Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Harrison Danneskjold

Root of "Rights"

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I have a question which I'd like to know the answer to.

For the purpose of this thread I'd like to assume a number of basic premises.  Please note that I intend to use "integral" as a shorthand version of 'integrated without contradiction'.  Premise zero refers to the "love of my own life" for two reasons.

Firstly, it's implicit in every single facet of the entire body of the philosophy.  Secondly, by making the ultimate value explicit, normative statements concerning "should" may, by simply identifying their relation to premise zero, be conceived of factually.

 

If you find a contradiction, or the implication of one, between my premises and Objectivism,

     Then please point it out.

 

                  :thumbsup:

 

Preliminary Premises:

 

0-  Life is good; in general the rewards outweigh the risks.

 

1-  Existence exists; my sensations are not spontaneous nor arbitrary, but caused by something.

2-  Consciousness is conscious (of something).

3-  To be is to be something specific, of a particular nature which is subject to identification without contradiction.

 

4-  "Choice" refers to the selection of highest value, from a number of alternatives.  The alternatives which are available to choose from, as well as the value of each, are not known automatically; they must be conceived of.

 

5-  The purpose of epistemology is to define an integral informational basis for man's hypothesized options.

6-  The proper standard of truth is correspondence to reality.

7-  The proper method of acquiring true knowledge is the integral identification of observations, or "reason".

 

8-  The purpose of morality is to define an integral normative standard for man to measure his values against.

9-  The proper standard of value is p0, itself; its maintenance and enhancement.

10-  The proper method of valuing is by the rational identification of objectively beneficial aspirations and examination of their comparative desirability and difficulty, followed by the pursuit of the optimal set; "rational selfishness".

 

11-  There exist beings who are similar to and yet distinct from me; other men in the world.

 

12-  What cognizance, if any, is it objectively moral [p0] for me to pay them and why?

Which is another form of the question:  What is the purpose of politics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scarcity. Pre-civilized people lived in a very different way than we do.

 

Population explosions and mass migrations caused conflict between alien groups to fight and enslave one another over thousands of years. It is sad but most conflicts in history are born from irrationality, ignorance, and poverty.  Short life spans and a constant fight for survival among foreign and untrustworthy groups doesn't encourage the serious study of politics, but it cam force the development of civilization which can bear the fruits of serious philosophy and  the theoretical study of how society can best be organized. 

 

To quote Rand 

 

The answers given by ethics determine how man should treat other men, and this determines the fourth branch of philosophy: politics, which defines the principles of a proper social system. As an example of philosophy’s function, political philosophy will not tell you how much rationed gas you should be given and on which day of the week—it will tell you whether the government has the right to impose any rationing on anything.

 

 

Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anoher answer to #12 , along with the context of Hairnet's quote, is the explicit idea of mutually beneficial trade.

 

Not pointing to a contradiction , just nitpicking, but in #7 reason is a faculty , logic is a method. An analogy would be the inherent ability for walking, the skeletal, muscular 'system' is there(reason) using it for sucessful bipedular locomotion and position change is the sucessful outcome of taking individual steps(logic). It maybe just syntax or semantics but nuances can have large effects further down(up?) the line of integration.

Edited by tadmjones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Tadmjones; you're right.  It took me a while to specify and organize all of the relevant premises and, towards the end of it, I had lost some clarity and drive.

So I'd like to adjust a few things, slightly:

---

 

0-  Life is good . . .

 

7-  The proper method of acquiring true knowledge is the integral identification of observations, or "logic". . .

 

10-  The proper method of evaluation is the integral identification of any possibilities' relations to p0, or "selfishness"

 

11-  I observe certain entities which are capable of self-initiated action, or "animals"

12-  I observe a subset of animals which demonstrate particular actions, indicative of conceptualization or "reason"

 

Q-  Assuming p12, what is the relationship between other conceptual animals and my own p0?

 

---

Now, if your initial reaction to the Question were that it's far too generalized for a coherent answer, you'd be right.  :thumbsup:  So before we can even say what the purpose of politics is, it would appear that we need to subdivide Q into a few more specific subjects.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now Hairnet, you're absolutely right; civilization is the attempt to privatize life.  But what is privacy and how does it relate to p0?

Let's be very precise about it.  For example:

 

a-  We are capable of hypothesizing about the content and function of other conceptual animals' minds.

b-  Such hypotheses may [if accurate] enable us to predict their response to our own actions.

 

q1-  What actions does this make possible and how would each relate to p0?

 

Concretization-  Through the conception of another mind, can it be made to solve any of our problems for us?  If not, why not?

If so, can such action be integrated with p0?

---

 

Tadmjones:  The trader principle is absolutely accurate and proper, but what I'm asking is how we know that.  What does Capitalism mean to the p0?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realize this thread was meant to be a futher discussion of discovering 'animal rights'. I thought it was intended as a 'chewing' of the concept 'rights'. So I will bow out of participation( unless I jump back in ;) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there's a specific method I'm trying to introduce here.  To demonstrate:

 

When we say that evasion is "wrong" what do we mean?  What's the precise referent?  Well, "evasion" is the act of blanking out, which is a deliberate attempt to cognitively escape from something.

So since we know that  'evasion' is a form of mental escape, let's connect it to premise zero.  Is running and hiding from something an action which is compatible with joy?

For a concretization, when a Statist evades the knowledge of the source of prosperity, could their motivation possibly be love of anything at all?

 

So for my example, instead of saying that "evasion is wrong" I would instead say that "evasion contradicts p0" and demonstrate how.

---

 

Let's apply the same method to a social context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not going to define rights.  You quoted from OPAR (in another thread) what they are and I think it is a good definition.

 

I would like to try to illustrate the "root" in reality of rights by a concretization:

 

Imagine there is an Objectivist, Jim, who has finally decided not to live in isolation, he resolves to form social relationships and as a first step drafts a kind of "agreement in principle" type document which stipulates his requirements and limits for others if they are to have social arrangements with him, one on one.

 

Of course this document is informed by Jim's ethics and morality, his choice to live etc.  Clearly Jim will insist, if he is to have a relationship with any other individual, that the other individual is not to interfere with Jim in such a way that directly acts against his life, or interferes with Jim's ability to lead a life in accordance with his morality.  Of course Jim wants to trade but he does need nor want to make anyone promise to trade with him... he will let opportunities come and go as they do and he anticipates much good will come of everyday commerce.

 

This is a good start.  Jim then realizes that if he approaches you (say another Objectivist), and he selfishly does want to have a relationship with you, that you too have certain requirements and limits for forming the relationship.  Not unlike what Jim just spent hours to draft in his own agreement in principle.  Jim not only has to realize you come with these and that you can and will refuse to enter into an agreement with him if these are not up to your standards, he also realizes that the entire purpose of the arrangement to him, i.e. your being able to benefit Jim, depends upon your ability to be of most benefit to yourself, specifically, to flourish as a rational, productive, thinking entity.  As such your nature informs what limits there should be in the relationship to ensure you can be of greatest benefit to Jim, even if you do not know them and even if you do not demand them.

 

In either case and for both reasons, Jim includes in the "agreement in principle" those requirements and limits.  Insofar as and to the extend that Jim is rational, understands his nature and reality, and chooses life, and insofar as you also understands your nature and reality and choose life, the requirements and limits are agreeable to both yourself and Jim and maximize your benefits to yourselves, and thereby each other, without imposing undue restrictions on your living as independent individuals who voluntarily trade with each other.

 

This process, which is Objective, taking into account facts of reality but nothing mystical or "intrinsically prescriptive", is a concretization of what rights are at their root.  Someone comes to you with requirements of their nature and of their choices which to benefit from them in your society are to be recognized (to the extent the choices are rational, etc.).  The next step is to socialize the agreements in principle to a society of like minded people by for example a sort of constitution.

 

Other than taking an abstract route which risks rationalism... (although if one is careful and smart one can do this), I think the above illustrates (or at least indicates) in concrete fashion what rights are and why they are.

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only issue I take with your concretization, SL, is when Jim realizes that if he selfishly wants a relationship with someone that they have certain requirements he has to respect.

That's a recognition of their rights and the amount to which he should respect them is what I was referencing in the final sentences of the OP.  So obviously I'm not disputing the accuracy or morality of such a recognition; I already know it's proper.

I would dispute that part precisely because this thread is intended as a closer examination of its basis.  So. . .

 

In any decision Jim makes, per the OP, the options he considers 'possible' must be based on reason and he must select from them according to his love of his own life.  Now, drawing from your concretization, we have two elements to consider; Jim's desire for social interaction and his love of his own life.

What does one mean to the other?

And supposing he's already determined the moral validity of such a goal, which of his partner's requirements should he take into account and why?  What's the alternative to such respect and is it compatible with the joy of existence?

 

What I'm trying to get at are all of the specific ways in which other people could relate to our own love of life, and which possibilities are worth pursuing.  That's what I think is abstracted within "individual rights" and I'm trying to break it all down, explicitly.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now Hairnet, you're absolutely right; civilization is the attempt to privatize life.  But what is privacy and how does it relate to p0?

Let's be very precise about it.  For example:

 

a-  We are capable of hypothesizing about the content and function of other conceptual animals' minds.

b-  Such hypotheses may [if accurate] enable us to predict their response to our own actions.

 

q1-  What actions does this make possible and how would each relate to p0?

 

Concretization-  Through the conception of another mind, can it be made to solve any of our problems for us?  If not, why not?

If so, can such action be integrated with p0?

 

 

 

 

Well first of all the abilities you speak of allow for strategy. Most of history is brutal warfare and enslavement. Humans existed in biological competition or in dominance hierarchies. 

 

However, politics is much more about promoting privacy. Many people would call this concept "trust". The horrible conditions of past ages result from people simply not having any reason to think that anyone outside their kind group was worth negotiating with. They may have been right in most cases as their opponents were right about them. Civilization requires that people be able to not view one another as inherent threats, and this can't be done without rights. Societies that fail to promote trust are easy to conquer and have the potential for rebellion and civil war. 

 

Rights I think take these into consideration. If you ask "Why should I be part of a society at all?", when living in the wilderness with a small group may be truly enjoyable and worthwhile experience, you will see why we need rights. If a society takes your stuff, has the potential to kill you for an arbitrary reason,  or decides to imprison you for an arbitrary reason, then you would fight very violently against that society or leave it.  Almost everyone else fundamentally has the same reactions. They don't want to always be in fear of having their lives ruined.  Assurances that this won't happen and a policy clearly enforcing this is the surest way to build trust. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Individual rights are an absolute, not to be "balanced" or limited by anybody. (And don't answer me that an individual's right to murder, for instance, is limited. Such a right never existed in the first place.) It certainly is not the government  nor society that "sets up rights for an individual or group." These rights are not "set up" (nor "rigged up" nor "framed up"). They are inherent in the nature of man. Man is endowed with them by the fact of his birth." Ayn Rand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine there is an Objectivist, Jim, who has finally decided not to live in isolation,... ...

I like the concrete. A second way to make it concrete is to imagine Jim really never had much choice about interacting with people, since they were all around him, for many hundreds of miles. Even if they did not raid his home, they did impact him. Even if he does not wish to trade with the kooky folk across the stream, he wants to reach an agreement over how they use the commons, and perhaps he even comes up with a concept of property.

Your concrete example highlights that rights come from the value-seeking behavior: trading value for value. This alternative concrete highlights that rights can also protect against the encroachment of "dis-value". In this role, they are not rules for trade, but rules that keep everyone out of everyone else's business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Individual rights are an absolute, not to be "balanced" or limited by anybody. (And don't answer me that an individual's right to murder, for instance, is limited. Such a right never existed in the first place.) It certainly is not the government  nor society that "sets up rights for an individual or group." These rights are not "set up" (nor "rigged up" nor "framed up"). They are inherent in the nature of man. Man is endowed with them by the fact of his birth." Ayn Rand

 

This is a good quote but taken out of context or heard by the wrong person with an incorrect interpretation it could lead to a misidentification of "rights" as intrinsic rather than objective.  Objectivism rejects intrinsic and mystical concepts of ethics and politics (actually of anything).

 

Inherent in the nature of man includes what he requires to flourish (non-interference primarily).  As such a man, recognizing his nature, decides what he requires and will not accept as behavior from others.  Also when an individual decides how best to benefit selfishly from the existence of other men, he must recognize that for those other men to be of greatest benefit to him, he must recognize and act in accordance with what those other men require to flourish (which is inherent in the nature of man).

 

Man is endowed with his nature and in that sense is endowed with rights.  i.e. if you want to live rationally and selfishly with other men, these are the natural inherent limits regarding your relationship/actions with them in order for you to be successful living selfishly with other men.

 

The identification of proper relations between men given their inherent nature is no different from the discussion surrounding "right" and "wrong" in John Galt's Speech:

"Is a seed to be planted in soil in order to grow-right or wrong? Is a man’s wound to be disinfected in order to save his life-right or wrong? Does the nature of atmospheric electricity permit it to be converted into kinetic power-right or wrong?"

 

 

Nothing intrinsic or mystical here.

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only issue I take with your concretization, SL, is when Jim realizes that if he selfishly wants a relationship with someone that they have certain requirements he has to respect.

That's a recognition of their rights and the amount to which he should respect them is what I was referencing in the final sentences of the OP.  So obviously I'm not disputing the accuracy or morality of such a recognition; I already know it's proper.

I would dispute that part precisely because this thread is intended as a closer examination of its basis.  So. . .

 

In any decision Jim makes, per the OP, the options he considers 'possible' must be based on reason and he must select from them according to his love of his own life.  Now, drawing from your concretization, we have two elements to consider; Jim's desire for social interaction and his love of his own life.

What does one mean to the other?

And supposing he's already determined the moral validity of such a goal, which of his partner's requirements should he take into account and why?  What's the alternative to such respect and is it compatible with the joy of existence?

 

What I'm trying to get at are all of the specific ways in which other people could relate to our own love of life, and which possibilities are worth pursuing.  That's what I think is abstracted within "individual rights" and I'm trying to break it all down, explicitly.

 

Perhaps we can divide this problem into two.  You have identified as an aspect "desire for social interaction" which I take you to mean emotional, "spiritually" value based.  His love for his own life I take you to mean more aligned with economic interests, i.e. arms length, contractual, trading, or indirect benefits.  Lets call these material value based.  Although these are arbitrary categories I think we can deal with them temporarily.

 

 

Firstly, let's deal with the material.

 

EVEN IF a man is emotionless as regards the welfare of others, no love, no empathy, no feeling whatever to his fellow men.  The nature of rights, I submit, inherent in the nature of man, would not change whatever.  A man still would require certain things to live according to his own morality, require certain things to flourish (mainly freedom from interference).  So a man would still demand non-interference, non-harm from others. the unfeeling man would still also realize there is a great benefit to be derived from other men, who possess creativity, capacity for productiveness etc.  As such in reality it is Objectively true that the man has the best chances of supporting his life when he respects and acts in accordance with what other men need to flourish (which happens to be the same as what he needs).  So these already have the nature and scope of man's rights without any reference to emotional value. 

 

 

It's not that Jim gives up certain things to have a relationship with other men, it's that Jim wants a relationship with other men to GET certain things which enable him to flourish.

 

 

the basis of "respecting" others rights is not love or generosity or altruism it is selfish recognition that

 

A.  They will not want to deal with you directly if you do not respect their rights and

B.  Whether or not they deal with you directly or only indirectly through society at large, whether or not they even understand what rights are or whether you are respecting or disrespecting them, in fact your respecting their rights maximizes your  possible selfish benefit you might get from them.

 

 

What society is the one which has individuals with the most potential to discover a cure for cancer, discover genetic aging processes, and hence may possibly save your life and/or extend it by decades?  

 

 

I don't want to be friends with the scientist who discovers the cure for cancer, I just want him to be possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hairnet, you hit the nail on the head with "strategy"; that's the underlying frame of reference (stemming from p4) which I'd like to apply to social dynamics.

 

"Trust" is a definite nonessential.  To trust someone whom you have no reason not to is rational and hence integral with p0 (via the motivation of evasion identified in post #7); to trust someone whom you do have reason not to contradicts it.

"Privacy" is analogous to the trader principle and is entirely proper, but not yet admissible in this context; we're trying to identify its basis.

 

Let's focus on the strategic application of p0 to social interaction.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leonid, I presume you're referring to the "amount of cognizance it's moral to pay other people" and inferring an implicit reference, on my part, to some necessity for "compromise"; if so then I assure you I'm not.  We haven't even reached the observation that peoples' desires sometimes contradict each other; without that information, what could "compromise" possibly refer to?

 

Let me concretize the question.  Is it p0-integral for a hurried driver to yield, rather than splattering ambient pedestrians all over the pavement?

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strictly Logical:  Believe it or not, I assumed the value of 'material' rewards in the OP; it's the spiritual that I'm attempting to deduce.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that every rational person would demand the freedom to live morally; the p0 demands it.  :thumbsup:  But how should a rational person evaluate such demands, according to the p0?

If Jim were speeding down the road one day, on what basis should he delay his own pursuits for the crossing of tool-using-animals?

 

To be perfectly honest I'm not entirely sure yet, though I have an implicit sense of the idea; I believe it's logical to yield to pedestrians for the same reason it's logical to avoid tire spikes.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely! 

 

One of those peeps could cure cancer, or write your favorite song... or just do some good accounting work for the company that supplies ECM chips to the automaker you buy a car from in 3 years that saves your life because it has a redundancy failure protection.... on the other hand you could run them over saving 20 seconds and 2 millijoules of effort.  Really there is no contest.

 

This sort of evaluation of potential benefit of men to other men requires a view to the long range and wide perspective on consequences and causation ...

but a single realization is important : man IS a producer of value, its not a zero sum game, value is created on both sides of every transaction, and when you touch anything manmade of value to you it resulted from a long chain of events which all required the ABSENCE of chains on the people who played a part.

 

The fewer the chains the more benefit you can get... you get the picture.

 

 

Upholding rights, is like putting gas in your car.

 

 

It would be eminently UNSELFISH for you (NOT in your selfish best interests long range) to simply run them over.... and as such, and only as such, immoral.

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes!  B)  Absolutely right, and key to answering the OP.

But what relation do the slave-drivers have towards Jim's p0 and what's their key difference from the producers of such things as cars?

 

You've identified one of the most important social relations [i also had admiration and true fraternity in mind]; now let's specify the derivative facts and generalize from them.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HD:

 

Could you rephrase the question in a more direct or explicit manner?

 

I don't quite understand what you are asking when you say this:

"But what relation do the slave-drivers have towards Jim's p0 and what's their key difference from the producers of such things as cars?"

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry.

You pointed out that it's selfish to spend 20 seconds to save someone's life because they might go on to cure cancer or write your favorite song, which is absolutely accurate.

But if I may play the devil's advocate a bit longer, couldn't they just as easily go on to mug you?

 

To tie it back into the OP, having access to life-saving medicine is absolutely integral with Jim's love of his own life; being mugged is contradictory to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because if that's the case then we've identified two diametrically opposite ways in which other people can influence Jim's love of life, with diametrically opposite ways he should morally treat them.

And the difference between a beneficial or a detrimental person, to Jim's love of life, is one of values.  When people share each other's values, in any specific endeavor, everyone is able to accomplish more work in less time (even if not deliberately collaborating).  When people who do not share the same values are forced to interact, the precise opposite will result.

It's actually quite an elegant sort of relation; nearly mathematical.

 

But now that we've touched on that, it leads us to another problem:  Any knowledge which Jim gains, as to the values of other people, must be inferred through a prohibitively time-consuming process.

On the one hand, Jim has to interact with hundreds of other people on a daily basis in his industrialized society.  On the other hand, without spending the time and effort to learn what these people value, he cannot morally let them influence his own life.  It isn't rational to ignore such alternatives outright, and it isn't moral to act blindly (and yet he must act).

 

So what could be generalized about 'all men' such that Jim may preserve premise zero in such a context?

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hairnet, you hit the nail on the head with "strategy"; that's the underlying frame of reference (stemming from p4) which I'd like to apply to social dynamics.

 

"Trust" is a definite nonessential.  To trust someone whom you have no reason not to is rational and hence integral with p0 (via the motivation of evasion identified in post #7); to trust someone whom you do have reason not to contradicts it.

"Privacy" is analogous to the trader principle and is entirely proper, but not yet admissible in this context; we're trying to identify its basis.

 

Let's focus on the strategic application of p0 to social interaction.

You are missing my point. 

 

Genuine, rational, trust is the result of privacy and the protection of rights. In the past people couldn't trust people outside their in group, and would thus place far too much trust in their in group despite what problems they may present. If you want to only include people in your life who have merit, then you need to be sure that people of merit aren't actually the pawns of some threat. If there was only your kin group, and everyone outside that group was seen as a potential threat who was under the threat of a dangerous prince, you can't go looking around for merit. Even if your brother is irrational or incompetent you may just give him responsibility based on the idea that at the very least he won't try to rape your mother or kill you in your sleep like some hired foreigner may be. Without the protection of rights there is only paranoia and the war of all against all. 

 

A basic example is of the idea of secularism. If people promise not to hurt one another over their religion and these promises are kept, people of all religions can discard religion as an important factor when dealing with strangers and then benefit from one another. If there isn't that principle then commerce is restrained. A catholic will be hestitant to move to a protestant city or nation because he may be scapegoated or arbitrarily punished for his affiliation. The same goes with ethnicity.

 

England and Ireland suffered all the way into the 20th century because of the brutal treatment of the Irish by the British. Terrorism based on religious and ethnic conflicts seems like something that should exist in the third world or eastern Europe but not in the west and even today there are still IRA splinter groups that are active. 

 

Here is a contemporary example. I have noticed the rise of racism on the internet over the last five years. Sadly many of these people now borrow pro-commerce ideas from classical liberals. They see the state as violating rights, and because some state policies are based off of leftist race bating, those white supremacists see themselves as besieged by minorities who want to rob their wealth. Instead of seeing immigrants as potential value, they view them as democratic voters.

 

Some blame the violence in Yugoslavia in the past or Iraq today on the same principle. No one protected rights in their country, and oppression was really the only thing that worked for preventing violence.  Democracy in both countries comprises not of people attempting to persuade one another what the best social systems are but of ethnic and religious groups fighting for dominance. 

 

 I think these people are irrational, but if the state was more consistent in its protection of rights their arguments would be far less persuasive. 

 

I don't think that p0 has a strategic application to social interaction. p0 presents a goal, and you can't just deduce the means of achieving a goal from the goal itself. 

 

You can only freely associate with people to the degree that rights are protected.  Without free association the only way you are going to get people to associate with you is through coercion, and if you are powerful enough to coerce others then it still in your best interests to maintain as much free association as possible, as this is the way wealth is generated. 

Edited by Hairnet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry.

You pointed out that it's selfish to spend 20 seconds to save someone's life because they might go on to cure cancer or write your favorite song, which is absolutely accurate.

But if I may play the devil's advocate a bit longer, couldn't they just as easily go on to mug you?

 

To tie it back into the OP, having access to life-saving medicine is absolutely integral with Jim's love of his own life; being mugged is contradictory to it.

 

It would be shortsighted to destroy potential resources in a systematic process just because one particular tiny bit might be spoiled.  If you find a bad apple deal with it at that point in time. 

 

Don't cut down your apple tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...