/lit/ - Literature

>>22344686
This guy is an idiot. I remember a video of him talking to 2 logic professors where they were trying to explain some basic logical principle about propositions or whatever, and he kept arguing against them and saying it makes no sense what all logicians believe, prob because it sounded like a theist argument that he was desperately trying to deny.

>>22344686
I'll give you an introductory course.
>Matt used to believe in God
>now rejects God because he wants to be in a relationship with a tranny and doesn't want to acknowledge trannies are sinners
>Matt is extremely bitter and mostly famous for yelling at people and hanging up on them during call-in shows
>arrogant and overconfident, he is often easily dismantled by his opponents in debates to which Matt's response is to shout louder and curse more

>>22344686
Matt is pure bluster.

He has never truly "bodied" anyone worth their salt.

Matt only persuades listeners that can't distinguish between bluster and an actual superior performance in a debate.

No one in the online religious debate sphere has anything useful or insightful to say.

>>22344686
>bald
opinion disregarded

>>22344987
He's with a tranny?

>>22345054
>He has never truly "bodied" anyone worth their salt.
Bodied is too strong, but Peterson's debate with him was embarrassing. Peterson just reduces God to a hierarchical system of values and insists, therefore, that even atheists implicitly have a God - probably his weakest argument. His body language betrays it too.

>>22345054
bodied is a bit strong, but Peterson's debate with him was straight up embarrassing. Peterson reduced God to a hierarchical system of values and claimed that, therefore, even atheists implicitly have a God by dint of their moral beliefs - his weakest argument by far. His body language showed it too. It's a special kind of retarded to make Matt fucking Dillahunty look clever

>>22344686
Dillahunty got heated when Peterson opened a line of discussion toward the argument that he acted as if God existed. It betrayed the fact Dillahunty was once a religious ideologue and simply swapped his terminology while putting on a fedora.

Also, the whole idea that Soviet Communism was just a religious system is completely retarded. Basically, it takes superficial notes of comparison fedoras preassociate as religious and sidesteps the idea that secularism gives birth to it's own can of worms.

The only way you can see Dillahunty as "winning" that exchange is if you already agreed with him and and mindlessly clapped along with him like a cheerleader.

>>22345215
>>22345218
Are you an AI?

>>22344686
>peterson v dillahunty
best episode of the peterson reality show

>body (bury? body slam?)
well really jurgen bodied himself, he revealed his fucking idiotic inability to learn at all from what happened to him that he'd just go ahead and do the same thing to someone else to score a gotcha point in a debate in front of thinking people;
aka he revealed himself as a cheese brain
dillahunty, pro that he is, didn't waste a second in fat-shaming peterson for that - but he was too nice to really kick his face off. i would've hectored peterson into a drug relapse for that.

that moment told me a lot about petersons brain. i thought he was a dopey ponce before but from that moment he became a dopey nonce, i.e. after his traumas and potential for learning, he learned zero, and would happily do unto others what was done to him. cheese brain.


that said ... and to on-topic:
Dillahunty today is a mess, but Old Dillahunty from his public access tv days is a cool guy.
it basically just shows what the internet does to a person lol

I'd be lying if I said I hadn't probably spent a thousand hours over the last 5 or 15 years learning about how christians engage with reality by listening to thousands of call-ins to his old show.

but not the new show. i pretend this doesn't exist


>he kind of reminds me
some critique:
He is a good guy, or was a good guy, whatever,
he showcases the problem 'of' religious upbringing; you can tell he never really got over the mindset of preaching to the masses or going full retard with dogmatisms.

> a good intro
def. his old show (1999-2011). look for the giant playlist from .. i think the compilers name is "clown" or "diogenes" or "arse" ... or something like that
i forget
it's been a while

if thats not the compilers name then thats my freudian association with the content

I saw him debate an orthodox Christian. It was pretty terrible. He seemed to think that you can just assert things in a debate and then say that you’re actually a skeptic so you need to justify any of it, which of course, you cannot. So he lost the debate pretty decisively.

>>22345423
Soviet communism was dogmatic in the same way that religious systems are dogmatic and this is basically indisputable.

>>22346273
what was the assertion?

atheist: "i dont think god exists"
b'leever: "Ha! uNVERIFIED ASSERTION U LOSE SIR"

b'leever: "I believer god exists"
atheist: "UNVIFIRIED SSSERTTION"
bleever: "n-no nn-n-n-n-o i i i ....!!"

hope it wasn't that

>>22346291
I don’t even remember but it was his failure to justify the position rather than the position itself that was the problem. It’s one thing to fail to justify an argument, but another to just claim you don’t have to, which itself is another unjustified position. He seemed to think self-styling as a skeptic is a get out of jail free card in a debate but in reality he just implicitly admitted his arguments were unfounded so I think it was pretty obvious that he lost.

>>22346299
Nobody cares what you hope.

>>22344686
The only thing this guy can body is a box of twinkies. He has nothing to contribute to the world stage of ideas; all he does is disbelieve, and disbelief has no meaning in and of itself.

>>22345423
>It betrayed the fact Dillahunty was once a religious ideologue and simply swapped his terminology while putting on a fedora.
I partly agree with this but from a position of intellectual honesty there really is no argument 'for' the bible god, that was Dillahuntys "origin" if you like into atheism, but the realization could as easily lead to deism. The assertion that "everyone believes (in a deism of a sort)," has some truth to it, but it's not an argument for any religion.

Whereas the equation of (this religion) with "morality" is just not true; christianity (abramism really) is not a moral religion,
(see: original sin in the story of adam, as man wanting to know right from wrong) (see: conflation of evil actions that please god as being declared to be 'good' 'because' god demanded it, as st paul laments when he says "nobody can be good," etc.)
e.g.
>>22345218
>Peterson reduced God to a hierarchical system of values and claimed that, therefore, even atheists implicitly have a God by dint of their moral beliefs
this claim, made by that type, is just babyish and reveals a lack of study or attention paid actually 'to' the material itself, and their religiosity being more a thing of wishful thinking "i would like to think the religion says this, so i will pretend it does," which is silly. especially nowadays when it cant even be defended by self-preservation, i.e. the church can't burn you for disagreement anymore.

>>22346310
It really depends on the context, I mean, I joked here: >>22346299 the burden of "unverified assertions" obviously begins with the person who makes the affirmation or positive claim that (their god, unique to their own mind) exists; which we all know they can't demonstrate in reality, so the unverified assertion thing is just a game of ping pong when it comes up most of the time..

I mean: by your logic (by your argument) a theist immediately loses when they declare their belief and can't provide evidence to confirm their belief. Which I agree with lol but hat'd be a pretty dull way to debate anything.

>>22346345
It doesn’t depend on the context at all. If you can’t justify your arguments you lost the debate. End of story.

>>22346379
>It doesn’t depend on the context at all. If you can’t justify your arguments you lost the debate. End of story.
Ha, okay then. You have destroyed Theism, as:
>>by your logic (by your argument) a theist immediately loses when they declare their belief and can't provide evidence to confirm their belief. Which I agree with lol

>God: Exists
>Matt Dillahunty: Sins
>Jesus: Dies for Matt Dillahunty's sins
>Matt Dillahunty: Rejects Jesus sacrifice and spits in His face
>God: judges Matt Dillahunty for his sins
>Matt Dillahunty: burns in Hell forever
Any questions?

>>22346404
problem/s:
1) sin is not defined as classical vice by your religion, abramic goy, sin is defined as wanting to know right from wrong.
2) claim: jesus dies to save everyone from the "ungodly evil" of man wanting to be good.
3) only the jews believed in this evil-stupid thing, so jesus only applies to jews

intellectual amusement:
1.1) if 'sin' in abramism was defined as "man wanting to know right from wrong," then what greater sin could there ever be than organized religion which declares absolute goods and absolute bads.

>>22346400
If a theist justifies their argument and the atheist fails to justify any argument, the atheist has indeed lost the debate. If you’re an atheist, you may disagree with the particular justification that the theist gives in the end, but the fact is that they gave some sort of account for their claims and you have failed to give any account for anything and in admitting a skeptical position you’ve also implicitly refuted all of your claims, so the debate is over and you’ve lost. You’re ironically falling into the same trap that he fell into in thinking you can you can just point out that his justification is ultimately God and that somehow means you’ve won the debate, but it doesn’t. You’re just making the mistake of assuming their position is relativistic because yours is, but that’s not even correct.

>>22346453
Fact 1: you will burn in hell forever unless you accept Jesus.
Fact 2: you have rejected Jesus
Conclusion of 1+2 = you will burn in hell
Have fun :)

>>22346468
Fact 3: There is no literal Hell in your religion.
Fact 4: "Hell" as allegory is an absence for Enjoying Life.
Conclusion of 1+2 x 3+4 = Abramists of all religions are shit-demons and I am an Angel

>>22346494
Depart from me ye cursed into the ETERNAL FIRE prepared for THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS

>>22346467
>relative
Nonono, either I am holding a pebble and can show you the pebble or I'm not; if I can't show the pebble and yet claim I am holding a pebble .. then it's very simple, either 1) there's something wrong with my brain or 2) i am engaging in deception against you and you are very close to revealing my deception so i impede the line of inquiry.

i.e.
The justification must be verifiable in the place - otherwise it's meaningless anyway,

that's why if a theist declares (their idea of god) to be the basis for (their opinions) and cannot prove the god (or the religion, or whatever) itself to be tangible/real/demonstrable, which they cannot, then they lose immediately - by the standards you applied.

... and that's first move, right off the bat, opening statements in any debate; the theist says XYZ and cannot prove it, the atheist cites the absence of proof for the claims made in XYZ. That's essentially the entire conversation between any atheist and any theist, for all time now and always, on the question of "does god exists y/n."

>>22346515
y-y-you dare
YOU DARE?!!

I call upon the angel iulianos gabrielos sebastianos to slap you hard across the cheek.

>>22346524
Arguments are phenomena. Holding a pebble is obvious phenomena that everyone can see. That’s an altogether different thing from stating some non-obvious non-phenomena is in fact the case. This is why materialism is a mind virus and most atheists literally do not understand how debate works. It’s not a matter of shining on light on the fact that some material thing exists. In debate, you’re literally claiming that some non-material statement is true, and justifying how and why you know that is the case. If you fail to get to the justifying part and simply state “no this is the case and oh btw I can’t actually know that without any certainty because I accept skepticism” you’ve lost the debate. Period. Failure to provide justification is an automatic L. It means you literally don’t have an argument.

>>22346524
>>22346565
Are not*

>>22344686


Do a little hunting.

>>22346565
>some material thing
>materialism is a mind virus
contrarily, if you believe in a creator deity you 'should' recognize that "material; reality," is sacrosanct and that anything espoused with no material proof has not been discerned 'from' creation but made-up in the mind by fallible creatures.

>Failure to provide justification is an automatic L.
I agree, but again, where's the justification for a person if they dismiss "all possible proof" by ignoring actual reality? This is what Plotinus pointed out to the abramics; the foolish notion of making-up a god divorced from reality simply enables any bad or stupid person to make-up whatever they like as they've preemptively justified the ignoring of all evidence that would refute their preheld opinions; and really when we speak of things "made-up" we are speaking of the lowest common denominator of the most inexperienced persons just saying whatever comes to them. i.e. sure to be the furthest thing from truth of anything.

>That’s an altogether different thing from stating some non-obvious non-phenomena is in fact the case.
Well begin the inquiry at the first place of the thought: how could a mind arrive at the understanding that "the phenomenon" exist if there is no ready evidence for it? Even from an academic position of "materialism is bad/false" you're still stuck having to rationalize where the idea (the non-obvious thing) came from that you/they insist is true and superior to materialism; e.g. you "saw it with your eyes" for instance, then: "what did you see," and so on.

A person cannot arrive at "anything whatsoever" without having derived or discerned or suspected "the thing" from material examination. If, then, it truly is the case that a person has not derived their opinion from material examination then it's been made-up in their mind, then: see above (pun intended).


>simply state “no this is the case and oh btw I can’t actually know that without any certainty because I accept skepticism"
well, that is a common philosophical idiocy that people espouse, "academic skepticism," which I think is easy to refute when a person has a sure standard of proof and reliability in material evidence; cause and proof, etc.

ed.
> the foolish notion of making-up a god divorced from reality simply enables any bad or stupid person to make-up whatever they like as they've preemptively justified the ignoring of all evidence that would refute their preheld opinions;
I mean also here: they're displaying a disinterest in real truth, because they don't care to "refine" their understanding to reach the truth, they insist that their initial opinions or opinion before inquiry are just "automatically correct," because "belief," which is again:
> just saying whatever comes to them. i.e. sure to be the furthest thing from truth of anything.
and extreme egotism

>>22344686
Matt Dillahunty is not a genius, but he is decently intelligent. By the series of reactions on this thread, you can tell that he makes theists seethe and cope. His whole schtick is to ask for evidence and without fail it causes theists to implode because they are used to arguing with people who just assume whatever feels right must be true. Again, the overreaction to him on this thread is ridiculous. He fulfills his goal well, which is to introduce critical thinking and skepticism to the general laypeople. If you are on /lit/ and not a retarded christcuck, you probably already know that believing things based on “it feels good” or “i like it” is a horrible standard of epistemology, but 90% of Americans probably do not rise to this basic level considering over half of them believe that a Jewish rabbi who said we should literally eat his flesh and drink his blood made the universe, which only .0000000001% of is even habitable or reachable, specifically for us.

Also in his most recent video he brought up the synthetic vs. analytic distinction from Critique of Pure Reason, so that’s a little based

>>22346468

>>22346857
>His whole schtick is to ask for evidence
This isn't a good argument against God, evidenced by the fact that no atheist philosopher does this, because it can easily backfired when pointed out that lots of things we believe in (i.e. mathematical truths, consciousness, free will, etc) are without evidence. On that note, please don't confuse proofs with evidence. There are many proofs for God's existence.

>>22346275
>t. doesn't understand why that's a superficial note of comparison based on an element fedoras pre-associate as belonging to religious systems
Dogmatism exists within secular belief systems and reflexively labeling it as religious is itself an (ironic) example of dogmatic belief. It's a human phenomena and you aren't automatically free of it when you attempt the wholesale abandonment of a particular religion or religious structures.
>>22346332
>not an argument for any religion
It isn't meant to be one but the idea that a given person is unable to choose between systems of belief which may or may not be represented and embodied within a large group of people is nonsense. I don't want to invite a slide about the merits of democracy but such is the point of every single election in the West. Again, there is no point in sliding about the pitfalls of democratic systems; the idea is that a given person's inability to choose between alternatives doesn't automatically render either alternative false.
>sperg about Christianity
I doubt you've read extensively into Christian theology because it seems to me your characterization of the problems you're attempting to bring into the conversation are contrived.

>>22346899
>there isn’t a good argument against God

There are several that show the Christian conception of God is nonsensical.

Additionally, there doesn’t need to be arguments against God for atheism to be more reasonable than Christianity. Just like you don’t have arguments against unicorns, yet don’t believe in unicorns (hopefully). You start by assuming things are not true, then work towards proving they are with sufficient evidence or reasoning. Also proofs for God are btfo’d by Kant with ease.

If you believe in space-Jew who made everything in 7 days you are legitimately retarded.

>>22344686
Seriously doubt anyone could body jbp

>>22347322
inb4 Zizek. What happened there was a professional philosopher educating a philosophically minded psychologist. Neither side did their homework on the other and Peterson was more open to recognizing the common ground they ended up sharing (i.e. Zizek's main avenue of criticism was based in an esoteric understanding of terminology relating to Marxism as a means of dismissal of Peterson's ideas--it was disingenuous but I don't think Zizek meant it as such).

>>22344686
>Nu-atheist
Cringe
>Literally who
Cringe
>Married to a tgirl
Zased
>She has an onlyfans
Unfathomably Zased
>Zero hardcore stuff
Aaaand dropped

>>22347252
>>not an argument for any religion
>It isn't meant to be one
hahaha what? then why did peterson use it? why do christians and muslims declare everyone who disagrees with their cult "secretly believes in their god"?
>(the rest of that paragraph)
I have no idea what you're talking about.

>I doubt you've read extensively into Christian theology
You'd be wrong, Chuckie. That's why I can present a clear case when I say things, and your inability to understand or address those things; declaring them to be "sperg" is why you haven't.

> it seems to me your characterization of the problems you're attempting to bring into the conversation are contrived.
oh my bad, the morality part was for this guy: >>22345218
>Peterson reduced God to a hierarchical system of values and claimed that, therefore, even atheists implicitly have a God by dint of their moral beliefs

also
>sperg
fuck off cunt, you're a nerd and declaring people more intelligent than yourself to be nerds does not make you a chad, it makes you a pathetic cunt.

>>22344686
I thought Tony Wakeford was a neo-pagan

>>22346524
Of course an atheist would have a Reddit as fuck name as Sir Duncan Crumb, do you have a fake moustache and a walking stick to make yourself look like a dapper gentleman (ironically)? How about your fedora? Do you write comedy fiction in a Victorian writing style? How about your copy of hitchhikers guide to the galaxy? For fucks sake, twat

>>22347664
hahahahahaha

what nigger, you think anyone with a grasp of logic is automatically "an atheist" - dumb cretin.

>the words fedora and reddit
you malding cliche from the late 2010's, go have your work coach put you on one of those free learning programs at the job centre.

>>22347392
>hahaha what
It isn't an argument for belief in a particular religion. Sorry, but the strawman you were hoping for simply isn't there.
>I have no idea what you're talking about
Because you're a filtered idiot only able to respond disingenuously. A given person's inability to choose between belief structures has no baring on their validity and such indecision isn't restricted to problems of religion as per the illustrative example that was offered.
>You'd be wrong
Nothing you've offered exemplifies a deep understanding of the subject matter. Simple as.
>your inability to understand or address
Projection. Notice the "hahaha what" and "I have no idea" greentexted from your own post.
>oh my bad, the morality part was for this guy
Your thoughts are muddled so it makes no difference to who you were responding. That's extra sad given the fact you're regurgitating things and not trying to form your own ideas.
>fuck off cunt, you're a nerd and declaring people more intelligent than yourself to be nerds
Kek, atheism is an intelligence LARP and you're an idiot. Seethe.

>>22347317
>Additionally, there doesn’t need to be arguments against God for atheism to be more reasonable than Christianity. Just like you don’t have arguments against unicorns, yet don’t believe in unicorns
You ripped this nearly word for word from one of the first 2 chapters of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins lmao

>>22347998

>>22346899
>(i.e. mathematical truths, consciousness, free will, etc) are without evidence
Mathematical truths are accepted because they produce results. Both consciousness and free will are dubious concepts to account for levels of complexity we aren't equipped to comprehend, but which there is no good reason to believe they break any of the mechanistic rules of the universe. In short, theists just want to make excuses in order to believe in their precious fairy tales about their father figure in the sky.

>>22347998
I have never read anything by Dawkins or Hitchens because I am not retarded enough to need someone to explain to me why believing in a cartoon superhero Jewish blood magic god who led people through the desert is not real.

>>22347979
>Because you're a filtered idiot
Because you're rambling shit off-topic to ange the subject you dumb cunt - ha awww and now your'e a fucking LYING cunt too. Nice job making peterson fanboys look like dairylea stabbables.


>>hahaha what
>It isn't an argument for belief in a particular religion. Sorry, but the strawman you were hoping for simply isn't there.
No CUNT,
YOU pretended that when Peterson said that shit that he didn't MEAN IT IN THAT WAY, and I ASK WHY HE FUCKING SAY IT THEN, YOU LYING NIGGER, CHRIS CHAN THINKING MOTHERFUCKER YOU

dumb fucking lies i swear

> Simple as.
>(MR. SIMPLE AS STRIKES AGAIN)
aw ....... shouldve fucking guessed it was you

same old cunt in every peterson thread,nothing but verbal abuse and turnabouts. sick guy. have encountered you alot. going to murder your family one day wile you watch, then burn your face off with cooking oil.

>>22348087
well then the most likely thing is that the r/atheist redditor whose argument you read and subconsciously retained until now did. Either way, on this rational basis, I still declare you a pleb of the highest order

>>22348139
>everything is reddit
>also psychology - which is a jewish communist plot against christians - is valid sometimes when i like
your blood brain barrier is thicker than concrete, cow brain.

>>22348106
>can't engage in rational conversation
>epic meltdown
Thanks for playing.

>>22348166
>(cliched malding internet lingo from 2010)
you're an internet /pol/ troll who has been here for years saying the same things and lowering the public forum as a hobby, you and people like you need hunting down and executing. there's nothing much to say.

You're an agent provocateur here to disrupt and shill, and who needs to be turned pulp.

>>22348187
Calm down. Dr. Peterson can't hurt you.

>>22348234
Dr. Peterson was bodied by Matt Dillahunty.

>>22348236
>listening to anything someone from pic-related's audience has to say

>>22348259
>listening to anything a schizoid, benzo-addled Shapiro lackey and father to a shameless e-thot has to say

>>22348270
>t.

>>22348259
>>22348361
Everyone points out the fedoras but no one ever laughs about the goatees.

>>22348259
>Atheist Community of Tulsa
I deadass cringed when I read this for the first time. The goatee and plastic pipe is top bugkino.

Not literature.
At least fedorapost someone who's actually written, or at least even read, a book.

>>22348499
"The Atheist Community" is cringe as fuck.

>>22348259
I can't be the only to notice that it's not just fedoras and goofy fashion, but that atheists have very strange physiognomy. If they don't look dysgenic, they look evil. Or, they have some strange neuroses that come out in debates, or maybe an odd manner of speaking.
Just look. And if familiar with these personalities, consider their mannerisms and oddities in their personal lives (Bertrand Russel was a literal cuckold, and the son of one).

>>22348707
By comparison, here's a bunch of random Christian personalities and writers.
And compare their relative mental stability and lack of neuroses. Now, some of those atheists, like Graham Oppy, are similarly mentally stable. But it's about an average physiognomy and psychological profile. Why the difference? It's strange.
Some of them literally look like gigachads.

>>22348707
>>22348713
You might be on to something.

>>22348707
It’s the Saturnic influence, and I don’t mean it in a conspiracy way, Saturn imbalance leads you to become a depressing militant atheist sort. Gravelly and ‘down to earth’ but in a depressing way, like seeing a fat woman eat a greggs sausage outside of Tesco while you read a paper on the 5th stabbing in your area this week with needles scattered around you on the floor and only grey skies over your head - that feeling

>>22348713
>”they literally look like Gigachad!”
>Trent Horn
>William Lane Craig
>Bishop Barron

KEK!

this man literally bodied Jordan Peterson

>>22348707
Same person making these posts will go to a Sunday sermon and kick his feet and feel blushy and warm inside when the pastor tells him about how Christ is humble and loving to all, and especially those who don’t deserve it. Christians are the most vicious and insulting but pretend to care about love the most.

You will never be a Kantian

>>22348810
William Lane Craig and Bishop Barron literally have hunter-gatherer Chad skulls.

>>22348816
Christ called the Pharisees white washed tombs and Paul said the Cretans were rightly known as liars, brutes, and gluttons. There are certain types of people who are worthy of hatred and disgust.

>>22348713
>It's strange.
It's not that strange, you're a feminized homosexual male who is into men and who, like a Woman, believes that a manicured physical appearance is paramount.

>>22348810
you seem to know,
who is the goofy mexican dude in the blue shirt? im sure he does't go by gigachad irl

>>22348713
William Lane Craig literally looks like a rat

this guy literally bodied Jordan Peterson

>>22348810
>>22348816
>>22348878
>>22348932
strong cope.

>>22349083
Pray more to sky daddy you perpetual infant

>>22348878
Are you retarded? Physiognomy is literally the raw phenotype of a person, not how they groom. But the fact that you think basic grooming means feminine, 'manicured appearance,' makes me think you're a fat disgusting neckbeard who wears graphic t shirts.

>>22349085
Do atheists really think every human being before the 18th century was a perpetual infant? That goyslop feeding bugmen are the apex of human evolution?

>>22349085
>posts soijak and "sky daddy"
>calls others infants

>>22349094
>Do atheists really think
No.

>>22349094
Are you referring to a time which is literally referred to as "the infancy of civilization"? Also, if you examine traditions and rituals of primitive people, it's extremely clear they were mentally childish. Many different groups believed anything that had even a passing resemblance were somehow linked, thus, if a society fished with fishing nets, while the men were out fishing the women weren't allowed to knit or tie knots at home for fear it would cause the nets of the men to tangle. This type of superstition was basically universal among primitive societies. Similarly, the leader of chieftain was often believed to have magic powers and be connected with nature, some cultures took this so far that the leader was not allowed to ever touch the ground, and had to be carried everywhere or to walk on special mats for fear that, were he to touch the ground with his bare feet, it would cause a calamity in nature. How are we to view grown adults who literally carry strong taboos which boil down to "the floor is lava"? Perpetual children with the group endorsement of like minded perpetual children.
>>22349172
Cope and seethe

>>22344987
You forgot Matt's favorite argument: "I'm not convinced."