Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Ifat Glassman

Life as an End in Itself, a Standard, and Ultimate End

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The moment you let go of happiness, you have pulled a thread that will eventually unwind the entire tapestry of your life. Life is a self-sustaining, self-generating process of action that, for man, results in happiness. So why are you treating happiness as an option? This is what I don't understand.

The life in bed is contrary to the facts of man's nature. Man needs more than that psychologically. You might say that's bad for him. Perhaps so. It's bad for man that man is mortal. But ethics cannot concern itself with such facts, only with things about which man has a choice.

You ask how we can come to know these facts. That's what induction is for. Would it be nice if Rand had laid out specific methods of psychological self-knowledge in greater detail? I suppose. I don't think it's essential to understanding her ethical framework. To say that man's ethics must rely upon facts is enough. And she does give us plenty of facts about man. We just need to work out the facts of our own unique natures to complete the process.

You mention colors as though choosing a favorite color is an ethical choice, rather than a fact of oneself that one must simply discover. As such a fact, there is no right or wrong to it, it just is. That puts it outside the realm of ethical consideration.

Existence is most certainly essential to the argument, but it entails different things at different levels of conceptual abstraction. It means one thing at the level of abstraction of living organism, it means another at the level of animal, it means another at the level of man. That's not changing the definition, but applying the same definition at different levels of abstraction. Hope this helps.

Edited by Seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The moment you let go of happiness, you have pulled a thread that will eventually unwind the entire tapestry of your life. Life is a self-sustaining, self-generating process of action that, for man, results in happiness. So why are you treating happiness as an option? This is what I don't understand.

I normal parlance this is not true of course, you can be alive and not happy. But in your parlance where existence somehow means converging to your ideal of the perfect man (which includes happiness) it's true by definition, so there is not much to argue about then, except pointing out that your definition of existence is, well, odd, and to ask how you did come up with the definition.

You ask how we can come to know these facts. That's what induction is for. Would it be nice if Rand had laid out specific methods of psychological self-knowledge in greater detail?

Don't you see the difference between these two approches:

1) To examine man in relation to the to the goal of life span maximazation to find out effective means to this established end.

2) To posit that that there is an fundamental alternative between existence and non existence, where existence means "exist as man ought to exist", and then claim that now we only have to find out how man ought to exist.

Do you see that in 1 we are led on a search in relation to a goal that if it could be established would yield an objective ethics, but in 2 we are left with the exact same question we started out with. I profess Rand aimed for 1, but had to resort to 2. You claim that 2 is some kind of advancement in ethics, but it's a redefinition of words which does not give any guidance at all. When you believe something to be good you add it to your concept of existence, but what we are intersted in is to find out what is good, and existence dosn't help us in any way whatsoever. If you think benevolence is good, then you will claim that to really exist you have to benevolent, well fine, but how do you conclude that benevolence is good in the first place. Is your critera that it seems to make people happy in general?

Regarding induction, I've given you an opportunity to show how you do this. From my last post: "Since you now included that to exists you have to be as productive as you can (not only productive to a degree that suffices to support yourself and your family), then can you please make a reduction to what man is to prove that this is true?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see 1 and 2 as the same thing expressed differently. Maybe a quick edit can clear it up:

1) To examine man in relation to the to the goal of life span maximization of the entity in question, of man, as he in fact exists to find out effective means to this established end.

2) To posit that that there is an fundamental alternative between existence and non existence, where existence means "exist as man does in fact exist", and then claim that now we only have to find out how man does in fact exist.

My reference to productiveness was included so that you would not forget its place among man's virtues. I think that is beyond dispute.

Edited by Seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let's try out the example, I Asked you to show that you had to be at your "higest [...] productive potential" (not highest) in order to exist, by reduction to the metaphysical given facts about man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you asking why metaphysically man has to exercise his potential to be productive? That should be obvious. Are you asking how much he needs to produce? As much as he can, depending on his potential. Just as you can never have "enough" rationality, safety, or longevity, you can never have "enough" wealth. Not if your life is the standard of value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me first comment om your previous post. Your collapse of 1 into 2 is a result of interpeting 1 in a way as to make it conform to 2, which would make 1 just as pointless as 2. But there is an obvious interperetation of 1 that make the difference very distinct, I and suppose you do see the difference.

Your editing of 2 as "exist as man does in fact exist" makes me believe you're some kind of Platonist. Man in the first slot are individual men of flesh and blood living on the planet earth, but the man in the second slot is an abstract ideal, so you need an ought to connect them. Otherwise your statment is a tautologi, of course man exist as man exist, he might not exist as he ought though.

Are you asking why metaphysically man has to exercise his potential to be productive? That should be obvious. Are you asking how much he needs to produce? As much as he can, depending on his potential. Just as you can never have "enough" rationality, safety, or longevity, you can never have "enough" wealth. Not if your life is the standard of value.

If you lived 500m underground hooked up to a life expecatncy maximizer solving logical puzzles then you would have a lot of saftey, longevity and use of your rational faculty, but you wouldn't be terribly productive. Or to take less extreme example, if I work 8 hours a day, that might be 80% of my productive potential, should I therefore work more? Why? Then I would forfeit other things I value. And of course I can have too much wealth if it's creation would make forfeit things I value more, like kids and love. So the questiuon stands, why should we realize our productive potential and forfeit not other potentials that we have. And what potentials should we realize? The good ones I suppse. And how do you decide those? I still want to see a method or a critera, not just assertions.

Edited by Freddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to take a different tack. Consider the indestructible robot. The indestructible robot doesn't need a code of values because it never needs to act. Its existence is guaranteed.

When a weakness is introduced, however, an entity must continually act to preserve its existence. The ultimate goal of that action is to exist - to overcome the weakness and (to the extent possible) achieve the perpetual existence of the indestructible robot. The weakness, the capacity to die, is a deficit. It creates a gap; purposeful action is what bridges that gap. Clearly that purpose depends upon the reason that action was needed in the first place. Hence, the only proper standard by which to evaluate choices of action is whether they further the preservation of existence or threaten it. Since an entity cannot ever know how much failure can occur before death occurs, it must always choose the action that furthers, not threatens, its preservation. It must continually bridge that gap as much as possible, overcome the weakness that was introduced, so as to exist. An entity's conditional nature is the weakness that the process of living action overcomes. The perfect, ultimate end of all action is existence.

Think of a line with two endpoints: 0 and 1. 0 is non-existence (death), 1 is existence (life). Every incorrect choice (failure to act correctly) moves us closer to 0; every correct choice (correct action) moves us closer to or sustains us at 1. A perfect life in which every action was chosen correctly would keep us at 1 for as long our lives could possibly last. But a series of incorrect choices would move us closer to 0 until eventually, we hit 0 and die.

So ultimately, you would be correct to assert that lifespan maximization is the standard. Given a choice between 80 years of building empires and 150 years on the life-support machine, the correct choice is to choose the machine. Choosing the empire would be irrational because, by your example, it doesn't give you the opportunity to beat the 150 years of the machine. So by the standard of value, 150 years is the better choice. If that result seems absurd, then it is only because your example is absurd. Not only did you have to introduce the machine, you had to foreclose the possibility that building an empire would enable you to amass enough wealth to live even longer than the 150-year machine would allow. Of course, this presumes that the individual could make such a choice: his unchosen psychological nature might well prevent it. In that case, the life-by-machine would not be an option.

Anyway, in reality we don't have such a machine. We each have to take purposeful action to further our existence. We need to amass as much knowledge and wealth as we can to be as safe as possible. We have to use our minds as perfectly as we can, so we have to keep them healthy and functioning. We have psychological needs that must be met. We have the need to let other minds be free, so that we can profit from them. We have alternative types of productive work from which to choose. We have metaphysically given facts about ourselves that we need to learn in order to maximize our potential and reach the greatest lifespan possible. You may point out that man has immutable characteristics that render him mortal, and that this is bad for him, and you would be correct - but as those are beyond his capacity to act to correct, they are not open to ethical consideration.

An ideal man always makes the choices that furthers his life. If immortality were a possibility open to him, the ideal man would achieve it. If not, then he would choose his actions so as to live to the greatest extent within the bounds imposed by reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am going to take a different tack. Consider the indestructible robot. The indestructible robot doesn't need a code of values because it never needs to act. Its existence is guaranteed.

If the robot has a concionesess like humans, and his mind was hardwired to have the same attitude towards pain that man have, then he would have a need to avoid pain. You would say that the robot has no need to avoid pain in relation to his continued existence, but from the value significant perspective of the robots consiuoness that wouldn't matter. Pain hurts, and that's not a rational consideration, it's an immutable fact to his conciuoness.

Humans are shaped by evolution, and evolution doesn't select on indivual survival, so our drives and emotional mechanisms (that constitute the base for value significance) are not, so to speak, optimized for guidance towards life span maximization. Sex is not a drive because it makes us live longer, but becuse it make us spread our genes. Now, I think that a biological perspective can offer some interesting insights to morality, but it does not constitue oughts. Just becuse the process that shaped us selects on the exellence of making ones genes survive, dosn't mean that man ought to pursue this.

When a weakness is introduced, however, an entity must continually act to preserve its existence. The ultimate goal of that action is to exist - to overcome the weakness and (to the extent possible) achieve the perpetual existence of the indestructible robot.

Most men value there existence as an end it itself, but it is not the only end in itself, and it can be trumped by rational concideration. From a medical point of view it might be a fact that working 16 hours a day lower your life expectancy slightly, but so what if it what it takes to build an empire? You have to show that life expectancy maximizations has any special value significance, and evolution dosn't tell us that and I have no idea how that conclusion is reached. The objectivist ethics dosn't exactly emphasis the key virtue of health eithter, even though you'd probably would be better of not smoking than being an unjust liar from a life expectancy point of view.

So ultimately, you would be correct to assert that lifespan maximization is the standard. Given a choice between 80 years of building empires and 150 years on the life-support machine, the correct choice is to choose the machine.

It is not an impossibilty for such a machine to exist, it might be far off into the future though, but there is no end to what man is capable of. Now, maybe the machine might not be built becuse it would have a hard time finding a market. The problem I see is the attitue towards this machine, you seem to say, Oh thank god there isn't such a machine so that I do not ought to hook up. That's a rather odd attitude towards the ultimate value, your attitude towards the possibilty should be, to bad there isn't such a machine, if you really value life expectancy maximization. The point here is that we can envision such a machine and we can perfectly well understand the reasons not to hook up. Isn't that somehow telling?

However, my main source of empirical back up is the fact that most people get very old (older than Ayn Rand usually), and they fall far short of converging towards your ideal. It dosn't require exellence to get old, and prudence and health awareness propbably trumps most of the objectivist virtues in impotrance. And the evilness of Mao Tse Tung wasn't that he failed to get old (becuse he did), and his evilness wasn't that he took risks with his life even thogh he probably was very safe most of the time, the evilness of Mao was that he killed a million people or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have to show that life expectancy maximizations has any special value significance, and evolution dosn't tell us that and I have no idea how that conclusion is reached. ...

The problem I see is the attitue towards this machine, you seem to say, Oh thank god there isn't such a machine so that I do not ought to hook up. That's a rather odd attitude towards the ultimate value, your attitude towards the possibilty should be, to bad there isn't such a machine, if you really value life expectancy maximization. The point here is that we can envision such a machine and we can perfectly well understand the reasons not to hook up. Isn't that somehow telling?

1. I explained perfectly well the "special value significance" of existence (which is what life expectancy maximization results in). It is that which an entity whose existence is conditional acts to achieve. Why act? In order to exist. Why exist? The answer is presupposed (if that is what you wish to question, say so, and we can investigate it in more depth - but please make that explicit).

2. My emotional attitude should not be relevant here. The discussion is intended to be rational. So, no, my attitude doesn't tell us anything. Let's stick to reason.

3. Other than that, you don't seem to question the validity of what I said - can I therefore infer that you agree with me that Rand's ethical foundation is sound?

Edited by Seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. I explained perfectly well the "special value significance" of existence (which is what life expectancy maximization is). It is that which an entity whose existence is conditional acts to achieve. Why act? In order to exist. Why exist? The answer is presupposed (if that is what you wish to question, say so, and we can investigate it in more depth - but please make that explicit).

I say it explictly then, why are you not begging the question? Men have many resons to pursue their existence but the reasons for pursuing their existence (the other ends in them selfs like kids and love and knowledge and freedom, productive career and so on) might in the end trump existence, and I see nothing wrong with this per se. That should be evident from my examples with the life span maximizer. Lying in a bed hooked up to a machine dosn't offer much value even though it maximizes our lifespan.

2. My emotional attitude should not be relevant here. The discussion is intended to be rational. So, no, my attitude doesn't tell us anything. Let's stick to reason.

I do agree, but values are in the end not manifested in things you can point to in reality, a value is manifested within your consiouness and the way to express this is with "emotional" language. Review your own expression of your ethical ideal: "[...]start with you in your highest, happiest, most glorious and productive potential and say "this is who I am, and my most solemn purpose is to preserve myself in this radiant, wonderful state.", it's not exactly a dry list of scientific facts.

3. Other than that, you don't seem to question the validity of what I said - can I therefore infer that you agree with me that Rand's ethical foundation is sound?

I belive I expressed my disagreement quite clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I say it explictly then, why are you not begging the question? Men have many resons to pursue their existence but the reasons for pursuing their existence (the other ends in them selfs like kids and love and knowledge and freedom, productive career and so on) might in the end trump existence, and I see nothing wrong with this per se. That should be evident from my examples with the life span maximizer. Lying in a bed hooked up to a machine dosn't offer much value even though it maximizes our lifespan.

I do agree, but values are in the end not manifested in things you can point to in reality, a value is manifested within your consiouness and the way to express this is with "emotional" language. Review your own expression of your ethical ideal: "[...]start with you in your highest, happiest, most glorious and productive potential and say "this is who I am, and my most solemn purpose is to preserve myself in this radiant, wonderful state.", it's not exactly a dry list of scientific facts.

I belive I expressed my disagreement quite clearly.

1. No end can trump existence. Since existence is a necessary part of all of the ends you listed, they cannot trump existence. If you do not exist, then you cannot value anything. Existence is the metaphysical fundamental. The realm of non-existence is nothing. It isn't. You try to pose values as alternatives to existence, but to do so you must ultimately enter the realm of non-existence and cease to exist - and your values along with you. No value can trump existence.

2. I used emotive language in an attempt to reach your sense of life, hoping that it might draw your attention to the rational ideas on which those emotions are based. Since that didn't work, I won't try it again. I will say that values most certainly are manifested in things you can point to in reality. Are you saying that your emotions are not real, or that they are not based on your ideas of reality? Surely not. Surely we can agree that everything that makes your values possible, including you, exists in reality, that there is no other basis for you to value anything. What you propose is to take your emotions as irreducible primaries, hence ends in themselves, which they are not. They are, instead, a gauge of your success judged rationally in the context of reality. Success means successful action, and there is only one ultimate goal for your action - it is to exist, because you are a conditional being who must act to go on existing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. No end can trump existence. Since existence is a necessary part of all of the ends you listed, they cannot trump existence. If you do not exist, then you cannot value anything. Existence is the metaphysical fundamental. The realm of non-existence is nothing. It isn't. You try to pose values as alternatives to existence, but to do so you must ultimately enter the realm of non-existence and cease to exist - and your values along with you. No value can trump existence.

We have to look at the goal implied by existence, if we agree that existence implies life span maximization, then other ends can trump life span maximization and therefore existence. To have existence as ultimate value only means that you value everything else as a means to proloning your existence. But there is no metaphysical necessity to do this, it's a choice, and most people (quite rationally if you ask me) don't choose to do this, that is, they don't hook up to the life expectancy maximizer.

2. I used emotive language in an attempt to reach your sense of life, hoping that it might draw your attention to the rational ideas on which those emotions are based. Since that didn't work, I won't try it again.

And you should not have to do this if you could point to objectively verifiable facts that would imply your conclusions. Instead you posited an ethical ideal of yours in emotiove language, but men in general does not have a problem stating an ethical ideal, but the ability to do this is not a justification as such.

I will say that values most certainly are manifested in things you can point to in reality. Are you saying that your emotions are not real, or that they are not based on your ideas of reality?

They exist in the realm of conciouness, which is outside of other mens experience, they do not exist in the "outer world" as facts to be pointed out. Values are also dependent on an emotive mechanism to be recognized, concider a psychopath without the ability to feel empathy, he cannot rationally understand ethical reasoning concerning respect for others as ends in them selfs. My belief is that my concioness is born out of my brain which exists as a piece of meat in reality, but the consiuoness itself does not exist in reality in the same way as the brain, you cannot point and say: "look there is Bill Clintons consiuoness". You can observe his brain and that's all.

[...]there is only one ultimate goal for your action - it is to exist, because you are a conditional being who must act to go on existing.

This is a choice as I pointed out above, and I await a justification for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want a rational answer as to why you ought to prefer reality, but your demand is impossible (and therefore irrational). We cannot logically debate such a point. Our cognitive faculties exist in order for us to evaluate reality. Reason presupposes existence. Reality is presupposed by every act of cognition. There is no rational way for me to prove to you that you ought to prefer to exist. It simply cannot be done. I cannot tell you why you ought to exist, or that you ought to go on existing. Every one of your values presupposes that you exist in order to value it, but I cannot prove to you that you ought to exist or to have values. Reason cannot answer such a question. It is beyond the realm of rational consideration. Your will to live is a primary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You want a rational answer as to why you ought to prefer reality, but your demand is impossible (and therefore irrational). We cannot logically debate such a point. Our cognitive faculties exist in order for us to evaluate reality. Reason presupposes existence. Reality is presupposed by every act of cognition. There is no rational way for me to prove to you that you ought to prefer to exist. It simply cannot be done. I cannot tell you why you ought to exist, or that you ought to go on existing. Every one of your values presupposes that you exist in order to value it, but I cannot prove to you that you ought to exist or to have values. Reason cannot answer such a question. It is beyond the realm of rational consideration. Your will to live is a primary.

Everyone of my values presupposes that I exist, but they by no means presuppose that I have life span maximization as my ultimate goal. You say you cannot give me a reason for why I should have this ultimate goal, but I can give you a reson for why I don't. I just point the fact that the life expectancy maximizer doesn't seem to offer me much of value, and then I point to ends in themselfs that make my life worth living and that I would have to forfiet those values if I hooked up to the machine, and If you do not understand those reasons then we have to agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone of my values presupposes that I exist, but they by no means presuppose that I have life span maximization as my ultimate goal. You say you cannot give me a reason for why I should have this ultimate goal, but I can give you a reson for why I don't. I just point the fact that the life expectancy maximizer doesn't seem to offer me much of value, and then I point to ends in themselfs that make my life worth living and that I would have to forfiet those values if I hooked up to the machine, and If you do not understand those reasons then we have to agree to disagree.

To rephrase, the life expectancy maximizer doesn't seem to give you much of value, and you can point to yourself and your immutable, unchosen nature - the facts of which you can validate through a process of instrospection - and that you would have to forfeit yourself and your life if you were hooked up to the machine. In other words, you are acting out of self-preservation, and the life expectancy maximizer would not serve to maximize your existence as you, because your life means something more than that, because of facts about you. I see nothing wrong with this. You can't help being you, so there's no ethical problem then, is there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To rephrase, the life expectancy maximizer doesn't seem to give you much of value, and you can point to yourself and your immutable, unchosen nature - the facts of which you can validate through a process of instrospection - and that you would have to forfeit yourself and your life if you were hooked up to the machine. In other words, you are acting out of self-preservation, and the life expectancy maximizer would not serve to maximize your existence as you, because your life means something more than that, because of facts about you. I see nothing wrong with this. You can't help being you, so there's no ethical problem then, is there?

GOTO: #150.

I've proposed two intrpreataions of Rands argument and I belive both are fundamentally wrong. The first one (life span maximization) gives you an objective criteria for ethics that is absurd, the second one (where existence means "exist as ought as man ought to exist") is vacous and just leaves us with the same questions as we started out with. So let me propose my own views before I withdraw from the discussion.

I believe there are many separate ends in themself, there is not one ultimate end that all other ends are means to. Man has the ability to recognize ends, and in the end have to trust his own ability to do this, there are no facts of reality that will tell him if his right or wrong. To take an example I used before, a psychopath dosn't possess the ability to feel empathy, you cannot point to the ethical fact that man is an end in himself and that it is therefore not rational not to kill a man. The psycopath may be very intelligent, but that dosn't help, becuase we are not talking about means to ends, we are not talking science, we are talking about an ethical facts that can only be recognized if you posess the right faculty. A normal person can just "see" that killing is wrong, it's not wrong becuse it's bad for business or becuse you might get caught or becuse of any self intersted reason, it's wrong becuse we can recognize the fact that man is an end in himself, and this recognition requires empathy. In the very end ethics is reduced to different sentiments, and there is nothing we can do about it.

That dosn't preclude rational disussion about ethics becuse not all values are ends in themselfs and you can often point to misstaken means. If you are discussing with a communist you can point to the failure of communism to underline the that it cannot be what he really thinks is a great political system for man. If he claims that he really do think Cambodja was a great country under Pol Pot, then he is a case to deal with by force when he go about implementing this ideal.

I submit that this is a somewhat fragile ground for ethics becuse disagreement is common, but it is the best I can do and after the discussion here I conclude that Objectivism cannot help me improve on this foundation. This existence thing strikes me as rethorics to support a preconcievd ideal. None of the version of Rands meta ethical argument I posited above will support Rands conclusions, and I havn't yet seen one that does.

With this I conclude my discussion here, I think is was very illuminating albeit a bit frustrating :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry that I wasn't able to make you understand what I mean. I can assure you, I expressed myself with the greatest clarity I could.

You posit criminals and dictators as examples; as I said, they are bad and they are exceptions, to be dealt with by force when necessary. They are not exponents of ethics and they do not disprove Rand's ethical foundation.

I don't know how much clearer I can be: when you interpret me as saying "exist as man ought to exist", I am not saying what you think I am saying. I am not saying that there is some nebulous Platonic ideal to strive for, just the opposite. I am saying that you are what you are (the law of identity, A is A) and that there are objective facts about your identity that you cannot escape. Values do not exist in a vacuum. Things are of value, to you. I am suggesting that it very well may be that you have perfectly justifiable reasons for valuing the things that you value, based upon the facts of your nature. I could be wrong -- they might be arbitrary whims with no basis in reality. I don't know, however, why you would profess that those are your values, and admit that spending the rest of your life in bed would be a sacrifice, unless there was something within you that compelled you to value those things. I think that YOU are the root of your values, and that therefore YOU are the ultimate end that you are pursuing, whether you realize it or not. What I am trying to get you to do is to introspect, figure out what the reasons are for your feelings, and connect them to the facts that you know about reality. I didn't say it would be easy. Now we are into the realm of induction, with imperfect methods of knowledge, and the best we can do is the best we can do, in validating our knowledge in a given context. But this is a far cry better than giving in to subjectivism, mysticism, or whatever other irrational philosophy you choose to entertain.

Edited by Seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But there is no metaphysical necessity to do this, it's a choice, and most people (quite rationally if you ask me) don't choose to do this, that is, they don't hook up to the life expectancy maximizer.

Ok, that concession has gone on too long. There is no such thing, and even if there was one would have to work in order to procure one, one would have to gain the wealth necessary to be able to pay for it, not to mention the fact that a person would go insane if they laid in a bed all day long for years solving Su Doku puzzles, which would lead to their demise, which would defeat the whole purpose of a "life expectancy maximizer." You have to realize that a man has to live/survive by use of his mind, any other way will lead to failure and death, so while "lifespan" is one important value, and what one should strive for, it doesn't come at the expense of man's mind, for man. A man's existence is not merely his bodily functions, nor his metabolism, nor his heart beating. Man's existence is existence of the mind, and one must feed the mind as well as the body. One's goal is to exist as long as possible, for the purpose of attaining values to sustain that life. Life isn't automatic, so one can not strive for an automatic life. When one "achieves" a "life" like that, one has achieved stagnation, which is death.

I will not be posting anymore in this thread, it is utter nonsense, so don't expect a reply.

Good day.

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.

×