Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Atheism And Moral Progress

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

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    I agree that Pascal's Wager isn't that compelling, but I don't see how the others are fatally flawed. For instance the argument from design:

    Premise three would be the major sticking point, so Peter answers:

    I don't see how this is fatally flawed, and it does not seem unreasonable to me.
    So it is fatally flawed for several reasons, but there are two that stand out. First, "chance is not credible" is basically Peter's argument, and it's an assertion without substance. The argument he makes defining "by chance" as "not in a way we would have expected" is a definition created out of whole cloth to affirm his pre-existing position. "By chance" has nothing to do with "expectation." "By chance" simply means "in a manner that cannot be predicted." It doesn't mean it does not match our expectations - it means expectations are not possible.

    Second, he creates a false dichotomy, pitting "pure randomness" against "by design." It's almost as if he sees the two choices as "someone rolls a dice with a bazillion faces" vs. "someone systematically designs something." The universe operates according to repeatable, predictable, intelligible principles. That something is "intelligible" does not imply mean it was created by intelligence - it implies that it can be understood by an intelligence. How did these principles arise? We have no idea. It could be that it is impossible for a universe to exist that does NOT conform to these principles, hence the structure of our universe. It is possible that we have had an infinity of universes of various types. In an infinity of time, everything that can happen will happen, ergo the universe we have. And there are other possibilities.

    So the argument as a "proof for the existence of god" simply doesn't work. It attempts to make an argument on premises that cannot be shown to be true, and makes several logical leaps that are simply unsustainable. All of the so-called "proofs" for the existence of god have similar flaws. As I said, 20 flawed arguments doe snot a compelling picture paint.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      You haven't explained them adequately at all. This is because I don't believe you understand them. You say that we disagree over "subjectively arrived at moral principles," but on subjectivism this makes little sense. You and I can't be referring to the same objective moral principle in order to disagree over it. Once again, I am referring to my subjectivity and you are referring to yours. They might tangentially remotely relate to each other but not enough to qualify as a moral disagreement. There are less grounds for a disagreement here than there are in aesthetic matters. At least there, we have a physical object, a painting, a pizza, etc. We have color space and art history and so forth. But on subjectivism, the subject matter just IS the very thing that cannot exist between us. It can only exist as my private experience and as yours. This is not "begging the question": I did not assume that subjectivism entailed this characterisitic. I discovered it on inspection. For all I know, objectivism is not the only moral theory that allows for moral disagreement. In fact, there's nothing about other theories that entails this feature.
      I don't do this often, because I find it repugnant when others play this as a childish game with their "FIFY" taunt. However, the easiest way for me to show you the error in your argument is to insert the implied (but invisible) word in your paragraph. So for those reading, the bolded/italicized/underlined word in the paragraph above is my insertion, and was not in Jim's original post. Absolutely, we cannot be objecting to the "same objective moral principle," because a subjective moral framework HAS no access to objective moral truths. That is the point - they don't exist. So here is what you have done:

      P1 - All moralists agree that moral disagreement is a required element of moralism
      P2 - Moral disagreement is when two people disagree on the same objectively true moral principle
      C - Ergo the ability of two people to disagree on the same objectively true moral principle is a required element of moralism

      So, first, that a lot of people agree on something does not make a thing true. So the structure of P1 renders this argument unsound. P1 should be "moral disagreement is a required element of moralism," but then you would have to show how this is known to be true - and all you have is "everyone agrees."

      Second, P2 explicitly defines moral disagreement in terms of objective truths. But your goal is to show that morality must be objective, so you are defining the term in such a way as to preclude any other possible outcome - which is begging the question.

      The fact is, if I say "random killing is immoral" and you are saying "random killing is moral," we are morally disagreeing. You can deny it all you wish, but we are looking at the same action and one of us is calling it moral and the other calling it immoral. WHY we come to those conclusions is based on our subjective valuing/cherishing, so we have a challenge in coming to moral agreement - but there is not question that we are looking at the same act and coming to different conclusions about its moral value.

      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      As far as moral fallibility, you haven't answered that charge at all. Subjectivism makes the claim that moral truth just is constituted by a person's subjective moral beliefs and desires. That is an extraordinarily strong claim, far stronger than aesthetics makes. If it's true, how can I ever be wrong? If my moral beliefs change, I'm faced with a dilemma: I have to say either that I was wrong in the past, I am wrong now, that I am right at both times because the moral truth has changed or that there's something wrong with the moral theory. To say I am right all the time seems odd; the idea that moral truths are changing every time I change my moral opinion seems very unlikely. Moral fallibility is a major problem for the subjectivist because it seems to be endemic to moral thought. The subjectivist can respond by saying that fallibility is itself a mistake and "should" be dispensed with, or s/he can say that the subjectivist can make mistakes in logic reason or observation, but this admission then undermines the whole subjectivist thesis. It strongly suggest that there are criteria that a person's subjective responses need to be subjected to before they are epistemically accepted as trustworthy even by the person him or herself. Then how is this subjectivism?
      I have responded to this before, but I'll do it again. The problem lies in the sentence I emphasized above. You see, it is only "very unlikely" because everything in you wants there to be an objective framework, and you are measuring it against that desire. You are basically arguing, "it cannot be subjective because then it's not objective."

      So moral fallibility occurs in a couple of ways. First, categorizing action is all about sorting "ought do" from "ought not do." That is a natural by product of sentience. We use the term "morality" when that sorting is related to actions that impact the things we value/cherish most. So one way I can be morally fallible is to take a moral position that, through faulty reasoning or any other influence, actually negatively impacts something I value/cherish. As soon as someone shows me how my moral position is actually undermining something I value/cherish, my moral position will change and I will see the flaw in my original moral position. Another way we are morally fallible is when we hold a moral position but fail to live up to it in our day to day action, doing something we know to be injurious to what we value/cherish for a short term gain in something we value/cherish to a lesser degree. I see it as morally good to tell the truth, but telling the truth to X will make them angry at me and I value their friendship, so I lie, knowingly doing something I find to be morally ill.

      When what we value/cherish shifts, it is likely there will be cascade effects on our moral positions. This has characteristics you note above: our moral framework will shift and we will see our old moral framework as "incorrect" and our new moral framework as "correct." But that is an illusion. The fact is, our old moral position was correct for what we valued/cherished then, and our new moral framework is correct for what we value/cherish now. You find that "very unlikely" because you have arbitrarily decided that moral principles are like mathematical and logical ones: objectively true. They are actually like legal ones: subjectively true. Today pot is illegal (federal level) and people are going to jail. Tomorrow pot will be legal and people will not go to jail. What we value has shifted and the law shifted with it. Our present society will look back at the former society and say, "what were they thinking?" Our former society (if it could) would look at our present society and say "what are they thinking?" Each would consider the other wrong, but they are doing so from the perspective of what is currently cherished/valued.

      Jim - I know you hate it when say this, but your arguments are riddled with assumptions about morality having to be objective, and the arguments basically boil down to "but, but....that's not objective!"

      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      Analytic properties of a concept. I didn't say it has to fall along objective lines. See above.

      There CAN be aesthetic disagreement - but it is disagreement over subjectively arrived at aesthetic principles.

      You only think I'm ignoring your responses. I'm reporting on my subjective responses to your responses.
      I truly think you (and Seer) are blind to how locked-in you are to the insistence that morality has to be objective or it is somehow not "real." I see you as going in circles badly.

      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      No, you misunderstand again. When you get confused, you scramble to your default charge of "begging the question." I am trying to argue TO an ought. YOU are the one who keeps assuming there is no ought, there CAN BE NO ought. I said "That doesn't establish..." Saying that your argument doesn't establish the lack of an ought doesn't mean it establishes an ought. God, I'm really getting weary of this. That's why I wanted to shift gears or quit.
      Feel free to shift gears, Jim, or quit. Meanwhile, I value/cherish X. You claim that I "ought to value/cherish Y." But you can establish no basis for this claim. I can tell you why I value/cherish what I value/cherish. I can tell you why I want others to value/cherish as I value/cherish (and have done so). But the statement "you ought to value/cherish X" is meaningless unless you can show a source for this "ought." Why "ought" someone value/cherish X? Ultimately, if you try to answer that question, you will end up expressing it in terms of something else that is subjectively valued/cherished. You cannot escape this reality. If you think you can - then here is your challenge:

      One of the things many of us value/cherish is "liberty." It is the basis for a great number of our moral positions. So please explain why someone "ought to value liberty," without making any reference to subjectively valued/cherished things.
      Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-03-2019, 04:58 PM.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        So it is fatally flawed for several reasons, but there are two that stand out. First, "chance is not credible" is basically Peter's argument, and it's an assertion without substance. The argument he makes defining "by chance" as "not in a way we would have expected" is a definition created out of whole cloth to affirm his pre-existing position. "By chance" has nothing to do with "expectation." "By chance" simply means "in a manner that cannot be predicted." It doesn't mean it does not match our expectations - it means expectations are not possible.

        Second, he creates a false dichotomy, pitting "pure randomness" against "by design." It's almost as if he sees the two choices as "someone rolls a dice with a bazillion faces" vs. "someone systematically designs something." The universe operates according to repeatable, predictable, intelligible principles. That something is "intelligible" does not imply mean it was created by intelligence - it implies that it can be understood by an intelligence. How did these principles arise? We have no idea. It could be that it is impossible for a universe to exist that does NOT conform to these principles, hence the structure of our universe. It is possible that we have had an infinity of universes of various types. In an infinity of time, everything that can happen will happen, ergo the universe we have. And there are other possibilities.

        So the argument as a "proof for the existence of god" simply doesn't work. It attempts to make an argument on premises that cannot be shown to be true, and makes several logical leaps that are simply unsustainable. All of the so-called "proofs" for the existence of god have similar flaws. As I said, 20 flawed arguments doe snot a compelling picture paint.
        Except, that only works if your propose infinite regression which has its own problems. And:

        If you take away order and speak of chance alone as a kind of ultimate source, you have taken away the only background that allows us to speak meaningfully of chance at all. Instead of thinking of chance against a background of order, we are invited to think of order-overwhelmingly intricate and ubiquitous order-against a random and purposeless background of chance.
        He is exactly right, the idea of chance has no meaning unless you have a backdrop of order. Even speaking of chance requires the condition of order. His point is reasonable, and not at all fatally flawed, to say otherwise is to leap to infinite regression.
        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


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          I have been through this before with you Tass, there are good arguments for the existence of God, but they are not evidence in the scientific sense, and of course you will reject the following, but for those who are more open minded I will link these again:
          They are not “evidence” at all. NONE of Kreeft’s twenty arguments are “good arguments” that God exists. “Kreeft’s view about arguments for the existence of God, is that he believes that it is only a cumulative case for God that can prove or demonstrate the existence of God, and that individual arguments or proofs are NOT sufficient to prove or demonstrate the existence of God”.

          https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secula...our-arguments/
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            Yes seriously Charles, all moral claims are going to end up being circular to a degree. They are going to, at bottom, depend on what the person or culture find morally acceptable or not. For instance we were discussing Utilitarianism vs Deontological ethics. Both are logically consistent, yet there was no resolution as to which one was correct. In the end it comes down to a matter preference. You preferred Deontology, someone else Utilitarianism, and logical arguments can not answer the question. I asked you simple question back then that you refused to answer, which is a good exercise for the question of universal moral truths:

            If an advanced Alien race came to earth and began harvesting us for food, would that be a moral wrong? A universal moral wrong? And why?
            What's your answer? Would it be morally wrong?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              They are not “evidence” at all. NONE of Kreeft’s twenty arguments are “good arguments” that God exists. “Kreeft’s view about arguments for the existence of God, is that he believes that it is only a cumulative case for God that can prove or demonstrate the existence of God, and that individual arguments or proofs are NOT sufficient to prove or demonstrate the existence of God”.

              https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secula...our-arguments/
              Well Tass, nothing is proven. For instance, we have finely tuned, intelligible, life permitting universe where life actually shows up. And we have two choices - either an intelligence created it or non-rational forces did. Why choosing the non-rational forces is beyond me. And you still have not told us what sufficient evidence for God would look like. And since you have no idea any argument for God can be arbitrarily dismissed.
              Last edited by seer; 09-04-2019, 06:55 AM.
              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


              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                What's your answer? Would it be morally wrong?
                It would violate the law of God. In principle God's law would be applied to all creatures, and binding, His law being universal and authoritative. Unlike our relative moral musings...
                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


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  It would violate the law of God. In principle God's law would be applied to all creatures, and binding, His law being universal and authoritative. Unlike our relative moral musings...
                  So, I take it that you're a vegitarian?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    So, I take it that you're a vegitarian?
                    No, why would I be? According to Scripture killing and eating animals does not violate God's law.
                    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


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Except, that only works if your propose infinite regression which has its own problems.
                      First, the "problems" with infinite regression are pretty much identical to the "problems" with Zeno's Paradox. They are largely a philosophical illusion. Second, you only addressed one possibility: the one based on infinite time. But an infinity of universes could exist in other ways. The bottom line is, the argument cannot show its premises to be true - ergo the argument's conclusion cannot be shown to be true.

                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      And:

                      He is exactly right, the idea of chance has no meaning unless you have a backdrop of order. Even speaking of chance requires the condition of order. His point is reasonable, and not at all fatally flawed, to say otherwise is to leap to infinite regression.
                      He is exactly right to you because you want to accept his conclusion. He is defining his way to a conclusion, as you are prone to doing yourself. I noted that in my initial response, so you are basically ignoring my response and repeating a previously said statement, as you are also prone to doing.

                      I'll respond again if you provide something new to respond to. If you simply continually repeat the same failed arguments and ignore the responses offered, I'll leave the last word to you. I'm pretty much done with your pointless "tenacity."
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        So, I take it that you're a vegitarian?
                        You're pounding your head against a wall, Jim. Seer values/cherishes his god above all, and believes this god wants him to "obey his commands." This is the foundation of his morality. In Seer's world, what is moral is "what god wants/commands" or what is somehow dictated by this god's "nature." What is immoral is "what god does not want/command" or is not consistent with this god's "nature." (not sure what that latter part means). He further believes that the moral wants/commands/nature of this god are documented in the collection of books we know as "the bible." As a consequence, you have only three avenues that I can see to influence Seer's morality: convince him that this god does not exist, convince him that the bible is not the documented moral demands of this being, or convince him that his interpretation of the bible is not the correct one. Each of these is problematic and unlikely to succeed.

                        For those who moralize like Seer, we are generally left with only ignore (for the small stuff), isolate/separate (for the more major stuff) and contend (for the serious stuff). Fortunately, a significant part of the Christian moral framework is aligned with what most of us think is moral, and most Christians find ways to justify ignoring precepts and commands found in the bible that are widely considered to be immoral, so there is not a great deal of moral disagreement. The places where we have to resort to "contend" are fairly small and tend to be highly focused on things associated with sex and gender.

                        So perhaps a wiser course is to celebrate the areas where we agree morally, and then ignore, isolate/separate, contend for the rest. I think it's safe to say there is little chance that the basic moral position is not going to change.

                        ETA: It does dawn on me, however, that the number of Christian sects that have now accepted and embraced same-sex relationships and intimacy is continually growing, so perhaps it IS worth continuing to try to influence. Perhaps there is more of a chance of change than I am seeing.
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          First, the "problems" with infinite regression are pretty much identical to the "problems" with Zeno's Paradox. They are largely a philosophical illusion. Second, you only addressed one possibility: the one based on infinite time. But an infinity of universes could exist in other ways. The bottom line is, the argument cannot show its premises to be true - ergo the argument's conclusion cannot be shown to be true.
                          Well no, that is not the case. In this picture we have two understandable concepts, chance and design. There are models like the Hilbert Hotel that show actual infinite sets to be absurd. So you appealed to something that can not be understood and most likely is an absurdity in the actual world.


                          He is exactly right to you because you want to accept his conclusion. He is defining his way to a conclusion, as you are prone to doing yourself. I noted that in my initial response, so you are basically ignoring my response and repeating a previously said statement, as you are also prone to doing.

                          I'll respond again if you provide something new to respond to. If you simply continually repeat the same failed arguments and ignore the responses offered, I'll leave the last word to you. I'm pretty much done with your pointless "tenacity."

                          Again, we know in the real world what chance and design are. And we only have a concept of chance because of order. You on the other hand had to reach for infinite regression, which looks very unlikely if not impossible. So why would Peter include an absurdity or an unknowable concept in his argument?
                          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


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            You're pounding your head against a wall, Jim. Seer values/cherishes his god above all, and believes this god wants him to "obey his commands." This is the foundation of his morality. In Seer's world, what is moral is "what god wants/commands" or what is somehow dictated by this god's "nature." What is immoral is "what god does not want/command" or is not consistent with this god's "nature." (not sure what that latter part means). He further believes that the moral wants/commands/nature of this god are documented in the collection of books we know as "the bible." As a consequence, you have only three avenues that I can see to influence Seer's morality: convince him that this god does not exist, convince him that the bible is not the documented moral demands of this being, or convince him that his interpretation of the bible is not the correct one. Each of these is problematic and unlikely to succeed.

                            For those who moralize like Seer, we are generally left with only ignore (for the small stuff), isolate/separate (for the more major stuff) and contend (for the serious stuff). Fortunately, a significant part of the Christian moral framework is aligned with what most of us think is moral, and most Christians find ways to justify ignoring precepts and commands found in the bible that are widely considered to be immoral, so there is not a great deal of moral disagreement. The places where we have to resort to "contend" are fairly small and tend to be highly focused on things associated with sex and gender.

                            So perhaps a wiser course is to celebrate the areas where we agree morally, and then ignore, isolate/separate, contend for the rest. I think it's safe to say there is little chance that the basic moral position is not going to change.

                            ETA: It does dawn on me, however, that the number of Christian sects that have now accepted and embraced same-sex relationships and intimacy is continually growing, so perhaps it IS worth continuing to try to influence. Perhaps there is more of a chance of change than I am seeing.
                            Right and I guess that is better than being accidents of nature with no more inherent worth than the common ant. Where human rights are relative, ever changing, or nonexistent. Where raping your neighbor is no more right or wrong than feeding your neighbor. Where living the life of a Mother Teresa is ultimately no worse or better than living the life of a Stalin. Where we pretend to have meaning and invent our own ethics then applaud ourselves for living up to them. Where everything you love and cherish, including your own soul, is slated for death and dust. Like my signature says: 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...
                            Last edited by seer; 09-04-2019, 09:13 AM.
                            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


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Well no, that is not the case. In this picture we have two understandable concepts, chance and design. There are models like the Hilbert Hotel that show actual infinite sets to be absurd. So you appealed to something that can not be understood and most likely is an absurdity in the actual world.

                              Again, we know in the real world what chance and design are. And we only have a concept of chance because of order. You on the other hand had to reach for infinite regression, which looks very unlikely if not impossible. So why would Peter include an absurdity or an unknowable concept in his argument?
                              So nothing new, and ignored most of the core points I made. I'll leave the last word to you.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Right and I guess that is better than being accidents of nature with no more inherent worth than the common ant. Where human rights are relative, ever changing, or nonexistent. Where raping your neighbor is no more right or wrong than feeding your neighbor. Where living the life of a Mother Teresa is ultimately no worse or better than living the life of a Stalin. Where we pretend to have meaning and invent our own ethics then applaud ourselves for living up to them. Where everything you love and cherish, including your own soul, is slated for death and dust. Like my signature says: 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...
                                Again - nothing new - so I'll leave the last word to you.
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X