Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Secular Morality?

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

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    Oh, now you are talking about "sound judgement?" Whose sound judgement would that be - yours?
    By definition ‘rational’ means “having or exercising reason, sound judgement, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator”. Dictionary.com Your fantasy argument of post mortem rewards and punishments cannot be sustained by a sound and reasonable assessment of the evidence.

    You are changing your tune, you never said "in your context morality..." You made the claim that morality was neither rational or irrational. Don't blame me because you are now hedging.
    I simply made the point that “rational” in your context is not a quality which applies to your fantasy notion of “rational morality”.

    And the fact is Tass a moral system void of justice is irrational. How could it be otherwise?
    Justice can only be administered within the context of the social organism. There’s no reasonable evidence supporting an eternal context in some imagined spiritual realm, as you would have it.

    But that is not the point, it wouldn't matter what is least or most desirable (that may be too complicated to really understand anyway) it only matters what works - and what works can be quite relative.
    Social cohesion is the whole raison d’ętre for the rules of behaviour we call ‘morality’. Or do you think that such rules only exist to keep your imaginary deity happy?

    It doesn't matter what I say. What the Europeans did in the Americas, or even in your country, to the natives, was good for the Europeans. Evolution in motion.
    Was it good behaviour when Moses did it because God allegedly told him to? Of course not. It was merely human morality typical of an earlier era. The fact that we now consider such behaviour shocking is an example of how social mores evolve over time...as you yourself rightly suggest.

    What lawmakers? Who were the lawmakers when the Europeans came to the Americas? That's right - the Europeans.
    The “lawmakers” of the day were reflecting the social mores of the day.

    No you just need to admit that the bottom line is about survival and passing on ones genes. And that all your high talk about ethics is at worse meaningless or at best ancillary
    Morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case and are a consequence of natural selection. That’s solely why morality exists. What do you think the purpose of having a moral code is all about?

    Tass, you made the point that morality was neither rational or irrational - and you did it of your own free will!
    See above.
    “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 seer View Post
      Originally posted by Jichard View Post
      Just did. So you can stop pretending otherwise:
      Because the truth-makers don't depend on any mind's views on that matter.
      But that is not an answer, how is the wrongness of murder wrong a "truth maker?"
      Please stop the dishonest tactic of moving the goal-post.

      You asked:I answered:
      So please stop pretending the question wasn't answered. And please stop moving the goalposts to a new question so you can pretend the original question wasn't answered, as if you think I'll be too stupid to notice.


      Anyway, feel free to actually address the answer you were given, without the usual dishonesty.
      "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
        Please stop the dishonest tactic of moving the goal-post.

        You asked:I answered:
        So please stop pretending the question wasn't answered. And please stop moving the goalposts to a new question so you can pretend the original question wasn't answered, as if you think I'll be too stupid to notice.


        Anyway, feel free to actually address the answer you were given, without the usual dishonesty.
        Really Jichard, this is weak and evasive and you know it. The "sun" is a "truth maker" it is real, objective and its existence is not mind-dependent. How is the moral ideal "thou shalt not murder" mind-independent? How does that happen? The reason you are hedging Jichard is that in the end, we both know, that you can not answer this - apart from mere assertion. At least Plato had his forms. See Jichard this is the bottom line, guys like you probably instinctively realize that theories like moral nihilism are severely lacking. You want the certainty and universality of God's law without the baggage of God and His judgement. Good luck...
        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
          By definition ‘rational’ means “having or exercising reason, sound judgement, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator”. Dictionary.com Your fantasy argument of post mortem rewards and punishments cannot be sustained by a sound and reasonable assessment of the evidence.
          Again whose judgement? Can you prove that your judgement is sound apart from begging the question?



          I simply made the point that “rational” in your context is not a quality which applies to your fantasy notion of “rational morality”.
          You said: Morality is neither “rational” nor “irrational”; it’s merely a system of rules devised by humans to enable them to function as they evolved to function, namely as cooperative social beings living among others of the species in cohesive, supportive communities.

          This is very straight forward Tass. The problem remains for you though - in your world justice is either partial or nonexistent. Now you can argue until you are blue in the face that a moral system without justice is rational but men of "sound judgement" and "good sense" realize that is nonsense.


          Social cohesion is the whole raison d’ętre for the rules of behaviour we call ‘morality’. Or do you think that such rules only exist to keep your imaginary deity happy?
          That was not the point Tass, the point was that in your system what may help social cohesion is often quite relative. Something you tried to deny a few posts back.


          Was it good behaviour when Moses did it because God allegedly told him to? Of course not. It was merely human morality typical of an earlier era. The fact that we now consider such behaviour shocking is an example of how social mores evolve over time...as you yourself rightly suggest.


          The “lawmakers” of the day were reflecting the social mores of the day.
          Social mores come and go - the only thing that matters in your world, in the end, is survival and reproduction. So in an evolutionary sense what the Europeans did in the Americas was "good."
          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
            Really Jichard, this is weak and evasive and you know it. The "sun" is a "truth maker" it is real, objective and its existence is not mind-dependent.
            You asked:I answered:
            So please stop pretending the question wasn't answered. And please stop moving the goalposts to a new question so you can pretend the original question wasn't answered, as if you think I'll be too stupid to notice.

            How is the moral ideal "thou shalt not murder" mind-independent? How does that happen?
            That's a command, not a moral statement. Please learn the difference. Only non-cognitivists (specifically, prescriptivists) think moral statements are commands.

            The reason you are hedging Jichard is that in the end, we both know, that you can not answer this - apart from mere assertion.
            Instead of lying about what I have said or have not said, actually address what I said. It's written above and below. And you can stop pretending stuff is "assertion" just because you're unable to address it.

            At least Plato had his forms.
            Have you finished pretending that you weren't answered?

            See Jichard this is the bottom line, guys like you probably instinctively realize that theories like moral nihilism are severely lacking. You want the certainty and universality of God's law without the baggage of God and His judgement. Good luck...
            Please stop lying about other people.
            "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              Again whose judgement? Can you prove that your judgement is sound apart from begging the question?
              Can you prove your fantasy argument of post mortem rewards and punishments? No you can’t.

              You said: Morality is neither “rational” nor “irrational”; it’s merely a system of rules devised by humans to enable them to function as they evolved to function, namely as cooperative social beings living among others of the species in cohesive, supportive communities.
              Correct! Morality is neither “rational” nor “irrational” in the context of eternal life, which was your argument. Morality is rational to the extent of achieving its evolved function, namely the survival of the species.

              This is very straight forward Tass. The problem remains for you though - in your world justice is either partial or nonexistent. Now you can argue until you are blue in the face that a moral system without justice is rational but men of "sound judgement" and "good sense" realize that is nonsense.
              Men of "sound judgement" and "good sense" base their rational argument on the available facts or on testable hypotheses, not wishful thinking about ultimate post mortem justice.

              That was not the point Tass, the point was that in your system what may help social cohesion is often quite relative. Something you tried to deny a few posts back.
              It’s not relative according the social mores of the day, but as you acknowledge re Moses social mores change over time.

              Social mores come and go - the only thing that matters in your world, in the end, is survival and reproduction. So in an evolutionary sense what the Europeans did in the Americas was "good."
              So you agree that in Moses’ day it was acceptable to slaughter rival tribes and take their territory and women. And you agree that this was human morality typical of an earlier era but not acceptable today. Was this “rational morality” in your view?
              “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
                Can you prove your fantasy argument of post mortem rewards and punishments? No you can’t.
                OK, so you can't show that your judgement is sound, yet you appeal to sound judgement.



                Correct! Morality is neither “rational” nor “irrational” in the context of eternal life, which was your argument. Morality is rational to the extent of achieving its evolved function, namely the survival of the species.
                It wasn't in the sense of eternal life - it is in the sense of this life, given your worldview. A moral system void of justice if irrational.


                Men of "sound judgement" and "good sense" base their rational argument on the available facts or on testable hypotheses, not wishful thinking about ultimate post mortem justice.
                Really what is the testable hypotheses for moral questions? Questions of justice?



                It’s not relative according the social mores of the day, but as you acknowledge re Moses social mores change over time.
                This is silly even for you Tass. Particular social mores are relative.


                So you agree that in Moses’ day it was acceptable to slaughter rival tribes and take their territory and women. And you agree that this was human morality typical of an earlier era but not acceptable today. Was this “rational morality” in your view?
                No, rational morality is when justice is done. If what Moses did was unjust then he will receive a penalty. If it was ordered by God then the act was just.
                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


                • I will ask you again , if you can, in your own words for once, tell us why/how moral judgement or facts exist independently of minds.

                  That's a command, not a moral statement. Please learn the difference. Only non-cognitivists (specifically, prescriptivists) think moral statements are commands.
                  It doesn't matter - tell us how a moral statement can exist independently of a mind.

                  Have you finished pretending that you weren't answered?

                  "The general analysis: we have moral obligations because there are moral reasons for actions, developing certain character traits, and so on. That's the standard analysis: obligations arise from reasons. And moral reasons are constituted by the properties/features discussed in welfare utilitarianism (ex: effects of well-being) and virtue ethics (ex: character traits like compassion)."
                  I would remind you that you never closed the circle - why do obligations necessarily rise from reasons? And I will also remind you that in your original link there were just as many arguments against externalism and for internalism. So it is still a completely open question.

                  For example, presumably it was morally wrong for Hitler to order a program of genocide, even if it served some of his desires and wasn't detrimental to any of them. (The characteristic of morality that Moral Absolutism expresses is sometimes described, following Immanuel Kant, as its consisting of ‘categorical’ rather than ‘hypothetical’ imperatives; see the entry on Kant's moral philosophy.) If (as Moral Rationalism claims) an action (like ordering genocide) is morally wrong for an agent (like Hitler) only if there is a reason for him not to do it, and if (as HTR claims) there is a reason for him not to do it only if he has some desire that would be served by his not doing it, then it follows that whether an action is morally wrong for an agent depends upon what he desires. But that seems incompatible with Moral Absolutism. So it seems we must reject at least one of HTR, Moral Rationalism, and Moral Absolutism.

                  In response to this dilemma one could reject Moral Absolutism—either by embracing a form of moral relativism, according to which all moral duties vary according to agents' contingent characteristics (e.g. Harman 1975), or by embracing a moral error theory, accepting that moral claims are systematically false because they presuppose the existence of external reasons while in actuality there are none (e.g. Mackie 1977; Joyce 2001). On this view, we might think that it was morally wrong for Hitler to order genocide, and hence that he had reasons not to do so, but we would be mistaken. Alternatively, one could reject Moral Rationalism and deny that the moral wrongness of an act entails that there is a reason not to do it (e.g. Foot 1972). On this view, it is possible that Hitler's deeds were morally wrong yet he had no reason not to perform them. Many philosophers, however, prefer to preserve these commonsense theses about morality—and our ability to say that Hitler had reasons not to act as he did—by rejecting HTR, along with other Actual State versions of internalism. The tension among these views is a big part of what motivates philosophical interest in whether all reasons are related to motivation in the way that some internalist thesis claims.

                  So I will go back to my point/question in the OP. Secular systems are no better in showing us what is actually right or wrong than religious systems. And that Jichard was the purpose of this thread.
                  Last edited by seer; 07-30-2015, 08:25 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 seer View Post
                    OK, so you can't show that your judgement is sound, yet you appeal to sound judgement.
                    Reasoned judgement is a component of rational thinking which is the point being made, this as opposed to your fantasy argument of post mortem rewards and punishments being an essential component of rational morality.

                    It wasn't in the sense of eternal life - it is in the sense of this life, given your worldview
                    Yes it was. Your example was of Mother Theresa and Stalin getting their just desserts in the afterlife.

                    A moral system void of justice if irrational.
                    True, as far as it goes. The moral codes of all societies are enforced by mechanisms of justice; it's an essential component in maintaining a functioning society. But there’s no evidence that justice extends into the afterlife given that there’s no credible evidence of an afterlife even existing.

                    Really what is the testable hypotheses for moral questions? Questions of justice?
                    I was referring to the limitations of rational thinking, namely that it’s restricted to available facts or testable hypotheses as opposed to your irrational wishful-thinking about ultimate post mortem justice.

                    This is silly even for you Tass. Particular social mores are relative.
                    Yes, social mores are demonstrably relative when compared to earlier civilizations…I gave the Moses example of just how different they were compared with the mores of the advanced developed societies of today. But within a given society the social mores remain fairly static overall and change incrementally over the decades, e.g. full civil rights for blacks.

                    No, rational morality is when justice is done. If what Moses did was unjust then he will receive a penalty.
                    What Moses did then is very similar to what ISIS is doing now and for the same reason, namely acting under God’s orders. But the more advanced nations of the world nowadays condemn such atrocities. See above re social mores changing over time.

                    If it was ordered by God then the act was just.
                    Ya think!!!

                    You have no credible evidence that Moses behaviour was sanctioned by God or that he received a penalty. He was just doing what tribal leaders back then did.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post

                    So I will go back to my point/question in the OP. Secular systems are no better in showing us what is actually right or wrong than religious systems. And that Jichard was the purpose of this thread.
                    Secular systems better because they are based upon the scientifically established human need to maintain cohesive communities, whereas religious systems are based upon unsubstantiated faith beliefs. In short the one is backed by evidence, the other is not.
                    “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
                      Reasoned judgement is a component of rational thinking which is the point being made, this as opposed to your fantasy argument of post mortem rewards and punishments being an essential component of rational morality.
                      I asked Tass for you to prove that your reasoning is rational. Of course you can't, you take it by faith. You beg the question.


                      Yes it was. Your example was of Mother Theresa and Stalin getting their just desserts in the afterlife.
                      If you went to a far country where, let's say, half of the population, were allowed to steal, rob and rape with no legal consequences. Would you consider that justice/moral system rational? That is your universe Tass.


                      Secular systems better because they are based upon the scientifically established human need to maintain cohesive communities, whereas religious systems are based upon unsubstantiated faith beliefs. In short the one is backed by evidence, the other is not.
                      Nonsense, science has nothing to do with it. And whose secular system? Stalin's? Mao's, Cuba's? North Korea's? They maintained social cohesion - actually probably better than what we find in democracies.
                      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
                        I will ask you again , if you can, in your own words for once, tell us why/how moral judgement or facts exist independently of minds.
                        Please stop pretending your actual question was not answered.

                        You asked:I answered:
                        So please stop pretending the question wasn't answered. And please stop moving the goalposts to a new question so you can pretend the original question wasn't answered, as if you think I'll be too stupid to notice.

                        It doesn't matter - tell us how a moral statement can exist independently of a mind.
                        Same old mistake from you that's been corrected time and time again. Once again: moral realism is not about whether or not moral statements can exist independently of minds. So please stop dishonestly pretending otherwise. And it is dishonest pretending on your part, since you've been told this before and should know better by now. For example:
                        "Nonsense, and another instance of your committing the use/mention mistake, even though you've been called on this before. The "objective/subjective" issue is not about whether minds make the theory or whether one likes the theory or whatever ever other nonsensical stuff you're going on about. Otherwise, every position would be subjective, since minds make the position or someone likes the position or whatever. Instead, the "objective/subjective" distinction is about in virtue of what are the theory's claims true or false. Thus, for example, evolutionary theory is objectively true, since it's true in virtue of mind-independent stuff. It would therefore be silly to say that evolutionary theory is subjective because it's made by humans or because it expresses an idea that people like. Those have nothing to do with whether or not it's subjective. Parallel points for what you've said. You've had this explained to you before. Please stop pretending otherwise.

                        And your response was particularly ridiculous, since you contradicted your own OP, which acknowledges that moral realism is an objectivist position, not a subjectivist one. You're apparently so desperate to say whatever you deem necessary for your apologetic position, that you don't even check if you're being consistent with yourself. As I predicted."

                        I would remind you that you never closed the circle - why do obligations necessarily rise from reasons?
                        You're lying. Pure and simple. You were already told why obligations are accounted for in terms of reason. Once again:

                        It's sad that you have to continually pretend that this was not told to you.

                        And I will also remind you that in your original link there were just as many arguments against externalism and for internalism. So it is still a completely open question.
                        First, please don't lie about things you don't understand. The "internalism/externalism" discussion is not about whether obligations are accounted for in terms of reasons. Internalists can accept that they are, as can externalists. You don't know this, seer, because (as usual) you're misrepresenting sources you don't understand, in service of defending your apologetic position. So please don't pretend you have any clue what "internalism" and "externalism" are.

                        Second, please stop pretending that disagreement is somehow an objection to my position. The error in that was exposed on another thread. By your logic, since there are people who think the Earth is flat, that means the shape of the Earth is a an utterly open question. That's nothing but your usual, fallacious argument from disagreement.

                        So I will go back to my point/question in the OP. Secular systems are no better in showing us what is actually right or wrong than religious systems. And that Jichard was the purpose of this thread.
                        A claim for which you have no support. And no, your usual practice of quote-mining/misrepresenting sources you don't understand, does not count as support. It just displays your lack of knowledge on the subject, combined with intellectual duplicity.
                        Last edited by Jichard; 07-31-2015, 02:52 PM.
                        "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Except without God there no fundamental moral truth, just moral opinion - subjective and relative.
                          Says the moral subjectivist who thinks there are no objective moral facts. Please don't try to trick people into thinking you're something other than what you are.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          There is no good reason to think that objective moral facts actually exist, or that if they did that they would have any authority, or in any sense be preferable to theistic moral law.
                          "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                            A claim for which you have no support. And no, your usual practice of quote-mining/misrepresenting sources you don't understand, does not count as support. It just displays your lack of knowledge on the subject, combined with intellectual duplicity.
                            Right, you have not presented one objective moral fact, you have no way of demonstrating what is actually right or wrong. And even if you could it would be meaningless, since there is no rational reason one should accept or follow these facts especially if they get in the way of what he prefers.
                            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
                              Right, you have not presented one objective moral fact, you have no way of demonstrating what is actually right or wrong.
                              That's not what I said. Please stop dishonestly pretending that that is what I said.

                              And even if you could it would be meaningless, since there is no rational reason one should accept or follow these facts especially if they get in the way of what he prefers.
                              Same silly appeal to consequences from you. You were already told that that's fallacious.

                              Let me know when you can finally muster an honest response to what was posted:
                              Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                              Please stop pretending your actual question was not answered.

                              You asked:I answered:
                              So please stop pretending the question wasn't answered. And please stop moving the goalposts to a new question so you can pretend the original question wasn't answered, as if you think I'll be too stupid to notice.



                              Same old mistake from you that's been corrected time and time again. Once again: moral realism is not about whether or not moral statements can exist independently of minds. So please stop dishonestly pretending otherwise. And it is dishonest pretending on your part, since you've been told this before and should know better by now. For example:
                              "Nonsense, and another instance of your committing the use/mention mistake, even though you've been called on this before. The "objective/subjective" issue is not about whether minds make the theory or whether one likes the theory or whatever ever other nonsensical stuff you're going on about. Otherwise, every position would be subjective, since minds make the position or someone likes the position or whatever. Instead, the "objective/subjective" distinction is about in virtue of what are the theory's claims true or false. Thus, for example, evolutionary theory is objectively true, since it's true in virtue of mind-independent stuff. It would therefore be silly to say that evolutionary theory is subjective because it's made by humans or because it expresses an idea that people like. Those have nothing to do with whether or not it's subjective. Parallel points for what you've said. You've had this explained to you before. Please stop pretending otherwise.

                              And your response was particularly ridiculous, since you contradicted your own OP, which acknowledges that moral realism is an objectivist position, not a subjectivist one. You're apparently so desperate to say whatever you deem necessary for your apologetic position, that you don't even check if you're being consistent with yourself. As I predicted."



                              You're lying. Pure and simple. You were already told why obligations are accounted for in terms of reason. Once again:

                              It's sad that you have to continually pretend that this was not told to you.



                              First, please don't lie about things you don't understand. The "internalism/externalism" discussion is not about whether obligations are accounted for in terms of reasons. Internalists can accept that they are, as can externalists. You don't know this, seer, because (as usual) you're misrepresenting sources you don't understand, in service of defending your apologetic position. So please don't pretend you have any clue what "internalism" and "externalism" are.

                              Second, please stop pretending that disagreement is somehow an objection to my position. The error in that was exposed on another thread. By your logic, since there are people who think the Earth is flat, that means the shape of the Earth is a an utterly open question. That's nothing but your usual, fallacious argument from disagreement.



                              A claim for which you have no support. And no, your usual practice of quote-mining/misrepresenting sources you don't understand, does not count as support. It just displays your lack of knowledge on the subject, combined with intellectual duplicity.
                              "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Except without God there no fundamental moral truth, just moral opinion - subjective and relative. You are free to appeal to Ockham's razor, but then you have thrown out the baby with the bath water. Like I have been saying "secular morality" is meaningless when defining right or wrong.
                                Even allowing for your imaginary deity his so-called absolute laws require interpretation to implement them, which means that they too are are subjective and relative.
                                “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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                1 response
                                24 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                60 responses
                                281 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                299 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 02-15-2024, 11:52 AM
                                74 responses
                                319 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 02-06-2024, 12:46 PM
                                60 responses
                                337 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Working...
                                X