Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Iatan Petru

Moral anomalies?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

So I posted these hypothethical scenarios on different topics, as comments, but I decided to make one about them because I am really curious about the Objectivist approach.

There are some hypothethical situations I thought about. So imagine the following :

-a friend tries to kill himself because his ex broke up with him (or some other irrational reason)

-you see a man torturing his dog (for example, keeping it chained and taking its eyes out)

-you see a stranger cutting himself

-you see someone beating up a mentally handicapped person (let's assume the handicap isn't curable nor potentially curable)

I was trying to bring examples that are emotionally disturbing because I want to make a point about the moral actions you're entitled to here.

Of course, most of us would initiate force to stop those people from doing what they're doing, wouldn't we? I mean, let's be really honest here, it is the right thing to do, clearly.

But according to Objectivism, should those people we initiated force against take legal action against us, we would be the guilty party. After all, you have the right to kill or harm yourself, and animals who can't use reason (dogs and mentally handicapped people, in this case) have no rights.

So maybe I see things in a wrong way, but here are cases where you can do something which is both moral and illegal. How can that be, under a proper Government?

I mean, should the Government sanction initiating force in order to stop those actions? Can something be both moral and illegal? And if not, why wouldn't people be able to pay the authorities to also provide services of animal protection, protection for people without rights, irrational suicide prevention etc., which would, however, clearly violate the NAP in such cases?

 

 

 

Edited by Iatan Petru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Iatan Petru said:

But according to Objectivism, should those people we initiated force against take legal action against us, we would be the guilty party.

You have three examples:

- stopping someone from harming an animal

- stopping someone from harming another human being (albeit mentally retarded)

- stopping someone from harming themselves

Except for the example of the animal, I disagree that Objectivism would say they can bring legal action. Definitely not in the case where you stop someone from harming another (mentally retarded) human;. The self-harm case would depend on the details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

# The suicide example might still be an initiation of force to do something. It's still his choice.

On the other hand, the person may be in such a state that is equal to your friend drowning in the water. Depending on his psychological state, it's closer to a medical condition and the person literally does not have any ability to make decisions. As his friend, you'd probably know if he's in trouble, or just seeking to die (even if he's irrational).

# The dog case, doing something to stop that is initiation of force. Animals don't have rights. There are other moral actions you can take, though.

# The cutting case. The person's life isn't in danger really when they cut.

# The last case, you are stopping initiation of force, so it is not itself an initiation of force. Mentally disabled people have rights, so it's not like the dog case. The capacity of reason isn't the point as far as the person is human. They are a border case in terms of rights, but being human (rights are an aspect of all humans) and still being cognitive thinkers is enough to have rights.  

 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eiuol said:

# The last case, you are stopping initiation of force, so it is not itself an initiation of force. Mentally disabled people have rights, so it's not like the dog case. The capacity of reason isn't the point as far as the person is human. They are a border case in terms of rights, but being human (rights are an aspect of all humans) and still being cognitive thinkers is enough to have rights. 

https://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4075-more-on-animal-rights?highlight=WyJhbmltYWxzIiwiYW5pbWFscyciXQ==

"As for mentally impaired people: If the problem is temporary, can be rectified, or occurs in old age alone, then they are still entitled to the right to life. If, however, a person is born with severe retardation that will never allow him to function as a rational and productive individual, then he is not entitled to rights like other individuals are."

I said that in my example, the mental condition is not curable, so that person has no rights.

 

As for the others, what I said was that acting to stop them would not be possibly considered an immoral action. What the two of you told me is  that under a proper legal system, it is illegal. But what I asked is how can an action be both moral and illegal. Most of us would act to save those people/animal without feeling guilt about what we did, maybe out of human empathy or because we're stopping a moral crime (it's an immoral act which creates a victim, so it's a crime).

So how is it possible that a proper Government may sanction a very moral action?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Iatan Petru said:

https://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4075-more-on-animal-rights?highlight=WyJhbmltYWxzIiwiYW5pbWFscyciXQ==

"As for mentally impaired people: If the problem is temporary, can be rectified, or occurs in old age alone, then they are still entitled to the right to life. If, however, a person is born with severe retardation that will never allow him to function as a rational and productive individual, then he is not entitled to rights like other individuals are."

I said that in my example, the mental condition is not curable, so that person has no rights.

That commentator is misrepresenting Rand's position. In fact, Rand's published writing does not not explore the topic in enough depth for any such commentary. However, Rand did say that mentally retarded people are entitled to rights, as if they were children.

On the legal vs. moral thing: why would stopping someone from being cruel -- let's say to a fully-functional human -- be moral? (Granted that it is legal.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

On the legal vs. moral thing: why would stopping someone from being cruel -- let's say to a fully-functional human -- be moral? (Granted that it is legal.)

Human beings have empathy, and they can relate to humans and animals to the point of resemblance. You see someone beating a puppy. Pushing that person away so that the puppy can escape is entirely moral because :

1. You acted to stop a crime. Like I said, it is an immoral act which creates a victim (even if that victim has no rights), so it is a crime.

2. It is, after all, human nature to want to intervene when an innocent is tortured by a psychopath. I mean, we can all say that animal cruelty is no philosophical issue and all that, because Rand hasn't clearly pronounced herself on this topic, but let's be 100% honest here. Is there a sane person who would not intervene, in my given example? And if we would all intervene, would the Police come for all of us? No proper philosophy would say it is immoral to do it, Objectivism just hasn't come up with an official verdict, yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Iatan Petru said:

... Is there a sane person who would not intervene, in my given example?

I doubt I would intervene beyond a verbal reproach. 

Either way, the detail you're providing boils down to an emotional "argument". Some people make similar "arguments" about people who cut down trees. Indeed, when the tree-hugger makes an environmental argument that ties back to human welfare, that's a stronger case than arguing against stray acts of animal cruelty.

Can you make the argument that intervention is more than emotional, more than empathy? Can you relate it to self-interest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, softwareNerd said:

Can you make the argument that intervention is more than emotional, more than empathy? Can you relate it to self-interest?

Well seeing innocents suffering from monstruous acts, knowing you wouldn't be able to intervene is psychological torture, but cruelty acts in public would clearly be banned because they'd fall under public disturbance.

As for self interest, I'd say it's in the self interest of individuals to keep dangerous people away from them, since  73% of animals abusers also abuse their wives and kids, according to a study made by PETA.

And let's just assume they would be no danger to other humans, I already said that it is a crime to torture animals, since it's an immoral act which creates victims. Cutting down trees, or killing animals for food and so on is not immoral because it's not irrational and it's beneficial for humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Iatan Petru said:

As for the others, what I said was that acting to stop them would not be possibly considered an immoral action. What the two of you told me is  that under a proper legal system, it is illegal. But what I asked is how can an action be both moral and illegal.

It's not moral to intervene in the ways I mentioned. And it is justified being illegal.

When it comes to victims, what matters is if someone initiated force on someone with rights. Animals lack rights, so victimhood is not an issue here. Harming animals is wrong in the sense destruction and abuse is irrational, but doing that for food is not pointless or irrational.

I assume that link before meant that mentally disabled people have rights but not like adults or kids. Not that they have no rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The part of your question that throws a curve into these otherwise obvious answers (obviously, initiating force against a fellow human is always a crime, but self harm or the harm of an animal you own is not a crime per se) is the "you see" part.

While animals don't have rights, that doesn't mean that a moral, civilized society should tolerate public acts of barbarism, anymore than it should tolerate public sex, people relieving themselves in public, etc.

While a person doesn't have the right to prevent another person from harming himself, or an animal he owns, he does have the right not to be subjected to witnessing those disturbing acts. If a person is hurting an animal or himself on his lawn, in plain view of the neighborhood, that absolutely violates the neighbors' rights, and the government should act to stop him. In fact, the neighbors themselves have the right to use force to stop the person immediately, and even rescue the animal (and never give it back...much like how property damage entitles the victim to monetary compensation, emotional damage entitles them to the emotional satisfaction rescuing the animal brings).

What the neighbors and the government don't have the right to, however, is to dictate how he behaves in his own sound proof basement, where the only way you would even know what he's doing is by violating his privacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Iatan Petru said:

Human beings have empathy, and they can relate to humans and animals to the point of resemblance. You see someone beating a puppy. Pushing that person away so that the puppy can escape is entirely moral because :

1. You acted to stop a crime. Like I said, it is an immoral act which creates a victim (even if that victim has no rights), so it is a crime.

2. It is, after all, human nature to want to intervene when an innocent is tortured by a psychopath. I mean, we can all say that animal cruelty is no philosophical issue and all that, because Rand hasn't clearly pronounced herself on this topic, but let's be 100% honest here. Is there a sane person who would not intervene, in my given example? And if we would all intervene, would the Police come for all of us? No proper philosophy would say it is immoral to do it, Objectivism just hasn't come up with an official verdict, yet.

Two points:

1. Yes, I would intervene, and I believe I should be legally entitled to intervene, for the reasons I gave in the above post. (because it's a crime against the people witnessing the act, not against an animal that has no rights).

In fact, I have intervened in such an act, rescued a stray kitten, and even threatened the teens who were trying to kill it with physical violence, a decade or so ago. I consider my actions perfectly justified, and would do the same thing, if faced with the same circumstances. I don't plan on living in a city where public displays of savagery are tolerated.

2. Objectivism did come up with an official, clear, and definitive verdict on what is and what isn't a crime: only acts that victimize another human are crimes. There is no room within Objectivist philosophy for the notion that hurting an animal is a crime in itself. It is only a crime when humans are also indirectly victimized by the act.

So yes, all these examples you're giving are crimes, but they are very minor crimes (fine worthy, at most), and only because they're public acts.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Nicky said:

So yes, all these examples you're giving are crimes, but they are very minor crimes (fine worthy, at most), and only because they're public acts.

The public disturbance aspect of them are crimes, not the suicide attemt/animals torture in themselves.

So the way I understand it, if someone tortures an animal or a person without rights or the potential to having rights in the future, or tries to kill themselves, assuming these horrible acts happen in the privacy of his house, then the authorities can't do anything to stop him. Furthermore, for people to try and stop those acts would be immoral.

I get it, and it makes sense.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Iatan Petru said:

The public disturbance aspect of them are crimes, not the suicide attemt/animals torture in themselves.

So the way I understand it, if someone tortures an animal or a person without rights or the potential to having rights in the future, or tries to kill themselves, assuming these horrible acts happen in the privacy of his house, then the authorities can't do anything to stop him. Furthermore, for people to try and stop those acts would be immoral.

I get it, and it makes sense.

 

Yes, except for the "person without rights" part. There's no such thing, in Objectivism. Every human being has rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Nicky said:

Yes, except for the "person without rights" part. There's no such thing, in Objectivism. Every human being has rights.

Well, rights are derived from our ability to reason. Kids have some sort of rights because they have clear potential of becoming men with reason.

But when there's no reason or potential for reason, how can there be rights? It's kind of a different topic but it's apparently a case where Objectivists disagree with each other.

https://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4075-more-on-animal-rights?highlight=WyJhbmltYWxzIiwiYW5pbWFscyciXQ==

"As for mentally impaired people: If the problem is temporary, can be rectified, or occurs in old age alone, then they are still entitled to the right to life. If, however, a person is born with severe retardation that will never allow him to function as a rational and productive individual, then he is not entitled to rights like other individuals are."

Again, I am aware this is a completely different subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nicky said:

While animals don't have rights, that doesn't mean that a moral, civilized society should tolerate public acts of barbarism, anymore than it should tolerate public sex, people relieving themselves in public, etc.

Hmm this is a good point that I neglected, which gave me some ideas. Public displays of anything do intervene with one's intended way of living as far as long-term planning expectations. The difficulty, I think, is precisely how to say when it's initiation of force and an impact on your ability to make decisions. It would be wrong to make inter-racial kissing illegal, so it is hard to find a principled difference - some people used to find it deeply offensive. I guess it's a matter of severity and defining barbarism precisely (as opposed to politicians who make no effort at defining offensiveness and obscenity). "Emotional damage" isn't force always.

Iatan, for a thread that has a lot to do about your questions on mental disability and rights, here's an old and really good one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Hmm this is a good point that I neglected, which gave me some ideas. Public displays of anything do intervene with one's intended way of living as far as long-term planning expectations. The difficulty, I think, is precisely how to say when it's initiation of force and an impact on your ability to make decisions. It would be wrong to make inter-racial kissing illegal, so it is hard to find a principled difference - some people used to find it deeply offensive. I guess it's a matter of severity and defining barbarism precisely (as opposed to politicians who make no effort at defining offensiveness and obscenity). "Emotional damage" isn't force always.

Hang on, are you taking Nicky's idea of "emotional damage" seriously at all? I mean, I wasn't going to respond to him directly, because even my masochism has its limits, but if you'd like to take up his standard...

Nicky asserts that someone else hurting their dog is a crime against a bystander (allowing that the bystander can see the act; there's more to suss out there, perhaps, but let's roll with a simple scenario to start). That is to say, me hurting my dog in your sight is my initiating the use of force against you. Does that sound right?

He then seems to take on some weird vigilante stance, saying, "the neighbors themselves have the right to use force to stop the person immediately, and even rescue the animal (and never give it back...much like how property damage entitles the victim to monetary compensation, emotional damage entitles them to the emotional satisfaction rescuing the animal brings)."

Are you taking up for his entire argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

Hang on, are you taking Nicky's idea of "emotional damage" seriously at all? I mean, I wasn't going to respond to him directly, because even my masochism has its limits, but if you'd like to take up his standard...

In some sense, but it's not a useful term. The point is obscenity and how it constitutes some effect on how one chooses to lead their life. That "chooses to lead their life part" is the sort of reasoning for privacy laws. A similar issue is if an airport is built next to your house, with all the noise. Or even whether people can broadcast porn on their front lawn at full blast.

You could say with regard to animals that barbarism is emotional damage, but essentially we're talking here about being in public and wanting the option to not see those things because [insert whatever major reason you want]. I think this is the point.

If this is correct, then it is okay to save a kitten from some barbaric teenagers. It's not a vigilante stance, since in that case no cops would get to that kitten in time anyway. I'm leery about obscenity laws, but they can be just. With public animal abuse, probably. I don't know the proper legal standard to stop it from applying to ANY act one deems offensive, but it can be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Iatan Petru said:

"As for mentally impaired people: If the problem is temporary, can be rectified, or occurs in old age alone, then they are still entitled to the right to life. If, however, a person is born with severe retardation that will never allow him to function as a rational and productive individual, then he is not entitled to rights like other individuals are."

This quote does not represent Rand's informally-expressed view. You may find her actual view better or worse, but the above is inaccurate. See this earlier topic for some actual quotes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

In some sense, but it's not a useful term.

The term ["emotional damage"] may be useful to Nicky, to express his meaning; that may be why he employed it in the fashion he did. I read him as saying that if his feelings are hurt by the actions of another, if he is sufficiently "disturbed" (insert your own joke here), he is entitled to employ physical force in response.

Quote

The point is obscenity and how it constitutes some effect on how one chooses to lead their life. That "chooses to lead their life part" is the sort of reasoning for privacy laws.

"Constitutes some effect on how one chooses to lead their life"? That's the standard you're proposing for determining when force in response is justified? That standard is wide enough to encompass virtually anything.

And do you think you're doing better by linking your stance to "obscenity" -- the old "I know it when I see it" routine? Not exactly the hallmark of objective law.

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

A similar issue is if an airport is built next to your house, with all the noise. Or even whether people can broadcast porn on their front lawn at full blast.

I'm aware that there are potentially many thorny issues with respect to living in proximity to other people who, if we countenance any idea of "liberty" at all, may not act precisely in the manner we wish them to act. Elsewhere and long ago (I know not where at the moment), I remember Grames discussing just such issues and referring to a doctrine called "coming to the nuisance." I don't know all of the ins and outs of that, and I've not given it sufficient consideration to have a strong opinion about it, but it seemed to me at the time (and continues to seem) to be a fairly reasonable response to items like the airport.

It may be wrong, and actionable, to build an airport next to some domestic community, destroying the sleep of its residents (which I would argue, in some sense, they have a property right to); but if someone builds his home next to a preexisting airport, tough titty said the kitty.

Let's recognize that this approach is fundamentally different from Nicky's proposal (at least as stated above), which does not have to do with "coming to the nuisance," or physically destroying someone's ability to sleep, or etc., but treading on his own sense of decorum. He grants a legal right to hurt cats, let's say, but he doesn't want to have to see it. A man could hurt cats on his own lawn (i.e. his property), and have done so for the last twenty years, but if Nicky moves in across the street tomorrow, now Nicky accords himself the "right" to intervene, "because it's a crime against the people witnessing the act." And why is it a crime? Because Nicky finds it disturbing.

Perhaps also people who find homosexuality disturbing have a case that such affection should only be expressed "in one's own sound proof basement?"

Quote

You could say with regard to animals that barbarism is emotional damage, but essentially we're talking here about being in public and wanting the option to not see those things because [insert whatever major reason you want]. I think this is the point.

The idea that, because I don't want to see a thing (for whatever "major reason"), other people ought not be allowed to do that thing is barbarism.

This entire line of argument is statism being given an Objectivist skin.

Quote

If this is correct, then it is okay to save a kitten from some barbaric teenagers. It's not a vigilante stance, since in that case no cops would get to that kitten in time anyway.

Are we playing a game, or are we taking philosophy seriously right now? You're saying you find no vigilantism in the proposal that, if someone does something which offends you (or disturbs you, or strikes you as unduly "barbaric"), that 1) you have the right to threaten/use force to get them to stop, and that 2) you get to confiscate their property, determining it to be just recompense for the "damage" they have done to you? (Because re-read Nicky's comment -- that's precisely what he's proposing.)

Quote

I'm leery about obscenity laws, but they can be just. With public animal abuse, probably. I don't know the proper legal standard to stop it from applying to ANY act one deems offensive, but it can be done.

Nope, sorry, I don't buy that without knowing the "proper legal standard" for separating the wheat from the chaff, you know that it can be done, somehow.

Edited by DonAthos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

I read him as saying that if his feelings are hurt by the actions of another, if he is sufficiently "disturbed" (insert your own joke here), he is entitled to employ physical force in response.

I dunno, I hope he'll clarify. I'll just answer with what his post lead me to think about.

1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

That standard is wide enough to encompass virtually anything.

No, that's a start to how to think about it. Indirect force (e.g., threats) in some manner constitutes in some manner stopping you from leading your life as you see fit. I didn't think I needed to state a ton more caveats, since we both know that only force is able to stop people from doing as they see fit. Fitting indirect force in there is hard, so we end up looking how or if something really does hinder you from leading your life as you see fit.

I don't feel like explaining all my reasoning on how obscenity laws -can- be legitimate. (See the link at the bottom though) I already said I am leery of such laws. I brought it up to show how it's not as obvious as it seems. Hitting someone is not the only way to initiate force, so we should at least think about if really extreme things are merely annoying, or a real barrier to how you lead your life.

You're right about the airport part and I already was thinking all of that.

1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

A man could hurt cats on his own lawn (i.e. his property), and have done so for the last twenty years, but if Nicky moves in across the street tomorrow, now Nicky accords himself the "right" to intervene

I don't think that's a fair statement. This is a very different example.

1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

Perhaps also people who find homosexuality disturbing have a case that such affection should only be expressed "in one's own sound proof basement?"

Right, so we'd need an objective definition of obscenity, just as we do for privacy.

1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

This entire line of argument is statism being given an Objectivist skin.

I want the freedom to do or not do some things [for any major reason].

Whatever you put in the brackets doesn't matter. What matters is the freedom to do it, as long as one ought to be free to do that. The reason you want that freedom motivates you, while justifying that freedom is different. Emotional harm is a motivator, the justification to intervene though is that second block of text in this post.

1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

1) you have the right to threaten/use force to get them to stop, and that 2) you get to confiscate their property, determining it to be just recompense for the "damage" they have done to you?

I think the if doesn't apply so that means 1 and 2 don't apply. I'm saying any person is allowed to do things like law enforcement would do until they arrive to stop what's going on, but it is vigilantism to pursue the assailant to their house like Batman might. You think the if does apply, in which case it is vigilantism to you

 

1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

I don't buy that without knowing the "proper legal standard" for separating the wheat from the chaff, you know that it can be done, somehow.

The Majority Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Case Reno et al. v. the American Civil Liberties Union Regarding the Communications Decency Act, June 26, 1997

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2017 at 11:02 PM, Iatan Petru said:

Well, rights are derived from our ability to reason.

It's not that simple. Concept formation is a process of induction, not deduction. I don't think just saying "derived" quite covers how the concept of rights came about.

Won't go into a lengthy description, because it's way too off topic and technical, but the main thing to know is that it involves discovering what the essence of the human species is, rather than what every individual human being that existed or will ever exist can or cannot do. There are seven billion people on the planet, every last one of them unique in some way or another. You're not going to come up with a concept of rights that considers every attribute of every last one of them. That's why abstract thinkers discard the non-essential.

If you're interested in the details, check out Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, by Ayn Rand.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DonAthos said:

I read him as saying that if his feelings are hurt by the actions of another, if he is sufficiently "disturbed" (insert your own joke here), he is entitled to employ physical force in response.

Yes, and that would be a stupid thing to say...out of context. But I said it in context, which you left out: it was in the context of the commission of a crime.

At which point, it makes perfect sense: if, in the context of the commission of a crime, someone "hurts my feelings", I am entitled to additional compensation, on top of any material damage that crime caused. (and I'm entitled to take more severe action to stop the crime, than if I wasn't being hurt on an emotional level).

Take rape, for instance: you can rape someone and cause less physical harm than if you had punched them...and yet, rape is a far more serious crime than punching someone. And, if a rape victim shoots her aggressor, civilized societies consider the shooting justified. But shooting someone to prevent one punch isn't. Why do you think that is?

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Nicky said:

 And, if a rape victim shoots her aggressor, civilized societies consider the shooting justified. But shooting someone to prevent one punch isn't. Why do you think that is?

I agree with most of what you're saying but not with this. You are morally entitled to do anything to prevent the violation of your rights, so long as you don't violate the rights of innocents (unless you're in an emergency situation). If someone says they're going to punch you and they start running towards you and you have a gun, you can shoot it. It's on them.

However, shooting them once they've punched you, assuming you know they won't do it again, is not justified, because it would be an act of revenge rather than self defense.

Edited by Iatan Petru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Iatan Petru said:

I agree with most of what you're saying but not with this. You are morally entitled to do anything to prevent the violation of your rights, so long as you don't violate the rights of innocents (unless you're in an emergency situation). If someone says they're going to punch you and they start running towards you and you have a gun, you can shoot it. It's on them.

If you want to spend the next two decades in prison, sure. You can shoot anybody, for anything. But, otherwise, no, you can't. Not in any western country I know of.

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


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×