We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3
Details
Submitted by[?]: Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: August 2494
Description[?]:
| [***SPECIAL NOTE***]: It PAINS to inform the CWFP that it has come to our attention that there are a band of nearly 100 Million ILLEGAL Luthori & Lodamanse CHRISTIAN missionaries converting our beloved people from the Divine Reign of Immersence the Almighty and/or Militant Athiesm [ :( ]!!! Therefore, it is IMPERATIVE that is Convocation pass this bill ASAP so that the LAW-ABIDING Immersence Disciples of Likatonia can FREELY compete for converts since it would be (literally) IMPOSSIBLE for the State to prosecute 100 MILLION Illegal(s) anytime soon. Thank you for your full support. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards evangelism and religious advertising.
Old value:: Religions are not permitted to promote themselves or advertise in any manner whatsoever.
Current: Religions are required to obtain government approval before promoting themselves or advertising in any manner.
Proposed: Religions are permitted to freely promote and advertise themselves.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:42:25, November 30, 2007 CET | From |  Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3 |
| Message | So one in every 2 people in Likatonia is a rabid evangalist immigrant. The CWFP is pulling numbers out of it's capacious arse, along with policies, debate points, and it's thumb. Vote No. Religions should not need to advertise; Immeressence is a matter of faith. |
| Date | 21:16:13, November 30, 2007 CET | From | Democratic Workers' Party and CTUL List | To | Debating the Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3 |
| Message | Where is the freedom FROM Religion in this bill? |
| Date | 22:30:59, November 30, 2007 CET | From | Permissive Social Union | To | Debating the Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3 |
| Message | The freedom FROM religion comes from the fact there is mercifully only a single article in this proposal. |
| Date | 06:42:55, December 01, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3 |
| Message | This is a pro-religion bill. Not at all what the CWFP promised. It also seems to be another thinly veiled threat on those of different faiths AND those of foreign extraction. The CWFP could at least come out of the closet about their fascism, this charade is fooling no one. |
| Date | 14:04:47, December 01, 2007 CET | From | Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei | To | Debating the Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3 |
| Message | The Freedom FROM religion comes from the fact that there are millions of ILLEGAL Luthori and Lodamense CHRISTIAN missionaries who have immigrated to Likatonia. This means that they IN THE SHADOWS converting militant athiests (DWP's voters) and Immersence's voters into the hands of the Jesus cult. Since Militant Athiesm and/or humanism is a RELIGION, this bill makes it ILLEGAL for law-abiding citizens to freely convert people from the Jesus cult into Atheism (a RELIGION). AMI, your statistics are wrong for the simple fact that if the missionaries are here ILLEGALLY, then the State cannot keep track of them. |
| Date | 14:11:56, December 01, 2007 CET | From | Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3 |
| Message | Yes, but if our recognised population is only 175 million, to say that there is an extra, illegal 57% is madness. |
| Date | 14:13:28, December 01, 2007 CET | From | Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3 |
| Message | If there are, surely we can just shoot them... |
| Date | 14:14:59, December 01, 2007 CET | From | Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei | To | Debating the Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3 |
| Message | AMI, the KEY word that you used is RECOGNIZED population (175 Million). However, the ILLEGALS are NOT "recognized." Remember, the Convocation passed a bill to allow MINIMAL border controls so that explains the situation pretty easily. The Illegal immigrants are not crossing into the border for "jobs" but to CONVERT the people. However, Immersent prophets can legally COMPETE in the street by handing out pamphlets [ :( ]!!! |
| Date | 14:26:16, December 01, 2007 CET | From | Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3 |
| Message | We think the CWFP is missing the point. Assume we recognise 175 million citizens...lets say 200 million, on the safe side. You are saying that for every 2 citizens that we meet on the street, we will meet 1 Lodamunese evangalist. For every two cans of tasty Likaton beans eaten, one is scoffed by naughty Luthori crusaders. For every 100KW of Likaton power consumed by families, 50 more are being used to light and heat militant illegal immigrant atheists. The numbers don't add up. Whether you lie, are stupid, or are (and we think this is most likely) really bad at maths. 100 we would expect. 100,000 we would be alarmed. 100,000,000 we just laugh at your imaginary enemies, and pity you. This is our final word on this matter. |
| Date | 14:44:42, December 01, 2007 CET | From | Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei | To | Debating the Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3 |
| Message | The CWFP apologizes b/c it MISSPOKE; our head Sociologist has just informed our Party Chairman that there are 100,000 LUTHORI & LODAMANSE Christian missionaries illegally in Likatonia. Thanks again and we apologize for the inconvience. |
| Date | 16:21:04, December 01, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3 |
| Message | Atheism is not a religion, CWFP. It is the absence of religion. It has no gatherings. No doctrine. No evangelism. No preaching. No holy text. No holy days. No formal places of worship. No informal places of worship. No forms of worship. It has no schisms, no denominations, no ministers, no dress code, no holy symbols. No unholy symbols. It has no god. No gods. No spirits. No demons. No angels. It has no pantheon. No sacred history. It has no articles of faith, no 'required' beliefs. No 'beliefs'. All it requires, is a lack of faith. A lack of belief. As a religion, atheism fails. As the purveyors of religion-related legislation, the CWFP fails. |
| Date | 09:22:49, December 02, 2007 CET | From | Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei | To | Debating the Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3 |
| Message | [OOC] TDP, I'm sorry but you are TOTALLY INCORRECT; According to DICTIONARY--[cf. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Religion]--what we call "religion" has one of 2 meanings: (1) "a set of BELIEFS concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, ESPECIALLY (or usually) when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." (2) "a specific fundamental set of BELIEFS and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:" (a) Atheism is much as a RELIGION as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism b/c what they ALL have in common is that they adhere to a BELIEF system that is UNBACKED by physical & empirically-tested scientific evidence. Moreover, organized religion cannot--of course--present "empirical evidence" that "proves" the existence of God, BUT an atheist cannot "prove" that God's existence does NOT exist via empirical evidence. In other words, while the Deist would hold to the view that the orgin of the universe came by the seemingly "irrational view" of "intelligent design," the Athiest likewise holds to a seemingly IRRATIONAL view that that the amazing SYMMETRY & COMPLEXITIES of a convoluted universe was created simply by an "act of dice" (random chance). I mean, even dice and game(s) of CHANCE had a "thrower"(haha). (3) Therefore, between me, Stuart, the FRP, yourself, and Greg, a sociologist and/or antrhopologist would argue the case in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that, to be "technical," ALL of us are "irrational" b/c the only RATIONAL person is the AGONOSTIC who says "You cannot say with certainty whether God exists or doesn't exist." cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism |
| Date | 09:23:05, December 02, 2007 CET | From | Kapitalist-Arbeitsfamilien Partei | To | Debating the Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3 |
| Message | [OOC] TDP, I'm sorry but you are TOTALLY INCORRECT; According to DICTIONARY--[cf. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Religion]--what we call "religion" has one of 2 meanings: (1) "a set of BELIEFS concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, ESPECIALLY (or usually) when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." (2) "a specific fundamental set of BELIEFS and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:" (a) Atheism is much as a RELIGION as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism b/c what they ALL have in common is that they adhere to a BELIEF system that is UNBACKED by physical & empirically-tested scientific evidence. Moreover, organized religion cannot--of course--present "empirical evidence" that "proves" the existence of God, BUT an atheist cannot "prove" that God's existence does NOT exist via empirical evidence. In other words, while the Deist would hold to the view that the orgin of the universe came by the seemingly "irrational view" of "intelligent design," the Athiest likewise holds to a seemingly IRRATIONAL view that that the amazing SYMMETRY & COMPLEXITIES of a convoluted universe was created simply by an "act of dice" (random chance). I mean, even dice and game(s) of CHANCE had a "thrower"(haha). (3) Therefore, between me, Stuart, the FRP, yourself, and Greg, a sociologist and/or antrhopologist would argue the case in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that, to be "technical," ALL of us are "irrational" b/c the only RATIONAL person is the AGONOSTIC who says "You cannot say with certainty whether God exists or doesn't exist." cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism |
| Date | 15:34:26, December 02, 2007 CET | From | Likaton Coalition of the Willing | To | Debating the Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3 |
| Message | [OOC] Atheism is only a religion if you make it so. Does that fact that I don't believe in a god make me an atheist? I don't believe in no god, or a god. I frankly think the whole matter is silly. You would brand me an agnostic, because I won't commit? You're right to an extent, but I don't agree; perhaps I am an apathetic agnostic. All of that is irrelevant to this Bill, however. Beliefs do not equal religion. I can be a 'lapsed' Catholic; I have the belief, but not the religion. If I am a lapsed atheist, however, what do I do differently; I stop not saynit my prayers? I slip into bad habits of not not going to church? A religion is defined by it's practices, not it's belief, and the only atheists that are 'religious' are the evangelists and teachers, and to be honest, they really don't exist in general, merely in conflict with other religions. If there is a God, and you fail to believe, you risk invoking His wrath, so you want to make sure as many 'souls' as possible commit. If you're an atheist, but your neighbour isn't. what does it matter if you convert him or not...the outcome will still be the same (worms LOL). The only time Atheism exists as a religion is as debate against other, heavy handed religions, and debate is no bad thing; you might argue it will actually convert more people, if you are so inclined. {IC} Immeressence Inc run a reputable, charitable, faith-based business. Our success depends on our marketing strategy and penetration. We have no objection to competition, since we believe we have the best product. We support advertising in general, but are happy that word of mouth is good enough for our particular Brand. We see no reason to force any religion down peoples throat. |
| Date | 17:31:13, December 02, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3 |
| Message | OOC: I'm what is called an 'Implicit Atheist". This means that I lack a belief in a deity or deities. It doesn't mean I actively believe there are NO deities - there could be. But there is absolutely NO evidence to support it. (What is often claimed as evidence - e.g. the 'complexity of the universe', can always be explained by other mechanisms... even just 'it is that way because it is') Occam says we always look to the solution that least multiplies our conditions as being the most likely. Therefore, atheism is the logical default, since it doesn't call for any additional, unmeasurable entities. Inded, it really is the default, since no one is BORN religious, we have to be taught what religion we are going to follow. As a sideline - agnostics can actually be either atheists or theists. Agnostic isn't an alternative to faith, it is a modifier to it. A close frind of mine is a Christian, but believes that it is impossible to actually be SURE that there is a god - thus making him an agnostic theist. I doubt the existence of god, and am unsure there COULD be a way to prove his/her/their existence... making me an agnostic athiest. Atheism is no more a religion than having a cheeseburger is - there is no unifying set of beliefs for atheists.. some of them still believe in an afterlife, or karma, or ghosts, or the possibility of some kind of overarching force (like Gaia). The only thing that 'unites' them, is that they all LACK a belief in one subject... the existence of god(s). |
| Date | 18:35:51, December 02, 2007 CET | From | Computational Intellect Project | To | Debating the Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3 |
| Message | [OOC] CWFP: Apparently you have no idea what Atheism really is! "Atheism is much as a RELIGION as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism b/c what they ALL have in common is that they adhere to a BELIEF system that is UNBACKED by physical & empirically-tested scientific evidence." Atheism does not have a belief system. The only thing required to define one as an Atheist is a lack of belief in anything supernatural. And much of this disbelief comes not just from disbelief, but from scientific evidence as well, and we learn more every day. For example, your religious "experiences" all come from psychological functions and electromagnetic anomalies within the brain. The "experience" you feel of a higher power being there when you pray, sing, etc. has been reproduced by a helmet...literally. Scientists at the University of Montreal have generated a helmet that fires electromagnetic waves at a person's brain in a way that causes anomalies in thought patterns. They called ministers of all faiths from around the world to test the mechanism, and fired the waves at each person's brain and asked them (using MRI's to make sure they weren't simply lying or delusional while responding) if the experience they felt was the same they feel when they feel "god's presence." All of them said yes. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=searching-for-god-in-the-brain And all these claims of people seeing "visions" -- well, if you understand basic psychology... "Out of body experiences" have been recreated numerous times. Swiss scientists have recreated such by shocking a brain lobe behind your left ear. But two teams of scientists from the University College in London and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology have also been able to recreate out of body experiences using virtual reality, as in the article below: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6960612.stm And year after year, science progresses more and more. The thing is, is that religion is just something that people made up to make themselves feel more comfortable; something there to fill in where they don't have the answers. The first humans must have watched a sunrise and thought that a great chariot or god was creeping up the sky. Now we know differently. The Catholic church has still not officially declared the Earth to revolve around the Sun. "BUT an atheist cannot "prove" that God's existence does NOT exist via empirical evidence." We can disprove any sort of evidence or "experiences" that people seem to claim for the existence of god. And empirical evidence is the only source of evidence Atheists and Agnostics use. We also use logic. And we can, however, disprove your god logically; as vivid in fact, as proving that 2 is not equal to 7. "the Athiest likewise holds to a seemingly IRRATIONAL view that that the amazing SYMMETRY & COMPLEXITIES of a convoluted universe was created simply by an "act of dice" (random chance)." Again, you do NOT understand evolution. Evolution is not an "act of dice" or random chance. Evolution is a scaffold. You creationists claim that the universe is 5,000 years old (one of the most retarded things I've ever personally heard) and all the animals here are exactly as they were when they were created. Creationism is actually more irrational than a theory of the universe just popping out of nowhere by random chance (which no sensible person would believe). Creationism claims that some sort of god created all these complex things, but that inherently means that that god must be as complex or more so. Therefore, if the improbability of humans popping out of nowhere is X, the improbability of the existence of god is thus greater than or equal to X. Therefore, an "intelligent" creator would thus be as improbable as the entire universe as it is popping literally out of nowhere or more so improbable. Evolution on the other hand, is not designed to explain the origin of life or the origin of the universe. Evolution explains the progression of life, and is actually rather sensible. Creationists have yet to prove the existence of a living being that cannot have evolved; that is, something that has a part or such that would have no use as a partial part. You must also bear in mind that in some creatures, their parts are created in a sort of "scaffold" method...that is, another part that was essential to that evolution used to exist, but afterwards became obsolete and useless, and is no longer there. The origin of life is not yet known, as are a lot of things in science. But that is no excuse to make an ignorant claim that a god must therefore exist just because we don't know something. Imagine if biologists and geneticists simply gave up and said that while trying to find cures for diseases and cancer??? We also know the progression and creation of the universe with the big bang theory. Perhaps another theory might take its place one day, but that's the miracle of science; it progresses as we learn more. It's about searching for truth, rather than satisfaction with ignorance. However, we do not yet know the origin of the big bang. Perhaps we may someday know. We may know a lot of things, and perhaps we may someday be able to prove with actual physical evidence that there is no such thing as the supernatural. "Therefore, between me, Stuart, the FRP, yourself, and Greg, a sociologist and/or antrhopologist would argue the case in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that, to be "technical," ALL of us are "irrational" b/c the only RATIONAL person is the AGONOSTIC who says "You cannot say with certainty whether God exists or doesn't exist."" Certainty comes in degrees and levels. And, you cannot simply state that the existence of god is a fifty-fifty chance because that is not true; it is not. Suppose I told you there was a teapot orbiting the sun in our solar system, too small to be detected by modern telescopes, and somewhere between the orbits of Earth and Mars? You cannot totally disprove such, but everyone would probably call me crazy or delusional. While you cannot disprove such the existence of a teapot, you can say that is almost certainly does not exist because logic and a little common sense would enable you to do so. Such is the existence of god. It is not a mere "fifty-fifty" chance, but is rather illogical and improbable really. If you cite to my argument earlier, for there to be a creator capable of creating the universe, that creator is as improbable or more improbable than the universe literally appearing out of nowhere by chance. The universe is everything and within exists all we know, and this universe is infinite. Thus, god is infinitely improbable. An omniscient and omnipotent god certainly cannot exist then, because that god would then be more than infinitely improbable because he would have to not only be capable of designing and creating the universe, but would then have to be able to be even more powerful than that. In fact, such a god is logically impossible because omniscience and omnipotence are inherently incompatible attributes: if something is omniscient, or all-seeing, it can therefore see everything in all times and places, including its own actions. However, omnipotence, or being all powerful, implies that this being can do anything, including change what it has already seeing. But then one of these properties would have to be violated for this to be possible. So, inherently such a being cannot possibly exist. The idea that this god made us in our own image is also a bit egocentric at best, and totally asinine to put it mildly. If we have an infinite universe of nearly infinite numbers of stars, constantly growing (although, due to speed-of-light constraints, we cannot observe most of it), and the origin of life is a one billion against chance, then there are billions of other strands of life out there at this moment. To say that such a god would pick us out of all other beings to be made after him is improbable to the point of virtually impossibility. However, pantheism, also called the Einsteinian religion (Einstein was a pantheist), is a variant of Atheism and Deism mixed; that is, that the entire universe and everything is god, and this god is therefore everything. However, god is not used here in the sense that you use it; it is not a conscious being, it is not "all-powerful" and "all-seeing." This ideal is much more complex and far from any sort of ignorance-based claims of a "personal" god made by theists, or even a conscious creator that deists claim; which are both irrational sets of belief. |
| Date | 18:48:26, December 02, 2007 CET | From | Computational Intellect Project | To | Debating the Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3 |
| Message | [OOC] To TDP: "agnostic theist...agnostic atheist" There are no such things. Agnosticism is a belief of there being no evidence for or against anything. It is a belief in "fifty-fifty." What you are speaking of are IMPLICIT theists, deists, and IMPLICIT atheists. Personally, I find myself in between implicit and explicit atheism. Explicit atheism is just as irrational as theism, deism, and agnosticism. Implicit atheism is a deep-down knowing that there is no god, but you don't think it's worth considering, saying, etc. Being in between both, I can say that there is almost certainly no god because god is nearly infinitely improbable, and I can prove that logically. So, it IS possible there is a god, but then anything IS possible. I could possibly walk through a wall without breaking anything or disrupting any physical objects, but I just don't see that happening anytime soon. I hold the same stance with the existence of a god. |
| Date | 07:05:23, December 03, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3 |
| Message | OOC: Not at all BCoI, agnosticism is a position that states it is (probably) impossible to KNOW if there is or isn't a god. Look at the etymology a-gnosis (not-knowing). Implicit Atheism isn't what you claim it is - I should know, I am an Implicit Atheist. Implicit Atheism is a 'lack of belief', while Explicit Atheism is a 'belief of lack'. Fundamentally opposed viewpoints, and that's why there are two 'types' of atheists. To the Implicit Atheist (also called 'weak atheists', 'rational atheists' or 'agnostic atheists'), it would be folly to claim there IS NO GOD. That would be a statement of faith just as much as stating there IS a god would be. On the contrary, we make no claims either way - we simply don't believe any of the options that are presented to us... any more than we might believe in fairies (for which there is actually better evidence), ghosts, goblins or aliens. If you claim you know there is no god, you aren't between implicit and explicit at all - you are an Explicit Atheist. |
| Date | 18:15:42, December 04, 2007 CET | From | Computational Intellect Project | To | Debating the Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3 |
| Message | "any more than we might believe in fairies (for which there is actually better evidence), ghosts, goblins or aliens." ha - there actually is better evidence. "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" -Douglas Adams "If you claim you know there is no god, you aren't between implicit and explicit at all - you are an Explicit Atheist." I do not say I know there is no god, I say there is ALMOST certainly no god. I believe it is still possible for a god to exist, but it is almost certainly unlikely to be true. Therefore, I am not an explicit atheist, and certainly not an implicit atheist. |
| Date | 18:57:34, December 04, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3 |
| Message | If you hold that there could be a god, but you don't 'believe' there is one (or more) then you ARE an Implicit Atheist, whether or not you like the term. Your claims that a god would be unlikely, too unlikely to be true, are doubts. That doesn't make you an Atheist in and of itself. I know theists who acknowledge that God is so unlikely as to be impossible - hence his 'miraculous nature'. Skepticism doesn't make you a theist or an atheist... what decides that, is whether or not you 'believe' (either because of, or despite the evidence). If you 'believe' there is a god, you are some kind of theist. If you believe there is no god, you're an explicit atheist. If you don't believe the stories, you're implicit. |
| Date | 19:01:06, December 04, 2007 CET | From | Computational Intellect Project | To | Debating the Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3 |
| Message | I believe there is no god but I would not say that god is impossible. |
| Date | 19:08:23, December 04, 2007 CET | From | Computational Intellect Project | To | Debating the Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3 |
| Message | "An implicit atheist has not thought about belief in gods; such an individual would be described as implicitly without a belief in gods. An explicit atheist has made an assertion regarding belief in gods; such an individual may eschew belief in gods (weak atheism), or affirm that gods do not exist (strong atheism)." -Wikipedia, peer reviewed by millions of experts a day. That makes me an explicit, but weak Atheist. You would also be an explicit Atheist, and weak as well, but even weaker. |
| Date | 21:28:14, December 04, 2007 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Freedom FOR Religion & FROM Religion Act #3 |
| Message | Wikipedia is hardly a peer-reviewed source. Indeed, it is open-source. As it is - what wikipedia actually says is: "Implicit atheism is defined by Smith as "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it". Thus - the Implicit Atheist is one who lacks belief, but doesn't REJECT theistic belief. Or - in other words, doesn't believe, but makes no overall judgement about the existence of gods. What wikipedia actually says about Explicit atheism: "Explicit atheism is defined as "the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it". Thus - the Explicit Atheist lacks a theistic belief, but does so because they assert a definitive state about gods - i.e. that there are none. Or - in other words, doesn't believe, and makes the overall judgement that there are no gods. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 216 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 313 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 137 |
| Random fact: "Kubrk" is a Jelbic word that has the colloquial meaning "old man" or "geezer". |
| Random quote: "The best political weapon is the weapon of terror. Cruelty commands respect. Men may hate us, but we don't ask for their love, only for their fear." - Heinrich Himmler |