A Challenge for Moral Realists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-01-2016, 11:03 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(05-01-2016 09:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-01-2016 02:29 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I’m interested to know how you can derive a social morality when morality is an individual belief.
I don't know how anyone can suggest what the morals of NZ are. We are made up of a bunch of diverse people.

We can likely make all sorts of distinctions between NZers and Americans, the sort of comedy they tend to prefer, temperaments they often value, the sort of novels and characters that appeal to them, the sort of political representatives they are inclined to get behind. We all to some degree have some notion of the society or world we want to live in, and the sort of people we desire to inhibit that world. Morality is often representative of variety of these temperances, that we hold, and desire that others hold as well.
...

Are you confusing 'morality' with 'culture'?

Consider

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2016, 11:11 AM (This post was last modified: 05-01-2016 11:33 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(05-01-2016 11:03 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(05-01-2016 09:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  We can likely make all sorts of distinctions between NZers and Americans, the sort of comedy they tend to prefer, temperaments they often value, the sort of novels and characters that appeal to them, the sort of political representatives they are inclined to get behind. We all to some degree have some notion of the society or world we want to live in, and the sort of people we desire to inhibit that world. Morality is often representative of variety of these temperances, that we hold, and desire that others hold as well.
...

Are you confusing 'morality' with 'culture'?

Consider

Morality is a part of culture, representative of the values, and character and conduct desired of it's constituents. The link is much clearer in pre-secular societies, that subscribed to some form of teleology. While the underling belief is no longer present, it tends to all work the same, that there's no basic difference in how different values, moral prescriptive catch on, become dominant, or compete, whether now, or in the past, though a bit more messy.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2016, 11:41 AM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(05-01-2016 11:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-01-2016 11:03 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Are you confusing 'morality' with 'culture'?

Consider

Morality is a part of culture, representative of the values, and character and conduct desired of it's constituents. The link is much clearer in pre-secular societies, that subscribed to some form of teleology. While the underling belief is no longer present, it tends to all work the same, that there's no basic difference in how different values, moral prescriptive catch on, become dominant, or compete, whether now, or in the past.

Culture is an aggregation of behaviours of individuals.

Individual behaviour is influenced by the compromise between Organisational Ethics and Individual Ethics.

Organisational (state / business / family / etc.) Ethics are embodied in the practices derived from the organisation's values / principles and encoded in their policies / laws / edicts.

So, St.Evil is right when he says that NZ does not have morals.

Morals are one of the factors that influence an individual's behaviour.

Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
05-01-2016, 12:34 PM (This post was last modified: 05-01-2016 12:38 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(05-01-2016 11:41 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Culture is an aggregation of behaviours of individuals.

Culture incapsulates a variety of factors, including values. You may try to draw lines here, but that's perhaps more of western thing. The lines are fuzzy, because morality, culture, religion, etc.. are so interwoven, that you can't really draw fences between them. In many cultures, particularly early ones it was all religion, encapsulating the moral, cultural, and political dimensions of human life.

Quote:Individual behaviour is influenced by the compromise between Organisational Ethics and Individual Ethics.

Organisational (state / business / family / etc.) Ethics are embodied in the practices derived from the organisation's values / principles and encoded in their policies / laws / edicts.

And those lines are fuzzy as well, between the individual and the organizational. The bonds and influence are likely stronger at the more immediate ends than the abstract ones like the state. My circle of friends, my family contributing more to my moral shaping than the state, or the larger society, or my employer, and educational institutions. And the individual ethic starts to blend a considerable deal with these immediate bonds. My friends, family, community more pliable to my own moral values, than you are.

And none of the shaping of our morality need be deliberate, or shaped solely by the moral views of others. Your moral perceptions and attitudes can shift considerably just by life events, our relationship with our parents, failed marriages, death, terror, isolation, etc...


Quote:So, St.Evil is right when he says that NZ does not have morals.

I'm sure St. Evil would say that if he lived anywhere else as well, particularly any other western nation.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2016, 01:39 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(05-01-2016 09:07 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I have to keep repeating myself in answering the same questions over and over, this conversation isn't going anywhere because you fundamentally reject what I mean when I use the term morality.
That's possibly true. I either reject your notions or I am not understanding what you mean.

I do see that I talk about morality in the context of a belief i.e. "moral belief" and you have been talking about morality as being a choice i.e. "moral choices".

On a fundamental level I still don't get how you claim that a society can have a morality. I am struggling to understand what method can be used to determine what the moral position of a society is on something.

I am hoping you will tell me that you determine it by doing a poll and getting knowledge of each individual's opinion or something.

I mean, you can't ask a society to tell you what its moral beliefs are. A society doesn't have a mouth, it doesn't have a brain, it cannot answer this question. You would have to ask each individual whom belongs to the society what their opinion is, what their individual belief is. And you will get a mixed response. So you will need a method of processing these individual opinions in order to determine what the "morality of society is" and that method may perhaps be by "majority opinion" ???. I'm just guessing here, because you are not telling my what method you would use in order to determine the morality of a society. I don't know how a person can determine this, so my guess seems ridiculous to me but it is the best guess that I can think of. My guess probably seems ridiculous to you as well.

I find it some what ridiculous when someone claims that they can determine the morality of a society. So perhaps there is a fundamental issue in my understanding of what you mean when you say that "society has a morality". That in hypothetical society A that slavery is moral and in hypothetical society B that slavery is immoral.
Even in a hypothetical society, how can we state that this hypothetical society has a morality when morality is an individual belief?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
05-01-2016, 02:27 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(05-01-2016 09:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-01-2016 02:29 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I’m interested to know how you can derive a social morality when morality is an individual belief.
I don't know how anyone can suggest what the morals of NZ are. We are made up of a bunch of diverse people.

We can likely make all sorts of distinctions between NZers and Americans
Without grossly generalising, not a lot of distinctions can be made.
We can say that most USA people tend to have a flavour of a particular USA accent and most kiwis tend to have the NZ accent.

We can say the USA people tend to write using a lot of "z"s and missing out on "u"s. We can say that it is more likely for a USA resident to think it is preferable for handguns and machine guns to be available on the retail market, unrestricted and easily accessible. We could say that it is more likely for a NZ resident to be freaked out if it were discovered that their neighbor owned 100 military style guns and had them on their property.
We could say that it is more likely that a USA resident be a Christian than an NZ resident.
We could say that it is much more likely that gun laws and abortion laws be key political policies influencing their vote for a US citizen than for a NZ citzen.
We could say it is much more likely that a US citizen knows how to speak Spanish than for a NZ citizen.


(05-01-2016 09:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  the sort of comedy they tend to prefer
You could say that a NZ resident is more likely to like British comedies a.k.a. The two Ronnies where US residents are more likely to like US comedies a.k.a. Two and a half men. (I'm not sure if this is true, but given a poll perhaps this can be discovered)
(05-01-2016 09:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  the sort of novels and characters that appeal to them
This statement is in danger of being a gross generalisation.
At best you could say that in NZ the most popular books tend to be X.
But you cannot say X is the sort of novel that appeals to NZers.
My tastes are different from my wifes, and are different from my mothers.
If you said that NZers like books on rugby, well I've never been interested in reading a book about rugby, but there are some NZers what love to read books on rugby.
At best you could say that X percent of NZers have read books on rugby.

(05-01-2016 09:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  the sort of political representatives they are inclined to get behind.
There are many NZers that are inclined to support free market policies and there are other NZers that are inclined to support socialist policies. Some that are inclined to support conservative policies and some that are inclined to support liberal policies.
At best you can say that elected NZ goverments have been predominately centre to right wing free to mixed market policies with a few socialistic governments in between.

(05-01-2016 09:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Perhaps your ideal for society, is one in which everyone just minds there own business, refrain from unnecessary violence or force, that affords a great deal individual autonomy and privacy, and tolerance.
Yes, this sounds nice.

(05-01-2016 09:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Perhaps you find the very idea or morality cumbersome
More dangerous, and controlling than cumbersome.

(05-01-2016 09:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  , and prefer that it be removed from our language all together, because it’s rather childish and naive, and causes more problems than its worth.
Well yes, I would love it if people moved away from moralistic ideals and confusing language as well. But hey, it is simple to use this language and people aren't going to use a more precise language particularly since the ideas of morality are ingrained into us, our media and our upbringing. And it has been this way for thousands of years.

(05-01-2016 09:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And what you would like to see is more and more people representative of yourself, being the ones in power, and influencing the laws and regulations of society in ways that you deem as more appropriate.
Not sure what is meant by this.
I would like to see laws focused on safety of society and for those that are not necessary for safety of society I'd like those removed. I don't care if the person in power is similar to me or different from me, just as long as they don't seek to control me unnecessarily. I'd be quite happy to vote for a woman, a Maori, a Chinese an Indian, a Muslim, A Christian, a Hindu, a wicken, I don't really care what the beliefs or culture of a person is, just as long as they respect my autonomy.

(05-01-2016 09:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  In our societies, we can no longer speak of a single entity called a society anymore, societies seems to be composed of a multiple of different societies and communities, with often conflicting concerns and interest. A liberal humanists desire for his country being different than the Tea Parties, all vying for a seat of power to dictate and shape society to their respective visions.
This is not necessarily true. There are many politicians that value autonomy and diversity. They don't see it as their job to unify culture, beliefs and morality. They see it as their job to facilitate a safe and thriving society and allow personal freedom and encourage tolerance of diversity.

(05-01-2016 09:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Perhaps for some people the very idea of conservative, traditional values illicit a sense of disgust,
Yes, I think this is indeed undesirable. Conservatives and traditionalists desire control.

(05-01-2016 09:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But what it’s interesting about our modern predicament, is that societies that sort of left the question of morality absent, that have imagined it as an old relic, a thing of non-concern, are beginning to see an eroding of the social fabric, the rise of decadence.
I don't agree with this.
Many governments are trending towards acceptance of a diverse society. Many governments are pulling away from enforcing moral beliefs. This is evident in the legalisation of gay marriage, of prostitution, of drug use. Governments are learning that they don't need to control people to the degree that they used to.

I can see that some religious conservatives may perceive this loss of control as being "an eroding of the social fabric, the rise of decadence"


(05-01-2016 09:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Why you’re appeal to the abandoning of morality is a relative new phenomena, it’s also very short sighted. It’s symptom of a trend in which moral direction seems absent, in which the trend is towards a sort of nominal moralism, that seem indistinguishable from nihilism. This is in no way an optimistic trend, it just invites a sort of decadence, that over values the individual, to the disregard of everyone else. When it starts to unravel a bit more, we’ll likely panic...
I understand why losing control can scare some people. At my old workplace the managers debate for months about removing the dress code that was in place. They told us they were scared about removing it. But once they had done so, they were relieved to find that we didn't come into work wearing our pyjamas or swim suits or dressed up like punk rockers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2016, 03:18 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(05-01-2016 01:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(05-01-2016 09:07 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I have to keep repeating myself in answering the same questions over and over, this conversation isn't going anywhere because you fundamentally reject what I mean when I use the term morality.
That's possibly true. I either reject your notions or I am not understanding what you mean.

I do see that I talk about morality in the context of a belief i.e. "moral belief" and you have been talking about morality as being a choice i.e. "moral choices".

On a fundamental level I still don't get how you claim that a society can have a morality. I am struggling to understand what method can be used to determine what the moral position of a society is on something.

I am hoping you will tell me that you determine it by doing a poll and getting knowledge of each individual's opinion or something.

I mean, you can't ask a society to tell you what its moral beliefs are. A society doesn't have a mouth, it doesn't have a brain, it cannot answer this question. You would have to ask each individual whom belongs to the society what their opinion is, what their individual belief is. And you will get a mixed response. So you will need a method of processing these individual opinions in order to determine what the "morality of society is" and that method may perhaps be by "majority opinion" ???. I'm just guessing here, because you are not telling my what method you would use in order to determine the morality of a society. I don't know how a person can determine this, so my guess seems ridiculous to me but it is the best guess that I can think of. My guess probably seems ridiculous to you as well.

I find it some what ridiculous when someone claims that they can determine the morality of a society. So perhaps there is a fundamental issue in my understanding of what you mean when you say that "society has a morality". That in hypothetical society A that slavery is moral and in hypothetical society B that slavery is immoral.
Even in a hypothetical society, how can we state that this hypothetical society has a morality when morality is an individual belief?

I'm not sure what you don't get about just mass views.

Just like opinion on anything, the views of morality is influenced and pushed around the same way. The same way a political position is held by a group or mass of individuals, it becomes a collective group that you could call that Group. That group of politicians/region/country and so forth.

Do you think it's ridiculous when someone claims they can determine the opinion of stars wars: forced awakened of a society? Because the predicting and gathering info on collectives of what people think is the same process. It's a manner of judging too & not saying this is some exact determination of every exact view... it's about how the outward action gets taken place, sometimes it's wrong. Sometimes what seems like the majority isn't so but just folks are letting it go that way because of comfort/fear of standing out vs that perceived angle.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
05-01-2016, 04:58 PM (This post was last modified: 05-01-2016 05:02 PM by Stevil.)
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
Hey ClydeLee

I found your post hard to comprehend. But here is my attempt to understand it. Tell me if I am right, correct me if I have understood incorrectly.

(05-01-2016 03:18 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Just like opinion on anything, the views of morality is influenced and pushed around the same way.
Here you are saying that the moral opinions of each individual are influenced by others and can change and shift (with the tide).

If this is what you are saying then I agree. But I also point out that many individuals resist the tide and even swim against it.

My question is though. Do we deem the tide (morale outcome) to be defining attribute of that Ocean (society)?
Does the tide represent the majority view. If so, then the method of discovering which direction the tide is flowing is by sampling and then deciding that the tide is going in the direction that has the highest amount of data points (individuals) in it. For example if 5 data points are going North, 2 data points are going South, 3 data points are going West and 3 data points are going East then we say the tide is going North because 5 is the largest amount of data points and those are going North. By stating that the tide is going North we are ignoring the fact that only 5 out of 13 (a minority actually) are going North.
Would we then state that those 3 data points which are going East are in fact wrong (immoral) to do so, that within this Ocean those 3 data points have a moral obligation to go North, simply because that is the direction that the largest group is going in?

(05-01-2016 03:18 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  The same way a political position is held by a group or mass of individuals, it becomes a collective group that you could call that Group. That group of politicians/region/country and so forth.
Yes, which is why I would deem it a gross generalisation to suggest that a group has a political position. It would be like saying that Iron Maiden fans are Liberals, when in fact some of them are Conservatives.

(05-01-2016 03:18 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Do you think it's ridiculous when someone claims they can determine the opinion of stars wars: forced awakened of a society?
Did you mean to say
"Do you think it's ridiculous when someone claims they can determine a societies opinion of stars wars: forced awakened?"
If this is what you meant to say then my answer is yes, this would be a ridiculous claim.
You could say that NZ loved "stars wars: forced awakened", you could point to the box office takings or point to a bunch of positive reviews. But then I could point to a bunch of negative reviews by NZers. I would say that many NZrs loved the movie but also that many NZers didn't like it.
NZ didn't love the movie. NZ is a country and countries don't have emotions. But many NZers did love the movie and many didn't like it. But on a whole it did very well at the box office in NZ.

To generalise that NZ loved the movie you would have to ignore those that didn't love the movie. If I asked you how you deteremined that NZ loved the movie I would be interested in you disclosing your method of coming to that conclusion. Was it based on box office takings, was it based on a majority view, was it based on the largest group e.g. perhaps 30% loved it, perhaps 20% hated it, perhaps 25% thought it was so-so, perhaps 20% hadn't seen it, perhaps 5% didn't want to comment. But it would be honest for you to disclose your method of determining your claim.
I am confused as to why TBD won't tell me his method for determining the morality of a society. Is there no such method? If there is no such method then how can he claim that a society has a morality e.g. that within Society A slavery is moral and within Society B slavery is immoral?

It seems that I am missing something here. Possibly I am looking at this wrongly. Perhaps when TBD says that a society has a particular morality then he means something different to what I think he means.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
05-01-2016, 05:09 PM (This post was last modified: 05-01-2016 05:14 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(05-01-2016 04:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Hey ClydeLee

I found your post hard to comprehend. But here is my attempt to understand it. Tell me if I am right, correct me if I have understood incorrectly.

(05-01-2016 03:18 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Just like opinion on anything, the views of morality is influenced and pushed around the same way.
Here you are saying that the moral opinions of each individual are influenced by others and can change and shift (with the tide).

If this is what you are saying then I agree. But I also point out that many individuals resist the tide and even swim against it.

My question is though. Do we deem the tide (morale outcome) to be defining attribute of that Ocean (society)?
Does the tide represent the majority view. If so, then the method of discovering which direction the tide is flowing is by sampling and then deciding that the tide is going in the direction that has the highest amount of data points (individuals) in it. For example if 5 data points are going North, 2 data points are going South, 3 data points are going West and 3 data points are going East then we say the tide is going North because 5 is the largest amount of data points and those are going North. By stating that the tide is going North we are ignoring the fact that only 5 out of 13 (a minority actually) are going North.
Would we then state that those 3 data points which are going East are in fact wrong (immoral) to do so, that within this Ocean those 3 data points have a moral obligation to go North, simply because that is the direction that the largest group is going in?

(05-01-2016 03:18 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  The same way a political position is held by a group or mass of individuals, it becomes a collective group that you could call that Group. That group of politicians/region/country and so forth.
Yes, which is why I would deem it a gross generalisation to suggest that a group has a political position. It would be like saying that Iron Maiden fans are Liberals, when in fact some of them are Conservatives.

(05-01-2016 03:18 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Do you think it's ridiculous when someone claims they can determine the opinion of stars wars: forced awakened of a society?
Did you mean to say
"Do you think it's ridiculous when someone claims they can determine a societies opinion of stars wars: forced awakened?"
If this is what you meant to say then my answer is yes, this would be a ridiculous claim.
You could say that NZ loved "stars wars: forced awakened", you could point to the box office takings or point to a bunch of positive reviews. But then I could point to a bunch of negative reviews by NZers. I would say that many NZrs loved the movie but also that many NZers didn't like it.
NZ didn't love the movie. NZ is a country and countries don't have emotions. But many NZers did love the movie and many didn't like it. But on a whole it did very well at the box office in NZ.

To generalise that NZ loved the movie you would have to ignore those that didn't love the movie. If I asked you how you deteremined that NZ loved the movie I would be interested in you disclosing your method of coming to that conclusion. Was it based on box office takings, was it based on a majority view, was it based on the largest group e.g. perhaps 30% loved it, perhaps 20% hated it, perhaps 25% thought it was so-so, perhaps 20% hadn't seen it, perhaps 5% didn't want to comment. But it would be honest for you to disclose your method of determining your claim.
I am confused as to why TBD won't tell me his method for determining the morality of a society. Is there no such method? If there is no such method then how can he claim that a society has a morality e.g. that within Society A slavery is moral and within Society B slavery is immoral?

It seems that I am missing something here. Possibly I am looking at this wrongly. Perhaps when TBD says that a society has a particular morality then he means something different to what I think he means.

Yes generally plenty seem to think others mean things. To some, it merely means, on the whole the people hold x particular moral values.

You seem to contrast the concept existing or being possible without defining it out via exact functioning processes. Perhaps that's just a mental concept holding out point. That's why nobody is saying it's some objective Kantian god in the sky holding out the command of what IS the accurate majority or not. It's up to determinations from what random data you could corroborate.

It is generalizations which isn't a path I'm often a fan of, especially when it comes to the other angle of picking out an individual's presumed other views based on a few generalization. Though your contrasts to this idea don't merely come off at times as being against generalization, but as if you think the concept of group mentality isn't possible. The generalizations some make may be way off though it isn't negating that process of individual melting into the masses & melting back into the individual so forth and so on.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2016, 06:21 PM
RE: A Challenge for Moral Realists
(05-01-2016 05:09 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It is generalizations which isn't a path I'm often a fan of, especially when it comes to the other angle of picking out an individual's presumed other views based on a few generalization.
OK, cool. I was just wanting an acknowledgement of that from TBD. Perhaps this is what he means, perhaps not. I'm not sure.

But if he is saying that he determines the morality of a society merely by making a generalisation based on, perhaps, his own personal experiences with individuals from that society or just perhaps on his own personal perception of that society, then his assessment (although holding some purpose for himself, perhaps helping him to narrate some perceived understanding or meaning about that society), his assessment holds no weight for others unless those others value his personal opinions no matter how lacking of supporting of evidence or method they built upon.

But in the context of "morality" the moral believers tend to have the idea that people are held accountable regarding a moral obligation. IF they deem that morality is a construct of society (owned at the level of society) then do they suggest that members of that society ought to live upto that moral obligation?
For example, in a majority religious society where gay sex is deemed as immoral, should an unreligious gay member of that society accept that their physical love for their significant partner is an immoral act?

If the society had laws in place to uphold the morality of that society, then would they be morally justified in locking up a gay person for behaving immorally? If the consequences are so dire that someone loses their own freedom then shouldn't the law be based on some real determination rather than just the law maker's own perceptions and generalisations regarding the morality of a society?

Personally, I feel the individual's moral beliefs are what holds weight. The individual determines for themself what they perceive to be right and wrong. They then feel guilt themselves if they feel that they have acted immorally. A person does not feel guilt if they feel they have acted immorally according to someone else's perception and generalisation regarding the society within which they live.

If, for example a devout Catholic has sex with his wife and uses a condom because he doesn't want a baby. He will feel guilt even if having sex with your own wife with a condom is legal and isn't perceived by the majority of citizens to be immoral.

The guilt comes with the person's own moral beliefs, the moral beliefs of others within society has nothing to do with it.

(05-01-2016 05:09 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  The generalizations some make may be way off though it isn't negating that process of individual melting into the masses & melting back into the individual so forth and so on.
I am an individual. I am not merely a NZer, I am not merely an atheist, I am not merely a Moral nihilist.
You could wonder, knowing that I am a kiwi, whether I am mad about rugby. But to know, you would have to ask me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: