Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

'Christian nationalists believe rights come from God'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    Try telling that to the police when they are arresting you and see how far it gets you. In the sense that they are actively enforced in the real world, they are clearly not fictional.
    Fictional in that they are made up. According to some leftists they are.

    https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...-are-a-fiction

    I stated some basic observable facts. Do you disagree with anything I stated? Can we agree on those observed facts? If we can agree, then please state that, and then put forth your own argument building on them and I will review it. If you disagree with what I said, please explain what you disagree with.
    Just answer my question - do you agree that rights are not universal or unalienable?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Fictional in that they are made up.
      I think you're a failure when it comes to using basic English. Try using words properly. Laws are made up, but laws are not "fictional", they are real.

      Just answer my question - do you agree that rights are not universal or unalienable?
      Whether I agreed with that or not would depend on definitions of terms. Nor do I think just going to the dictionary definitions helps much because when I do, there are terms in those definitions I think are unclear and ambiguous. So I reject your question as totally incoherent on your part. I think you trip over your own feet all the time in these threads when it comes to any sort of philosophical terminology or even basic English word usage (as per the "fictional" above). I am genuinely unsure what my answer to your question will be once we agree on the terms (if we can), and unsure which of the multiple different ways of understanding human rights that people seem to have that I most agree with, but I am happy to try and work through the subject with you.

      Hence, my approach, of let's start with observable things and be clear on our terms. You still haven't answered my question of whether you agree with my really basic observations of reality. I would like to try and agree on a starting point, and then let you provide your argument based on that starting point for me to think about and assess, rather than jumping straight into you getting yourself tangled up in misused English words.
      Last edited by Starlight; 02-27-2024, 05:25 PM.
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #18
        Question for the God-given-rights advocates. How do you understand the following situation: Different countries, each believing in God-given rights, each come up with a list of those rights, and those lists don't entirely agree with each other as to what those rights are.

        Do you approach that situation with the belief that some of those countries must be factually wrong about what true list of God-given rights are/aren't? (Implying there is / could be some 'true' list of rights) Or do you view all the countries as being equally correct due to their belief that God gives rights, and you don't view the differences in the details of those lists of what the rights are as mattering?
        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          I think you're a failure when it comes to using basic English. Try using words properly. Laws are made up, but laws are not "fictional", they are real.
          I was using it the way Yuval Noah Harari was using it in his TED talk, where he calls both laws and human rights fictional.

          Whether I agreed with that or not would depend on definitions of terms. Nor do I think just going to the dictionary definitions helps much because when I do, there are terms in those definitions I think are unclear and ambiguous. So I reject your question as totally incoherent on your part. I think you trip over your own feet all the time in these threads when it comes to any sort of philosophical terminology or even basic English word usage (as per the "fictional" above).
          Get off you high horse Star, you are not that bright. And a 'moral realist' who can't even coherently explain the theory has no room to talk.


          Hence, my approach, of let's start with observable things and be clear on our terms. You still haven't answered my question of whether you agree with my really basic observations of reality.
          Stop dodging you knew exactly what I meant - answer my question. BTW don't moral realists believe in universal human rights?

          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            Question for the God-given-rights advocates. How do you understand the following situation: Different countries, each believing in God-given rights, each come up with a list of those rights, and those lists don't entirely agree with each other as to what those rights are.
            Yet you as a moral realist believe that there are universal moral truths even though we see moral disagreement.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              I was using it the way Yuval Noah Harari was using it in his TED talk, where he calls both laws and human rights fictional.
              I've never heard of him. Why should I care if someone else also uses words wrong?

              Get off you high horse Star, you are not that bright.
              Sorry seer, I am that bright. I have a high IQ, I'm well educated, with good grades across an unusually wide variety of subjects, and I'm a scientist. By any reasonable or normal measure I am extremely bright.

              Stop dodging you knew exactly what I meant - answer my question
              I edited my post above while you were writing yours to add that I'm honestly not sure what my view is on human rights. I am aware of quite a number of diverse views on the topic. I haven't yet found any particular one of them totally convincing. I don't have an answer to your question because I lack a belief either way, and I also think your question is really badly worded.

              BTW don't moral realists believe in universal human rights?
              In my view they could, but the one doesn't seem to necessarily follow from the other. I could easily imagine one moral realist who did believe in universal human rights, and another moral realist who didn't. There are a variety of different ways of conceptualizing what a right is and what it means for them to be universal, and I think it would totally depend on exactly how you did that as to how it would or wouldn't relate to moral realism.
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Yet you as a moral realist believe that there are universal moral truths even though we see moral disagreement.
                Correct I do. I would like to try to understand your position on rights though, to understand if it is analogous to my view on moral realism or different to it. Hence please give your answer to the really basic question I asked.
                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  I've never heard of him. Why should I care if someone else also uses words wrong?
                  Perhaps you are misusing them.

                  Sorry seer, I am that bright. I have a high IQ, I'm well educated, with good grades across an unusually wide variety of subjects, and I'm a scientist. By any reasonable or normal measure I am extremely bright.
                  Good grief, that is sad...

                  I edited my post above while you were writing yours to add that I'm honestly not sure what my view is on human rights. I am aware of quite a number of diverse views on the topic. I haven't yet found any particular one of them totally convincing. I don't have an answer to your question because I lack a belief either way, and I also think your question is really badly worded.
                  So you are agnostic... Fine...

                  In my view they could, but the one doesn't seem to necessarily follow from the other. I could easily imagine one moral realist who did believe in universal human rights, and another moral realist who didn't. There are a variety of different ways of conceptualizing what a right is and what it means for them to be universal, and I think it would totally depend on exactly how you did that as to how it would or wouldn't relate to moral realism.
                  A moral realist must assume, to be consistent, that there are universal standards of justice. If not why claim to be a realist - it makes no sense.

                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    Correct I do. I would like to try to understand your position on rights though, to understand if it is analogous to my view on moral realism or different to it. Hence please give your answer to the really basic question I asked.
                    OK, which one exactly. I'm going to assume that it will be an honest question.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Good grief, that is sad...
                      In what way?

                      So you are agnostic... Fine...
                      Indeed, but from my perspective your claim that rights come from God looks very strange and highly unlikely to be true. You've made zero attempt to explain how that could be plausible or could work. When I observe that governments, not God, appear to set an enforce rights, you haven't commented on that. When I observe that US rights disagree with the bible in general, you haven't addressed that. You don't seem prepared to mount any argument at all for your position that at face value looks false and ridiculous.

                      Also, if you think laws are "fictional" by virtue of someone making them up, why on earth would you think inserting God helps with that? If God makes them up, they would be no less "fictional"! I've seen this sort of broken reasoning from you multiple times now, you seem really wrongly convinced that if God does something it's somehow different to if people do it. You're just straightforwardly logically wrong. Your own position comes across in these discussions as really obviously wrong, and as falling victim to the exact same arguments you make against other views, and you never appear to see that or even understand the problem or that you need to defend the absurdities.

                      In the many years and 100s of pages of threads discussing with you, I have on occasion thought you made a reasonable argument against someone else's view that you were talking about. But you have never, not once, struck me as having a viewpoint yourself that didn't really obviously fall prey to the arguments you were making against others. You have never, ever, made any sort of decent arguments for your own view, just attempted to demolish other people's views. Even if you were to convince me in your attacks on other people's views (which, generally speaking, you fail at), I might indeed reject their views, but I would never as a result turn around and adopt your views, as they are so obviously inconsistent and false.

                      A moral realist must assume, to be consistent, that there are universal standards of justice. If not why claim to be a realist - it makes no sense.
                      That depends on what you mean by 'justice'. It's still not clear to me how a moral realist position would relate to human rights. It would depend on what sort of thing someone viewed a human right as being.

                      For example, some different views:
                      1. "When we say "X is a right" we mean that "it is morally right that X""
                      2. "When we say "X is a right" we mean that a government or group of governments has acknowledged that they see upholding the ability to do X as being valuable (in some specified way. e.g. promotes human flourishing; or is in accordance with some moral code; or promotes a free and fair society; etc)."
                      3. "When we say "X is a right" we mean that a consensus of people(s) have generally agreed that recognizing and defending X as foundational and entrenching it in law is valuable (in some specified way)."
                      4. "When we say "X is a right" we are making theological claims about God's will for human actions and his decrees for human conduct."
                      5. "When we say "X is a right" we are in some way referring to something about humanity being made in the image of God and what follows from that."
                      etc

                      The first view in the list directly ties "rights" to morality, so if a person endorsed that view, and if they were a moral realist on morality, then what they thought about human rights would tie straight to their moral realism. If someone took the 2nd or 3rd views on what rights are, then it would really depend on the part about why the rights were valuable as to whether it related to morality or not.

                      It's also not clear to me whether the Christian nationalists generally think rights are a result of explicit decrees of God (#4, which would seem to imply a specific list) or whether the rights are something they view as emerging in a logically-fuzzy kind of way from the fact that God made humanity in his image (#5) and which sort of have to be 'worked out' by a process of discussing what that 'means' and thinking about what could be a right or not and why (that last part appears to be consistently missing from these Christian nationalist discussions... they assert God has something to do with it, but give no explanation of what that means when it comes to working out what things are a right, and what are not rights, and why).
                      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        OK, which one exactly. I'm going to assume that it will be an honest question.
                        That was referring to post 18. I would genuinely like an answer to the honest questions there, because I am not actually sure what you view is, so am asking about it.


                        I would also like a response from you where you either agree or disagree with the contents of post 12. Assuming you agree, please build upon those agreed statement, and by doing so, please work towards convincing me of your overall view. At face value your view seems in conflict with the obviously-true statements in post 12 and so looks really obviously wrong, but I am open to the possibility that perhaps it isn't and that perhaps you could convince me of that?
                        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Post 12: no argument. The government chooses which rights to uphold. God leaves it to humans whether or not to uphold HUMAN rights.

                          Post 18: anything on the various lists that does not conflict with the basic scriptural tenets for human relations would be accepted, anything that violated the scriptural tenets would necessarily be rejected.
                          1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                          .
                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                          Scripture before Tradition:
                          but that won't prevent others from
                          taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                          of the right to call yourself Christian.

                          ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                            Post 12: no argument. The government chooses which rights to uphold. God leaves it to humans whether or not to uphold HUMAN rights.
                            Are you meaning that you don't see 'human rights' as coming from God or being predicated on God and that you see them as 'HUMAN' constructions?

                            My general understanding of your positions Tabibito is that you aren't a Christian nationalist like some here are (understandable, as I would say that Christian nationalist movements generally don't really exist in Australia / NZ in the same sense that they do in the US, and the religious people in our countries who want to insert their religion into politics are more thinking along the lines of having sincere beliefs about a short-list of specific moral issues rather than the much broader idea of Christian nationalism). So, while I thank you for your answers, the point of the questions was really to get answers from Christian nationalists about them.

                            Post 18: anything on the various lists that does not conflict with the basic scriptural tenets for human relations would be accepted, anything that violated the scriptural tenets would necessarily be rejected.
                            Would you reject the US Bill of Rights then for having a substantial number of rights that seem to disagree with scripture (as I outlined in post 8)? Are you implying that on topics where scripture has nothing to say (e.g. the media) that it's fine to have rights either way (e.g. press freedom vs no press freedom)?
                            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              Are you meaning that you don't see 'human rights' as coming from God or being predicated on God and that you see them as 'HUMAN' constructions?
                              [Probably way more than you were looking for, and maybe not what you desired.]

                              A basic human right, with due regard for scriptural vectors*, is the right for self determination. If humans don't want holy rights, all of which are predicated on due regard for responsibilities, people get abandoned to their own choices. Maybe that can be added to the list of unreasonable punishments.

                              * There is little if anything explicit on the subject, but there are road signs.

                              My general understanding of your positions Tabibito is that you aren't a Christian nationalist like some here are (understandable, as I would say that Christian nationalist movements generally don't really exist in Australia / NZ in the same sense that they do in the US, and the religious people in our countries who want to insert their religion into politics are more thinking along the lines of having sincere beliefs about a short-list of specific moral issues rather than the much broader idea of Christian nationalism). So, while I thank you for your answers, the point of the questions was really to get answers from Christian nationalists about them.
                              I was hesitant to weigh in for that very reason.

                              Would you reject the US Bill of Rights then for having a substantial number of rights that seem to disagree with scripture (as I outlined in post 8)? Are you implying that on topics where scripture has nothing to say (e.g. the media) that it's fine to have rights either way (e.g. press freedom vs no press freedom)?
                              Freedom of speech and of the press: Scant few would accept unfettered freedom of speech, and the press hasn't exactly used its freedoms responsibly. I wouldn't so much reject the concepts, but there should be a "subject to" clause. Where irresponsible misuse of freedom of speech results in harm, it violates the idea that one should not bring harm to another: scripture affirms the right to not be harmed without just cause. So - as it stands, freedom of speech and of the press don't have the requisite boundaries.

                              Blasphemy would come under three basic headings:
                              Ascribing action, whether good or bad, to God that he had nothing to do with - essentially slander.
                              Falsely swearing on oath.
                              Making the name of God a common word. The whole "replace the name of God, with God" and when that was deemed improper, replace "God with G-d," or "Hashem" (the name). is really futile - misuse any of them, and the name of God is profaned.



                              Freedom of Religion, by the definition current at the time that the American constitution was penned, other faiths were not viewed as religions (with perhaps some leeway for Jew and Muslim, but even that is doubtful). Religion at the time meant "a belief in God." (note the proper noun). If you are old enough to remember the 1960s, when people were asked for information about their religion, they were being asked what their denomination was (Salvo, Catholic, Methodist, Mennonite et al). I'm not sure what to think about "freedom of religion" as it is now interpreted - and will use the current definition for the remainder of this post. Many religious practices are repugnant - including those of some Christian sects. No - freedom of religion is one that I reject in the absence of some rather strict parameters: no-one should be free to impose Sharia law for example, nor yet such things as sati.

                              Freedom of peaceful assembly should be asserted, including the freedom to associate with people (other than with criminal intent) of an individual's own choosing, or in alternative terms, the freedom to not be forced into association with people that the individual doesn't want to be involved with.

                              Right to petition the government: that was extended to Israelites. One of the archaeological finds is a writing that outlines the social responsibilities of the king, which included care for the poor. Another is a petition to the king for redress by someone whose cloak had been confiscated. It seems that there is enough to say that the right to petition the government is well within the ambit of scriptural requirements, even if they are not explicitly stated.

                              The right to bear arms should be extended to anyone who has no record of violent offences (including intimidation) and no history of mental illness. Overall though, given a choice between the American system and ours, I'll take ours.

                              Protection from requirement to house soldiers: I don't have a problem with it, but don't know of any society apart from the American where the issue would ever have been raised. That rule was introduced for good reason.

                              Protection from unreasonable search and seizure: from seizure certainly, from search would depend on the parameters of "unreasonable." Too tight and people get to carry bombs onto planes. Too loose, and people don't get to go about their lawful business in peace. The biggest flaw in the American system is the failure to assert people's right to go about their lawful business in peace. The Japanese constitution asserts the right of all people everywhere to live in peace - it is too open ended, but much better than "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

                              Warrants would be covered by the foregoing.

                              Trial without indictment: Basic procedures were part of the Jewish legal system: not explicit in scripture, but adduced from scripture. The Jewish rules were overhauled a bit, particularly for capital crimes, just after 100AD (strange, that). According to a section of Sanhedrin 43A*, Jesus was "hanged" (not "hanged by the neck") after a trial and the prior 40 days where the Jewish authorities proclaimed publicly that Jesus was to be executed for "leading the people astray" (heresy), and calling for people to come forward as witnesses for the defence. The Jewish system was not the same, but it still had safeguards in place to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Each system would seem to fail equally as well as the other.

                              * Some scholars make various claims in a bid to discredit the passage reliability or applicability, but that is expected.

                              Double jeopardy is a travesty, though a second trial for the same offence should only be possible where new evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the prosecution's case. Perhaps also a conviction gained on the basis of perjury should also render the perjurer subject to the maximum penalties that apply to the offence itself. There are cases with which I am a acquainted that led me to the conclusion, to an aversion to freedom of the press, and by extension to freedom of speech.

                              Protection against property seizure: that letter to the king covers it. Scripturally not explicit, but certainly easy to adduce. It is not an area where government should get to do things that a private citizen doesn't, unless the seizure should be related to penalties for crimes.

                              Right to a speedy trial: not covered scripturally - though it was usually very speedy under the Israelite system.

                              Right to be informed of charges and to be confronted by witnesses: if not explicitly stated in scripture, the trial procedures make it tantamount to explicit (Sanhedrin 43A). Yes - the right to be confronted should be upheld, particularly in the here and now with video links (which should fall under the classification of confronted by witnesses) being available to mitigate the opportunity for witness intimidation.

                              I'll jump to 22, protection against cruel and unusual punishment. The way that reads, it would be protection from both, but not from either one in isolation. Not a well worded provision, methinks.

                              The Israelite procedures drew on scripture for guidance, with much of their system being adduced from scriptural sign-posts rather than explicit requirements. It can be said that the requirements are in scripture, but not on open display.









                              Last edited by tabibito; 02-28-2024, 12:43 AM.
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                                It isn't each right listed being based on the bible and God, but he entire idea of unalienable rights are from God that is brought forth in the DoI.

                                We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed


                                The concept is that the people have rights from God that nobody can take away, and that the people allow the government to protect them and give the government their powers, not the government giving the people their rights. So that concept is the basis for things like freedom of speech and religion, carrying arms to protect yourself and your family.
                                The phrase "their Creator" is ambiguous and somewhat equivocal.

                                You and various others here assume that "their Creator" refers to the Christian deity as you imagine it, but was that same deity in the minds of those who formulated that section?
                                Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 02-28-2024, 05:21 AM.
                                "It ain't necessarily so
                                The things that you're liable
                                To read in the Bible
                                It ain't necessarily so
                                ."

                                Sportin' Life
                                Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by carpedm9587, Today, 01:47 PM
                                16 responses
                                59 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 06:19 PM
                                13 responses
                                78 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by carpedm9587, Yesterday, 02:28 PM
                                38 responses
                                212 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 12:58 PM
                                14 responses
                                80 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by seer, Yesterday, 10:47 AM
                                54 responses
                                280 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post oxmixmudd  
                                Working...
                                X