• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Unpopular Opinions

Icky

is the prettiest pony~
Everyone is fine with the government until they have negative dealings with them. The American prison system is so incredibly barbaric and wicked that it really will make you question your society a lot more should you research it. The insane asylums of old were/still are? even worse. "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." ~ Fyodor Dostoyevsky... which really sums up my feelings exactly.

Even worse is Gitmo. We think of ourselves as the good guys but the stuff that goes on there will quickly dispel those notions, especially when some people there are completely innocent, merely associated with the wrong people at the wrong time. And that's not to mention the horrible wars and secret experiments the society has been involved with... but as laypeople, it is much easier just to suppress that knowledge and focus on the good of our great nation. But can you really whiteout that much evil with some good deeds?

I actually spent a few good months living in the mountains ironically enough, sleeping in a tent in the woods and emerging into town to work and for supplies. It is quite a life-changing experience, and makes you have a very different view on nature. People sometimes romanticize nature, but if you have to live in the wilderness, you will quickly have mixed feelings on it. Sure the beauty and freedom is great, but there's a lot of evil inherent in nature that will sicken you. I saw some animals killing and eating other creatures and there's nothing peaceful about that. Neither is the injustice of illness and starvation, but despite that, you really cannot beat the clean air and fresh breeze on your face, nor the stars and the trees.

We will one day I think transcend the laws of physics and even change them. We already can fly when we shouldn't be able to as a species without legs... heck we can leave our atmosphere and enter space and live in there for extended periods of time thanks to our wonderful technology. I don't think it is impossible to literally change the laws of reality with significantly advanced technology... anything is possible with science.

Who the hell is "we"? Society is rapidly advancing towards these exciting futures, but you obviously don't want to be a part of any of it. Without any of the safeties living in a governed nation provides, nobody would be able to advance technology past "making a pointier stick than my neighbor". You're cherrypicking the ugly parts of civilization while bragging about how awesome technology is a paragraph later. Do you even know what you want, or are you just rambling and making up these long-winded rants as you go?
 
Who the hell is "we"? Society is rapidly advancing towards these exciting futures, but you obviously don't want to be a part of any of it. Without any of the safeties living in a governed nation provides, nobody would be able to advance technology past "making a pointier stick than my neighbor". You're cherrypicking the ugly parts of civilization while bragging about how awesome technology is a paragraph later. Do you even know what you want, or are you just rambling and making up these long-winded rants as you go?

The only way government aids scientific research is via taking the money of tax payers, by force, and putting it to initiatives and organizations like NASA. There has been some recent advancements in the private sector by INDIVIDUAL billionaires, however, which shows that scientific research can in fact be from the initiative of individuals, not by the coercion of the state's goals. Most great inventions were invented by individuals, regardless, and they were done in many cases in private situations. The idea that government is required for scientific and technological progress is laughable.
 

Icky

is the prettiest pony~
The only way government aids scientific research is via taking the money of tax payers, by force, and putting it to initiatives and organizations like NASA. There has been some recent advancements in the private sector by INDIVIDUAL billionaires, however, which shows that scientific research can in fact be from the initiative of individuals, not by the coercion of the state's goals. Most great inventions were invented by individuals, regardless, and they were done in many cases in private situations. The idea that government is required for scientific and technological progress is laughable.

So tell me. Why were these great inventors and scientists not out in the woods, picking their own food to survive?

Ohhhh, right, because a little thing called organized society gives them that luxury to. Again, in a true state of anarchy, the only advancements that could ever get made would be finding the biggest rock to smash your enemy's head in.
 
This is all well and fine in theory, but humans can be selfish creatures, most of the time they are. To live in the Anarchy you describe will always result in cases like that of the Native Americans. Humans do not have the required mind-state to live that way. Nature, animals and such, only take what they need and that is a very rare occurrence amongst humans.
We have by no means "transcended nature" either. We cannot be apart from nature otherwise we die.

Being selfish is much preferred to being a misplaced altruists. The Muslim who slaughters the infidel is doing it in the name of his version of good, a selfish one would not care to purge the world of the wicked, so long as the wicked don't personally effect him. Truly selfish types are actually very very rare, and the vast majority of damage is not done by individuals advancing self-interest, but rather, individuals executing their version of what is good for the world. Hard to see a bunch of Wall Street going on religious crusades. It won't always result in tribal communities, again, agrarian societies circumvent the requirement of that, furthermore, I disagree with your notion we cannot function without someone in power telling us what to do. Also nature doesn't have an equilibrium, that is a myth. Nature is only one bad evolution away from wiping all life off the planet, humans also can prevent catalysts like this... grass almost did it a very long time ago. Look how widespread the common grass seed is. You get something that evolved too good and it can and will end all life... but of course the sun consuming itself, meteors colliding with the planet, and a host of other non-biological methods are possible as well.

Regulation by government is very weak in many parts of the world. If mankind was to over-consume resources, then no amount of government influence can stop it, it is simply logistically impossible. We have transcended nature by being able to go to the bottom of the ocean, by leaving Earth's atmosphere... these things are biologically impossible for us, but we alter nature, hence it is no longer nature, to allow us to do it. It is also possible in my opinion to one day alter the physics of reality as well, essentially reprogramming reality itself... although that is far beyond current abilities, it is as possible and alien as the internet would've been five thousand years ago.

Furthermore, we could hypothetically upload our conciousness to a computer system and live via solar power indefinitely, again, a hypothetical proposition... unless you define nature as everything that is, regardless of being altered, then the word nature becomes moot, and can be replaced with everything.
 
So tell me. Why were these great inventors and scientists not out in the woods, picking their own food to survive?

Ohhhh, right, because a little thing called organized society gives them that luxury to. Again, in a true state of anarchy, the only advancements that could ever get made would be finding the biggest rock to smash your enemy's head in.

Organization != government. You can organize for mutualistic benefit with a specific overhead. Five people can work to build a house without a sixth to force them to do it a certain way and punish them for disobeying. Organization is not necessarily evil, government is.
 

Icky

is the prettiest pony~
Organization != government. You can organize for mutualistic benefit with a specific overhead. Five people can work to build a house without a sixth to force them to do it a certain way and punish them for disobeying. Organization is not necessarily evil, government is.

So you don't actually want an anarchy, you just want the government to be called something else. What about the Fun Club? Or the Coalition-Of-People-Organized-for-Mutualistic-Benefit-with-a-Specific-Overhead-But-Not-the-Government? Eh, that second one isn't as catchy as Fun Club, but I'll come up with some others.
 
So you don't actually want an anarchy, you just want the government to be called something else. What about the Fun Club? Or the Coalition-Of-People-Organized-for-Mutualistic-Benefit-with-a-Specific-Overhead-But-Not-the-Government? Eh, that second one isn't as catchy as Fun Club, but I'll come up with some others.

As long as you can opt-out, not much problem, do I have. You cannot opt-out of government without moving to another nation and serving another... you guessed it, government.
 

Icky

is the prettiest pony~
As long as you can opt-out, not much problem, do I have. You cannot opt-out of government without moving to another nation and serving another... you guessed it, government.

But we can call the other one the Super Fun Club! They'll give out free pastries to all the citizens FUNizens every Monday, as long as everyone chips in a mandatory percent of their wages for the cause.

Oh, wait, did I say mandatory? I meant FUN-datory!

if you aren't getting the point by now then, christ, there's no hope for you anyway
 

Ahzek M'kar

Anal Centipede
Being selfish is much preferred to being a misplaced altruists. The Muslim who slaughters the infidel is doing it in the name of his version of good, a selfish one would not care to purge the world of the wicked, so long as the wicked don't personally effect him. Truly selfish types are actually very very rare, and the vast majority of damage is not done by individuals advancing self-interest, but rather, individuals executing their version of what is good for the world. Hard to see a bunch of Wall Street going on religious crusades. It won't always result in tribal communities, again, agrarian societies circumvent the requirement of that, furthermore, I disagree with your notion we cannot function without someone in power telling us what to do. Also nature doesn't have an equilibrium, that is a myth. Nature is only one bad evolution away from wiping all life off the planet, humans also can prevent catalysts like this... grass almost did it a very long time ago. Look how widespread the common grass seed is. You get something that evolved too good and it can and will end all life... but of course the sun consuming itself, meteors colliding with the planet, and a host of other non-biological methods are possible as well.

Regulation by government is very weak in many parts of the world. If mankind was to over-consume resources, then no amount of government influence can stop it, it is simply logistically impossible. We have transcended nature by being able to go to the bottom of the ocean, by leaving Earth's atmosphere... these things are biologically impossible for us, but we alter nature, hence it is no longer nature, to allow us to do it. It is also possible in my opinion to one day alter the physics of reality as well, essentially reprogramming reality itself... although that is far beyond current abilities, it is as possible and alien as the internet would've been five thousand years ago.

Furthermore, we could hypothetically upload our conciousness to a computer system and live via solar power indefinitely, again, a hypothetical proposition... unless you define nature as everything that is, regardless of being altered, then the word nature becomes moot, and can be replaced with everything.

I think it's interesting you use specifically a Muslim as your example, somewhat offensive to me having Syrian ancestry. The idea of killing someone in the name another's ideal is not specific to them.
I would regard the taking of another's life for any sort of reason other than mercy to be selfish, though that's something not many would like to admit. Where did I say humans cannot function without a presence in power over us? My statement was that humans do not have the required mind-set to live in any form of Anarchic society with mutual respect for what is and is not acceptable.
We have not altered nature, it remains the same, we cannot breath in space or water. We have merely created tools to suit our nature, the breathing apparatus for example does not allow us to breath underwater, it allows us to breath in a certain space that is perceived to be underwater. Changing our nature would be genetically altering ourselves to have gills.
Our planet is one evolution away from destruction? Yet it has survived for over 40 million years up until now without our assistance, we are not Gods, the planet has does and will function without us and if such a thing were to happen the rest of the lifeforms here would change to suit it, that is evolution. Where did you hear this about grass, I've never heard nor can I find anything about it.
I find it hard to believe we would ever be able to change physics. We barely understand 1% of it as it is, just a few years ago one of our major thoughts about it were proven wrong by the discovery that Black Holes can close, which also battered our ideas about time as well. We are by no means near such an achievement, I doubt we would see it even in the next 10,000 years.
 
I think it's interesting you use specifically a Muslim as your example, somewhat offensive to me having Syrian ancestry.

Syrians had their own belief systems before Islam, but I see what you are saying. I'm willing to wager a number of people in various communities around the world since antiquity did not in fact believe the popular religion of their time. For all you know your ancestors could've been atheists or followers of some religion lost to time. I find it interesting to associate religion with ethnicity. In many cases, you did not have a choice but to practice the religion of your governing peoples or face punishment, even death. Muslims are the most obvious example in modern times, because by and large, they are the predominant religious group engaging in violent conversion. They are the only major world religion to have actual laws governing the people of their nations in regards to how you may or may not live, according to their religion. They are not only not believers in separation of church and state, but in many cases, they are very much one and the same. There's loads of people living in Islamic countries that would really enjoy not having it forced upon them, how many is uncertain, as you will in fact fact real problems for being a vocal atheist or non-Muslim in those nations, and that is a fact you can lookup. Christianity and Judaism and other minor religions had similar persecutions of people in their past... but I don't know of a single religion outside Islam that has that kind of power in the modern world, aside from perhaps the Vatican in the Holy See and Judaism in Israel. For the most part... religion is on the decline in terms of power, and secular authority is on the rise.

The idea of killing someone in the name another's ideal is not specific to them.

Indeed not, but they are the most prolific religious group to still do so today. There is a huge debate as to whether these actions are religiously or politically motivated, however, and I personally think politics has a much larger hand to play here.

I would regard the taking of another's life for any sort of reason other than mercy to be selfish, though that's something not many would like to admit.

When those Christians used to burn "witches" at the stake they did so to save their soul from damnation. Now this to us is ludricious, but in the context of their belief system, killing someone on Earth to spare them an eternity of torment as a very merciful thing. Context is everything... I see nothing selfish about that. The only way you could kill someone and consider it selfish, would be if you killed someone for their possessions, or something that directly benefits you personally. Killing for an ideal is not selfish, likewise, evil is often not selfish either. Selfishness is more of a morally grey idea... unless of course it crosses to extremes like killing people and looting them of their money... which is pretty much evil, unless survival itself is at stake, which becomes a more complex issue. But killing someone for their X-BOX is obviously evil and stupid, but that's an example of selfishness. Killing for an ideal cannot be selfish, as the self does not directly benefit.

Where did I say humans cannot function without a presence in power over us? My statement was that humans do not have the required mind-set to live in any form of Anarchic society with mutual respect for what is and is not acceptable.

These two statements are not mutually exclusive. A power over use sets what is and what is not acceptable... in a term known as laws, and forces them to be obeyed by punishing those who violate said values. Since as what you said is correct, laws constantly are in a flux and change quite often. However... there general ideas are that you don't kill me, I won't kill you, you don't steal from me, I won't steal from you. We can agree on basic tenets, without agreeing on specific ideas. Don't mess with me I won't mess with you is the rule of the land in an anarchy.

We have not altered nature, it remains the same, we cannot breath in space or water. We have merely created tools to suit our nature, the breathing apparatus for example does not allow us to breath underwater, it allows us to breath in a certain space that is perceived to be underwater. Changing our nature would be genetically altering ourselves to have gills.

Genetic alteration and technological alteration are literally the same thing. The end result is you've modified nature to suit your ends. Even if technology can be separated from you, while you are using it, you are effectively altered. I fail to see a difference here. Anyway nature by definition is the unaltered state of reality. Once you alter it, it becomes artificial, or man-made. That's a textbook definition. Artificial = not natural = not nature. Technology = artificial = not natural, genetic modification = artificial = man made = not natural. See?

Our planet is one evolution away from destruction? Yet it has survived for over 40 million years up until now without our assistance, we are not Gods, the planet has does and will function without us and if such a thing were to happen the rest of the lifeforms here would change to suit it, that is evolution.

Evolution is completely random governed only by what works best. If a beast evolves to over-hunt its prey, it dies out, but so does it prey. If a beast can eat any organic matter, all life dies out. See how that works? An extreme example, but certainly possible. 40 million years means nothing because it takes millions of years for significant evolutionary changes to occur... as in one species to go to another. Small changes won't make massive differences in ecosystems, but large changes will. Human intelligence is an example of a change that has massively changed the ecosystem. A bacteria that eats all life could be another.

Where did you hear this about grass, I've never heard nor can I find anything about it.

Millions of years ago there was no such a thing of grass. Grass evolves and now covers much of the world's surface. It goes to show how widespread a successful mutation can become. Dandelions are another good example. Let weeds grow in your garden and they will kill the other plants there... all it takes is an unlucky thing to evolve that is too successful to wipe out an entire ecosystem... and this HAS happened. The vast majority of species to ever have lived are now extinct. Luckily nature balances itself in the fact that if you eat all your food you die as well, but now two species have still gone extinct. Get a species that eats everything and has no predators, and you are in trouble.

I find it hard to believe we would ever be able to change physics. We barely understand 1% of it as it is, just a few years ago one of our major thoughts about it were proven wrong by the discovery that Black Holes can close, which also battered our ideas about time as well. We are by no means near such an achievement, I doubt we would see it even in the next 10,000 years.

Even so we will one day see a change. Think how insane the idea of a cellphone would've sounded to cavemen or even men in the 18th century. Imagine talking to someone across the world... or even seeing their face and moving pictures with sound! All within milliseconds second of delay! That is something you wouldn't comprehend back then... so very likely such things can be possible. Again, I can't prove it without inventing it... but I feel it is the case. Also, technological breakthroughs are not gradual progressions over a long period of time, sometimes, it occurs in very rapid amounts over a very small period of time. Take computers for example, or the internet. Only a few decades old and look how much has changed. The digital revolution itself is less than fifty years old, and look how fast it has advanced.

Lookup the singularity to see what is coming... likely.
 

Ahzek M'kar

Anal Centipede

Islam had one of the most peaceful attitudes in the middle-ages, this extremism nowadays is the result of people manipulating the message of the Qur'an to suit their own needs, the same for all religions. Before Islam Syria had a Pantheon, Baal, El, Nurgal, etc, etc. But times change, and so do beliefs, whatever the beliefs they had at the moment my kin follow Islam and so any insult to Islam is an insult to them. While what you say is true, it was only true for new beginnings, today the religion of Syria is Islam, and it is not enforced with the penalty of death. Christianity was no different, in fact it was worse and time is no excuse; it's leaders have yet to answer for their crimes. And the only ones who forced Islam upon citizens are extremists who, up until now, were not tolerated at all by their country's governments.


They are politically motivated, as were the actions of Christians centuries ago. If these people truly valued their faith, then war would be the furthest thought from their minds, and they are a minority which do not represent the majority of the religion. Islam is not a inherently violent faith.


Again, if the safety of these "witches" was the interest of the Inquisition, then they would have never have burnt them. The process of burning them was nothing to do with saving their souls either, it was assumed that these "holy men" had the right to enact "God's will" upon "Heathens", none of which was concerned with the said witches souls. It was done to send a message, question us or turn away from us and die. Even if they had good intentions in mind, that still does not pardon them, God's will was for whatever deity who presides to carry out, they were being selfish and arrogant by taking it into their own hands, something which their own belief makes clear they had no right to do.


I would judge what is and is not acceptable by whether it harms another, and if it does, how it harms them. And as I said, there are those who have no respect for the ideals of "leave me alone, and I will leave you alone". There will always be conquerors, for better and for worse, and with such people the idea of living in mutual respect for one another's lives is impossible.


Artificially made changes to our nature are still changes to our nature, technological methods merely work around our nature. Breathing apparatus or no breathing apparatus, man still cannot breath in water or space; our nature has not changed, but our technology provides the circumstance for our nature to exist in places it should not. Granted, this is bending the rules of nature, but what we are has not changed. Altering ourselves is artificial, but it changes us nonetheless, to give ourselves gills would be to change our nature to that of an amphibian (which would also require other changes to skin and such) rather than that land-dwelling creature. Genetic modification alters our nature, where technology bends it.


Evolution works to provide creatures with the tools to compete with one another, which is why some have developed venom and others constriction. If a predator evolves eventually it's prey will. They are locked in an eternal dance and are not independent of one another. There are example I could give, but their names have slipped from my mind.
For the above quotes I would recommend you have a gander at the Gaia theory (it is nothing New Age) of how the Earth's ecosystem regulates itself. Call it coincidence, but many animals, such as Sheep, Cows, Goats, etc, etc would be happy to eat those weeds, and they would eat them.


Our technological breakthroughs are not gradual, but our understanding of how to make those breakthroughs are. Once we comprehend something then advancements follow, but history has shown that we take time to realise how to work these things before we mass produce them.

My apologizes to anyone for the large reply.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
The only way government aids scientific research is via taking the money of tax payers, by force, and putting it to initiatives and organizations like NASA. There has been some recent advancements in the private sector by INDIVIDUAL billionaires, however, which shows that scientific research can in fact be from the initiative of individuals, not by the coercion of the state's goals. Most great inventions were invented by individuals, regardless, and they were done in many cases in private situations. The idea that government is required for scientific and technological progress is laughable.

A while ago you claimed that the monolithic coorporations that support such individuals were a negative result of the existence of a state. You can't have things both ways.
 

Rebel Of Epona

WTF is a Nerf Herder?¿?
On the part of altering nature, in a sense we havnt. Simply, we have used the major part of nature to our advantage due to our.excessive mental capability and understanding. That major part is physics. As our understanding of physics grew and spread by the great men who finally figured them out, we started using them as well as developed scientific theory. As Albert Einstein said: All things in nature, time, and space are bound by the Laws Of Physics. They can not be altered or changed... simply put, though we can use them more and more to advance technology and civilization, we can not alter and change them. We simply can understand them more with time. And nature is controled by the Laws Of Physics, thus nature is physics, thus cannot be altered. We can alter enviroment and biology through understanding of physics, but nature is more than enviroment and biology or technology, and small fractions can be changed, yes. But as a whole absolutely not. They are laws for a reason, and not theory. And we have zero control of them, no matter what or who somone does.

The way you speak, you sound like you're saying that all of nature can and will be altered by the human race. Thatd be like saying we'll be able to warp and control the Space/Time Continuum, which even Steven Hawkins dont believe lol. We might be able to learn to use such or understand it better but we cant alter it as its bound by physics. We cant alter true reality.
 
Last edited:

Fingerdawg

The Dawg with Fingers
I highly doubt the Human species will live longer than Dinosaurs, just based on what we've done to the earth alone. Our Knowledge was a curse in the disguise of bliss.
 

Machine

Shrieking Possum Queen
I highly doubt the Human species will live longer than Dinosaurs, just based on what we've done to the earth alone. Our Knowledge was a curse in the disguise of bliss.
I think the intelligence and adaptability of humans will keep us alive much longer than a bunch of lizards with no thumbs.
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
I highly doubt the Human species will live longer than Dinosaurs, just based on what we've done to the earth alone. Our Knowledge was a curse in the disguise of bliss.
I agree, but technological apocalypse is not the reason. Homo sapiens sapiens is just one species. Dinosauria is an entire clade of related species.

Clades last longer than the individual species that comprise them- and usually longer than the individual species in other groups.

I think the intelligence and adaptability of humans will keep us alive much longer than a bunch of lizards with no thumbs.

We've got a challenge then; first we'll have to kill all extant birds, because they are part of the dinosaur clade. x3
 

DrDingo

Moved to phoenix.corvidae.org with the others
We've got a challenge then; first we'll have to kill all extant birds, because they are part of the dinosaur clade. x3
If ya wanna get technical, dinosaurs are by definition a particular class of animals which existed between Jurassic and Cretaceous times. So birds today ain't dinosaurs anymore, just descendants.
 

Aleu

Deuces
If ya wanna get technical, dinosaurs are by definition a particular class of animals which existed between Jurassic and Cretaceous times. So birds today ain't dinosaurs anymore, just descendants.

Or those that just come down to Florida to retire
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
If ya wanna get technical, dinosaurs are by definition a particular class of animals which existed between Jurassic and Cretaceous times. So birds today ain't dinosaurs anymore, just descendants.
There is no abrupt point at which an animal stops being one thing and evolves into another. That's why Humans are still apes, and all apes are still monkeys.

"a majority of contemporary paleontologists concerned with dinosaurs reject the traditional style of classification in favor of phylogenetic nomenclature; this approach requires that, for a group to be natural, all descendants of members of the group must be included in the group as well. Birds are thus considered to be dinosaurs and dinosaurs are, therefore, not extinct"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosauria#Definition
 

Rebel Of Epona

WTF is a Nerf Herder?¿?
There is no abrupt point at which an animal stops being one thing and evolves into another. That's why Humans are still apes, and all apes are still monkeys.

"a majority of contemporary paleontologists concerned with dinosaurs reject the traditional style of classification in favor of phylogenetic nomenclature; this approach requires that, for a group to be natural, all descendants of members of the group must be included in the group as well. Birds are thus considered to be dinosaurs and dinosaurs are, therefore, not extinct"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosauria#Definition
One of the soul beliefs of Evolution I might add. A family tree, metaphorically, dosn just completely stop and reappear after thousands or millions of years. Its always existant and continuous, even if it changes its still there and still a related line.
 

CrazyLee

Biggest buttplug ever
S

Sar

Guest
Macs are for people who have more money than knowledge. They have second-grade components you can't change out with a price tag to boot. Its better to figure out dual-booting the OS on a cheaper PC. It's the same thing.

Alienware is for dumbass kids who want to seem loke badass hacker gamers. The ungrateful bastards force their parents to buy such an expensive PC just because it lights up as they play the Call of Doodies. Their parts are on par with most cheaper models of laptops. Foolish.

Seriously, just get a cheap ass laptop or prebuilt if you lack knowledge. Stop shitting money down the tube.

/unpopularcomputerrant

This FurryFoxFriend sounds like a 15 year old rebellious teenager
I wouldn't be surprised if he was one. It's naturally valid assumption.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Icky

is the prettiest pony~
There is no abrupt point at which an animal stops being one thing and evolves into another. That's why Humans are still apes, and all apes are still monkeys.

"a majority of contemporary paleontologists concerned with dinosaurs reject the traditional style of classification in favor of phylogenetic nomenclature; this approach requires that, for a group to be natural, all descendants of members of the group must be included in the group as well. Birds are thus considered to be dinosaurs and dinosaurs are, therefore, not extinct"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosauria#Definition

Fuck yeah.
 
Top