The Shining Utopia


    A Guide To Ethics

    Share
    avatar
    Immanent God LANCE
    Clan Leader
    Clan Leader

    Posts : 564
    Join date : 2014-06-16
    Age : 27
    Location : Heaven

    A Guide To Ethics

    Post by Immanent God LANCE on Mon 16 Jun - 14:16

    Introduction

    By now, most members of this clan would probably have already read the contents of the following links:

    However, back in Dragon Masters at least, there were still nonetheless some members who expressed to me some amount of ignorance regarding why some of my enemies, such as Sweep and Melee Mewtwo are completely and utterly evil and deserve no respect whatsoever, by expressing views such as the following:

    "According to the views of [insert degenerate who punished you on Pokémon Showdown!] , the people who disrespected you are good people, so [insert degenerate who punished you on Pokémon Showdown!] so from their point of view, they were doing the right thing, meaning they aren't bad people."
    "Those people are evil only from your perspective."


    With the observation of such ignorance in mind, I cannot help but question some of our members' understanding of the fundamentals of the concepts of morality and Justice, and therefore, as a responsible Leader of this clan with the duty to guide its people, I feel the need to explain some concepts in greater depth - an explanation that will guide the members of the Heavenly Dragon Gods along the most fundamental roots of both meta-ethics and ethics, not only to see that they completely understand the justification for my seemingly harsh actions towards many people, but also become better people in general, with an improved ability to correctly apply morality in any future situations they may encounter, whether or not such may be connected with the Heavenly Dragon Gods clan itself. To be honest, I really should have made this post long ago, so I am sorry for doing it so late.

    So, why is it that I (and anyone else, really, provided one is aware of the disrespectful actions the following people have performed) am allowed to troll and insult shrang, Sweep, Melee Mewtwo, Donkey, Dice, and other enemies of mine whenever I wish? Why does the obligation to show any respect whatsoever to the aforementioned people not exist, and treating them like dirt if one merely wishes is completely justified? Why is it immoral for anyone to punish me for trolling or insulting the aforementioned people on Pokémon Showdown!, provided that the one who punishes me is not ignorant of what those people have done to me? Why is it immoral for a person to treat one of the aforementioned degenerates as their friend despite knowing what they have done to me? To answer such questions, one should start by considering the fundamental question of how, and under what condition(s) does a human being have value.

    The Conditional Value of a Human Being

    There is only one factor that determines whether or not a human being has value and human rights, and deserves respect in any way whatsoever, and that factor is simply whether that human being is a good person or an evil person. If a person is morally good, then they have value and human rights and deserves respect. If a person is evil, then they have none of such, and may be treated in any way one wishes. Nothing else in the world, be it Pokémon battling skills, wealth, beauty, intelligence, reputation, physical ability, or anything else, can possibly be a factor that decides how much a human being is worth. One person can never be worth more or less than any other person, or be treated as superior or inferior to anyone else, or deserve more or less respect (note that there is a clear distinction between "respect" and "admiration". More information is available in the "Differentiating Good from Evil in Theory" section) than anyone else based on such factors. Humanity is bound by one and only one hierarchy, and exactly how many people in the world acknowledges or adheres to it is completely irrelevant to whether or not this hierarchy represents true Justice. And the hierarchy in question works like this: Every single person in this world who is a good person is exactly equal to one another in terms of worth and how much respect they deserve, while every single person in this world who is an evil person stands beneath the good people, being worth as much as dirt. In fact, it would be ideal if every single evil person on this planet was killed off, as that would make the world a far better place, since good people would no longer have to worry about being harmed by others, and since evil people have no value, the loss of their lives is a completely trivial thing anyway.

    Humanity cannot be bound by any other hierarchy, and one who accepts a system of hierarchy in which some people can be worth more than others on grounds besides morality must accept a number of severe consequences. It doesn't really matter what they are, since a system of hierarchy in which value can be placed on people on any grounds besides morality would not be acceptable even in the absence of such consequences, but if you wish to read about some of such consequences, open the spoiler tag below.

    Spoiler:
    In a world where people are valued on the basis of anything other than whether they are good or evil, everyone would constantly be under stress, because if everyone who is morally good is not equal, then people will have to constantly think about how to "outdo" each other in various ways. This leads to arguments, because people may not value things in the same way, and it leads to hostility, jealousy, people who think they have "earned" more value than others acting in condescendingly arrogant ways towards those who, by the value system, are "less valuable", and things like that. A system of hierarchy according to which people can be valued based on anything other than morality does not promote peace. It promotes constant stress and struggle. People will never be at peace in mind under such a system, which would go against the ultimate end that all life universally seeks: the experience of pleasure and happiness. The reason why a hierarchy that divides the good people from the evil people must nonetheless exist is because it is necessary for Justice (about which I will go into more detail later) to be preserved.

    Also, imagine this scenario:

    Say there are two Pokémon trainers, Trainer A and Trainer B. If we were to suppose that Pokémon battling prowess contributes to a person's value, then what if Trainer A believes he is a more skilled trainer than Trainer B, who on the other hand believes he is a more skilled trainer than Trainer A? Trainer A would view the way Trainer B treats him as "disrespectful of his higher status", but Trainer B would think the exact same about Trainer A. Trainer A cannot rely on trying to demonstrate to Trainer B who the better trainer is, or vice-versa, as either trainer can still hold beliefs about their own superiority regardless of such demonstration, since everyone perceives evidence differently, and two people starting a hostile fight with each other on a disagreement regarding whose skill at Pokémon battling exceeds the other's is no different from being hostile towards someone who believes that "1 + 1 = 3" or "the sky is green" - it is ridiculous to disregard another human being's right to be respected and not be attacked or harassed on the basis of disagreement on any matter not pertaining to morality (and attacking others as a result of their disagreement on matters pertaining to morality are justified just because it is necessary for Justice, since the holding of incorrect beliefs about morality is what evil basically is), as then people can start fights with each other over the most trivial of disagreements, leading to a world of chaos. The aforementioned is only a preview of the full extent of the consequences that come with not valuing people relative to only one criteria, which in itself is fundamental and necessary.

    The Justification for my Actions Towards Evil People

    So, with everything I have explained above in mind, consider the following statements that many people agree with:


    - "It is wrong to tell a lie."
    - "It is wrong to take another person's life."
    - "It is wrong to steal."


    Lying, killing and stealing... in truth, none of the aforementioned actions are intrinsically and unconditionally immoral. That is, the immorality of such actions does not ultimately come from such actions in and of themselves, but rather, they all come from the value that human beings possess. In other words...


    - It is wrong to tell a lie not because lying is intrinsically wrong in itself, but because lying violates another human being's right to know the truth and not be deceived.
    - It is wrong to take another person's life not because killing is intrinsically wrong in itself, but because such an act violates another human being's right to live.
    - It is wrong to steal not because stealing is intrinsically wrong in itself, but because stealing violates another human being's right to/ownership of their property.


    But what if, in the above three cases, the "another human being" in question does not possess the right that is spoken of in each case? In such a situation, lying, killing and stealing would not be wrong, because such actions would not be violating anyone's right to anything. To further demonstrate what is being said here, consider the Cleverbot. Have any of you ever heard of it? If not, click on that link and have a play around with it. It's fun. Anyway, after having played around with the Cleverbot, let me ask you a question: Would it be immoral to type and submit a statement that one does not believe when interacting with the Cleverbot? I hope that your answer to this question would be "no". And why would it be "no"? Because submitting a statement that one does not believe in when interacting with the Cleverbot is not violating anyone's right to know the truth and not be deceived, since the Cleverbot is not human. By the exact same logic, lying to an evil human being cannot be immoral, because that evil human being is exactly like the Cleverbot in that they possess no rights to being respected in the way that a morally good human being has the right to be respected. And ultimately, this is the exact reason why I am allowed to troll and insult shrang, Sweep, Melee Mewtwo, Donkey, Dice, and other enemies of mine whenever I wish - insulting and trolling are not intrinsically and unconditionally evil actions - such actions are only wrong insofar as that the target possesses the right to not be insulted or trolled, and in my case, my targets do not possess such rights.

    Differentiating Good from Evil in Theory

    The condition under which a person is evil and therefore possesses no value or rights is the condition that they are not a good person. Now, what exactly defines a good person? In theory, there is a two-step thought experiment one can perform in order to determine whether or not any hypothetical person who we imagine is a good person. The first step to this thought experiment is the Utopia test, which works in the following way:

    If we were to imagine a hypothetical character and know every thought and intention within their mind, as well as their entire personality, individuality and thought process within their mind, then we ask ourselves this question: Is it possible for this person to co-exist with the world being a Utopia?

    Let us not concern ourselves with whether or not it is in reality possible for the world to be turned into a Utopia, since such is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, as this is merely a thought experiment. A Utopia is an ideal, and the fact that a certain ideal cannot possibly be reached does not mean that it should not be approached. A Utopia, in this context, is defined as a world in which true peace is present in each and every point in spacetime in which this world exists. What is true peace and what is the distinction between such and mere "peace"?

    True peace is one of the two types of peace. It is an unconditionally good and positive thing - it is an ideal, but peace by itself could be either as good as true peace, or take the form of the absolute, least desirable state of the world for good people. It is common sense what "peace" is, but the concept of "peace" can be divided into two subcategories: true peace, and forced peace.


    - True peace is peace in the presence of Justice. It is the state of the world that all good people desire. If everyone in the world respects one another as equals, and does not harm one another as a result, then the world is in a state of true peace, and is therefore a Utopia.
    - Forced peace, on the other hand, is peace in the absence of Justice. It is a state in which no conflicts or wars occur, but evil gets away with what they do. For example, if Person A one day suddenly attacked Person B for no reason, and then Person A chooses to never attack Person B again out of a lack of interest in doing so, while Person B does not attack Person A out of a fear of the consequences that may occur upon himself if he were to attack Person B, then technically, there would be peace between Person A and Person B, but such would merely be forced peace, rather than true peace, because Justice is absent in this scenario, as Person B does not truly respect Person A, but is merely forced to be peaceful with him out of fear of some consequences. Not only can a state of forced peace never, under any circumstances, serve as a substitute for, or "short-cut" towards true peace, but forced peace also represents evil's complete and absolute triumph over good. For good people, the least desirable state of the world is not one in which good is at war with evil, because at least in such a scenario, good would at least be pursuing Justice, and ultimately, a state of true peace. The least desirable state of the world for a good person is a state of forced peace, because that represents a state of complete and utter injustice, in which absolutely nothing is done about said injustice.


    The above can be wrapped up through the following paragraph I wrote about three years ago:

    "There are countless methods to bring peace to a society. One of those methods is to avoid confrontations with evildoers in order to prevent the creation of conflicts which may lead to chaos and disruption within the society, while quietly tolerating the evildoers' disrespectful actions, and allowing the rights of good people to be infringed without, or with only minimal resistance, since large resistance inevitably brings trouble and destruction to the society. Another is to simply take the easiest and least disruptive method to put an end to any conflicts that may arise and disrupt the society's peace, with this method being capable of letting evil people go unpunished in order to not cause a riot, or even involving punishing or threatening those who stands on the side of justice instead of the evildoers in a conflict, under the logic that punishing the good people may sometimes be a more efficient way to end the conflict, for various reasons including that the good people may be vastly outnumbered by the evildoers, and therefore punishing the evildoers would throw the society into chaos a lot more than punishing those on the side of justice, especially if the evil people happen to have a lot more status and popularity within the society than the good people they may be in conflict with. And yet another method to bring peace to a society is to bring justice to it, because if justice is present in a society, then peace must automatically be present as well, as it is impossible for conflict to arise in a society of light and justice. And anyone who attempts to bring peace to a society through any method other than as a byproduct of justice is nothing more than a supporter of evil, and therefore an evildoer, since the existence of a society in which peace is present in the absence of justice is nothing short of the completely ideal victory for the side of evil. Thus, if injustice is present in any situation, then regardless of how minor or insignificant such an injustice may be in proportion to to the amount of chaos and disruption that must be caused in order to deliver justice to the situation, every effort must be directed to serving justice before anyone should even think about peace, even if said deliverance of justice means throwing the society, or even the entire universe into chaos, or even disrupting the very fabrics of existence itself, because as unpleasant as the consequences of such means to justice may be, no event exists that could possibly be worse than evil's complete triumph over good."

    In a Utopia, not a single inhabitant would, at any point in time or anywhere, need to fear being attacked by another person. In a Utopia, the concepts of locks and passwords would not have any reason to exist, as everyone would respect the privacy of others, and there would be a 0% chance of anyone trying to access or take anything that is not theirs. ID cards would not need to exist, as everyone in the world would be completely honest about their identities. And police and military would not need to exist, as no one would be causing any trouble anywhere, at all. True peace is something that can never be created through law enforcements and punishment of misconduct and crime. It can only exist as a result of every single person within the state of true peace willing true peace's existence and perpetuation.

    So, with all of the above in mind, imagine a Utopia, and then imagine a person, before proceeding to ask the question: "If this person were to enter the Utopia, would such a world remain as a Utopia after this person enters it?" If you can immediately tell that the answer is no, then the person you imagined is not a good person. For example, take any of the countless people in our world who are capable of suddenly attacking or disrespecting others for no reason, and then put them in a Utopia. The world such a person enters would be a Utopia no more, because even though not a single person in the Utopia would attack or disrespect that newcomer first, the newcomer will eventually attack or disrespect someone in the world they entered anyway. If it is possible for a person to co-exist with the world being a Utopia, then the person has just passed the Utopia test.

    But passing the Utopia test is merely the first step of the thought experiment for determining whether or not someone is a good person. Even if a person is peaceful in nature and would never attack or disrespect anyone else in a Utopia, they can still be an evil person if they can ever possibly, under any circumstances (including circumstances that are hypothetical), knowingly support evil or evil people. In the words of Thomas Mann, "tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." Tolerance of evil can include continuing to act as if a person has value or refusing to believe that they are evil despite what the evidence says, knowingly helping one or those who stands on the side of evil when observing a conflict between between good and evil, not acting to help the side of good when observing a conflict between good and evil while one is reasonably in a position to do so, punishing a good person for attacking or "being disrespectful" towards a person one knows to be evil despite the evil person's complete and utter lack of any value or rights as explained before, claiming that certain evil actions are justified as long as the victim is a certain person for any reason other than the justified belief that the victim is an evil person, holding incorrect beliefs about morality especially if it involves believing that certain evil actions are justified, and ever, under any circumstances, seeking to establish forced peace rather than true peace in any situation in the world.

    What justifies the above? Well, as it should be obvious to anyone, disrespect is evil. But the concepts of "respect" and "disrespect" have a special, inextricable connection with each other. One of the most fundamental principles to understand in regards to this is that showing a certain amount of respect for one person always, inevitably, involves showing an equal amount of disrespect towards the enemies of that person, as well as the victims of any unjust actions performed by that person, provided the one who shows such respect understands the relationship between the person they are respecting and the enemies and victims of that person, since it is glorifying someone who is, in the eyes of that person's enemies and victims, unworthy of any respect. And additionally, the showing of respect always comes with some disrespect towards anyone who is excluded from that respect. One hypothetical scenario to imagine which demonstrates this point is this: imagine a community in which 100 individuals exist. Someone then enters that community and shows a very, very high level of respect towards 99 of those individuals, but while the person does not outright insult or degrade the remaining individual, but merely treats him with the basic respect that a human being deserves but nothing more, then is that not disrespect towards the one person who is excluded from the immense amount of respect shown by that newcomer to the community, despite the fact that he has not done anything insulting in an absolute sense?

    The exact same idea as everything that is described above under the most recent subheading is also conveyed in another way in a post I made on the old Dragon Rush forums long ago, as seen in the quote tag below:

    "Evil" refers to the intention* to do anything that disregards potentially good people's** rights to be treated and spoken to decently by others, as well as to not be harmed by others by being assaulted in any way, having their property damaged or stolen, or hurt by them in any way. This could range from purposely causing pain to another person for the purpose of entertaining oneself by watching the victim in pain, to doing things that hurt other people as a means to reaching a certain goal (even if that goal itself is noble, or if there is otherwise nothing wrong with that goal itself), to helping someone who is hurting another person, including defending the offender when he or she is being brought to Justice. I call what I just described an evil intention.

    An "evil person" is a person who, under any circumstance regardless of how rare or improbable it may be, and regardless of the number of conditions that need to be met in order for it to happen, can possibly have an evil intention.

    And since "evil" is the polar opposites of "good", it would seem that it follows that "good" is the intention to do heroic, noble, helpful or charitable deeds for others. But that is not what I believe. I do not think that a person would need to have any intentions of performing any of the aforementioned actions in order to be "a good person". To me, being a good person is simply a matter of never having the intention to do evil at all. This means that a person who is extremely nice, caring and compassionate to every single potentially good person** he meets with the exception of one would actually be an evil person if he has intentions to do evil upon the single aforementioned person. On the other hand, a hermit who intends to completely shuts himself away from the world without interacting with any human being other than himself would actually be a good person, as the fact that he has no intentions of doing anything heroic, noble, helpful or charitable is irrelevant to his morality (as admirable as such intentions are) - the only important thing is that he has no intentions of doing evil to even a single potentially good person** in existence.

    *: As such, whether a person is evil or not is completely independent on how much damage he or she has caused. If Person A, who does not believe that Person B is evil and fires at Person B's direction with a gun with the intention of killing Person B but only to miss, then even though he has not harmed Person B, Person A is evil. On the other hand, if Person A is practicing archery without the intention of hurting anyone, but accidentally fires an arrow which hits and kills Person B, then Person A would not be evil despite having killed someone. In fact, if hypothetically Person A holds the extremely irrational, insane and completely incorrect belief that saying a person's name three times in a row in front of a lit candle would somehow kill that person, and then Person A says Person B's name three times in a row in front of a lit candle, then despite the sheer ridiculousness of Person A's belief that he could kill Person B using much a method, as well as the obvious and complete harmlessness of Person A's actions, provided Person A is really deluded enough to believe that his action could kill Person B, then Person A is by definition evil.

    **: A "potentially good person" is someone who has not proven themselves to be evil rather than someone who is definitely good, because as far as any given person is concerned, it is impossible to truly know that someone is definitely good, since a good person is defined as one who is unconditionally unwilling to do evil, something which is impossible to prove, as the absence of evidence suggesting that a person is willing to do evil is not evidence that the person will never do evil.

    Differentiating Good from Evil in Practice

    One can, of course, never be able to consistently differentiate good people from evil people in practice unless they understand all the theory behind it, as explained in the previous section of this guide. Sadly, even for a person possessing a complete understanding of the theory behind the differentiation between good people and evil people, differentiating such in practice is not always easy.

    The biggest distinction between theory and practice in the differentiation between good people and evil people lies in the fact that in reality, it is absolutely impossible to read the mind of another person, and as long as that remains true, two consequences follow:

    1. One as a result cannot know for sure what another person's intention is, which is a huge consequence, since intention is what evil is rooted on in the first place, so one can never actually have absolute proof that another person is evil. It is very possible, and in fact common, for an evil person to intentionally perform an action that physically harms another person, only to claim that "it was an accident," criticize another person with the intention to make them feel bad about themselves, but claim that such criticism was made out of goodwill and being helpful, or insulting another person and claiming to not know that what they said was an insult, making it sometimes very difficult to choose between letting evil people get away with their evil actions and risking harming a good person. The only thing I can say regarding this point is that one can only judge with their own instinct, intuition, and the analysis of incomplete evidence when deciding in practice whether or not someone is evil. The fact that judging in the absence of solid proof comes with the risk of accidentally judging a good person to be evil is, unfortunately, not a reason to not judge the morality of others, as not doing so would be to allow evil to perpetuate and go completely unresisted in this world.

    2. One consequently cannot ever know for sure whether or not another person is good. This is summed up in the last paragraph of the quote tag above, in which the explanation of the term "potentially good person" is given.

    The Meta-Ethics of the Above

    Of course, in the entirety of my guide so far, I have yet to address one point that many people have been making about what I have been saying all along, the notion that everything I have written above is just my opinion. That it is just my moral code. That morality is subjective. And that "everyone's sense of Justice is different and there is no truth about what is really right or wrong."

    Well actually, as harsh as it may be for me to say this, that is WRONG. I regrettedly lacked the courage to directly state this in my numerous conversations about this matter with certain people in the clan, as it is a very harsh comment and a huge claim to make, but I believe that I no longer have any choice but to make the following explicitly clear: No, morality is NOT subjective. A person supporting or valuing an evil person despite knowing what they have done IS evil, and "in their point of view, that evil person is good" is NOT something that will change that fact. Yes, I will say it explicitly: Anyone whose views on morality differ from the above IS evil. Do you know what will happen if that wasn't the case? I would then be forced to consider a person who randomly captures people and excruciatingly tortures them to death for fun to not be evil, if that person genuinely believed in a moral code according to which such actions are fine, meaning that if someone performed such atrocious actions, the only thing they would need to say in order to escape punishment and being regarded as evil is to state that what they did was fine according to their own personal moral code, and they can do this even if they did not hold such a moral code at all, since others cannot read their mind to know for sure that they are lying.

    But of course, pointing out the consequences of believing that morality is subjective is hardly sufficient to explain why it isn't subjective, so I will now explain the objectivity of morality.

    Moral values are real things that exist in the world. They may possess no physically tangible form, but they are as real as the trees that exist outside my house, the computer on my desk, and the moon in the sky, and their existence can be verified through what is known as the conscience, or the sense of Justice. A person’s conscience or sense of Justice can, in this context, be called “the sixth sense” since it functionally falls under the same category as the five senses, and it is used by a person to observe and gather information about the intangible but truly existent moral values in the world. To convey a better understanding of how a person’s conscience or sense of Justice can be regarded as the “sixth sense”, one may consider a comparison between such and the sense of sight. A person who sees a tennis ball in front of him would claim that there is a tennis ball in front of him as a result of the fact that his sense of sight conveys such information to him, in the same way that a person who, through his conscience or sense of Justice comes to the conclusion that killing an innocent person is wrong, would claim such exactly because of what he sensed. The fact that many different people across space and time have come to different conclusions about what is morally right and wrong through their conscience or sense of Justice in no way detracts from the truth of this fact, since that does absolutely nothing to change the fact that a truth about what is morally right or wrong exists, and that the vast disagreement regarding such is merely a result of many people having a flawed or corrupted conscience or sense of Justice, which prevents them from seeing the truth. This can be comparable to a color blind person looking at a tree that has green leaves, and observing and therefore concluding and believing that the leaves on that tree are not green – the fact that the color blind person observes the color of the tree’s leaves differently does not in any way change the fact that an objective truth exists about what the colour of that tree’s leaves are. This means that, among the innumerable different viewpoints pertaining to morality found across the minds of all the people in existence, only one of those viewpoints can possibly be right, and the nature of such a viewpoint is explained above in this very guide. I cannot question what my sense of Justice has conveyed to me, as that would be no different from me asking others to question what their five senses have led them to believe. Heavenly Dragon Gods shall be a Utopia, and anyone who does not agree with the moral principles outlined in this guide have no right to stay in this clan. As such, do feel free to take your leave if you cannot tolerate such actions on my part, as well as the expectations I have upon every member of this clan.


    Last edited by Immanent God LANCE on Fri 6 Apr - 10:11; edited 18 times in total


    _________________

    Guest
    Guest

    A Guide To Ethics (responses to original thread preserved here)

    Post by Guest on Mon 16 Jun - 15:26

    I'm IN.
    avatar
    Lord Itachi
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Posts : 339
    Join date : 2014-06-16
    Age : 21
    Location : Dark Utopia

    Re: A Guide To Ethics

    Post by Lord Itachi on Mon 16 Jun - 17:50

    Im In.
    avatar
    Red
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Posts : 165
    Join date : 2014-06-16
    Age : 21
    Location : Mt. Silver.

    Re: A Guide To Ethics

    Post by Red on Mon 16 Jun - 17:55

    I'm IN.
    avatar
    moonbase
    Clan Member
    Clan Member

    Posts : 29
    Join date : 2014-06-16
    Age : 19
    Location : Cleveland, Ohio

    Re: A Guide To Ethics

    Post by moonbase on Mon 16 Jun - 18:11

    I'm in
    avatar
    Ntogg
    Clan Member
    Clan Member

    Posts : 1
    Join date : 2014-06-25
    Age : 20
    Location : Singapore

    Re: A Guide To Ethics

    Post by Ntogg on Wed 25 Jun - 7:27

    I'm in
    avatar
    10detta
    Clan Member
    Clan Member

    Posts : 33
    Join date : 2014-06-16
    Location : interstella 5555

    Re: A Guide To Ethics

    Post by 10detta on Wed 25 Jun - 16:28

    i'm in.


    _________________

    Illusion
    Appliant
    Appliant

    Posts : 1
    Join date : 2014-08-17
    Location : ..

    Excellent Piece of Work!

    Post by Illusion on Sun 17 Aug - 10:28

    I found "A Guide to Ethics" from a Google search. Never in my life have I met someone who seems to be as intelligent as Immanent God LANCE. Even though I have heard of the Pokémon franchise, I have not read the Pokémon manga, played any of the Pokémon video games or trading card games, nor watch any of the Pokémon animation, I am still fascinated by "A Guide to Ethics." I may never meet Immanent God LANCE in person, but I will bookmark this website.
    avatar
    Immanent God LANCE
    Clan Leader
    Clan Leader

    Posts : 564
    Join date : 2014-06-16
    Age : 27
    Location : Heaven

    Re: A Guide To Ethics

    Post by Immanent God LANCE on Sun 17 Aug - 10:48

    Thank you very much Smile


    _________________
    avatar
    aLiEn Mw
    Clan Leader
    Clan Leader

    Posts : 220
    Join date : 2014-06-20
    Age : 26
    Location : Dragon's Den

    A Guide To Ethics [REMOVED]

    Post by aLiEn Mw on Sat 6 Sep - 0:05

    Lance... Same old retard one, i'm also with you, AS ALWAYS.
    Anyway who's Illusion?


    _________________

    _______________________________________________________________________________________

    Sponsored content

    Re: A Guide To Ethics

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun 16 Dec - 17:52