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

An infinite series of finite causes.

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

  • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
    Please go away, Shunya. No one likes you.
    Awwww . . .! What childish response! go eat some worms, and no I am not going away on your say so!
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      Oh a great deal has been said, but you are trying too hard.
      Trying too hard to do what? Are you referring to your snide tactic of asking questions that are very complicated, and then complaining when answers don't conform to your absurd standards of simplicity? Reality is not that simple, and it speaks to your skin-deep understanding of the issues.

      My only argument has been that scientific methodology provides the means to gather data about reality whereas philosophy provides the means to create conceptual models of that data.
      That's not what I said in my last post at all. It leads me to believe that out of the two of us, only one of us is actually addressing the points of contention between us, while the other is just repeating talking-points. That's not all that philosophy does, as I've argued repeatedly throughout the thread, and as any unbiased review of the thread would reveal. You don't understand philosophy as a whole, and you truncate its application to the goal of making claims about reality. That's some of what it does, but that's not all that it's about. Creating conceptual models is one role metaphysics has in that part of the integration of metaphysics and physics which involves different aspects of the non-overlapping and overlapping roles such disciplines have when they interact with each other.

      And after repeated requests, you still haven't defined what you mean by your terms, and provided arguments for why the meanings you prefer are the ones that all scientists and philosophers of science should also adhere to. You refuse to go here because you know that providing arguments for your meanings of the terms will land you in the world of philosophy, which will refute your entire position that only science has the tools for demonstrating truths about reality. And we can't know what this means until you define your terms: reality, truth, etc. You somehow think that doing this would reduce our argument to a semantic, verbal dispute. Far from it! We're talking about elementary protocol in debate and discussion. Not seeing this is to be obtuse.

      The two are complementary, not exclusionary. But the conclusions of the former are to be accepted over those of the latter if there is conflict between them. E.g. evolutionary theory and statements about the nature of the universe, such as the premises of the Kalam Cosmological argument etc are scientific questions dealing with scientific data, not systems of metaphysical enquiry.
      Dude, you need to slow down because there's so many things wrong with this point I really don't know where to begin. By not acknowledging the FACT that the research projects in physics have shifted because of metaphysical arguments is simply idiotic. I already gave you ONE example, and you keep ignoring it, because you only read the first two lines of my responses before your two brain cells break down. Metaphysical arguments that overlap physical theory can and DO and SHOULD take precedence over what physics is expected to discover; by definition, philosophy would provide external conceptual problems, and they would either show that, in principle, a physical theory is necessarily false, or, at the very least, it counts as evidence against a hypothesis that physicists DO take into account. I've already given you examples, so if you don't want to interact with evidence that's contrary to your prejudice, then you're done. Merely repeating your claims without addressing the evidence I'm providing is too easy to see through.

      There is no doubt that philosophy and logic are essential components of science, as far as they go, in that they promote self-consistency and help prevent errors of false inference. But, I repeat, they cannot uncover new truths about nature...only science can do that.
      It doesn't matter how much you repeat this claim (based on the thinnest argumentation I've already addressed), it don't make it so. I've already addressed this point of contention and you're not moving the conversation forward. Philosophy being merely a component of science begs the question, as does the bizarre claim that logic is a component of science. I know of no one who holds that view, unless you are just awful at trying to communicate some other point.

      So, it looks like this conversation is winding down honestly. I go to great lengths in answering your pert questions, and then I'm faulted for verbosity, when a simple answer would be woefully simplistic. And instead of advancing the discussion and addressing the points of contention, you revert back to just repeating yourself. Your fault, not mine.
      Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
      George Horne

      Comment


      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        Awwww . . .! What childish response! go eat some worms, and no I am not going away on your say so!
        Ewww. That's gross, dude. You have a disgusting imagination. Not surprised.

        "I'm not going away on your say so." Cringe. You're so transparently ridiculous.
        Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
        George Horne

        Comment


        • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
          Trying too hard to do what? Are you referring to your snide tactic of asking questions that are very complicated, and then complaining when answers don't conform to your absurd standards of simplicity? Reality is not that simple, and it speaks to your skin-deep understanding of the issues.
          Trying too hard to give metaphysics a value that it just doesn’t have, lots of words come across as empty bluster not convincing argumentation.

          That's not what I said in my last post at all. It leads me to believe that out of the two of us, only one of us is actually addressing the points of contention between us, while the other is just repeating talking-points. That's not all that philosophy does, as I've argued repeatedly throughout the thread, and as any unbiased review of the thread would reveal.
          Yes, it is all that philosophy does. It's essentially just an academic discipline

          You don't understand philosophy as a whole, and you truncate its application to the goal of making claims about reality. That's some of what it does, but that's not all that it's about. Creating conceptual models is one role metaphysics has in that part of the integration of metaphysics and physics which involves different aspects of the non-overlapping and overlapping roles such disciplines have when they interact with each other.
          Philosophy is the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience. It is not equipped to be more than this.

          And after repeated requests, you still haven't defined what you mean by your terms, and provided arguments for why the meanings you prefer are the ones that all scientists and philosophers of science should also adhere to. You refuse to go here because you know that providing arguments for your meanings of the terms will land you in the world of philosophy, which will refute your entire position that only science has the tools for demonstrating truths about reality. And we can't know what this means until you define your terms: reality, truth, etc. You somehow think that doing this would reduce our argument to a semantic, verbal dispute. Far from it! We're talking about elementary protocol in debate and discussion. Not seeing this is to be obtuse.
          This is just what I’m talking about and the terms are perfectly clear. Your demand for “definitions” is to give you an excuse to engage in a merely semantic exercise.

          Dude, you need to slow down because there's so many things wrong with this point I really don't know where to begin. By not acknowledging the FACT that the research projects in physics have shifted because of metaphysical arguments is simply idiotic.
          I have not denied that research projects in physics have shifted because of metaphysical arguments. What I’m saying is that when there is conflict between the two disciplines the conclusions of the physics are to be accepted over those of the metaphysical arguments. Because the former has the wherewithal to empirically verify its conclusions and the latter does not.

          I already gave you ONE example, and you keep ignoring it, because you only read the first two lines of my responses before your two brain cells break down. Metaphysical arguments that overlap physical theory can and DO and SHOULD take precedence over what physics is expected to discover; by definition, philosophy would provide external conceptual problems, and they would either show that, in principle, a physical theory is necessarily false, or, at the very least, it counts as evidence against a hypothesis that physicists DO take into account. I've already given you examples, so if you don't want to interact with evidence that's contrary to your prejudice, then you're done. Merely repeating your claims without addressing the evidence I'm providing is too easy to see through.
          That’s nonsense. Physics has the means to test and verify its conclusions whereas a metaphysical argument does not. The latter remains unverified conjecture. Nothing more needs to be said.

          It doesn't matter how much you repeat this claim (based on the thinnest argumentation I've already addressed), it don't make it so. I've already addressed this point of contention and you're not moving the conversation forward. Philosophy being merely a component of science begs the question, as does the bizarre claim that logic is a component of science. I know of no one who holds that view, unless you are just awful at trying to communicate some other point.

          So, it looks like this conversation is winding down honestly. I go to great lengths in answering your pert questions, and then I'm faulted for verbosity, when a simple answer would be woefully simplistic. And instead of advancing the discussion and addressing the points of contention, you revert back to just repeating yourself. Your fault, not mine.
          See above re “bluster”. Nothing personal!
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            Yes, religion offers a survival advantage because it organises cooperative behaviour and reinforces existing morals. However, as I've said before, just as humans evolved to be religious they can opt out of it out of it in the light of the evidence or lack thereof. We're are reasoning creatures after all.
            That is not what I asked Tass, you are making the claim belief in God is merely the result of evolutionary pressure? Prove that claim scientifically. How is that theory open to falsification?
            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


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Similar but but not the same.
              If Lao Tzu visited this thread, he could see what a real case of plagiarism looks like.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                That is not what I asked Tass, you are making the claim belief in God is merely the result of evolutionary pressure? Prove that claim scientifically. How is that theory open to falsification?
                The idea of gods is a human construct, which does not have an independent reality. There is no substantive evidence to support the notion AFAIK. If you think there is then present it.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  Trying too hard to give metaphysics a value that it just doesn’t have, lots of words come across as empty bluster not convincing argumentation.
                  Thanks for qualifying the tactic. Not only do you ask complex questions and stupidly expect simple answers, when I refuse to give you a simple answer (because we'll just get bogged down in simplistic balderdash), you baselessly accuse my answers with blanket denunciations and a dissatisfaction of your erroneous standards for what counts as a convincing answer. It's a sophistic tactic meant to marginalize a perspective without having to do any heavy lifting to justify your view. It's the mark of a very lazy individual. Sorry, nothing personal!

                  Yes, it is all that philosophy does. It's essentially just an academic discipline
                  Once again, you don't address the point of contention and repeat your debunked perspective.

                  Philosophy is the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience. It is not equipped to be more than this.
                  Pert nonsense. Have you heard of meta-philosophy? Reality is more complicated than your simplistic categories allow. Philosophy is vastly more complicated than your skin-deep definition. Now, in accordance with your tactic, I have to do the heavy-lifting, write a long, complex answer to your misconception, and end up in the cul-de-sac when you'll just repeat yourself without interacting with any of the points of contention. One function of philosophy is conceptual analysis of a theoretical basis of a particular theory, but there are other functions as well, which I've pointed out numerous times in the course of this thread, which you simply ignore.


                  This is just what I’m talking about and the terms are perfectly clear. Your demand for “definitions” is to give you an excuse to engage in a merely semantic exercise.
                  It is impossible for the terms to be perfectly clear if, in the literature, their usages and meanings are hotly debated in the academy. Your thinking that this reduces to a semantic exercise is further testimony of your abject ignorance of the issues. For example, what constitutes a 'fact' is hotly debated because of the philosophical ramifications a particular usage or meaning of 'fact' one happens to be siding with. Once again, your simplistic categories render you incapable of fully appreciating and interacting with the subtleties of the debate. And your close-mindedness further stifles your ability to even ask the right questions at the threshold of your ignorance.


                  I have not denied that research projects in physics have shifted because of metaphysical arguments. What I’m saying is that when there is conflict between the two disciplines the conclusions of the physics are to be accepted over those of the metaphysical arguments. Because the former has the wherewithal to empirically verify its conclusions and the latter does not.
                  Another instance of your merely repeating your perspective without addressing the points of contention to further the discussion along. You don't fully appreciate the 'nature' of why the research projects were shifted. When you get into the nature of 'why' the research projects shifted, you couldn't say that when there's a clash between physics and philosophy, physics wins every time. Because you don't have the required sensitivity to the nuances of the shift. And, once again, you repeat this criterion of empirical verifiability (which is different than the falsifiability that you were advocating earlier) without interacting with what I've already said about empirical verifiability in the context of the demarcation problem. You just ignore everything I say, repeat your positions, and when I provide a full-throated rebuttal, you label it needless verbosity and bluster. It's text-book sophistry. We're far enough along into the discussion for you to have no excuse not to further the debate and address the points of contention. To merely repeat yourself is obtuse and dishonest.

                  That’s nonsense. Physics has the means to test and verify its conclusions whereas a metaphysical argument does not. The latter remains unverified conjecture. Nothing more needs to be said.
                  Once again, you merely repeat your criteria of testability and verifiability without addressing what I've already said about both criteria in the context of the demarcation problem. You also keep ignoring what I've argued about the legitimacy of philosophical methodologies in justifying, in the context of an argument, why one should adhere to your interpretation of testability and verifiability.


                  See above re “bluster”. Nothing personal!
                  No interaction with my direct contention that your assertions of logic and philosophy being mere components of science. No interaction with the idea that no one that I've worked with or read in the contemporary literature on the topic shares your myopic view. Your interaction with my critique of your entire way of going about arguing for your case is ignored. You merely ignore everything that was said, marginalize it by calling it bluster, and repeat your position.

                  You're a doltish, idiotic sophist. Nothing personal!
                  Last edited by mattbballman31; 03-14-2018, 08:42 PM.
                  Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                  George Horne

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                    Thanks for qualifying the tactic. Not only do you ask complex questions and stupidly expect simple answers, when I refuse to give you a simple answer (because we'll just get bogged down in simplistic balderdash), you baselessly accuse my answers with blanket denunciations and a dissatisfaction of your erroneous standards for what counts as a convincing answer. It's a sophistic tactic meant to marginalize a perspective without having to do any heavy lifting to justify your view. It's the mark of a very lazy individual. Sorry, nothing personal!
                    My questions are only “complex” in that you, like so many religious people, want to give metaphysics a status equal to that of science in terms of acquiring knowledge. It cannot. A metaphysical argument does not and cannot, acquire new truths about nature, as I’ve repeatedly said.

                    Once again, you don't address the point of contention and repeat your debunked perspective.
                    Philosophy is no more than merely an academic discipline, so what have you "debunked"?

                    Pert nonsense. Have you heard of meta-philosophy? Reality is more complicated than your simplistic categories allow. Philosophy is vastly more complicated than your skin-deep definition. Now, in accordance with your tactic, I have to do the heavy-lifting, write a long, complex answer to your misconception, and end up in the cul-de-sac when you'll just repeat yourself without interacting with any of the points of contention. One function of philosophy is conceptual analysis of a theoretical basis of a particular theory, but there are other functions as well, which I've pointed out numerous times in the course of this thread, which you simply ignore.
                    No matter how profound the reasoning and conceptual analysis may be, metaphysics alone cannot arrive at new facts without scientific verification to support the conclusions...as Aristotle, father of metaphysics, spectacularly found out. You say that metaphysics has come a long way since Aristotle, it hasn’t.

                    It is impossible for the terms to be perfectly clear if, in the literature, their usages and meanings are hotly debated in the academy. Your thinking that this reduces to a semantic exercise is further testimony of your abject ignorance of the issues. For example, what constitutes a 'fact' is hotly debated because of the philosophical ramifications a particular usage or meaning of 'fact' one happens to be siding with. Once again, your simplistic categories render you incapable of fully appreciating and interacting with the subtleties of the debate. And your close-mindedness further stifles your ability to even ask the right questions at the threshold of your ignorance.
                    Yes, exactly! All of this is what I dismiss as useless semantic exercises, which achieve very little in the real world.

                    Another instance of your merely repeating your perspective without addressing the points of contention to further the discussion along. You don't fully appreciate the 'nature' of why the research projects were shifted. When you get into the nature of 'why' the research projects shifted, you couldn't say that when there's a clash between physics and philosophy, physics wins every time. Because you don't have the required sensitivity to the nuances of the shift. And, once again, you repeat this criterion of empirical verifiability (which is different than the falsifiability that you were advocating earlier) without interacting with what I've already said about empirical verifiability in the context of the demarcation problem. You just ignore everything I say, repeat your positions, and when I provide a full-throated rebuttal, you label it needless verbosity and bluster. It's text-book sophistry. We're far enough along into the discussion for you to have no excuse not to further the debate and address the points of contention. To merely repeat yourself is obtuse and dishonest.
                    Your arguments amount to no more than: “It’s complicated”...not a helpful position to adopt in my view.

                    Once again, you merely repeat your criteria of testability and verifiability without addressing what I've already said about both criteria in the context of the demarcation problem. You also keep ignoring what I've argued about the legitimacy of philosophical methodologies in justifying, in the context of an argument, why one should adhere to your interpretation of testability and verifiability.
                    It’s not an issue. “The demarcation problem is the philosophical problem of determining what types of hypotheses should be considered scientific and what types should be considered pseudoscientific or non-scientific”. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem

                    My position approximates: “Susan Haack, while not rejecting the problem wholesale, argues that a misleading emphasis has been placed on the problem that results in getting bogged down in arguments over definitions rather than evidence”. Ibid. This is what you’ve been doing and what I’ve been rejecting.

                    No interaction with my direct contention that your assertions of logic and philosophy being mere components of science. No interaction with the idea that no one that I've worked with or read in the contemporary literature on the topic shares your myopic view. Your interaction with my critique of your entire way of going about arguing for your case is ignored. You merely ignore everything that was said, marginalize it by calling it bluster, and repeat your position.

                    You're a doltish, idiotic sophist. Nothing personal!
                    You have said nothing to address my position.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      No matter how profound the reasoning and conceptual analysis may be, metaphysics alone cannot arrive at new facts without scientific verification to support the conclusions...as Aristotle, father of metaphysics, spectacularly found out. You say that metaphysics has come a long way since Aristotle, it hasn’t.
                      You mean like this claim of yours: Either way, all gods are a human constructs and do not have an independent reality.

                      So you agree that you can not show that this claim is a fact, thanks...
                      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


                      • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                        Ewww. That's gross, dude. You have a disgusting imagination. Not surprised.

                        "I'm not going away on your say so." Cringe. You're so transparently ridiculous.
                        "Phffffffft! Splat! Dribble . . . Dribble . . .
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          You mean like this claim of yours: Either way, all gods are a human constructs and do not have an independent reality.

                          So you agree that you can not show that this claim is a fact, thanks...
                          That claim is a fact as far as we can see, ergo there is no reason to believe it not to be a fact. All human cultures construct their own gods, in the ancient mid east for instance, each tribe had their own gods. Native North and South American tribes all had their own gods, and they all served in a psychological way to maintain the social order within those respective cultures.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            My questions are only “complex” in that you, like so many religious people, want to give metaphysics a status equal to that of science in terms of acquiring knowledge. It cannot. A metaphysical argument does not and cannot, acquire new truths about nature, as I’ve repeatedly said.
                            Not what I meant by 'complex'.

                            Never said that the methods of metaphysics and science are equal. I said they're different. Science sucks at settling certain metaphysical disputes; metaphysics sucks at settling certain disputes in physics.

                            Yes, a metaphysical argument does and can acquire new truths about nature, as I've repeatedly said, and justified, and you've ignored.

                            Philosophy is no more than merely an academic discipline, so what have you "debunked"?
                            Don't know what you mean by 'merely an academic discipline'.

                            I've debunked everything you've argued. You just repeat yourself and pretend like nothing has been said. It's pathetic.

                            No matter how profound the reasoning and conceptual analysis may be, metaphysics alone cannot arrive at new facts without scientific verification to support the conclusions...as Aristotle, father of metaphysics, spectacularly found out. You say that metaphysics has come a long way since Aristotle, it hasn’t.
                            Metaphysics isn't just conceptual analysis.

                            Yes, metaphysics can arrive at new facts without scientific verification.

                            Aristotle was right in some areas and wrong others. So what?

                            Yes, metaphysics has come a long way since Aristotle. You're just ignorant.


                            Yes, exactly! All of this is what I dismiss as useless semantic exercises, which achieve very little in the real world.
                            To call it 'semantic exercises' is pejorative and misrepresents what's going on.

                            Since you don't define 'real', I have no idea what you mean when you talk about achievements.



                            Your arguments amount to no more than: “It’s complicated”...not a helpful position to adopt in my view.
                            Nope. It amounts to more than that. You just can't read or understand what I'm saying.


                            It’s not an issue. “The demarcation problem is the philosophical problem of determining what types of hypotheses should be considered scientific and what types should be considered pseudoscientific or non-scientific”. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem
                            Yes, it is an issue. You're wrong. Didn't I already anticipate you would go to Rational Wiki? Frankly, Rational Wiki sucks. Do you have a scholarly source? It doesn't have to do merely with the nature of hypotheses; it has to do with methods. Falsification isn't a hypothesis; it's a method.


                            My position approximates: “Susan Haack, while not rejecting the problem wholesale, argues that a misleading emphasis has been placed on the problem that results in getting bogged down in arguments over definitions rather than evidence”. Ibid. This is what you’ve been doing and what I’ve been rejecting.
                            Give me the link so I can see how you ripped that from its context.


                            You have said nothing to address my position.
                            Yes, I have.
                            Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                            George Horne

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              "Phffffffft! Splat! Dribble . . . Dribble . . .
                              Clean your beard of the drool and the corner of your lips for the spittle, ya nut.
                              Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                              George Horne

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                That claim is a fact as far as we can see
                                Who's we?

                                ergo there is no reason to believe it not to be a fact.
                                Huh?

                                All human cultures construct their own gods
                                Prove it.

                                in the ancient mid east for instance, each tribe had their own gods.
                                So what?

                                Native North and South American tribes all had their own gods
                                So what?

                                and they all served in a psychological way to maintain the social order within those respective cultures.
                                So what?
                                Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                                George Horne

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 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