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

Atheism And Moral Progress

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

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    The power - yes. The right? No. I'm a sentient being. Morality is something I work out for myself. You are unilaterally assuming the creator gets to call the shots. Your hypothetical creator would have created a sentient being capable of moralizing. At that point, the creator becomes just another sentient being with its own moral framework.
    That is not the point Carp, an earthly King or the majority in a society, or God, would have the right to make and enforce laws. Just because you may not agree with those laws or that right has no bearing. So yes God does have authority over you whether you agree to that or not. You agreement or rejection makes no difference to the definition, it is not a consideration in any of the definitions we looked at, including yours.



    Your hypothetical god can give any order it wishes - and make any decision it wishes. It has no authority over me to comply outside of the fact that it has more power and can punish me if I don't. As I have said numerous times, I do not subscribe to a "might makes right" theory of morality. I didn't think you did either, but apparently you do...
    Again Carp, by definition God would have authority over you. And I never said that might makes right, I said that good was defined by God's immutable moral character and His omniscience. Knowing the long term consequences and possible consequences of all moral acts. So what defines right in your relative world Carp? A fickle moral character that is ignorant of future consequences? And again Carp in your relative world there is actually nothing objectively wrong with "might making right."
    Last edited by seer; 08-09-2019, 04:52 AM.
    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 Jim B. View Post
      How can both of those things be true? They would naturally tend to come into conflict with each other, and when they do, how do you negotiate between them? Which takes precedence and under what circumstances?
      I'm not seeing a conflict. Perhaps if you provide an example?

      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      With all due respect, carp, that makes no sense.
      You guys certain seem to like to start a post with this type of opening. Do you really think saying it makes the thing nonsensical or adds to your argument? That you cannot make sense of it does not mean it makes no sense.

      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      First, you're saying that morality is subjective, the ultimate moral authority being the individual's, but that makes morality a useless concept. Morality isn't about what I personally want but what anyone in the same situation ought to do. It's a judgment that is at least in principle universalizable. Subjectivism reduces morality to a matter of personal taste. Subjective morality, if that term even makes sense, would cease to have interpersonal evaluative meaning. It couldn't be used to resolve interpersonal conflict.
      Nothing you are saying here is in conflict with subjective moralism. And yes, as I have noted to Seer multiple times, morality IS about "personal preference." It is the term we use for decisions about behavior that have to do with the things we most value.

      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      But then you say that it's a matter of what a significant percentage of the members of a given society hold. That contradicts the first assertion that it's a matter of personal judgment.
      You have misunderstood. What I said was that what we call social moral norms are simply the collection of things we hold in common. For example, for many years, the social moral norm was that homosexual intimacy was immoral. Not everyone thought this - but so many did that it was considered the "moral norm." Since then individual moral positions have shifted on the topic, and now the social norm has become "homosexual intimacy is subject to the same moral guidelines as heterosexual intimacy." The social moral norm has shifted.

      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      First of all, how do you define what a 'society' or a 'culture' is?
      It can be any particular group in question: a religious group, a local community, a neighborhood, the country, etc.

      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      I belong to several different cultural groups. Which group's code takes precedence?
      The individual's moral framework takes precedence. Which group has more influence on the individual differs from individual to individual,

      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      Let's say one of my cultures is the Mafia. I have every right, even a duty, under your scenario, to be a good mafioso.
      It is possible that an individual's moral framework would see "being a good mafioso" as a moral good. Most of us would probably disagree. I certainly would.

      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      Secondly, is it majoritarian rule that decides what's 'right' and wrong'?
      The individual always decides what is "right" or "wrong." The "will of the group" is nothing more than the collective will of its members.

      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      When 50% of the population of a given society, assuming you can define that society, plus one person, comes to think that action A is permissible, then it's okay, but when it slips down to 50% minus 1 person it becomes morally wrong again? Surely you see that this is nuts.
      The individual decides what is wrong or right - not the group. The statistics just tell us what the majority does or does not think. If a moral position were as close as you describe, I'd say that particular group/society/culture was split on the moral question.

      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      Your idea also rules out the possibility that a 'society' can simply be mistaken, as in Nazi Germany or the antebellum South. Truth would always be with the crowd and error with the minority and the individual, which seems to be in tension with your first subjectivist thesis. Also, moral reformers would always be wrong. Even the possibility of moral critique across cultures or even within a single culture would be impossible. There would be no recourse or protection for persecuted or oppressed minorities within a culture.
      You seem to be under the mistake impression that I think the group has primacy in morality. The group can and does influence the individual. The individual has primacy and determines their moral framework. It has always been this way. It's not my "idea." It's show morality has always worked.

      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      My main argument is that subjectivism is not morality by any standard definition of morality but taste and personal preference. It doesn't meet any of the stadard criteria of moral systems.
      What "stated criteria" are you referring to?

      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      You're begging the question. We're debating whether or not subjectivism is true regarding morality. You cannot assume it regarding God or anyone else.
      I assume it, Jim, because I see it all around me, and experience it within me. I assume it for the same reason I assume my car is blue: because that is what I observe to be true. It is not "begging the question" to report what one observes.

      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      Maybe that's seer's position. I'm not that familiar with all of his positions. It's not my position.
      Nor mine. Seer also says it is not his, but then immediately returns to it. It's pretty confusing.

      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      You're familiar with what a metaphor is? The "heart" means the intuition, what one knows instinctively as part of being a social rational creature. Like sentence formation. Moral norms are pretty universal across cultures. Language acquisition like morality has to be triggered through acculturation, but doesn't seem to be reducible to it. Otherwise we wouldn't see the commonalities we do.
      I am familiar with a metaphor - but what you call "intuition" I call "habit." We are raised in a combination (as you note) of overlapping cultures, each with their own moral influence. We initially derive our moral positions on that basis of authority (Mom says so, Dad says so, the teacher says so, the policeman says so, the priest/minister says so). Eventually, hopefully, we mature as moralizers and begin to examine moral issues on their own merits and come to our own moral conclusions. This is an individual act, but it is strongly influenced by our context. We see the commonalities that we do because we value similarly, and we value similarly because we share more in common than most people consider (life, humanity, bipedalism, this planet, social/cultural contexts, religions, etc.).

      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      Yeah, I know you're an atheist. I meant 'God' as in the concept.
      Jim, there is not "a" concept of god - there are many of them. Each religion has its own nuanced view. Humanity has created an enormous number of gods over its brief existence. I don't think any of them exist in reality. When discussing, I try to keep in mind the particular definition of god being used by whoever I'm talking with. It's not easy, because most of these ideas of god are internally inconsistent - but I try.

      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
      Again I'm not overly familiar with seer's definitions, and I guess you have to work with who you're responding to.
      I do indeed..
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        You’d be right to a degree. Every animal, including us is an assemblage of genetic algorithms shaped largely by natural selection over millions of years of evolution. They take their decisions either deterministically or randomly – but not freely other than as a sort of feed-back loop which has a degree of impact in the decision-making process. This "feed-back" loop" is what Dennett refers to as our "elbow-room".

        How could it be otherwise?
        I think I'm not so far into the deterministic camp as you appear to be.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          That is not the point Carp, an earthly King or the majority in a society, or God, would have the right to make and enforce laws.
          No. You have asserted this multiple times - and understand you believe it. The case has not been made.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Just because you may not agree with those laws or that right has no bearing. So yes God does have authority over you whether you agree to that or not. You agreement or rejection makes no difference to the definition, it is not a consideration in any of the definitions we looked at, including yours.
          Your hypothetical god would have power over me, Seer, but not moral authority. Your continued insistence that it would doesn't make it so, except (apparently) in your own mind.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Again Carp, by definition God would have authority over you.
          No. I am an autonomous moral agent. I don't cede my moral authority to anyone else. God cannot take it without overriding my will - at which point I cease to be an independent moral agent. Like I said - power - not authority.

          Originally posted by seer View Post
          And I never said that might makes right, I said that good was defined by God's immutable moral character and His omniscience. Knowing the long term consequences and possible consequences of all moral acts. So what defines right in your relative world Carp? A fickle moral character that is ignorant of future consequences? And again Carp in your relative world there is actually nothing objectively wrong with "might making right."
          Yes, you have said this many, many times. It doesn't get better with the repetition. It's still wrong.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            No. You have asserted this multiple times - and understand you believe it. The case has not been made.
            Sheesh Carp it is in the definitions even yours:the power to control or demand obedience from others Why you argue against your own definition is beyond me.


            Your hypothetical god would have power over me, Seer, but not moral authority. Your continued insistence that it would doesn't make it so, except (apparently) in your own mind
            .

            I don't care about moral authority, neither do the definitions we both used. You are just moving the goal posts.


            No. I am an autonomous moral agent. I don't cede my moral authority to anyone else. God cannot take it without overriding my will - at which point I cease to be an independent moral agent. Like I said - power - not authority.
            Again with the moral authority! Nothing in the definitions say you need to morally, or otherwise, accept the authority. The authority of God, a King, or the culture at large. That has nothing to do with the definitions.

            Yes, you have said this many, many times. It doesn't get better with the repetition. It's still wrong.
            What exactly is wrong?
            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 seer View Post
              Sheesh Carp it is in the definitions even yours:the power to control or demand obedience from others Why you argue against your own definition is beyond me.
              Seesh, Seer, if your hypothetical god "controls" me - then I am no longer a free moral agent. God does not have the power to control me AND retain my moral freedom. And your hypothetical god can "demand obedience" until the cows come home. That does not place upon me an obligation to comply. It's pretty simple, Seer. How you cannot see that is beyond me.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              I don't care about moral authority, neither do the definitions we both used. You are just moving the goal posts.

              Again with the moral authority! Nothing in the definitions say you need to morally, or otherwise, accept the authority. The authority of God, a King, or the culture at large. That has nothing to do with the definitions.
              Your statement was about moral law, and moral principles as they relate to god's "authority." By definition you are talking about "moral authority," even if you have not used those specific words.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              What exactly is wrong?
              That your hypothetical god has any "authority" over me in the moral sphere.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                Seesh, Seer, if your hypothetical god "controls" me - then I am no longer a free moral agent. God does not have the power to control me AND retain my moral freedom. And your hypothetical god can "demand obedience" until the cows come home. That does not place upon me an obligation to comply. It's pretty simple, Seer. How you cannot see that is beyond me.
                Carp it is not about God controlling you any more than the laws of the land controlling you. It is about who is in authority. Compliance, or not, is immaterial - to the definition.

                Your statement was about moral law, and moral principles as they relate to god's "authority." By definition you are talking about "moral authority," even if you have not used those specific words.
                Nonsense, I did not once talk about His moral authority, any more than I was talking about the moral authority of the laws of logic. I said God has authority to impose His moral law. Just as your state of Vermont has the authority to impose its laws on you - whether you agree with those laws or not.

                That your hypothetical god has any "authority" over me in the moral sphere.
                So what, what on earth does that have to do with the definitions of authority? And you question my debating skills?
                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 seer View Post
                  Carp it is not about God controlling you any more than the laws of the land controlling you. It is about who is in authority. Compliance, or not, is immaterial - to the definition.
                  And your hypothetical god has no authority over me - except via power. I broke this down for you several times. Why you don't see it is beyond me. I know this may come as a shock to you, Seer, but not all of us are driven by your "authority-based" mindset.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Nonsense, I did not once talk about His moral authority, any more than I was talking about the moral authority of the laws of logic. I said God has authority to impose His moral law. Just as your state of Vermont has the authority to impose its laws on you - whether you agree with those laws or not.
                  God has the authority to impose his moral law - but that is not about moral authority? Seer - do you actually read what you type after you type it?

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  So what, what on earth does that have to do with the definitions of authority? And you question my debating skills?
                  Seer, I think your debating skills are fairly evident to anyone reading out exchanges. Further comment on them is not going to be all that productive on my part. As for your question, how you are hairsplitting between "authority in the realm of moral law" and "moral authority" I have no clue whatsoever.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    I actually agree that “the moral law is written on the heart”, but for different reasons than you. It’s not written by a deity; whose very existence is open to question. It’s “written”, i.e. programmed, by natural selection over millions of years of evolution.
                    Even if one doesn't accept a deity, I think it's more complicated than that, if you mean just biological evolution. It would include cultural evolution and what reason, language and sociality would entail.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      And your hypothetical god has no authority over me - except via power. I broke this down for you several times. Why you don't see it is beyond me. I know this may come as a shock to you, Seer, but not all of us are driven by your "authority-based" mindset.
                      Right and that power is in the very definition of authority! Even your definition:the power to control or demand obedience from others.


                      God has the authority to impose his moral law - but that is not about moral authority? Seer - do you actually read what you type after you type it?
                      What does moral authority have to do with anything? Does that state care about your personal moral peccadilloes? It still will have authority over you.

                      Seer, I think your debating skills are fairly evident to anyone reading out exchanges. Further comment on them is not going to be all that productive on my part. As for your question, how you are hairsplitting between "authority in the realm of moral law" and "moral authority" I have no clue whatsoever.
                      No Carp, you moved the goal posts, "moral authority" is not the same thing as God imposing His moral law. You changed it because by the definitions of authority I was right and you were wrong - and you hate to admit that.

                      And your appeal to moral authority is just plain bunk anyway:

                      moral authority

                      : trustworthiness to make decisions that are right and good


                      How does that work in your world where there isn't an objective right or good?
                      Last edited by seer; 08-09-2019, 01:59 PM.
                      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 carpedm9587 View Post

                        Nothing you are saying here is in conflict with subjective moralism. And yes, as I have noted to Seer multiple times, morality IS about "personal preference." It is the term we use for decisions about behavior that have to do with the things we most value.
                        You're not presenting an argument. You're merely asserting that "morality IS about 'personal preference'". If you have an actual argument, I'd like to hear it.

                        As I said, to base morality on personal preference or choice is to make morality essentially a useless concept, since morality is about interpersonal conflict resolution and amelioration of the human predicament. To attempt to reach these goals suggests that a standard must be appealed to that transcends the immediate interests of any of the parties involved. To appeal only to the interests of the parties involved would mean a rejection of morality as an ajudication between conflicting interests in favor of a power struggle.

                        As I said, when I think about what I ought to do morally, I'm not thinking about what I personally want or what is in my personal interest. I shift into another mode of thought. Hume discusses this in his Enquiry into the Principles of Morals where I shift from the "language of self-love" to another language in which I expect all my audience to concur with me. It's one in which I expect universal and objective validity. And I'm sure you're going to counter that "But it's still you who has to think that!" But that's just confusing the medium with the object of thought.

                        What you're saying reduces morality to a matter of taste, over which there are no grounds for dispute or resolution. I like licorice, you don't. I like torturing kids for giggles. You don't. If it's all preference, there are no grounds for critique or resolution or amelioration between different preferences other than power, either between individuals or between societies.




                        You have misunderstood. What I said was that what we call social moral norms are simply the collection of things we hold in common. For example, for many years, the social moral norm was that homosexual intimacy was immoral. Not everyone thought this - but so many did that it was considered the "moral norm." Since then individual moral positions have shifted on the topic, and now the social norm has become "homosexual intimacy is subject to the same moral guidelines as heterosexual intimacy." The social moral norm has shifted.
                        The social moral norm might have shifted, but for you the ultimate moral arbiter remains the individual. I believe homosexuals should be stoned to death. I happen to be in the minority. Am I simply out of step, like still wearing a Nehru jacket?



                        It can be any particular group in question: a religious group, a local community, a neighborhood, the country, etc.
                        But like I said, I belong to many groups, often with conflicting moral codes, so often I am doing something, action a, that is both morally right and morally wrong.



                        The individual's moral framework takes precedence. Which group has more influence on the individual differs from individual to individual,
                        And my moral framework tells me that mine is superior and that I ought to destroy and subjugate the larger culture around me. The only justification the larger culture has for stopping me is that it is stronger than I am. Your system devolves into a Hobbsiean power struggle. It is amoral, not a moral system. Moral systems are subjunctive and one step removed and abstracted from self-interest.



                        It is possible that an individual's moral framework would see "being a good mafioso" as a moral good. Most of us would probably disagree. I certainly would.
                        And you have the law and the cops on your side for now. Just wait until I can buy enough of the cops and politicians and change the laws!



                        The individual always decides what is "right" or "wrong." The "will of the group" is nothing more than the collective will of its members.
                        Yes, just like the individual always decides whether or not 2+2=4. It doesn't follow from this trivial observation that maths are subjective.



                        The individual decides what is wrong or right - not the group. The statistics just tell us what the majority does or does not think. If a moral position were as close as you describe, I'd say that particular group/society/culture was split on the moral question.
                        Again, more assertions. If you ever come up with an actual argument, let me know. A society would be split on a moral question because it is undecided about the truth of the matter. It wouldn't be because the society is waiting to see how the polling numbers shake out. The underlying assumption is that there is some fact there to be discovered, at least in principle, even if we can never know it, not a matter of taste or preference, as in which ice cream flavor will be voted the best.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          You seem to be under the mistake impression that I think the group has primacy in morality. The group can and does influence the individual. The individual has primacy and determines their moral framework. It has always been this way. It's not my "idea." It's show morality has always worked.
                          Just saying "this is how morality has always worked" isn't an argument. Of course the individual has to be the medium for every item of experience/knowledge the she/he has, but that's trivial. That observation also applies to scientists, mathematicians and logicians. That doesn't mean science, math and logic are all subjective and a matter of personal preference.



                          What "stated criteria" are you referring to?
                          The ones I've already referred to. Morality has to lay claim to objective and universal validity, it has to be categorical.



                          I assume it, Jim, because I see it all around me, and experience it within me. I assume it for the same reason I assume my car is blue: because that is what I observe to be true. It is not "begging the question" to report what one observes.
                          You observe it because that's how you're framing it. I'm suggesting you re-frame it. It depends on which lens (or filter) you observe your car through.






                          I am familiar with a metaphor - but what you call "intuition" I call "habit." We are raised in a combination (as you note) of overlapping cultures, each with their own moral influence. We initially derive our moral positions on that basis of authority (Mom says so, Dad says so, the teacher says so, the policeman says so, the priest/minister says so). Eventually, hopefully, we mature as moralizers and begin to examine moral issues on their own merits and come to our own moral conclusions. This is an individual act, but it is strongly influenced by our context. We see the commonalities that we do because we value similarly, and we value similarly because we share more in common than most people consider (life, humanity, bipedalism, this planet, social/cultural contexts, religions, etc.).
                          If I diverge from my environment in my moral system, what would that be based on? A genetic mutation? Some quantum blip in my brain? What I believe is to my best selective advantage?



                          Jim, there is not "a" concept of god - there are many of them. Each religion has its own nuanced view. Humanity has created an enormous number of gods over its brief existence. I don't think any of them exist in reality. When discussing, I try to keep in mind the particular definition of god being used by whoever I'm talking with. It's not easy, because most of these ideas of god are internally inconsistent - but I try.
                          Fair enough.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                            Fair enough.
                            I don't think there's really any need to concede this point. He's mainly debating Christians on a Christian forum. It's not out of the world to expect that the conception of god under discussion is the Christian one.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Right and that power is in the very definition of authority! Even your definition:the power to control or demand obedience from others.




                              What does moral authority have to do with anything? Does that state care about your personal moral peccadilloes? It still will have authority over you.



                              No Carp, you moved the goal posts, "moral authority" is not the same thing as God imposing His moral law. You changed it because by the definitions of authority I was right and you were wrong - and you hate to admit that.

                              And your appeal to moral authority is just plain bunk anyway:

                              moral authority

                              : trustworthiness to make decisions that are right and good


                              How does that work in your world where there isn't an objective right or good?
                              There isn't an objective right or good in your world either. For you, objective simply means whatever god decides which can be different from case to case, i.e. objectively arbitrary!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                                There isn't an objective right or good in your world either. For you, objective simply means whatever god decides which can be different from case to case, i.e. objectively arbitrary!
                                Jim, we have been through this, God's law is grounded in His immutable character so it is far from arbitrary.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                509 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