DO NOT discuss the source material beyond this episode. If you want to discuss future events or theories, please use separate threads.
DO NOT ask where to watch/download this episode or give links to copyrighted, non-fair use material.
DO NOT troll/bait/harass/abuse other users for liking or disliking the series/characters.
DO read the Anime Discussion Rules and Site & Forum Guidelines.
DO NOT ask where to watch/download this episode or give links to copyrighted, non-fair use material.
DO NOT troll/bait/harass/abuse other users for liking or disliking the series/characters.
DO read the Anime Discussion Rules and Site & Forum Guidelines.
ProofByColor said: This is a discussion, comrade! That's what forums are all about![...] Edit: Yikes wtf happened in this thread lmao. Take your irrelevant arguments elsewhere. |
 Decide once every certain number of years which members of the ruling class will oppress and crush the people in parliament: this is the true essence of bourgeois parliamentarism, not only in the constitutional parliamentary monarchies but in the most democratic republics - The State and Revolution (September 1917), Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov "Lenin". |
MyDadDisownedMe said: Wow, this thread went south fast. Who could've seen that one coming. I don't know if it was intended, but this quote is glorious in so many ways! South indeed. ProofByColor said: Edit: Yikes wtf happened in this thread lmao. Take your irrelevant arguments elsewhere. It is great to see discussion and that the show has discussion potential is a good thing. Kudos to TheDeedsOfMen, this guy is so far of the rocker I wouldn't even know where to start. (And my job is basically to discuss things, but having one party so far of reasoning makes it weird and probably only happens in Americas overton window.) TheDeedsOfMen said: nightcrawlercyp said: 1. women cannot go in wars. they will die. As a dimorphic species men are much much stronger and resilient than women. [Citation needed.] Not sure what is allowed to be linked here, but in general his idea is true and false at the same time. There are biological differences between men and women (lots of studies about that), but there him being right stops. Men aren't 'much stronger', men have a potential higher peak, but apart from top athletes at peak level there is not much difference between genders. Pick a sportive woman from the streets and test the ability against a couch warrior man and you will not be surprised that the woman is stronger. Talking about resilience it becomes even harder to proof, but general medicine goes in the opposite direction with the belief (we have no way foolproof way to test this) that women can take more pain than man, partially because childbirth is so painful. So men have higher muscle peaks than women, but that only comes into play at the absolute maximum that most people never even come close to (even soldiers). |
 |
| I'm just going to ignore the retards bringing real life politics to this thread and mention instead that I really want a season 2. The implications of the FBI being infiltrated are pretty interesting. Who knows how high up this goes? I mean, we can guess that probably not much higher since Zelada seems to be in league with this Agent Chan, but it would be cool if Zelada had the FBI director in his pocket, along with some senators and who knows what else. Either way, I'm curious how our heroes will get out of this pinch, and if the journalist will make it. |
| Blergh. |
zwolf12 said: Yeah. I didn't feel like typing it, but I would have said that strength varies individually and should be measured individually. Also, physical strength and resilience are not the only relevant abilities in warfare.Not sure what is allowed to be linked here, but in general his idea is true and false at the same time. There are biological differences between men and women (lots of studies about that), but there him being right stops. Men aren't 'much stronger', men have a potential higher peak, but apart from top athletes at peak level there is not much difference between genders. Pick a sportive woman from the streets and test the ability against a couch warrior man and you will not be surprised that the woman is stronger. Talking about resilience it becomes even harder to proof, but general medicine goes in the opposite direction with the belief (we have no way foolproof way to test this) that women can take more pain than man, partially because childbirth is so painful. So men have higher muscle peaks than women, but that only comes into play at the absolute maximum that most people never even come close to (even soldiers). |
Alexeon said: You can't just ignore what is at your surroundings comrade! Indeed the real retard is who does that.I'm just going to ignore the retards bringing real life politics to this thread and mention instead that I really want a season 2.[...] |
Decide once every certain number of years which members of the ruling class will oppress and crush the people in parliament: this is the true essence of bourgeois parliamentarism, not only in the constitutional parliamentary monarchies but in the most democratic republics - The State and Revolution (September 1917), Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov "Lenin". |
| Make San-Teresa Great Again |
| I've just noticed, the original novel's art is from Range Murata. Huh, nice; I've always loved their art. Got to say, they gave Tilarna a 10/10 design. Also, that girl had one hell of a Wikipedia history. Then again, there are those that just LOVE creating and editing those articles. A lot of stuff was quite predictable with the with Zel-salad and the wife... but the cheating and FBI I didn't expect |
| "You know you've reached peak quality when a doujin is better than the actual source series." (Eg. To LOVE-Ru) Just to list a couple of biases. Likes: A good story, characters, writing, romance, a good plot twist or something that breaks expectations (In a good way), 'backstory' and justice. Dislikes: Bad romance, too much fanservice, the harem genre, yuri, yaoi, and bad writing. |
redwhitenblue said: Calling it ultraconservative wasn't part of any main argument. It was only a side note, a tangent. It isn't used as a premise for the main arguments, and they don't hinge on its truth value. TheDeedsOfMen said: Also, the main arguments in my posts above do not hinge on any left-wing premises. Do you think that calling out logical fallacies and asking for additional justification are somehow left-wing? You calling something based on reality "ultraconservative arguments" even though they are not is not "calling out logical fallacies and asking for additional justification". It's you calling them ultraconservative that leads to the conclusion that you are so far left that you think observations of reality is "ultraconservative". I defend using the word though. Let's remember what Nightcrawlercyp wrote. nightcrawlercyp said: Women breeding children for the preservation of a single-nation state? What else is this nationalistic child-breeding idea than ultraconservative? It is a fair description on the western political spectrum. 1. granting citizenship to children of citizens. that makes sense. the whole idea is that as a woman you will produce new citizens for the country and as a man you will fight and die in wars if need be. (universal suffrage fucked both up) And all is based on the idea that generally you will not leave the country but settle on your parent's piece of land. Basically it has more to do with owning land in the country. The idea that men and only men should wage war for the single-nation state, although usually considered slightly less conservative, is still hard-line conservative on the spectrum. Then he went on, though this was afterwards: nightcrawlercyp said: 1. women cannot go in wars. they will die. As a dimorphic species men are much much stronger and resilient than women. Also you can repopulate a country with 1 man and 1000 women, the opposite is not true. So you cannot afford letting a majority of women going to war Also, his arguments are not purely based on "reality" aka factual statements but also his ethical values, such as "the nation state is valuable" and many, many others. redwhitenblue said: A fact is a proposition in the sense that the word is used in logic.TheDeedsOfMen said: That is a descriptive proposition. The idea that men (and specifically men) should wage wars on the behalf of states is a normative proposition. The former does not logically imply the latter. Your argument relies on an obvious argumentative fallacy. It is not a proposition. It is a fact. redwhitenblue said: A fact that describes a state of affairs is a descriptive proposition in the senses that the words are used in logic.TheDeedsOfMen said: That is a descriptive proposition. The idea that women have a moral duty to produce children for the sake of nations is a normative proposition. The former does not logically imply the latter. The same argumentative fallacy as before. That is not a descriptive proposition, it is a fact that men can't give birth. redwhitenblue said: It seems that you have dropped the part about nations and states that Nightcrawlercyp was endorsing in this context. Do you disagree with him on that aspect then? Do you accept any violence as "waging war" in this context? Does it have to be a specific kind of organization? Does it have to involve a state with only one nation or a state in general? Is childbirth supposed to take place for populating a nation state?The argument, is that since only women can birth, it is up to the men to wage wars. Even if I assume that any violence and any childbirth are fine, your argument is still a mess. Childbirth doesn't exclude military service. The ability to give birth doesn't imply that all women actually give birth. And men could forgo military service too. redwhitenblue said: Also, due to men's physical superiority, they are more qualified. Don't bother trying to use the .000000001% of women with heightened physical abilities as an argument. Argument of extremes is a ridiculous argument. redwhitenblue said: [Citation needed.]I am saying they are the only ones that can fulfill that role.... you know.... because that's reality. 79.48 % of all statistics are made up on the spot. Also, physical abilities are not the only relevant abilities in warfare. I wrote it already. redwhitenblue said: Let's read this part of your previous post again.TheDeedsOfMen said: More specifically in this case, something being popular doesn't logically imply that it is ethically correct or holds special ethical value. Arguing that it does is also an argumentative fallacy. You would have to somehow separately prove that popularity implies ethical value. Logical fallacy on your part. The fact that men tend to be Soldiers is not due to popularity, it is due to that they are more aptly suited for the role. redwhitenblue said: It seems that you were appealing to military service being more popular among men. If you meant something different, it is not my fault.TheDeedsOfMen said: Sex-separated roles as breeding stock and cannon fodder? I didn't expect you to openly endorse ultraconservative arguments. At least I know where you stand, I guess. Holy cow, you're a delusional leftist idiot. I'm not going to go over everything you said because it was a bunch of idiotic rambling that is in a post that is way too long, but I will reply to the first thing you said that I quoted of you above. The vast, VAST majority of people who die as Soldiers are men. Men can't give birth. These aren't arguments, let alone ultraconservative arguments, these are facts. redwhitenblue said: Just like above, your wording here is misleading then. You are making it sound as though the large number of men is the reason for their abilities.2. Since the vast majority of men are Soldiers, it is for a good reason.... that being they are better suited for the role due to their superior capabilities compared to women. By the way, "the vast majority of people who die as Soldiers are men" and "the vast majority of men are Soldiers" are rather different statements. I hope that's a typo. redwhitenblue said: Nightcrawlercyp said so.And yet again you use a logical fallacy. Who said they have a moral duty to do so? You did. nightcrawlercyp said: If you are not trying to argue that men have a moral duty to fight in wars on behalf of the nation state, then alright on that front, I guess.1. granting citizenship to children of citizens. that makes sense. the whole idea is that as a woman you will produce new citizens for the country and as a man you will fight and die in wars if need be. (universal suffrage fucked both up) And all is based on the idea that generally you will not leave the country but settle on your parent's piece of land. Basically it has more to do with owning land in the country. redwhitenblue said: The bolded statement obviously pertains to ethics. "Women should adopt the role of childbirth" is a normative, ethical statement.TheDeedsOfMen said: I didn't try to draw any ethical conclusions, dumbass. I stated facts. The conclusion (non-ethical) that I was trying to have you draw from those facts are that 1. Since only women can give birth, it is appropos for them to fill that role."The vast majority of people who die as Soldiers are men" and "Men can't give birth" are descriptive, factual statements, sure, but they do not imply the ethical conclusions that you are trying to draw. They are irrelevant tangents. It is like you don't understand the premises, conclusions, logic, or argumentation in play here. redwhitenblue said: TheDeedsOfMen said: I didn't post any argument, dumbass. I just posted observations and facts so of course there is an absence of logic. You were supposed to apply the logic from those facts, but you failed epically. And I'll throw your own words back at you: Your arguments fail because your logic isn't valid as shown above.By the way, the reason why your arguments fail isn't leftism. It is the absence of valid logic. redwhitenblue said: You were trying to apply logic though. I argued that you relied on fallacies, but you were trying. For instance:TheDeedsOfMen said: I stated facts. It's only after applying logic to facts that it forms an argument. For someone who quips about logic, I expect better of you.You are trying to reach conclusions, so you are trying to use them as arguments in the sense that people normally use the word "argument." "Men can't give birth for the sake of the nation state." ? -> "Women must give birth for the sake of the nation state." ? stands for a missing premise. Presumably, you were going for a premise like "Someone must give birth for the sake of the nation state." Another: "Women can't fight in wars for the sake of the nation state." ? -> "Men must fight in wars for the sake of the nation state." ? is probably "Someone must fight in wars for the sake of the nation state." Maybe I phrased some of them differently than you would because you expressed them a bit vaguely. But even if we make small changes, they are obviously arguments. They have premises, conclusions, and logical steps. This is what arguments look like! Of course, I contest most of the premises, but that's a different thing. |
TheDeedsOfMenSep 27, 2019 9:35 AM
| Very tense episode, really catches some problems and questions of our reality. |
 |
| Jesus... Jesus... I lowkey admire this comment section I love when discussions become quite interesting to read. My only thoughts about this that I wouldn't vote for trump guy (he use selective argument and statements to fit his beliefs/view point) but at least he doesn't seem to be murderer and is not a conspiracy theorist. overall great episode I wish this anime had a bigger budget to give justice to the characters and story. :/ |
| Manga recommendation: - Spy x Family (Ch.109/? - biweekly) | Sakamoto Days (Ch.196/? - weekly) - MARRIAGETOXIN (Ch.111/? - weekly) | Machi and Oboro (Ch.18/? - biweekly) - Make the Exorcist Fall in Love (Ch.81/? - biweekly) - Monochrome Days (Ch.10/? - biweekly) Anime recommendation: - Deca-Dence (Finished) | Wave, Listen to Me! (Finished) - If My Favorite Pop Idol Made It to the Budokan, I Would Die (Finished) - Diary of Our Days at the Breakwater (Finished) |
TheDeedsOfMen said: nightcrawlercyp said: If that is the plan, I guess my "breeding stock" line wasn't hyperbole at all.Also you can repopulate a country with 1 man and 1000 women, the opposite is not true. So you cannot afford letting a majority of women going to war Why is repopulating a nation (a homogenous cultural group) even ethically relevant in the first place? Why should we care? Other than your subjective opinion? By the way, mankind would live on even without the nation if that's what you are trying to appeal to (and that would raise further problems). nightcrawlercyp said: Biology does not study ethics. You are assuming that the survival of a nation (or a single-nation state, I suppose) is so ethically important that women have a moral duty to produce a sufficiently large number of children (thus overriding other possible values). That is a normative premise that depends on your ethical values, on which biology says nothing.2. without most women producing at least 3 babies each your population dies off in 3 generations. Is not fallacy, is biology. nightcrawlercyp said: 1. women cannot go in wars. they will die. As a dimorphic species men are much much stronger and resilient than women. nightcrawlercyp said: [Citation needed.]3. someone has to fight to defend what you own . Unfortunately we do not live in Eden anymore. And women sure cannot do it. Over 99% of women cannot survive without men (and yes women can survive without a man but not without men as collective) nightcrawlercyp said: At first I thought this was a metaphor, but do you mean this literally?Unfortunately we do not live in Eden anymore. nightcrawlercyp said: Even if we accept that, it implies nothing about whether anyone should blindly wage the wars of any particular state, nation, or government or join any particular military organization. 3. someone has to fight to defend what you own . "Sometimes people need violence" says very little about any of this. The person might just as easily defend a group that isn't a nation or defend an entity that isn't a single-nation state. They might try to defend only their closest associates, all mankind, or any other option. Where does the special role of nations and homogenous culture come in? Nowhere. You just subjectively assumed so. You are just listing your subjective ethical beliefs and calling them facts, and even those arguments are left vague and incoherent. What a waste of time. I think I am pretty much done with this conversation. 1. because we do not live forever. About humanity living on, well if every group would adopt those measures then no it will not. Mouse utopia experiments show this. That being said the groups that do not adhere to these toxic ideologies are the most destructive in human history ie the muslim. 2. ethics and philosophy as you understand is for the dead. Survival is more important. That being said how is ethical to take jobs you cannot do , have men do them for you and then brag about being able to do what a man can do? Or how is ethical to have the state pay for you more money than you make and then claim to be independent? 3. Quote? You need quote? Women have lower muscle mass , smaller lungs and heart and lower levels of energy. I know is tabu to talk about this but is the truth. Also the hygiene conditions in a real war are horrendous. Women will get sick very fast . Consider just how much a soldier has to carry through the field. Or if you have to carry another soldier. Do you really believe a woman can carry a 90-100 kg man? Here are some involuntary social experiments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2ZFDQiP4jM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnNJpwf4m7s Oh and check the difference in Olympic results at any sport if you still doubt it. 4.By not being in Eden I mean world is a shitty dangerous place. And without men women will literally die. Yes they can live without a man in their life but not without men as a collective. 5. No one is blindly waging war. Everyone has their interest. Maybe the person you wage war against has resources you want, maybe they have done something to make you mad. There is always a reason 6. Where does homogenous nation thing comes from? wow. have you read any history? Except for US every nation was more or less homogenous until recently. It is part of human nature. You generally stick with people that are closely related to you and to whom you have things in common. Is a basic human trait. |
TheDeedsOfMen said: redwhitenblue said: Calling it ultraconservative wasn't part of any main argument. It was only a side note, a tangent. It isn't used as a premise for the main arguments, and they don't hinge on its truth value. You calling something based on reality "ultraconservative arguments" even though they are not is not "calling out logical fallacies and asking for additional justification". It's you calling them ultraconservative that leads to the conclusion that you are so far left that you think observations of reality is "ultraconservative". I defend using the word though. Let's remember what Nightcrawlercyp wrote. nightcrawlercyp said: Women breeding children for the preservation of a single-nation state? What else is this nationalistic child-breeding idea than ultraconservative? It is a fair description on the western political spectrum. 1. granting citizenship to children of citizens. that makes sense. the whole idea is that as a woman you will produce new citizens for the country and as a man you will fight and die in wars if need be. (universal suffrage fucked both up) And all is based on the idea that generally you will not leave the country but settle on your parent's piece of land. Basically it has more to do with owning land in the country. The idea that men and only men should wage war for the single-nation state, although usually considered slightly less conservative, is still hard-line conservative on the spectrum. Then he went on, though this was afterwards: nightcrawlercyp said: 1. women cannot go in wars. they will die. As a dimorphic species men are much much stronger and resilient than women. Also you can repopulate a country with 1 man and 1000 women, the opposite is not true. So you cannot afford letting a majority of women going to war Also, his arguments are not purely based on "reality" aka factual statements but also his ethical values, such as "the nation state is valuable" and many, many others. A fact is a proposition in the sense that the word is used in logic. A fact that describes a state of affairs is a descriptive proposition in the senses that the words are used in logic. redwhitenblue said: It seems that you have dropped the part about nations and states that Nightcrawlercyp was endorsing in this context. Do you disagree with him on that aspect then? Do you accept any violence as "waging war" in this context? Does it have to be a specific kind of organization? Does it have to involve a state with only one nation or a state in general? Is childbirth supposed to take place for populating a nation state?The argument, is that since only women can birth, it is up to the men to wage wars. Even if I assume that any violence and any childbirth are fine, your argument is still a mess. Childbirth doesn't exclude military service. The ability to give birth doesn't imply that all women actually give birth. And men could forgo military service too. redwhitenblue said: Also, due to men's physical superiority, they are more qualified. Don't bother trying to use the .000000001% of women with heightened physical abilities as an argument. Argument of extremes is a ridiculous argument. redwhitenblue said: [Citation needed.]I am saying they are the only ones that can fulfill that role.... you know.... because that's reality. 79.48 % of all statistics are made up on the spot. Also, physical abilities are not the only relevant abilities in warfare. I wrote it already. redwhitenblue said: Let's read this part of your previous post again.Logical fallacy on your part. The fact that men tend to be Soldiers is not due to popularity, it is due to that they are more aptly suited for the role. redwhitenblue said: It seems that you were appealing to military service being more popular among men. If you meant something different, it is not my fault.Holy cow, you're a delusional leftist idiot. I'm not going to go over everything you said because it was a bunch of idiotic rambling that is in a post that is way too long, but I will reply to the first thing you said that I quoted of you above. The vast, VAST majority of people who die as Soldiers are men. Men can't give birth. These aren't arguments, let alone ultraconservative arguments, these are facts. redwhitenblue said: Just like above, your wording here is misleading then. You are making it sound as though the large number of men is the reason for their abilities.2. Since the vast majority of men are Soldiers, it is for a good reason.... that being they are better suited for the role due to their superior capabilities compared to women. By the way, "the vast majority of people who die as Soldiers are men" and "the vast majority of men are Soldiers" are rather different statements. I hope that's a typo. redwhitenblue said: Nightcrawlercyp said so.And yet again you use a logical fallacy. Who said they have a moral duty to do so? You did. nightcrawlercyp said: If you are not trying to argue that men have a moral duty to fight in wars on behalf of the nation state, then alright on that front, I guess.1. granting citizenship to children of citizens. that makes sense. the whole idea is that as a woman you will produce new citizens for the country and as a man you will fight and die in wars if need be. (universal suffrage fucked both up) And all is based on the idea that generally you will not leave the country but settle on your parent's piece of land. Basically it has more to do with owning land in the country. redwhitenblue said: The bolded statement obviously pertains to ethics. "Women should adopt the role of childbirth" is a normative, ethical statement.I didn't try to draw any ethical conclusions, dumbass. I stated facts. The conclusion (non-ethical) that I was trying to have you draw from those facts are that 1. Since only women can give birth, it is appropos for them to fill that role. redwhitenblue said: I didn't post any argument, dumbass. I just posted observations and facts so of course there is an absence of logic. You were supposed to apply the logic from those facts, but you failed epically. And I'll throw your own words back at you: Your arguments fail because your logic isn't valid as shown above. redwhitenblue said: You were trying to apply logic though. I argued that you relied on fallacies, but you were trying. For instance:I stated facts. It's only after applying logic to facts that it forms an argument. For someone who quips about logic, I expect better of you. "Men can't give birth for the sake of the nation state." ? -> "Women must give birth for the sake of the nation state." ? stands for a missing premise. Presumably, you were going for a premise like "Someone must give birth for the sake of the nation state." Another: "Women can't fight in wars for the sake of the nation state." ? -> "Men must fight in wars for the sake of the nation state." ? is probably "Someone must fight in wars for the sake of the nation state." Maybe I phrased some of them differently than you would because you expressed them a bit vaguely. But even if we make small changes, they are obviously arguments. They have premises, conclusions, and logical steps. This is what arguments look like! Of course, I contest most of the premises, but that's a different thing. 1.Is not that men should wage war, is that women will die if waging war and society will die without babies 2. No, not all women have to birth children but if you want your society to survive at least 75% should have 3 babies each at least. 3. except for giant countries like US and Russia in case of real war no men cannot forgo war. It will be automatically martial war and if you refuse going to war as a man you will be imprisoned for life or executed. Happened before it will happen again. 4. yes physical ability is not the only important but you still have to carry equipment, wounded, etc so it is extremely important. Also resilience to bad conditions of hygiene and extreme stress are important and women suck at those too. They suck at war strategy as well btw. 5. the vast majority of soldiers that die are men because most soldiers are men. I think over 90% 6. I am not saying men have a moral duty to fight in wars, especially in today society. I am saying is one of the things the government whatever form it takes expects from men and enforces by law. 7.you need a number of children to be born in your state per capita of adult for the state to survive. If women do not get birth to them the state will not survive. If it happens in all states humanity will not survive. So yes, most women should put childbirth first. Does not mean to be the be all end all of their life. Just have 3 babies when you are young , raise them until they are 7 and then you can have your career or whatever you want. 8. If no one fights in wars it means all wars will be lost. And the results can be devastating.... at least for the men. Women generally just get raped and then taken care of, men are generally killed or worse. |
| wow things got a little bit intense with all that controlled FBI and of course Zelada! looks like last episode will be lot of chaos! 4/5. |
 |
| The MAL trolls sniffed out this thread quickly. So many trashy posts. The second-half of this season really went downhill for me so it's good to see another solid episode again. Especially liked the scene in the car when Matoba was consoling Tilarna. It's generally true, when people from different cultures hang out, they begin to understand each other. |
modboy said: I disagree, there are some readworthy posts about the topic in question, but other posts are a little bit off.The MAL trolls sniffed out this thread quickly. So many trashy posts. |
Decide once every certain number of years which members of the ruling class will oppress and crush the people in parliament: this is the true essence of bourgeois parliamentarism, not only in the constitutional parliamentary monarchies but in the most democratic republics - The State and Revolution (September 1917), Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov "Lenin". |
| So is the last episode really airing on Oct 1st? Doesn't seem logical since that's a whole eight days away from this one when the gap is usually seven. |
TomatoSempai said: Alexeon said: You can't just ignore what is at your surroundings comrade! Indeed the real retard is who does that.I'm just going to ignore the retards bringing real life politics to this thread and mention instead that I really want a season 2.[...] Time and place, dude. This place is for discussing chinese cartoons for little girls, not your half-baked political ideas. |
| Blergh. |
| Nice to see Cammy and Jamie on the front line, and taking some action So the wife of Mozeleemay, the fbi and Zelada are the big bad |
 |
| Everything that Tourte said was true and Tilarna was so immature to realize that and not accept it. If you dont like our rules here, then feel free to get the fk out. Its very simple. |
 |
More topics from this board
Poll: » Cop Craft Episode 12 Discussion ( 1 2 3 )Stark700 - Sep 30, 2019 |
109 |
by Dawizz
»»
Jan 9, 2024 2:28 AM |
|
Poll: » Cop Craft Episode 10 Discussion ( 1 2 )Stark700 - Sep 16, 2019 |
55 |
by OutOfGalaxy
»»
Dec 22, 2023 7:45 PM |
|
Poll: » Cop Craft Episode 9 Discussion ( 1 2 )Stark700 - Sep 2, 2019 |
50 |
by OutOfGalaxy
»»
Dec 19, 2023 4:26 PM |
|
Poll: » Cop Craft Episode 8 Discussion ( 1 2 )Stark700 - Aug 26, 2019 |
73 |
by OutOfGalaxy
»»
Dec 18, 2023 8:29 PM |
|
Poll: » Cop Craft Episode 7 DiscussionStark700 - Aug 19, 2019 |
49 |
by OutOfGalaxy
»»
Dec 17, 2023 6:25 PM |