Author Topic: Jason lisle vs solipsism  (Read 2216 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #87 on: November 15, 2013, 08:38:55 PM »
You claimed that a synonym does not have the same meaning as the base word. That is incorrect. I don't agree that to correct it is semantic nitpicking. But if you think it is, that's your prerogative. I think you'll find that similarly incorrect statements you may make in the future will be similarly corrected.
I never made that claim, all I said was that synonym does NOT mean that they are the same, just similar, some of the words can have identical meanings, I never said they couldn't.
If you could stop the ad hominem that would be greatly appreciated.

How about we just agree that your statement was somewhat incorrect, my correction was kinda reasonable and split[1] the difference.
 1. halve, divide, fracture
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #88 on: November 15, 2013, 08:41:44 PM »
You claimed that a synonym does not have the same meaning as the base word. That is incorrect. I don't agree that to correct it is semantic nitpicking. But if you think it is, that's your prerogative. I think you'll find that similarly incorrect statements you may make in the future will be similarly corrected.
I never made that claim, all I said was that synonym does NOT mean that they are the same, just similar, some of the words can have identical meanings, I never said they couldn't.
If you could stop the ad hominem that would be greatly appreciated.

How about we just agree that your statement was somewhat incorrect, my correction was kinda reasonable and split[1] the difference.
 1. halve, divide, fracture

No, because you made a fallacious argument, perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been[2], but you are using a strawman argument, and performing an ad hominem attack to try and make my input seem superfluous.

EDIT:
Besides that, we've derailed far from the OP, we should get back on topic. Just note that I do not accept your reasoning and move on.
 2. which I already addressed
« Last Edit: November 15, 2013, 08:46:21 PM by Antidote »
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #89 on: November 15, 2013, 08:48:58 PM »


EDIT:
Besides that, we've derailed far from the OP, we should get back on topic. Just note that I do not accept your reasoning and move on.

OK. You probably don't exist, so I was correct.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #90 on: November 15, 2013, 08:50:32 PM »


EDIT:
Besides that, we've derailed far from the OP, we should get back on topic. Just note that I do not accept your reasoning and move on.

OK. You probably don't exist, so I was correct.
What are you trying to accomplish with that statement?
Move on and get back to the OP.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #91 on: November 15, 2013, 08:56:01 PM »


EDIT:
Besides that, we've derailed far from the OP, we should get back on topic. Just note that I do not accept your reasoning and move on.

OK. You probably don't exist, so I was correct.
What are you trying to accomplish with that statement?
Move on and get back to the OP.

Sorry...sorry

It's all just in your head. None of this matters.
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #92 on: November 15, 2013, 08:56:34 PM »
 ;D
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #93 on: November 15, 2013, 08:59:20 PM »
Asserting that I do not exist does nothing to further the argument, please provide a coherent argument for either case.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12677
  • Darwins +333/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #94 on: November 15, 2013, 09:00:48 PM »
You people are making me look good right now. Think about that.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #95 on: November 15, 2013, 09:03:07 PM »
You people are making me look good right now. Think about that.

-Nam
At this point I'd accept any argument that wasn't a wild assertion with no explanation as to why, hence me asking what he was hoping to accomplish.

EDIT:
I'll further elaborate, MM, asserting that I do not exist does not automatically make you correct, once again you perform a logical fallacy, this time a false dichotomy.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2013, 09:06:32 PM by Antidote »
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12677
  • Darwins +333/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #96 on: November 15, 2013, 09:05:45 PM »
You people are making me look good right now. Think about that.

-Nam
At this point I'd accept any argument that wasn't a wild assertion with no explanation as to why, hence me asking what he was hoping to accomplish.

You didn't think. You're still making me look good. Of course you're new...

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Antidote

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
  • Darwins +19/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • >.>
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #97 on: November 15, 2013, 09:07:35 PM »
You people are making me look good right now. Think about that.

-Nam
At this point I'd accept any argument that wasn't a wild assertion with no explanation as to why, hence me asking what he was hoping to accomplish.

You didn't think. You're still making me look good. Of course you're new...

-Nam
Oh I thought, I just chose to ignore you.
According to Cpt. Obvious: Theists think they know God, Atheists require evidence.

---

Do not assume I was religious in any way, I have never been religious.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5062
  • Darwins +580/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #98 on: November 15, 2013, 09:29:07 PM »
Whilst it may be technically correct to say that atheism is a rejection of belief rather than a belief in itself, isn't it true that in order to lack belief in God you must have certain other beliefs? Such as: the world was created via natural processes, there is no such thing as inherent good or evil, the bible is fictitious. By attempting to convince somebody to become an atheist, as this book encourages, I consider it quite reasonable that it is trying to convince people to hold actual beliefs. Therefore I continue to consider the term 'athest evangilist' completely valid.
You might consider it valid, but that doesn't mean it's actually so.

For example, the statement "the world was created via natural processes" is not inconsistent with the statement, "gods exist".  It might be inconsistent with "the god of the Bible exists", but that is just one god out of the innumerable gods proposed by humans.  For example, what if gods were also created by natural processes, for the sake of argument?  Or what if those natural processes were set in motion by a god, but that god didn't create the world?

It's true that the author of that book doesn't accept that gods exist.  But the actual belief, or worldview, that he's proposing is one based on reason and rationality.  That is to say, that we should base our beliefs on what we can demonstrate through evidence, rather than superstition.  Through reason, rather than faith.

If you want to argue that he's evangelizing for reason and rationality, I'd have no quibbles with that.  But there is no reason to assume that an atheist must be reasonable or rational.  Indeed, the existence of atheist 'churches' suggests that some atheists may very well not be as reasonable and rational as others.  Therefore, you should probably rethink your argument.

By the way, all that being synonymous means is that two words share a meaning.  It does not mean that those two words always mean the same thing.  For example, teaching is a synonym of evangelizing (according to the thesaurus Mr. Blackwell linked).  Does that mean that the two words are always going to be synonyms?  Of course not!  That's why it's important to use the word you mean, and not rely on something that's merely synonymous.

Once, when I was quite a bit younger, I referred to someone as being ossified.  My brother didn't know what the word meant, so I clarified by saying it was like something that was petrified.  Then he asked me, if I'd meant petrified, why didn't I just use it in the first place?  Well, the reason is because I meant ossified.  Ossify and petrify both refer to the process of something hardening - but only ossify refers to the hardening of attitudes.  When you refer to someone being petrified, it usually means that they're afraid.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5062
  • Darwins +580/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #99 on: November 15, 2013, 09:36:17 PM »
There...fixed it for you. Atheist are apparently very concerned about sharing their non belief. Nothing else seems to matter as much as the shared belief that there are no gods.
And what makes you think that?  Because what I'm seeing is you attempting to paint atheists with a very wide brush.  Not all atheists are as focused on trying to argue against the existence of gods as you seem to think they are.  Indeed, I would argue that not even all of the atheists on this site attempt to do that.  So why do you think that the "shared belief that there are no gods" has any particular relevance?  Never mind the implication that "non-belief" = "belief".  That is like if someone says that they dislike something, they must like the opposite.  It is illogical and doesn't follow, so you might want to refrain.

Quote from: Mr. Blackwell
Aside from the "non belief" you pride yourselves on...there is also the acceptance of certain other beliefs which are proved by your clergy a.k.a. scientists.
This conduct of yours (attempting to paint scientists as atheist clergy, among other things) is insulting and derogatory, and I'm going to politely ask that you quit it.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #100 on: November 15, 2013, 09:38:08 PM »
So Al Gore is not an evangelist for global warming, because "evangelism" can ONLY EVER be used in a "Christian" context.

What other words can ONLY be used in a "Christian" context?

Where does solipsism fit into this discussion?
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5062
  • Darwins +580/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #101 on: November 15, 2013, 09:45:21 PM »
So Al Gore is not an evangelist for global warming, because "evangelism" can ONLY EVER be used in a "Christian" context.
I didn't say that.  I said that I understood that magicmiles was generalizing the term, and accepted it for the sake of argument.  As I said earlier:

The word itself refers to Christianity, but I suppose it could refer to any belief system if you wanted to generalize it.

Quote from: Mr. Blackwell
What other words can ONLY be used in a "Christian" context?

Where does solipsism fit into this discussion?
I don't buy into solipsism in the first place, but that's me.

I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to the comment I just made directed at you.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #102 on: November 15, 2013, 09:47:09 PM »
I agree with some of what you said Jaime, but I don't think you thoroughly addressed the crux of my point. It isn't helpful to point out that believing the world was created by natural processes isn't inconsistent with the statement "Gods exist", because I am referring to an avowed atheist, the author of the book. Therefore, if he holds the belief that the world was created by natural processes he does not hold that belief in conjunction with the belief that Gods exist. Therefore, I still think it is reasonable to suggest that this particular atheist (and its important to remember that I make the claim only about this one specific atheist) is promoting methods to draw God believers away from that belief and into certain other beliefs. I believe it is valid to refer to him as an evangelist (and I think so in spite of acknowledging and agreeing with your point on the use of synonyms).
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #103 on: November 15, 2013, 10:03:18 PM »
There...fixed it for you. Atheist are apparently very concerned about sharing their non belief. Nothing else seems to matter as much as the shared belief that there are no gods.
And what makes you think that?  Because what I'm seeing is you attempting to paint atheists with a very wide brush.

Not believing in any sort of gods is NOT a very wide brush. Yet...apparently...many atheists are concerned about uniting other people who also do not believe in any gods...for whatever reason or cause. 

Quote
Not all atheists are as focused on trying to argue against the existence of gods as you seem to think they are.

And yet you presume to know this about me.

Quote
Indeed, I would argue that not even all of the atheists on this site attempt to do that.  So why do you think that the "shared belief that there are no gods" has any particular relevance?  Never mind the implication that "non-belief" = "belief".  That is like if someone says that they dislike something, they must like the opposite.

You are right. I personally know some atheists who do not believe in the big bang theory. I know some atheists who do not even know what the big bang theory is. So to say that all atheists believe in one scientific theory or the other is bullshit. I apologize.

Quote from: jaimehlers
Quote from: Mr. Blackwell
Aside from the "non belief" you pride yourselves on...there is also the acceptance of certain other beliefs which are proved by your clergy a.k.a. scientists.
This conduct of yours (attempting to paint scientists as atheist clergy, among other things) is insulting and derogatory, and I'm going to politely ask that you quit it.

This, I cannot do. Atheist cleave to every word ever uttered by a scientist...at least...until some other scientist says it's false.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2013, 10:11:48 PM by Mr. Blackwell »
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5062
  • Darwins +580/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #104 on: November 15, 2013, 10:14:34 PM »
Without knowing more about what he actually wrote, I'd hesitate to say what his actual goals are.  But I think most people who write things are trying to convince their readers of something.  In his case, it's rationality, reason, and atheism.  But someone who writes a positive movie review is trying to convince their readers that the movie is worth watching.  Does that mean that they're trying to evangelize for the movie?  Even used in a general sense, evangelize carries religious connotations - conversion, zeal, etc.  I think that might be the crux of the problem - using the term evangelize with regards to this atheist's book connotes that he's trying to carry out a religious conversion.  But people who don't see atheism as a religion or even a belief are going to react to the connotations that the word evangelize carries.  The discussion ends up being about whether or not atheism is a religion, even if that isn't actually said out loud.

Whereas, if you said that he was trying to advocate for atheism, you'd probably get a lot more agreement, especially from atheists.  So the real question is, is it more important to get other people to accept your specific terminology, or to find terminology that most people can agree with?

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5062
  • Darwins +580/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #105 on: November 15, 2013, 10:27:31 PM »
Not believing in any sort of gods is NOT a very wide brush. Yet...apparently...many atheists are concerned about uniting other people who also do not believe in any gods...for whatever reason or cause.
So why is that a problem?

Quote from: Mr. Blackwell
And yet you presume to know this about me.
Not interested in playing word games with you.  I am going based on what I understood you to say.  If my understanding is not correct, then tell me so, instead of making statements like this.

Quote from: Mr. Blackwell
You are right. I personally know some atheists who do not believe in the big bang theory. I know some atheists who do not even know what the big bang theory is. So to say that all atheists believe in one scientific theory or the other is bullshit. I apologize.
This is what I meant by painting with a wide brush.

Quote from: Mr. Blackwell
]This, I cannot do. Atheist cleave to every word ever uttered by a scientist...at least...until some other scientist says it's false.
Didn't you just admit that some atheists don't believe in the Big Bang Theory, and others don't even know what it is?  So why make this assumption immediately afterward?

More to the point, I was objecting to your reference to scientists as "atheist clergy".  That makes it sound like science is a religion, which I strongly object to.  For crying out loud, one of the people who proposed the Big Bang Theory was a Jesuit priest.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #106 on: November 15, 2013, 10:27:45 PM »


Whereas, if you said that he was trying to advocate for atheism, you'd probably get a lot more agreement, especially from atheists.  So the real question is, is it more important to get other people to accept your specific terminology, or to find terminology that most people can agree with?

That's a fair point. Although I think in the case of this book, calling it an advocation of atheism is understating it. I accept that the word 'evangelise' has religious connotations, and concede that strictly speaking it may be the incorrect word to use when describing the author.

My intention, at the end of the day, was to point out that sometimes atheists go further than pointing out why they do not believe it rational for anybody to believe in God. They go further than trying to dissuade believers from trying to convert atheists - they (the atheists) actually try to 'convert' believers.
Go on up you baldhead.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5062
  • Darwins +580/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #107 on: November 15, 2013, 10:38:44 PM »
My intention, at the end of the day, was to point out that sometimes atheists go further than pointing out why they do not believe it rational for anybody to believe in God. They go further than trying to dissuade believers from trying to convert atheists - they (the atheists) actually try to 'convert' believers.
I think it's human nature to act this way - to have an opinion, an attitude, a viewpoint, whatever, that they want to convince others of.  And without a doubt, some people go beyond simply advocating for their position.  That's why my own viewpoint is, generally, skeptical - because believing something simply because someone says it leads to problems.  Doesn't matter who or what.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #108 on: November 15, 2013, 10:42:34 PM »
Well, I for one have thoroughly enjoyed the discussion in this thread, even the heated disagreement. We're all grown ups and I don't think anybody has crossed any lines with insults.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #109 on: November 15, 2013, 10:43:21 PM »
Not believing in any sort of gods is NOT a very wide brush. Yet...apparently...many atheists are concerned about uniting other people who also do not believe in any gods...for whatever reason or cause.
So why is that a problem?

It's not a problem as far as I am concerned. I just find humor in some people's reaction to calling that observation out. Religion is not cancer but some atheists recoil in horror at the mere mention of anything related to religion...especially if there is any remote similarity to any movement by any group of atheists which might resemble cancer religion.
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12677
  • Darwins +333/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #110 on: November 15, 2013, 10:49:36 PM »
You people are proving my point about making me look good. You are essentially arguing over nothing. That's what I do. The thing is I can't help it, y'all can.

So, keep doing it because you're making me look good.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5062
  • Darwins +580/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #111 on: November 15, 2013, 10:51:26 PM »
No, religion is not a cancer.  But it can be extremely dangerous.  We've seen that here in this country, and not just with the 9/11 attacks.

There is a person from a nearby town who writes letters to the editor arguing that women should stay at home and follow the Bible's instructions, arguing that 'sodomy' is vile and should be detested as firmly as possible, and other things besides.  What would happen if that person got in a position of power, able to enforce his will on other people?  I know not all Christians are like that, but I can't dismiss the idea that it's the general acceptance of religion that gives people like him the capacity to inflict their twisted beliefs on others.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #112 on: November 15, 2013, 10:51:57 PM »
You people are proving my point about making me look good. You are essentially arguing over nothing. That's what I do. The thing is I can't help it, y'all can.

So, keep doing it because you're making me look good.

-Nam

I sometimes marvel at the fact that you are constantly watched...but now I know it is just because you look so good.
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5062
  • Darwins +580/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #113 on: November 15, 2013, 10:53:31 PM »
You people are proving my point about making me look good. You are essentially arguing over nothing. That's what I do. The thing is I can't help it, y'all can.

So, keep doing it because you're making me look good.
Consider it a public service:  "Making Nam look good."

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #114 on: November 15, 2013, 10:54:36 PM »
No, religion is not a cancer.  But it can be extremely dangerous.  We've seen that here in this country, and not just with the 9/11 attacks.

There is a person from a nearby town who writes letters to the editor arguing that women should stay at home and follow the Bible's instructions, arguing that 'sodomy' is vile and should be detested as firmly as possible, and other things besides.  What would happen if that person got in a position of power, able to enforce his will on other people?  I know not all Christians are like that, but I can't dismiss the idea that it's the general acceptance of religion that gives people like him the capacity to inflict their twisted beliefs on others.

What would happen if someone who believed that only the highly intelligent and affluent should be able to reproduce gets into power?
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12677
  • Darwins +333/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Jason lisle vs solipsism
« Reply #115 on: November 15, 2013, 11:04:35 PM »
This is how the conversation is going for me:

Christian: Atheists evangelise.

Atheist: You're an idiot.

Christian: How am I an idiot?

Atheist: Evangelise is a Christian term (shows evidence)

Christian: You know what I mean, and it can be a synonym for what I mean. See here (shows same source evidence)

Atheist: Atheists don't do what Christians do.

Christian: Here, some websites and videos etc., showing atheists "Evangelise".

Atheist: They're in the minority, the majority aren't like that. So, it's untrue because you used "atheist" as a generalisation.

(Christian and atheist using karma: smite smite smite smite)

Do you see how stupid y'all are being? Especially the atheists here, more so the atheists here.

You have a book that says to the effect "How to deconvert the god believer". Atheists on atheist website, and reviewers arguing about a manual that agree or disagree with on "deconverting" god believers. They think that's what is, all of them (minus those who actually read it, of course) and you're here arguing with a Christian(s) on how wrong they are. Fine, they're wrong but you don't say that or explain how you just start mocking them.

That's what I do. So again: thank you for making me look good.

And now you're arguing over a word.

 Idiots. Maybe I should take it as a compliment: y'all are becoming more like me.

That's scary, no?

-Nam
« Last Edit: November 15, 2013, 11:07:25 PM by Nam »
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.