altruism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-07-2017, 11:05 AM
RE: altruism
(03-07-2017 05:23 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  
Quote:The definition of altruism that I’m using is whatever came up when I googled the word. It doesn’t matter, though. The motive behind your donation has no bearing on the buying power of your money.

Quote:This whole argument is so Christianish, being so concerned about people’s intentions. I’m going to share a little bit of Jewish wisdom here, because I think it applies. You cannot tell with absolute certainty what another person’s true intentions are because you cannot experience life from anyone’s perspective other than your own. Plain and simple, all we can do is evaluate actions. Don’t worry so much about the thoughts people have in their heads.
So your saying that we should not seek to decrease falsehoods and increase truth (congruence with actuality)? I evaluate peoples actions in an tempt to discern their motives.

I'm saying motives don't matter. If the end result is positive, then the thoughts the person had in bringing about the positive action didn't matter. I'm not saying we should launch a campaign of negativity in pursuit of goodness or that we should promote negative behavior.

(03-07-2017 05:23 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Bob is a wealthy man. Bob founds and donates to X who's stated goal is to increase "family planning". Over the past decade he has raised and spent millions of dollars promoting "responsible family planning" and his campaigns seem to be successful. His work with the foundation has brought him and his company recognition and applause increasing his companies visibility and his ability to fund the foundation even more. 10% of facilities belonging to the foundation are in white lower income areas. 90% are in black lower income areas. What you don't know is that privately Bob supports eugenics, and while he doesn't want to push people into gas chambers he wants to decrease the 'less desirable' elements of the population over time.( Google American eugenics.). Should I not be concerned with bob's motives?

I’m not really sure how you can equate feeding and sheltering individuals and families in crisis with eugenics, but I’ll roll with your example.

The motives of Bob from your story don’t matter because he gives his money to a place that, according to your description, operates as a non-profit medical organization. Even if Bob is both a donor and a member of the board of directors, his private motives are likely counteracted by the motives of the rest of the board, and the CEO and high ranking officers of the organization. His money is really going to funding the agendas of other people, and if he quietly has a personal agenda that most people would consider nefarious, then so be it. Bob is still responsible for providing clean, quality family planning that helps people.

Maybe Bob is very bold and wants to advertise his intentions (or maybe someone else advertises them on his behalf). Maybe people won’t like what he says his motives are, and they choose to seek services elsewhere. Perhaps they’ll decide that the benefit they receive from the services rendered outweigh their dislike of a major donor’s ideas.

Each individual has the option to evaluate the services that are actually being rendered and decide if those services are a benefit to them.


(03-07-2017 05:23 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Christianity is an evil ideology. I doubt many here would nay say this fact.

Agreed. This is why I don't invest my charitable contributions into Christian organizations. -But I cannot deny that Christians are on the front line of addressing many community needs. Those organizations earn my respect because they're not sitting around bitching about the injustices of the world, they're out there doing something about them.

(03-07-2017 05:23 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  One of the more evil elements of Calvinist doctrine is the idea that suffering is a virtue. The more one suffers and sacrifices the greater the reward. Altruism is christianity without Christ, replacing "god" with "Society" and the idea that we can make the world a better place if only we sacrifice enough of ourselves to do so.

Okay? So choose not to be a Calvinist. I choose not to be a Calvinist, and I've been very happy with that decision. I recommend it.

(03-07-2017 05:23 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  
Quote: Now, you may not like the actions of a particular homeless shelter for one reason or another. Fine. So don’t give your money to that shelter and if you’re ever in a situation of need in the future, don’t take advantage of their services. That’s a beautiful thing about charitable services; you can choose not to participate. It's been my personal experience that most people on the receiving end of emergency services are just happy to get the help, and the motives of the donors who made it all possible never enters the equation. I think for the most part, the system works well. Donors give money to the organizations of their choosing that in turn provide services to those in need.

By the way, you did mention that Christian shelters won't kick you out, but they let you know that you're unwelcome to stay if you keep questioning (presumably) their system of beliefs? Dude, you're getting three hots and a cot from these people, and various connections to rehabilitative services, and you can't just be a good guest and not argue with them about Jesus? Come on, now. There's a time and a place.


Yes there is a time and place, and that time and place is when someone injects Jesus where he has no business being. If Christians want to pray over a meal then that is fine. When a Christian attempts to publicly shame me during a prayer because I am a none believer, that is the time.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/control-...-quiz.html

When you accept services from a religious charity, you’re signing onto their program. The organization operates with the intention to help you, and if their view is that Jesus can help you, then they have every right to use their privately raised donation dollars to help you in a way that they believe will be effective. If you don’t like that, then you don’t use those services. You can rely on federally funded charitable organizations which cannot discriminate against your religious beliefs.

A secular homeless shelter may believe that being clean of drugs and alcohol may benefit your recovery, and they may create house rules that require you to submit to drug or alcohol tests to remain in their program. Maybe you don’t think Jesus “staying clean” will be a benefit and you don’t want sobriety to be a part of your recovery plan. So in that case, you leave the shelter. You pack your bags and you hit the road.

You use services from others, you play the game. If you don’t want to play the game, you don’t use the services.

(03-07-2017 05:23 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I want you to go back and look at the last couple of exchanges between Szuchow and I. Look at the type of language that is being used by Szuchow and the way in which things are framed. According to Szuchow
Quote:"If so then you should spare a little time and just write "altruism is evil cause I'm shitty person so I think others are too".
Translation: If you object to the concept of altruism then you are a shitty person. Period.

Having read your comments with Szuchow, I have determined that the best recommendation that I can make that if Szuchow (or anyone else for that matter) isn't meeting your conversational needs, you should cease conversing with them.

(03-07-2017 05:23 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I am seriously tempted to find a "rational" deist god claim and just substitute "altruism" for god and post that to get my point across. Let me restate hopefully more clearly. I do not see sufficient evidence to believe in the truth claim that altruism actually exists. I do however see plenty of evidence that the concept of altruism is in fact destructive both to the individual and to the social order.

What you believe is irrelevant. Whether altruism exists or not, the system is in place. Charitable services do exist to address the needs of the population. If you don't like the perceived motives of the donors, then exercise your right not to use the services. If you really believe the motives of the donors are destructive, then exercise your right to begin your own non-profit and address the needs differently and prove to the world through positive, effective results that your way is better.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
03-07-2017, 11:06 AM
RE: altruism
(03-07-2017 10:55 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 10:13 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Now please answer my question.

You want to give me some time to consider it carefully or do you want me to just fart something out of my ass like you just did?
actually i appreciate you taking your time. I apologize for rushing you. I let my frustration at how many people refuse to even consider the question bleed onto you. I am sorry for that. Please take your time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2017, 12:45 PM
RE: altruism
So here's the thing. I really need to be asleep right now. I can't go to sleep however because of how upset I am at the arrogance of your post. I really really want to say a whole bunch of nasty things using the most uncharitable language possible. I am going to attempt to refrain from doing so because it wont be productive. I NEED you to understand how upset your post has made me thought.

When I was an early teen my mother found me in bed with another boy. Would you like to guess the result? Now imagine for a moment that you are me. Your on the street. You are hungry because you haven't eaten in two days. There is a place you've been told about where you can get food. You are angry. Very angry. You're angry because the person whom you love most in the world does not love you back because your both queer and an apostate. The unconditional love you believed in turned out to have quite the condition on it after all. You're alone. You're scared. You're wondering where you can go to pick up a john because you really need to eat. You're directed to a soup kitchen.

As they are setting up you are in a conversation with one of the volunteers. They find out you're an atheist. All you want is some fucking food. How dare you get angry because they are trying to shove Jesus down your throat. Especially after the belief in Jesus is the reason you no longer have a bed to sleep in. You fucking ungrateful child. I mean you even had the timidity to ask her not to pray for you when she offered to do so before the prayer circle. You didn't bow your head, no. but you remained respectfully silent. After all they were going to feed you.

How dare you imply that I was petty, or disrespectful.

When you offer someone the choice between starving or swallowing an unwelcome load of jesus... Well that's not a choice is it really.

Quote:I'm saying motives don't matter. If the end result is positive
this sounds dangerously close to a "the ends justify the means" kind of argument. Motives matter because they shape the actions we take in the world and what kind of impact those actions will have on the world.


As to bob. I can actually think of a few ways just off the top of my head that bob could rig the foundation to ensure that people who either share or are sympathetic to his views hold key positions. There are also means to effectively manipulate social structures to encourage and discourage certain types of behaviors, including having, caring, and raising children, and vice versa. In fact such things have been done in the united state. It is one thing to provide a genuine need by a community. It is another thing to manufacture that need.

Quote:Okay? So choose not to be a Calvinist. I choose not to be a Calvinist, and I've been very happy with that decision. I recommend it.
There is a concept out there. Christian Atheist. These are individuals who are both Atheists and Christian. They do not believe in a god, or that jesus was divine, or in some cases that he even existed. They do however believe in the principles of Christianity. It is possible to be both a Calvinist and an Atheist.
Total Depravity is one of (but not the only) doctrine of atheistic calvinism. This was something Darwin believed in and one of the many problems I have with the writings of Darwin. Yes I believe in evolution. Darwinism however is dead wrong. Darwinism can be defined as the entire philosophical framework which are included in Darwin's writings as well as the scientific theories. Yes Darwin was right about Evolution existing. He was wrong about how it happened, as well as many other things including "Nature red tooth and claw". He was however right about survival of the fittest. I do not want to get too sidetracked here, but this gets to the root of the point I am attempting to make. Rarely if ever do concepts exist in a vacuum, but instead they are connected by a web to other concepts. Very seriously consider altruism and carry it out to it's logical conclusion.

Altruism is suppose to be an action which benefits the species at a cost to the individual. The entire premise however is flawed because we are speaking of subjective values. What I have seen from those who claim altruism exists is an attempt to shoehorn (and not very well) subjective values into a particular concept.

Let me give you a cut and dry example of altruism. There is a man in your house with a gun and you are tied up. He is holding your child and the child of a stranger at gun point. You have thirty seconds to choose which child dies and if you do not choose then he will kill your child. The altruistic action is to save the strangers child. I will say without equivocation that if you choose to save the life of the strangers child you have no business being a parent, and you are quite probably a monster.

Quote:Having read your comments with Szuchow, I have determined that the best recommendation that I can make that if Szuchow (or anyone else for that matter) isn't meeting your conversational needs, you should cease conversing with them.
You are making two false assumptions here. Although we at one point hit a bit of a rough patch I can respect someone like GirlyMan even if he ends up disagreeing with me, or changing my own opinion. Unlike Szuchow who has not actually in any way attempted to grasp what I have said GirlyMan is willing to consider what I am saying. My posts are not for Szuchow or even for you. They are for the lurker who is willing to consider what is being said.

And this is the ultimate thing which most people who have responded to my original post seem not to understand, I do not believe in altruism. I am more than willing to consider that I am wrong about altruism actually existing. The problem however is two fold. 1) With one exception none of the altruist's seem to be willing to consider that their position may be in error. 2) The "evidence" which I have seen "proving" altruism exists seems to be on par with the "evidence" that penguins and prairie vols are monogamous.

Again I am going to point you and others in the direction of Thadeus Russel who is an opponent of both Christian and Secular Calvinist Puritanism. You said you choose not to be a Calvinist. That's like saying just because you are an Atheist your not a Christian. The fact that someone no longer believes in the Christian god, does not somehow magically erase all of the Christian doctrines as well. In fact what happens in a number of cases that I have seen is that the names of doctrines change, and the higher concept of god is replaced with the higher concept of society/the species.
Quote:What you believe is irrelevant.
agreed except in so far as the question of my belief being congruent with actuality.
Quote: Whether altruism exists or not, the system is in place. Charitable services do exist to address the needs of the population. If you don't like the perceived motives of the donors, then exercise your right not to use the services. If you really believe the motives of the donors are destructive, then exercise your right to begin your own non-profit and address the needs differently and prove to the world through positive, effective results that your way is better.
Let me rephrase this a bit and see if you would accept the premise.

What you believe is irrelevant. Whether Christianity exists or not, the churches are in place. Church services do exist to address the needs of the population. If you don't like the perceived motives of the god, then exercise your right not to go to church. If you really believe the motives of the church are destructive, then exercise your right to begin your own church and address the needs differently and prove to the world through positive, effective results that your way is better.

Let me make the problem more explicit. The problem is not if there is or is not a god. The problem is not a particular churches belief system (with all the baggage that entails). The problem is that Christianity is rotten to the core. It is fundamentally a bad philosophy. Evil. Altruism in all of it's forms both before Comte stuck a name on it and after is 1) a false construct and 2) an attempt to create a secular Christianity and as well as a divine right of kings.

Let me ask this. If mankind is not fundamentally evil (if he does not have original sin) then why do we need altruism?

Survival of the fittest is a naked statement which on it's own doesn't mean anything. Okay so there is survival of the fittest... How do you define most fit? Darwin thought it was the most brutish. What if instead most fit means those most willing to cooperate? What are the philosophical implications for your world view under each?

Understand that it is this second world view (survival of the most cooperative) which I have come to hold a high level of certainty. It is also the foundation for my belief in a self interested ethics. I want to have the happiest most fulfilling life possible. According to this world view in order to do so this goal requires cooperation with others.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2017, 02:14 PM
RE: altruism
(03-07-2017 12:45 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Understand that it is this second world view (survival of the most cooperative) which I have come to hold a high level of certainty. It is also the foundation for my belief in a self interested ethics. I want to have the happiest most fulfilling life possible. According to this world view in order to do so this goal requires cooperation with others.

That's called evolutionary psychology. It used to be called sociobiology.

Different species have different survival strategies. Some are selfish in the most obvious ways. Others are cooperative, or a combination of both. You should probably read Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene since the selfishness usually resides on the level of the gene. Basically, our genes guide our behaviors in such a way as to maximize themselves in the next generation. But in application, they can make creatures behave altruistically to other creatures with the same or similar genes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
03-07-2017, 06:18 PM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2017 01:37 AM by BlkFnx.)
RE: altruism
(03-07-2017 02:14 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 12:45 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Understand that it is this second world view (survival of the most cooperative) which I have come to hold a high level of certainty. It is also the foundation for my belief in a self interested ethics. I want to have the happiest most fulfilling life possible. According to this world view in order to do so this goal requires cooperation with others.

That's called evolutionary psychology. It used to be called sociobiology.

Different species have different survival strategies. Some are selfish in the most obvious ways. Others are cooperative, or a combination of both. You should probably read Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene since the selfishness usually resides on the level of the gene. Basically, our genes guide our behaviors in such a way as to maximize themselves in the next generation. But in application, they can make creatures behave altruistically to other creatures with the same or similar genes.
i read it and wasn't convinced. That was years ago so i will go through it again.
Edit:
Thanks for recommending I refresh my read of The Selfish Gene. Having gone through it again I remember why I found it so objectionable now. If two changes were made to the book I would have very little problem with it. As it stands though I have a serious problem with the book because Dawkins is an altruistic presuppositionalist.

Quote:...I think'nature red tooth and claw' sums up our modern understanding of natural selection admirably.
and
Quote:My own feeling is that a human society based on simply on the gene's law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live.
and finally
Quote:... if youwish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly toward a common good...
*The above quote were taken from first chapter of The Selfish Gene

Altruistic presuppositionalism is when one presupposes that selfishness is bad and or evil in order to defend altruism. Let me state that I absolutely agree that ruthless selfishness only works in short term or "oneshot" situations and organisms. Expanding on that a bit, in a hard win loose dichotomy doing what it takes to win only makes sense, especially when one is not going to be around very long to experience the consequences. The same kind of principle applies in particular when it comes to genes as passed down through sperm. If a gene only has one potential shot at being carried forward or facing possible extermination, it should in fact adopt a ruthless behavioral strategy.

While it is true that what cannot work in the micro can work in the macro it is not true in reverse. Thus in a longer lived species or in situations which are not oneshots ruthless selfishness fails as a long term strategy. Where as the tit for tat strategy is optimal. This is sometimes referred to as reciprocal altruism. This is a concept which is distinct from altruism.

Altruism: A behavior whereby an organism acts in a manner that reduces it's wellbeing while increasing the another organism's wellbeing, with no benefit to itself.

Reciprocal Altruism: A behavior whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its maximal wellbeing while increasing another organism's wellbeing, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time.

I here use the term wellbeing and maximal well being instead of fitness, because fitness is a null term without any defined perimeters.

As for my second criticism of Dawkins' book, his conflation of Reciprocal Altruism and Altruism (again two distinct concepts) is distracting at best.

Altruism promotes the false belief in a zero-sum world, that is to say a world in which there are only winners and loser, and where winning and losing are narrowly defined. What is worse however is this arrogant and pernicious concept of the greater good which is attached to but separate from Altruism. Define for me the concept of greater good. Most often it boils down to the greater wellbeing, or that which brings maximal wellbeing for the maximal number. There are several flaws with this argument from greater wellbeing, not least among them is that wellbeing means different things to different people. Let us take a sample of 100 people, among this sample we come up with 3(to keep it simple) mutually exclusive basic concepts of wellbeing. 27 individuals subscribe to Wellbeing 1, 35 individuals subscribe to Wellbeing 2, 38 individuals subscribe to Wellbeing 3. According to the altruist solution for this wellbeing dilemma 62 individuals must suppress their own desire for wellbeing in order to achieve wellbeing for 38 individuals. This is by definition oppression of the majority (those not getting their need for wellbeing met) by the minority(those getting their need for wellbeing met).

In a society based on rational selfishness/rational self interest/reciprocal altruism the actors do not act on a zero sum theory. Instead they act on a mutualist principle, with the idea that reaching maximal wellbeing for the individual requires cooperation with other individuals.

Thus I can say being raped does not contribute to my individual wellbeing, and so if I want my own autonomy to be respected I cannot violate the autonomy of others, lest I wish to give up all claim to my own autonomy. Altruism especially when considered a virtue require a positive prescriptive model of "good". Rational selfishness on the other hand requires a negative proscriptive definition of "good".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BlkFnx's post
04-07-2017, 04:15 AM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2017 04:42 AM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: altruism
(03-07-2017 06:18 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Define for me the concept of greater good. Most often it boils down to the greater wellbeing, or that which brings maximal wellbeing for the maximal number. There are several flaws with this argument from greater wellbeing, not least among them is that wellbeing means different things to different people.

You talk as if all end states are known beforehand. They are not. While people typically act as if reciprocal altruism is possible, since they don't know in advance what will happen they are often wrong and end up behaving either altruistically or selfishly. This is where philosophy breaks down in actual practice. Hypotheticals are nice to help us establish our principles, but in practice the world is much messier and uncertain.

Most species are hardwired to act certain ways. It may be selfishly, altruistically, or reciprocally. They live and die by whatever strategy evolution programmed for them.

With people, wellbeing is a good general goal, but as you say people have different specific goals. That is why they keep changing alliances. They really do not know how best to pursue them, since they don't know in advance how everything will turn out. Some people's wellbeing goal is altruism. Some try selfishness. Some try one thing and then another. Most go for reciprocal altruism. People are not determined by evolution, or even by logic, to behave in only one way.

The reason why different people have different wellbeing goals is that they have different self-concepts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2017, 05:25 AM
RE: altruism
(04-07-2017 04:15 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 06:18 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Define for me the concept of greater good. Most often it boils down to the greater wellbeing, or that which brings maximal wellbeing for the maximal number. There are several flaws with this argument from greater wellbeing, not least among them is that wellbeing means different things to different people.

You talk as if all end states are known beforehand. They are not. While people typically act as if reciprocal altruism is possible, since they don't know in advance what will happen they are often wrong and end up behaving either altruistically or selfishly. This is where philosophy breaks down in actual practice. Hypotheticals are nice to help us establish our principles, but in practice the world is much messier and uncertain.

Most species are hardwired to act certain ways. It may be selfishly, altruistically, or reciprocally. They live and die by whatever strategy evolution programmed for them.

With people, wellbeing is a good general goal, but as you say people have different specific goals. That is why they keep changing alliances. They really do not know how best to pursue them, since they don't know in advance how everything will turn out. Some people's wellbeing goal is altruism. Some try selfishness. Some try one thing and then another. Most go for reciprocal altruism. People are not determined by evolution, or even by logic, to behave in only one way.

The reason why different people have different wellbeing goals is that they have different self-concepts.
I am not talking as if end stayes are known. That is part of the arrogance of a claim about "the greater good". The greater good is a null concept that means absolutely nothing because it is indefinable. The only wellbeing i can know is in relation to myself. You can tell me what would increase your wellbeing and if it is not in contradiction to my own i can assist you in reaching it if its in my power.

I agree that altruism is a philosophical abstraction. No one has ever shown me evidence that it actually exists.

Rational selfishness on the other hand is fundamentally practical.

One addition to the response i posted before this one. Zero sum solution are outside the realm of ethics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2017, 07:30 AM
RE: altruism
(04-07-2017 05:25 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I am not talking as if end states are known. That is part of the arrogance of a claim about "the greater good". The greater good is a null concept that means absolutely nothing because it is indefinable. The only wellbeing i can know is in relation to myself. You can tell me what would increase your wellbeing and if it is not in contradiction to my own i can assist you in reaching it if its in my power.

Rational selfishness on the other hand is fundamentally practical.

The greater good is definable in general, and general goals are still useful. Similarly, people don't always know what is best for themselves in terms of specifics, and have to work them out from day to day. Most people play it by ear.

Reciprocal altruism may itself be the most optimal way to pursue one's selfish interests. Being purely selfish damages your ability to be self-serving. Other people catch on quickly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thoreauvian's post
04-07-2017, 09:51 AM
RE: altruism
(04-07-2017 07:30 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(04-07-2017 05:25 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I am not talking as if end states are known. That is part of the arrogance of a claim about "the greater good". The greater good is a null concept that means absolutely nothing because it is indefinable. The only wellbeing i can know is in relation to myself. You can tell me what would increase your wellbeing and if it is not in contradiction to my own i can assist you in reaching it if its in my power.

Rational selfishness on the other hand is fundamentally practical.

The greater good is definable in general, and general goals are still useful. Similarly, people don't always know what is best for themselves in terms of specifics, and have to work them out from day to day. Most people play it by ear.
this begs the question "who decides and how"? What is your mechanism?
See the example of the 62.


Quote:Reciprocal altruism may itself be the most optimal way to pursue one's selfish interests. Being purely selfish damages your ability to be self-serving. Other people catch on quickly.


Please providean example in which your statement would be true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2017, 10:04 AM
RE: altruism
(03-07-2017 09:41 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  If an individual holds that increasing the wellbeing of those around oneself increases their own wellbeing, can that individual be said to be "good".

You are asking -

if +you and +me then megood? or, by contraposition,

if ~(+you and +me) then ~megood? =>
if ~+you or ~+me then ~megood? =>

If one holds that not increasing the well-being of those around oneself does not increase the well-being of oneself, can that individual be said to be not good?

I'd say that antecedent is not a sufficient condition for that consequent.

Does that answer your question?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: