Fred Nile, his logical fallacies and blatant stupidities

While letterboxing for the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in the federal electorate of Bradfield that has a byelection on December 5th, I spied some opposition material in a discarded-junkmail box. Not the Opposition, but the LDP’s opposite, the Christian Democrats (CDP). It was a pseudo-survey, purporting to ask for the views of residents on a variety of issues, but clearly simply pushing CDP talking points in a somewhat bizarre fashion. A scanned copy is below the fold.

Reproduced under the Fair Use exemption

I’m not sure what political priority people should place on “Jesus Christ is the Son of God”, but I guess it’s not surprising to see something like that in there. So let’s leave that and go further into the rabbit hole.

The next statement is the first of Fred Nile’s logical fallacies – “We should do what the Greenies (sic) want and let any foreigner in”. It’s unclear whether it is referring to greenies (aka environmentalists), or the Greens. Either way, it’s untrue that either group wants high immigration – they’re worried about ecological carrying capacity. Regardless, it’s a classic fallacy along the lines of “When did you stop beating your wife?”, or the schoolyard equivalent, “Are you a poofter in a cage?”. Agreeing or disagreeing, as the CDP asks you to do, means you accept at least one premise, even if neither is true. It also implies a false dichotomy. Two logical fallacies in one sentence! Not bad.

The other mention of “Greenies” employs the same tactic, and repeats the same error – “We should follow the Greenies’ plan of ending sheep and cattle raising”. Again, neither group has that plan, though of course they make an argument for scaling back sheep and cattle numbers.

Going back up the list, we find an example of equivocation with “Australian (sic) needs no more Muslim schools and no more mosques”. We need no more?

Regarding persecuted Christians, people fleeing persecution can all seek asylum, and there is no queue nor any quota for them to have preference in. This is one of the most common mistakes when people talk about immigration policy. Refugees aren’t “queue-jumpers” because there is no queue. They can’t displace others by seeking asylum, nor affect wider immigration. So it’s an appeal to a false dilemma, a formal fallacy.

Sadly, the CDP appears to have a denialist bent, going by the statement “Climate changes are natural and do not threaten to destroy the world” and “The ETS will harm Australia with no measurable environmental benefit”. They continue the dual-premise fallacy technique. For example, I believe that the current trend in climate change is mostly not natural, but I don’t believe it will destroy the world, and that the ETS is a bad idea but would have measurable environmental benefit (but isn’t worth the cost).

On to the stupidities. A 10-year moratorium on Muslim immigration implies there is a problem with Muslim immigration. Considering the vast numbers of countries and cultures and denominations in the dar al-Islam, apparently in the CDP’s view it’s not radicalism or fundamentalism that is a problem, but simply believing that Mohammed is Allah’s prophet and the Koran is the word of Allah. Ooh, terrifying. Keep them away!

The next one is a weird one – raise the minimum age for smoking by one year a year. I’m not sure if it’s stupid or ingenious. I suppose it’s an attempt to ban smoking in the long term, because eventually the minimum age will be beyond the human lifespan. And that way cultural norms can change gradually. But by the same function of gradualism, the damage smoking does (that the CDP feel is unacceptable) continues for many years. If you feel smoking should be harder to take up, why not just raise the minimum age by whatever amount and be done? If you want to ban it because of the harm, why allow the harm to continue for decades? Perhaps they had a rare moment of lucidity, and realised that banning things generally doesn’t work if there isn’t a cultural change to support it.

I don’t know who came up with the idea “Australia should employ the Fijian Navy to intercept illegal immigrants”, but I’m guessing they don’t know that it only has 300 people and nine boats. I’m fairly sure they’re busy enough as it is anyway.

The CDP continues with the anti-Muslim theme by suggesting Muslims be singled out for expedited deportation. It implies that we should dispense with normal legal standards and venerable concepts like habeas corpus, the presumption of innocence, and the rights of citizens. Essentially, the CDP wants Muslims to be second-class citizens.

I left the stupidest stupidity until last – “Australians deserve 4G mobiles with totally free telephone calls and free data, instead of being ripped off by the phone companies”. Deserve? Is fast telephony now an entitlement, a human right? Let’s not mention that 4G is still to be rolled out. Free? There is no such thing. Someone always pays. Typically, it would be the taxpayer, and without more detail it’s a fair assumption that’s the case here. Ripped off? Competition drives down prices, so if the CDP wants lower prices, they should support competitive markets. You know, like the Liberal Democratic Party does.

Vote for sensible policies, not fallacious and stupid ones.

Vote 1 LDP. Vote 1 Lucy Gabb in Bradfield.

PS The pseudo-survey claims that “The statements of belief listed below are not necessarily the policies of any political party”, but there’s absolutely no reason for them to be on the list unless the CDP supports or is considering supporting them.

PPS Interestingly, the online version of the survey, found here, has an additional statement about development, and is basically the only one that applies specifically to Bradfield. I guess they printed the surveys off then someone realised there was nothing about Bradfield in them, so chucked the extra one into the online version.

PPPS The CDP is putting up nine candidates for election in Bradfield. Apparently they wanted 11, to match the number of honest apostles, but could only muster nine. Anyway, one of them is Andrew Hestelow, and going by the official CDP candidate picture (you can see them all in a Powerpoint file here), he doesn’t seem to take his candidacy seriously:

This entry was posted in local and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Fred Nile, his logical fallacies and blatant stupidities

  1. As you write be careful to avoid logic fallacies and ideological reasoning. Laci Christian

  2. Jarrah says:

    I do my best, but I sometimes fall prey to illogic and viewing the world through an ideological prism. Feel free to point out any specifics, as I have done for the CDP, and I’ll admit wrongdoing.

  3. DavidL says:

    Andrew Hestelow is a personal friend of Shooters Party MLC, Robert Brown. That may explain why Brown is listed among the politicians at the bottom. The Shooters and CDP also often join forces in state parliament to oppose the Greens.

    This relationship seems to be having an impact on the Shooters, which is highly critical of the LDP for its liberal social policies. These days the Shooters Party could be described as pro-gun and anti-poofter. No wonder sporting shooters are so often characterised as bigots and rednecks.

  4. john walker says:

    Is this giving them more oxygen than they deserve?
    There is a lot of Dr Strangelove in the air at the moment , no?
    Did you notice that the Queen has joined the pinko plot against all that is Holly in western civilization?

  5. john walker says:

    I am a mainstream christian,– the likes of Nile (and Jensen for that matter) are familiar problem in religious groups of any kind of faith. They conflate the role of servant of god, with being god .They start to think that any thought that comes into their brain is from god and that anything they do is by divine right . They behave as though they were the voice of god.
    In the case of Nile I think he has been part a little huddle of like minded crazies talking to themselves for so long that he has lost whatever moral compass he might have once had. “the Liberal’s second preference vote.” of course also makes plain the drawback of complex directed preferences, people can get so clever that they find themselves in bed with something really bad.

  6. VGH says:

    Let me start by saying Hestlow and the CDP are massive twitts. but I am not sure that the fijian solution should be dismissed. Obviously it would not be possible to oustource this service completely (and I am not sure that is what they are suggesting) but it could be included as a supplenment to existing border protection arrangements.

    We give Fiji military aid so I don’t believe it is unreasonable that we could expect something in return (besides it might keep the occupied and stop with a coup every second week). Furthermore is you read the whole Wiki article you can see that the size of the Fijian military has “in comparison to its size and population has a relatively larger than needed one, even larger than that of Papua New Guinea’s”.

    Looking at Australia’s capacity I think most people would be surprised to find that Australia only ever has 18 boats and 14 planes avialable for coastal servalience (not all are active). That’s the total number. Fiji may only have 9 boats but we only have double that. Given the size of Australia’s coast line is that enough? I think this idea has some merit.

  7. Jarrah says:

    “but it could be included as a supplenment to existing border protection arrangements. ”

    Or we could stop spending so much on offensive hardware and more on defensive stuff. You know, because it’s supposed to be an Australian Defence Force, not an Australian Attack Force.

    “We give Fiji military aid so I don’t believe it is unreasonable that we could expect something in return”

    Or we could stop giving them military aid!

    “the size of the Fijian military has “in comparison to its size and population has a relatively larger than needed one”

    Yes, I read that bit. Part of the reason we should stop subsidising it.

    “I think this idea has some merit.”

    Fair enough. I don’t, for several reasons. Illegal immigrants don’t need to be (and morally shouldn’t be) “intercepted”, but processed. We can increase border protection without increasing costs by cutting foreign adventurism. Employing Fiji to do our dirty work is distasteful.

  8. VGH says:

    “Or we could stop spending so much on offensive hardware and more on defensive stuff. You know, because it’s supposed to be an Australian Defence Force, not an Australian Attack Force.”

    Offense / defence please explain the difference in hardware stuff? Are you sugesting we build our own maginot line? Sorry but defence and offence equipment is the same. You still need boats, guns, planes, etc.

    “Illegal immigrants don’t need to be (and morally shouldn’t be) “intercepted”, but processed. We can increase border protection without increasing costs by cutting foreign adventurism. Employing Fiji to do our dirty work is distasteful.”

    So are you suggesting we shouldn’t have gone to Timor? or afghanistan? Sounds like we have a Neville here. Neville Chamberlain that is! Appeasement all round!

    How is it distatesful? Being a good little free market preacher this should be perfectly acceptable. After all we are simply purchasing a service. You point out in another post the virtues of free trade in another post. http://jarrahjob.net/?p=383#more-383

  9. Jarrah says:

    “Offense / defence please explain the difference in hardware stuff?…Sorry but defence and offence equipment is the same.”

    No, it’s not. You do realise there are different kinds of planes, boats, guns, etc? That they have different purposes and specialities?

    “So are you suggesting we shouldn’t have gone to Timor? or afghanistan?”

    If we had been asked by Timor or Afghanistan to help them, and if it was approved by two-thirds of Parliament, then I would have no problem with it.

    “Sounds like we have a Neville here.”

    Not the quickest loss by Godwin’s Law, but close! Please insert more coins to play again. 😉

  10. VGH says:

    So come Jarrah, with all you military experience define the difference of boats between offence and defence. I am prepared to accept that there are different divisions within the military such a recon, that would require different equipment. However are you seriously suggesting we give the defence force stun guns to “defend” our country from attack? Can you provide specific examples that Australia currently have deployed that can be categroized as defence only? I am no military expert but as far as I am aware the only real offensive weapons would be, ICBM’s, bunker busters (debatable), stealth bombers and a-bombs and I am pretty sure we don’t have any of those.

    “Not the quickest loss by Godwin’s Law, but close! Please insert more coins to play again. ”

    Wow have you been on the internet for 5 minutes? or just like to refer to Wiki’s? I think you should probably look up Godwin’s law again. From the last time I checked Neville was the British PM at the time… Godwin’s law is making reference to Nazi’s or Hilter. My reference is purely re Chamberlain. If you knew your history you would know that Chamberlain also opposed any intervention in Africa and the spanish civil war (even though the certain section of the govt supported Franco). I hope your pockets are deep as you are going to need a few more quarters to keep the game going.

    “If we had been asked by Timor or Afghanistan to help them, and if it was approved by two-thirds of Parliament, then I would have no problem with it.”

    “If we had been asked by Timor or Afghanistan to help them, and if it was approved by two-thirds of Parliament, then I would have no problem with it.”

    Are suggesting we were not invited into Timor? Better read up on that.

    I was going to let it pass as I didn’t want to look like a hestlow or CDP supporter (i.e. freak) but while I am on it you said:

    “Anyway, one of them is Andrew Hestelow, and going by the official CDP candidate picture (you can see them all in a Powerpoint file here), he doesn’t seem to take his candidacy seriously:”

    Hmm does that mean you didn’t take your candidacy seriously? After all the last sentence of your canditate page on the offical LDP website (archive) states you “have never eaten his own earwax”. How does such a “joke” comment differ from the photo? did you not take your candidacy seriosly?

    http://web.archive.org/web/20080417050608/www.ldp.org.au/Candidates.html

  11. Jarrah says:

    I have no experience in the military, but I know we have precious little missile defence, but a lot of M1A1 tanks. Substantial amphibious forces, but not many submarines. And only two UAVs so far! This list is representative, not exhaustive.

    “From the last time I checked Neville was the British PM at the time… Godwin’s law is making reference to Nazi’s or Hilter.”

    Chamberlain was British PM when? Best known for the appeasement of who? Exactly. Game over.

    “Are suggesting we were not invited into Timor?”

    I’m suggesting we don’t involve ourselves in wars that are of no concern of ours. Afghanistan is a prime example, as is Iraq. And since you’re such a keen student of history, you’d know that Australia did nothing about Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor, except possibly encourage it! As I said, if they’d asked for help and it had been approved by a two-thirds majority, then I’d have no reason to complain. We helped after the referendum, as part of an international peacekeeping force. That’s hardly military adventurism.

    “How does such a “joke” comment differ from the photo? did you not take your candidacy seriosly?”

    You’re right, it was a joke at the expense of Kevin Rudd, the earwax eater. And no, I didn’t take my candidacy seriously. I’d never lived in the electorate, had no funding, no media presence, and no chance of winning more than a handful of votes. But at least I bothered to do a half-decent photo, unlike the unfortunate Mr Hestelow.

  12. VGH says:

    “I have no experience in the military, but I know we have precious little missile defence, but a lot of M1A1 tanks. Substantial amphibious forces, but not many submarines. And only two UAVs so far! This list is representative, not exhaustive.”

    You have listed off some hardware. But you still have not pointed out what is offence vs defence capabilities. The way I see the list you have provide is that they are all dual purpose. Even UAE’s can be dual puropse depending on the situation. M1A1 tanks are a perfectly defensive tool if you going to bring that out. Think the proposed Brisbane line defence in WWII

    “Chamberlain was British PM when? Best known for the appeasement of who? Exactly. Game over.”

    Your right he is best known for the appeasement of the Nazi regime. I don’t dispute that. But as I pointed out Chamberlain was also known for his general slant towards appeasment. Which was exactly what I was referring to. So you game over comment is way of mark. Read what I said. You really like to claim victory early don’t you. Insecure much?

    “you’d know that Australia did nothing about Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor, except possibly encourage it! As I said, if they’d asked for help and it had been approved by a two-thirds majority, then I’d have no reason to complain.”

    I find your moral’s in this post somewhat contraditary. On one hand you have issue with “Employing Fiji to do our dirty work is distasteful” yet you are prepared to let innocents be put into a situation whereby they more likely be put into a situation whereby they could be classed as illegal immigrants if they decided to flee their oppresive regime. Seems to me your happy to let the mess happen and then just help the survivors.

    Australia definitly has a black mark against it in relation to the past with assisting indonesia re east timor, you can not seriously suggest that some nasty shit was going down there that needed to be rectified. I take the point Iraq but the same does not apply to Timor.

  13. Jarrah says:

    Anything can be dual-use, that’s not an argument. Tanks are almost pointless in defence, unless you’re facing other tanks, in similar numbers, in the open field. Considering Australia’s possible opponents and strategic posture, how likely is that scenario? Tanks can have a role, but they are relics of fight-the-last-war thinking.

    You backpedalled fast on Chamberlain, I don’t deny that. But given your original comment, Godwin’s Law certainly applies. If you are now finessing your meaning, deliberately ignoring his most famous actions, fine – Godwin’s Law is no longer relevant. But it’s like saying someone wearing gloves looks like Mickey Mouse, because Mickey wears gloves.

    “you are prepared to let innocents be put into a situation whereby they more likely be put into a situation whereby they could be classed as illegal immigrants if they decided to flee their oppresive regime.”

    First, people fleeing oppression are refugees, not illegal immigrants. Second, military adventurism can often create refugees, Iraq being a recent example. Third, it’s impossible to use military force to prevent all the oppression in the world. Fourth, I don’t advocate doing nothing, instead I want non-military means employed more fully. Last, I wouldn’t stop anyone wanting to go over and fight if they wanted to, using their own resources.

    Indonesia’s oppressive occupation of East Timor was definitely some nasty shit. I publicly opposed it before independence, and I think it’s shameful that Australia, the US, and other nations with influence stood by while it happened. Does that mean I think we should have gone in guns blazing? No.

    “needed to be rectified”

    You’re assuming stuff like that can be ‘rectified’ by outside military force. History is against you.

  14. VGH says:

    “Anything can be dual-use, that’s not an argument.”

    You specifically said “Or we could stop spending so much on offensive hardware and more on defensive stuff”. You seem to think there is a difference. I was just asking you to point out the differences since you seem to think there are some. What would you propose we spend our defence $$ on?

    I think you are missing the point on how to conquer a nation. Sorry but you can’t do it just with dropping bombs. If your ambition is invasion and conquer then you need infantry and supporting artillery. You still need the hardware on the ground.

    “But given your original comment, Godwin’s Law certainly applies. If you are now finessing your meaning, deliberately ignoring his most famous actions, fine”

    I never ignored what “most people” associate with Chamberlain. However I was not taking the narrow view. Just take it as a bit of education on your part. Besides that Goodwin’s law is that the longer a post goes on someone will introduce the term “Nazi” and or “Hitler”. Hmm don’t see those posted here. Specifically I was referring to Chamberlain, if you want to be petty and take the narrow view then that’s you prerogative but it is not what I intended.

    “First, people fleeing oppression are refugees, not illegal immigrants.”

    Well that’s a given but often where there are refugees you will have illegal immigrants. you can’ dispute that

    “Second, military adventurism can often create refugees, Iraq being a recent example.” AND “You’re assuming stuff like that can be ‘rectified’ by outside military force. History is against you.”

    Sure there are definitely some blights on military action, there always will be. But history is also with me. Gulf War 1 is a prime example of how diplomacy and sanctions fail. After Saddam’s routine abuses of human rights against Kurds in his own country it is pretty much a fait accompli that similar actions would occur. Besides let’s look at how well diplomacy and sanctions work. They seemed to have worked with Cuba and North Korea pretty well. NOT!

  15. Jarrah says:

    “You seem to think there is a difference.”

    Because there is one. Anything can be dual-use, but you’ve got a false dichotomy belief here – that things are either dual-use or purely offensive/defensive. Whereas the reality is anything can be dual-use (even nukes), but everything is better suited to one or the other – say 80/20 or 60/40.

    “What would you propose we spend our defence $$ on?”

    I’d cut the defence budget first. Not buy as many F-35s, for example. Get rid of the majority of the surface fleet. Buy submarines and missiles and surveillance/recon, including satellites. But like I said, I’m no expert. I’m willing to look at other options. Really, the specifics don’t matter – what I’m proposing is a shift in our military posture.

    “If your ambition is invasion and conquer then you need infantry and supporting artillery.”

    Precisely my point – my ambition is never to invade and conquer, if possible. On the rare occasions that the Australian public feel invasion of another country is necessary, it’s going to be as part of a coalition. We can serve a specialist role (as, in fact, we mostly do now anyway), instead of pretending we can play with the big boys.

    “Gulf War 1 is a prime example of how diplomacy and sanctions fail.”

    The Gulf wars were the culmination (and continuation) of a long history of military adventurism, direct and proxy. If anything, it supports my view that such actions are counterproductive in the short term AND long term.

    “Besides let’s look at how well diplomacy and sanctions work. They seemed to have worked with Cuba and North Korea pretty well. NOT!”

    I disagree. Cuba, when a Soviet client, helped some wars along, but never invaded anyone. Cuba is basically harmless. And a straight blockade is hardly ‘diplomacy’. North Korea is not harmless, but diplomacy and sanctions have prevented war and weakened the regime.

    If you are referring to how North Korea treats its own population, that is a tragedy of immense proportions (again, one born of military blunders, specifically the Korean War). But there will never be an invasion while China supports the North. You can fantasise about marines storming ashore at Wonsan all you like, but it ain’t gonna happen.

  16. VGH says:

    “Precisely my point – my ambition is never to invade and conquer, if possible. On the rare occasions that the Australian public feel invasion of another country is necessary, it’s going to be as part of a coalition. We can serve a specialist role (as, in fact, we mostly do now anyway), instead of pretending we can play with the big boys.”

    I was actually referring to Australia being invaded not Australia invading. Do you know how long it takes to mobilse large forces such as the US or European forces? Minimum 6 Weeks. So if you are sugesting we rid ourselves of tanks and the surface fleet then I think your opening AU to 6 weeks minimum of some form of occupation. Besides that Australia has a terrible record of submarine use and as highlighted in the Moffitt report, we can’t even fill the tin cans. So thank god you are not looking after defence
    “The Gulf wars were the culmination (and continuation) of a long history of military adventurism, direct and proxy. If anything, it supports my view that such actions are counterproductive in the short term AND long term.”

    I specifically only mentioned Gulf War 1. I refernce this into your postulation that “I don’t advocate doing nothing, instead I want non-military means employed more fully.” Gulf War 1 is a prime example of of how diplomacy failed and failed miserably. Gulf War 2 is another kettle of fish that yes would be classed as adventursim. But it is undeiable that GW1 diplomacy, blockades and sanctions failed! If your happy for that shit to go down then I am really confused about the heading on your moral compass. You seem to be heading round in circles

    “North Korea is not harmless, but diplomacy and sanctions have prevented war and weakened the regime.”

    You seriously believe the regime in North Korea has been weakened? What do you base this on? They have Nukes, they still treat their population like shit and I haven’t heard of an uprising recently. Diplomacy and sanctions have worked a treat haven’t they. Just in todays WSJ there is an article on weapons smugling and the income from that. That’s just the ones they have caught. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126066998086189245.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_world

    “But there will never be an invasion while China supports the North. You can fantasise about marines storming ashore at Wonsan all you like, but it ain’t gonna happen.”

    I agree it will not happen. But I don’t agree that it shouldn’t. But as I point out diplomacy rarely works when the party(ies) involved are dead set on there course of action. Need I mention Palenstine and Israel? How well has diplomacy worked there?

  17. Jarrah says:

    “I was actually referring to Australia being invaded not Australia invading.”

    Really? That wasn’t clear at all. It’s was all “your ambition” and “you still need”. But whatever.

    “So if you are sugesting we rid ourselves of tanks and the surface fleet then I think your opening AU to 6 weeks minimum of some form of occupation.”

    OK, now I know you’re not serious. Apparently you think someone a) wants to invade Australia; b) is capable of invading Australia; c) can do it in complete secrecy; d) launch a surprise attack that overwhelms our armed forces completely.

    “Gulf War 1 is a prime example of of how diplomacy failed and failed miserably. ”

    You are yet to explain your reasoning on this. I think you’re wrong. Gulf War 1 only came about because the US supported Saddam against Iran. That war led directly to the Kuwait invasion and US fears for Saudi Arabia. Therefore, injudicious military action led to further military action that required military action to remedy it, but didn’t, leading to further military action of a low level before escalating for no good reason into full-blown war (again) and years of occupation that only recently started to have any positive effect. I’d say that’s quite an indictment of your ‘solution’.

    “Diplomacy and sanctions have worked a treat haven’t they.”

    They’ve prevented war. And you’re still assuming that military action would have better consequences!

  18. VGH says:

    Ok let me simplify this wih an analogy. It is a poor simplistic analogy but I don’t have much time.

    You are sitting in a park and there are a number of people there. A man starts to beat his wife. The police are turning a blind eye or are busy. The remainder of the people in that park just watch on or are not concerned. Your there with your family or friends. What do you do. Do you just go over and polietely ask the man to stop. Or do you clock him one so he stops? or do you just go it’s not my concern? Which do you choose?

    Like I said a simplistic analogy but I think you get where I am going with this

  19. Jarrah says:

    All analogies are imperfect, but this one doesn’t even get close. In your scenario I can stop him, easily, on my own, without collateral damage, without further repercussions, without unintended consequences. If only all military strategy was so straightforward.

    Look, I’m not saying I don’t care about the Kurds or North Koreans or East Timorese. Quite the opposite. I’m looking for the best way to help them. I just don’t think bombing them is it.

  20. VGH says:

    “If only all military strategy was so straightforward.”

    Life is no different, just on a smaller scale. That is why it is only a simplistic analogy. In the above anlogy you have no understanding of potential colleteral damage, no definite idea that you can stop him on your own (sure you can guess based on thier build and frame of mind). You can not be sure that there will be no further repercussions. You can make best guesses on these but you can never know.

    I used to think like you until my personal circumstances changed. Talking/ diplomacy was the way to solve all problems. Sure it has it’s place but there are evil people out there and the only thing they understand or respond to is the use of force. That’s the reality. War is not good, however given the alternatives it is sometimes the lesser of two evils.

  21. john walker says:

    VGH Who are you really arguing with: Jarrah or yourself?

  22. VGH says:

    Wow John I never realised Oscar Wilde was in our mist. Thanks for your insightful comments.

    You guys have realise that the world is not all sunshine and lollipops. Human nature is gared towards conflict as history has continuosly shown. I am not saying it’s right, I am just saying it is.

  23. Wow! That’s a really neat answer!

  24. This site is like a classroom, except I don’t hate it. lol

  25. I’ve just checked some videos of Ys: The Oath In Felghana. The gameplay looks fun (reminds me of the Crystal Chronicles games). My main gripe against Ys I and II though is their plots. And in that regard Oath In Felghana is no different at all. Not surprisingly, as it’s a remake of Ys III from 1989.

  26. Thanks for all your hard work on this web page. Betty loves doing investigations and it’s really simple to grasp why. Most of us learn all regarding the powerful method you create worthwhile items through this web blog and cause participation from the others on that article so our own daughter is certainly discovering a lot of things. Enjoy the remaining portion of the year. Your doing a splendid job.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *