~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
NathanHollister
[–]Chill-BL18 points19 points20 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
Stop helping useless people, be useless.
why are all these eugenics programs promoted all over the place.
we need to regulate who can reproduce because....
We need to stop helping people through government handout, and let nature take it's course.
[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Exactly. Eugenics is not the solution. Whoever you put in charge of the eugenics program will have some kind of bias. As soon as a human is involved, it is susceptible to corruption.
Natural selection is fair, unbiased and ensures evolution. It's slow but it works and isn't corruptible. The problem is we aren't letting nature do it's job by supporting the lazy, weak and stupid through welfare.
[–]Chill-BL3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
exactly, and all these people trying to create some standard for eugenics is always so misconstrued.
The most average eugenics program always involves either color (ethno retards) or IQ (just because you don't want to look racist).
enough high IQ people support socialism and enough low IQ people have succeeded in taking care of themselves and making a lot of money in the process.
[+][deleted] 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]Vaginal_Tissue_Balls0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That last sentence
[–]JustChopItOff 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Social assistance is to fend off crime and dodge international human rights abuse accusations
[–]Chill-BL-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
How does social assistance help "fend off" crime, people that live on social welfare have more time to commit crimes in the first place.
The second one I can imagine as being "problematic". Not as problematic as social assistance has proven to be. The humans rights abuse is just another word for: "getting a bad image". Which perhaps doesn't help in the tourism department.
[–]NathanHollister[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
But we can't stop the government handouts because women are the majority of voters
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What's that have to do with eugenics though?
[–]rooster-one416 points17 points18 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
That would reduce how many drivers I see with kids bouncing and crawling all over the back seats while the mom is driving through the force while staring at their phone
[–]bubbsjdndjfifi11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
In other words all women lose their license.
[–]slayer_in_midst5 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
No wonder Saudi Arabia had denied driving license to women
[–]Asperger_Mgtow2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
In Argentina iq and personality test are used and abused for long and all we got are more psychopath drivers and anyone law abiding and prosocial, tagged with asperger.
Psychiatry should be wiped off the face of the earth.
[–]LesterSynch 11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link
No. IQ doesn't indicate positive qualities, doesn't show the level of personal responsibility, doesn't guarantee that the person will have willpower or determination. Having high IQ helps little - providing positive results consistently is the only thing that matters, and it requires far more than just intellect score.
[–]P10001230 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link
IQ generally determines success, criminality and many other substantial things. Try to research more.
[–]LesterSynch 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
As much as I dislike relying on internet to gather data, I guess I'll go with what I have. Lets look at the points given by you:
The obvious choice here is to go for GNI (groups financial activities of the whole citizenship, not limited to territory of the country) as an indicator of the success on national level. For reference, I'll be using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_income and https://brainstats.com/average-iq-by-country.html . The problem is that the latest study of worldwide IQ levels dates back to 2006 (by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen), so i can only fairly compare to the GNI levels of that year. Using the Top 10 GNI of 2006 table entry from Wikipedia (*sign*, not that thing again), we get this:
1 )USA - 14,345,565 GNI / 98 IQ
2) Japan - 4,931,413 GNI / 105 IQ
3) Germany - 3,160,529 GNI/ 99 IQ
4) China - 2,685,206 GNI/ 105 IQ
5) UK - 2,645,489 GNI/ 100 IQ
6) France - 2,414,820 GNI/ 98 IQ
7) Italy - 1,989,288 GNI/ 102 IQ
8) Spain - 1,241,641 GNI/ 98 IQ
9) Canada - 1,224,994 GNI/ 99 IQ
10) South Korea - 966,585 GNI/ 106 IQ
The results show us that, on macroscopic level, there is no direct correlation between IQ/GNI numbers, the average IQ of a "succesful" country's citizen is 101 - negligibly above average.
For the sake of it, lets assume that the average IQ score around the world in 2006 was relevant in 2016 (various publications do just that, anyway) and apply it to that year's "Top 10 GNI" list:
1)USA - 18,357,322 GNI / 98 IQ
2)China - 11,374,227 GNI/ 105 IQ
3)Japan - 4,816,892 GNI / 105 IQ
4)Germany - 3,624,638 GNI/ 99 IQ
5)UK - 2,778,488 GNI/ 100 IQ
6)France - 2,590,030 GNI/ 98 IQ
7)India - 2,212,306 GNI/ 82 IQ
8)Italy - 1,923,095 GNI/ 102 IQ
9)Brazil - 1,835,993 GNI/ 87 IQ
10)Canada - 1,584,177 GNI/ 99 IQ
Although China and Japan now threaten to bolster the statement, India and Brazil come to stop them. Their IQ averages drag down 2006'th average down to 97.5. Still no direct correlation between the IQ/GNI numbers.
Conclusion: IQ is but ONE of possible factors of the "success", but DEFINITELY NOT THE DETERMINANT ONE. Do NOT exaggerate its priority.
*sigh* just read this: https://legalbeagle.com/5969328-factors-influencing-crime-rate.html
Sums up what REALLY determines the crime level really well, "low IQ" country or not.
Like...?
EDIT: Damn it, forgot to check for typos. Feel free to bash me if you spot any.
[–]P10001230 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Whoa, you went all the way buddy. Congrats. I meant in the Jordan Peterson, when they compete within the same system type of way. Not this shit you got going on. IQ isn't everything of course, but it's a major trend. People with higher IQ, within the same system, have more financial success, less crime and stay married more often than their peers with less IQ.
[–]LesterSynch 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Financial success is never a correlation of IQ score - personality, social skills, determination, circumstances and practical skills are. High IQ is in no way an indicator of a low crime level, circumstances and external/internal conflicts are. High IQ DEFINITELY doesn't correlate to the length of life in marriage - life circumstances, morality, family law and financial situations are. Real world statistics favour nuance of the situation and skills of a person. High IQ is just an overfetishised bragging point.
[–]antilopes-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link
IQ does not determine those things, but it affects them significantly within certain ranges. My guess is it helps with car driving up to some level, maybe 110 at a guess then the correlation might dissolve.
In WW2 the Canadian airforce measured pilots. They found IQ correlated with performance in battle up to some level, 110 I think. After that it didn't matter much. Since then the same effect has been found in many other fields.
[–]P10001231 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link
Who's going to be more successful? A group with an IQ of 70 or a group with an IQ of 100. If your life was on the line, which group do you bet on?
[–]LesterSynch 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link
Depends on circumstances and myriad of nuances. As it always does.
[–]P10001230 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
Oh please. Spare me the bullshit. One group has 50 IQ and the other has 150 IQ. Who is more likely to cure cancer? Can't wait to see your answer on this.
[–]LesterSynch 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
Wow, what a huge jump in numbers. Are you that desperate?
[–]P10001231 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
I'm pushing your boundaries. Let's see when you finally break...
[–]LesterSynch 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
Pushing boundaries? I call you out on your bullshit, sir. Limiting the choices to the obvious and ridiculous is nothing short of nefarious and low. It achieves nothing but scratches your ego. If you can't accept the notion of relativity and circumstances, that's a huge flaw of yours I'd suggest starting paying attention to.
[–]P10001230 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
I thought 70/100 was obvious and ridiculous. But you had to be pushed to 50/150. How about 60/110, you still on the fence for that? The point is to call out your bullshit, you go so far out of your way not to offend people that you can't even agree to the most obvious circumstances. It's pathetic and weak.
[–]LesterSynch1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Offend? Are you offended by opinions? If so, I wish you to grow a backbone. As for your 70/100 question, your point was - if you had to put your life on the choice, who would you choose. Nothing else. There are many ways you can find yourself defending your life, and each situation requires different approach. You said nothing about curing cancer or anything else when you first brought up the point.
[–]P10001231 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I said you are scared to offend people with less than politically correct answers. That's cowardice. Clearly I don't have a problem offending people. I do so only to get the truth across though, I'm willing to take the shots to get the facts across. You have to be, or all will be lost.
My, what a time to be alive. I can't express myself the way I enjoy because its not "politically incorrect enough". As for your "getting the truth across", you did nothing to accomplish that. Or am I mistaken? If so, go ahead, enlighten me.
IQ matters. Lol. That was all that I was saying. You made a huge stance against that simple statement.
Your stance was "High IQ matters" in case you haven't noticed.
I never specified that. What I'm saying is that the difference between 80 and 100 IQ is huge. Do you disagree?
"People with higher IQ, within the same system, have more financial success, less crime and stay married more often than their peers with less IQ." Your words. Also, i beg to differ with the 80-100 difference. A 80 IQ person can achieve more than 100IQ person provided he has determination, willpower and motivation to improve himself. 80 IQ is not AIDS, its not Cancer, it can be overcome. Mental conditions expressed through hindered thought process start below 75 if i remember correctly, and that is an entirely different matter.
With everything else the same, how often is the 80 IQ likely to outperform the 100 IQ?
Excluding the Luck Factor, Through harder work. Yes, the 80 IQ person will have to work more to achieve the solution of curcumstances that require pure mental strength. Then again, nothing stops said person from forming social connections to ease his burden, or mastering the use of dedicated technology (the replacement of mental calculators in CERN with computers as an example of such process). Learning new subjects can be slower if the 80 IQ person has lesser aptitude towards a particular subject, but learning is not all about acquiring data - forming willpower and discipline will be more noticeable in 80IQ man than in 100IQ due to the amount of effort applied.
[–]P10001232 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Are there any advantages to have lower IQ? Would you ever prefer lower IQ if all else was the same?
Ah! Now THAT is a great question! It depends on the upbringing, geopolitical factors, time period and political state of the society. So many factors come into hand that it is way too difficuilt for me to give a definitive answer on this matter. Well, in the class system of Middle Ages IQ level mattered little - you could be a genious, but should you happen to be born a peasant, you'd be doomed to die one. See, circumstances dictate what is an advantage and what is not. As for whether or not I would prefer Lower IQ to Higher, that sounds really bizzare to me for some reason. I cannot decide for myself, but if i ever had a child and had to assign him the IQ score, I'D, once again, look for circumstances - if the world was a harsh place ravaged by wars and disease, I'd Lower his IQ score and bring him up as a person reliant on raw skill and power. If the world was a Gaia class planet, would definitely go for higher IQ as such developed worlds tend to have more need for mental capacity. Anyway, the lower IQ one can blow himself by eating the grenade and the higher IQ one might commit suicide from boredom. You never know.
Oh yeah, the likelihood. Depends on circumstances, once again - there are many factors that come into play and same qualities can lead to different outcomes depending on them.
[–]antilopes0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
At that level IQ is very strongly predictive. The difference between 110 and 140 will show up in professional success too, but might not make much or any difference in driving and other tasks.
[–]rochesterjones-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
No it doesn’t. Try to research more
[–]Vegebanana5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
But how will insurances, mechanics, and the dmv able to steal the husbands money now?
[–]TerraEarth3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
I don't understand how implementing eugenics ties in with MGTOW.
[–]robowriter4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think this is a flawed premise and would serve as policy in a totalitarian "utopia," which is socialist double speak for nightmare.
Want a high IQ test? Those who signed up for mgtow pass.
[–]SavvyMillennial1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I actually agree. Driving is a huge privilege that a lot of people don't deserve.
[–]Yakatonker1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
In order to do this you would have to exterminate most of the browner people on this planet. That's because IQ is regressive to population mean.
For those of you ignorant of biology and intelligence, its means people who exist at the extremes of the IQ curve regress back towards the population curve. Meaning intelligent parents will produce lower IQ progeny, low intelligence parents will produce higher IQ progeny.
It's still not known why intelligence will wave form in a population group, though there are a number of correlative theories.
I didn't say anything about exterminating groups of people. However, I am in favor of allowing natural selection to run its course.
For example, we could ban Narcan to help clean junkies out of the population.
We could get rid of the seatbelt law to allow morons to kill themselves in car crashes.
BMI over 30? No heart bypass for you, sorry.
[–]Yakatonker0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Low IQ is the strongest known hypothetical correlate for all the things we perceive as negative behavior in humans. That includes unemployment, drug abuse, violence, lack of self restraint and focus.
The other thing to recall ironically or not is correlation does not equal causal relationship. There is a ton of pseudo science in the public domain because the public is quite scientifically illiterate.
Example, why are almost 50% of Americans obese now compared to fifty years ago when the super majority were considered the text book of health? Human body did not radically change in five decades so the causal factor, the mechanistic factor can be seen to be a modifier in the environment. What precisely changed from then till now? Looking at consumption, majority of children in North America are now eating diets composed 50% of processed foods, sugar, carbs devoid in nutrition. Adults are also consuming an absurd amount of nutritionless carbs.
The government, pharmaceuticals and certain agricultural cartels have been the negative factor in this causal relationship. 50% of US agricultural production is wheat and soy and I think corn, which is not sold as is but turned a number of processed items which goes into almost all sorts of processed food stuffs as an additive filler.
Why is that important? Taking a look at the "food pyramid" it becomes clear why Americans are getting railed. Its a carb heavy base that does not emphasis protein and animal fat. They even demonized healthy cheap sources of animal fat and protien such as eggs with this pseudo science. Now they're selling Statin drugs on this premise, drugs which literally murders the people who take them, causes severe and adverse side effects in 20% of consumers.
When we ask the question again, are consumers response for the propagation of pseudo scientific fraud which disables them from making healthy choices? The answer is no. Consumers are effected by a macro economic effect perpetuated by the government itself spreading pseudo science in a concerted effort to get people to buy consumer products with processed food. This includes the government subsidizing this production of processed foods in the US as well, an extension of the monopoly over government.
For example, we could ban Narcan to help clean junkies out of the population. We could get rid of the seatbelt law to allow morons to kill themselves in car crashes. BMI over 30? No heart bypass for you, sorry.
I believe you are missing some key political and economic concepts in relation to these questions.
[–]BlasphemousMGTOW0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
nah! i rather watch world burning.
This would kill off half the black population in one generation
[–]NathanHollister[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Then that would improve the lot of the ones who remain. Fewer retards mean fewer gangbangers and drug dealers.
[–]Phantom0990 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
SEPTA? Whos from philly
[–]antilopes0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It would never work. The right wingers would refuse to allow taxes to be used for birth control or to support a usable bus network.
Taxes are already used for both of those things. And very few people are against it.
[–]MasterChris7250 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link
As long as they pay for birth control and the bus pass, I’m a-okay with it. I am not okay with paying for other people’s low iqs.
[–]NathanHollister[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link
Why not? I'd rather pay $10 a month for their BC pills than $500 a month for their bastard child.
[–]MasterChris725-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link
so you're saying women are your responsibility?
[–]NathanHollister[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link
No. I'm saying if you're against abortion and BC, then be ready to pay for bastard children. Society has to protect kids.
[–]MasterChris7250 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link
but saying we should pay for birth control is another way of saying it's society's responsibility to make sure women aren't having unplanned pregnancies, ergo, women have to rely on men to pay for their birth control to have unprotected sex with chads while you are paying for it. do you understand where I'm going with this? why should we have to pay so that women can ride the cock carousal? it should be their own responsibility if they want to make poor choices.
EDIT: also I never said I was against abortion or birth control, I meant to say that I am against being the one who has to pay for it when it's not my own responsibility. why should I pay for someone else's poor choices? Any bad choices I make in life are held accountable to me and I'm am expected to make up for those poor choices, and I don't expect people to accommodate and make sacrifices because of my ignorance. why should it be any different for pregnancy? how about instead of encouraging women to fuck every chad in a 20 mile radius, we don't help them and let nature take it's course.
[–]NathanHollister[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
There is no argument on it, society already pays. BC is covered by almost all insurance and is free at PP if you do t have insurance.
[–]MasterChris725-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
so you're saying that you are okay with paying for women's irresponsibility?
[–]NathanHollister[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
I'm saying I'd rather pay $10 for bc than $1200 a month in handouts.
[–]MasterChris725-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
I get you, but what if I told you that there was a future that you wouldn't have to pay any money to them at all? would you still be willing to throw away that money so that women can remain in power of your tax dollars?
[–]NathanHollister[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
How would you propose that
[–]MasterChris7250 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
if women want something, they have every obligation to pay for it themselves. if they want to have sex with hundreds of guys fine, but it should not be you and I's responsibility to pay for their medical bills.
the only way to do that is to completely abolish health insurance, or remove birth control entirely from health insurance. if women wish to have sex, then they should be held responsible for paying for their birth control or abortion.if we do that, men and women will be encouraged to have less unprotected sex especially now in today's standards. if more women have unplanned pregnancies, more men will be forced into paying alimony and as a process will only encourage more men to walk away from women until men and women start taking responsibility for themselves.
[–]NathanHollister1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
So how do you propose we ban bc from health insurance ,keeping in mind the women are the majority of voters?
[–]MasterChris7251 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
well it would be impossible with women being the majority of voters.we could take their voting rights away, but many would question this.so whatever solution I give you, us bitching about how much money we spend on taxes is completely up to women because men decided to simp up and let them take control.we could also red pill more men and encourage them to vote in elections.but I guess it's a matter of which direction is more realistic and a much easier task to perform.
but I guess in the end, people would much rather take care of everyone else and not themselves, which will result in a collapse in society.the more we encourage people to have unprotected sex the more taxes increase, which means we'll have less money in our own pockets for living expenses, which will greatly increase the homeless percentage.
I'm all for taking their rights away. We just need a lot more guys for it.
Another thing I do is avoid taxes by any means necessary. Let some other schmuck pay them.
how would you do this without performing tax evasion?
Do your taxes yourself and be creative with your write offs. You can get away with a lot, the IRS isn't going to look closely unless you are in the bottom (unemployed) or top (200k+) income. Use tax loss harvesting in your investments.
Make money by capital gains, do as little paid work as possible. Capital gains you pay 0-20%, most people will be paying 10%. When you work, you're paying a total of 30% tax MINIMUM. Learn how to trade stocks. You get to decide when you pay tax if you keep your money in stocks, because you only get taxed when you sell them. Also, if you hold them more than a year you'll pay no tax if your income is under 38k.
Do odd jobs for cash.
Buy used vehicles from friends or family and tell the state they are a gift.
If you have a lot of money ($1 million+ in assets), create a legal entity (generally a trust) that will take possession of your assets. You will be the CEO of your "company" and it will pay you a "salary" which is whatever amount of money you need to survive. Meanwhile, your investments in the company make money, and the company pays a much lower tax rate than you because it isn't subject to FICA, and has a lower income tax rate because of the deductions it can take. For example, you can't write off depreciation on your car, but if your trust owns your car, it can deduct that. Your trust can deduct just about anything.
Remember: for a worker, taxes come out before he gets to start buying things (you get paid and then spend, but the govt takes their cut before you get paid). For a business, taxes come out AFTER the business makes its purchases. So a business gets its "paycheck", buys whatever it needs, and then pays taxes on what's left. Also, the top business tax rate is 20%, compared to 36% for workers.
Don't have children or get married. Don't buy fancy cars Don't buy a house Don't buy stupid shit that you don't need.
The less you buy, the less you have to work and the less tax you pay.
[–]BlackFire680 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I would sign this bill... petition, whatever
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]Chill-BL18 points19 points20 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]Chill-BL3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]Vaginal_Tissue_Balls0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]JustChopItOff 1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Chill-BL-1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]NathanHollister[S] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]rooster-one416 points17 points18 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]bubbsjdndjfifi11 points12 points13 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]slayer_in_midst5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Asperger_Mgtow2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]LesterSynch 11 points12 points13 points (26 children) | Copy Link
[–]P10001230 points1 point2 points (25 children) | Copy Link
[–]LesterSynch 1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]P10001230 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]LesterSynch 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]antilopes-1 points0 points1 point (20 children) | Copy Link
[–]P10001231 point2 points3 points (19 children) | Copy Link
[–]LesterSynch 0 points1 point2 points (17 children) | Copy Link
[–]P10001230 points1 point2 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]LesterSynch 1 point2 points3 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]P10001231 point2 points3 points (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]LesterSynch 2 points3 points4 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]P10001230 points1 point2 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]LesterSynch1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]P10001231 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]LesterSynch1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]P10001231 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]LesterSynch1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]P10001231 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]LesterSynch1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]P10001231 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]LesterSynch1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]P10001232 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]LesterSynch1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]LesterSynch1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]antilopes0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]rochesterjones-1 points0 points1 point (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Vegebanana5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TerraEarth3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]robowriter4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SavvyMillennial1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Yakatonker1 point2 points3 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]NathanHollister[S] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Yakatonker0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]BlasphemousMGTOW0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]P10001230 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]NathanHollister[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Phantom0990 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]antilopes0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]NathanHollister[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MasterChris7250 points1 point2 points (16 children) | Copy Link
[–]NathanHollister[S] 0 points1 point2 points (15 children) | Copy Link
[–]MasterChris725-1 points0 points1 point (14 children) | Copy Link
[–]NathanHollister[S] 0 points1 point2 points (13 children) | Copy Link
[–]MasterChris7250 points1 point2 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]NathanHollister[S] -1 points0 points1 point (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]MasterChris725-1 points0 points1 point (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]NathanHollister[S] -1 points0 points1 point (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]MasterChris725-1 points0 points1 point (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]NathanHollister[S] 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]MasterChris7250 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NathanHollister1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MasterChris7251 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NathanHollister1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NathanHollister1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]MasterChris7251 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]NathanHollister1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]BlackFire680 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link