Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Mikee

Are Definitions tautologies?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Definitions are what fill a dictionary.  You can own a dictionary and still be dumb as dirt.  When thinking, we form propositions (sentences) which are composed of words which can in turn be individually defined.  Being able to define the words that you are using in constructing thoughts is not a tautological exercise.

Edited by New Buddha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may depend on what you mean by "definition". 

 

Strictly speaking a "dictionary definition" is a string of words, but the words in the definition represent concepts rather than simply other words in the dictionary.  (If such were the case the totality of words would be a floating abstraction referring only to other words, none having any real meaning or referent in reality)

 

Clearly concepts are not formed only from strings of words, some content of concepts must be "defined" (ultimately) ostensively.

 

If you mean by "definition" -> "all of that which defines a concept" then your concept  "definition" is, ultimately, not a tautology. 

 

If you mean by "definition" -> "merely a string of words", with no intention to refer to concepts represented by the words, then the string of words themselves function as a tautology. 

 

It should be remembered that although dictionaries define words with a string of words, all the entries of a dictionary do not collectively amount to a meaningless circular self-referencing collection of "lookup tables".  The meaning of the concepts referred to by the words in each definition are partly defined outside of the dictionary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can definitions be regarded as tautologies?

Yes.  "A is A" and "a man is a man" are tautologies.  So is "man is a rational animal".  A tautology is not necessarily exhaustive (as SL observed).  The fact that "a man is a rational animal" does not mean that "man" need not breathe Oxygen as well.  However, any true definition is essentially the statement of the relation of identity; that every thing is itself.

 

This is a result of the fact that all true statements of any sort are tautologies (including this one).

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Objectivist answer would be Nicky's in #3 because, as #4 and #5 observe, you have to go out and observe particulars in order to form a fundamental, cognitively useful, explanatorily powerful concept.  The tautologies #5 acknowledges are true given the facts currently available ("context" being the Objectivist way of putting it).  If new information can overturn a statement, the statement isn't a tautology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Objectivist answer would be Nicky's in #3 because, as #4 and #5 observe, you have to go out and observe particulars in order to form a fundamental, cognitively useful, explanatorily powerful concept.  The tautologies #5 acknowledges are true given the facts currently available ("context" being the Objectivist way of putting it).  If new information can overturn a statement, the statement isn't a tautology.

 

How come no one ever looks things up in the lexicon, which is available for free online?

 

"Every truth about a given existent(s) reduces, in basic pattern, to: “X is: one or more of the things which it is.” The predicate in such a case states some characteristic(s) of the subject; but since it is a characteristic of the subject, the concept(s) designating the subject in fact includes the predicate from the outset. If one wishes to use the term “tautology” in this context, then all truths are “tautological.” (And, by the same reasoning, all falsehoods are self-contradictions.)"

 

Rand's point is that all propositions contain a subject and predicate and are of the form: S is P. Since a concept refers to units, and the predicate is a description of the units to which the subject refers, the concept used as the subject already contains the information in the predicate. If that's what you mean by tautological than as Harrison said, every proposition is a tautology. But that doesn't mean that the implicit information is explicit knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a matter of fact I didn't consult the Lexicon.  You seem to say that I contradicted it or that if I had checked it I would have learned something important to what I said.  What did I miss?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If new information can overturn a statement, the statement isn't a tautology.

 

Which knowledge cannot be revised at some point in the future and how do you know it?  The implication that some knowledge can be known to be beyond all hypothetical doubt, regardless of what may ever be discovered about anything (which would be implied by the reference to knowledge which "can be overturned by new information") would seem to require prescience- unless you're referring to the axioms.

 

Was that what you meant?

 

How come no one ever looks things up in the lexicon, which is available for free online?

 

B)   Bookmarked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which knowledge cannot be revised at some point in the future and how do you know it?

Tautologies aren't knowledge, they're a type of statement that's not contingent on any knowledge, like:

Birds can either fly or not. If I like apples, then I don't not like them. If you have a house and a cat, then it's not true that you don't have a house or cat. Etc., etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If statements are either tautologies, contradictions or contingent, I would have to come down on the side that definitions under objectivist philosophy are contingent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tautologies aren't knowledge, they're a type of statement that's not contingent on any knowledge, like:

Birds can either fly or not. If I like apples, then I don't not like them. If you have a house and a cat, then it's not true that you don't have a house or cat. Etc., etc.

The three statements given here are all direct applications of the principle of non-contradiction, which is itself the negative of the Law of Identity ("A is not non-A")

 

The Law of Identity "A is A" is a tautology.  It counts as knowledge because it is the fundamental principle of logic, and logic is a method of thinking that is first learned and then known.  Skills count as knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a matter of fact I didn't consult the Lexicon.  You seem to say that I contradicted it or that if I had checked it I would have learned something important to what I said.  What did I miss?

 

I think I was going to respond to something you wrote but changed my mind and never deleted the quote box. Sorry about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, after some thoughts, here is my view:

 

Definitions can be tautological, contingent, or contradictory (as mentioned by aleph_1).

 

The purpose of definition is to cite explicitly the boundary for a concept so people can determine which existent qualifies and which don't.

 

I would argue all good definitions are always tautological (but not all tautological definitions are good).

 

Contingent definitions are only good temporarily.

 

And definitions that are contradictory are just crap, not useful at all.

 

 

As an example, for the concept "Bachelor":

 

"Bachelors are unmarried men" would be a good tautological definition. "Bachelors are men" would be a bad tautological definition.

 

"Bachelors are men who have no wife" would be a contingent definition.

 

"Bachelors are married" would be a contradictory definition.

 

The tautological definitions are good for all time. The good tautological definitions state all the critical characteristics of a concept. The bad tautological definitions only state some critical characteristics of a concept. Concepts like "Bachelor" are born from characteristics that is either observed or imagined and deemed important enough to warrant the establishment of a concept. Since these critical characteristics is what gave birth to the concept in the first place, when a definition explicitly refers directly back to these characteristics, that definition is thought to be tautological and is useful in reaffirming the reason why people bothered to establish the concept in the first place.

 

And of course, any definitions that state characteristics which contradict those critical characteristics that gave birth to the concept is just plainly bad. These contradictory definitions if accepted negate the purpose of the concept completely making it useless.

 
Contingent definitions are only good temporarily. These definitions state characteristics that existent of the concept just so happens to have, but are not critical. In the case of "Bachelor", the contingent definition I stated is only good so long as marriages only can happen between a man and a woman. When gay couple can marry, that contingent definition falls apart.
Edited by VECT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vect, I agree with a lot of what you said but I have a few issues.

 

With respect to the idea of a contingent definition, this is a very dangerous (false) idea. Read Peikoff's Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy or do a search for 'contingent': http://www.proctors.com.au/mrhomepage.nsf/985f14ab922be306482577d5003a2040/4864f5fe3809763a4825789c000dc50a/$FILE/The%20Analytic%20Synthetic%20Dichotomy.pdf

 

There's a lot about definitions in ITOE but the lexicon really is a great resource if you don't have a copy... http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/definitions.html

 

 

The good tautological definitions state all the critical characteristics of a concept. The bad tautological definitions only state some critical characteristics of a concept.

 

The good definition states the essential characteristic. The essential characteristic is determined according to the rule of fundamentality: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/fundamentality,_rule_of.html

 

 

And of course, any definitions that state characteristics which contradict those critical characteristics that gave birth to the concept is just plainly bad. These contradictory definitions if accepted negate the purpose of the concept completely making it useless.

 

Right, but so does a definition with a non-essential differentia. If you defined bachelor as 'a man', even though being a man is a true characteristic of a bachelor, you would still destroy the cognitive value of the concept because the concept would then include married men. The whole purpose of the concept is to refer to specific units in reality (unmarried men). By defining the concept by a nonessential characteristic you wipe out the ability to properly distinguish which units the concept refers to.

 

 

Contingent definitions are only good temporarily. These definitions state characteristics that existent of the concept just so happens to have, but are not critical. In the case of "Bachelor", the contingent definition I stated is only good so long as marriages only can happen between a man and a woman. When gay couple can marry, that contingent definition falls apart.

 

 

I see what you're saying here but I think it's wrong to use the word 'contingent' just because of the connotations of that term with respect to the analytic synthetic dichotomy. I think the better word is 'contextual'. Definitions are contextual in that changes in knowledge can necessitate new differentia. A very young child might have the following as an implicit definition of mom: 'entity which makes noise and has long hair'. That definition would serve to differentiate the child's mom in a very limited context, but when the child encounters other women, the differentia is no longer valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the links Critical, I've read that article by Peikoff more than a month back when I made another thread asking for some pointers concerning the Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy. 
 
I understand that the modern AS Dichotomy and its Platonic ancestor regards all characteristics not essential as been contingent.
 
And I agree with what Peikoff said, that only man-made characteristics are contingent. All other non-artificial metaphysical characteristics even if not essential is not somehow contingent; things are what they are.
 
The characteristic "married" is artificial. The qualifications needed to engage in marriage and whether or not people will marry are all contingent on exercises of free-will. I understand your concern in my using the word "contingent" because of it's close connotations to the AS Dichotomy. But, I don't know if "contextual" is suitable in this specific marriage example either. Let's say that marriage is only allowed between a man and a woman. Now for whatever reason this regulation changed. However, it just so happens for whatever reason that no man is ever gay and no gay marriage will occur. Can the definition "Bachelors are men who have no wife" be invalidated contingent merely upon the volitional change of the artificial qualification of marriage? Or do actual cases of gay marriage have to happen and be observed to invalidate this definition contextually?
 
As for essential characteristics, I understand the different standards from that article:
 
Platonic --------------------------- supernatural essence, people know what characteristic is essential by intuition
Modern AS Dichotomy -------- majority ruled subjective opinion, people know it from the most popular norm, trend, and/or dictionary
Objectivism ----------------------- the characteristic which all (or most) other characteristics of the existent depend on, people know it from reasoning
 
For the Objectivism standard on essential characteristics from that page of lexicon you linked, I agree. However, after some thought, I have to point out that the Rule of Fundamentality (RoF) only apply to those concept constructed for the purpose of attempting to provide the clearest explicit contrast between existent (such as the example used in that excerpt, human beings vs other animals). This rule singles out the most sharply contrasting characteristics(s) to achieve this.
 
But, not all concepts are created for the purpose of providing better contrast between existent so that more efficient and effective cognitive differentiation can be attained.
 
Some concepts are constructed for the purpose of artificial classification based on certain characteristic people deem to be important due to subjective personal values.
 
"Bachelor" is an example of such a concept.
 
Because people regard unmarried as an characteristic of personal interest, they created this concept to classify man who are unmarried. The essential characteristic of been unmarried here is essential/critical not because of the Rule of Fundamentality; they are essential because of intent.
 
As for "Bachelors are men", I did say it was a BAD tautological definition :worry: . But at least it reaffirms that bachelors are male. It's the lesser of two evils compared to the contridactory definition; if a person asks "What is a Bachelor?" and you answer "Bachelor is a man", that person can easily go "A man who is...?"
 
Now if you flat out tell that person "Bachelor is a man who is married", chances are that person won't discover the truth until he makes a fool of himself somewhere else later.
Edited by VECT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you're saying here but I think it's wrong to use the word 'contingent' 

If it's wrong to use the word contingent then it's also wrong to use the word tautology, which leads me back to my original answer. 

 

If you want to talk about tautologies, you have to accept the definition. You can't refuse to use the word contingent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for the links Critical, I've read that article by Peikoff more than a month back when I made another thread asking for some pointers concerning the Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy. 
 
I understand that the modern AS Dichotomy and its Platonic ancestor regards all characteristics not essential as been contingent.
 
And I agree with what Peikoff said, that only man-made characteristics are contingent. All other non-artificial metaphysical characteristics even if not essential is not somehow contingent; things are what they are.

 

OK awesome. B)

 

 

The characteristic "married" is artificial. The qualifications needed to engage in marriage and whether or not people will marry are all contingent on exercises of free-will. I understand your concern in my using the word "contingent" because of it's close connotations to the AS Dichotomy. But, I don't know if "contextual" is suitable in this specific marriage example either. Let's say that marriage is only allowed between a man and a woman. Now for whatever reason this regulation changed. However, it just so happens for whatever reason that no man is ever gay and no gay marriage will occur. Can the definition "Bachelors are men who have no wife" be invalidated contingent merely upon the volitional change of the artificial qualification of marriage? Or do actual cases of gay marriage have to happen and be observed to invalidate this definition contextually?

 

Well, I think it's merely a question of what we need to differentiate the units against. A man made fact is still a fact so if gay marriage becomes legal then it becomes necessary to adjust our differentia to properly differentiate the units. It's all a question of what the context demands we do to keep the units clearly differentiated.

 

 

For the Objectivism standard on essential characteristics from that page of lexicon you linked, I agree. However, after some thought, I have to point out that the Rule of Fundamentality (RoF) only apply to those concept constructed for the purpose of attempting to provide the clearest explicit contrast between existent (such as the example used in that excerpt, human beings vs other animals). This rule singles out the most sharply contrasting characteristics(s) to achieve this.
 
But, not all concepts are created for the purpose of providing better contrast between existent so that more efficient and effective cognitive differentiation can be attained.

 

But I wouldn't say concepts are formed for the purpose of attempting to provide the clearest contrast between existents. The purpose of forming a concept is to achieve a unit (universal) perspective on a set of existents. It's the purpose of a definition to keep the concepts clearly organized in your head- the genus tells you the wider concept to which the defined concept belongs and differentia distinguishes precisely which units of the genus the defined concept is referring to.

 

 

Some concepts are constructed for the purpose of artificial classification based on certain characteristic people deem to be important due to subjective personal values.
 
"Bachelor" is an example of such a concept.
 
Because people regard unmarried as an characteristic of personal interest, they created this concept to classify man who are unmarried. The essential characteristic of been unmarried here is essential/critical not because of the Rule of Fundamentality; they are essential because of intent.

 

The concept 'bachelor' isn't merely subjectively important. There are real, objective reasons for having such a concept. Bachelors tend to party it up, have awesome pads, are available for marriage, etc. It is incredibly useful to have the concept regardless of people's opinions on marriage. With respect to the fundamentality of the essential characteristic (unmarried) vs. intent, I think you have cause and effect reversed. The reason people intend to differentiate between married and unmarried men is because being unmarried is an essential characteristic- it gives rise to other characteristics and actions which make the concept useful in the first place.

 

Here's a better explanation of what I'm trying to say, from ITOE (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/rands_razor.html):

 

"The requirements of cognition forbid the arbitrary grouping of existents, both in regard to isolation and to integration. They forbid the random coining of special concepts to designate any and every group of existents with any possible combination of characteristics. For example, there is no concept to designate “Beautiful blondes with blue eyes, 5’5” tall and 24 years old.” Such entities or groupings are identified descriptively. If such a special concept existed, it would lead to senseless duplication of cognitive effort (and to conceptual chaos): everything of significance discovered about that group would apply to all other young women as well. There would be no cognitive justification for such a concept—unless some essential characteristic were discovered, distinguishing such blondes from all other women and requiring special study, in which case a special concept would become necessary"

 

 

As for "Bachelors are men", I did say it was a BAD tautological definition :worry: . But at least it reaffirms that bachelors are male. It's the lesser of two evils compared to the contridactory definition; if a person asks "What is a Bachelor?" and you answer "Bachelor is a man", that person can easily go "A man who is...?"

 

If we evaluate both kinds of definitions by the standard of what a definition is supposed to do they're equally bad. But point taken with respect to a definition that doesn't even have anything to do with the concept lol. In another way though, the definitions by non-essentials are even more insidious than definitions which are just plain false because definitions by non-essentials give rise to anti-concepts.

 

Also, the person in your example who is asking "A man who is...?" is only asking that question because he/she realizes that the definition is not properly distinguishing the existents involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's wrong to use the word contingent then it's also wrong to use the word tautology, which leads me back to my original answer. 

 

You're original answer was, No, definitions cannot be regarded as tautologies. That is wrong. They can be regarded as tautologies for the same reason that any true proposition can be regarded as a tautology.

 

 

If you want to talk about tautologies, you have to accept the definition. You can't refuse to use the word contingent.

 

I don't think that's the definition of a tautology. Following the rule of fundamentality, it seems like a better definition of tautology would be: A propositions whose predicate is contained in the subject. That is more fundamental because the fact that a tautology is not contingent on any knowledge is a derivative characteristic of the one I used as a differentia above. But whatever, if you think I'm being too nit picky with terminology that's your judgement to make. So long as my post made people clarify 'contingent' vs 'contextual' than I've achieved my goal in bringing up the distinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's the definition of a tautology. 

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect speakers of a language to conform to the conventions that link words in that language to specific concepts.

 

In this case, that convention states that the word tautology should be used to refer to the following concepts:

 

tau·tol·o·gy

/tôˈtäləjē/

noun

noun: tautology

the saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they arrived one after the other in succession ).synonyms: pleonasm, repetition, reiteration, redundancy, superfluity, duplication "avoid such tautology as "let's all work together, everyone, as a team" by saying simply "let's work together""

a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words.

plural noun: tautologies

Logic

a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.

 

This last one is the relevant one. There's no mistaking what that means. It doesn't mean definitions. Like it or not, agree with it or not, it means that thing the people who created propositional logic said it means.

 

Are you planning on redefining every single word in the English language created by people you disagree with?

 

 

 

The three statements given here are all direct applications of the principle of non-contradiction, which is itself the negative of the Law of Identity ("A is not non-A")

 

The Law of Identity "A is A" is a tautology.  It counts as knowledge because it is the fundamental principle of logic, and logic is a method of thinking that is first learned and then known.  Skills count as knowledge.

I agree with you that the Law of Identity is knowledge. 

 

However, if someone chooses not to address the issue, but rather just create a theoretical framework based on the Law of Identity, there is nothing wrong with that. Propositional logic is not about knowledge, it's a theoretical framework built on the Law of Identity, in which propositions are considered either tautologies or contradictions, unless they are contingent on something other than the Law of Identity. 

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect speakers of a language to conform to the conventions that link words in that language to specific concepts.

 

In this case, that convention states that the word tautology should be used to refer to the following concepts:

 

This last one is the relevant one. There's no mistaking what that means. It doesn't mean definitions. Like it or not, agree with it or not, it means that thing the people who created propositional logic said it means.

 

Are you planning on redefining every single word in the English language created by people you disagree with?

 

 

What!?? People on this board are incredibly frustrating today. I offered a different definition of a term, which I came to by trying to apply Rand's theory of definitions, during a technical philosophy discussion on the nature of definitions. Does that imply that I intend to redefine every single word in the English language? You don't like my definition, fine. Offer some other definition and a reason you think it's valid.

 

None of the definitions you copy and pasted even use the word 'contingent' anyway.

 

If it's wrong to use the word contingent then it's also wrong to use the word tautology, which leads me back to my original answer. 

 

If you want to talk about tautologies, you have to accept the definition. You can't refuse to use the word contingent.

 

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think it's merely a question of what we need to differentiate the units against. A man made fact is still a fact so if gay marriage becomes legal then it becomes necessary to adjust our differentia to properly differentiate the units. It's all a question of what the context demands we do to keep the units clearly differentiated.

 

I see what you are saying. Some sort of actual change would have to happen (change in regulation..etc.) to invalidate "Bachelors are men who have no wife".

 

While it's reasonable to imagine such a change in man-made regulation (as opposed to ice sinking in water), imagining by itself still isn't enough to invalidate "Bachelors are men who have no wife", actual regulation change have to take place.

 

And if actual change happens, the invalidation of that definition can then be appropriately said to have happened on contextual ground.

 

 

But I wouldn't say concepts are formed for the purpose of attempting to provide the clearest contrast between existents. The purpose of forming a concept is to achieve a unit (universal) perspective on a set of existents. It's the purpose of a definition to keep the concepts clearly organized in your head- the genus tells you the wider concept to which the defined concept belongs and differentia distinguishes precisely which units of the genus the defined concept is referring to.

 

Point taken. Concept's main function is to achieve unit perspective on a set of existent so that more efficient and effective cognitive activities can be achieved. Definitions are what helps to clearly keep the boundary between concepts.

 

 

The concept 'bachelor' isn't merely subjectively important. There are real, objective reasons for having such a concept. Bachelors tend to party it up, have awesome pads, are available for marriage, etc. It is incredibly useful to have the concept regardless of people's opinions on marriage. With respect to the fundamentality of the essential characteristic (unmarried) vs. intent, I think you have cause and effect reversed. The reason people intend to differentiate between married and unmarried men is because being unmarried is an essential characteristic- it gives rise to other characteristics and actions which make the concept useful in the first place.

 

Here's a better explanation of what I'm trying to say, from ITOE (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/rands_razor.html):

 

It is incredibly useful to have the concept. I was thinking along the line that if the vast majority of people didn't really care about the quality of been unmarried, they would just call such a man "unmarried man" instead of bothering to make up a whole new term.

 

As for why people would care, I see what you mean about people caring/valuing the quality of been unmarried objectively. When I said people valued the quality of been unmarried subjectively, I completely forgot about that whole "Subjective vs Objective vs Intrinsic" thing. People don't value been "unmarried" subjectively just because. They value been "unmarried" at the very least due to the fact that such man is available for marriage. Such valuation based on the availability for marriage or any other facet of reality (partying/pads..etc.) would place the concern on Objective ground instead of Subjective.

 

Given that case, it does make sense then that Rule of Fundementality also applies to the definition of "Bachelor". Even if in a world where the only major difference between bachelors and married men is that bachelors are available for marriage (no difference in partying/pads..etc.), that single characteristic, "available for marriage", is dependent/linked back to the essential characteristic of been "unmarried". 

 

Since it's so obvious and simple the application of RoF in the case of "bachelor" when compared to the example of using RoF to identify the essential characteristic of human being in that lexicon excerpt, I guess I missed it. But I can see now how the same principle applies.

Edited by VECT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I

 

This last one is the relevant one. There's no mistaking what that means. It doesn't mean definitions. Like it or not, agree with it or not, it means that thing the people who created propositional logic said it means.

 

Are you planning on redefining every single word in the English language created by people you disagree with?

 

Just the ones that are wrong, and which I have the time for.  I make time for words and ideas that touch on essential philosophical issues such as "truth".

 

In this definition of tautology "a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form" what does it mean to be "true"?  I ask this because Objectivism has a theory of what truth means which is the correspondence principle, which is relating a concept or proposition back to a mind-independent reality.   Tautologies are considered as stand-alone atoms of thought.  The problem I see is that a proposition considered by itself merely relates words to words not words to reality, so it cannot claim truth but only methodological correctness.

 

The necessity referenced in the statement "that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form" is logical necessity.  The proper term for propositions arranged in proper technically correct logical forms is "valid"  not true.  A tautology can be relied upon to always be correct, but if it is composed of words that are symbols of concepts then those concepts are subject to further validation before the tautology can be accepted as true.

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...