From Deism to Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-05-2015, 07:54 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(06-05-2015 06:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:From my perspective an unborn is a human being, a person, is a living entity right from the point of conception. I completely recognise it as a living human being (person). I have no problems whatsoever with mothers choosing to to kill their unborn. They do not have to have any justification whatsoever.

Because in the end it is their own body, and they should have the freedom to decide what they want to do with it?
Because in the end, it isn't my business. It doesn't impact me. It doesn't make society unsafe. I have no incentive (other than personal opinion) to take it upon myself to aggressively confront these people.
(06-05-2015 06:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:I have no problems whatsoever with an Amazonian tribe killing their own babies, they do not have to justify their actions to me.

Would you have a problem if it was occurring in NZ, if similar practices of infanticide were made legal? Is it just a matter that it’s of no concern since it’s occurring in another country, but it would be a problem if it was occurring in yours?
If it happened in my country then my concern is as follows:
Will this impact me?
Will it make my society dangerous for me?
I don't know the answer to these questions. I am open to exploring the idea.
Personally I don't feel that it makes sense to lock up a woman who kills her new born as a result of Postpartum depression or Postnatal depression. Especially if she doesn't have any other at risk children. It may make sense instead to console the woman and try to cure her depression, perhaps try to improve her resiliance to PPD so it isn't likely to happen again. Perhaps if she gives birth again then to provide much more support and to monitor her.
Prison doesn't seem to be a reasonable answer to me.

There is also another factor that I think you are ignoring regarding the Amazon tribe. They don't have access to ultra scans, they don't have access to wheel chairs and ramps, they don't get government support for raising a crippled child. Something like that could seriously jepordise the survival of that family.
(06-05-2015 06:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Whichever one is self evident can you please tell me what the answer is.
What are the moral facts?

In our discussion they are wrongs that have universal recognition, that are not dependent on ones cultures, or upbringing to recognize, like torturing an innocent baby just for fun, like killing an innocent child. They are recognized even by those who often commit these actions, often revealing a series of telltale signs that they do, such as guilt, depression, a sense of defect, a compulsion to rationalize, or a puzzling desire to be caught, etc…
OK, you think those things are self evident. I don't agree but without an ability to resolve our differences on this, lets just agree to disagree.
What about the things that people often debate about e.g. gay marriage, gay sex, abortion, birth control, polygamy, prostitution etc.
Are these things bound to objective morality (but just not self evident) or are they bound to subjective morality or do they fall outside the realm of morality?

(06-05-2015 06:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It’s sort of like agreeing that though having an affair is wrong, it shouldn’t be illegal.
Why should some immoral things be illegal and some immoral things not be illegal?
How do we decide?

(06-05-2015 06:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I do have a question for you though, do you sympathize with the woman who rescued the child, do you feel you share her sense of empathy for the handicap child? Or do you find yourself not sharing this at all? If you recognize her empathy as leading her to perceiving certain things as wrong, even if you believe these wrongs are illusory, does you empathy not lead you to perceive similar illusory wrongs?
Yes, I perceive empathy. I even have empathy for insects.
Philosophically speaking though, my empathy isn't an authority as to what is right and wrong. I would not look to aggressively force my own opinions onto others. I will get aggressive when my life or the life on my loved ones are threatened. It is unknown to what degree I would get aggressive to help out a stranger. But even then, that aggression would be for things that are in support of safety of society, (United we stand, divided we fall) type of thing.
(06-05-2015 06:50 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:What is the moral yardstick?
I don’t know, that seems to be a term you introduced. At from what I gather it seems to be about deciding at which point should one intervene, should our government and law enforcement be involved. But I’m not too sure.
I provided some examples of it, and you discussed things that I would classify as the "moral yardstick". You know, those principles "natural rights", "golden rule", "minimise suffering", "sustainability", "Divine command theory", "normative egoism" that various people choose to workout whether they think something is moral or immoral.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2015, 08:33 AM (This post was last modified: 07-05-2015 08:44 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(06-05-2015 07:54 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Because in the end, it isn't my business. It doesn't impact me. It doesn't make society unsafe. I have no incentive (other than personal opinion) to take it upon myself to aggressively confront these people.

So in a sense you don’t particularly see yourself on either side of the abortion debate, that your views are not particularly concerned about autonomy, a child’s life, etc.., your yardstick so to say is whether it has an impact on your wellbeing? Put you in jeopardy so to say. You mention society's safety, but does society's safety only matter to you if you could see a viable impact on yourself? Would you say whatever goes on in society doesn’t matter, unless there’s a foreseeable impact on your safety, or wellbeing?

And the safety of which society matters to you? Are the lines of this society, squarely circled around NZ? Or is the society here, as you’ve suggested in the past include all humans, a global society? Is it the safety of society on the global scale that matters to you here?

Quote: If it happened in my country then my concern is as follows:
Will this impact me?
Will it make my society dangerous for me?

It becomes undeniably dangerous for handicap children. Are you saying their safety doesn’t matter, unless it has an impact on you? If these handicap children in your view are a part of society, than clearly it’s dangerous for certain members. Or does the safety of other member’s of your society not matter unless, you can see a direct impact on your safety? In you objection to slavery, you opposed it primarily because slaves could likely grow large enough and than enslave you. Children on the other hand don’t pose a similar threat, is that the reason why their lives don’t matter as much?

Quote:Personally I don't feel that it makes sense to lock up a woman who kills her new born as a result of Postpartum depression or Postnatal depression.

But if a mother decided to kill their newborn just because they found them inconvenient, than we should lock the up? Unlike your view on abortion, where justification doesn’t matter, in regards to infanticide justification does seem to matter?

Quote:There is also another factor that I think you are ignoring regarding the Amazon tribe. They don't have access to ultra scans, they don't have access to wheel chairs and ramps, they don't get government support for raising a crippled child. Something like that could seriously jeopardize the survival of that family.

Yet, that’s not the particular justification for their actions. Families don’t even have a choice in the matter, mothers are particularly stripped of their own freedom, and the decision are often made by the men of the society, and sometimes against the families wishes, as in the case of the two parents who committed suicide when the child was taken away to be murdered..

Quote:OK, you think those things are self evident. I don't agree but without an ability to resolve our differences on this, lets just agree to disagree.

Well, I don’t want to agree to disagree, lol. You clearly believe they’re not self-evident, you say that you don’t believe in right or wrong. So it does make this a little interesting for me, with you serving as someone who could perhaps even make me reconsider my view. So I find it helpful in this regard to explore your basic pathology and rationalizations. I have some assumption here, but I want to follow them to see if they hold as true or not.

Quote:What about the things that people often debate about e.g. gay marriage, gay sex, abortion, birth control, polygamy, prostitution etc.
Are these things bound to objective morality (but just not self evident) or are they bound to subjective morality or do they fall outside the realm of morality?

I think you’re mistaken here. We operate with these self-evident moral facts in place already, they serve as the basis of all moral arguments. Parties operate with them in the background, as so obvious in fact, than no one even need dare to mention them. The analogy I’ve given is of two parties in a court room, going in already acknowledging the laws in place, before they present their competing cases.

The implicit acknowledgement of these moral facts doesn’t change our moral debates, or give one party anymore clarity than the other, things would continue just the same, as they already do.

Moral problems are often like this: Lying is wrong, and taking an innocent life is wrong. But what do we do when these values are in conflict?" Is it okay to lie to save a persons life? Infanticide is wrong, but we should respect the autonomy of the amazonian tribe, and not intervene. It’s the value of autonomy, of freedom, vs. taking an innocent life. All these values are present in nearly all these debates, and often in conflict. It’s not pro-abortion, vs anti-abortion, it’s pro-life vs pro-choice. Autonomy of ones own body vs the life of a fetus, if that fetus is a person, a child or not. Both parties value autonomy, and life of innocent children, and they’re just at an intersection.


I’m not saying that for our moral quandaries the answers here are self-evident. As if the question of how we should handle infanticide by an Amazonian tribe, is self-evident, or the punishment for mothers who murdered their child as a result of postpartum depression is self-evident. Because the answers are not. But that there’s a clear sense in which the murder of an innocent child is wrong, a clarity perhaps even elicited by our empathy.

Quote:Why should some immoral things be illegal and some immoral things not be illegal?
How do we decide?

Those are primarily political decisions, often having to do with the basic order and functioning of societies. And often secular, and amoral in a sense. Though often laws are built in acknowledgement of certain moral principles, like equality, freedom, fairness, liberty, a right to life, they are also concerned with maintaining the social order. And these principles can be in conflict as well, our governing bodies can be ruthless, and we might even just turn a blind eye to it.

Legalities are primary about the punitive role, conducted by the hands of a state, prison time, and monetary fines. Just because my friend was wrong for cheating on his wife, this doesn’t mean that I want the heavy arm of the state to penalize him for it. I might tell him that he needs to confess what he did to his wife, face the consequences of his actions, that what he did was wrong, that he betrayed the trust of his wife, and expect his conscious to do the rest.

Yet in archaic societies, out of necessity to maintain the social order, things may have been different, my friend and the women he had an affair, likely would have been publicly stoned to death for their transgressions. Because their transgressions not dealt with such severity, threatens to untie tribal cohesion, put the lives of the entire community at stake, by fracturing them. I would have mourned by friends loss, and perhaps accepted his fate.

Or perhaps one of our tribe members would have came along, and said to us before the first stone was lodged, “he who has done no wrong, let him be the first to throw a stone”. Perhaps we all would have paused for a moment, before stoning him as well.

Quote:Yes, I perceive empathy. I even have empathy for insects.
Philosophically speaking though, my empathy isn't an authority as to what is right and wrong. ….I would get aggressive to help out a stranger. But even then, that aggression would be for things that are in support of safety of society, (United we stand, divided we fall) type of thing.

But does your empathy fire the same way as the Amazonian women who perceived wrongness in infanticide? Do you perceive “wrongness” in this sense, and just sort of see it as irrational, a cajoling of your emotions into seeing false realities, illusory wrongness? Do you see it but just strip it of any authoritative power over you, because you see it as a false perception?

Most people who risk their own life to save a stranger, or intervene in rescuing them, would likely have been pushed to this as the result of their empathy. Society is likely not even question in one’s mind here. But if you saw yourself intervening, it would be because of a rational consideration of whether it serves the safety of society, a quick cost benefit analysis? Or would you have intervened out of your empathy, and just rationalized your actions afterwards as such?

When you did subscribe to morality, did empathy play more of a crucial rule in your perceptions of right and wrong? And now has just been discarded in your considerations?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2015, 01:56 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(07-05-2015 08:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So in a sense you don’t particularly see yourself on either side of the abortion debate, that your views are not particularly concerned about autonomy, a child’s life, etc.., your yardstick so to say is whether it has an impact on your wellbeing?
My default position is to give government as little power as the need. Because too much power is a threat to me, my own freedom etc.

So, given this, I only support government when I deem it absolutely necessary.
If I base my support off my opinion about what others are doing then I am hypocritical to complain about others basing a law off their opinion to stop me doing things that I want to do.

Things that are absolutely necessary are things such as murder and theft because I absolutely don't want to be murdered, I personally would need to resort to ultimate violence in order to protect myself. Theft is similar, if you steal all my stuff then my ability to survive becomes very unlikely. For society to function and thrive we can't all just sit at home all day on the porch with a shotgun, guarding our stuff.

This isn't a yardstick for morality, its a yardstick for law.

(07-05-2015 08:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And the safety of which society matters to you? Are the lines of this society, squarely circled around NZ?
Yes pretty much. I don't see it as NZ's job to invade other countries be cause we don't like how they run their own countries. However, we don't have much of a defence force wo we do have an alliance with UK, Australia, USA etc so to keep their support we do sometimes need to help them out with their wars.

Within my society there is the concept of United we stand, divided we fall. I mean, If I let a group go after all the Maoris whose to say they won't go after my group next?

(07-05-2015 08:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It becomes undeniably dangerous for handicap children. Are you saying their safety doesn’t matter, unless it has an impact on you?
If we start killing the handicapped children then we will likely have a civil war on our hands. The friends and family of the handicapped kids will get violent. This will endanger everyone in society.

(07-05-2015 08:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But if a mother decided to kill their newborn just because they found them inconvenient, than we should lock the up? Unlike your view on abortion, where justification doesn’t matter, in regards to infanticide justification does seem to matter?
Not really, we just need to consider the impact on society, whether society will become dangerous.

(07-05-2015 08:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You clearly believe they’re not self-evident
I lack a belief that they are self evident. I lack a belief in moral facts.

(07-05-2015 08:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:What about the things that people often debate about e.g. gay marriage, gay sex, abortion, birth control, polygamy, prostitution etc.
Are these things bound to objective morality (but just not self evident) or are they bound to subjective morality or do they fall outside the realm of morality?

I think you’re mistaken here. We operate with these self-evident moral facts in place already, they serve as the basis of all moral arguments. Parties operate with them in the background, as so obvious in fact, than no one even need dare to mention them. The analogy I’ve given is of two parties in a court room, going in already acknowledging the laws in place, before they present their competing cases.

The implicit acknowledgement of these moral facts doesn’t change our moral debates, or give one party anymore clarity than the other, things would continue just the same, as they already do.
What moral facts are to be considered in the gay sex debate?

(07-05-2015 08:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  When you did subscribe to morality, did empathy play more of a crucial rule in your perceptions of right and wrong? And now has just been discarded in your considerations?
I thought I knew better that others what they should do. I thought it made sense to control others using law based on my own opinion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2015, 02:51 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
I was curious about your response to these questions:

"But does your empathy fire the same way as the Amazonian women who perceived wrongness in infanticide? Do you perceive “wrongness” in this sense, and just sort of see it as irrational, a cajoling of your emotions into seeing false realities, illusory wrongness? Do you see it but just strip it of any authoritative power over you, because you see it as a false perception?

Most people who risk their own life to save a stranger, or intervene in rescuing them, would likely have been pushed to this as the result of their empathy. Society is likely not even question in one’s mind here. But if you saw yourself intervening, it would be because of a rational consideration of whether it serves the safety of society, a quick cost benefit analysis? Or would you have intervened out of your empathy, and just rationalized your actions afterwards as such? "
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2015, 05:03 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
"Then I learned that all moral judgments are “value judgments,” that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either “right” or “wrong”….I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable “value judgment” that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these “others”? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as “moral” or “good” and others as “immoral” or “bad”? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me—after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self." - Ted Bundy

Besides his desire to murder and rape someone, you in essence agree with his over all reasoning here though right? In seems to be consistent and makes sense to me, but I'm wondering do you find his overall views here representative of yours?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2015, 05:16 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(07-05-2015 02:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I was curious about your response to these questions:
OK, I get small timeslots of opportunity to read and write stuff and your post was large so I kinda skipped most of the bottom stuff.
(07-05-2015 02:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  "But does your empathy fire the same way as the Amazonian women who perceived wrongness in infanticide? Do you perceive “wrongness” in this sense,
It's a tricky question this, because its not clear what is meant by "wrongness". I don't view the world in terms of right or wrong so how am I supposed to answer a question like that?
I can have empathy for the child, much the same way as having empathy for a cow at the meat works. Probably even stronger because being human it is easier to simpathise with the plight of humans.
But my empathy isn't an authority on the rightness or wrongness of an action and does not tap into an authorative source of objective truth. My empathy comes from my imagination, placing myself in the shoes of others. It answer's the question "How might I feel if I were in that situation?"
In that way I could think that if I were the cow I wouldn't like to go to the meat works. But this is not to say it is wrong for humans to kill and eat cows. Sure a fly doesn't like being in a spiderweb with a big spider coming to eat it, but that doesn't make it wrong.
(07-05-2015 02:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  and just sort of see it as irrational
I see it as irrational to consider "wrongness" without clarifying what the goal is.
If the goal is to eat then eating a cow might be "right"
If the goal is to not harm animals then eating a cow might be "wrong"
If the goal is to avoid unnecessary suffering then perhaps some methods of killing the cow are more "right" than others.
So when you ask the question {Do you perceive “wrongness” in this sense} what is the goal that I am supposed to evaluate "wrongness" or "rightness" against?
(07-05-2015 02:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Do you see it but just strip it of any authoritative power over you, because you see it as a false perception?
My emotions are simply my emotions, they don't indicate whether something is right or wrong, not even from a personal subjective perspective.
Emotions could be indicators to help me decide to think more or apply caution such as feelings of fear. Feelings of empathy could help me to be more sociable, to be more of a team player, to want to look after my children...
(07-05-2015 02:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Most people who risk their own life to save a stranger, or intervene in rescuing them, would likely have been pushed to this as the result of their empathy. Society is likely not even question in one’s mind here. But if you saw yourself intervening, it would be because of a rational consideration of whether it serves the safety of society, a quick cost benefit analysis? Or would you have intervened out of your empathy, and just rationalized your actions afterwards as such? "
Don't know. I haven't been in such a situation.
I doubt I would sacrifice my life for a stranger. If the risk were great to me, I'd probably not leap in. If there were little risk to me, say I saw a child in danger I probably would intervene just as I would hope that someone else in society would intervene if they saw my kids in danger. We do have an ability to influence society and if we behave in a helpful manner then we are more likely that society will reciprocate. It's a way of shaping society into a society that you (personally) want to be part of, but doing it in a way that is non aggressive as opposed to law enforcement which is an aggressive route. It's not a claim as to this is the "right" way to behave, it's understanding that you have some non aggressive approach to influence (lead by example) others to choose to behave in a way that is more to your own personal tastes. There is much benefit for me if society behaves in (what I would consider to be) a helpful manner.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2015, 05:17 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
I apologize if I'm putting too much undo pressure on you, to find my curiosity. I can recognizing the consistency in your views, and it's at least coherent, in ways that atheists who support moral relativism, or moral realism are unable to do so. And I think more intelligent, and a bit more reflective atheists often find themselves conceding to the notions of morality is an illusion.

Though they all concede this, none of them particularly explore this all that much. If I was an atheist, I would likely have to concede that much as well. There's no real account of our common moral perceptions with the illusionary hypothesis. I think you acknowledge that much, by seeing your self as someone who merely lacks a belief here, and only speculates to this being the case. I like to speculate to, if morality where an illusion, how is it so.

And that's sort of why I ask you the questions I do, not to judge your or anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2015, 06:22 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(07-05-2015 05:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  There's no real account of our common moral perceptions with the illusionary hypothesis. I think you acknowledge that much, by seeing your self as someone who merely lacks a belief here, and only speculates to this being the case. I like to speculate to, if morality where an illusion, how is it so.
I don't think there will ever be a definitive answer. There are many, many reasons behind our behaviours, moral beliefs is only one aspect and in my opinion an optional aspect.
I can offer natural, logical suggestions as to why we tend to behave in certain ways, I think my suggestions are sufficient enough (to my liking) such that I don't have to appeal to a moral authority out of necessity. My suggestions are based on my life experiences, my observations, my thinking. I certainly recognise the flaw in that this is my own subjective opinion and is unprovable. My explanation will never apply to everyone and to all cases as there is a plethora of factors that go towards our ultimate behaviours. Why one person does X may be different to why another person does X.
I think my approach is more likely to lead to a position of tolerance and diversity because it accepts that I am not in a position to make moral judgements on others. A principle here might be that "unless I have walked a lifetime in the other person's shoes then I cannot know as well as they do what choices are best for them".
I can also understand people's reluctance to entertain my philosophy as it appears cold and callous and doesn't immediately give them a reason to intervene on compassionate grounds e.g. alter the behaviour of that Amazonian tribe.

People for the most part jump to the conclusion that without morals we would murder and pillage and society would fall apart. I am of the opinion that without morals we would no longer have any reason to use aggression on other people to stop them doing things we don't approve of. So I see it as a step forward, I don't see that society would fall apart and become more dangerous.

In my approach to law some answers come easily:
Gay relationships and marriage does not impact me or make society unsafe
Abortion does not impact me or make society unsafe
Polygamy does not impact me or make society unsafe
Euthanasia does not impact me or make society unsafe

There are still some grey areas such as
Does handgun ownership make society unsafe?

And at least one of my grey areas would make many people cringe
Does infanticide make society unsafe?

Although I also recognise that many people cringe at abortion and probably many religious folk cringe at all the things above that I suggested are easy legal answers.

My consolation for them is that although they cannot control via law, they would be free to campaign in a non aggressive fashion in order to convince people to choose not to partake of those things. I really do think infanticide or even late term abortion would be an extremely unlikely thing to occur, the most likely scenario in our society given our medical advancements would be as a result of Post Natal Depression. But as I say, this is grey for me, I haven't fully considered all the long term impacts on society in this scenario. I'm just unwilling from a philosophical perspective to enforce my own personal opinions onto others, I don't know wrong from right, I don't have moral obligations, I don't know how others should behave, I don't believe in moral justice, I certainly don't think that other people should behave in a way that caters to my own likes and dislikes. Although my philosophy is all about "me" my envisioned society isn't to cater to me, it supports autonomy, diversity and freedom. From the governance of society, my own desires are no more important than the desires of anyone else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2015, 11:04 PM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(07-05-2015 05:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Besides his desire to murder and rape someone, you in essence agree with his over all reasoning here though right? In seems to be consistent and makes sense to me, but I'm wondering do you find his overall views here representative of yours?
Yes, he seems pretty spot on.
However it seems rather than behaving in his own best interests he decided to become self destructive.
The problem with just doing whatever you immediately want is that you are not considering the real consequences. If you murder people then people will see you as a threat, they will then be motivated to remove the threat that you present. Also it leads to a philosophy that "might" rules. Was Ted the most powerful person around? Dictators can get away with this aggressive game but an individual like Ted can't. Eventually he is gonna find an individual or a group that is going to overpower him.
He wasn't playing the long game. He became self destructive because he got too focused on himself and either forgot that society is going to react to him or, as an intentional suicide, he was hoping that society was going to react to him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-05-2015, 06:12 AM
RE: From Deism to Atheism
(07-05-2015 11:04 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Yes, he seems pretty spot on.
However it seems rather than behaving in his own best interests he decided to become self destructive.

It seems you're apply self interest in a way that doesn't particularly apply. It amounts to the same as a saying a man who cheats on his wife is acting against his own self interest, because he risks getting caught. Or someone who gambles is acting against his self interest, because of the risk of losing.

His interest was to commit the acts that he did, in spite of the risk associated with it.
Do you imagine now that he has been caught and faced the consequences on his actions, he would have looked back and wished he never did what he did? No.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: