/soy/ - Soyjaks

𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛
𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛

>>9247662 (OP)
This

bad boy

nope

𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛
𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛 𝚗í9𝚐𝚎𝚛

Yes

N

I

HOHOHO!

N

I

G

G

E

R

TLCM

>>9247768
>>9247766
>>9247765
>>9247759
>>9247756
>>9247753
G E M

>>9247773
Ty make /leftysoy/ now

HOHOHO!

HOHOHO!

HOHOHO!

HOHOHO!

Kill bad boys

make it now

HOHOHO!

HOHOHO!

MERRY CHRISTMAS

>MERRY CHRISTMAS
:hearts: :gift: YOU TOOOOO!!!!!!

>>9248510
Can we be friends

>>9248576
yes

Up

>>9247662 (OP)
Left wing right wing, authoritarian, liberalism, all that raisin doesn't matter. What matters is that white people exist and that we continue making the world a good place. Something the turd chucking masses can't do.

>>>9248510
>Can we be friends
That would be Wholesome and heckin awesome

>>9248602
consumerism is the enemy of the white race

>>9248604
friend

Allow namefagging on /leftysoy/ so I can identify my friend

>>9248610
this

HOHOHO!

HOHOHO!

HOHOHO! I wanna annoy polgood boys

HOHOHO!

wrenchlet pissbaby poorfag hands made this bread

>>9247662 (OP)
Good idea

>>9247662 (OP)
giftmy

HOHOHO!

Up o algo

bad boy

HOHOHO!

>>9251045
DO THIS

you get a HOHOHO!

HOHOHO!

>>9247662 (OP)
No, commie, no. For you there is bunkerchan (lefty/pol/).

>>9251160
gift

>>9251160
This, however, gift made me unironically communist right now.

>>9251290
>revisionist websites funded by bourgeoisiecucks
We need leftysoy

>>9251312
>>revisionist websites funded by bourgeoisiecucks
Proofs?

Unironically this. Ban good boys too btw

HOHOHO!

Jannies stop making a thousand dead boards and make this, you guys clearly want more self sufficient boards with /pol/ and clearly the userbase actually wants this so make /leftysoy/

gift above

>>9251552
this

HOHOHO!

santa claus do this in the new boards event

Kill every commiecuck

>>9251857
Jannies will never do this they are boring

HOHOHO!

>>9251907
Sad

HOHOHO!

HOHOHO!

HOHOHO!

>>9247662 (OP)
>>9247671
>>9247678
>>9247697
>>9247702
>>9247703
>>9247709
>>9247716
>>9247731
>>9247747
>>9247753
>>9247756
>>9247759
>>9247765
>>9247766
>>9247768
>>9247771
>>9247773
>>9247787
>>9247818
>>9247829
>>9247958
>>9248044
>>9248069
>>9248108
>>9248453
>>9248490
>>9248499
>>9248510
>>9248576
>>9248595
>>9248596
>>9248602
>>9248604
>>9248610
>>9248611
>>9248617
>>9248625
>>9248800
>>9249488
>>9249686
>>9249976
>>9249993
>>9250054
>>9250147
>>9250862
>>9250863
>>9250868
>>9251045
>>9251057
>>9251058
>>9251064
>>9251075
>>9251160
>>9251290
>>9251291
>>9251306
>>9251312
>>9251326
>>9251373
>>9251471
>>9251552
>>9251559
>>9251582
>>9251841
>>9251857
>>9251862
>>9251907
>>9252154
>>9252178
>>9252615
>>9252793
>>9253146

>>9247662 (OP)
we don't need an /lgbt/ board

>>9247662 (OP)
DO THIS NOW!!

>>9253216
gift

HOHOHO!

HOHOHO! and new 'toss

capitalism and jack frost won or whatever

>>9255487
> Z.O.G is filtered to Jack Frost
blvd

Believe in the magic of christmas!ffffffff

Oh nyet leftypol is trying to snowball fight soyelf

All marxists are damned into an eternity of suffering

>>9247662 (OP)
>>9247671
>>9247678
>>9247697
>>9247702
>>9247703
>>9247709
>>9247716
>>9247731
>>9247747
>>9247753
>>9247756
>>9247759
>>9247765
>>9247766
>>9247768
>>9247771
>>9247773
>>9247787
>>9247818
>>9247829
>>9247958
>>9248044
>>9248069
>>9248108
>>9248453
>>9248490
>>9248499
>>9248510
>>9248576
>>9248595
>>9248596
>>9248602
>>9248604
>>9248610
>>9248611
>>9248617
>>9248625
>>9248800
>>9249488
>>9249686
>>9249976
>>9249993
>>9250054
>>9250147
>>9250862
>>9250863
>>9250868
>>9251045
>>9251057
>>9251058
>>9251064
>>9251075
>>9251160
>>9251290
>>9251291
>>9251306
>>9251312
>>9251326
>>9251373
>>9251471
>>9251552
>>9251559
>>9251582
>>9251841
>>9251857
>>9251862
>>9251907
>>9252154
>>9252178
>>9252615
>>9252793
>>9253146
>>9253169
>>9253198
>>9253216
>>9253410
>>9253417
>>9255261
>>9255487
>>9255490
>>9255538
>>9256654
>>9256662

This snowman again say goodbye to your bread kike

>>9247662 (OP)
>>9247671
>>9247678
>>9247697
>>9247702
>>9247703
>>9247709
>>9247716
>>9247731
>>9247747
>>9247753
>>9247756
>>9247759
>>9247765
>>9247766
>>9247768
>>9247771
>>9247773
>>9247787
>>9247818
>>9247829
>>9247958
>>9248044
>>9248069
>>9248108
>>9248453
>>9248490
>>9248499
>>9248510
>>9248576
>>9248595
>>9248596
>>9248602
>>9248604
>>9248610
>>9248611
>>9248617
>>9248625
>>9248800
>>9249488
>>9249686
>>9249976
>>9249993
>>9250054
>>9250147
>>9250862
>>9250863
>>9250868
>>9251045
>>9251057
>>9251058
>>9251064
>>9251075
>>9251160
>>9251290
>>9251291
>>9251306
>>9251312
>>9251326
>>9251373
>>9251471
>>9251552
>>9251559
>>9251582
>>9251841
>>9251857
>>9251862
>>9251907
>>9252154
>>9252178
>>9252615
>>9252793
>>9253146
>>9253169
>>9253198
>>9253216
>>9253410
>>9253417
>>9255261
>>9255487
>>9255490
>>9255538
>>9256654
>>9256662
>>9256675
>>9256676

Synthese
the question this way Im a metaphysician Speaking as metaphysician I have affirmed
the following two positions this is not a made up example I am on record as endorsing
both positions
8 Fictional characters exist
9 Tables do not exist 43
Suppose I had said instead
8 It is not the case that everything is not a fictional character
9 Everything is not a table
There would no doubt have been certain rhetorical or pragmatic disadvantages in
so expressing myself but I should nevertheless have endorsed precisely the same
ontological theses Sentence 8 and sentence 8 express the same proposition thesis
philosophical position doctrine and sentence 9 and sentence 9 express the
same proposition At any rate the members of each pair come as close to expressing
the same proposition as do The present king of France is bald and Something is
male and now reigns over France and everything that is male and now reigns over
France is identical with it and it is bald In short the distinction Carnap is trying to
make by opposing
and
the concept of existence spoken of by the sentence There is an m between 7 and
13 which is prime
the ontological concept of existence or reality
does not exist 44 I insist that ontology that is what Thomasson calls hard ontology
and more generally metaphysics could get by perfectly well no other existential idiom
than it is not the case that everything is not a Descartes could have said I think
therefore it is not the case that everything is not I Aquinas could have said And
therefore it is not the case that everything is not something that moves others and is
itself unmoved The Fool could have said in his heart It is not the case that it is not
the case that everything is not God
8 Nominalists like Goodman and Quine are therefore simply philosophers who deny
the existence of abstract entities That is they deny that there are any That is they
deny that At least one is a correct answer to the question How many abstract entities
Footnote 42 continued
concept of existence or reality presumably
therefore she attaches special importance to it Immediately
following her quotation of the passage she speaks
of that nonontological concept of existence that
Carnap accepts
43 That is to say I endorse the positions
propositions the sentences 8 and 9 express in the context of
utterance inscription called the ontology room See van Inwagen 2014a
44 I do not deny that many ontologists would reject
the thesis that sentences like eg Universals exist
or Universals have real existence or Universals
really exist or Universals are among the constituents of
reality or Whatever else the world may contain it
contains universals mean no more than differ only in
rhetorical force from It is not the case that everything
is not a universal Well being an ontologist does
inoculate one against meta ontological
error or semantical illusion
Synthese
the question this way Im a metaphysician Speaking as metaphysician I have affirmed
the following two positions this is not a made up example I am on record as endorsing
both positions
8 Fictional characters exist
9 Tables do not exist 43
Suppose I had said instead
8 It is not the case that everything is not a fictional character
9 Everything is not a table
There would no doubt have been certain rhetorical or pragmatic disadvantages in
so expressing myself but I should nevertheless have endorsed precisely the same
ontological theses Sentence 8 and sentence 8 express the same proposition thesis
philosophical position doctrine and sentence 9 and sentence 9 express the
same proposition At any rate the members of each pair come as close to expressing
the same proposition as do The present king of France is bald and Something is
male and now reigns over France and everything that is male and now reigns over
France is identical with it and it is bald In short the distinction Carnap is trying to
make by opposing
and
the concept of existence spoken of by the sentence There is an m between 7 and
13 which is prime
the ontological concept of existence or reality
does not exist 44 I insist that ontology that is what Thomasson calls hard ontology
and more generally metaphysics could get by perfectly well no other existential idiom
than it is not the case that everything is not a Descartes could have said I think
therefore it is not the case that everything is not I Aquinas could have said And
therefore it is not the case that everything is not something that moves others and is
itself unmoved The Fool could have said in his heart It is not the case that it is not
the case that everything is not God
8 Nominalists like Goodman and Quine are therefore simply philosophers who deny
the existence of abstract entities That is they deny that there are any That is they
deny that At least one is a correct answer to the question How many abstract entities
Footnote 42 continued
concept of existence or reality presumably
therefore she attaches special importance to it Immediately
following her quotation of the passage she speaks
of that nonontological concept of existence that
Carnap accepts
43 That is to say I endorse the positions
propositions the sentences 8 and 9 express in the context of
utterance inscription called the ontology room See van Inwagen 2014a
44 I do not deny that many ontologists would reject
the thesis that sentences like eg Universals exist
or Universals have real existence or Universals
really exist or Universals are among the constituents of
reality or Whatever else the world may contain it
contains universals mean no more than differ only in
rhetorical force from It is not the case that everything
is not a universal Well being an ontologist does
inoculate one against meta ontological
error or semantical illusion
Synthese
the question this way Im a metaphysician Speaking as metaphysician I have affirmed
the following two positions this is not a made up example I am on record as endorsing
both positions
8 Fictional characters exist
9 Tables do not exist 43
Suppose I had said instead
8 It is not the case that everything is not a fictional character
9 Everything is not a table
There would no doubt have been certain rhetorical or pragmatic disadvantages in
so expressing myself but I should nevertheless have endorsed precisely the same
ontological theses Sentence 8 and sentence 8 express the same proposition thesis
philosophical position doctrine and sentence 9 and sentence 9 express the
same proposition At any rate the members of each pair come as close to expressing
the same proposition as do The present king of France is bald and Something is
male and now reigns over France and everything that is male and now reigns over
France is identical with it and it is bald In short the distinction Carnap is trying to
make by opposing
and
the concept of existence spoken of by the sentence There is an m between 7 and
13 which is prime
the ontological concept of existence or reality
does not exist 44 I insist that ontology that is what Thomasson calls hard ontology
and more generally metaphysics could get by perfectly well no other existential idiom
than it is not the case that everything is not a Descartes could have said I think
therefore it is not the case that everything is not I Aquinas could have said And
therefore it is not the case that everything is not something that moves others and is
itself unmoved The Fool could have said in his heart It is not the case that it is not
the case that everything is not God
8 Nominalists like Goodman and Quine are therefore simply philosophers who deny
the existence of abstract entities That is they deny that there are any That is they
deny that At least one is a correct answer to the question How many abstract entities
Footnote 42 continued
concept of existence or reality presumably
therefore she attaches special importance to it Immediately
following her quotation of the passage she speaks
of that nonontological concept of existence that
Carnap accepts
43 That is to say I endorse the positions
propositions the sentences 8 and 9 express in the context of
utterance inscription called the ontology room See van Inwagen 2014a
44 I do not deny that many ontologists would reject
the thesis that sentences like eg Universals exist
or Universals have real existence or Universals
really exist or Universals are among the constituents of
reality or Whatever else the world may contain it
contains universals mean no more than differ only in
rhetorical force from It is not the case that everything
is not a universal Well being an ontologist does
inoculate one against meta ontological
error or semantical illusion
Synthese
the question this way Im a metaphysician Speaking as metaphysician I have affirmed
the following two positions this is not a made up example I am on record as endorsing
both positions
8 Fictional characters exist
9 Tables do not exist 43
Suppose I had said instead
8 It is not the case that everything is not a fictional character
9 Everything is not a table
There would no doubt have been certain rhetorical or pragmatic disadvantages in
so expressing myself but I should nevertheless have endorsed precisely the same
ontological theses Sentence 8 and sentence 8 express the same proposition thesis
philosophical position doctrine and sentence 9 and sentence 9 express the
same proposition At any rate the members of each pair come as close to expressing
the same proposition as do The present king of France is bald and Something is
male and now reigns over France and everything that is male and now reigns over
France is identical with it and it is bald In short the distinction Carnap is trying to
make by opposing
and
the concept of existence spoken of by the sentence There is an m between 7 and
13 which is prime
the ontological concept of existence or reality
does not exist 44 I insist that ontology that is what Thomasson calls hard ontology
and more generally metaphysics could get by perfectly well no other existential idiom
than it is not the case that everything is not a Descartes could have said I think
therefore it is not the case that everything is not I Aquinas could have said And
therefore it is not the case that everything is not something that moves others and is
itself unmoved The Fool could have said in his heart It is not the case that it is not
the case that everything is not God
8 Nominalists like Goodman and Quine are therefore simply philosophers who deny
the existence of abstract entities That is they deny that there are any That is they
deny that At least one is a correct answer to the question How many abstract entities
Footnote 42 continued
concept of existence or reality presumably
therefore she attaches special importance to it Immediately
following her quotation of the passage she speaks
of that nonontological concept of existence that
Carnap accepts
43 That is to say I endorse the positions
propositions the sentences 8 and 9 express in the context of
utterance inscription called the ontology room See van Inwagen 2014a
44 I do not deny that many ontologists would reject
the thesis that sentences like eg Universals exist
or Universals have real existence or Universals
really exist or Universals are among the constituents of
reality or Whatever else the world may contain it
contains universals mean no more than differ only in
rhetorical force from It is not the case that everything
is not a universal Well being an ontologist does
inoculate one against meta ontological
error or semantical illusion
Synthese
the question this way Im a metaphysician Speaking as metaphysician I have affirmed
the following two positions this is not a made up example I am on record as endorsing
both positions
8 Fictional characters exist
9 Tables do not exist 43
Suppose I had said instead
8 It is not the case that everything is not a fictional character
9 Everything is not a table
There would no doubt have been certain rhetorical or pragmatic disadvantages in
so expressing myself but I should nevertheless have endorsed precisely the same
ontological theses Sentence 8 and sentence 8 express the same proposition thesis
philosophical position doctrine and sentence 9 and sentence 9 express the
same proposition At any rate the members of each pair come as close to expressing
the same proposition as do The present king of France is bald and Something is
male and now reigns over France and everything that is male and now reigns over
France is identical with it and it is bald In short the distinction Carnap is trying to
make by opposing
and
the concept of existence spoken of by the sentence There is an m between 7 and
13 which is prime
the ontological concept of existence or reality
does not exist 44 I insist that ontology that is what Thomasson calls hard ontology
and more generally metaphysics could get by perfectly well no other existential idiom
than it is not the case that everything is not a Descartes could have said I think
therefore it is not the case that everything is not I Aquinas could have said And
therefore it is not the case that everything is not something that moves others and is
itself unmoved The Fool could have said in his heart It is not the case that it is not
the case that everything is not God
8 Nominalists like Goodman and Quine are therefore simply philosophers who deny
the existence of abstract entities That is they deny that there are any That is they
deny that At least one is a correct answer to the question How many abstract entities
Footnote 42 continued
concept of existence or reality presumably
therefore she attaches special importance to it Immediately
following her quotation of the passage she speaks
of that nonontological concept of existence that
Carnap accepts
43 That is to say I endorse the positions
propositions the sentences 8 and 9 express in the context of
utterance inscription called the ontology room See van Inwagen 2014a
44 I do not deny that many ontologists would reject
the thesis that sentences like eg Universals exist
or Universals have real existence or Universals
really exist or Universals are among the constituents of
reality or Whatever else the world may contain it
contains universals mean no more than differ only in
rhetorical force from It is not the case that everything
is not a universal Well being an ontologist does
inoculate one against meta ontological
error or semantical illusion
Synthese
the question this way Im a metaphysician Speaking as metaphysician I have affirmed
the following two positions this is not a made up example I am on record as endorsing
both positions
8 Fictional characters exist
9 Tables do not exist 43
Suppose I had said instead
8 It is not the case that everything is not a fictional character
9 Everything is not a table
There would no doubt have been certain rhetorical or pragmatic disadvantages in
so expressing myself but I should nevertheless have endorsed precisely the same
ontological theses Sentence 8 and sentence 8 express the same proposition thesis
philosophical position doctrine and sentence 9 and sentence 9 express the
same proposition At any rate the members of each pair come as close to expressing
the same proposition as do The present king of France is bald and Something is
male and now reigns over France and everything that is male and now reigns over
France is identical with it and it is bald In short the distinction Carnap is trying to
make by opposing
and
the concept of existence spoken of by the sentence There is an m between 7 and
13 which is prime
the ontological concept of existence or reality
does not exist 44 I insist that ontology that is what Thomasson calls hard ontology
and more generally metaphysics could get by perfectly well no other existential idiom
than it is not the case that everything is not a Descartes could have said I think
therefore it is not the case that everything is not I Aquinas could have said And
therefore it is not the case that everything is not something that moves others and is
itself unmoved The Fool could have said in his heart It is not the case that it is not
the case that everything is not God
8 Nominalists like Goodman and Quine are therefore simply philosophers who deny
the existence of abstract entities That is they deny that there are any That is they
deny that At least one is a correct answer to the question How many abstract entities
Footnote 42 continued
concept of existence or reality presumably
therefore she attaches special importance to it Immediately
following her quotation of the passage she speaks
of that nonontological concept of existence that
Carnap accepts
43 That is to say I endorse the positions
propositions the sentences 8 and 9 express in the context of
utterance inscription called the ontology room See van Inwagen 2014a
44 I do not deny that many ontologists would reject
the thesis that sentences like eg Universals exist
or Universals have real existence or Universals
really exist or Universals are among the constituents of
reality or Whatever else the world may contain it
contains universals mean no more than differ only in
rhetorical force from It is not the case that everything
is not a universal Well being an ontologist does
inoculate one against meta ontological
error or semantical illusion
..

Synthese
the question this way Im a metaphysician Speaking as metaphysician I have affirmed
the following two positions this is not a made up example I am on record as endorsing
both positions
8 Fictional characters exist
9 Tables do not exist 43
Suppose I had said instead
8 It is not the case that everything is not a fictional character
9 Everything is not a table
There would no doubt have been certain rhetorical or pragmatic disadvantages in
so expressing myself but I should nevertheless have endorsed precisely the same
ontological theses Sentence 8 and sentence 8 express the same proposition thesis
philosophical position doctrine and sentence 9 and sentence 9 express the
same proposition At any rate the members of each pair come as close to expressing
the same proposition as do The present king of France is bald and Something is
male and now reigns over France and everything that is male and now reigns over
France is identical with it and it is bald In short the distinction Carnap is trying to
make by opposing
and
the concept of existence spoken of by the sentence There is an m between 7 and
13 which is prime
the ontological concept of existence or reality
does not exist 44 I insist that ontology that is what Thomasson calls hard ontology
and more generally metaphysics could get by perfectly well no other existential idiom
than it is not the case that everything is not a Descartes could have said I think
therefore it is not the case that everything is not I Aquinas could have said And
therefore it is not the case that everything is not something that moves others and is
itself unmoved The Fool could have said in his heart It is not the case that it is not
the case that everything is not God
8 Nominalists like Goodman and Quine are therefore simply philosophers who deny
the existence of abstract entities That is they deny that there are any That is they
deny that At least one is a correct answer to the question How many abstract entities
Footnote 42 continued
concept of existence or reality presumably
therefore she attaches special importance to it Immediately
following her quotation of the passage she speaks
of that nonontological concept of existence that
Carnap accepts
43 That is to say I endorse the positions
propositions the sentences 8 and 9 express in the context of
utterance inscription called the ontology room See van Inwagen 2014a
44 I do not deny that many ontologists would reject
the thesis that sentences like eg Universals exist
or Universals have real existence or Universals
really exist or Universals are among the constituents of
reality or Whatever else the world may contain it
contains universals mean no more than differ only in
rhetorical force from It is not the case that everything
is not a universal Well being an ontologist does
inoculate one against meta ontological
error or semantical illusion
Synthese
the question this way Im a metaphysician Speaking as metaphysician I have affirmed
the following two positions this is not a made up example I am on record as endorsing
both positions
8 Fictional characters exist
9 Tables do not exist 43
Suppose I had said instead
8 It is not the case that everything is not a fictional character
9 Everything is not a table
There would no doubt have been certain rhetorical or pragmatic disadvantages in
so expressing myself but I should nevertheless have endorsed precisely the same
ontological theses Sentence 8 and sentence 8 express the same proposition thesis
philosophical position doctrine and sentence 9 and sentence 9 express the
same proposition At any rate the members of each pair come as close to expressing
the same proposition as do The present king of France is bald and Something is
male and now reigns over France and everything that is male and now reigns over
France is identical with it and it is bald In short the distinction Carnap is trying to
make by opposing
and
the concept of existence spoken of by the sentence There is an m between 7 and
13 which is prime
the ontological concept of existence or reality
does not exist 44 I insist that ontology that is what Thomasson calls hard ontology
and more generally metaphysics could get by perfectly well no other existential idiom
than it is not the case that everything is not a Descartes could have said I think
therefore it is not the case that everything is not I Aquinas could have said And
therefore it is not the case that everything is not something that moves others and is
itself unmoved The Fool could have said in his heart It is not the case that it is not
the case that everything is not God
8 Nominalists like Goodman and Quine are therefore simply philosophers who deny
the existence of abstract entities That is they deny that there are any That is they
deny that At least one is a correct answer to the question How many abstract entities
Footnote 42 continued
concept of existence or reality presumably
therefore she attaches special importance to it Immediately
following her quotation of the passage she speaks
of that nonontological concept of existence that
Carnap accepts
43 That is to say I endorse the positions
propositions the sentences 8 and 9 express in the context of
utterance inscription called the ontology room See van Inwagen 2014a
44 I do not deny that many ontologists would reject
the thesis that sentences like eg Universals exist
or Universals have real existence or Universals
really exist or Universals are among the constituents of
reality or Whatever else the world may contain it
contains universals mean no more than differ only in
rhetorical force from It is not the case that everything
is not a universal Well being an ontologist does
inoculate one against meta ontological
error or semantical illusion
Synthese
the question this way Im a metaphysician Speaking as metaphysician I have affirmed
the following two positions this is not a made up example I am on record as endorsing
both positions
8 Fictional characters exist
9 Tables do not exist 43
Suppose I had said instead
8 It is not the case that everything is not a fictional character
9 Everything is not a table
There would no doubt have been certain rhetorical or pragmatic disadvantages in
so expressing myself but I should nevertheless have endorsed precisely the same
ontological theses Sentence 8 and sentence 8 express the same proposition thesis
philosophical position doctrine and sentence 9 and sentence 9 express the
same proposition At any rate the members of each pair come as close to expressing
the same proposition as do The present king of France is bald and Something is
male and now reigns over France and everything that is male and now reigns over
France is identical with it and it is bald In short the distinction Carnap is trying to
make by opposing
and
the concept of existence spoken of by the sentence There is an m between 7 and
13 which is prime
the ontological concept of existence or reality
does not exist 44 I insist that ontology that is what Thomasson calls hard ontology
and more generally metaphysics could get by perfectly well no other existential idiom
than it is not the case that everything is not a Descartes could have said I think
therefore it is not the case that everything is not I Aquinas could have said And
therefore it is not the case that everything is not something that moves others and is
itself unmoved The Fool could have said in his heart It is not the case that it is not
the case that everything is not God
8 Nominalists like Goodman and Quine are therefore simply philosophers who deny
the existence of abstract entities That is they deny that there are any That is they
deny that At least one is a correct answer to the question How many abstract entities
Footnote 42 continued
concept of existence or reality presumably
therefore she attaches special importance to it Immediately
following her quotation of the passage she speaks
of that nonontological concept of existence that
Carnap accepts
43 That is to say I endorse the positions
propositions the sentences 8 and 9 express in the context of
utterance inscription called the ontology room See van Inwagen 2014a
44 I do not deny that many ontologists would reject
the thesis that sentences like eg Universals exist
or Universals have real existence or Universals
really exist or Universals are among the constituents of
reality or Whatever else the world may contain it
contains universals mean no more than differ only in
rhetorical force from It is not the case that everything
is not a universal Well being an ontologist does
inoculate one against meta ontological
error or semantical illusion
Synthese
the question this way Im a metaphysician Speaking as metaphysician I have affirmed
the following two positions this is not a made up example I am on record as endorsing
both positions
8 Fictional characters exist
9 Tables do not exist 43
Suppose I had said instead
8 It is not the case that everything is not a fictional character
9 Everything is not a table
There would no doubt have been certain rhetorical or pragmatic disadvantages in
so expressing myself but I should nevertheless have endorsed precisely the same
ontological theses Sentence 8 and sentence 8 express the same proposition thesis
philosophical position doctrine and sentence 9 and sentence 9 express the
same proposition At any rate the members of each pair come as close to expressing
the same proposition as do The present king of France is bald and Something is
male and now reigns over France and everything that is male and now reigns over
France is identical with it and it is bald In short the distinction Carnap is trying to
make by opposing
and
the concept of existence spoken of by the sentence There is an m between 7 and
13 which is prime
the ontological concept of existence or reality
does not exist 44 I insist that ontology that is what Thomasson calls hard ontology
and more generally metaphysics could get by perfectly well no other existential idiom
than it is not the case that everything is not a Descartes could have said I think
therefore it is not the case that everything is not I Aquinas could have said And
therefore it is not the case that everything is not something that moves others and is
itself unmoved The Fool could have said in his heart It is not the case that it is not
the case that everything is not God
8 Nominalists like Goodman and Quine are therefore simply philosophers who deny
the existence of abstract entities That is they deny that there are any That is they
deny that At least one is a correct answer to the question How many abstract entities
Footnote 42 continued
concept of existence or reality presumably
therefore she attaches special importance to it Immediately
following her quotation of the passage she speaks
of that nonontological concept of existence that
Carnap accepts
43 That is to say I endorse the positions
propositions the sentences 8 and 9 express in the context of
utterance inscription called the ontology room See van Inwagen 2014a
44 I do not deny that many ontologists would reject
the thesis that sentences like eg Universals exist
or Universals have real existence or Universals
really exist or Universals are among the constituents of
reality or Whatever else the world may contain it
contains universals mean no more than differ only in
rhetorical force from It is not the case that everything
is not a universal Well being an ontologist does
inoculate one against meta ontological
error or semantical illusion
Synthese
the question this way Im a metaphysician Speaking as metaphysician I have affirmed
the following two positions this is not a made up example I am on record as endorsing
both positions
8 Fictional characters exist
9 Tables do not exist 43
Suppose I had said instead
8 It is not the case that everything is not a fictional character
9 Everything is not a table
There would no doubt have been certain rhetorical or pragmatic disadvantages in
so expressing myself but I should nevertheless have endorsed precisely the same
ontological theses Sentence 8 and sentence 8 express the same proposition thesis
philosophical position doctrine and sentence 9 and sentence 9 express the
same proposition At any rate the members of each pair come as close to expressing
the same proposition as do The present king of France is bald and Something is
male and now reigns over France and everything that is male and now reigns over
France is identical with it and it is bald In short the distinction Carnap is trying to
make by opposing
and
the concept of existence spoken of by the sentence There is an m between 7 and
13 which is prime
the ontological concept of existence or reality
does not exist 44 I insist that ontology that is what Thomasson calls hard ontology
and more generally metaphysics could get by perfectly well no other existential idiom
than it is not the case that everything is not a Descartes could have said I think
therefore it is not the case that everything is not I Aquinas could have said And
therefore it is not the case that everything is not something that moves others and is
itself unmoved The Fool could have said in his heart It is not the case that it is not
the case that everything is not God
8 Nominalists like Goodman and Quine are therefore simply philosophers who deny
the existence of abstract entities That is they deny that there are any That is they
deny that At least one is a correct answer to the question How many abstract entities
Footnote 42 continued
concept of existence or reality presumably
therefore she attaches special importance to it Immediately
following her quotation of the passage she speaks
of that nonontological concept of existence that
Carnap accepts
43 That is to say I endorse the positions
propositions the sentences 8 and 9 express in the context of
utterance inscription called the ontology room See van Inwagen 2014a
44 I do not deny that many ontologists would reject
the thesis that sentences like eg Universals exist
or Universals have real existence or Universals
really exist or Universals are among the constituents of
reality or Whatever else the world may contain it
contains universals mean no more than differ only in
rhetorical force from It is not the case that everything
is not a universal Well being an ontologist does
inoculate one against meta ontological
error or semantical illusion
Synthese
the question this way Im a metaphysician Speaking as metaphysician I have affirmed
the following two positions this is not a made up example I am on record as endorsing
both positions
8 Fictional characters exist
9 Tables do not exist 43
Suppose I had said instead
8 It is not the case that everything is not a fictional character
9 Everything is not a table
There would no doubt have been certain rhetorical or pragmatic disadvantages in
so expressing myself but I should nevertheless have endorsed precisely the same
ontological theses Sentence 8 and sentence 8 express the same proposition thesis
philosophical position doctrine and sentence 9 and sentence 9 express the
same proposition At any rate the members of each pair come as close to expressing
the same proposition as do The present king of France is bald and Something is
male and now reigns over France and everything that is male and now reigns over
France is identical with it and it is bald In short the distinction Carnap is trying to
make by opposing
and
the concept of existence spoken of by the sentence There is an m between 7 and
13 which is prime
the ontological concept of existence or reality
does not exist 44 I insist that ontology that is what Thomasson calls hard ontology
and more generally metaphysics could get by perfectly well no other existential idiom
than it is not the case that everything is not a Descartes could have said I think
therefore it is not the case that everything is not I Aquinas could have said And
therefore it is not the case that everything is not something that moves others and is
itself unmoved The Fool could have said in his heart It is not the case that it is not
the case that everything is not God
8 Nominalists like Goodman and Quine are therefore simply philosophers who deny
the existence of abstract entities That is they deny that there are any That is they
deny that At least one is a correct answer to the question How many abstract entities
Footnote 42 continued
concept of existence or reality presumably
therefore she attaches special importance to it Immediately
following her quotation of the passage she speaks
of that nonontological concept of existence that
Carnap accepts
43 That is to say I endorse the positions
propositions the sentences 8 and 9 express in the context of
utterance inscription called the ontology room See van Inwagen 2014a
44 I do not deny that many ontologists would reject
the thesis that sentences like eg Universals exist
or Universals have real existence or Universals
really exist or Universals are among the constituents of
reality or Whatever else the world may contain it
contains universals mean no more than differ only in
rhetorical force from It is not the case that everything
is not a universal Well being an ontologist does
inoculate one against meta ontological
error or semantical illusion
….