all and come to the UK to work as a missionary and live a very modest life. A couple of years after he started his church here he was offered a beautiful house on the beach in California (if I remember right it was an offer from his wealthy family members who wanted for him to come back to the US) but he said no to it and stayed with his church, and he's an amazing pastor and teacher, a true blessing to everyone in our congregation.
Sure, some people only use Christianity as a mask and in reality they only care for their own desires, and God knows their heart.
[–]lordarthien 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
Disclaimer: This is genuine curiosity. How do you evaluate your relationship with God? At various points throughout my adolescence I begged for him to reveal himself to me but I never received a response. I want to know how you have contact with him.
[–]dianthe 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
I think that's a great question, and while I can't answer this for every Christian, I can share what's it like for me. I found that when I take time to spend with God - reading the Bible, listening to good sermons, Christian fellowship (which isn't simply spending time with my Christian friends, but encouraging each other in Christ), approaching all of it with prayer, my thoughts and my heart become focused on God, His will for me, His love for me. And those are the times I feel most at peace, those are the times I am most resistant to sin in my life and I spot it easier, those are the times when I feel encouraged to do things in the name of Christ.
And it's not that I get a fear in me that if I don't stop sinning God will punish me, but I just feel such great love from God that I want to do His will and not mine, like a disobedient child who wants to be good because she sees how much her parents love her despite her flaws and how proud they would be of her if she behaved.
And while generally I am not an emotional person at all, I've been moved to tears before by just feeling so much love from God when I come back to Him like a prodigal daughter after having turned away from Him even for a little while. Like one pastor I like to listen to said: when you come back to God after having wandered away, He isn't standing there waiting for you with His arms crossed, tapping His foot but He embraces you and shows you great love because you have returned.
When I get too caught up in worldly things and don't have my "God time" I just become more selfish, more judgemental (not judging a righteous judgement, but my own), less patient, I engage in pointless arguments over pointless things because I want to win an argument for my glory not God's... and all of my wordly problems just seem so much bigger and so much more important.
I always pray, even at times when I'm not walking with God so to say, but prayer should always go hand in hand with the things I mentioned in the firs paragraph of this reply essay :)
[–]lordarthien 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
I'm glad your faith plays such a positive role in your life. :) If Rick Perry, Bill O'Reilly, Joel Olsteen, and their lot were as mature in their faith as you are, I imagine a good fraction of us atheists would feel much less compelled to speak out. Just one thing, though. At one point you made a distinction between your judgement and righteous judgment. Do you believe that my same-gender relationship with my boyfriend (we are intimate but we don't have sex of any kind) warrants righteous judgement? (Again, just curious)
[–]dianthe 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago*
Hey! Sorry for the late reply, moving to another country next week so I been crazy busy xD
Funny you should mention Joel Osteen, one of my Christian friends got his book as a present from someone and when we were going camping we were joking we should take it with us because it would make great fire kindling - since it is completely useless for anything else! I loved this review for it, I think it ties well with what this thread is about:
If you want to read a book in which discontentment is encouraged, a book that shows God to be powerless apart from your power-filled thoughts and words, a book in which sin is minimized and renamed in every conceivable way, and a supposedly Christian book that gives only trivial mention to Jesus Christ, Your Best Life Now is the book for you. But if you believe, with the Apostle Paul, that "godliness with contentment is great gain" (1 Tim. 6:6 NKJV)1, if you desire a deeper and more biblical understanding of God and His ways, if you desire to see Jesus Christ exalted in your life as you follow His pattern of humility and self-denial, if you believe a Christian's greatest hunger should be for righteousness (Matt. 5:6) and not for money, health, or easy living, then you would do well to look elsewhere.
At one point you made a distinction between your judgement and righteous judgment. Do you believe that my same-gender relationship with my boyfriend (we are intimate but we don't have sex of any kind) warrants righteous judgement? (Again, just curious)
Righteous judgement is basically looking at someone's life (even your own) and comparing it against what Christ and the apostles have taught. It doesn't mean thinking evil thoughts towards people or criticizing them. I mean you can express criticism in the form of correction if you feel it will help but you must be sure in your motives first - are you actually trying to help that person or are you just doing it to fulfill some power trip?
When it comes to homosexuality I think many Christians seem to give it some kind of special sin status, when I don't see any Biblical support for doing that. I also agree with some of the criticisms from the homosexual community about certain widely used Biblical verses that criticise homosexuality.
However what it comes down to for me (and I hope I won't offend you by this) is that when Jesus taught about marriage he taught about it being between a man and a woman, and that God joins a man and a woman and the two of them become one flesh. And overall the only references to marriage you will find in the Bible speak about a union between a man and a woman, the Bible tells us that it is the only kind of righteous romantic relationship. So because of that, to me, anything that falls outside of that is not what God intended for us.
But on the same note I must add that I don't think what some of the Christian community does with regards to homosexuals is right, and I think in many instances it even has a very negative effect. Basically the Bible teaches us to come to Christ as we are and then let Him change us, let Him do the work on us.
So trying to force homosexual people, many of whom aren't even remotely interested in following Christ, to follow Christian morality is futile. I think the issue of homosexuality should only be addressed when a person has already come to Christ and they have studied the Bible for themselves, spent time in prayer, and have come to a decision that something needs to change in their life only then should the other Christians start trying to help them in that.
And this goes for any sin, for example my husband got saved before me, before I came to Christ I used to dress.. lets just say not very modestly. So when my already saved husband asked the yet unsaved me to dress more modestly all that did was anger me "How dare he tell me what to do?!" kinda thing. Then when I became a Christian I just had a change of heart about many things in my life, and now dressing modestly is something that gives me a lot of joy, it is something I want to do.
So now if one of my non-Christian friends is dressed in an immodest way I'm not going to go up to her and criticize her appearance, but I will just say a silent prayer for her and witness to her about Christ whenever I feel led because I know that it is Christ who changes hearts, not rules and legislations. Hope this makes sense, and hope I didn't offend you, I know this is a senstitive issue and generally I try to stay away from it because I'm not a fan of conflict.
[–]lordarthien 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
I asked you and I'm glad you gave me an honest answer. :) It's very refreshing that you understand that it's not productive to inform non-Christian LGBTQs that they should consider changing. I promise, we've all heard it before. I feel I must warn you about "helping" Christian LGBTQs that want to try to change. Such attempts have a very poor track record of success and suicide rates among those who identify as ex-gay are significantly elevated. I suppose I won't assert that sexual orientation is immutable, but I think it's safe to make the claim that muting it is not beneficial.
I think it's important to remember that the Bible is a product of its time (at least to an extent) and the only homosexual relationships that were really discussed at the time (correct me if I'm wrong) were between adult men and boys (whether pederasty or prostitution). There were really no relationships back then comparable to the same-sex relationships of today (adults in long-term committed relationships) for Jesus to have commented on.
[–]dianthe 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
I feel I must warn you about "helping" Christian LGBTQs that want to try to change. Such attempts have a very poor track record of success and suicide rates among those who identify as ex-gay are significantly elevated. I suppose I won't assert that sexual orientation is immutable, but I think it's safe to make the claim that muting it is not beneficial.
I've read/watched quite a bit of material from both the for and against sides and I have to say I have mixed feelings towards it. From one side I know that with God all things are possible, and I think if the person's true desire is to live their life in a way that honours God it can happen. But from another side I know there are people who do try but fail. I don't know what the difference is between those who succeed and those who fail though, so I wouldn't judge them, that's not my job, only God knows that and only He can judge.
I know an ex-trans person who turned away from transsexualism after coming to Christ, it was his own decision and he is a happy person now, has a family. I also read an article about a trans person who started going to church and then made a decision to de-transition (the decision was encouraged by the church though so it wasn't completely his, he just agreed to it), got married, but a while after that he divorced his wife and transitioned back. I don't know what seperates the former person from the latter, why one could do it and be happy but the other one could not.
I've met some very wise homosexual brothers in Christ who chose to live the life of celebacy to honour God, and I have nothing but respect for them because I know it can't be easy. I know some Christians who still wouldn't accept even a celebate homosexual person as their brother/sister in Christ, but I think that's just Biblical ignorance and bigotry.
Here is what Christ said about celebacy:
Matthew 19:11 But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”
Jesus talks about this right after talking about marriage as a God blessed union between a man and a woman. Of course this verse isn't meant solely for homosexuals, there were plenty of Christian thinkers in history who were straight but who chose not to marry to dedicate their whole life to Christ.
But yes like I said, I prefer not to judge anyone on a personal level because I can never have the whole story on them, all I can do is pray for them and trust God.
I think if homosexuality as we know it today (aka a relationship rather than just sex) is not a new phenomenon I'm sure people back in that day were aware of it as well. Also even though I do understand the position of the Bible being a product of its time, you have to remember that Christians see God as being outside of time, and we believe that the Bible is His inspired Word, so for us its wisdom is timeless.
Again hope what I said was not offensive to you, if it was I do appologise, it was not my intention. Nice talking to you :)
No, no, not offended at all. :) I think at this point we just both have our convictions, and I can tell that you respect mine, and I respect yours. I enjoyed our conversation very much. Many well wishes on your journey!
I enjoyed talking to you as well :D I love talking to people whose beliefs differ to mine (because it encourages me to actually articulate what I believe and why) but with whom we can stay mutually respectful, helps me grow as a person. Thank you.
[–]churika 6 points7 points8 points 10 months ago
I am going to open a cross dressing store up named "Susan B. Anthony".
[–]whensday 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
Haha oh ZaCH Galifinaki
[–]PKMKII 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
I especially think of this quote whenever I hear or read biblical capitalism/prosperity theology arguments.
[–]GrandMastaPimp 3 points4 points5 points 10 months ago
I've got ambivalent feelings towards Susan Anthony. On one hand, there's this and her fight for women's rights. On the other, her advocacy of prohibition...
[–]Rinsaikeru 12 points13 points14 points 10 months ago
Based on what they were aware of at the time alcohol led to poverty for families and men abusing their wives--they weren't really aware of what prohibition would do crime-wise, so while I'm not down with prohibition, I can understand the perspective she had about it.
[–]cyco 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Plus, at the time the Progressive movement was strongly behind Prohibition. The thinking was that liquor made people sedate and easily inured to a life of wage slavery. They weren't entirely wrong, but of course we know now (or at least we should) that making something illegal is far from equivalent to eliminating it from society.
And this is pretty much always the case with history--historical figures who did awesome things, thought awesome things, or worked towards awesome things also often believed in or supported things we would now consider harmful/crackpot ideas. That's how it works. They didn't know better, there wasn't the experience or science to demonstrate better than they knew yet.
It's easy to look back at a historical figure and say, "yeah they did X but they also believed Y therefore they aren't worth thinking about." But I've never thought throwing the baby out with the bathwater was a good method for studying history anyway.
[–]DocterWeegee 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
Fuck yeah. Related to her.
[–]3OAM 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
So "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
Aleister Crowley was right.
[–]nicholmikey 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
Reminds me of something along the lines of "Isn't it interesting that God always hates the same people we do"
[–]rotll 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
no wonder her dollars never took off!!
[–]MCWhitebread 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
. . .watch it pal. . .she's packin' heat. . .
[–]atozblues 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
that's very true
[–]moralnihilist 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
"Most quotes on the internet are fake." - Abraham Lincoln
[–]CaptainE0 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
As they say, out of the mouth of the babes..
[–]Ravenna 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
Amen! edit: oh wait....
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
I wonder if she knew that people would hate the dollar coins named after her?
[–]iDontSayFunnyThings 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
"I distrust those who post quotes on Reddit because I can never tell if they are attributed to the right person." - C.S. Lewis
Take that theists! We've got C.S. Lewis quotes too!
[–]HerrBongwasser 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
god wants me to eat some cheerios and put on some deodorant. anyone to disagree is a heretic.
[–]wisenheimer 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
God wants you to make me a sammich, Suzie.
[–]munge_me_not 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
That is why you are only on the dollar coin!
[–]Teggert 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
This is a good point. True Christians actively search the scripture to better conform themselves to Christ, as in Psalm 139: "See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting."
Be careful not to confuse the true ones with the hypocrites.
[–]arane 5 points6 points7 points 10 months ago
True Scotsman?
[–]Shampyon 1 point2 points3 points 10 months ago
When it comes to defining what it means to be Christian, this one's pretty reasonable.
[–]arane 2 points3 points4 points 10 months ago
True, I do tend to bristle when people throw the word "True" in front of something
Either.
[–]acemnorsuvwxz -1 points0 points1 point 10 months ago
They could also actually read the Bible cover to cover, but then they would no longer be Christians.
[–]tha_ape 0 points1 point2 points 10 months ago
God has nothing to do with peoples ambitions. Regardless of believing in god or not, there are going to be good people and bad people. I think shes refering to anyone with extremely strong convictions.
But back then, it was fuckin ballsy to denounce god. Even today a politician cant end a speech without saying "God Bless America". Which is funny considering the separation of church and state...
There is a technically a separation of church and state, but that has been interpreted to mean that there is not necessarily a separation of religion and state, if that makes sense. In other words, the Founders were trying to avoid a situation similar to the European countries of the time who were dominated by a particular denomination (Anglican, Roman Catholic, etc.)
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 10 months ago
My great grandmother had an affair with Susan B Anthony
[–]CrackaAss -1 points0 points1 point 10 months ago
Thats all untrue, remeber wikipedia is open source. Susan B. Anthony was christian so was steve jobs. Nice try. BUZZ KILLINGTON AAAAWWWAAYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!! poof
[–]QuotesInLaymanTerms -1 points0 points1 point 10 months ago
"What a person thinks God wants is usually what he/she wants." ~Susan B. Anthony
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
[–]eean 19 points20 points21 points ago
[–]feartrich 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]CoAmon 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]feartrich 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]ourowndevices 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]PinkySlayer 7 points8 points9 points ago
[–]CoAmon 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]ourowndevices 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]CoAmon 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]ourowndevices 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]NerdBot9000 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Facio 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Le7 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]5hot6un[S] 10 points11 points12 points ago
[–]spencer8ab 15 points16 points17 points ago
[–]ChoHag 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points ago
[–]Timothy2_12ed 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]dianthe 2 points3 points4 points ago*
[–]lordarthien 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]dianthe 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]lordarthien 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]dianthe 0 points1 point2 points ago*
[–]lordarthien 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]dianthe 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]lordarthien 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]dianthe 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]churika 6 points7 points8 points ago
[–]whensday 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]PKMKII 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]GrandMastaPimp 3 points4 points5 points ago
[–]Rinsaikeru 12 points13 points14 points ago
[–]cyco 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Rinsaikeru 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]DocterWeegee 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]3OAM 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]nicholmikey 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]rotll 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]MCWhitebread 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]atozblues 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]moralnihilist 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]CaptainE0 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Ravenna 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]iDontSayFunnyThings 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]HerrBongwasser 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]wisenheimer 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]munge_me_not 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]Teggert 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]arane 5 points6 points7 points ago
[–]Shampyon 1 point2 points3 points ago
[–]arane 2 points3 points4 points ago
[–]Teggert 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]acemnorsuvwxz -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]tha_ape 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–]cyco 0 points1 point2 points ago
[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]CrackaAss -1 points0 points1 point ago
[–]QuotesInLaymanTerms -1 points0 points1 point ago