Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-04-2013, 11:16 AM (This post was last modified: 25-04-2013 11:22 AM by TrulyX.)
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(24-04-2013 11:04 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(24-04-2013 07:56 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Exactly as I predicted.

What do I win?

I did make an argument: I simply denied that your position had a basis, and you could have provided that basis, if it was the case that you wanted to substantiate your view.

I knew when I asked you to provide an explanation for your position, you would not.

Thanks for playing.

Nothing but word salad up to this point. If you call just claiming something as bull an argument, I suppose you are great at doing that. But until this point, you have not been making any substantive points.

I see that you enclosed an actual response under a Spoiler button. So for anyone missing the content of TrulyX's post, I'll edit to make it more visible without the need to click.


Quote:I found the quote that pretty much summed up how nonsensical the position you are attempting to take is, disregarding all of the other nonsense, which has all been addressed, almost superfluously:

I cannot bring myself to that level of moral relativism to accept that kind of act as on the same level as social conservatives trying to inject religion into politics. I don't feel the need to temper my judgement of acts of individuals in societies that have norms that I find reprehensible.

poolboyg88, actually addressed this already, also, but you went directly into straw man, move the goalpost, mode, once you realized that you were blatantly incorrect and cornered.

OK, so finally you actually formulate a specific point of criticism. You don't quite explain how a straw man is being used, how I'm moving the goalposts, or how you can claim to know what I realize, so we'll continue.

Quote:Social conservatives weren't even being discussed, specifically, they just fall in. We were (or I guess I was) discussing religion in general, mainly Christianity, given that it's the obvious majority in America.

So perhaps this is where you think I am injecting some sort of logical fallacy? It should be obvious to all but the most uninformed that social conservative is the term used to describe politicians who advocate faith (Christianity in particular) as part of politics. Social conservatives advocate things like school prayer, opposition to abortion, resistance to gay marriage, anti-science advocacy through opposition to evolution education, lament the 'war on christmas' nonsense, etc.

This is not in any way moving the goalposts or changing the group of people we were talking about. It should be very obvious to everyone (except you I guess) that social conservative is precisely the term one uses to describe individuals who tend to impose their religious views on others in the US.


Quote:They also, don't "try to inject religion in politics". Where do you live? In reality, in the US, unless you have the endorsement of religion, mainly Christianity, you are not getting elected, which is a requirement for having any kind of societal influence with regard to policy. Religion is used almost exclusively, especially with regard to Republican politics, pandering, but widespread among both parties, immorally, to get elected to office and in support of policy. I shouldn't even have to mention the resulting policies (past and present, and resulting consequences), as an inherent result of this reality.

What color is the sky in the world you live in. Social conservatives don't try to inject religion in politics? Really? Are you that uninformed or are you just trolling? At this point I'm not really sure. You really think both parties use religion the same? In American politics, I'm conservative but differ with the GOP on the social conservative policies and in particular pushing policies that appease the evangelical social conservative wing of the party. You really are uninformed if you think the Democrats advocate faith based laws like the GOP does.

Still no straw men burned or goal posts moved. On to the next section.

Quote:You must be as ignorant to the meaning of 'moral relativism' as you are to 'the left' and 'liberal'.

What you are saying is that you are not willing to accept any immoral action taken with regard to religion in America (what I have been talking about the entire thread), on the same level as immoral actions taken by Islamic fascists and extremists elsewhere in the world. You also are going a step further, to say that you are not even going to look at any surrounding circumstances, history, etc., as any objective, rational individual would do in the analysis of any relevant situation.

Correct me if I missed something.

When religion affects America, or religion in America affects the world negatively (because of immoral actions, directly or indirectly), it can't possible be immoral (or as immoral), because that is okay religion (or you are ignoring it completely, for convenience); but when it's Islam in the Middle East or Africa, etc., it's obviously immoral, because that's bad religion. Must be because we are taking actions to be relativistically, based on who is committing the acts.

Again, did I miss something?

I am saying:
-executing gay people in Islam ≠ opposing gay marriage
-harassing and beating people for hair and dress ≠ stern lectures about the decay of morals
-executing people for apostasy ≠ advocating school prayer

Sam Harris describes his case for an objective morality, that if we define a measure of the level of suffering caused by the organization of a society, we can make a call that, for instance, executing gay people is worse than not letting them get married. If we take this one specific example, do you really want to rely on the context of the society and reserve judgement on whether one is worse than the other. You are the one who takes the extreme position of using context to excuse what would by by any objective standard a more objectionable behavior.

What I am saying is yes, I don't give one flying fuck what the context is, what the history is, what their faith says, when deciding we are morally superior when we decide not to execute gay people. I am agreeing with Sam Harris that if you want to see a great way to make women and children die, you would organize your society EXACTLY like the fundamentalists of Afghanistan want to organize their society.

OK, still no straw men, no goal posts moved, no demonstration of how you can claim that I realize I'm wrong.

Quote:You are trying to make scapegoats and be blatantly hypocritical, from what I can tell.

My point from the beginning was that is not happening over here. Keep that bullshit over there on your side.

OK, back to unsupported assertions and word salad. What am I making into scapegoats? What is the hypocrisy?


I can tell you are not used to defending your arguments. My replies might piss you off, but you do not back up your assertions with examples or clear points. You are obviously used to being surrounded by people who generally agree with you (or don't care to argue). You make unsupported assertions and think what is obvious to you should be understood by everyone else.

If for instance you are going to claim I am using a straw man argument, you might want to actually say what you think the straw man was in my argument. I think you might have meant my use of the word social conservative in place of Christian, but if that was the case, you don't actually understand the common meaning of the term social conservative. But moreover, you are misusing the characterization of straw man--if anything social conservative is actually a more difficult class of people to defend vis-a-vis their propensity to push religion on others. So I was actually describing something worse than just Christianity in general. That's not moving the goal posts or resorting to straw man at all--that's relying on the weakest possible support of my case that even the worst of offenders in the West are better than common offenses in Islam. You might disagree with my assertion, but there was no resort to logical fallacy.

I'm not going through all of that piece by piece, it's all nonsense that totally avoids the actually points of this discussion, and you didn't even attempt to fully substantiate your position.

My first post was me bashing Harris and questioning whether he was asking certain people to be hypocrites by ignoring the immorality and destruction that religion has on society, in Western society, mainly America and Christianity. Harris just isn't at all a Christopher Hitchens. He doesn't have any ground to stand on, from which to make bold claims, and he definitely doesn't have the skill to argue them and back it up.

You were confusing 'liberal' with 'left', generalizing, stereotyping, misinterpreting positions and basically doing any thing that you could do to make sense out of the claim that certain people being against certain immoral actions taken by Christians in America, was equal to (and you were implying large numbers of people) ignoring Islamic fascism, or something similar. That mistake, yet even further, with regard to your OP, was pointed out many times by many people in this thread, including myself.

In my second post, I responded to you using Mahr, which was a blatant appeal to authority. In that thread I brought up basically all relevant information regarding any discussion to be had about this topic. The reification fallacy being made, the context being blatantly left out, intentionally, in support of an already baseless claim and the only actual good argument toward showing how and why Islam can be considered on a different level of dangerous. By the end of that I made the broad point that religion, in general, is dangerous and destructive to society and the world, and that religion in the US is the cause of massive amounts of destruction, turmoil, immorality, irrational, and any other problems one could think of, all over the entire union that is the United States, as well as across the entire world. The point that it is blatantly hypocritical to ignore, or try to put on a lesser level, the amount of negativity that is caused by religion in our society, as compared to the rest of the world. That immoral is immoral, religion and irrationality is always destructive, and that is the case regardless of who is committing the acts and what random ideology that is arbitrarily attributed to being responsible for their own personal thoughts, desires, intentions and actions. And, that no person, with me around to say otherwise, will load up the proverbial goat, by pushing off all or most of the blame on another group, ignoring all historical immorality and nailing Jesus to the cross to wipe themselves clean of any responsibility, current immorality or future immorality. And, that no person will see me being of the position of a hypocrite or one who resorts to scapegoating.

You then objected, further, for whatever reason, apparently given that you are claiming that there is some sort of objective standard from which to say that certain immoral actions by a certain groups can be judged differently than immoral actions taken by others. You then appealed to authority by simply saying that Bill Mahr said this, Hitchens thought that, Sam Harris was proposing this, Neil Degrasse Tyson had this video, while none of that at all substantiated your point. You appealed to emotion, by simply stating certain immoral actions, while you were intentionally moving goalposts and building straw men, by taking different groups of people, different immoral actions, demanding that societal situation that directly or indirectly affect course for action shall be deemed irrelevant to a discussion regarding course of action, setting up a set of specific actions intentionally more violent (which brings thoughts about blood, death, pain, etc; things that appeal emotionally) across from things that aren't very emotionally appealing, exciting, reflecting the case in reality and that ignored the broad, general, point I was discussing. You tried something similar with the equivocation of the word 'same' as a 'same' more in line with your point of view. And more, but ultimately, none of that logically lead to the conclusion that you were trying to make for yourself, against my argument and/or in line with the discussion we were having-- thus all fallacy.

So, when you want to substantiate that religion poisons everything, but when you are a different set of people, with a different name to the same kind of bullshit, it poisons things more extremely and makes irrationality, specifically immorality, somehow different, you can do than.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2013, 11:18 AM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(24-04-2013 11:18 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(24-04-2013 11:07 PM)I and I Wrote:  So he considers himself a jew (name for someone who believes in the religion known as judaism) and he considers himself an atheist? WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF MENTAL GYMNASTICS DOES THIS BLOW HARD PIECE OF SHIT DO?

he believes in the idotic religious idea that people who believe in judaism are of a special "race" of course this idea is a complete pile of warm bullshit and of course is as racist as an idea can get, which means sam harris is a racist believer/atheist. nice.

What apparently you and Sam racist Harris doesn't understand is that....WHAT IF, just WHAT IF muslims are pissed off because a group of europeans came to that land and started attacking people around them and started making muslims in that land live in a racist fascist oppressive appartheid system. WHAT IF FUCKING THAT is the reason they are pissed off.

there must be something about your brain that makes it incapable for you to understand that people being forced to live in a racist appartheid system might piss them off.

Secular Jew is not a contradiction in terms. Jew can refer both to a religion and an ethnicity + culture in a way that most other religions do not. It is not an uncommon thing to find an atheist Jew. Many Jews turned away from their religion in large part because of the decimation of their populations in WWII.

I bet the Muslims are pissed that Israel planted themselves right in their midst. But they are there now--for around half a century now. Most of the people fighting today were not alive during the original war. Most of the 'refugees' living in camps have never actually lived in the 'homeland' of Israel. What is your solution to this problem? Do you allow for a political solution that allows an Israel to continue to exist, or do you think they should be wiped out like Hamas advocates?

Everyone knows this is not possible, a guy can't call himslef a jew and an be an atheist at the same time. My relatives were christian that doesn't make me a sucular christian or an atheist christian. That is pure bullshit. Atheists that believe in secular/religious people are the ones that also believe that jewish people are of a separate race or ethnic group. There is ZERO evidence for any of this historically and is simply a made up biblical myth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2013, 11:24 AM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(25-04-2013 12:16 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(24-04-2013 11:35 PM)I and I Wrote:  Have you ever read or wondered what Israeli politicians say about palestineans or muslims? And since when did Hamas claim it wanted jews wiped out?

I did use Isreal in the sentence describing Hamas wanting to 'wipe them out' and should be clear I mean and meant to say Israel, not all Jews all over the world.

I bet there is a fair amount of hatred going in both directions. Arabs living in Israel though have more rights and a higher standard of living than Jews would have living in Israel's neighboring/nearby countries.

Leader of Hamas has vowed that not one inch of current Israel will be allowed to remain as Israel.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/08...62926.html

And according to their charter, this result of not one inch left of Israel will be accomplished by jihad, eschewing political solutions, couple snippets:
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818.htm


"Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it

as it had eliminated its predecessors."

The Imam and Martyr Hassan al-Banna(5)

May Allah Pity his Soul

------------------


There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad.

The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste

of time(27), an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble

to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain

game. As the Hadith has it:



"The people of Syria are Allah's whip on this land; He takes

revenge by their intermediary from whoever he wishes among his

worshippers. The Hypocrites among them are forbidden from

vanquishing the true believers, and they will die in anxiety and

sorrow." (Told by Tabarani, who is traceable in ascending order

of traditionaries to Muhammed, and by Ahmed whose chain of

transmission is incomplete. But it is bound to be a true hadith,

for both story tellers are reliable. Allah knows best(28).)


Of course, feel free to read the entire charter which also tells how all lands that have ever been Muslim must always be Muslim, and is considered by Hamas as an "Islamic Waqf". No room for Jews in an Isreal that is one big Islamic Waqf.

People in power vs the jerrry fallwells of the middle east? come on.... you claimed that Hamas said those words, where are qotes from Hamas? And you didn't answer the question: HAVE YOU EVER LOOKED UP WHAT ISRAELI POLITICIANS SAY ABOUT PALESTINIANS? If you haven't then why not?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2013, 11:35 AM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(25-04-2013 11:18 AM)I and I Wrote:  Everyone knows this is not possible, a guy can't call himslef a jew and an be an atheist at the same time. My relatives were christian that doesn't make me a sucular christian or an atheist christian. That is pure bullshit. Atheists that believe in secular/religious people are the ones that also believe that jewish people are of a separate race or ethnic group. There is ZERO evidence for any of this historically and is simply a made up biblical myth.

Jews call themselves Jews. And other people, usually people trying to kill Jews, call them Jews.

That is all regardless of whether they follow the religion.

That would be two separate things: whether or not there is scientific or historical basis for them being of a unique ethnic group, versus how they are labeled ethnically, as a group (incorrectly or otherwise).

You don't stop being black, or especially referred to as being black, because there isn't a basis for race. The black would then just be referring to something else (incorrectly labelled race), like skin color, looks, or how you were culturally.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2013, 11:45 AM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(25-04-2013 11:35 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(25-04-2013 11:18 AM)I and I Wrote:  Everyone knows this is not possible, a guy can't call himslef a jew and an be an atheist at the same time. My relatives were christian that doesn't make me a sucular christian or an atheist christian. That is pure bullshit. Atheists that believe in secular/religious people are the ones that also believe that jewish people are of a separate race or ethnic group. There is ZERO evidence for any of this historically and is simply a made up biblical myth.

Jews call themselves Jews. And other people, usually people trying to kill Jews, call them Jews.

That is all regardless of whether they follow the religion.

That would be two separate things: whether or not there is scientific or historical basis for them being of a unique ethnic group, versus how they are labeled ethnically, as a group (incorrectly or otherwise).

You don't stop being black, or especially referred to as being black, because there isn't a basis for race. The black would then just be referring to something else (incorrectly labelled race), like skin color, looks, or how you were culturally.

skin color determines ones ancestral origin by continent. The idea of Race was indeed invented by racists and used by racists. Before colonialism humans didn't view the world as having distinct "races" A tribe in southern africa didn't view a tribe in mid africa as being the same of anything, they viewed each other as very different. Colonial powers came along, made up the idea of race, then made up the idea that their race was distinct and better. Then the counter movement to this was for the oppressed people to say that every race is equal. The idea that every race is or should be equal is a much better idea of course, however it is still based on the completely made up (by colonial powers) idea of race.

Speaking of skin color.....Israel is the last european colony.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2013, 01:33 PM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(25-04-2013 11:45 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(25-04-2013 11:35 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  Jews call themselves Jews. And other people, usually people trying to kill Jews, call them Jews.

That is all regardless of whether they follow the religion.

That would be two separate things: whether or not there is scientific or historical basis for them being of a unique ethnic group, versus how they are labeled ethnically, as a group (incorrectly or otherwise).

You don't stop being black, or especially referred to as being black, because there isn't a basis for race. The black would then just be referring to something else (incorrectly labelled race), like skin color, looks, or how you were culturally.

skin color determines ones ancestral origin by continent. The idea of Race was indeed invented by racists and used by racists. Before colonialism humans didn't view the world as having distinct "races" A tribe in southern africa didn't view a tribe in mid africa as being the same of anything, they viewed each other as very different. Colonial powers came along, made up the idea of race, then made up the idea that their race was distinct and better. Then the counter movement to this was for the oppressed people to say that every race is equal. The idea that every race is or should be equal is a much better idea of course, however it is still based on the completely made up (by colonial powers) idea of race.

Speaking of skin color.....Israel is the last european colony.

Thats a very interesting theory, wrong but interesting. Racial views have been around long before colonialism. The trade route assures us of that. Also your earlier comment made no sense you can be an atheist and still a cultural jew or christian or buddhist or muslim (in the west anyway). I know several jewish atheists and they identify as such but of course they must be wrong since you decreed that no one can be jewish.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
25-04-2013, 04:35 PM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(25-04-2013 01:33 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(25-04-2013 11:45 AM)I and I Wrote:  skin color determines ones ancestral origin by continent. The idea of Race was indeed invented by racists and used by racists. Before colonialism humans didn't view the world as having distinct "races" A tribe in southern africa didn't view a tribe in mid africa as being the same of anything, they viewed each other as very different. Colonial powers came along, made up the idea of race, then made up the idea that their race was distinct and better. Then the counter movement to this was for the oppressed people to say that every race is equal. The idea that every race is or should be equal is a much better idea of course, however it is still based on the completely made up (by colonial powers) idea of race.

Speaking of skin color.....Israel is the last european colony.

Thats a very interesting theory, wrong but interesting. Racial views have been around long before colonialism. The trade route assures us of that. Also your earlier comment made no sense you can be an atheist and still a cultural jew or christian or buddhist or muslim (in the west anyway). I know several jewish atheists and they identify as such but of course they must be wrong since you decreed that no one can be jewish.

of course people think of themselves jewish and atheist, people also believe in talking sky gods. Your point? Many atheists don't realize that the whole "jewish people being a race or specific ethnic group" is also a myth which is solely from religious texts, in which this belief is used as supposed evidence of them being a "chosen people". Why an atheist would believe any aspect of this made up religious belief is truly amazing.

And no, most humans have not labeled themselves by race, this labeling is mainly done by outsiders or done abstractly. Vietnamese don't consider themselves chinese, mexicans don't consider themselves el-salvadoran, Albanians don't consdier themselves serbs. In fact calling these people as the same anything pisses many people off. Do you think Ethiopians consider themselves and south africans as the same anything? Race=purely made up. NEXT Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2013, 04:56 PM (This post was last modified: 25-04-2013 05:02 PM by Tartarus Sauce.)
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(25-04-2013 04:35 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(25-04-2013 01:33 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Thats a very interesting theory, wrong but interesting. Racial views have been around long before colonialism. The trade route assures us of that. Also your earlier comment made no sense you can be an atheist and still a cultural jew or christian or buddhist or muslim (in the west anyway). I know several jewish atheists and they identify as such but of course they must be wrong since you decreed that no one can be jewish.

of course people think of themselves jewish and atheist, people also believe in talking sky gods. Your point? Many atheists don't realize that the whole "jewish people being a race or specific ethnic group" is also a myth which is solely from religious texts, in which this belief is used as supposed evidence of them being a "chosen people". Why an atheist would believe any aspect of this made up religious belief is truly amazing.

And no, most humans have not labeled themselves by race, this labeling is mainly done by outsiders or done abstractly. Vietnamese don't consider themselves chinese, mexicans don't consider themselves el-salvadoran, Albanians don't consdier themselves serbs. In fact calling these people as the same anything pisses many people off. Do you think Ethiopians consider themselves and south africans as the same anything? Race=purely made up. NEXT Drinking Beverage

So now you are conflating racial groups and cultural groups?

Revenant was referring to cultural identification, not racial, at least in reference to people identifying culturally as Jewish.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2013, 04:56 PM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(25-04-2013 04:35 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(25-04-2013 01:33 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Thats a very interesting theory, wrong but interesting. Racial views have been around long before colonialism. The trade route assures us of that. Also your earlier comment made no sense you can be an atheist and still a cultural jew or christian or buddhist or muslim (in the west anyway). I know several jewish atheists and they identify as such but of course they must be wrong since you decreed that no one can be jewish.

of course people think of themselves jewish and atheist, people also believe in talking sky gods. Your point? Many atheists don't realize that the whole "jewish people being a race or specific ethnic group" is also a myth which is solely from religious texts, in which this belief is used as supposed evidence of them being a "chosen people". Why an atheist would believe any aspect of this made up religious belief is truly amazing.

And no, most humans have not labeled themselves by race, this labeling is mainly done by outsiders or done abstractly. Vietnamese don't consider themselves chinese, mexicans don't consider themselves el-salvadoran, Albanians don't consdier themselves serbs. In fact calling these people as the same anything pisses many people off. Do you think Ethiopians consider themselves and south africans as the same anything? Race=purely made up. NEXT Drinking Beverage

Race is simply the extension of tribalism so using a more local tribal designation in place of race is not any more accurate. All Human beings are genetically identical (from an evolutionary stand point) they can all breed and their offspring can reproduce so yes race is an out dated meme. I wasn't arguing that point, I was however correcting your dating of the origin of the Race meme to the 1500's when it is far older.

Now as to the Jewish "race" their designation of Tribe is far closer to reality and there was a tribe of people that lived in palestine from roughly 200 BCE until 100 CE. This tribe was racist (in its modern meaning) and very backwards because of their racism. They lagged behind their neighbors (who they considered inferior) in technology and warfare and were conquered many times due to their geography. Living on a major east-west trade route is a bad idea if you're not good at fighting. The Romans expelled the remains of this tribe after the second armed revolt in about 100 CE. The scattered refugees went on to settle over most of europe in closed and tight knit communities due to both their reluctance to assimilate with any "lesser" cultures and the fact that most christians tended to have a negative view of the Jews, due in no small part to the spread of christianity and the anti-semitism contained in the latter gospels. Thats why there were jews in europe for the Nazi's to use as a scapegoat , something that was rather common throughout history.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2013, 05:30 PM
RE: Sam Harris--The End of Liberalism?
(24-04-2013 06:19 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(24-04-2013 09:33 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  If I may paraphrase here, "Not even close."

Stop trolling me, this is getting annoying.

Originally, I thought you were being sarcastic.

Were you not joking?

It was a jab at you not addressing ByranS's points.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: