Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Synergy

AT: Ethics/Ontology Precedes Policymaking

Recommended Posts

Right but all of those are post-fiat, no?

 

Obviously if your win your f/w should exclude their K you win.

 

I'm more looking if there's an author who says that policymaking is first, ethics are second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right but all of those are post-fiat, no?

 

Obviously if your win your f/w should exclude their K you win.

 

I'm more looking if there's an author who says that policymaking is first, ethics are second.

First, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "post-fiat." If it implies the passage of policy, then sure, it is. However, if you win that debate and the role of the ballot should be a question of pragmatic policy passage, then ontological ethical considerations are already second to your Plan Text, even if the opposing team wins that ethical considerations are the "internal link" to your claims. Your question itself implies that you have to win the framework debate because you mention the existence of "post-fiat."

 

"Ethics" is a very empty term to ultimately be filled and evaluated in terms of solutions, be they based in policy, imagination, performance, etc.

 

Your claim has more to do with morals than ethics. An ethic is a way to ask the ballot to be evaluated, while a moral is more of a rigid rule to be applied during that evaluation. For example, your moral can be some form of utilitarian environmentalism if you run a case that deals with biodiversity and keystone species.

 

Functionally, winning policy-making precedes non-traditional ethical alternatives implies going for framework, which could alone limit out the kritik. Once this is won, it becomes much easier to win logical impact calculus claims already built-in to your 1AC.

 

Outside of this, you should keep in mind that attacking the alternative to the kritik is necessary. If you win framework, you might be able to make the alternative a non-issue, but don't take any risks in the 2AC. Engage them on the alternative, for that is where your "policy-making good" comparisons are applied. Don't ever let the kritik win that it either directly solves your 1AC, or indirectly solves the necessity for it. You're damned if you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the ethics ontology should precede fiat but it's that they must justify their assumptions before we can consider passing the plan. For example say your Kritik was that National Service causes biopower->massacres Foucault

 

You are arguing that the affirmative team must justify these massacres before they can access their impacts because the kritical assumptions say that these biopolitical schemes are bad and the affirmative must justify these biopolitical schemes before we can consider passing the plan therefore it precedes fiat.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not the ethics ontology should precede fiat but it's that they must justify their assumptions before we can consider passing the plan. For example say your Kritik was that National Service causes biopower->massacres Foucault

 

You are arguing that the affirmative team must justify these massacres before they can access their impacts because the kritical assumptions say that these biopolitical schemes are bad and the affirmative must justify these biopolitical schemes before we can consider passing the plan therefore it precedes fiat.

This question of "assumptions" is a silly one.

 

First, when did the 1AC assume that massacres hadn't happened due to national service? A simple apology and acknowledgement for such a fault is usually enough to get by. However, keep in mind that you, as per the 1NC, have yet to disprove the necessity for the 1AC. Any claim that you have implies winning the framework debate.

 

Secondly, this justifies a very negative nihilist stance towards action. Does the law have to justify slavery, patriarchy, and other forms of oppression? If so, your alternative now has to justify every positive reform. I guess it's just as fair, yet asinine, to ask you to justify the current slavery of Africans in the United States of America, then. I know this seems silly, but that's how you're explaining your alternative. There is a much better way to side-step such arguments, but most hardcore "policy" cases will approach it from such a manner and try to ignore your kritik altogether, which is why you must be smart about winning the necessity of your alternative, since most of your specific link arguments have probably already been conceded.

 

Lastly, you can't "precede" fiat. The imagination of the passage of the Plan usually occurs during the 1AC, making such a claim physically impossible. A better way to approach such an argument is winning a framework for the evaluation of discourse as opposed to or before policy considerations. Ultimately, this is another question of framework. Don't get me wrong. "Framework" isn't just about "fiat good" and "fiat bad." It needs to be much more specific than that. Nonetheless, it is very important to almost every round you'll be involved in, whether it involves a kritik or not.

 

Feel free to add your two cents.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "post-fiat." If it implies the passage of policy, then sure, it is. However, if you win that debate and the role of the ballot should be a question of pragmatic policy passage, then ontological ethical considerations are already second to your Plan Text, even if the opposing team wins that ethical considerations are the "internal link" to your claims. Your question itself implies that you have to win the framework debate because you mention the existence of "post-fiat."

 

"Ethics" is a very empty term to ultimately be filled and evaluated in terms of solutions, be they based in policy, imagination, performance, etc.

 

Your claim has more to do with morals than ethics. An ethic is a way to ask the ballot to be evaluated, while a moral is more of a rigid rule to be applied during that evaluation. For example, your moral can be some form of utilitarian environmentalism if you run a case that deals with biodiversity and keystone species.

 

Functionally, winning policy-making precedes non-traditional ethical alternatives implies going for framework, which could alone limit out the kritik. Once this is won, it becomes much easier to win logical impact calculus claims already built-in to your 1AC.

 

Outside of this, you should keep in mind that attacking the alternative to the kritik is necessary. If you win framework, you might be able to make the alternative a non-issue, but don't take any risks in the 2AC. Engage them on the alternative, for that is where your "policy-making good" comparisons are applied. Don't ever let the kritik win that it either directly solves your 1AC, or indirectly solves the necessity for it. You're damned if you do.

 

What does "ontological ethical" mean? Are you saying that there is a responsibility to be ontological?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

framework--

interp--judge should weigh the world of the aff plan vs the world of the alternative

solves their exclusion arguments and prevents the 1ac from being mooted

now you can make right to life outweighs arguments

also some arguments like ethical imperative to prevent nuke war

as well as util good like was mentioned before--which is a direct response to this "Ethics comes first?"--what the hell does that even mean? we should probably have some system of ethics to abide by and util is exactly that.

just an idea though--you should probably also just cut some cards specific to why ontology or ethics don't come first--shouldn't be too hard to find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the long post two above me. (cant remember the name, otherwise i would tell you good post)

 

But on the post that was just above mine, I dont think that competing worlds solves the offense of the K. IDK, it might come out as weird for me to articulate this, but I think that the alternative is usually meant to work within the world of the affirmative. My argument is biased towards alternatives based in the work of Foucault, which is why i always find it strategic to make my framework arguments inclusive fo the affirmatives so long as critical literature and argumentation is not limited out on the affirmative.

 

I also dont think it is strategic to win a util framework versus most k since util probably will function as an independant link story either in the 1nc or the block. And i mean util framework as in all you do is read some util cards and say the judge should look at it like this.

 

I think negatives need to avoid seperating the worlds of the alternative and plan. I think the negative loses alot of the offense they need to win the K, and it gives the affirmative the seperation to make their state good arguments legit. In a world where you seperate the aff and neg. the negaitve has to win alternative solvency, unique links, impacts in a vaccum. Bad place to be IHMO.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only place that i can see a well constructed utilitarian framework not fully answering this is against discourse K's (ie threat con, Kato, nuclearism, etc.) While most K's attack util, if you put up a good defense of it then you prove that your plan, by winning in a util f/w, is more ethical and thus the best stance to be taken in the round.

 

Against discourse K's, i would suggest looking for this one Beres card that i have seen- in one of his later pro-Isreal articles- where he talks about how education about hypothetical situations of war and nuclear attacks are necessary- this grants you impacts in a discoursive framework, from where you just need to win that preventing nuclear war is more ethical than preventing otherization (not that hard to win that a nuclear strike --> impacts of teh K).

 

Against ontology, there are a few strategies... 1- ethics preceeds ontology, then win util as best form of ethics... or 2- prove that ontological thought kills political action- plenty of cards on this, and it shouldn't be too hard to prove that the judge should prefer the political... of course just disproving the idiotic links of teh ontology argument is also a good idea...

 

-G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth saying that the argument that ethics comes first and the argument that ontology comes first are two very distinct arguments, probably so much so that if you're serious about this you'll want answers to each one. Answers to Levinas and answers to Heidegger would be good places to start, though I imagine other people get to the same place with different warrants. Ultimately, unless they're making these arguments in the context of debate theory (which is possible, but I haven't seen it done all that often) answering the K will probably implicitly answer their framework arguments. Impact turning the assertion that ontology has to be evaluated first might be a good idea (and, depending upon what your affirmative is, Levinas or someone writing about Levinas might not be a bad choice for that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ferguson and mansbach answer ontology

 

there's alot of realist articles that are just like ontologico babble is nonsense

 

also, ontology is a framework - - cut a card from their author that death is bad and a destruction of ontology, believe me, it'll probably exist

 

in answer to ethics, util is definitely the best route

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a guy who runs Heidegger with an ontology impact a lot, beating back the ontology framework can be a tough thing to do.

 

Ontology is essentially the idea that there is a meaning to our being, a "point to life." The negative will most likely say that whatever they read to get a link to your 1AC means that you destroy the meaning of life.

 

Util isn't quite an answer because util assumes an inherent meaning or point to existence. Additionally, Heideggerian critiques of technology will just claim utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number) as another link into the fact that you perpetuate the technological rationale of existence.

 

The most obvious way out of this framework is by defending that your plan action somehow helps out humanity in an ontological way. The problem with this is the same thing that happens to most threat-con debates in that the question of "Is it more important to solve for the plan now and ontological claims later? Or solve for the ontological impact that has a stable link to the affirmative now?" So unless you can get a good no-link to the K, I'd recommend against trying to say the effects of your plan make a better world because the debate will get incredibly regressive and dumb. And you'll lose because ontology outweighs all, so solving for it sooner and would be preferable.

 

The other way to address the framework is to cut cards. The ontological question really is probably one of the most debated things in all of philosophy, except for maybe Foucault's sexual hijinks. Be careful in cutting these cards, though. You're going to have to do it yourself if you want anything good. I've been debating against camp file answers to Heidegger all year, and hardly any of the cards actually have warrants, and the ones that do aren't that good. You'll want to find something saying something along the lines of the ontological question isn't relevant to policymaking, or that ontological ideologies cannot be applied to government action, or that ontological claims are bullshit. All of them exist.

 

 

 

Now that all of that is said, this is not the way to go about fighting back against Hiedegger. I can't speak for other ontologically impacted critiques because I'm not as familiar with them, but I can assure you that any team carrying a Heidegger file is going to be more than prepared for the ontology>all debate. Stick with offense on other levels, read a perm, say Heidegger was a Nazi if you have to, but the impact isn't the best level to debate this K at.

 

Hope I've helped, if you have any more questions send me a PM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ontology is essentially the idea that there is a meaning to our being, a "point to life."...util assumes an inherent meaning or point to existence.

 

Right, but why is recognizing that the whole of life has no inherent meaning prevent us from assigning meaning to its parts? Surely not every action is of equal value, not every ethical choice we make cannot rely on some calculus of good/bad. yes life has no meaning. But that doesn't prove it would not be net beneficial for me to serve in the Peace Corps as opposed to the private sector. That's why we can evaluate the plan, but not life overall, in a utl framework.

 

The most obvious way out of this framework is by defending that your plan action somehow helps out humanity in an ontological way. The problem with this is the same thing that happens to most threat-con debates in that the question of "Is it more important to solve for the plan now and ontological claims later? Or solve for the ontological impact that has a stable link to the affirmative now?" So unless you can get a good no-link to the K, I'd recommend against trying to say the effects of your plan make a better world because the debate will get incredibly regressive and dumb. And you'll lose because ontology outweighs all, so solving for it sooner and would be preferable.

this is just an ends do not justify the means type of argument - util checks. Plus, policy makers morally justify their policies after they are inacted, answering back your timeframe arguments, thats that "do the right thing for the wrong reasons" author - forgot name

 

also, where are you getting the idea that we're ontologically damning in the short run? could you explain this bit.

 

And the claim that ontology outweighs is exactly what I'm trying to answer..

 

The other way to address the framework is to cut cards. The ontological question really is probably one of the most debated things in all of philosophy, except for maybe Foucault's sexual hijinks. Be careful in cutting these cards, though. You're going to have to do it yourself if you want anything good. I've been debating against camp file answers to Heidegger all year, and hardly any of the cards actually have warrants, and the ones that do aren't that good. You'll want to find something saying something along the lines of the ontological question isn't relevant to policymaking, or that ontological ideologies cannot be applied to government action, or that ontological claims are bullshit. All of them exist.

is this just realism, or could you post cites?

 

 

Stick with offense on other levels, read a perm, say Heidegger was a Nazi if you have to, but the impact isn't the best level to debate this K at.

what other levels? I generalize that imapct turning with heg good is where its at

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i mean dude - you obviously know the answer to the question if u're asking for our opinions - why phrase it like you need help...lol

 

any way - framework?

 

consequences - if u're looking to answer the "what should be evaluated first" then consequences cards are great Kateb and such, these obviously indicate what should be evaluated first

 

But i don't think thats what u're looking for...

 

There is obviously ways you can defend this shit outta the 1AC - having ethical claims...etc.

 

you can always make poicy arguments against these ontological claims but obviously a good team will destroy them

 

The best bet you have is yes, proving that you work within their ontological framework somehow - you can use post-fiat impacts and claim prefiat discourse evaluation - there are cards on this, for example - u're discourse of preventing extinction is an ethical obligation to ontology - we live in "ontological damnation" in extinction - and knowing that these impacts can occur in a post fiat world, and not taking stance in a pre-fiat world of discourse i bad... there are multiple ways this can be phrased - not a good argument but it seems like this is what u want to hear? or not

 

i think personally the best thing to do is have ethics defense in the 1AC, and find ways to turn the kritik i.e. kritik focuses on individualism - individualism bad, neolib, etc. for a coercion kritik, these prefiat counterkritiks work better in my opinion than the realism shit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

alright synergy, I'll answer your questions in order, I am not versed enough in forum-business to do spiffy quotes.

 

The whole story of heidegger is that you conceptualize life as something technological and to be equated. This is bad because it views us not as humans, but as machines or tools to perform whatever task. Our humanity itself is lost, and there is no more point to being 'human' or 'alive' anymore. The terminal impact is that the individual then views themselves as a resource, and not as something that can 'enjoy life', so living in the first place doesn't matter becuase there is no way within the constraints of the technological interpretation of being to enjoy living, since it doesn't fit within the themes of 'growth' or 'progess'. Util becomes another link because it is entirely indicative of this mentality of weighing and balancing life. Granted, the 1NC will have a link a bit stronger than util alone, but reading util against an critique with a stable link like this only bolsters their position. Also remember that the terminal impact of util good is "we save more lives", so in order for their to be weight in saving those lives, life has to have some sort of meaning.

 

Most of that chunk answers most of your questions on the second quote, except for the 'timeframe' part. A problem that most K debaters have is they get into "chicken or the egg" arguments of "is it better to solve for the problem now, or do something that perpetuates the problem in hopes of solving it in the future?" If the person running heidegger can win that ontology outweighs all other impacts, then your plan is essentially a moot issue in the world where it can't solve for ontological impacts, so the negative outweighs in that they can solve for ontology for sure now, while you have a risk of solving it post-plan.

 

The cards I was talking about aren't really realism so much as just philosophers talking about ontology, although I am sure there are some realist authors out there who adress this. I have no cites because my strategy against ontologically based critiques is to link turn (I run critical cap bad on the affirmative, so it's probably easier for me to link turn this sorta thing than it is for a normal aff and the evidence exists for it. If you want the cites to those cards, I can give them to you.)

 

Other levels of offense would be things like "your alt can't solve", the permutation, or some sort of link turn. Find research your aff, Heidegger is a popular guy. I'm sure you can find cards that say for example, the type of repression of homosexuality in DADT is indicative of the technological's attempts to destroy all that does not fit within technological norms of existance. (IE, there is no 'benefit' to being homosexual in modern society, so by allowing free expression of homosexuality you combat technological norms of what it means to live).

 

 

 

I know I'm probably being vague and over-generalizing, which brings me to another point you can attack Heideggerian critiques on. Heidegger is vague as hell. Applying his theories to a policy-making context is a generally rough and contrived thing to do. I *know* of cards out there talking about how Heidegger can't at all be applied to any sort of real-world context, send me a PM if you want the cites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A helpful place to start is really just to ask the other team what ontology is. Here is a good enough description.

 

Ontology: The branch of METAPHYSICS which studies the nature of existence. Central questions include: What kinds of objects exist? What is it for something to exist?

 

Ontology then is an inquiry about existence. It does not from the beginning posit any sort of values of how life should exist. This means as an affirmative team there are a few ways to respond to the negative teams claim that ontology must come first.

 

1. You can say ontology is an impossible pursuit. One way to do this is to use Kant's First Critique as a starting point for the argument that we can never know the "true" being of something, or the thing in itself. Put simply, Kant says we need to limit the scope of our reason so we can pursue philosophical investigations that are actually fruitful and not fraught with error.

 

2. You can attack the conclusion that you make someone's or something's being unable to manifest itself in the world. For example if one "conceptualize(s) life as something technological and to be equated. This is bad because it views us not as humans, but as machines or tools to perform whatever task." you should press the link between one's discourse and another's state of being. Can I deny someone elses unfolding of being merely because I have disdain in my speech for their desired way of being? If prevention of the unfolding of being requires a material impediment, then why should a "question of ontology" be considered in a way prior to that impediment?

 

3. Why does knowing how one is in the world matter?

 

4. How does one solve for ontology? At best one is only going to be able to argue that humans should have an unimpeded examination of their being in the world, but there likely won't be a resolution to the question. This means that any investigation that the negative embarks on won't have the substantive solvency that they claim. At least a claim to consider ontology would not fit within a problem solving framework.

 

5. Ask the negative team how humans should be in the world, and ask if their interpretation is necessary and not one of many options. You should be incredibly skeptical of any appeal of an "authentic" way to be in the world, as those appeals often advance racism and sexism.

 

This is incredibly basic stuff just based off that sort of crappy definition. If you really want to beat Heidegger K's learning a little bit about the philosophical background will go a long way.

 

Here is a bit of an overview of the relationship of ontology to main western philosophers (with the slant toward using Levinas to critique these authors).

 

http://www.faculty.sbc.edu/mcalarco/04%20Chapter%201%20Critique%20of%20Ontology.doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ontology=lame

 

CAPUTO 93 (John D. – prof Phil. Villanova) Against Ethics p. 30

 

That would mean you cannot have an obligation to Being or Spirit or the People, nor can Being or Spirit oblige anything. Being, Spirit, History, Man: the playthings of Greco-German mythophilosophizing, which is my somewhat free translation of die Sache des Denkens (which I claim, as a translation, is wahr if not richtig). Nothing happens in or to Being and Spirit. What happens happens to beings that bear up or bend under what is happening. Being cannot suffer a disaster, or suffer oblivion, because it does not suffer at all. Being and Spirit are mythico-super-Subjects, the upshot of totalizing attempts to describe what is happening, leaving those of us with proper names to face the worst. History and Being, History and Spirit, the History of Being, the History of Spirit: so many tall tales and meta-narratives, gigantic, stories that forsake the minima moralia of damaged live, the minute scraps and remands Being leaves behind. A disaster is a damaged life, damaged beyond repair. Being shows no interest in damaged lives; they are none of Being’s business (Sache). Indeed, many bleeding bodies may well be a sign that Being or Spirit is on the mend, or on the march, healing itself and making itself Whole or Holy, getting ready for the Other Beginning, while the dead are left to bury the dead. Forget Being. There is nothing to remember. Replace it with a mnemo-technique for remembering proper names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ontology=lame

 

CAPUTO 93 (John D. – prof Phil. Villanova) Against Ethics p. 30

 

That would mean you cannot have an obligation to Being or Spirit or the People, nor can Being or Spirit oblige anything. Being, Spirit, History, Man: the playthings of Greco-German mythophilosophizing, which is my somewhat free translation of die Sache des Denkens (which I claim, as a translation, is wahr if not richtig). Nothing happens in or to Being and Spirit. What happens happens to beings that bear up or bend under what is happening. Being cannot suffer a disaster, or suffer oblivion, because it does not suffer at all. Being and Spirit are mythico-super-Subjects, the upshot of totalizing attempts to describe what is happening, leaving those of us with proper names to face the worst. History and Being, History and Spirit, the History of Being, the History of Spirit: so many tall tales and meta-narratives, gigantic, stories that forsake the minima moralia of damaged live, the minute scraps and remands Being leaves behind. A disaster is a damaged life, damaged beyond repair. Being shows no interest in damaged lives; they are none of Being’s business (Sache). Indeed, many bleeding bodies may well be a sign that Being or Spirit is on the mend, or on the march, healing itself and making itself Whole or Holy, getting ready for the Other Beginning, while the dead are left to bury the dead. Forget Being. There is nothing to remember. Replace it with a mnemo-technique for remembering proper names.

 

 

After three readings I honestly don't understand much of this card, I'm going to guess that is because you didn't cut the card long enough to give it the right context.

 

Anyway, I'm going to guess that the warrant you want to extrapolate from this card is that "We'll still exist, so we'll still 'be', so 'being' always will remain." And that "being" itself can't "suffer", that you either do exist or you don't. The problem is this card doesn't really address ontology in that it ignores the impact of losing the meaning of being. Existence has to mean something to us for our lives to be worth something, which isn't something this card really addresses.

 

I could be horribly wrong, though. That card is dense. Any sentence where the word "happen" can be conjugated three different ways to explain an idea really throws me off. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread makes very little sense. Not a lot of you seem to have a lot of understanding of the larger issues of philosophy that are explored by the philosophers of the era around Heidegger.

 

Ethics is simply a system of determing what the right action is. Even if more people might die, one might be obligated to take a particular action. Reading consequences good is directly responsive and proves why a system of ethics is bad.

 

Ontology is looking at how the world is and how it has become. Consequences good arguments are responsive to the question that we should only take an academic look at the world. This is also pretty lame. There are also tons of options to take in terms of impact turning ontology as well (and regardless of what the other clueless dude in this thread said, impact turning ontology is a strategy that can win debates). Attempting to get a "link turn" usually is irrelevant because any good k team these days says in response to everything "this is just another link" and your measly little link turn won't solve all of the new block link arguments and you'll have a bit of a link out compared to the k. And not a whole lot of people win on a no-link to a criticism.

 

I mean, really, you all do realize that the reason why the Zimmerman card claims that ontology outweighs nuclear war is because we couldn't think philosophically after a nuclear war, right? That's pretty fucking stupid.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread makes very little sense. Not a lot of you seem to have a lot of understanding of the larger issues of philosophy that are explored by the philosophers of the era around Heidegger.

 

Ethics is simply a system of determing what the right action is. Even if more people might die, one might be obligated to take a particular action. Reading consequences good is directly responsive and proves why a system of ethics is bad.

 

Ontology is looking at how the world is and how it has become. Consequences good arguments are responsive to the question that we should only take an academic look at the world. This is also pretty lame. There are also tons of options to take in terms of impact turning ontology as well (and regardless of what the other clueless dude in this thread said, impact turning ontology is a strategy that can win debates). Attempting to get a "link turn" usually is irrelevant because any good k team these days says in response to everything "this is just another link" and your measly little link turn won't solve all of the new block link arguments and you'll have a bit of a link out compared to the k. And not a whole lot of people win on a no-link to a criticism.

 

I mean, really, you all do realize that the reason why the Zimmerman card claims that ontology outweighs nuclear war is because we couldn't think philosophically after a nuclear war, right? That's pretty fucking stupid.

 

You clearly haven't read many of the posts in this thread. I'd recommend actually reading what has already been said, rather than scanning over a few points and making a generalization about what is going on.

 

And as you like to say "impact turning ontology" is a possible or a better strategy, you don't really give any examples on how to do it. You say consequentialism then you don't respond to how consequentialism or util or any other of those types of frameworks are just another link in to Heidegger.

 

By your last paragraph about Zimmerman you aren't even making sense anymore.

 

My big problem with your post isn't that what you say is just horribly wrong, but that you say it in a horribly condescending tone. Chill out. This is cross-x.com, you don't need to prove how big your dick is here. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"After three readings I honestly don't understand much of this card, I'm going to guess that is because you didn't cut the card long enough to give it the right context.Anyway, I'm going to guess that the warrant you want to extrapolate from this card is.... "

 

"My big problem with your post isn't that what you say is just horribly wrong, but that you say it in a horribly condescending tone. Chill out. This is cross-x.com, you don't need to prove how big your dick is here. :P"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...