I was raised in an orphanage in rural area of Tanzania in East Africa and I came out OK, I was not damaged mentally or physically.I can’t accept the generalisation of people saying children's homes are bad places for children to be brought up in. Instead of criticising, i think efforts should go to better all orphanages.
Georgette Mulheir, you deserves a Nobel Prize for Humanitarian work in highlighting the 'wrongs' that is being systematically orchestrated. Thank You for all the work you do! Time is accelerating very fast, all the wrongs will be put to right as we get closer to Higher Level of Consciousness Event that begins on Dec 21st
(continued) The lack of psychological stimulation is devastating to an infant. While foster care is not perfect, and there will be cases of bad foster parents, it is a far better solution than institutional care. In addition, adoption is a much better option. The cost of adoption needs to be reduced and the barriers to adopting at a younger age need to be removed to reduce the effects of institutional care.
She has a lot of valid points, but as someone in the US, I hear about the horrors of foster homes all the time. I'm not so sure it's really the format, but the effort that causes the terrible outcomes we see. We seem to have a system that works well enough for adoption of very young children, but children who are older than infants and come from broken families don't seem to have much hope regardless of the system we choose. Committed communities would be best, but we don't have that.
Speaking as a child of adoption, I would like to make a statement. I personally think that orphanages are wonderful things. They are full of babies who have been abandoned by their parents. They are full of wonderful people who dedicate their life to taking care of children. The orphanage is a safe haven for orphans. In an orphanage, the child will be cared about [if it is not one on one love], fed & will have a place to sleep. I think orphanages are important to society...
I wan to comment, but there are already 42 comments, which is just right. I'm going to mess it up anyway. I think that you have connected the dots. Everything you said made me think and get a little sad, but very informative. I think it's amazing you've witness all these things.
Esse vídeo deveria ser matéria obrigatória para todos os juízes de direito, promotores de justiça, advogados, defensores públicos e conselheiros tutelares que atuam perante a justiça da infância no Brasil. É uma vergonha que o país ainda possua altos índices de acolhimento institucional. Escrevi um livro a respeito dos malefícios causados pelo prolongado acolhimento institucional. Um dia, luto por isso, os operadores do direito irão compreender os malefícios da institucionalização em massa de crianças e adolescentes que vem sendo praticada nos lugares mais pobres do Brasil.
This is why projects like Child's i Foundation are so necessary. They have proved that there is another option to institutional care in Uganda. Their transitional home and family support centre provide quality short-term care for babies; whilst their social work department ensures every child in our care grows up in a loving family in Uganda.
Thank you for your erudite, intelligent and helpful response. I am sure with this as a starting point we could have a robust interactive discussion that will help us overcome any petty prejudices and see the various facts and arguments more clearly.
I don't get why she's supporting foster care. Those poor kids often get abused and neglected by foster parents or they simply have to deal with people who don't care about them. They grow up damaged, too. Our poor orphans.
Yes, I have no idea how we can best serve older children and adolescents from broken homes. My best friend works in a youth crisis center, and some of the older kids there absolutely terrorize the center as well as the foster families that they are placed into. And some foster families are just in it for the money and don't care for the kids at all. I just can't see a happy ending for many of these kids no matter what we do. :\
You're correct prevention is better than cure, though it's instructive to actually formulate a cure as I suspect it help inform child rearing practices for the general population as well. Not only will we able to improve to lives of these orphans, but our society and social structures will be illuminated to an extent previously unimaginable. Our current technology and methodologies for examining these complex social and psychological issues are only improving....
orphanages should never go away, but they ought to be used for strictly orphans and noone else. In a situation like that they might be more efficient and the children would have better lives.
Hi my self I'am 1 of meny or fan's, who l a fill victim from Transilvania when never remain to that thru by " Romanian Orfan's, the really true reality story...!
Yes most people feel empathy for at least some others, but it has not more force as a moral code than the particular person's feelings toward another. It is completely subjective and therefore has no force to impose on others. I also feel desire, hunger, etc. What if those other feelings are stronger than my empathy toward another at that moment? Also, if value/ morality has simply evolved then it is descriptive of what it, but not prescriptive about what should be.
I dunno, we could frame the question as such: How do you replicate the bonding that occurs between mother and child? And then later child and family. And later still child and various social / educational activities.
Even those questions I suspect have no straightforward answer. I suggest that prevention is better than cure. Work hard on educating and improving the prosperity and security of our communities so that less children end up in orphanages. Encourage more parents to foster. Make orphanages more transparent to make it an obvious problem and keep the discourse public. Currently, the "problem" is hidden away so it's easy to ignore.
Empathy may be why we choose to consider the need of others sometimes and some call that morality, but it does not make it morality. Morals are obligations that I have to others, and my feelings do not make it necessary to do something. Many people do not act with empathy in many circumstances. Why should they if they want something else? Empathy is purely a subjective standard, and if materialism is right then morality does not exist. Morals are not physical, how could they exist?
What is morality if it is not universal? It is simply subjective rules made by those with the most power, so apparently we agree. If I get more power does that mean I can make the rules? Source does not matter if that source does not enforce the rules. From your perspective the only source that matters is who is in control right now. Morality is not really morality, it is just a will to power.
Orphanages in Europe have been villainized for centuries. That doesn't mean that all orphanages are similar. I have known families who have adopted special needs children and healthy children and all of the children have been cared for and raised with loving support. They would definitely oppose their own abortion or any other.
why would they be more efficient than to be adopted or in foster care? For small children anywhay. For teenagers I think, institutions are offten better. A family can feel too intimate, if a child feels a lot of loyalty to his biological family.
You can demonstrate that people feel morality, but not that they have an obligation to follow those feelings. Why do I have to follow my or your feelings? This is called the is - ought fallacy. I a purely physical world, my feelings or thoughts have more meaning than to me than what I give them. If I am simple a bunch of molecules in motion impacting other molecules in motion then how does one complicated piece of carbon have an obligation to another one?
First, thank you for the response. I think your question could be rephrased, why should it be based on anything? You last question indicates that we might have some sort of internal problem with killing some people, but is that internal feeling connected to anything outside ourselves. Should humans of any kind have any more worth than a rock? If the physical world is all that exists, then we are simple a collection of molecules. We can pretend otherwise, but at the core that is all we are.
Market forces? are you talking about yourself? Would you let the orphan die? if everyone will let an orphan die then the orphan will die. If some of the people in society would not let the orphan die than there is going to be charity to take care of it.
how about get the government out of it. There be more money in the market and charity organizations will emerge that will take care of it. There will be competition of services and best services will win. Instead of politicians arguing which service is best let the market decide.
My objection still holds then. There are varying degrees of sapience among humans. Apparently you think that at some point someone crosses the line from being worth of life to perhaps not having to be concerned about that life. What standard are you using to define that line?
Your example proves my point. Laws are obligations enforces by a group of people, but are not morals. They simply express the collective opinion of the people who enforce the laws. Do you think it is okay to murder Jews just because the laws of Nazi Germany said so? Were Stalin & Mao right to kill millions because they controlled the laws? What you are describing are subjective rules imposed by those with the power?
"I don't know about you but I put sapience well above the value of mere life." Why? And how much functioning? Does an Einstein have more value than an infant? Is value a sliding scale or intelligence? Do we then gain value as we become adults and lose it as we become older? Also, is this just your opinion of value or is there some objective measure of value that helps us decide which humans are more valuable than others?
If I don't know the difference between a fetus and a zygote then you don't know the difference between an infant and an adult, but I don't care about the differences I care about the similarities. I care about what gives human life value, and you still have not answered that question. Why does sapience of any measure give something value? How much sapience is necessary? When do we get that value, and when can we lose it? If I am knocked unconscious do I loss that value?
Yes of course, let profit driven corner cutters take care of the innocent and defensless. The market doesn't give a shit about kids that aren't consumers.
"If it's not then demonstrate it" I certain can demonstrate it to my own satisfaction, but not in the space limitations of this forum. Go to my challenge or str dot org for a longer defense if you are interest. But I will say that if the physical world is all there is, then we all have nothing. Meaning/ value/ morality is simply an exercise in individual feelings that are simply predetermined physical responses to stimuli anyway.
@Kris Saman so you're saying 90% of them grow up to be happy? Yes use protection, if one slips, instead of putting a baby in an orphanage, abort the fetus. Thia world's already too over populated.
I did not say I could demonstrate it to your satisfaction, but to mine. I can make a case based on evidence and reason, but whether you believe it or not is not something that I can control. I have read and listened to a number of arguments on both sides of the issue and I am convinced that belief in God explains the world better than a purely physical universe. Morality is one of those areas where God explains it, but it makes no sense in a world where everything is just physical forces.
No, I am claiming that when something has sapience is not clear cut. When for instance does it begin? Do infants have it? If so do fetuses have it? Do people with dementia have it? Do people who are unconscious have it? I also asked a second question that you have not answered, namely why is any level of sapience confer enough value to make something worth killing or not? You have not defined sapience in a clear way, nor have you defended why sapience confers value.
Not with the definition of corruption i given you. In fact its impossible for there to be that kind of corruption in free market. And the problem is that nowhere in the world libertarian ideas are in place. There used to be that america was founded upon them and america really was a land of a free and the wealthy. Now all of it is wasting away. People are always ruled by fear and not by reason so its easy to use words like "horror" and "crazy" to convince others.Using evidence is a little harder
Can you demonstrate morality? I mean what physical test are you going to run to show that I have any obligation to do anything other than what I want and can get away with? Morality is not scientifically testable because moral obligations are not physical.
Also, while sapience is a nice idea of yours, a lot of people don't agree with you about the value of all sapient life. Some people think skin color, nationality, or simply personal value to me should define how much I value someone. You seem to be assuming that those who disagree with you should recognize your standard as "the standard." Why should someone who has the power to impose their will like a dictator or a serial killer, care about someone else's ability to think?
How would you know what I deny or don't deny? You did not even take the time to understand the statement that I made. You made a knee-jerk reaction and assumed things, then you go so far as to insult me and wish harm to me? I am not sure how you ever get into rational discussion if insult is your first argument.
My evidence is objective, such things as minds, order, morality, consciousness, existence of anything, are observable but not explainable by philosophical naturalism, and are explainable by a personal creative God. First, the evolutionary explanation is simply a nice story, but is not testable science either. Second, as stated earlier, even if true it is descriptive of how moral ideas may have came to be in our brains, but not prescriptive for anyone.
It's always enlightening to come to the comment sections of videos about undebatable tragedies such as this, as you'll always find at least one person trying to debate it. Seeing the mind of a psychopath at work is utterly fascinating.
Abortion could be the number 1 enemy of orphanages. But no, "we need to give that baby a chance to live," blah blah. Yea to live, and then kill himself at an institution.. To live, miserably.
Furthermore, you continue to ignore the more important background question, why is sapience "the" factor for determining value? You can continue to claim straw man argument all you want, but I do not in fact see any argument. All I see is assertions with no defense or explanation.
You have made claims that you have not yet been willing to defend or explain. Why should anyone believe your claims if you are not willing to defend or further explain them. I do not believe sapience is by itself an adequate reason to confer value, and I have been attempting to show the weakness of it based on the fact that it is such a relative quality that is hard to define. You have asserted it, but have not shown its strength, so why should I (or anyone) agree with you.
You are the one claiming that some human organisms have value based on sapience while others do not, and thus could be aborted. When does a human organism attain sapience? At what point of development does a human organism have sapience? How do you define when the have enough nervous system/ intelligence/ emotions/ etc. to be called sapient? You say there are no levels, but you clearly believe that at some point sapience begins, so there is an in and an out. What are the deciding factors?
I'll be one of the few to go ahead and dislike. Although this is enlightening, she says a few things I think are silly. Firstly, children have a right to a family? This is the opposite of the way families, or groups work. You must be invited to join a group, which is exactly why we have so many groupless, family-less children - they aren't invited. Yes?
I was raised in an orphanage in rural area of Tanzania in East Africa and I came out OK, I was not damaged mentally or physically.I can’t accept the generalisation of people saying children's homes are bad places for children to be brought up in. Instead of criticising, i think efforts should go to better all orphanages.
Georgette Mulheir, you deserves a Nobel Prize for Humanitarian work in highlighting the 'wrongs' that is being systematically orchestrated. Thank You for all the work you do! Time is accelerating very fast, all the wrongs will be put to right as we get closer to Higher Level of Consciousness Event that begins on Dec 21st
(continued) The lack of psychological stimulation is devastating to an infant. While foster care is not perfect, and there will be cases of bad foster parents, it is a far better solution than institutional care. In addition, adoption is a much better option. The cost of adoption needs to be reduced and the barriers to adopting at a younger age need to be removed to reduce the effects of institutional care.
Liking this video will increase its popularity, So even if we 'don't like' it, we should still click it. Such awareness is crucial
She has a lot of valid points, but as someone in the US, I hear about the horrors of foster homes all the time. I'm not so sure it's really the format, but the effort that causes the terrible outcomes we see. We seem to have a system that works well enough for adoption of very young children, but children who are older than infants and come from broken families don't seem to have much hope regardless of the system we choose. Committed communities would be best, but we don't have that.
Wow!! How horribel! This has inspired me to bern a orphanage! Oioioioi!!
Speaking as a child of adoption, I would like to make a statement.
I personally think that orphanages are wonderful things. They are full of babies who have been abandoned by their parents. They are full of wonderful people who dedicate their life to taking care of children.
The orphanage is a safe haven for orphans. In an orphanage, the child will be cared about [if it is not one on one love], fed & will have a place to sleep.
I think orphanages are important to society...
This is scary.
I wan to comment, but there are already 42 comments, which is just right. I'm going to mess it up anyway.
I think that you have connected the dots. Everything you said made me think and get a little sad, but very informative. I think it's amazing you've witness all these things.
a moment of silence...
Esse vídeo deveria ser matéria obrigatória para todos os juízes de direito, promotores de justiça, advogados, defensores públicos e conselheiros tutelares que atuam perante a justiça da infância no Brasil. É uma vergonha que o país ainda possua altos índices de acolhimento institucional. Escrevi um livro a respeito dos malefícios causados pelo prolongado acolhimento institucional. Um dia, luto por isso, os operadores do direito irão compreender os malefícios da institucionalização em massa de crianças e adolescentes que vem sendo praticada nos lugares mais pobres do Brasil.
This is why projects like Child's i Foundation are so necessary. They have proved that there is another option to institutional care in Uganda. Their transitional home and family support centre provide quality short-term care for babies; whilst their social work department ensures every child in our care grows up in a loving family in Uganda.
Hah ! The times I've encountered this conundrum. Well put !
Thank you for your erudite, intelligent and helpful response. I am sure with this as a starting point we could have a robust interactive discussion that will help us overcome any petty prejudices and see the various facts and arguments more clearly.
I don't get why she's supporting foster care. Those poor kids often get abused and neglected by foster parents or they simply have to deal with people who don't care about them. They grow up damaged, too. Our poor orphans.
Yes, I have no idea how we can best serve older children and adolescents from broken homes. My best friend works in a youth crisis center, and some of the older kids there absolutely terrorize the center as well as the foster families that they are placed into. And some foster families are just in it for the money and don't care for the kids at all. I just can't see a happy ending for many of these kids no matter what we do. :\
precisely profit driven is what we need. Instead of the alternative Corruption driven.
you don't have to watch every video they post. the title makes it clear what the topic is about
You're correct prevention is better than cure, though it's instructive to actually formulate a cure as I suspect it help inform child rearing practices for the general population as well.
Not only will we able to improve to lives of these orphans, but our society and social structures will be illuminated to an extent previously unimaginable. Our current technology and methodologies for examining these complex social and psychological issues are only improving....
We just need people to DO those things.
orphanages should never go away, but they ought to be used for strictly orphans and noone else. In a situation like that they might be more efficient and the children would have better lives.
Hi my self I'am 1 of meny or fan's, who l a fill victim from Transilvania when never remain to that thru by " Romanian Orfan's, the really true reality story...!
Yes most people feel empathy for at least some others, but it has not more force as a moral code than the particular person's feelings toward another. It is completely subjective and therefore has no force to impose on others. I also feel desire, hunger, etc. What if those other feelings are stronger than my empathy toward another at that moment? Also, if value/ morality has simply evolved then it is descriptive of what it, but not prescriptive about what should be.
I dunno, we could frame the question as such: How do you replicate the bonding that occurs between mother and child? And then later child and family. And later still child and various social / educational activities.
Even those questions I suspect have no straightforward answer.
I suggest that prevention is better than cure. Work hard on educating and improving the prosperity and security of our communities so that less children end up in orphanages. Encourage more parents to foster. Make orphanages more transparent to make it an obvious problem and keep the discourse public. Currently, the "problem" is hidden away so it's easy to ignore.
gosh. i wish i could do something more to help that doesn't require moneys. :(
I don't even want to know what this woman has seen.
Where are the mothers?
Feels strange to "Like" this video, if only "Agree" was an option.
Empathy may be why we choose to consider the need of others sometimes and some call that morality, but it does not make it morality. Morals are obligations that I have to others, and my feelings do not make it necessary to do something. Many people do not act with empathy in many circumstances. Why should they if they want something else? Empathy is purely a subjective standard, and if materialism is right then morality does not exist. Morals are not physical, how could they exist?
What is morality if it is not universal? It is simply subjective rules made by those with the most power, so apparently we agree. If I get more power does that mean I can make the rules? Source does not matter if that source does not enforce the rules. From your perspective the only source that matters is who is in control right now. Morality is not really morality, it is just a will to power.
Either way would do.
Orphanages in Europe have been villainized for centuries. That doesn't mean that all orphanages are similar. I have known families who have adopted special needs children and healthy children and all of the children have been cared for and raised with loving support. They would definitely oppose their own abortion or any other.
why would they be more efficient than to be adopted or in foster care? For small children anywhay. For teenagers I think, institutions are offten better. A family can feel too intimate, if a child feels a lot of loyalty to his biological family.
Volunteer.
You can demonstrate that people feel morality, but not that they have an obligation to follow those feelings. Why do I have to follow my or your feelings? This is called the is - ought fallacy. I a purely physical world, my feelings or thoughts have more meaning than to me than what I give them. If I am simple a bunch of molecules in motion impacting other molecules in motion then how does one complicated piece of carbon have an obligation to another one?
People become outraged by abortion and then completely forget about the children who cannot be cared for once they are born. Tragic.
They're ubiquitous because they're necessary. How do we use technology, education or design to fix the problems with them?
First, thank you for the response. I think your question could be rephrased, why should it be based on anything? You last question indicates that we might have some sort of internal problem with killing some people, but is that internal feeling connected to anything outside ourselves. Should humans of any kind have any more worth than a rock? If the physical world is all that exists, then we are simple a collection of molecules. We can pretend otherwise, but at the core that is all we are.
more shame on us - - all of us.
I do believe what you raise is true. There are a lot of people use children as the main tool to make money.
Market forces? are you talking about yourself? Would you let the orphan die? if everyone will let an orphan die then the orphan will die. If some of the people in society would not let the orphan die than there is going to be charity to take care of it.
Oh my T_T
how about get the government out of it. There be more money in the market and charity organizations will emerge that will take care of it. There will be competition of services and best services will win. Instead of politicians arguing which service is best let the market decide.
i'm 13
Or, you know, use protection.
My objection still holds then. There are varying degrees of sapience among humans. Apparently you think that at some point someone crosses the line from being worth of life to perhaps not having to be concerned about that life. What standard are you using to define that line?
You still can. Look around your community or get your parents involved. Perhaps mentor some younger children?
Your example proves my point. Laws are obligations enforces by a group of people, but are not morals. They simply express the collective opinion of the people who enforce the laws. Do you think it is okay to murder Jews just because the laws of Nazi Germany said so? Were Stalin & Mao right to kill millions because they controlled the laws? What you are describing are subjective rules imposed by those with the power?
"I don't know about you but I put sapience well above the value of mere life." Why? And how much functioning? Does an Einstein have more value than an infant? Is value a sliding scale or intelligence? Do we then gain value as we become adults and lose it as we become older? Also, is this just your opinion of value or is there some objective measure of value that helps us decide which humans are more valuable than others?
If I don't know the difference between a fetus and a zygote then you don't know the difference between an infant and an adult, but I don't care about the differences I care about the similarities. I care about what gives human life value, and you still have not answered that question. Why does sapience of any measure give something value? How much sapience is necessary? When do we get that value, and when can we lose it? If I am knocked unconscious do I loss that value?
Yes of course, let profit driven corner cutters take care of the innocent and defensless. The market doesn't give a shit about kids that aren't consumers.
"If it's not then demonstrate it" I certain can demonstrate it to my own satisfaction, but not in the space limitations of this forum. Go to my challenge or str dot org for a longer defense if you are interest. But I will say that if the physical world is all there is, then we all have nothing. Meaning/ value/ morality is simply an exercise in individual feelings that are simply predetermined physical responses to stimuli anyway.
00:15
@Kris Saman so you're saying 90% of them grow up to be happy? Yes use protection, if one slips, instead of putting a baby in an orphanage, abort the fetus. Thia world's already too over populated.
the greatest form of child abuse
I did not say I could demonstrate it to your satisfaction, but to mine. I can make a case based on evidence and reason, but whether you believe it or not is not something that I can control. I have read and listened to a number of arguments on both sides of the issue and I am convinced that belief in God explains the world better than a purely physical universe. Morality is one of those areas where God explains it, but it makes no sense in a world where everything is just physical forces.
No, I am claiming that when something has sapience is not clear cut. When for instance does it begin? Do infants have it? If so do fetuses have it? Do people with dementia have it? Do people who are unconscious have it? I also asked a second question that you have not answered, namely why is any level of sapience confer enough value to make something worth killing or not? You have not defined sapience in a clear way, nor have you defended why sapience confers value.
Not with the definition of corruption i given you. In fact its impossible for there to be that kind of corruption in free market. And the problem is that nowhere in the world libertarian ideas are in place. There used to be that america was founded upon them and america really was a land of a free and the wealthy. Now all of it is wasting away. People are always ruled by fear and not by reason so its easy to use words like "horror" and "crazy" to convince others.Using evidence is a little harder
Can you demonstrate morality? I mean what physical test are you going to run to show that I have any obligation to do anything other than what I want and can get away with? Morality is not scientifically testable because moral obligations are not physical.
Also, while sapience is a nice idea of yours, a lot of people don't agree with you about the value of all sapient life. Some people think skin color, nationality, or simply personal value to me should define how much I value someone. You seem to be assuming that those who disagree with you should recognize your standard as "the standard." Why should someone who has the power to impose their will like a dictator or a serial killer, care about someone else's ability to think?
If you know that you can't support the child, then why have one? Isn't abortion a far more humane thing to do than this?
How would you know what I deny or don't deny? You did not even take the time to understand the statement that I made. You made a knee-jerk reaction and assumed things, then you go so far as to insult me and wish harm to me? I am not sure how you ever get into rational discussion if insult is your first argument.
My evidence is objective, such things as minds, order, morality, consciousness, existence of anything, are observable but not explainable by philosophical naturalism, and are explainable by a personal creative God.
First, the evolutionary explanation is simply a nice story, but is not testable science either. Second, as stated earlier, even if true it is descriptive of how moral ideas may have came to be in our brains, but not prescriptive for anyone.
It's always enlightening to come to the comment sections of videos about undebatable tragedies such as this, as you'll always find at least one person trying to debate it. Seeing the mind of a psychopath at work is utterly fascinating.
Spaceisprettybig figififiGuQd
Abortion could be the number 1 enemy of orphanages. But no, "we need to give that baby a chance to live," blah blah. Yea to live, and then kill himself at an institution.. To live, miserably.
Furthermore, you continue to ignore the more important background question, why is sapience "the" factor for determining value? You can continue to claim straw man argument all you want, but I do not in fact see any argument. All I see is assertions with no defense or explanation.
Would you rather be a orphan or be aborted and have no life at all?
You have made claims that you have not yet been willing to defend or explain. Why should anyone believe your claims if you are not willing to defend or further explain them. I do not believe sapience is by itself an adequate reason to confer value, and I have been attempting to show the weakness of it based on the fact that it is such a relative quality that is hard to define. You have asserted it, but have not shown its strength, so why should I (or anyone) agree with you.
Bernie Madoff...checkmate.
You are the one claiming that some human organisms have value based on sapience while others do not, and thus could be aborted. When does a human organism attain sapience? At what point of development does a human organism have sapience? How do you define when the have enough nervous system/ intelligence/ emotions/ etc. to be called sapient? You say there are no levels, but you clearly believe that at some point sapience begins, so there is an in and an out. What are the deciding factors?
..oh look, wax-figures 8:50
I'll be one of the few to go ahead and dislike. Although this is enlightening, she says a few things I think are silly. Firstly, children have a right to a family? This is the opposite of the way families, or groups work. You must be invited to join a group, which is exactly why we have so many groupless, family-less children - they aren't invited. Yes?
Typical out of touch with reality market fundamentalist.
..haha.
HAHAHAHAHA LMAO
And yet your not dead. How interesting. Guess you want to exist now. CORRECT! PLANK!