Your donations are appreciated and help keep this site running. Even the smallest amount helps.
Thankyou

 
PROMOTE YOUR SITE
HERE
Only $3 USD/month
TRUTHSPOON.COM
The man they can't recruit!
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Philosophical health check

Philosophical health check 30 Jun 2013 12:11 #1

The Philosophical Health Check is designed to identify tensions or contradictions (a Tension Quotient) between various beliefs that you hold. The PHC does not aim to identify which of your beliefs are true or false, but where the beliefs you hold might not be compatible with each other.

The test identifies a pair of beliefs as being in tension, where (a) there is a direct contradiction between them, or (b) some sophisticated reasoning is required to allow both beliefs to be held consistently. If two of your beliefs are in tension, we advise that either giving one of them up, or developing some rationally coherent way of reconciling them (assuming you have not already done so).

It may help to think of the idea of 'tension' in terms of an intellectual balancing act. Where there is little or no tension between two beliefs, no particular intellectual effort is required to balance them. But where there is a lot of tension, either one has to "jump off the highwire" by abandoning one belief; keep one's balance by intellectual effort and dexterity; or else "fall off the highwire" by failing to deal with the tension.

You should note this test only detects tensions between pre-selected pairs of beliefs - it does not detect all the possible tensions between all permutations of beliefs. So there may well be additional tensions between beliefs you hold which are not detected by this test.

The chart above shows your "tension quotient" score and also the average tension quotient score across all the people who have completed this test (where lower is better). The next page of analysis will detail the particular tensions in your beliefs identified by the PHC.
www.philosophyexperiments.com/health/Default.aspx
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Chuck Random

Philosophical health check 30 Jun 2013 13:28 #2

  • ..........
  • ..........'s Avatar
  • Offline
  • Straight Shooter
  • Posts: 10081
  • Likes received: 2857
My tension is 47 which is high considering the average is 20.
You agreed that:
There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures
And also that:
Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil

The tension between these two beliefs is that, on the one hand, you are saying that morality is just a matter of culture and convention, but on the other, you are prepared to condemn acts of genocide as 'evil'. But what does it mean to say 'genocide is evil'? To reconcile the tension, you could say that all you mean is that to say 'genocide is evil' is to express the values of your particular culture. It does not mean that genocide is evil for all cultures and for all times. However, are you really happy to say, for example, that the massacre of the Tutsi people in 1994 by the Hutu dominated Rwandan Army was evil from the point of view of your culture but not evil from the point of view of the Rwandan Army, and what is more, that there is no sense in which one moral judgement is superior to the other? If moral judgements really are 'merely the expression of the values of a particular culture', then how are the values which reject genocide and torture at all superior to those which don ot?


Statements 5 and 29: Can you put a price on a human life?

26% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
The right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives
But disagreed that:
Governments should be allowed to increase taxes sharply to save lives in the developing world

If the right to life is so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant when it comes to making decisions about saving human lives, then that must mean that we should always spend as much money as possible to save lives. If it costs £4 million to save a cancer patient's life, that money should be spent, period. But if this is true, then surely the West should spend as much money as possible saving lives in the developing world. You may already give $100 dollars a month to save lives in the developing world. But if financial onsiderations are irrelevant when it comes to saving lives, why not $200, or $1000, or just as much as you can afford? If you do not do so, you are implicitly endorsing the principle that individuals and governments are not obliged to save lives at all financial cost - that one can spend 'enough' on saving lives even though spending more, which one could afford to do, would save more lives. This suggests that financial considerations are relevant when it comes to making decisions about saving lives - there is a limit to how much one should spend to save a life.


Statements 17 and 28: Are there any absolute truths?

34% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
There are no objective truths about matters of fact; 'truth' is always relative to particular cultures and individuals
And also that:
The holocaust is an historical reality, taking place more or less as the history books report

If truth is relative then nothing is straightforwardly 'true' or 'factual'. Everything is 'true for someone' or 'a fact for them'. What then, of the holocaust? Is it true that millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other 'enemies' of the Third Reich were systematically executed by the Nazis? If you believe that there are no objective truths, you have to say that there is no straight answer to this question. For some people, the holocaust is a fact, for others, it is not. So what can you say to those who deny it is a fact? Are they not as entitled to their view as you are to yours? How can one both assert the reality of the holocaust and deny that there is a single truth about it? Resolving this intellectual tension is a real challenge.


Statements 4 and 11: Is killing always wrong?

10% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
It is always wrong to take another person's life
And also that:
The second world war was a just war

It is clear here that you must either give up the idea of a just war or get rid of the 'always' in the principle 'it is always wrong to take another person's life'. It is actually very difficult to add to this principle a clause which starts 'except', so that it both allows in the kind of killing many feel is justified, yet keeps out the kind of killing which is felt to be unjustified. For example, 'except in self-defence' might seem reasonable, but this would mean an army could only fight when attacked, and could never risk civilian casualties. One also has to be careful that the 'except' clause is thought out and justifiable, and not merely an ad hoc device to justify what we feel is right and keep out what we don't like. There must be some better foundation to it than that for the principle to have teeth.


Statements 8 and 18: What is faith?

25% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

In disagreeing with the first statement, you are acting consistently with the general principle which states that in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it is not rational to believe it. For example, it is not possible to disprove the possibility that there are invisible pink fairies at this moment circling the planet Pluto, but we don’t countenance it as a real possibility because there is no evidence for their planetary activities. This is not to be thought of as a matter of faith, but of sound reasoning. But asserting that atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God contradicts this principle. It replaces the principle 'in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it is not rational to believe it' with the principle, 'in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it requires faith not to believe it'. For this reason, atheism is not a matter of faith in the same way as belief in God. In short, belief without evidence (a form of faith) is not the same as non-belief due to lack of evidence (rational refusal to assent).


Statements 14 and 25: How do we judge art?

29% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
Judgements about works of art are purely matters of taste
And also that:
Michaelangelo is indubitably one of history's finest artists

The tension here is the result of the fact that you don't believe the status of Michaelangelo is seriously in doubt. One can disagree about who is the best artist of all time, but surely Michaelangelo is on the short list. Yet if this is true, how can judgements about works of art be purely matters of taste? If someone unskilled were to claim that they were as good an artist as Michaelangelo, you would probably think that they were wrong, and not just because your tastes differ. You would probably think Michaelangelo's superiority to be not just a matter of personal opinion. The tension here is between a belief that works of art can be judged, in certain respects, by some reasonably objective standards and the belief that, nonetheless, the final arbiter of taste is something subjective. This is not a contradiction, but a tension nonetheless.


Statements 16 and 21: What should be legal?

37% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
The government should not permit the sale of treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety
And also that:
Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine

But most alternative and complementary medicines have not been tested in trials as rigorously as 'conventional' medicine. For example, the popular herbal anti-depressant, St John's Wort, has recently been found to cause complications when taken alongside any of five other common medicines. This has only come to light because of extensive testing. Yet the product is freely available without medical advice. The question that needs answering here is, why do you believe alternative medicines and treatments need not be as extensively tested as conventional ones? The fact that they use natural ingredients is not in itself good reason, as there are plenty of naturally occurring toxins. Even if one argues that their long history shows them to be safe, that is not the same as showing them to be effective. This is not to criticise alternative therapies, but to question the different standards which are used to judge them compared to mainstream medicines.


If you're interested in seeing what tensions you managed to avoid, you might want to have another go at the test, responding differently this time around.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Ultimate Seeker ™

Philosophical health check 30 Jun 2013 13:40 #3

  • cantata
  • cantata's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2481
  • Likes received: 2679
I LOVE this kind of stuff - all about ME! :D :

The PHC has identified 5 tensions in your beliefs.

The Philosophical Health Check is designed to identify tensions or contradictions (a Tension Quotient) between various beliefs that you hold. The PHC does not aim to identify which of your beliefs are true or false, but where the beliefs you hold might not be compatible with each other.

The test identifies a pair of beliefs as being in tension, where (a) there is a direct contradiction between them, or (b) some sophisticated reasoning is required to allow both beliefs to be held consistently. If two of your beliefs are in tension, we advise that either giving one of them up, or developing some rationally coherent way of reconciling them (assuming you have not already done so).

It may help to think of the idea of 'tension' in terms of an intellectual balancing act. Where there is little or no tension between two beliefs, no particular intellectual effort is required to balance them. But where there is a lot of tension, either one has to "jump off the highwire" by abandoning one belief; keep one's balance by intellectual effort and dexterity; or else "fall off the highwire" by failing to deal with the tension.


What does this even mean? :D
"...Wyrde saves oft the man undoomed
if he undaunted be....". (Beowulf).

"The most beautiful people we have known are those who have known defeat, known suffering, known struggle, known loss, and have found their way out of the depths... Beautiful people do not just happen". (Elisabeth Kubler-Ross).


:cavalier
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: pheony

Philosophical health check 30 Jun 2013 14:47 #4

  • irrepressible
  • irrepressible's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 2354
  • Likes received: 1237
What if you don't really hold any beliefs? :D
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: pheony

Philosophical health check 30 Jun 2013 15:27 #5

The Philosophical Health Test has identified the following tension(s) in your beliefs:
Statements 17 and 28: Are there any absolute truths?

34% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You agreed that:
There are no objective truths about matters of fact; 'truth' is always relative to particular cultures and individuals
And also that:
The holocaust is an historical reality, taking place more or less as the history books report

If truth is relative then nothing is straightforwardly 'true' or 'factual'. Everything is 'true for someone' or 'a fact for them'. What then, of the holocaust? Is it true that millions of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other 'enemies' of the Third Reich were systematically executed by the Nazis? If you believe that there are no objective truths, you have to say that there is no straight answer to this question. For some people, the holocaust is a fact, for others, it is not. So what can you say to those who deny it is a fact? Are they not as entitled to their view as you are to yours? How can one both assert the reality of the holocaust and deny that there is a single truth about it? Resolving this intellectual tension is a real challenge.
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Philosophical health check 30 Jun 2013 15:44 #6

  • Chuck Random
  • Chuck Random's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 1173
  • Likes received: 750
I scored 13

But I felt the experiment was problematic as it presented a yes/no to questions that in many cases would require contingent clauses or in depth exploration. Like I got
on the one hand, you are saying that morality is just a matter of culture and convention, but on the other, you are prepared to condemn acts of genocide as 'evil'. But what does it mean to say 'genocide is evil'? To reconcile the tension, you could say that all you mean is that to say 'genocide is evil' is to express the values of your particular culture. It does not mean that genocide is evil for all cultures and for all times.

Well no, you can argue that although morality has no objective basis it does not therefore follow that we cannot construct moral codes we may fully adhere to but nevertheless recognise are not objective values inherent in the universe. We may argue that morality is a functional requirement for language using humans to structure their societies to make life easier and more pleasant on the premise that the vast majority of humans desire an absence of pain, suffering, premature death and seeking to find moral systems that best facilitate this are a rational means to best facilitate this. For example, utilitarians may subscribe to a moral code they may universalise without asserting this code has any objectivity beyond simply being a human invention whose existence is contingent on the culture in which it arose.
We may also, say, recognise that slavery is/was viewed radically differently in other cultures while still seeing it as morally reprehensible and regarding it as 'evil'.

I think this really boils down to the difficulties in extrapolating from yes/no answers.

The second one relates to clicking the answer I didn't mean by accident, so fair play.
No War But The Class War
Last Edit: 30 Jun 2013 15:50 by Chuck Random.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Philosophical health check 30 Jun 2013 15:53 #7

  • Chuck Random
  • Chuck Random's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 1173
  • Likes received: 750
irrepressible wrote:
What if you don't really hold any beliefs? :D

Then you couldn't function. :)
No War But The Class War
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Philosophical health check 30 Jun 2013 15:56 #8

  • irrepressible
  • irrepressible's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 2354
  • Likes received: 1237
Chuck Random wrote:
irrepressible wrote:
What if you don't really hold any beliefs? :D

Then you couldn't function. :)

I'm talking about belief systems really... the usual suspects... the religions... political belief systems, nazisim, communism, capitalism, etc.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Philosophical health check 30 Jun 2013 19:53 #9

  • Chuck Random
  • Chuck Random's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 1173
  • Likes received: 750
irrepressible wrote:
Chuck Random wrote:
irrepressible wrote:
What if you don't really hold any beliefs? :D

Then you couldn't function. :)

I'm talking about belief systems really... the usual suspects... the religions... political belief systems, nazisim, communism, capitalism, etc.

That's an interesting area.

On one hand I would say there is a danger of dogma. Lots of people have died because other people believed God was on their side or it was necessary for their ideology.

On the other hand, I think a big problem today is people don't know what they believe in. People complain about the government and the corporations, but they're not really sure what they want instead. I think this is particularly dangerous today when an extremist neo-liberal ideology has become the political norm.
No War But The Class War
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: irrepressible

Philosophical health check 30 Jun 2013 20:04 #10

  • irrepressible
  • irrepressible's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 2354
  • Likes received: 1237
Chuck Random wrote:
That's an interesting area.

On one hand I would say there is a danger of dogma. Lots of people have died because other people believed God was on their side or it was necessary for their ideology.

On the other hand, I think a big problem today is people don't know what they believe in. People complain about the government and the corporations, but they're not really sure what they want instead. I think this is particularly dangerous today when an extremist neo-liberal ideology has become the political norm.

That's the problem, being a staunch believer in maybe the wrong thing. Although not believing in anything can lead to apathy and resignation.

Maybe we should all believe in ourselves, and believe in freedom, that might be anarchism though, which is another belief system.

What is the right way? There are no easy answers.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Philosophical health check 30 Jun 2013 20:31 #11

  • Chuck Random
  • Chuck Random's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 1173
  • Likes received: 750
irrepressible wrote:
That's the problem, being a staunch believer in maybe the wrong thing. Although not believing in anything can lead to apathy and resignation.

Maybe we should all believe in ourselves, and believe in freedom, that might be anarchism though, which is another belief system.

What is the right way? There are no easy answers.

Yes I agree it's a dynamic with problematic aspects at either extreme.

I think we have to have some kind of belief system. So most people think killing somebody because they spilled your pint is unacceptable. So then there's the question of why that's unacceptable and if it's ever acceptable to kill people and away you go. I think our beliefs are constantly tested, but many people just go with the flow. and accept what's normal.

And what is "freedom"? The term is these days routinely used to mean "free market capitalism".
And if freedom and belief in self = anarchism, then there are several different forms of that that span the political spectrum at comparable polar opposites to state ideologies.

Whatever we subscribe to, I do think there's been a consolidated effort to frame ideology in very narrow parameters.
No War But The Class War
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: irrepressible

Philosophical health check 30 Jun 2013 20:54 #12

  • diamondgeezer
  • diamondgeezer's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gone But Not Forgotten
  • Posts: 3141
  • Likes received: 2852
And what is "freedom"?

To me, now, it means 'personal' freedom, my personal freedom to live as I wish and do what I like, within reason, as long as its not imposing on anyone else.

And its being taken away from me.
The pen is mightier than the sword
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Philosophical health check 01 Jul 2013 13:59 #13

irrepressible wrote:
Chuck Random wrote:
That's an interesting area.

On one hand I would say there is a danger of dogma. Lots of people have died because other people believed God was on their side or it was necessary for their ideology.

On the other hand, I think a big problem today is people don't know what they believe in. People complain about the government and the corporations, but they're not really sure what they want instead. I think this is particularly dangerous today when an extremist neo-liberal ideology has become the political norm.

That's the problem, being a staunch believer in maybe the wrong thing. Although not believing in anything can lead to apathy and resignation.

Maybe we should all believe in ourselves, and believe in freedom, that might be anarchism though, which is another belief system.

What is the right way? There are no easy answers
.

Imo Irre you are a pure conformist, the things you ask "maybe we should believe in" : freedom and your private interests,,, are typically hollow, emptied of any meaning they may hold by your reluctance to elaborate on them and fundamentally capitalist, what is freedom to you, what is your "ourselves" and how is it formed?
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Philosophical health check 01 Jul 2013 19:46 #14

  • diamondgeezer
  • diamondgeezer's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gone But Not Forgotten
  • Posts: 3141
  • Likes received: 2852
No political 'system' or 'ideology' is really interested in personal freedom Ultimate, especially not communism, or 'maoism'...

Are the Chinese people free?

Then of course you get people advocating ideologies such as 'anarchism', but in my opinion they are naive at best, deluded at worst.

No police force or government etc etc....right yeah that's really going to work.... :roll:

Capitalistic democracy is as free as you're going to get. No-one is saying its perfect sure, but its the best option we've got.
The pen is mightier than the sword
Last Edit: 01 Jul 2013 19:48 by diamondgeezer.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Philosophical health check 01 Jul 2013 20:00 #15

  • irrepressible
  • irrepressible's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 2354
  • Likes received: 1237
Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
Imo Irre you are a pure conformist, the things you ask "maybe we should believe in" : freedom and your private interests,,, are typically hollow, emptied of any meaning they may hold by your reluctance to elaborate on them and fundamentally capitalist, what is freedom to you, what is your "ourselves" and how is it formed?

Ourselves as individuals. Freedom to me is being able to do what I want and live as I choose without being interfered with, I'm not harming anyone, I respect other peoples freedom, I don't impose my will on others.
I'm a simple man Ultimate, I'm not arsed about all that shit you're interested in, Maoism and politics and stuff :D
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Philosophical health check 01 Jul 2013 20:24 #16

  • diamondgeezer
  • diamondgeezer's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gone But Not Forgotten
  • Posts: 3141
  • Likes received: 2852
Freedom to me is being able to do what I want and live as I choose without being interfered with, I'm not harming anyone, I respect other peoples freedom, I don't impose my will on others.

That's my doctrine also, and the older I get, the more obvious it becomes to me that its the only way to live your life.

I'm not seeing any mad rush by people to move to places like China, or Saudi Arabia, are you?

No, funnily enough everyone seems to want to live here in the horrible capitalistic West, where they're free to openly complain how shite it is....strange that isn't it.... :chuckle:
The pen is mightier than the sword
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: cantata

Philosophical health check 01 Jul 2013 20:53 #17

  • irrepressible
  • irrepressible's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 2354
  • Likes received: 1237
It's a strange world DG, you couldn't write it :chuckle:
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Philosophical health check 01 Jul 2013 21:16 #18

diamondgeezer wrote:
No political 'system' or 'ideology' is really interested in personal freedom Ultimate, especially not communism, or 'maoism'...

Are the Chinese people free?

Then of course you get people advocating ideologies such as 'anarchism', but in my opinion they are naive at best, deluded at worst.

No police force or government etc etc....right yeah that's really going to work.... :roll:

Capitalistic democracy is as free as you're going to get. No-one is saying its perfect sure, but its the best option we've got.
I don't think you believe that, if you do then you deny the reality that Capitalistic democracy has been improved in the past, and could be improved now, or maybe you don't think Capitalist Democracy could be improved upon?

The Chinese departed from Mao Zedong thought in the 70's they enacted neo-liberal capitalistic reforms under authoritarian state control, that is not Maoism, Marxism or anything other than State Capitalism, so yes the Chinese are about as free as we are, the working class less so than the owning classes.

Irre what is this indifferent passive nonsense and why do you persist with it?
Ourselves as individuals. Freedom to me is being able to do what I want and live as I choose without being interfered with, I'm not harming anyone, I respect other peoples freedom, I don't impose my will on others.

Do you respect the freedom of the Royal family to rule Britain by the Sceptre?
Do you respect the freedom of businessmen to trade women for sexual exploitation?
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: irrepressible

Philosophical health check 01 Jul 2013 21:20 #19

  • irrepressible
  • irrepressible's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Posts: 2354
  • Likes received: 1237
Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
Irre what is this indifferent passive nonsense and why do you persist with it?

Do you respect the freedom of the Royal family to rule Britain by the Sceptre?
Do you respect the freedom of businessmen to trade women for sexual exploitation?

I thanked you for the questions :D The royals ruling Britain by the sceptre is them imposing their will upon the nation I think, or it's maybe more a case of the nation letting them do it :chuckle:

The business men also are imposing their will upon the women they trade, so no I don't respect that.

Freedom with personal responsibility. To be free without imposing our will upon each other.
Last Edit: 01 Jul 2013 21:20 by irrepressible.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: cantata

Philosophical health check 01 Jul 2013 21:35 #20

irrepressible wrote:
Ultimate Seeker ™ wrote:
Irre what is this indifferent passive nonsense and why do you persist with it?

Do you respect the freedom of the Royal family to rule Britain by the Sceptre?
Do you respect the freedom of businessmen to trade women for sexual exploitation?

I thanked you for the questions :D The royals ruling Britain by the sceptre is them imposing their will upon the nation I think, or it's maybe more a case of the nation letting them do it :chuckle:

The business men also are imposing their will upon the women they trade, so no I don't respect that.

Freedom with personal responsibility. To be free without imposing our will upon each other.
You are part of the Nation whether you believe you are or not is irrelevant, if you have a passport, residence or legal identity you are a member of the nation, regardless of what you believe you actually have an effect within the nation whether contributing through consumerism or taxes or taking from the nation, in services, benefits, healthcare etc, you have a place in your community whether you believe it or not.

You're not absolved from your participation in these things regardless of what you believe, you can try and take a blameless and innocent position within society saying you support everybodies freedom to do whatever they want, but if you don't support the freedom of rapers to rape then you admit the requirement for police and institutions being in place to regulate personal avarice.
...Molti nemici molto onore...
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
Moderators: novum, rodin, Flare
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it. Secure transactions via paypal.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2019 - May 2020, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 270 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 100 - Raised
( £ 80 GBP )
donation thermometer
29%
Updated
31st May 2019

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.