Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

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

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Secular Ethics...

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Jin, I did not just invent a definition of subjective,
    You supplied a stimulative definition, and I used the stimulative definition. This is a different notion of "subjective" than many other notions of "subjective." Nothing wrong with that, but only trying to be clear.


    what I'm asking is what moral opinion or moral goal is not subjective?
    And I repeat (for the third time), that under this definition of subjective there are no moral goals or ethical questions that are not subjective.

    I'm also asking why one moral opinion or moral goal is more correct or valid than its opposite? You are so wise Jin, these questions should be easy for you to answer.
    You originally asked if there were any secular ethics. I supplied two examples. I neither advocated nor gave details on them.

    And ethical questions are seldom easy. This is why there are entire departments of academies spilling ink about this question. People have written and wrestled with end of life decisions, jury nullification, whether empathy is sufficient or even if empathy is a problem, animal testing for medicine, if it's possible to lose human dignity, treatment of mental patients, I could on...

    Thing is, I don't really think you're in on this conversation though. Even if you truly wanted adjudicate between what one moral goal is and another, you'd have to have some curiosity about the subject. I think you want to scream 'subjective' at anything and everything right now. It's seems to be a way of saying 'just an opinion' and therefore wrong or something. Yet you fail to understand that this definition of 'subjective' would apply to everything and thus makes it so vacuous and banal we might as well say "is he a true athlete? He can't be because he breathes air."

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Jin-roh View Post
      And I repeat (for the third time), that under this definition of subjective there are no moral goals or ethical questions that are not subjective.
      Right, they are all subjective - thank you.

      And ethical questions are seldom easy. This is why there are entire departments of academies spilling ink about this question. People have written and wrestled with end of life decisions, jury nullification, whether empathy is sufficient or even if empathy is a problem, animal testing for medicine, if it's possible to lose human dignity, treatment of mental patients, I could on...

      Thing is, I don't really think you're in on this conversation though. Even if you truly wanted adjudicate between what one moral goal is and another, you'd have to have some curiosity about the subject. I think you want to scream 'subjective' at anything and everything right now. It's seems to be a way of saying 'just an opinion' and therefore wrong or something. Yet you fail to understand that this definition of 'subjective' would apply to everything and thus makes it so vacuous and banal we might as well say "is he a true athlete? He can't be because he breathes air."
      No Jin, moral questions are different. It is objectively true that the sun exists, it is not objectively true that animal testing is immoral - and I never even suggested that because something is subjective that it necessarily wrong. Only that there is not a universal ethical rule to judge between differing opinions in a secular worldview. Do you agree with that? And I'm also not saying that all moral questions are necessarily easy, but I am not speaking of epistemology here but of ontology.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Right, they are all subjective - thank you.
        Vacuously so.

        No Jin, moral questions are different. It is objectively true that the sun exists, it is not objectively true that animal testing is immoral - and I never even suggested that because something is subjective that it necessarily wrong. Only that there is not a universal ethical rule to judge between differing opinions in a secular worldview. Do you agree with that? And I'm also not saying that all moral questions are necessarily easy, but I am not speaking of epistemology here but of ontology.
        I thought it was pretty clear that when speaking of 'subjective' here, you missing that ethical questions in general secular and sacred would both fall under your rather crude, thoughtless, use of the word there.

        Talk of "universal ethical rule" is a bit tautological, as when people are talking about ethics they usually do mean something universal.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Jin-roh View Post
          Vacuously so.
          Why would you even say that?

          I thought it was pretty clear that when speaking of 'subjective' here, you missing that ethical questions in general secular and sacred would both fall under your rather crude, thoughtless, use of the word there.
          It is neither crude nor thoughtless - it is a fact. Moral ideas concern interpersonal relationships and are developed subjectively in the mind. What else is there?

          Talk of "universal ethical rule" is a bit tautological, as when people are talking about ethics they usually do mean something universal.
          Well I can see how the law of God could be universal - how can moral ideals be universal otherwise? Can you offer an example?
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Why would you even say that?
            Already explained why.

            It is neither crude nor thoughtless - it is a fact. Moral ideas concern interpersonal relationships and are developed subjectively in the mind. What else is there?
            Earlier you made a essential connection between moral questions (without qualification!) and subjectiveness ("influence by taste, feelings etc"). There is no reason to think that a religious moral question is not therefore also subjective.

            Well I can see how the law of God could be universal - how can moral ideals be universal otherwise?
            Subjective! Subjective! Subjective! For this moral theory exists in your mind juxtaposed next to dozens of others!

            Can you offer an example?
            Are we going to repeat this entire conversation again? Seer, I do not think you have a sincere interest in this subject.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Jin-roh View Post
              Already explained why.
              Jin, then post an accepted definition of subjective as you define it.


              Earlier you made a essential connection between moral questions (without qualification!) and subjectiveness ("influence by taste, feelings etc"). There is no reason to think that a religious moral question is not therefore also subjective.
              Right, and I have asked you a number of times, in a number of ways, to offer a moral ideal that is not subjective, and why it is not subjective.


              Subjective! Subjective! Subjective! For this moral theory exists in your mind juxtaposed next to dozens of others!
              Jin, you are dodging the question. I asked you to offer an universal moral truth. And this childish rant is what I get? And it looks very much that your sincerity is in question - not mine.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Jin, you are dodging the question. I asked you to offer an universal moral truth. And this childish rant is what I get? And it looks very much that your sincerity is in question - not mine.
                Seer, you started out by claiming that Utilitarianism and Kant's Deontological ethics were subjective. If this is your level of understanding, your conclusion is written beforehand and it is wrong. You have completely failed to understand Jin's point that "Talk of "universal ethical rule" is a bit tautological, as when people are talking about ethics they usually do mean something universal." So you are basically embarrasing yourself, because you misunderstand or at least misrepresent the subject in discussion.
                "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Charles View Post
                  Seer, you started out by claiming that Utilitarianism and Kant's Deontological ethics were subjective. If this is your level of understanding, your conclusion is written beforehand and it is wrong. You have completely failed to understand Jin's point that "Talk of "universal ethical rule" is a bit tautological, as when people are talking about ethics they usually do mean something universal." So you are basically embarrasing yourself, because you misunderstand or at least misrepresent the subject in discussion.
                  Charles I will ask you, what moral truth is universal and why? I'm not asking if men like Bentham or Kant think their theories are universal or should be universal but why are they actually universal. And not all ethical theories claim universality - like ethical subjectivism or ethical/moral relativism. So you are wrong on that point.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Seer, even if human ethics were entirely subjective (which I don't believe), that's a lot better than your proposed ethical theory where your entirely imaginary deity has an entirely subjective opinion. Even if you were to convince me that some sort of god(s) / alien sky-creatures / universe-creating-scientists / whatever it is, really existed, I wouldn't particularly care what their opinions were.

                    Humans at least have the benefit of (a) definitely existing, (b) having opinions that are clearly knowable and don't depend on subjective interpretations and debatable translations of ancient texts, so we can actually know what they think on issues, (c) are actually participants in the human world and thus have standing to talk about human issues in a way that outsiders like god(s) don't.

                    From my POV the ethical theory you're trying to sell me looks like "hey, I've got a cool version of morality: I've got an imaginary friend, who has some opinions, but he doesn't answer questions about morality, but he totally wrote some obscure ancient texts where he said some stuff that's difficult to translate. Cool eh?" Your view looks literally worse and less plausible and less interesting than any ethical theory I've ever seen from any human philosopher. The human philosophers might be wrong, but your view doesn't even seem to rise to that level, it's just plain dumb.
                    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      A thought experiment I like to use to explore the concept of morality is the idea of two disembodied minds floating in a void, interacting in some nebulous and unspecified ways.

                      After some time, one of the beings might have ill-will toward the other, it might have come to dislike the other and want to hurt, harm, or destroy it if possible. Or it might have come to have a very positive view about the other, and have a desire for positive things to happen to the other.

                      Let us imagine one of the beings takes some action directed toward the other, out of those positive/negative desires toward that being, with the action taken with the intention of harming/benefiting the other (according to the beings' shared understanding of what sort of actions would hurt or benefit such entities).

                      Then I think there are 3 things we can usefully assess about the situation:
                      1. Does the being performing the action generally have positive or negative will toward others? (Benevolent / malevolent in general?)
                      2. In this particular instance was the action itself being motivated by positive or negative intentions? (Good-will / ill-will in this instance?)
                      3. Did the action have consequences that the beings regarded as positive or negative? ('Good' / 'bad' consequences?)

                      In life, these there questions tend to apply in nearly every situation of human interaction, and we are constantly assessing the motives of others, and trying to discern the presence of positive and negative intentions. This applies to everything from being wary of dangerous criminals, to correctly understanding the love that a loved one was intending to convey with a compliment given.

                      Generally, it is human experience, that things don't always turn out the way they were intended. Although we often hold people responsible for the consequences of their actions in courts of law, there are all sorts of extenuating circumstances, and whether they intended those consequences is nearly always heavily taken into account. And due to the complexity of embedded human experience in the world it's often not possible to asses #3 accurately - actions can have consequences that won't become apparent for years or are unknown to those observing them.

                      When we instinctively do our evaluations of fellow humans we tend to focus instead on #1 and #2, rather than so much on #3 because it doesn't tell us about the person doing the action whom we are trying to evaluate. We ask and answer such questions as "Is this a generally kind, loving, caring, compassionate person? Or is this a dangerous criminal?" and "Was this person trying to harm others with this action? Or were they intending it to be helpful?"

                      Those are assessments that all human beings continually make about others all around the world. This is a universally used method of analyzing human actions and forming judgments about the humans doing them. IMO, if you want to slap the label 'morality' on anything, you should slap it on this. Instead of trying to come up with arbitrary moral standards, it's better to acknowledge the one that is already in use by everyone. In this evaluation, people are 'good' or 'evil' if and only if the are generally benevolent or generally malevolent, and an action is 'good/right' or 'evil/wrong' if it is done with good-will/benevolent-intentions or ill-will/malevolent-intentions. Morality is thus about whether the intentions behind the interactions between people are positive or negative.

                      The question of what specific acts should a benevolently-intentioned person want to do (i.e. if we wanted to write down a law code that good people would follow, like 'don't steal' etc) is much more complicated as that involves empirical research and depends on the world (e.g. the list of specific acts for the two minds in the void might look very different to the specific list for humans on earth) and on human needs and on a shared understanding of what sort of actions are harmful/helpful to people and why. A back of the envelope way to fill this list is the oft-used heuristic "don't do things to others you wouldn't want them to do to you". But this all relates to #3 which is where the complexity lies. Whereas I think morality itself - #1 and #2 are much simpler and simply involve assessing other human beings for positive and negative intentions toward others.
                      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Charles I will ask you, what moral truth is universal and why? I'm not asking if men like Bentham or Kant think their theories are universal or should be universal but why are they actually universal. And not all ethical theories claim universality - like ethical subjectivism or ethical/moral relativism. So you are wrong on that point.
                        I never made the claim that all ethical theories claim universality. I quoted Jin saying "Talk of "universal ethical rule" is a bit tautological, as when people are talking about ethics they usually do mean something universal." By saying that something is usually the case, your are not claiming that it is always the case. “Usually” does not mean “always”…
                        So the statement is, quite simply, not proven wrong by well known theories that do not claim universality. Moral relativism, by the way, varies and some versions are more universal than others.

                        I still think your understanding of the very basics in this context is lacking. You wrote: “I'm not asking if men like Bentham or Kant think their theories are universal or should be universal but why are they actually universal.”

                        When reading this it appears you have failed to understand that they actually don’t just “think” that a specific theory is right. They are actually arguing and laying the foundation as to why they actually are right, or why they are actually universal. If you want to establish an “actually” that is not based on arguments and philosophical reasoning, then, as I wrote, your conclusion is written beforehand. Which it appears to be since you claim that both theories are subjective.

                        After someone has provided a theory where they lay out the basic ideas, give an account of why it is fair, consistent, applies to everyone, is logically consistent, irrefutable and so on, the right question to ask is not why that is “actually” right. Rather one should either accept it or prove it wrong. But your need for it to be subjective seems to limit your understanding and your curiosity regarding what the theories are really about. You seem to be asking questions based on a lack of knowledge.

                        As Jin pointed out it seems you repeatedly want to start all over again. And basically your question ignores very important lines of reasonings based on a wrong and limited understanding. And then you want me to start all over again. But as we have all guessed, since you can write both Kant and Bentham of claiming they are subjective (conveniently ignoring that the argue why their theories apply to everyone), since I am (surprise surprise) also a person, my destiny is bound to be the same because you don’t understand the subject matter to the degree needed.

                        What you also don’t seem to understand is that your approach makes it very easy (since it is based on ignoring entire lines of reasoning) to claim a theory is subjective and then, I guess, your plan is to point to a religious foundation instead. However, even the best lines of reasoning in that regard will also be proven subjective by your very own line of thinking…
                        "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Charles View Post
                          I never made the claim that all ethical theories claim universality. I quoted Jin saying "Talk of "universal ethical rule" is a bit tautological, as when people are talking about ethics they usually do mean something universal." By saying that something is usually the case, your are not claiming that it is always the case. “Usually” does not mean “always”…
                          So the statement is, quite simply, not proven wrong by well known theories that do not claim universality. Moral relativism, by the way, varies and some versions are more universal than others.
                          And my point is that they are not necessarily speaking of universal moral truths, so it is not a tautological, not even a bit of a tautological since we would have to first know which theory we are speaking of.

                          I still think your understanding of the very basics in this context is lacking. You wrote: “I'm not asking if men like Bentham or Kant think their theories are universal or should be universal but why are they actually universal.”

                          When reading this it appears you have failed to understand that they actually don’t just “think” that a specific theory is right. They are actually arguing and laying the foundation as to why they actually are right, or why they are actually universal. If you want to establish an “actually” that is not based on arguments and philosophical reasoning, then, as I wrote, your conclusion is written beforehand. Which it appears to be since you claim that both theories are subjective.
                          Of course they are subjective theories Charles, they completely disagree with each other. Which ethical theory is correct: Utilitarianism or Deontological ethics? They can't both be right. But I'm asking a rather basic question that no one has yet tackled or even attempted to answer. Do universal moral truths exist? How do they exist? Do universal moral goals exist? Is rape for instance a universal moral wrong?

                          After someone has provided a theory where they lay out the basic ideas, give an account of why it is fair, consistent, applies to everyone, is logically consistent, irrefutable and so on, the right question to ask is not why that is “actually” right. Rather one should either accept it or prove it wrong. But your need for it to be subjective seems to limit your understanding and your curiosity regarding what the theories are really about. You seem to be asking questions based on a lack of knowledge.

                          As Jin pointed out it seems you repeatedly want to start all over again. And basically your question ignores very important lines of reasonings based on a wrong and limited understanding. And then you want me to start all over again. But as we have all guessed, since you can write both Kant and Bentham of claiming they are subjective (conveniently ignoring that the argue why their theories apply to everyone), since I am (surprise surprise) also a person, my destiny is bound to be the same because you don’t understand the subject matter to the degree needed.

                          What you also don’t seem to understand is that your approach makes it very easy (since it is based on ignoring entire lines of reasoning) to claim a theory is subjective and then, I guess, your plan is to point to a religious foundation instead. However, even the best lines of reasoning in that regard will also be proven subjective by your very own line of thinking…
                          Charles there are a number of different moral theories, too many to wade through here, or even to compare. Yes Kant and Bentham claim that their theories apply to everyone but they are in contradiction, and claiming universality does not make it is so, even if the theories are logically consistent. And don't get me wrong, the subjective mind can grasp and understand universal truths. The sun exists, that is a universal truth (at least for the present, until it dies). I'm asking if anyone here can demonstrate that it is a universal truth that rape for instance is wrong, or any universal moral truth. Instead of answering these questions directly all you and Jin have done was to hand wave, use personal attacks and blow smoke.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Of course they are subjective theories Charles, they completely disagree with each other. Which ethical theory is correct: Utilitarianism or Deontological ethics? They can't both be right. But I'm asking a rather basic question that no one has yet tackled or even attempted to answer. Do universal moral truths exist? How do they exist? Do universal moral goals exist? Is rape for instance a universal moral wrong?
                            So, if two theories claim universality and they conflict then it follows that they are both subjective? That is how I read it. Could it be that the correct statement would be that since they contradict each other, they cannot both be right? Or they cannot both be completely right? You seem to not allow for one of them to be correct due to the fact that the other exists. Due to that logic, I can turn any theory into a subjective theory quite fast. If that is your position, then again, your conclusion is given beforehand. You need to dig in to the theories in order to understand the reasoning. If you think it is possible for at least one of them to be right and universal, then why would you claim they are both subjective? So quite simple question. Is a theory subjective solely based on the fact that conflicting theories exist? If not, then why do you claim they are both subjective due to the fact that the conflict?

                            By asking whether moral truths exist you may be asking a basic question. That does not mean that the answer is easily given. So far you have been setting up conditions under which it is ruled out beforehand that an answer can be given, since you seem to imply that as long as others think different, it cannot be universal. That might be the reason no one has bothered trying to go through all the lines of reasoning. You are turning a difficult task into an impossible task in order to prove that those with whom you disagre cannot come up with anything. I am quite happy to find myself in that category along with Kant and other great philosophers. I mean, honestly, no one is going to waste their time when the conclusion is given beforehand.

                            But I do believe moral truths exist and I think Kant's deontological ethics gets you quite far though I do not follow him in his each and every move. But since you know Kant's ethics you can start out by explaining why it is not universal and why you are confused as to whether rape is universally wrong, why you have claimed that killing of homosexuals could be just and so on. I mean, we both know what Kant thinks, no need to repeat that. And it appears you seem to think you have some great alternative to all these ethical theories. Let us hear....

                            I basically do not think that there is much point to this thread only pointing to "secular ethichs" since it seems you do not want to justify your own view but call everything "subjective" if it is not based upon religion. Neither do I believe secular people face a challenge different to the one that religious people face, unless they are religious extremist. I am already writing some stuff on that which I will publish when ready.
                            "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Charles View Post
                              So, if two theories claim universality and they conflict then it follows that they are both subjective? That is how I read it. Could it be that the correct statement would be that since they contradict each other, they cannot both be right? Or they cannot both be completely right? You seem to not allow for one of them to be correct due to the fact that the other exists. Due to that logic, I can turn any theory into a subjective theory quite fast. If that is your position, then again, your conclusion is given beforehand. You need to dig in to the theories in order to understand the reasoning. If you think it is possible for at least one of them to be right and universal, then why would you claim they are both subjective? So quite simple question. Is a theory subjective solely based on the fact that conflicting theories exist? If not, then why do you claim they are both subjective due to the fact that the conflict?
                              Charles, perhaps I'm not making myself clear. They are subjective until one can demonstrate otherwise. I have no reason to assume that either or any of these theories actually get to universal moral truths. On what basis could that actually be so? Give me an idea.

                              By asking whether moral truths exist you may be asking a basic question. That does not mean that the answer is easily given. So far you have been setting up conditions under which it is ruled out beforehand that an answer can be given, since you seem to imply that as long as others think different, it cannot be universal. That might be the reason no one has bothered trying to go through all the lines of reasoning. You are turning a difficult task into an impossible task in order to prove that those with whom you disagre cannot come up with anything. I am quite happy to find myself in that category along with Kant and other great philosophers. I mean, honestly, no one is going to waste their time when the conclusion is given beforehand.
                              I'm not ruling anything out Charles, I'm asking for an explanation. Here is an exercise: If an advanced Alien race came to earth and began harvesting us for food, would that be a moral wrong? A universal moral wrong? And why?

                              But I do believe moral truths exist and I think Kant's deontological ethics gets you quite far though I do not follow him in his each and every move. But since you know Kant's ethics you can start out by explaining why it is not universal and why you are confused as to whether rape is universally wrong, why you have claimed that killing of homosexuals could be just and so on. I mean, we both know what Kant thinks, no need to repeat that. And it appears you seem to think you have some great alternative to all these ethical theories. Let us hear....
                              No Charles, stop trying to turn it around. And again Charles I'm asking you and Jin for an explanation - not Kant. I mean if it really is so difficult to preset just one universal moral truth perhaps it is because you can't. And yes, deontological ethics married with Divine Command Theory can offer a source for universal moral truths since God is universal.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I am leaving this thread since I see no reason for me to write my thoughts under conditions set by someone who does not want to contribute himself.

                                I am planning to write more stuff on ethics and have already started a new thread today, so if anyone has any interest feel free to join.
                                "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

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