Good post, thank you for expanding.-

It must have been a mistake on your part or a problem with your computer/Internet. I don't think this post is likely to have been deleted in the past. And if it had been deleted in this thread you would see it and see the reason.

Well it doesn't help that sunita is making a mockery out of subjectivism

I happened upon a way to break consecutive posts. Include 6 pictures in the first post, then at least one more pic in the next. Why you would do this, I don't know. But that is an answer.

Eh, don't mind me. Immoral probably wasn't a good choice of word in the first place.

I would bet you that suni'll respond by restating his claim.

Is that better?

He was joking dear.

we can hope, but it never seems to happen.

These days, it's clearly a synonym. It's also possible I got my threads confused.

hahaha! Whoops. If very drunk, perhaps it's a homonym.

I'm disqualified for that round!

You get the synonym award, for sure, nettneu.

You didn't, but your post quoted a personal attack and so it got deleted because it was rendered contextless.

Agree with you in that the institution as a whole, clearly wasn't motivated by controversy when this gag was first approved. But imho, whoever designed it later in such a way that parents of the opposite sex were paired with their kids, may have been driven by distasteful reasons (whether intended or not). Thanks for replying, I appreciate it and have always enjoyed reading your entries in Philosophy & Ethics. Cheers.

If the prank was completely free from sexual overtones (whether intended or not), then why were students paired with parents of the opposite gender? I'm curious about your POV.

Agreed.

Please do!

I am being very bored and belligerent; I'm happy someone is getting something out of it