|
Is it illegal to not save people?
|
|
Topic Started: Nov 9 2014, 12:38 AM (2,642 Views)
|
|
+ Steve
|
Nov 12 2014, 02:06 AM
Post #46
|
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
- Posts:
- 19,471
- Group:
- Legend
- Member
- #5,710
- Joined:
- February 7, 2011
- Gender
- Male
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Favourite Anime
- Hunter x Hunter(2011)
- What Browser do you use?
- Mozilla Firefox
- Favourite Manga
- Berserk all day erry day
|
Again everyone's sense or morality is different just because someone's idea of what's good and bad is different from others doesn't make them wrong, just different.
If all 7+ billion people besides you formed a mob declaring that 4+3= 900 and you were there saying no it equals 7, who's right? The answer should be obvious. The majority, if you're in the category that makes you the odd one out, you are wrong.
The person trapped in the building has feelings sure but so do I, maybe my computer or whatever matters more to me than this random person who could be anyone they could go on to do great things, they could cure cancer or AIDS some day. They could also get out of hospital and go shoot up a school or go on a rampage running over old people. Saving people because they "might" do something great one day makes no sense because they can just as easily do something horrible. And given how little people make a positive difference in the world which is really more likely? Compare scientists, inventors etc and their great deeds or creations to all the people who rape, murder and steal daily and which has the higher number?
The general sense of morality assumes that all people have good in them so what's wrong with seeing it the other way around, just because most people don't look at it that way?
If something doesn't align with your sense of morality you're probably not going to do it. Saving people that don't matter to me at all doesn't align with my sense of morality. How can you possibly say that I'm wrong?
Based on your sense of morality, not mine.
Would I want to be saved in that situation? Of course. Do I deserve to be saved? Entirely up to the person standing there looking at me and their sense of morality.
Telling someone they're wrong because their personal views don't match yours is an extremely one sided way of looking at things. There's no data or facts about morality that someone can misjudge and be wrong it's entirely up to them and how they feel what makes something "right" or "wrong" it just so happens most people are taught the same sense of morality in their country/family, quite similar to religion if you think about it.
Most of you think completely differently to the way I do and therefore aren't thinking outside of the box in the same way that overly avid Christians think their way of thinking should be the only way of thinking.(not trying to spark a religious debate I just mean the kind that force their views on people as though everyone must agree)
"Right" and "wrong" are extremely subjective. Even if you don't agree with my views I hope at least some of you consider how people aren't in any way obligated to feel the same way you do.
Edited by Steve, Nov 12 2014, 02:10 AM.
|

Definitely not a succubus, fear not
|
| |
|
+ Pelador
|
Nov 12 2014, 02:20 AM
Post #47
|
Crazy Awesome Legend
- Posts:
- 25,663
- Group:
- Legend
- Member
- #4,634
- Joined:
- December 12, 2009
- Gender
- Not Specified
- Country
- None
- Favourite Anime
- HunterxHunter
- What Browser do you use?
- Firefox
- Favourite Manga
- Dragonball
|
Forget about the morality side of it. Does it make logical sense to leave someone for dead when you don't have to?
I find it hard to believe that you are as sociopathic as you are making yourself out to be. You're just trying to act like a hard man.
Edited by Pelador, Nov 12 2014, 02:21 AM.
|

http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits
|
| |
|
* Yu Narukami
|
Nov 12 2014, 02:20 AM
Post #48
|
Izanagi!
- Posts:
- 12,330
- Group:
- Retired Staff
- Member
- #6,446
- Joined:
- July 3, 2011
- Gender
- Not Specified
- Country
- None
|
How far can that go, though? Should we not criticise or condemn the Syrian regime for using chemical weapons on their citizens? After all, their morality is different from ours, so we shouldn't force our views on them and should instead let them continue using their weapons, correct?
If you choose, say, a Playstation 3 over saving another person's life, you're essentially saying that the person's life is worth less than however much that Playstation 3 costed. Putting such a price on a human life isn't very 'moral' of you, regardless of how many angles you take on the situation.
|
|
|
| |
|
Master Gohan
|
Nov 12 2014, 04:08 AM
Post #49
|
- Posts:
- 2,178
- Group:
- New York Yankee
- Member
- #9,780
- Joined:
- July 21, 2013
- Gender
- Male
- Country
- United States
- Favourite Anime
- KIll la Kill, No Game No Life, Code Geass, Gosick, Log Horizon, Steins;Gate
|
- Steve
- Nov 12 2014, 02:06 AM
Again everyone's sense or morality is different just because someone's idea of what's good and bad is different from others doesn't make them wrong, just different.
If all 7+ billion people besides you formed a mob declaring that 4+3= 900 and you were there saying no it equals 7, who's right? The answer should be obvious. The majority, if you're in the category that makes you the odd one out, you are wrong.
The person trapped in the building has feelings sure but so do I, maybe my computer or whatever matters more to me than this random person who could be anyone they could go on to do great things, they could cure cancer or AIDS some day. They could also get out of hospital and go shoot up a school or go on a rampage running over old people. Saving people because they "might" do something great one day makes no sense because they can just as easily do something horrible. And given how little people make a positive difference in the world which is really more likely? Compare scientists, inventors etc and their great deeds or creations to all the people who rape, murder and steal daily and which has the higher number?
The general sense of morality assumes that all people have good in them so what's wrong with seeing it the other way around, just because most people don't look at it that way?
If something doesn't align with your sense of morality you're probably not going to do it. Saving people that don't matter to me at all doesn't align with my sense of morality. How can you possibly say that I'm wrong?
Based on your sense of morality, not mine.
Would I want to be saved in that situation? Of course. Do I deserve to be saved? Entirely up to the person standing there looking at me and their sense of morality.
Telling someone they're wrong because their personal views don't match yours is an extremely one sided way of looking at things. There's no data or facts about morality that someone can misjudge and be wrong it's entirely up to them and how they feel what makes something "right" or "wrong" it just so happens most people are taught the same sense of morality in their country/family, quite similar to religion if you think about it.
Most of you think completely differently to the way I do and therefore aren't thinking outside of the box in the same way that overly avid Christians think their way of thinking should be the only way of thinking.(not trying to spark a religious debate I just mean the kind that force their views on people as though everyone must agree)
"Right" and "wrong" are extremely subjective. Even if you don't agree with my views I hope at least some of you consider how people aren't in any way obligated to feel the same way you do. 4+3 = 7. That is a fact. Just because a majority of people are stupid, doesn't mean they are right.
|
|
| |
|
Tim
|
Nov 12 2014, 04:50 AM
Post #50
|
Forum Royalty
- Posts:
- 7,535
- Group:
- Prince
- Member
- #4,562
- Joined:
- November 1, 2009
- Gender
- Male
- Country
- New Zealand
- Favourite Anime
- Hunter x Hunter
- What Browser do you use?
- Chrome
- Favourite Manga
- Hunter x Hunter
|
- Master Gohan
- Nov 12 2014, 04:08 AM
- Steve
- Nov 12 2014, 02:06 AM
Again everyone's sense or morality is different just because someone's idea of what's good and bad is different from others doesn't make them wrong, just different.
If all 7+ billion people besides you formed a mob declaring that 4+3= 900 and you were there saying no it equals 7, who's right? The answer should be obvious. The majority, if you're in the category that makes you the odd one out, you are wrong.
The person trapped in the building has feelings sure but so do I, maybe my computer or whatever matters more to me than this random person who could be anyone they could go on to do great things, they could cure cancer or AIDS some day. They could also get out of hospital and go shoot up a school or go on a rampage running over old people. Saving people because they "might" do something great one day makes no sense because they can just as easily do something horrible. And given how little people make a positive difference in the world which is really more likely? Compare scientists, inventors etc and their great deeds or creations to all the people who rape, murder and steal daily and which has the higher number?
The general sense of morality assumes that all people have good in them so what's wrong with seeing it the other way around, just because most people don't look at it that way?
If something doesn't align with your sense of morality you're probably not going to do it. Saving people that don't matter to me at all doesn't align with my sense of morality. How can you possibly say that I'm wrong?
Based on your sense of morality, not mine.
Would I want to be saved in that situation? Of course. Do I deserve to be saved? Entirely up to the person standing there looking at me and their sense of morality.
Telling someone they're wrong because their personal views don't match yours is an extremely one sided way of looking at things. There's no data or facts about morality that someone can misjudge and be wrong it's entirely up to them and how they feel what makes something "right" or "wrong" it just so happens most people are taught the same sense of morality in their country/family, quite similar to religion if you think about it.
Most of you think completely differently to the way I do and therefore aren't thinking outside of the box in the same way that overly avid Christians think their way of thinking should be the only way of thinking.(not trying to spark a religious debate I just mean the kind that force their views on people as though everyone must agree)
"Right" and "wrong" are extremely subjective. Even if you don't agree with my views I hope at least some of you consider how people aren't in any way obligated to feel the same way you do.
4+3 = 7. That is a fact. Just because a majority of people are stupid, doesn't mean they are right. This is exactly what I was going to point out. If people don't say what is correct (or they say as correct), even if they are in the minority you won't get any changes.
However in this case the only problem I have with your statement is that by you deciding that you are judging their worth, and that is what I feel is wrong. You are saying that their life is only worth so much. I do not think any singular human is capable of judging other people in that manner.
Pack mentality in itself states that you look after your pack. Humans are pack animals and if we didn't look after our own we wouldn't be where we are today.
Would you be happy then if say later this month the new 3DS comes out and I really want to be there for its launch but on my way there I notice you've been in a car accident and no one else has seen it - nor will see it - however I don't stop, not even call an ambulance, because really, how could you be more important than getting my 3DS as soon as possible. Nevermind that if i'd stopped for 5-10 minutes i'd still get it anyway. Do you think all humans should act in such a way?
|


|
| |
|
Buuberries
|
Nov 12 2014, 10:55 AM
Post #51
|
No
- Posts:
- 7,150
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #8,753
- Joined:
- December 30, 2012
- Gender
- Not Specified
- Country
- None
- Favourite Anime
- The Passion of Christ
- What Browser do you use?
- Christianity
- Favourite Manga
- The Bible
|
okay then, stevie. it sounds like you're a moral relativist. tell me some of your moral beliefs.
i'll just go ahead and quote some of your previous posts in other threads:
in the thread about the 90 year old man who got arrested for feeding the homeless:
- Quote:
-
That's just sick.
Just because the government would rather let homeless people starve and die than help them and put them to use, just because they got in to drugs or debt whatever doesn't mean they're useless could have been bank managers, lawyers or anything. Not to mention that there are a lot of homeless ex soldiers who get no help or respect for defending the country. dw the police have their own morals by which they abide. who are you to call them sick when it's just a difference in perspective?
someone's thread about noisy neighbours:
- Quote:
-
On a serious note our neighbours can be noisy too but they live right above us so we hear them running around the room or something having a party. I don't why people have to be so damn inconsiderate, if you go and tell them to quiet down they won't because you asked them they will because you might get the police on to them, it's not to be nice at all.
Does music really need to be so loud that the bass shakes your house from across the street? Maybe they're all deaf from damaging their hearing so much I guess. oh look at that. questioning other people's behaviour and saying they're inconsiderate.
thread about rooting out paedophiles
- Quote:
-
I think they should just get a tracker thing like for people on probation if they're a high risk case.
And the public shouldn't know. Being a suspected peadophile is socially just as bad as being one. Extremely unfair for people to be publicly shamed for a mental problem when they haven't done anything wrong.
Their movements should just be monitored anonymously.
If they're hanging around red zones like schools and parks constantly then that needs investigated.
Along with some actual mental help if things like depression and crazy sex drives surely they can supress urges like that? Medication and therapy. popular belief you share with a lot of people regarding paedophiles -- that suspects should at least be investigated, implying that you have certain beliefs about paedophelia being wrong.
post in the same thread
- Quote:
-
I don't think it's that easy at all though, children are easy to manipulate sexually abusing them doesn't necessarily mean doing anything harmful, as in that they know is bad.
Wouldn't be hard to convince them that it's just some kind of fun game, it seems like a lot of paedophiles have got children thinking stuff like that anyway the kids don't usually know what's going on.
I think the only way to prevent it, not completely of course is to teach sex education to younger kids not just when they're about 10 and could have been raped or abused for years unknowingly. Kids under 6 or so are still going to have trouble understanding though.
I don't think it'd work just to watch where paedo's might lurk. Everyone that hangs around in parks would gain a reputation, I'm sure there are people who genuinely do love to watch children play. It's a beautiful thing after all, innocent freedom.
But then sitting watching kids be happy becomes a sordid affair no matter what your thoughts on it are.
So I think such a thing would be harmful towards people who aren't paedo's more than paedo's themselves.
Once anyone has been labelled as a potential creep in a community their whole reputation is sullied. "They never found any evidence but he is a bit of a weirdo don't go near him"
And then you have protective parents who take a more violent approach, been accused of looking at some big burly guys daughter you're getting knocked out if he sees you.
I think it's more children that need to be watched than the people who watch them really it's a hard thing to prevent but if people could determine when a child has been abused quicker the freak could be stopped before they do too much physical or/and mental damage. All playparks should have camera's surveying the area for one thing, schools too(most do these days I think)
Child abuse can only truly be prevented when someone shows the obvious signs of being some kind of freaky but not all of them can't hide it. you're talking about preventing sexual abuse of children. clearly you think child abuse is wrong, just like a lot of people on this planet.
thread about racism
- Quote:
-
It's only bad when you're referred to your race in a disrespectful way like the N word or whatever. yeah it's only bad if that happens.
here are two juicy posts from the thread "would you give criminals a second chance?"
- Quote:
-
Yeah it depends on the crime.
Simply "They sexually assaulted someone" or "They murdered someone" isn't enough to make a judgement.
These days there are a lot of "sexual assaults" where what actually happened was it was consensual and then the other person decided they didn't like it and screamed rape. With Pel's view I'd have to ask them what happened before I decided to employ them or not. Depending on how convincing they were they might get hired.
But then there's also "sexual assault" where it's just groping someone overly sensitive they don't deserve to be put away for years and years because of that if it ruins someone's life they're pretty pathetic, unless they were already raped or something before but unless the groper knows that it's hardly a serious crime, if done on people of age. Genuine rape is unforgivable it's an evil decision that takes enough time to happen for the person to reconsider but they don't.
Murder however can be accidental, a snap decision, self defence etc if it's not something someone clearly had intention to do for a while they deserve a second chance. And if someone's child or spouse etc is murdered with intent and they kill the murderer I'd say they deserve a second chance for sure. I don't see how it's justice for someone who killed your child to sit in a prison with 3 meals a day for the rest of their life or heck even be released for good behaviour. Maybe they regret what they did but that doesn't excuse killing children.
Then with things like robbery depends on the crime again if it was just stealing a wallet because they were desperate for cash for whatever reason they deserve another chance I'd say, if it was for drugs get them cleaned up and to pay it back, for something important then they were desperate and didn't know what to do. But like, armed robbery, robbing banks etc they're pretty unforgivable imo.
I think the most unforgivable crimes though are abuses of power like genuine rape, killing defenceless animals or children, pretty much every form of abuse.
- Quote:
-
If I see a woman with nice breasts showing off her cleavage am I going to look and like it? Sure. If she goes down an alleyway alone am I going to go rape her or even consider it? Hell to the no.
I don't see how rape can be justifiable by any means. It's a pretty big thing to just label as a "mistake" like that's a magical band aid that fixes everything, there's no excuse for rape. Only when the circumstances are sketchy should they be let off in my opinion which includes statutory rape I think that's a heap of BS unless the age difference is like a 12 year old and an 18 year old. Can a rapist change their ways? Probably but they're going to prison first no "it was an accident though!" or "I was drunk!" get out of jail free card. You don't see how rape can be justifiable by any means, and you clearly have an idea of what you think are unforgiveable crimes which suggests you have some sort concept in your mind similar to other people's about what constitutes as right and wrong.
seems like you dont really think that right and wrong are extremely subjective, stevie. based on your other beliefs, as i've pointed out, you clearly think that there are at least some objective moral truths, yet when it comes to the topic in this thread you have no conviction and stray away from your own morality. it's not consistent, is it?
|
|
¯\(°_o)/¯
|
| |
|
Rockman
|
Nov 12 2014, 11:33 AM
Post #52
|
hoighty-toighty
- Posts:
- 11,070
- Group:
- Guardian
- Member
- #48
- Joined:
- December 17, 2004
- Gender
- Male
- Country
- United States
- What Browser do you use?
- Firefox, when it isn't crashing.
|
- Cap'n Buuberries
- Nov 12 2014, 10:55 AM
okay then, stevie. it sounds like you're a moral relativist. tell me some of your moral beliefs. i'll just go ahead and quote some of your previous posts in other threads: in the thread about the 90 year old man who got arrested for feeding the homeless: - Quote:
-
That's just sick.
Just because the government would rather let homeless people starve and die than help them and put them to use, just because they got in to drugs or debt whatever doesn't mean they're useless could have been bank managers, lawyers or anything. Not to mention that there are a lot of homeless ex soldiers who get no help or respect for defending the country.
dw the police have their own morals by which they abide. who are you to call them sick when it's just a difference in perspective? someone's thread about noisy neighbours: - Quote:
-
On a serious note our neighbours can be noisy too but they live right above us so we hear them running around the room or something having a party. I don't why people have to be so damn inconsiderate, if you go and tell them to quiet down they won't because you asked them they will because you might get the police on to them, it's not to be nice at all.
Does music really need to be so loud that the bass shakes your house from across the street? Maybe they're all deaf from damaging their hearing so much I guess.
oh look at that. questioning other people's behaviour and saying they're inconsiderate. thread about rooting out paedophiles - Quote:
-
I think they should just get a tracker thing like for people on probation if they're a high risk case.
And the public shouldn't know. Being a suspected peadophile is socially just as bad as being one. Extremely unfair for people to be publicly shamed for a mental problem when they haven't done anything wrong.
Their movements should just be monitored anonymously.
If they're hanging around red zones like schools and parks constantly then that needs investigated.
Along with some actual mental help if things like depression and crazy sex drives surely they can supress urges like that? Medication and therapy.
popular belief you share with a lot of people regarding paedophiles -- that suspects should at least be investigated, implying that you have certain beliefs about paedophelia being wrong. post in the same thread - Quote:
-
I don't think it's that easy at all though, children are easy to manipulate sexually abusing them doesn't necessarily mean doing anything harmful, as in that they know is bad.
Wouldn't be hard to convince them that it's just some kind of fun game, it seems like a lot of paedophiles have got children thinking stuff like that anyway the kids don't usually know what's going on.
I think the only way to prevent it, not completely of course is to teach sex education to younger kids not just when they're about 10 and could have been raped or abused for years unknowingly. Kids under 6 or so are still going to have trouble understanding though.
I don't think it'd work just to watch where paedo's might lurk. Everyone that hangs around in parks would gain a reputation, I'm sure there are people who genuinely do love to watch children play. It's a beautiful thing after all, innocent freedom.
But then sitting watching kids be happy becomes a sordid affair no matter what your thoughts on it are.
So I think such a thing would be harmful towards people who aren't paedo's more than paedo's themselves.
Once anyone has been labelled as a potential creep in a community their whole reputation is sullied. "They never found any evidence but he is a bit of a weirdo don't go near him"
And then you have protective parents who take a more violent approach, been accused of looking at some big burly guys daughter you're getting knocked out if he sees you.
I think it's more children that need to be watched than the people who watch them really it's a hard thing to prevent but if people could determine when a child has been abused quicker the freak could be stopped before they do too much physical or/and mental damage. All playparks should have camera's surveying the area for one thing, schools too(most do these days I think)
Child abuse can only truly be prevented when someone shows the obvious signs of being some kind of freaky but not all of them can't hide it.
you're talking about preventing sexual abuse of children. clearly you think child abuse is wrong, just like a lot of people on this planet. thread about racism - Quote:
-
It's only bad when you're referred to your race in a disrespectful way like the N word or whatever.
yeah it's only bad if that happens. here's are two juicy posts from the thread "would you give criminals a second chance?" - Quote:
-
Yeah it depends on the crime.
Simply "They sexually assaulted someone" or "They murdered someone" isn't enough to make a judgement.
These days there are a lot of "sexual assaults" where what actually happened was it was consensual and then the other person decided they didn't like it and screamed rape. With Pel's view I'd have to ask them what happened before I decided to employ them or not. Depending on how convincing they were they might get hired.
But then there's also "sexual assault" where it's just groping someone overly sensitive they don't deserve to be put away for years and years because of that if it ruins someone's life they're pretty pathetic, unless they were already raped or something before but unless the groper knows that it's hardly a serious crime, if done on people of age. Genuine rape is unforgivable it's an evil decision that takes enough time to happen for the person to reconsider but they don't.
Murder however can be accidental, a snap decision, self defence etc if it's not something someone clearly had intention to do for a while they deserve a second chance. And if someone's child or spouse etc is murdered with intent and they kill the murderer I'd say they deserve a second chance for sure. I don't see how it's justice for someone who killed your child to sit in a prison with 3 meals a day for the rest of their life or heck even be released for good behaviour. Maybe they regret what they did but that doesn't excuse killing children.
Then with things like robbery depends on the crime again if it was just stealing a wallet because they were desperate for cash for whatever reason they deserve another chance I'd say, if it was for drugs get them cleaned up and to pay it back, for something important then they were desperate and didn't know what to do. But like, armed robbery, robbing banks etc they're pretty unforgivable imo.
I think the most unforgivable crimes though are abuses of power like genuine rape, killing defenceless animals or children, pretty much every form of abuse.
- Quote:
-
If I see a woman with nice breasts showing off her cleavage am I going to look and like it? Sure. If she goes down an alleyway alone am I going to go rape her or even consider it? Hell to the no.
I don't see how rape can be justifiable by any means. It's a pretty big thing to just label as a "mistake" like that's a magical band aid that fixes everything, there's no excuse for rape. Only when the circumstances are sketchy should they be let off in my opinion which includes statutory rape I think that's a heap of BS unless the age difference is like a 12 year old and an 18 year old. Can a rapist change their ways? Probably but they're going to prison first no "it was an accident though!" or "I was drunk!" get out of jail free card.
You don't see how rape can be justifiable by any means, and you clearly have an idea of what you think are unforgiveable crimes which suggests you have some sort concept in your mind about what constitutes as right and wrong. seems like you dont really think that right and wrong are extremely subjective, stevie. based on your other beliefs, as i've pointed out, you clearly think that there are at least some objective moral truths, yet when it comes to the topic in this thread you have no conviction and stray away from your own morality. it's not consistent, is it?

I was thinking this exactly. I'm just glad someone pointed it out. Quite well might I add.
The hardest part now is waiting for what Steve has to say.
|

JAke is a copyright of Spazo and Pickle Flavored Fudge Pops inc.
|
| |
|
peep
|
Nov 13 2014, 03:51 AM
Post #53
|
- Posts:
- 1,104
- Group:
- Member
- Member
- #9,326
- Joined:
- April 7, 2013
- Favourite Anime
- Cowboy Bebop, Rurouni Kenshin
- What Browser do you use?
- Chrome
|
idk about other countries, but in the US you don't have to help anyone unless you were a part of the situation that caused the harm. like if little timmy fell down the well and you happened to walk by and see him fall, you don't have to do anything unless you pushed him in
at least i think so. business law class was last year and i don't remember much
|
 thx accelerator for the sig it is my first sig ever and i love it and i love u
|
| |
|
Buuberries
|
Nov 13 2014, 11:55 AM
Post #54
|
No
- Posts:
- 7,150
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #8,753
- Joined:
- December 30, 2012
- Gender
- Not Specified
- Country
- None
- Favourite Anime
- The Passion of Christ
- What Browser do you use?
- Christianity
- Favourite Manga
- The Bible
|
plz dont fall down a well, tim.
|
|
¯\(°_o)/¯
|
| |
|
+ Pyrus
|
Nov 13 2014, 12:26 PM
Post #55
|
- Posts:
- 39,342
- Group:
- Legend
- Member
- #5,088
- Joined:
- August 1, 2010
- Gender
- Not Specified
- Country
- Chile
|
As a civilian, it's not illegal, not in the United States. If you're in a burning building with a friend, and you decide to grab your Xbox and GTFO while leaving your friend there, no law exists that would hold you accountable for their death. You'd be looked at as highly suspicious ("you grabbed a piece of property over a human being? um, did you want this person dead, what they do to you, who's on your insurance policy," etc), but you wouldn't be charged with anything. Civilians are not obligated to put their lives at risk, especially not for situations they have not been trained for like that.
Firefighters and police officers, however, guys like us are obligated to lend a hand.
Me? I'd save my cat over you, so unless you're gonna piggyback on me or I can drag you/carry you in one arm, you're staying there until I come back for you.
Edited by Pyrus, Nov 13 2014, 01:00 PM.
|
|
Spoiler: click to toggle
|
| |
|
Return Of Imjustsaiyanbro
|
Nov 13 2014, 02:01 PM
Post #56
|
Elder
- Posts:
- 1,080
- Group:
- Member
- Member
- #9,167
- Joined:
- March 11, 2013
- Gender
- Not Specified
- Favourite Anime
- DBZ
- What Browser do you use?
- Chrome
- Favourite Manga
- DB
|
Maybe morally wrong and you'll feel guilty most likely but I guess in that situation you gotta look out for your safety first.
But I would say saving a playstation over someone's life is straight up wack
|
STRAIGHT OUTTA NAMEK
I miss my cocoa butter kisses. Which one of these mods tryna let me bust?
Spoiler: click to toggle
Spoiler: click to toggle
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|