people playing: 171, servers online: 52, games played: 136,537,204 Top Player: kpokoLOL

  Toribash Community » elerk » Hall of shame
Register FAQ General Rules Community
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Sep 19, 2015   #41
hawkesnightmare
WHERE'S MY DRINK?!
 
10th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,632



Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Establishment of a law that disadvantages a religion would require the consideration of the RFRA, and due processes would have to be taken as in this case.

No religion is being disadvantaged here. Christianity does not lose face or is put into a difficult situation because of this.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Not sure how this could be any clearer.

I'm just as confused as you seem to be, so let's break this down.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

What this means is that they cannot exhibit favoritism towards a religion. By denying same-sex couples marriage licenses, they are showing favoritism towards Christianity, Catholicism and Judaism, among others.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

This is the part that you and Kim Davis have been marching around on a pedestal. She is free to exercise whatever religion she wants (within a few constraints such as not allowed to harm yourself, others or animals for religious ceremonies). However, she cannot bring her beliefs into the clerk office, because as soon as she clocks in, she is an agent of the government and must now abide by the first part of the above. There are lots of cases that the SCOTUS has interpreted which outline exactly what she can and cannot do, the most relevant of which that I found was the Garcetti v. Ceballos case.


Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
I have read the case, as you know the relevant information is that corporations are not covered by freedom of religion, where as people are.

No. I'm not playing your stupid little "I only read half a sentence before giving a rebuttal" game. Pay fucking attention. Corporations count as people and have the exact same rights as a person does. I don't necessarily agree with this because tax loopholes and stuff, but that's how it is.


Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
By the way, how could you possibly know that in all situations it would hurt businesses? Come on mate, no need to make blanket statements like that, unless you have the literal foresight to back it up.

You misread. I said business. Not businesses. Sales, profits, moolah. Denying left-foot-firsters would cut very deep into profits.


Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Ok? Ridiculous as it may be, it was you who made that argument, not me...

I was only saying that enacting a left-foot-first rule would be strange and not good.


Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
You think not issuing a marriage license legally equivalent to willingly letting someone die because of their race??

I already said that the punishments will be more severe for the latter, but yes.


Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Just to be clear, we are talking about Christians in a Christian country being barred from being public servants for a Christian government and issuing licenses for a ritual that is a Christian import.

Just to be clear, the US is not a Christian nation. Never was. That's why the establishment clause of the first amendment even exists. That's why there is a separation of church and state. Oh, and marriage didn't come from Christianity. Anyone who read the first four or five books of the Bible would be able to tell you that.

Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
But this is part of a wider problem where a local majority overwhelm a national majority. We are not talking about less than 2% of the population overruling more than 70% of the population.

Even if that was the case, legalizing same-sex marriage affects no one except for that couple. Even if marriage was a Christian institution, it no longer is just that, so any authority they would have on the matter is inconsequential.


Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Being put in prison for 5 days is no harm?

She is salaried and her pay was not affected by her jail time.


Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
"A law" is not the same as "the law". "A law" is a rule, "the law" is a framework. This is a non-trivial difference.

Since you've said that the Constitution is not a set of laws, I would like you to confirm on the record that soldiers can commandeer your home, you are not entitled to a trial if arrested, you can keep slaves, and the government can deny blacks and women from voting. Unless you meant to say that the constitution as a whole is "the law" but is composed of "a laws".
-----
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Lol, how have they not?

Salvador Dali, Elton John, Freddie Mercury, many gay men have been married before............

Salvador Dali was Spanish and only lived in the US for eight years after he had gotten married, and their marriage was not recognized in the US during that time. Elton John is British and married in England. Freddie Mercury never married his partner. Your argument is invalid on the grounds of ignorance.
All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That's how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.

Last edited by hawkesnightmare; Sep 19, 2015 at 07:34 AM.. Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
hawkesnightmare is offline  
Old Sep 19, 2015   #42
ImmortalPig
ub3r
 
Yellow Belt
Join Date: Jun 2013
Clan: fl0w



Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
No religion is being disadvantaged here. Christianity does not lose face or is put into a difficult situation because of this.

Yes they are.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
What this means is that they cannot exhibit favoritism towards a religion. By denying same-sex couples marriage licenses, they are showing favoritism towards Christianity, Catholicism and Judaism, among others.

This is the part that you and Kim Davis have been marching around on a pedestal. She is free to exercise whatever religion she wants (within a few constraints such as not allowed to harm yourself, others or animals for religious ceremonies). However, she cannot bring her beliefs into the clerk office, because as soon as she clocks in, she is an agent of the government and must now abide by the first part of the above. There are lots of cases that the SCOTUS has interpreted which outline exactly what she can and cannot do, the most relevant of which that I found was the Garcetti v. Ceballos case.

No, people are people even when they are clocked in, this is why SCOTUS ruled she had the protection of the 1st amendment.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
No. I'm not playing your stupid little "I only read half a sentence before giving a rebuttal" game. Pay fucking attention. Corporations count as people and have the exact same rights as a person does. I don't necessarily agree with this because tax loopholes and stuff, but that's how it is.

Not true as per the previously discussed case.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
You misread. I said business. Not businesses. Sales, profits, moolah. Denying left-foot-firsters would cut very deep into profits.

Lol I know what you said, but I said businesses because you know, there's more than one business in the universe.

And that's purely baseless speculation, I'm not even going to bother to make an argument against fantasy.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
I was only saying that enacting a left-foot-first rule would be strange and not good.

Uh, no, your argument was "You can't deny someone service for walking into the store with their left foot first", not "they might lose money" or "it would be strange".

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
I already said that the punishments will be more severe for the latter, but yes.

LOL ok then we are going to have to agree to disagree on that one haha, I think human life is maybe a little more important than the "right" to marry someone of the same sex (and I'm pretty sure the law reflects that), but there's no point in arguing this any more.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
Just to be clear, the US is not a Christian nation. Never was. That's why the establishment clause of the first amendment even exists. That's why there is a separation of church and state. Oh, and marriage didn't come from Christianity. Anyone who read the first four or five books of the Bible would be able to tell you that.

Literally is and always was.

"In God we trust", very separate lol.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
Even if /hat was the case, legalizing same-sex marriage affects no one except for that couple. Even if marriage was a Christian institution, it no longer is just that, so any authority they would have on the matter is inconsequential.

How can you say that when we are discussing a woman being put in jail for 5 days for her beliefs?

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
Salvador Dali was Spanish and only lived in the US for eight years after he had gotten married, and their marriage was not recognized in the US during that time. Elton John is British and married in England. Freddie Mercury never married his partner. Your argument is invalid on the grounds of ignorance.

You are pretending that USA is the only country in the world rather than addressing my question?

This indicates to me that you really have no argument at all lol...

People have always had equal marriage rights regardless of sexuality, saying otherwise is ignorance or wilful perversion of the truth.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
ImmortalPig is offline  
Old Sep 19, 2015   #43
SruX
Senior Member
 
10th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,349



you break the law you go to jail If you religion breaks the law i guess you could call that a cult
ok
SruX is offline  
Old Sep 19, 2015   #44
hawkesnightmare
WHERE'S MY DRINK?!
 
10th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,632



Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Yes they are.

How so? I'm not going to play the "yes, no" game.


Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
No, people are people even when they are clocked in, this is why SCOTUS ruled she had the protection of the 1st amendment.

I need some sauce for this. As far as I can tell, SCOTUS has not ruled anything of the sort, but instead has only issued her a court order to do her job.


Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Not true as per the previously discussed case.

Show me exactly what you're looking at that says that. The case you mentioned is one of the cases that prompted the SCOTUS to look at the 14th amendment and rule that for-profit corporations count as people as well.


Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
And that's purely baseless speculation, I'm not even going to bother to make an argument against fantasy.

It's baseless speculation to think that banning everyone who walks into a store with their left foot first would hurt sales quite a bit? I want you to count how many times you enter any doorway with your left foot over the course of this next week. And don't purposely do your right foot, because I know you would do that sort of thing.


Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Uh, no, your argument was "You can't deny someone service for walking into the store with their left foot first", not "they might lose money" or "it would be strange".

I meant that they cannot pass a law that denies left foot firsters, but it would be a strange rule for businesses to implement.


Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Literally is and always was.

"In God we trust", very separate lol.

Nope, the US was never founded as a Christian nation. I noticed you didn't address my reasons why it is not, so if you would be so kind, rebut those statements.


Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
How can you say that when we are discussing a woman being put in jail for 5 days for her beliefs?

I feel like you quoted the wrong bit to respond to. In case you didn't, she was put in jail because she broke the law and because she imposed her beliefs on others. Pig, are you black? Because I might just start believing that blacks should be slaves again. And since apparently it's not against the law to own slaves because I believe that, you won't object if I remove you from your family and take all of your possessions. Unless it is against the law. In which case you need to address my point that you left out of your last argument.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Since you've said that the Constitution is not a set of laws, I would like you to confirm on the record that soldiers can commandeer your home, you are not entitled to a trial if arrested, you can keep slaves, and the government can deny blacks and women from voting. Unless you meant to say that the constitution as a whole is "the law" but is composed of "a laws".



Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
You are pretending that USA is the only country in the world rather than addressing my question?

This indicates to me that you really have no argument at all lol...

People have always had equal marriage rights regardless of sexuality, saying otherwise is ignorance or wilful perversion of the truth.

We are talking about same-sex marriage in the US. Not same-sex marriage in Spain or England. Taking a vacation and getting married in England is not an option for a few reasons, the most notable of which was that before same-sex marriage was legalized in the US, a marriage performed in another country that did not conform to the US definition of marriage was not considered valid, and the couple was not eligible for the benefits that come from being married.
All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That's how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day.
hawkesnightmare is offline  
Old Sep 19, 2015   #45
GIVEtake
Junior Member
 
Orange Belt
Join Date: Aug 2015



I watched an incredible video where someone was asked about gay marriage.
They said:
"The argument for gay marriage not being natural is fucking dumb.
I mean, when do you see a bunch of sparrows getting their sparrow friends and having a ceremony about love?"

Pretty much, people deserve to love eachother, and if marriage sanctifies that, then they deserve to be married.
Nobody gets my references.
Any tree can drop an apple. I'll drop the freaking moon!
GIVEtake is offline  
Old Sep 19, 2015   #46
SmallBowl
Better than Viddah
 
10th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 3,319
Clan: Parrot



Originally Posted by ImmortalPig View Post
Yes they are.
People have always had equal marriage rights regardless of sexuality, saying otherwise is ignorance or wilful perversion of the truth.

Ok Im going to argue only with this point (its not the only bit I strongly disagree with but its uhhh one of the worst)

how can you think that same sex couples have always had the same marriage rights as other couples. Same sex marriage was only relatively recently legalised in the UK (and US as well I think)

and if you say "oh they can always go abroad to get married" then its still not the same marriage rights, are you seriously saying that being forced to leave the country in order to have a marriage is having the same marriage rights as being able to be married pretty much wherever you want? (Hawkinsnightmare's point on this was also valid)






Just on an off note, I can see the argument against same sex marriage; marriage is a christian ceremony, the point of which is to have children from the married couple, of course same sex couples cannot do this and therefore the nature of marriage is different to what was intended when marriage was conceptualized.

I also dont think adoption is included in this as I think the point is that the child is conceived by the married couple.


^^^this is all only if I have correctly understood what Im on about^^^
[11:49.10] <Scorp> i wish they would ban the chinese
Please note, this quote was not taken out of context
SmallBowl is offline  
Old Sep 19, 2015   #47
Zelda
 
4th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,965



Originally Posted by GIVEtake View Post
I watched an incredible video where someone was asked about gay marriage.
They said:
"The argument for gay marriage not being natural is fucking dumb.
I mean, when do you see a bunch of sparrows getting their sparrow friends and having a ceremony about love?"

Pretty much, people deserve to love eachother, and if marriage sanctifies that, then they deserve to be married.

Initially I felt like this statement was so self evident that it verged on being pointless but I am willing to try to argue against it to see what happens.

One of the definitions of unnatural (and the one which makes the most sense in the arguments context and in the context of the prejudices of those making the argument) is: "(of feelings or behaviour) contrary to what is seen as normal, conventional, or acceptable".

So, what you are essentially saying is that people generally view homosexuality as the norm. I do not believe this to be the case and (while not wanting to sound like a tumblr user) would argue that heteronormativity is still deeply engraved in our cultural conscious. This means that it is apt to describe homosexuality as unnatural. While this being used as an argument against the legalisation of gay marriage obviously misguided and to a certain extent ignorant, the opposition you posed to the statement was similarly ignorant (in this case in the contextual definition of the word "unnatural" rather than to the historical shift of cultural preconceptions).

Basically the idea of the behaviour of sparrows having anything to do with this argument is almost as absurd as the argument you are opposing.

Before you explain how none of this was what you meant please consider how you had literally no idea about, or at least completely failed to recall the existence of, the other definition of the word "unnatural" and how convinced you were that the argument you were opposing meant something which it in actual fact doesn't.

Now onto the second half of your post which I am afraid that I can't hope to completely disprove. All I can do is show that it is only ever true for a maximum of 10% of the time.
Originally Posted by GIVEtake
Pretty much, people deserve to love each other, and if marriage sanctifies that, then they deserve to be married.

The definition of "deserve" basically summarises it as meaning "the be worthy of". The only relevant definition of worthy which is not simply the reverse (and therefore the only one which is useful to us) is just "good enough; suitable".

So essentially your argument is that people are suitable to love each other, and if marriage sanctifies that then they are suitable to be married (the idea of being good enough is impossible to apply to such an amoral subject as homosexual marriage).

This is an easy thing to asses since marriage is "the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law". I would like to ignore the distinction of it being specifically between a man and a woman because fuck that (note that I am not claiming it is incorrect, I would just rather not recognise it as such and therefore not at all).

Now homosexual marriage is only recognised by the law where people live for 10% of the worlds population.

To summarise, your statement is that People are suitable for their love to be sanctified by the legal recognition of their formal union. Which is only true for 10% of people.

Just in case I have not made myself clear to everyone about this, I have nothing against homosexual marriage or homosexuality. I am mostly just posting this to demonstrate why overly obvious posts such as GIVEtake's are really difficult to argue against for anyone with less than an hour to spend doing so. Furthermore, the posts arguing against them are likely to either be unpleasantly wrong (if made by genuine homophobes) or incredibly uninteresting and time consuming to read.
Good morning sweet princess

Last edited by Zelda; Sep 19, 2015 at 06:40 PM.. Reason: realised it was a lot shorter than I thought
Zelda is offline  
Old Sep 20, 2015   #48
ImmortalPig
ub3r
 
Yellow Belt
Join Date: Jun 2013
Clan: fl0w



Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
How so? I'm not going to play the "yes, no" game.

Because she was put in jail for 5 days because of her religion.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
I need some sauce for this. As far as I can tell, SCOTUS has not ruled anything of the sort, but instead has only issued her a court order to do her job.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-556_3204.pdf

ctrl+f "first amendment"

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
It's baseless speculation to think that banning everyone who walks into a store with their left foot first would hurt sales quite a bit? I want you to count how many times you enter any doorway with your left foot over the course of this next week. And don't purposely do your right foot, because I know you would do that sort of thing.

Lol are you really going to continue this baseless train of thought? I'd just like to remind you that you are SERIOUSLY arguing that businesses are not allowed to ban left-foot-firsters from their property.

This is pointless conjecture apparently only so you can claim an imaginary victory...

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
I meant that they cannot pass a law that denies left foot firsters, but it would be a strange rule for businesses to implement.

If that was what you meant then you would have said that, instead of saying "You can't deny someone service for walking into the store with their left foot first". In the first place, businsses can't pass laws so that makes the argument even more incomprehensible.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
Nope, the US was never founded as a Christian nation. I noticed you didn't address my reasons why it is not, so if you would be so kind, rebut those statements.

USA has always been majority Christian, this majority extends from general population, to gov't employees, senate, cabinet, at every level USA is Christian.

"In God We Trust" - does this ring in bells? It's only the official motto of the USA, and part of the lyrics of the national anthem, and printed on the currency.

USA is secular in name only, but it is and always was a Christian nation.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
I feel like you quoted the wrong bit to respond to. In case you didn't, she was put in jail because she broke the law and because she imposed her beliefs on others. Pig, are you black? Because I might just start believing that blacks should be slaves again. And since apparently it's not against the law to own slaves because I believe that, you won't object if I remove you from your family and take all of your possessions. Unless it is against the law. In which case you need to address my point that you left out of your last argument.

Oh, did Christianity only just start disliking gays?

Oh wait no, the USA only just changed the definition of marriage.

How about you take a more /realistic/ metaphor and say that you are against slavery, and suddenly the gov't institutes slavery and tells you it's your job to register people as slaves. Of course, it's the law so you have no qualms with doing this because as previously established, law = morality.

Originally Posted by hawkesnightmare View Post
We are talking about same-sex marriage in the US. Not same-sex marriage in Spain or England. Taking a vacation and getting married in England is not an option for a few reasons, the most notable of which was that before same-sex marriage was legalized in the US, a marriage performed in another country that did not conform to the US definition of marriage was not considered valid, and the couple was not eligible for the benefits that come from being married.

lol who said anything about taking a vacation.

Originally Posted by SmallBowl View Post
Ok Im going to argue only with this point (its not the only bit I strongly disagree with but its uhhh one of the worst)

how can you think that same sex couples have always had the same marriage rights as other couples. Same sex marriage was only relatively recently legalised in the UK (and US as well I think)

and if you say "oh they can always go abroad to get married" then its still not the same marriage rights, are you seriously saying that being forced to leave the country in order to have a marriage is having the same marriage rights as being able to be married pretty much wherever you want? (Hawkinsnightmare's point on this was also valid)

What rights were they lacking then?

No one seems to be able to tell me that lol. "Marriage equality" with regard to sexuality has always existed. Tbh I've never even heard of anyone being asked their sexuality at the registrar. Tell me how many people were denied based on their sexuality, heck, if you can find even one I'd be impressed.

People have always had equal marriage rights regardless of sexuality, saying otherwise is ignorance or wilful perversion of the truth.

Originally Posted by SmallBowl View Post
Just on an off note, I can see the argument against same sex marriage; marriage is a christian ceremony, the point of which is to have children from the married couple, of course same sex couples cannot do this and therefore the nature of marriage is different to what was intended when marriage was conceptualized.

I also dont think adoption is included in this as I think the point is that the child is conceived by the married couple.


^^^this is all only if I have correctly understood what Im on about^^^

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

Originally Posted by GIVEtake View Post
I watched an incredible video where someone was asked about gay marriage.
They said:
"The argument for gay marriage not being natural is fucking dumb.
I mean, when do you see a bunch of sparrows getting their sparrow friends and having a ceremony about love?"

Pretty much, people deserve to love eachother, and if marriage sanctifies that, then they deserve to be married.

Sure how about I marry Daidouji Tomoyo, who are you to stand in the way of my love?!

lol why don't we just open up the definition of marriage to "you can marry anything you want", share the love!!!

This is a great and revolutionary idea my friend, why do words even have meanings? I got a good one, I like hamburgers but I like pizza better, guys let's just make hamburger = pizza, problem solved then I can eat pizza more often. Do you ever see sparrows gather around and put grilled minced meat in a bun? EXACTLY.

Another thing that really ticks me off is when you go to the shop and want to buy, say, a ipad, and all you have is a handful of sand. Wouldn't it be great if that sand was dollars? Well let's just do that then, we can all be rich just go to the beach and scoop up a bucket full of sand - sparrows don't even have a concept of ownership so who gives a shit if I buy an ipad with sand, I think I deserve it.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff

Last edited by ImmortalPig; Sep 20, 2015 at 07:58 AM..
ImmortalPig is offline  
Old Sep 20, 2015   #49
Thorn
I am the state.
 
3rd Dan Black Belt
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,378
Clan: spirit



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson - This case set legal precedence for the denial of marriage licenses based on sexuality.

July 1st, 1973 - Maryland bans same sex marriage.

1977 - Florida, California, and Wyoming ban same sex marriage in statute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act - Federal act that states that same sex marriages are unrecognized by the federal government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentuc...al_Amendment_1 - 2004 state amendment in Kentucky that makes it unconstitutional for the state to recognize same sex marriages or civil unions.

Technically, anyone can get married for any reason regardless of legal regulations, but this thread is about denying validation of same-sex marriage in the context of American law, which has been a problem with the United States since the 60s. Same sex couples have had the natural right to get married, but not the legal right, which is what matters in this context.
Omnia Mori
sed Evici Amor
Thorn is offline  
Old Sep 20, 2015   #50
SmallBowl
Better than Viddah
 
10th Dan Black Belt
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 3,319
Clan: Parrot



What rights were they lacking then?

the right to get married freely?...

No one seems to be able to tell me that lol. "Marriage equality" with regard to sexuality has always existed.

We’re now at 10% of the world’s population, up from zero little more than a decade ago.
so what youre incinuating is that although ~90% of gay couples cant get married without travelling across the world, they have the same marriage rights as straight couples all of whom can get married wherever they what whenever they want?

We know it is a fact that 50 years ago there was nowhere in the world gay couples could get married, we also know you think gay couples have always had equal marriage rights. Are yousaying that not being able to marry at all and being able to marry is having the same marriage rights?

In other words do you think having marriage rights and not having them is the same thing?

Tbh I've never even heard of anyone being asked their sexuality at the registrar. Tell me how many people were denied based on their sexuality, heck, if you can find even one I'd be impressed.

how about the case that this thread is about ._.

the reason they dont get asked is because usually you can tell, I mean its abit of a giveaway if both of the people wanting to get married are men

and how about all the people who wanted ti get married in the 20th century, they all got denied

People have always had equal marriage rights regardless of sexuality, saying otherwise is ignorance or wilful perversion of the truth

"We’re now at 10% of the world’s population, up from zero little more than a decade ago"

how does that not alert you to unequal rights
[11:49.10] <Scorp> i wish they would ban the chinese
Please note, this quote was not taken out of context
SmallBowl is offline  
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:41 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ragdoll fighting game physics fighting game ragdoll fighting physics funmotion joints martial arts karate pc mac free game turn based game