Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Craig24

It's unfair to some children to read bedtime stories to yours.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Reading to Children at Bedtime: ABC questions value of time-honoured practice

 

“Evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t — the difference in their life chances — is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t,” British academic Adam Swift told ABC presenter Joe Gelonesi.

 

Gelonesi responded online: “This devilish twist of evidence surely leads to a further conclusion that perhaps — in the interests of levelling the playing field — bedtime stories should also be restricted.”

 

 

This is the kind of story I'd expect from the Onion.  Sadly, this is real.  More from the ABC site:

‘I got interested in this question because I was interested in equality of opportunity,’ he says.

 

‘I had done some work on social mobility and the evidence is overwhelmingly that the reason why children born to different families have very different chances in life is because of what happens in those families.’

 

Once he got thinking, Swift could see that the issue stretches well beyond the fact that some families can afford private schooling, nannies, tutors, and houses in good suburbs. Functional family interactions—from going to the cricket to reading bedtime stories—form a largely unseen but palpable fault line between families. The consequence is a gap in social mobility and equality that can last for generations.

 

So, what to do?

 

According to Swift, from a purely instrumental position the answer is straightforward.

 

‘One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.’

 

 

Anyone with an advantage of any kind, by all means give it up.  Give it up for the sake of those who don't possess it.  If you are 6' 5" then chop off your legs until you are the same height as the shortest person. Any questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheer evil. Having enough smarts to be in their current position, they must know they're advocating bringing people down in order to achieve more equality.

 

A more benevolent, but conventionally altruistic, person would say something like:  "The government/charity should provide some alternative for kids who do not get bedtime stories". The idea is: "lift them up". 

 

One can even understand egalitarians would favor redistribution because they think the pie is fixed: take the pie and share it out equally. 

 

But, to advocate taking something away from some kids, when that value is in no way transmitted to anyone else, is a pure destruction of value. There's no way a person suggesting this does not get it, even if it is not in these exact terms. They're advocating the destruction of value (i.e. the destruction of the good). And this is the good, as they see it: they see value in such bed-time stories. Yet, they'd rather see the good destroyed, for the sake of equality.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The long road to Egalitarianism is still churning down it's path.  And yet I'm still surprised to see such an evil thing jump off the page at me. 

 

At least they so called intellectuals are no longer pretending to be doing this out of "caring".  The truth is they want to smash and as they run out of excuses or people willing to lift harder they will turn to such viciousness.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. Except that's not what the article is advocating. Adam Swift, the professor mentioned in the quote you present, is explaining the position of Plato in The Republic. He doesn't favor this position. He says basically, here's one position, I think that's a bad idea.

‘Nearly everyone who has thought about this would conclude that it is a really bad idea to be raised by state institutions, unless something has gone wrong,’ he [swift] says.

He also doesn't say that bedtime stories should be restricted.

‘You have to allow parents to engage in bedtime stories activities, in fact we encourage them because those are the kinds of interactions between parents and children that do indeed foster and produce these [desired] familial relationship goods.’

‘We do want to defend the family against complete fragmentation and dissolution,’ he says. ‘If you start to think about a child having 10 parents, then that’s looking like a committee rearing a child; there aren’t any parents there at all.’

The article says he actually agrees with Aristotle and is setting out to make an analytical defense of the family, and that flourishing and well-being of family members regardless of economic status are his goals.

So yeah. Good job on another non-thinking knee-jerk Randroid reaction to imaginary leftist straw men. Here's a good virtue for us to follow: actually try to read the articles and understand the points of view that you are criticizing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I've seen this article before. It's horrible.

 

There is literally no grounds on which to negotiate with people like this. There are no words that can refute this argument in a way that can reach these people. The only response is to condemn them as evil.

 

I mean, I'll talk to a progressive, but something like this is so far beyond the pale, there's no point.

Edited by Eamon Arasbard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, I'll talk to a progressive, but something like this is so far beyond the pale, there's no point.

Their concept of the proper role of government is so messed up that they feel the need to justify parents' bed-time stories by saying that the parent does more than just read, they build a relationship with the child. Meanwhile, if a parent wants to do something for a kid that does not strengthen such a bond, they consider that beyond the justifiable rights of the parent. According to them, a parent who wants to send his kid to private school is not really strengthening the familial bond by doing so. So, by the terms of their evil philosophy, they find no way to justify this. 

 

In simple terms they're saying: parents may be allowed to provide services if nobody else can provide those services and if we have no way to seize those values from that particular parent and redirect it to another kid. So, if a parent sends their kid to private school, that's a situation where they would seize is money and spend it on a $30K DC school-district "education" instead.

It is interesting too that stories like this would be shrugged off as not such a big deal. It speaks to how even people who disagree and who would argue for rights, have been bombarded with so much altruism that they shrug off something like this as a somewhat natural extension of the argument. 

 

I have read many a bed-time story and I have never ever thought about other kids while doing so. pretty sad to think these guys feel even a little twinge of guilt over something like that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, to advocate taking something away from some kids, when that value is in no way transmitted to anyone else, is a pure destruction of value. There's no way a person suggesting this does not get it, even if it is not in these exact terms. They're advocating the destruction of value (i.e. the destruction of the good). And this is the good, as they see it: they see value in such bed-time stories. Yet, they'd rather see the good destroyed, for the sake of equality.

Did anyone read the ABC article linked? Swift agrees that Plato's idea is bad. No one advocated some kind of Maoist family-hating or a world like Plato's Republic.

 

"Intuitively it doesn’t feel right, but for a philosopher, solutions require more than an initial reaction. So Swift and his college Brighouse set to work on a respectable analytical defence of the family, asking themselves the deceptively simple question: ‘Why are families a good thing exactly?’"

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The zinger is much more blatent in Tim Blair's article than Joe Gelonesi's.

 

Swift said parents should be mindful of the advantage provided by bedtime reading.

 

“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said.

 

Parents should be mindful of the advantage(s) provided by bedtime reading, or any other activity or enrollment they employ to provide their child with the greatest potential for happiness and success in life.

 

As to even entertaining that they may be giving their child  a "leg up" on other children, the only thought should be how to best equip their child to deal with this "spilled milk" mentality.

If this is what Swift meant, then Tim did a poor job of teasing it out of him and elaborating on it.

 

Edited: added

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone read the ABC article linked?

Here's a good virtue for us to follow: actually try to read the articles and understand the points of view that you are criticizing.

Back at you. From the ABC article:

"Swift in particular has been conflicted for some time over the curious situation that arises when a parent wants to do the best for her child but in the process makes the playing field for others even more lopsided.

[...]

I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back at you. From the ABC article:

Sure. I mean, there is a disadvantage, to not be read to as a kid. He doesn't say there needs to be egalitarian measures to "fix" it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure. I mean, there is a disadvantage, to not be read to as a kid. He doesn't say there needs to be egalitarian measures to "fix" it. 

Both columnist leave it hanging, quietly implying that there needs to be an egalitarian measure to "fix" it.

 

Again, if Swift was more explicit in recommending a solution elsewhere, neither columnist teased it out. Where does this leave the less savvy reader? How does this differ from Jim Taggert "balancing himself between word and intonation to hit the right degree of semi-clarity" allowing the recipient to import a sense of guilt proportional to the degree that he holds an altruistic premise?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid, you're missing the principles for the concretes. 

Not sure what I missed. I think DreamWeaver has the right idea: poor interview. Sure, I'd criticize the sentence of slight guilt-inducing, but that's not the main idea. The main idea looks like 1) the advantage of reading books to one's kids is good, 2) parents and/or family do it well, 3) be aware that some kids are worse off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what I missed. I think DreamWeaver has the right idea: poor interview. Sure, I'd criticize the sentence of slight guilt-inducing, but that's not the main idea. The main idea looks like 1) the advantage of reading books to one's kids is good, 2) parents and/or family do it well, 3) be aware that some kids are worse off.

Actually #1 and #2 do not qualify as main ideas from these philosophers. They are assuming these to be true premises, but this is not their own idea. if this was all they said, there would be no article, and no philosophy either. Even #3 is not their major contribution. 

 

But, let me put this differently: do you think the philosophers would be happy if they saw those three points as the summary of their findings/research/contribution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concretely the article argues to abolish private education:

 

For Swift, there’s one particular choice that fails the test.

 

‘Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods,’ he says. ‘It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realise these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school.’

 

[...]

 

‘We could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to healthy family relationships...'

 

Otherwise, and while it gives a halfhearted endorsement to bedtime reading ("acceptable familial relationship goods"), it does much damage by buying in wholeheartedly to the egalitarian notion that outcomes must be equal, in the name of "fairness."

 

Further, it calls into question the very notion of whether people should have any natural right to parent their own biological offspring:

 

For Swift and Brighouse, our society is curiously stuck in a time warp of proprietorial rights: if you biologically produce a child you own it.

 

‘We think that although in practice it makes sense to parent your biological offspring, that is not the same as saying that in virtue of having produced the child the biological parent has the right to parent.’

 

I don't know how long these "acceptable familial relationship goods" such as bedtime reading, would stand up, if a person thought that the family as such was an antiquated notion, and that supposedly unfair advantages like private education ought to be abolished on principle.  Seems to me that private schools would just be the first domino to fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not arguing for abolishing private education. I can see how you might think that by the wording, especially if one is approaching it with a preconceived ideological point of view. But he's making an argument by reference to a test he refers to as familial relationship goods. He says elite private schooling can't be justified in terms of that test. In ordinary language, in other words, one does not have to be able to afford elite private education in order to provide healthy family relationships. A pretty straightforward point. The article actually makes no reference to public policy at all, except to refute the communist solution of Plato.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all respect, and I mean that since I don't think I've ever disagreed with you, but I think you're missing the big picture.  

 

The author could have written the article about anything and anyway he wanted.  This is the argument and approach he chose. 

 

In this case the article frames and discusses the issue in a way of ultimately sanctioning the fundamentals of egalitarianism.  The title does this alone.  The altruistic premise throughout the peace is left unquestioned.  

 

The "family unit" is not some member of the non-entity "society" that is a viable discussion of ethical purpose, "goods", or political outputs.  As far as ethics, goods, and politics the family or society do not exist.  Individuals do and individual choices are not subject to collective group debate or worse - justification.  Yes, he disagrees with some conclusions but the author intentionally put them in there in the first place to discuss then white washes the issue with compromised agreement on the collectivist ethical concern but not the concrete solution he held up.

 

The ethical duty that an individual should be concerned with the welfare of others is not questioned and all the article does is say at best: this will not produce the right results.  From here the compromise is between and one step closer.  The author endorsed the ethics, put out policy ideas that are extreme egalitarianism, then backed off the extreme in but left the middle ground for us to lurch towards while handing them the rhetoric high ground.

 

This is how we have slid from Capitalism to a mixed economy to the Welfare State and it is how we will continue to the endgame.  

 

My reaction was knee jerk enough my man! 

Edited by Spiral Architect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not arguing for abolishing private education. I can see how you might think that by the wording, especially if one is approaching it with a preconceived ideological point of view. But he's making an argument by reference to a test he refers to as familial relationship goods. He says elite private schooling can't be justified in terms of that test. In ordinary language, in other words, one does not have to be able to afford elite private education in order to provide healthy family relationships. A pretty straightforward point. The article actually makes no reference to public policy at all, except to refute the communist solution of Plato.

 

Right.  This "test" is being applied because it is seen as a problem that some children have advantages over others.  The fact that a healthy family (with activities like reading) provides advantages over the lack of same is supposed to call into question whether or not families and those activities should be supported or regulated/curbed in a society which tries to "level the playing field."

 

Family units are deemed questionable.  Activities like reading together are given a pass according to this ad hoc test, but private education is not, and offered up as something we can sacrifice in the name of egalitarianism.  That's the meaning.  That's why they are discussing private education at all.  "Is it something we can get rid of to better promote equality?"  Yes, says this article.

 

And by the way, while you're making reference to "preconceived ideological point of view," you'd do well to consider your own, which I believe is blinding you to the meaning of this article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concretely the article argues to abolish private education:

Yes. I guess some others here think that is excessive "reading between the lines". (It might make a more interesting thread: "When is it valid to read between the lines?")

Anyhow, Swift he has said explicitly elsewhere that "elite private schools" should not be allowed to exist.

 

... it does much damage by buying in wholeheartedly to the egalitarian notion that outcomes must be equal,...

True, but you're being generous. When we judge people, I think we should take their context into account. Just as we make special leeway for ignorant kids; professional philosophers (and perhaps intellectuals like journalists) should be held to a higher standard, because they ought to be better educated about the various ideas in the field. A lay-person might buy into a prevailing ethical idea because they have not spent the time studying the options.

Guys like Swift have no excuse. His genre (not him, but philosophers who think like he does... particularly those who are more popular) are the ones who keep alive about half the evil ideas within modern westernized societies. When COSTCO throw

 

I don't know how long these "acceptable familial relationship goods" such as bedtime reading, would stand up, ... ...

Though Swift says that these relationships produce value for the kids, that is not his ultimate justification. Otherwise, one could easily make the same argument in favor of "elite private schools". He justifies parents giving kids a value by saying the value would not be available elsewhere. He knows he can grab tuition fees from one parent and give it to another, but if he tries to force that parent to go read to another child it won't work out too well.

Swift uses society as the ultimate moral beneficiary of action. In his ideal world, the sum total of societal values (fuzzy concept, but stick with it) should be maximized. Then, within that maximization, that value should be divided up equally (or perhaps "to each according to his need").

So, Swift would allow parents to read stories to kids because it gives them value, but really it is because it increases the total value to society.

Now, we're left with the second issue: this kid grows up and earns more than the kid who did not have stories read to him. It's obvious how Swift would tackle that, but 2046 would probably object, saying it is "stupid" to give it anything more than a reading that an 8th grader would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly, there is much to be said for academic language versus ordinary language meaning, and I think it's a valid argument to say that academics should strive for concision and everyday language. That being said, I don't think the authors mean what objectivists mean with a lot of what you guys have pointed to. For example, the title "unfair advantage" I don't think is egalitarian code speak for sneaking in altruism and a "duty to live for others," I mean I just saw a YouTube ad for weightlifters getting an "unfair advantage" by using their product. People use that phrase in ways other than what Rand would mean by criticizing "hatred of the good."

I don't think families and societies "don't exist." I think they do, and saying they don't is whacky, quite frankly. Saying they exist is not to say they are emergent entities or some kind of organisms or something. I think you are seeing reds under the bed here.

There's nothing wrong with being concerned about the welfare of others either. Saying that we ought to be, or even having some sort of "under tone" of being concerned about the welfare of others does not imply altruism. One can justify concern for the welfare of others from an ethical egoist point of view and does not imply any sort of sacrifice or duty. Again, reds under the bed.

Yes family units are deemed questionable. By Plato. At the beginning of the article. And that's what Prof Swift is arguing against.

So there's nothing wrong with saying, hey, there's good arguments and there's bad arguments. If the author is saying one thing, and that's a bad argument, then it's wrong. If he's saying private schools should be abolished, and so forth, then hey that's wrong. If he means something else, and is in fact an Aristotelian arguing for the family and in favor of book reading and opposing the viewpoint you don't like, then hey, the article is downright libertarian and individualistic.

But what we can be clear about is this: the OP in this forum tried to make it look like the Professor wanted to abolish the family and have communistic child rearing, and in fact, the article explicitly is against that. That's wrong. Like ethically wrong. And you shouldn't do it. And also, practically no one outside of weird Maoists holds that viewpoint. Trying to pretend otherwise just makes you crankish. This is how communism happens, man!

So there's another argument to be made against what can be called Randroidism here, that is, against this kind of echo chamber of reading altruism and man hating egalitarians around every corner, reading the most uncharitable interpretation in order to find the ghosts you are looking for, throwing around red meat in order to heroically defeat straw men, and refusing to see the other point of view or even read the article, throwing around click baiting quotes that are brazenly out of context. It all contributes to what seems to me like the GOPization of objectivism. And I don't think that's good. Maybe I'm not allowed to say that, maybe some people's sensitive minds need to be protected from such "insulting" points of view. Well delete it then. Life is too short.

But in any event, saying "no what about your preconceived notions man" is spectacularly missing the point. The point is argumentation ethics are slipping and need to be upheld. Rand would have nothing with what is going on in here. There is something called the ideological Turing test, in which a partisan is required to explain the opposing argument to a point of satisfaction from the point of view of the other party, or to the point that a neutral observer couldn't tell the difference between the two parties. I think very few people in this thread could pass that test. And that's bad.

Edit: and of course I'm not opposed to reading someone's argument above an 8th grade level. I'm not opposed to considering various interpretations of someone's argument, especially when it seems written in vague language. And I'm not opposed to taking into account other statements made in other contexts when considering those interpretations. What I am opposed to is reading things into what people say beyond what they actually said. That's called making shit up.

Edited by 2046

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For now:

2046 said:

There is something called the ideological Turing test, in which a partisan is required to explain the opposing argument to a point of satisfaction from the point of view of the other party, or to the point that a neutral observer couldn't tell the difference between the two parties. I think very few people in this thread could pass that test. And that's bad.

This is pretty much impossible to do with someone who's position involves a contradiction (without a huge level of sincerity and self esteem) because as soon as one states the actual meaning of what the contradictory position is, in the type of language that does not lend itself to the psyco-epistemic methods that accompany such misintegrated cognition, the mis-integrated one shouts "misrepresentation!". The very psycho-epistemology that lead to such linguistic-conceptual fog prevents the misintegrator from recognizing a clear expression of their own contradiction as corresponding to their own fog. Edited by Plasmatic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually #1 and #2 do not qualify as main ideas from these philosophers. They are assuming these to be true premises, but this is not their own idea. if this was all they said, there would be no article, and no philosophy either. Even #3 is not their major contribution.

That is all they said. You seem to be saying "those premises are boring, so the interviewee is being sneaky and trying to trick us". Nope, it's just that simple. Anything else I saw posted is a strawman. Criticize it fairly, by what was said. There are criticisms to be made, yes, but is he the second coming of Mao? Hardly. All I saw here so far was seeing the word "advantage" and immediately went to talking about it as though he is advocated for a world like Anthem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The opening paragraph to another citation the broadcast.
 
According to a professor at the University of Warwick in England, parents who read to their kids should be thinking about how they’re “unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children” by doing so. In an interview with ABC Radio last week, philosopher and professor Adam Swift said that since “bedtime stories activities . . . do indeed foster and produce . . . [desired] familial relationship goods,” he wouldn’t want to ban them, but that parents who “engage in bedtime-stories activities” should definitely at least feel kinda bad about it sometimes:
 
And if you dig deeper on Adam Swift, you find similar sentiments echoed here by myself and others on National Parents Organization blog
 
Of course Swift’s assumptions are many and mostly wrong. For example, he would prohibit private schooling under the assumption that all private schools are better than all public schools, a patently false notion. He then changes “private” schools to “elite” schools. But whatever the word, it’s clear that Swift would simply rid the world of all private schools, or at least the good ones. So under his rule, here in the U.S., it’s “bye-bye” to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and hundreds more private institutions for students of all ages. Would those institutions cavil a bit at being required to close their doors due to an entire absence of students? Could be. But that’s another practical matter that doesn’t concern the philosophers.
 

or the Philosophy Society Talk

 

In his book How Not to be a Hypocrite, Professor Swift separates out the two distinct issues of what the rules that govern society should be, and how we should behave given that the rules exist as they do. Applying this to the issue of private schools, it could be that private schools shouldn’t be allowed to exist BUT that parents are justified in sending their children there because they do exist. Justifications could include the need to avoid really bad schools. But perhaps then parents should only send their children to average private schools? The issue is complex. Professor Swift is currently co-authoring another book called Family Values on children’s and parents’ rights. Is the family as an institution justified? Some philosophers, such as Plato, believe that some children are better raised outside of families. Professor Swift said that he knew he needed a theory of the family when he noticed that he was opposed to the idea of elite private schools but not opposed to the idea of parents reading their children bedtime stories. Why should one be objectionable, but not the other?

 

a wikipedia page mentions he specializes in debates surrounding liberal egalitarianism.

 

Now the wikipedia page does not specify if he specialized in debates advocating or opposing it, but the small sampling gathered from these couple of searches so far suggests that the OP is pretty spot-on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now the wikipedia page does not specify if he specialized in debates advocating or opposing it, but the small sampling gathered from these couple of searches so far suggests that the OP is pretty spot-on.

Insofar as he cares about Rawlsian distributive justice (see the powerpoint in that last link), he's wrong, but it's not extreme as wanting to directly control what parents do, aside from maybe private schools. So, it's not spot on to say he is trying to forcibly equalize anyone. The implications of egalitarianism lead that way, but that's different than saying Swift argues for it. Maybe he'd change his mind. Still, I think this is better - we have better sources to look at now. DailyTelegraph, not really so good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is something called the ideological Turing test, in which a partisan is required to explain the opposing argument to a point of satisfaction from the point of view of the other party, or to the point that a neutral observer couldn't tell the difference between the two parties. I think very few people in this thread could pass that test. And that's bad.

 

What in reality is the cognitive usefulness of the "ideological Turing test" as you explain it other than merely to parrot, the "words" used to express the position of the opposition:  note that some positions are wrong, incoherent, illogical, based on false premises etc.  What purpose does it serve for the "partisan" as you put it, to pretend to hold wrong positions, or pretend to possess concepts which are incoherent, pretend to "think" in a manner which is illogical, or pretend to hold false premises?

 

Certainly during a discourse one can "repeat" what another has said, even outline their premises and logic (with all its flaws) in order to ensure you have the whole story before you proceed to decimate it (when wrong) or applaud it (when correct), but in the larger scheme who cares whether a "partisan" would or could "pretend" (and there is no doubt about it, this test is about pretending, not merely understanding) to support the other side ? 

 

Simply put, pretending achieves nothing, and it's not bad that people are not willing or interested to do so.

 

 

Pretend to Support the following (Anselm's ontological argument) and you will note how ridiculous and irrelevant such an exercise is (I'm not actually asking you to do this as I believe it is a waste of time, I merely want to illustrate such is a waste of time):

 

  1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
  2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
  3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
  4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
  5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
  6. Therefore, God exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×