Jump to content

"create Your Own Meaning"?


Discerning
 Share

Recommended Posts

[if this isn't in the right section, please reroute it.]

 

OK, so if we "create our own meaning," what about when group X's meaning says, "There is no God, and people who believe there is should be quarantined in mental institutions or even liquidated," while group Y's meaning says, "We believe in the inalienable right to freedom of conscience, thought, expression & worship." Group X says, Group Y's parents should NOT have the right to inculcate their beliefs and values in their children; Group Y says, parents' rights over children supercede those of anyone else (not meaning, of course, that parents can beat their kids to a pulp, or otherwise physically harm them).

 

How does one deal with this impasse? (I'm not here interested in this from the political viewpoint but from the philosophical one.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

I'm not sure what your examples of beliefs, values and societal rules have to do with creating meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[if this isn't in the right section, please reroute it.]

 

OK, so if we "create our own meaning," what about when group X's meaning says, "There is no God, and people who believe there is should be quarantined in mental institutions or even liquidated," while group Y's meaning says, "We believe in the inalienable right to freedom of conscience, thought, expression & worship." Group X says, Group Y's parents should NOT have the right to inculcate their beliefs and values in their children; Group Y says, parents' rights over children supercede those of anyone else (not meaning, of course, that parents can beat their kids to a pulp, or otherwise physically harm them).

 

How does one deal with this impasse? (I'm not here interested in this from the political viewpoint but from the philosophical one.)

 

 

Tell the groups to fuck off and work it out for yourself :) Teach your kids what you want (you will anyway) and send them to a school that you are happy with. My kids grew up with christian values and don't have a belief now and don't think they have been too badly harmed by what they learned. They made up their own mind as teenagers they weren't interested in god and at the time I didn't give them a hard time about it. They think though that they are more thoughtful people generally because they were taught others are their equal and not to be selfish assholes :) Wasn't all bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone creates their own meaning. You just like to comfort yourself by saying it was created by god in a book.

 

Aside from that, I agree with florduh, meaning is separate to societal rules. Societal rules have been developing for eons.

 

Apparently, according to your book, the way to discipline children used to involve stoning if they disobeyed their parents. Now, there is lots of evidence that violence is a really poor way to discipline children.

 

If evidence continues to point to the idea that indoctrinating children in the fear of hell is a form abuse, that will pass as well. I find it interesting that Christians are so confident in their god's power. Based on that, they should trust that God will get the attention of their children when they're old enough to think for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what your examples of beliefs, values and societal rules have to do with creating meaning.

 

 

I think he means that often it is society that has a collective meaning for certain things, and that we are socialised into believing that thing has that particular meaning. Most people stay there, but some of us create our own meanings and don't accept the conventional wisdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe you are saying that meaning must come to us from god and that anything less than that is not true meaning. I also think you are suggesting, that the Christian god has but one truth and that if we all strive for that one truth and somehow find it we will be happy individuals and will have a cohesive society.

 

I offer to you as evidence that what you seem to be saying does not hold true for your very own religion which professes to seek truth from the one god. And that evidence is the 30,000 or so denominations which prove beyond reasonable doubt that your religion offers neither truth nor cohesiveness.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing how some people immediately jump to conclusions about what a person "is trying to say." Please refrain from reading into my OP what's not there, #4 & #6 (thanx, #5, for correctly reading my post :clap:). Do not assume you know what kind of Christian I am, or what my beliefs are, just based on the tidbits you see in my sidebar (I resent the blazing triumphalistic "Christian" icon that was slapped automatically under my avatar). I am not here to proselytize; I'm here to get ideas/insights.

 

So let me try again:

 

If group X is in power, and the meaning they have created/accepted involves crushing the meaning that another group lives by (you can see examples of this in history: Islam, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist China, Medieval Europe, but you also hear a resonance of it when certain folks today claim that "religion is a virus"), how does one objectively determine which group's meaning is the true one? I am not talking about "might is right," which is the way the above-listed groups operated; I'm talking purely in terms of reality: what is objectively true.

 

IOW, body-of-meaning Q & body-of-meaning R can peacefully coexist until one of them tries to foist something on the other that goes against the other's beliefs/rights. How do we determine which group's "meaning" is the right one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe in the Father, Son & Holy Spirit, then you get classified as a Christian here. It's not meant as an insult.

 

As for enforcing beliefs, I tend to go with human rights and what does or does not cause harm. It is sometimes difficult to know what does cause harm. Lots of us have been harmed by Christian fundamentalism, and are naturally defensive of other children being harmed in the same way.

 

It used to be children had no rights and had to work as slaves, but we, as a society, agreed that was wrong and foisted those beliefs on others. The same is true of slavery.

 

It gets trickier when determining psychological harm, but if it can be determined, then I think it's only fair to protect children from said harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like a rather simple question framed in the wrong light. Either way...you're still apparently framing the question based on a black and white scale. Right and wrong, good and bad, righteousness and sin. Ascertaining what is "objectively true" in regards to forms of governments, religion, raising children and so on clearly all have some better solutions based on people's well-being. In regards to raising children look at the current issue with Islamic genetic mutilation. Some may say it is their right as it pertains to their interpretation of their religion. Would you agree that the genetic mutilation is not done so as to bolster the child's physical or mental well-being but is instead done for religious purposes? Are these purposes helping the child? What about raising a child to mortally fear the pits of Hell? One of the problems with religion is it attempts to force these false sets of parameters on people saying, "you must act this way" in order to obtain some religious good often times not based on actual reality based "good". People who follow these false sets of parameters then feel better about themselves because it's easier to accomplish goals in a made up game than it is in reality. Doing good in religion means praying for someone. Doing good in reality means actually doing something for someone. Asking what is objectively true is a good question but I wonder how you think Christianity has a better grasp on it than any other religion or any of it's own 30,000+ denominations...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

IOW, body-of-meaning Q & body-of-meaning R can peacefully coexist until one of them tries to foist something on the other that goes against the other's beliefs/rights. How do we determine which group's "meaning" is the right one?

 

There is no way to determine objective reality from opinion. Groups shit me, their agendas are always self-serving so I ignore ALL of them :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking purely in terms of reality: what is objectively true.

 

 

There is no such thing as "objectively true meaning". That is part of your Christian indoctrination.

 

What society happens to set up as the objectively true meaning has no bearing on what you yourself feel has meaning for your own life, if you are mentally free from all that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amazing how some people immediately jump to conclusions about what a person "is trying to say." Please refrain from reading into my OP what's not there, #4 & #6 (thanx, #5, for correctly reading my post :clap:).

 

Then you should try posting in a way that what you are "trying to say" is obvious from what you are actually saying. Then no one has to "jump to conclusions" that are not in line with your true meaning. Note carefully what #2 wrote.

 

Sincerely, #6 (or is it #12?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[if this isn't in the right section, please reroute it.]

 

OK, so if we "create our own meaning," what about when group X's meaning says, "There is no God, and people who believe there is should be quarantined in mental institutions or even liquidated," while group Y's meaning says, "We believe in the inalienable right to freedom of conscience, thought, expression & worship." Group X says, Group Y's parents should NOT have the right to inculcate their beliefs and values in their children; Group Y says, parents' rights over children supercede those of anyone else (not meaning, of course, that parents can beat their kids to a pulp, or otherwise physically harm them).

 

How does one deal with this impasse? (I'm not here interested in this from the political viewpoint but from the philosophical one.)

 

 

Here's a good essay that answers your questions thoroughly. It's a bit involved, but something everyone in a "free" society should read IMO.

 

http://www.bartleby.com/130/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If group X is in power, and the meaning they have created/accepted involves crushing the meaning that another group lives by (you can see examples of this in history: Islam, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist China, Medieval Europe, but you also hear a resonance of it when certain folks today claim that "religion is a virus"), how does one objectively determine which group's meaning is the true one? I am not talking about "might is right," which is the way the above-listed groups operated; I'm talking purely in terms of reality: what is objectively true.

 

 

What does beliefs being true have to do with groups crushing each other? I understand they tell you in Christianity that Jesus is the only truth that everyone should believe and if not then you're fucked.. that's your right to believe whatever you want. Religion is not a virus, it's what people do to each other as a result of ignorance that's the problem. It has nothing to do with whether their particular beliefs happen to be true or not.. that's irrelevant. People like to shit all over each other because they take our their personal problems that way. If a belief was worth anything, it would cause you to not get angry and act like an ass, the only ones I see doing that are Buddhists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ascertaining what is "objectively true" in regards to forms of governments, religion, raising children and so on clearly all have [sic] some better solutions based on people's well-being.

But that's begging the question, Josh: who/what defines people's "well-being"? Not to get into politics, but just to give an example of the problem of defining: under a totalitarian regime, a child's well-being is defined as total indoctrination into the Bed-of-Procrustes ideology of the State. The kids are even told to denounce their parents. Is this truly "well-being"? (Again, I'm not trying to veer off into a political discussion: I only give this example to demonstrate the prickliness of the problem.)

 

And In regards to raising children look at the current issue with Islamic genetic mutilation. Some may say it is their right as it pertains to their interpretation of their religion. Would you agree that the genetic mutilation is not done so as to bolster the child's physical or mental well-being but is instead done for religious purposes?
Again, this is begging the question: sure, I personally abhor genetic mutilation. But what makes **MY** view the right one? Who decides what's objectively true in a case like that? The Muslims would argue that, according to their view on how women should live, it's for the girl's long-term benefit (after all, it's not like depriving her of her lungs, heart or eyes).

 

One of the problems with religion is it attempts to force these false sets of parameters on people saying, "you must act this way" in order to obtain some religious good often times not based on actual reality based "good".
Again, simply replace "religion" with "Redshirtism," or "Brownshirtism," or "tribalism" (cf. Shirley Jackson's story "The Lottery"). This still begs the question: (1) by what criteria do we determine what's right/wrong, beneficial/deleterious, acceptable/unacceptable, true/false, and (2) by whose authority?

 

People who follow these false sets of parameters then feel better about themselves because it's easier to accomplish goals in a made up game than it is in reality.
Yes, ideologues, whether political, religious or psychopathic, attempt to force reality into their particular Bed of Procrustes, so that they can play god-on-earth. But this is still not addressing my question.

 

Doing good in religion means praying for someone.
Uh, if you're talking about Christianity, prayer is only 1 way of doing good. "Be ye doers, not just hearers."

 

Asking what is objectively true is a good question but I wonder how you think Christianity has a better grasp on it than any other religion or any of it's own 30,000+ denominations...
?? {sigh} Please stick to what my post actually says; it will make discussion a lot more fruitful and less tedious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a good essay that answers your questions thoroughly. It's a bit involved, but something everyone in a "free" society should read IMO.

 

http://www.bartleby.com/130/

:grin::3: JSM was one of my "popes" before I became a believer, Vigile. But see, that's not answering my question: why should the Brownshirt or the Redshirt or Attila follow JSM's teachings? What authority does he have?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am confused by the use of "create your own meaning" in the context of beliefs and imposing them on others. I have always heard the statement about creating meaning used as the response to nihilism. If you do not get some supernatural meaning in your life, handed down by a higher power, then in the supernatural sense your life has no meaning. Or at least no meaning to the universe. The thing is, your life can still have meaning to you, and you can choose goals and ideals to live for. It is very individualistic; you choose what you want your life to mean to you, with the assumption that each other human chooses what their own life means to them. If there is no power out there telling you what to live for, and you're here and alive anyway, you may as well pick your own purpose for your own individual life. It is like having an option; everyone has their own opinion and that doesn't mean that someone with a different opinion is wrong. This has nothing to do with determining truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's begging the question, Josh: who/what defines people's "well-being"? Not to get into politics, but just to give an example of the problem of defining: under a totalitarian regime, a child's well-being is defined as total indoctrination into the Bed-of-Procrustes ideology of the State. The kids are even told to denounce their parents. Is this truly "well-being"? (Again, I'm not trying to veer off into a political discussion: I only give this example to demonstrate the prickliness of the problem.)

 

But that's being deliberatly dense, Discern. Who/what defines "Objective Truth"? Is it an illogical deity who can't be proven and is non-falsifiable? If you actually watch the video by Sam Harris and read a little bit of John Stuart Mill along with various other Utilitarians/Humanists/ethical philosophers can't we find a moral code greater than one laid down in the Bible? 500 years ago it was seen as morally upright and prudent to burn a witch. It is not viewed that way now since as we have learned...there are no witches. You are mixing is/ought and ethical dilemmas with political ideologies. It would seem you are trying to fit certain ideologies onto an iron bed...

 

A similar thought experiment was posed....Say you have the choice to live in a perfect, peaceful and ultimately fulfilling society. However, in order for this society to operate a random child will be chosen each year. For this time period the child will be brutally tortured and ultimately killed. Would you live in such a society? I'm not posing this as a serious question just as a demonstration that I agree that ethics and morals is a complicated field of thought...

 

Again, this is begging the question: sure, I personally abhor genetic mutilation. But what makes **MY** view the right one? Who decides what's objectively true in a case like that? The Muslims would argue that, according to their view on how women should live, it's for the girl's long-term benefit (after all, it's not like depriving her of her lungs, heart or eyes)

 

See above. And watch the video. Long term benefits are again with a religious framework. Thanks for speaking past my points, moving on.

 

Again, simply replace "religion" with "Redshirtism," or "Brownshirtism," or "tribalism" (cf. Shirley Jackson's story "The Lottery"). This still begs the question: (1) by what criteria do we determine what's right/wrong, beneficial/deleterious, acceptable/unacceptable, true/false, and (2) by whose authority?

 

Right/wrong and all other definitions are/were influenced by evolutionary biology and societal progress. As we advanced certain rules/criteria were set in place in order to foster greater societal and cultural advancement. It's not like we just arrived at the morals we have now. Even our morals advance as we age see Kohlberg...do you have the same morals you did as a child?

 

Yes, ideologues, whether political, religious or psychopathic, attempt to force reality into their particular Bed of Procrustes, so that they can play god-on-earth. But this is still not addressing my question.

 

I haven't seen you address any?

 

 

Uh, if you're talking about Christianity, prayer is only 1 way of doing good. "Be ye doers, not just hearers."

 

Right...there's good religious and bad religious people. There's good people and bad people in any ideology. The point is - what would you rather have. A doctor who prays to God to heal you or a doctor who operates on you to cure you have a sickness? Of course, the doctor could be compelled by God to operate on you...hmmmm...

 

?? {sigh} Please stick to what my post actually says; it will make discussion a lot more fruitful and less tedious.

 

Well, maybe be more clear in what you write. You've responded to people by saying, "they aren't addressing your posts" a few times now. If you feel they aren't then maybe the problem lays in the way you articulate yourself.

 

 

Discern - from what I am gathering from your posts...you believe no one has moral authority outside of God. And that our moral compasses and beliefs are derived from God. Kind of a, "you can't know a straight line without the idea of a perfect straight line?" If I am wrong, perhaps you need to be more clear. If I am right...perhaps you need to be more clear.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mistakenly typed

Again, this is begging the question: sure, I personally abhor genetic mutilation.
:lmao::49::fun::funny:

Of course, that was supposed to read "genital" (I suppose "genetic mutilation" would be a case of faulty gene splicing?:lol::rotfl:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who/what defines "Objective Truth"? Is it an illogical deity who can't be proven and is non-falsifiable?

 

Yep, Brother Josh, I would like to see an answer to this as well.

 

I don't know, it seems that Discerning is making a whole lot of assumptions without any proof. Then again, that's a Christian for you.

 

Is it my imagination, Discerning, or are the female posters being selectively ignored? Anyway, whether deliberate or not, I would like to see some definition of "objective truth" and what defines it. Please don't say its the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who/what defines "Objective Truth"?

That is exactly what I keep asking, Josh. How do we determine who/what has the authority to determine what is right/wrong, true/false, moral/immoral, ethical/unethical, etc.? To say that society has "evolved" in its views doesn't even begin to answer the question. (Not to mention that different societies have evolved differently.)
You are mixing is/ought and ethical dilemmas with political ideologies. It would seem you are trying to fit certain ideologies onto an iron bed...
But can't you see that is/ought issues are inextricably intertwined with political ideologies: the Brownshirt says "Society ought to be free of the Jewish parasite;" the Redshirt says, "No, it's the aristocrats and the bourgeoisie who're society's vermin and the enemy of mankind's progress." The egalitarian says, "Hey, wait, guys, everybody's as good as everyone else." So, which of them is right?

 

As we advanced certain rules/criteria were set in place in order to foster greater societal and cultural advancement.
Gulags and Auschwitzes are "greater societal and cultural advancement"?:eek: Nor does this "setting in place" response answer the question I have posed over and over.

 

Discern - from what I am gathering from your posts...you believe no one has moral authority outside of God.
Josh, please do show me concretely where I have said anything even remotely approaching that. Chapter and verse, please. I keep CLEARLY asking simply: how does one avoid the might-makes-right (iow, whoever happens to be in power determines what's going to be right/wrong) approach to determining standards/morals/policy, etc. = how does one ascertain truth (if you believe there is such a thing)? The answer to this has repercussions in all realms: what a person does or doesn't do; what a couple does or doesn't do; what a clan/tribe does or doesn't do; what a city does or doesn't do, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you believe in the Father, Son & Holy Spirit, then you get classified as a Christian here. It's not meant as an insult.

 

As for enforcing beliefs, I tend to go with human rights and what does or does not cause harm. It is sometimes difficult to know what does cause harm. Lots of us have been harmed by Christian fundamentalism, and are naturally defensive of other children being harmed in the same way.

 

It used to be children had no rights and had to work as slaves, but we, as a society, agreed that was wrong and foisted those beliefs on others. The same is true of slavery.

 

It gets trickier when determining psychological harm, but if it can be determined, then I think it's only fair to protect children from said harm.

 

I'm just repeating myself, because I think what I had to say was relevant, and I'd like to see your response to it Discerning.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
...the Brownshirt says "Society ought to be free of the Jewish parasite;" the Redshirt says, "No, it's the aristocrats and the bourgeoisie who're society's vermin and the enemy of mankind's progress." The egalitarian says, "Hey, wait, guys, everybody's as good as everyone else." So, which of them is right?

Your original use of the word "meaning" threw me off. Now I get your question.

 

In your example above, all of them believe they are right because of their individual contexts. Most today would agree that the Brownshirt is wrong, but consider...what if you were truly convinced that one individual or one societal group was ruining it for everyone else? Could the leap be made that it would be a greater good to eliminate the negative influence? A lot of good Germans just prior to WWII put on the brown shirt. It is natural to seek a scapegoat when times are bad. The same dynamic occurred during the witch trials, and that was spearheaded by "Men of God" no less who claimed, correctly, Biblical authority. Slavery is also supported by Scripture, so we don't really see that as a good source of morals today.

 

Redshirt could make a case for blaming the aristocrats and the egalitarian sounds like he has a good point, though obviously some individuals are not as good as everyone else.

 

Various societies through different times in history have tried to build strong communities using some very different methods and mindsets. Claiming the authority of God, the ancient Hebrews committed genocide and the Muslims, using the authority of the same God, abused their women and also killed the infidels in large numbers. Modern societies have copied ideas from ancient Greece, Rome and Britain.

 

We try what works, what we imagine a god is telling us, or what we can get away with. There is no single guide for doing anything "right." As civilization evolves it seems to become less barbaric, but obviously we still have a distance to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

difering ideologys of corectness are created within difrent societies based on the influences within them and how they evolve for example, the Maori and Moriori.

 

both the two people groups derived from the same ancestors but at one point a group of the Maori colonized the chaptam islands about 500 miles west of new zeland and evolved into the Moriori. over the next few centuries both people groups lost contact with each other until a Maori ship discovered the islands and latter brought 500 Maori with advanced european weapons to conquer the islands.the Moriori were a peacful race with very limited knowlage of warfare while the Maori were a violent race constantly fighting within its self and other polynesian islands. when the Maori arived they not only took over the island but also ate all the inhabitants that they could capture.

 

now to answer your question, there is no true definition of what "meaning" is outside the contures of the societies in witch they exist becuase of the influences on them that they themselves create and natural influences. when the Maori conquered the Chaptam islands they considered canibalising the inhabitants the correct thing to do even though to us in the modern world would be abhorred to see this happen.

 

another example of the influences thing is Nazi germany. some of the influnece on germany to create the idea of Lebensruam (living space for the german people) and racial hatred was mostly from the treaty of Versailles giving the german people a desire for revenge. of course this is not the only reason but also becuase of the extreme nationalism created by Hitler founded in the pride indirectly created by the trety of Versailles.

 

evrything the Germans did was considered correct by Hitler and his high command from the social evoltion within their ideologys.

 

its all about your inturpritation of reality and what you consider "moral". in a way you decide your own but ultimatly your morals and ideologys are defined by the influences within your existance and the civilization/ society you preside in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just repeating myself, because I think what I had to say was relevant, and I'd like to see your response to it Discerning.
:beer: I can only "tackle" so many replies at a shot, SFC, so if I seem to miss one, it's not because I consider it irrelevant or am snubbing the person. I also don't always answer in order, because some posts take more time to think about. (In still other cases, people [i'm not here alluding to you] just repeat something that's already been addressed [do they not read the whole thread?]; at that point, it's a waste of time and tedious to have to regurgitate points.)

 

As for enforcing beliefs, I tend to go with human rights and what does or does not cause harm. It is sometimes difficult to know what does cause harm. Lots of us have been harmed by Christian fundamentalism, and are naturally defensive of other children being harmed in the same way.

 

It used to be children had no rights and had to work as slaves, but we, as a society, agreed that was wrong and foisted those beliefs on others. The same is true of slavery.

 

Yah, I can totally understand concern for kids' welfare, but see, "human rights" are relative, based on one's standard of how to determine what is true/false, good/evil, etc. If there is no objective referent for that, then if German society "evolved" to where it considered Jews, Reds and JW's expendable, the Nazis were justified in so doing. By the same token, if there are societies that "evolved" to where they considered child slavery acceptable, then they're justified in that. Ditto for the traditional Chinese practice of binding women's feet. (The "evolution" of a society can actually be a devolution---and in some cases a downright devilution.)

 

It's like I said in previous posts, if there is no objective referent, then it's all a matter of might-makes-right, i.e. whoever happens to be in power decides what the standard is.

 

It gets trickier when determining psychological harm, but if it can be determined, then I think it's only fair to protect children from said harm.
This gets us off-topic (altho of course it's a valid offshoot of my OP), so I'll just briefly say that when you start having the State meddle with what it considers psychological harm, you're opening a canna worms. (Besides the fact that the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom includes the right of parents to train their kids up in the faith of their choosing, as long as that faith doesn't involve stuff like Satanic rituals.) Consider the fact that CPS is a Gestapo outfit itself, and that in lots of foster homes, kids are abused. I myself knew personally a couple where CPS was psychologically tormenting one of the children in the name of "getting the truth" out of her; she was on the verge of a breakdown. No due process at all. Just psychological bludgeoning.

 

If you believe in the Father, Son & Holy Spirit, then you get classified as a Christian here. It's not meant as an insult.
Right, it's not the classification per se that rubs me the wrong way, it's (1) the bombastic emblem that's automatically slapped under my avatar (the Ex-C emblem is much more muted and low-key = sensible) and (2) the fact that purely based on that hypie emblem, people read stuff into my posts that isn't even remotely there.

 

post #23

 

post #24

 

Yes, florduh & Kaiser, what you narrate there is all very historical, but it would then seem that you guys're saying there is no objective standard. In that case, we can't condemn Auschwitz or genital mutilation or states discriminating against gays...or abortion clinic bombers.

 

As I think I have now written in at least 3 different posts, if the only standard is the one a society has at any given time, then morality and ethics are totally relative, totally up for grabs. By that logic, if politician X manages to seize power and decides that gays should all be executed, then it's fine. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.