Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 23:45:07 UTC No. 16588573

>>16588572
No. They are literally the niggers of biology.
>no metabolism
>can only exist by being literal somali pirates

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 23:45:17 UTC No. 16588574

>>16588572
Open the first page of your middle school biology book again.

Anonymous at Sun, 16 Feb 2025 23:46:07 UTC No. 16588576

>>16588573
This is just about viruses btw, prions are not even that.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 00:31:01 UTC No. 16588600

>>16588572
They are non-existent beings

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 02:44:14 UTC No. 16588679

>>16588574
>trust the authority!

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 07:07:16 UTC No. 16588897

>>16588572
Wait until you find out about the obelisk (biology).

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:36:15 UTC No. 16588967

>>16588572
they gotta be something. they're not nothing

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:49:34 UTC No. 16588976

>>16588572
viruses have freaked the fuck out of me since I first learned about their structure and behavior. I had an immediate, almost panic-like reaction. they do not belong here.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:56:00 UTC No. 16588982

proteins in general are a pretty crazy rabbit hole

they really blur the lines of intuition on life

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 09:44:16 UTC No. 16589022

>>16588976
Are you spooked?

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 10:14:33 UTC No. 16589050

When I first learned viruses weren't alive in middle school, I felt as if that was some huge news but nobody else cared and the teacher never expanded on that thought.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 10:17:40 UTC No. 16589053

>>16589022
i realize these are microscopic tissue samples but my friend coughed up something the other day that looked like that. it was all black. very small ring shape.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 10:20:34 UTC No. 16589055

>>16589053
Probably one of those giant viruses. Never knew they were so giant you could actually see them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_virus

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:12:37 UTC No. 16589090

>>16588572
Who cares? The way life is defined in biology is very technicaly and narrow, and I don't really care if one of those conditions to be called life is not met. Wow there is no metabolism in virus? Ok? That dosen't make a cell cooler and is for me as important as the definion of igenous rocks and sedimentary rocks in geology, it's just meaningful for geology nerds. For me the only meaningful definition of life is that it is sentient. I don't care if viruses are life or not according the biological definition but i would care about the fact they are sentient and I could have an interaction with their consciousness in some way.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:19:11 UTC No. 16589097

>>16589090
you are a retard anon

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:23:55 UTC No. 16589099

>>16589097
Maybe, but it would be nice if you tell why you think so.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:38:27 UTC No. 16589110

>>16589097
What is your definition of life?

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 11:40:48 UTC No. 16589111

>>16589099
viruses aren't real. you might as well ponder whether comic book characters are alive.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 12:00:24 UTC No. 16589127

>>16588679
You first need to know the authority's position before you can adequately criticize the authority's position.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 12:02:41 UTC No. 16589130

>>16589111
Then what are those real structures that people call viruses?

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 12:16:52 UTC No. 16589148

>>16588572
In a sense, all material interactions produce some level of "consciousness", it is only through specific, highly organized and specific sets of instructions that advanced consciousness, i.e. human, can emerge
In a way everything is a living being, it is only the degree of complexity in the system that varies, which is the metric by which we define what is "alive" and what isn't, for simplicity's sake

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 12:21:04 UTC No. 16589155

>>16589130
By-products of the "isolation" procedure, which consists of mixing unpurified fluids of a sick host with cell culture and other chemicals such as antibiotics/antifungals and fetal bovine serum (used as a cultivation medium). What you see in EM is a result of this laboratory procedure, i.e. it's basically poisoned and starved cell culture, it's never an actual virus isolated from a sick host.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 12:23:09 UTC No. 16589159

>>16589155
Then what makes you so sure bacteria and fungus are more than just byproducts too and why do viruses repeatedly have their own RNA and/or DNA signatures if its just damaged byproducts of something else?

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 12:31:26 UTC No. 16589173

>>16589159
>Then what makes you so sure bacteria and fungus are more than just byproducts
You can isolate them and grow them in pure culture.
>why do viruses repeatedly have their own RNA and/or DNA signatures
But they don't. Every viral genome sequenced ever doesn't come from an isolated DNA/RNA macromolecule but from a mixture of all genetic material found in the cell culture after the "isolation". In other words, such macromolecule is never actually demonstrated to exist.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 12:35:17 UTC No. 16589177

>>16589173
>You can isolate them and grow them
Kind of like how you can infect them with virus's and isolate the virus too, but with culture that is more "pure"?

>after the "isolation"
So then why doesn't the DNA only match the individual host DNA instead of being specific to the virus and being similar though a variety of different hosts?

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 12:49:50 UTC No. 16589197

>>16589177
>Kind of like how you can infect them with virus's and isolate the virus too, but with culture that is more "pure"?
Not really, no bacterium or fungus has been demonstrated to be capable of infection. But you can find them in a sputum sample and grow them for fun. Virus is never found in a sample, it has to be manufactured by poisoning a cell culture with the sample first.
>So then why doesn't the DNA only match the individual host DNA instead of being specific to the virus and being similar though a variety of different hosts?
What you call "the virus" is a theoretical genetic sequence assembled by a computer from millions of DNA/RNA fragments of unknown origin. Why should it?

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 13:00:34 UTC No. 16589208

>>16589197
>no bacterium or fungus has been demonstrated to be capable of infection.
So now anthrax isn't even real either?

>Virus is never found in a sample, it has to be manufactured by poisoning a cell culture with the sample first.
So you have to add a virus to a sample before it spreads and is measurable in the sample? Again isn't that exactly how adding bacteria to a culture works?

>assembled by a computer from millions of DNA/RNA fragments of unknown origin.
No, they find the same sequence in the individual sample too, they don't need to incorporate millions of samples to get the DNA of an individual sample of a virus, they only need the large set of samples to show that the viruses in the different samples all have the same RNA and/or DNA.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 15:20:41 UTC No. 16589275

>>16589208
>So now anthrax isn't even real either?
The symptoms of anthrax are real and so is B. anthracis. There's no apparent causative relationship though.
>So you have to add a virus to a sample before it spreads and is measurable in the sample?
A sample is what is collected from the sick host (like mucus or BALF). The sample contains lots of genetic material of various origins MAYBE including a virus. But it is never attempted to actually find the hypothetical virus in the sample. Instead the sample is added to a cell culture together with other chemicals. The fact that the culture decays under this procedure is taken as a definite proof that there was a virus present in the original sample, but that is circular reasoning. It is not "measurable" by any means.
>Again isn't that exactly how adding bacteria to a culture works?
This is completely different than what is done with bacteria. Bacteria are simply isolated directly from the sample and then grown independently. They are not added to any host cell culture.
>No, they find the same sequence in the individual sample too, they don't need to incorporate millions of samples to get the DNA of an individual sample of a virus...
You are making stuff up, anon. A viral genome is sequenced by reading many short fragments of all genetic material present in the sample/cell culture supernatant which is then assembled using an algorithm. Some fragments are discarded, some are modified or supplemented. This results in thousands of hypothetical genomes which are then compared with already known viruses obtained by the same fraudulent method. If a high enough match is found, it is proclaimed that a new mutation has been found.
Again, this is completely different from the genome sequencing of bacterias or other real microorganisms, where you actually isolate the DNA macromolecule, determine the length of the genome first, and then read it gradually in small steps in its entirety.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 18:08:06 UTC No. 16589399

>>16588897
what the fuck? how am i just now learning about that

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 18:20:40 UTC No. 16589406

>>16588572

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Feb 2025 22:09:30 UTC No. 16589593

>>16588572
No, they have no self replication.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 02:00:26 UTC No. 16589771

>>16589593
neither do incels lol

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 02:26:38 UTC No. 16589793

>>16588572
how come parasites get to be life, but viruses don't? seems like a deference to scientific tradition to me.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 02:32:01 UTC No. 16589802

>>16588897
Did they tell you about mitochondrial heterogeneity

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 02:41:10 UTC No. 16589810

>>16589275
oh yay the autist is back
still can't come up with an explanation for virally transmitted polyhedrosis can you? Pretty hard to dispute viruses if you can routinely see them growing under a microscope, from any infected caterpillar.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 11:19:34 UTC No. 16590046

>>16589090
>For me the only meaningful definition of life is that it is sentient.
No one cares about your homebrewed special snowflake definiton. Defintions exist for the purpose of communication and are therefore meant to be commonly understood.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:15:21 UTC No. 16590096

>>16590046
I understood what anon meant just fine, maybe you just have brain damage and socialization defects.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:18:58 UTC No. 16590103

>>16589399
>Obelisks were identified in 2024

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:22:52 UTC No. 16590108

>>16590103
https://youtu.be/oFxomyt4oDA

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 01:39:18 UTC No. 16590974

What if a virus could make a cell produce a multi-cellular organism? That would be pretty scary haha

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 01:44:22 UTC No. 16590978

>>16589793
As far as I can tell from this thread and my own brief reading, it is.
The line has to be drawn somewhere, it was chosen arbitrarily, and nobody cares enough to move it.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 01:45:58 UTC No. 16590981

>>16589793
Fire is also life

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 01:52:11 UTC No. 16590984

>>16590981
we can create fire from raw materials.
life not so much.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 02:00:13 UTC No. 16590991

>>16589771
Kek.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 02:14:36 UTC No. 16591006

>>16590984
What is life made of then, if not raw materials?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 05:00:14 UTC No. 16591101

>>16588572
In sense I guess. They're basically microscopic invasive species, siphoning off existing ecosystems to feed themselves, except instead of flora it's fauna.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 05:05:49 UTC No. 16591104

>>16591006
I didn't say it wasn't made of raw materials, I'm saying no one has been able to figure out how these raw materials can link up to form life.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 06:42:34 UTC No. 16591140

>>16590981
Magnets are more alive than inert materials

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 06:54:44 UTC No. 16591146

>>16589793
Viruses are parasites, the fact that they are obligate parasites that need a host is what make them considered to be less living than non-obligate parasites that have their own metabolism and self generated locomotion (anima).

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 06:56:44 UTC No. 16591147

>>16590974
plasmids do that when producing biofilms

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 06:59:19 UTC No. 16591149

>>16590984
Then why did your life suddenly spark a few months after I raw dogged your mom?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 07:02:14 UTC No. 16591150

>>16589127
I don’t. I have this thing called my own thoughts, libtarded bootlicker.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 07:30:49 UTC No. 16591158

>>16589810
>you can routinely see them growing under a microscope, from any infected caterpillar
can you support it with a primary source?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 07:54:17 UTC No. 16591167

>>16591158
here's 200 stuck in a permanentl fossil record
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2014/181353
phenotypes are readily common in isopods and moth larva, I explained before how to ID infected bugs and how deadass simple it is to transfect. noted in serology for a millennium anon.
what sort of autistic proof do you need for phenomena chinks have categorized for thousands of years. you excuse things as if they couldn't exist in your worldview but what criteria counts as real, shit you can smell? Do you need to be able to touch the damn things? what separates a book from a virus you can collect with forceps from a dead caterpillar, feed it to another caterpillar (or extract the DNA and transfect, no protein/prion needed), and observe the same effects people have noted since 2000BC

https://youtu.be/nSA2wYUQTrg at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:36:16 UTC No. 16591191

>>16591158
I'll give you a thought experiment
You're invited to the largest experimental kitchen in the world, everything meant to surprise. Lines of fresh chefs pedaling their skills in what only can be described as a high-class state fair food hall. >Nitrogen frozen ice cream
>Dry aged steak chopped up as hors d'oeuvre
>Discussion over what's the best icing for cannolis, etc.
Off to the side, some mf wearing a "kiss the chef" apron is selling pic related. An overwhelming smell of urine and shit hits your nose, you ask what hell it is.
>"merde de chauvesouris, try it, it's delicious!"
Curious, you ask;
>why does it smell so bad?
oh, it's been dry-aged in a cave for 50 years
>why does it look like grey slop?
as it ferments, most of the solid material breaks down for a smooth texture
>what's so special about it?
it's very valuable
>oh really
a nearby person, an expert on guano, confirms that that substance is indeed a high quality and valuable sample
>"well?"

In lieu of saying "no, thank you" and you are required to at least respond to the shit salesmen, what would you say? Tell him off for peddling shit to random people? Threaten to report him? Consider he's playing and it's cookie & creme frosting? Eat the shit? What would be the most valuable way to make him change his ways?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 08:47:42 UTC No. 16591198

>>16591167
>what sort of autistic proof do you need
Start with isolation of the virus from a sick host. We can continue once the independent variable has been estabilished.

https://youtu.be/nSA2wYUQTrg at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:07:33 UTC No. 16591209

>>16591198
well aint it great that such observations have been noted by german farmers in the 1900s
cant be fucked to find the 10th edition of that book tho

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:10:02 UTC No. 16591211

>>16591198
No, you have already been provided proof that they have already isolated the DNA sequence of a virus from the various hosts and you wouldn't accept that, so you clearly won't accept any other means of isolating the virus from the host because you have already made up your mind, so you are obviously not looking at any of the evidence in good faith.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:22:24 UTC No. 16591220

>>16588572
What definition of 'living beings' are we using for this discussion?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:24:26 UTC No. 16591221

>>16591220
What interpretation of definition are we using for this conversation?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:32:27 UTC No. 16591224

>>16588572
No.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:33:18 UTC No. 16591225

>>16591209
Not what I've asked for
>>16591211
And it has been explained to you that the laboratory procedure you are referring to is not "isolation" in any sense of the word. It's the exact opposite actually.
>separating the virus from everything else in the sample = isolation
>mixing the sample with other stuff = not isolation
I don't accept fraudulent proofs, you're right about that.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:35:38 UTC No. 16591229

>>16591225
>>mixing the sample with other stuff = not isolation
It is if it causes a reaction that separates the elements you want to isolate, that is the entire concept of solvents.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:47:37 UTC No. 16591237

>>16591229
not our case tho

https://youtu.be/nSA2wYUQTrg at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:52:30 UTC No. 16591238

>>16591225
it's literally taking virus, putting it in a sealed vial, and taking it out in 15 years.
If it was something alive, it wouldn't replicate
if it was a prion like chronic wasting disease, it would be plaques that consist of protein that can be analyzed for structure and origin
the NPV crystals can be stored beyond the length of a living organism, they contain a genome essential for it's replication, the crystals themselves can be isolated with a field microscope and forcepts.
>Start with isolation of the virus from a sick host. We can continue once the independent variable has been estabilished.
The entire prestige of the isolated virus stored for 15 years, exposure, dependent phenomena, and controls have been set from a simple paper in the 1950s. Their observations suggest a non-living, self-replicating, independent particle stuck within a protein matrix (which also shares translational identity with the DNA inside) that does not appear out of nowhere.
What the fuck have I not answered.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 09:57:41 UTC No. 16591240

>>16591237
Yes it is a case of mixing a sample with something else in order to isolate the thing you wish to study, its a very common procedure in chemistry and you were very clearly wrong about you claim that you can't mixing things with a sample to isolate some individual component since that is the typical way it is done in a chemistry lab.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:04:31 UTC No. 16591246

>>16591221
What are my options?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:18:51 UTC No. 16591266

>>16591246
The best option would be to just use the accepted common definition to the best of your ability instead of being a retard who tries to answer OP with a question, but it clearly isn't your option, so I don't know, what definition of "options" are we using for this discussion.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:35:16 UTC No. 16591278

>>16591238
I've asked for an isolation of a virus from a sick host. This is just a mention that a virus has been "prepared" without any details.Has the virus been prepared by isolation from a sick host?
>>16591240
Are you familiar with the specific procedure that we're talking about or is this just in general? Adding the sample to a cell culture doesn't help separating the viral particles from other stuff in the sample at all.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:50:48 UTC No. 16591293

>>16591278
Culturing is the act of adding petri dishes and growth mediums to a cell sample as it is, so the fact you asking about a cell culture at all proves that mixing things with the sample is inherently necessary to isolate some biological compound.

>help separating the viral particles
I accept your concession, viral particles are real hence they use culturing to isolate them to find their unique DNA sequence.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 11:35:25 UTC No. 16591327

>>16591293
Let's deal with the following question first. Is the end product of the virus isolation procedure a medium containing nothing but particles of the same virus?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 11:41:54 UTC No. 16591335

>>16591327
Does any other type of cell culture medium have material other than cells too?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 11:57:19 UTC No. 16591350

>>16591335
Is the end product of the virus isolation procedure a medium containing nothing but particles of the same virus?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 11:59:02 UTC No. 16591353

>>16591350
Is the end product of bacteria cultures only bacterial cells or also the medium they need to survive?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 12:13:04 UTC No. 16591360

>>16589593

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 12:39:10 UTC No. 16591376

>>16591353
You're jumping ahead, bacteria are cultured in a medium AFTER they've already been isolated from the sample. At the very least, it is estabilished that the object of interest actually exists and was present in the collected sample.
Virus is never isolated and its presence is never demonstrated. The end result of the "isolation" process is a cell culture supernatant which may contain none, single or hundred viruses of uknown origin. There's no way to know.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 12:45:26 UTC No. 16591378

>>16591376
>bacteria are cultured in a medium AFTER they've already been isolated from the sample.
No, they need the substrate medium to survive, you can't completely take that away and have living bacteria to culture since a prerequisite for their metabolism to have metabolites.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 12:57:34 UTC No. 16591382

>>16591378
ths, leaving your suspected virus in a tube devoid of any metabolism for 15 years is evidence of it's non-life.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:21:19 UTC No. 16591392

>>16591378
Yeah, so? The problem is not with the presence of a medium.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:30:59 UTC No. 16591401

>>16591392
Then why did you say it was >>16591225 when you said mixing other things besides the cells doesn't count as isolation?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 14:27:03 UTC No. 16591438

>>16591401
cause it's 100% true in the case of virus isolation. what you're suggesting in >>16591229 may be true, but it doesn't apply here. the unpurified sample is added to a cell culture which really is just extra stuff, it doesn't help separate a virus from the rest of the sample.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 20:40:54 UTC No. 16591782

>>16588573
Are cells alive? What about bacteria? What about bacteria that relies on a host to survive and reproduce? That's not similar to viruses? What about an enucleated cell? Is it alive? Plants aren't conscious, and many rely on other species to reproduce. Are they not alive?

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:54:47 UTC No. 16591880

>>16591360
At the cellular level. If the classification was macro, then yes, incels would be non-living.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 21:58:18 UTC No. 16591885

>>16591880
>At the cellular level. If the classification was macro, then yes, incels would be non-living.

Thats a lie, they just create a narrative in the news to make it look like a cell.
All they do is leak a life feed to the planet of every thing I do.

They're attempting to coerce me into getting a car with gps, lol.

Basically, they're highly stupid people, with technology they shouldn't have and as a result feel very insecure because they've all just been caught out actively orchestrating a pedophile human trafficking network from gchq, because one of the parents didn't like that they didnt go along with the BLM movemnt or woke culture, or because a woman didn't have sex with someon in their extended net work. They're all insane.

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 22:41:21 UTC No. 16591913

>>16591782
>no metabolism
>but what about parasitic bacteria?
still has a metabolism anon
>buh wuh about nuclear replacement?
a cell dies without ribosomes, a chimera is still alive
>buh plants cant think
who the fuck cares? we're talking about if it's alive or not, not conscious.

No more retarded questions, OP is just baiting for the virus denier retard to rant about isolation (again).
Large viruses arent alive, plasmids arent alive, viroids are not alive. The distinction is not a grey area. The genetic material within phage/bacteria colonies could be required for the cells to survive, even then the lysogenic virus is an integral (or detrimental) non-living part of a living cell system; just like a plasmid or viroid.
It's disingenuous to portray a loop of DNA as living. Your DNA isn't alive, it couldn't replicate you just by itself. Trying to define life down to just DNA replication is fucking retarded, and it's been a mistake of Watson/Crick to straddle the central dogma onto DNA replication. Your RNA (and the system of metabolism as a whole, producing your energy currencies) has far more varied impact on survival, and rRNAs are required for any translation, while your genome can be cut up across multiple exomes or played like trading cards with page/plasmids.

TL;DR There's a retarded concept that a living system could be simplified to replication, reducing life to something a reprap 3d printer can do. ooor there's the actual fucking definition.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 09:28:22 UTC No. 16596062

>>16588572
the general and fully arbitrary consensus, which I disagree with, is that they are not living things. however, there is no reason to add having metabolism to the list of criteria. structures withstanding the ravages of time not by being hard but by causing copies of themselves being made are alive.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 09:34:17 UTC No. 16596069

>>16588572
No. But they are a sort of proto-life, in that they are self-replicators. I think they're interesting because they show that the things which are interesting about life have fuzzier boundaries than the textbook definitions.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 09:39:11 UTC No. 16596073

>>16596069
a lot of shit has fuzzy boundaries, in this universe. humans hate fuzzy boundaries because they're strict motherfuckers

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Feb 2025 11:29:45 UTC No. 16596225

>>16589130
tortured elves

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Feb 2025 07:09:09 UTC No. 16597138

>>16591167
that article was fascinating, informative and thoroughly disgusting.