Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Wealth from others = slavery?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Ok, so your understanding is that Rand defined force as only physical?

That is what force is, yes. Obviously, I cannot prove that Rand never defined it in any other way (I can't even claim to know for sure, since I haven't read everything), but I am as close as can be to sure that she did not.

I've read a lot of relevant passages, and I just haven't seen anything like that. Also, I just can't imagine that she would take a word that defines Mr. Newton's discovery in such an elegant manner, and use it to mean something other than this metaphysical concept.

However, proving me wrong (if anybody has any reason to think I'm wrong) would be the easiest thing in the world. Just quote the alternate definition, from Rand.

One thing she may have done is say use of force when she meant "use of force and the threat of force". But those two are (if the word threat is properly interpreted) interchangeable: the threat of force is in fact the use of force. (threat being a promise of using force that has a significant chance of being implemented)

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't think Ayn Rand defined force in a moral context. (nor do I think it would be useful to define it that way, thus "overwriting" the actual definition) The way I understand Objectivism, she used it as a metaphysical concept, meaning "physical force".

Obviously, in the context of politics, we are talking about "force inflicted directly or originated by a human being", but that isn't part of the definition of force. It is just the type of force that is relevant in a political context, because politics is the study of human interaction.

However, the nature of the force humans apply, and of the force a falling tree would apply are the same, so there is no reason for a separate definition.

Force is physical, but it has ethical implications to man's life, because it robs man of his only means to direct his life: his mind. When force is used, it can be different from the actual acceleration of one body (a tree) into another (the ground). If someone slugs you, there is obvious physical contact; there is actual force. But if a menacing stranger points a gun at you or someone makes threats against you, that is also force, because you are faced with the same inability to use your mind to escape it. The aggressor is giving you no choice: deal with me or else. Just because the force is implied and isn't taking place immediately, it doesn't make it any less of a threat to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we take it all a step further?

Rand has certainly described work as both physical and intellectual, labor and thought. Things can be converted. Additionally, the "currency" of work, labor and thought, can be many different things also.

In Atlas Shrugged, I know there are references of having a gun pointed at one when there was no physical gun, a machine designed to hurl an object at speed, at the characters. Often that reference was based on union wages, taxes, and other issues.

It always goes back to freedom, right?

If another threatens, should one not doubt the honestly of a threat? The actual reality of that of force if imposed?

Edited by SD26
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

The only relevant force is man-made force, whereas the "force" being exerted on your hypothetical man are the metaphysical facts necessary for his existence. Suppose, as I've said elsewhere, that he's stuck on a desert island and his only option for survival is harvesting coconuts and fishing? Is he a slave *then*? To whom?

No, of course he's not a slave, the idea would be ridiculous. But by not understanding such things as the distinction between the metaphysical and the man-made and how that relates to the requirements for human survival, you're conflating a man-made condition (slavery) with a metaphysical one (need to produce). Outside its proper context, the term slavery is *meaningless*.

Let's take another example so you can see how this context thing works: some people conflate *not saving someone's life* with murder. Look at what this would mean in full application: if a dictator in some foreign country orders a man shot, *I* am guilty of murdering him because I didn't board a plane, fly there, and physically interpose myself between victim and firing squad. Anyone should be able to see that this is utterly absurd, but I didn't "save his life" so I *must* have "murdered" him.

A man offering you employment you don't like as a chance to save yourself from starvation is not enslaving you, he is your *benefactor*, enabling the continuation of your life where that was impossible to you before. That's not to say that you should love the work and cease striving to better yourself, merely that you should recognize that doing unpleasant work is better than the alternative.

You could properly call it slavery, however, if the alternative was death *because* the man threatened to shoot you if you *didn't* do what he told you to do. YOU could be growing potatoes or fishing or something to sustain your own life in those circumstances, if it weren't for this jackass standing between you and your judgment. *That* is the only meaningful definition and application of the term slavery.

I see your point. However, in either case (the gravedigger or the coconut picker) the subject is being subjected to things he does not want to do. So he's essentially not free to choose what he spends his time doing to earn his subsistence. The distinction between the two (I believe) is that in the case of the gravedigger, if his circumstances are the result of another man's position or are in fact the result of another man's actions, than his lack of a choice had been inflicted. The infliction of a lack of choice coupled with an unfair wage would (in my opinion) be slavery.

If the outcomes are the same, I don't see the distinction between subjugation via physical force and subjugation via the intentional creation of conditions.

Force is physical, but it has ethical implications to man's life, because it robs man of his only means to direct his life: his mind. When force is used, it can be different from the actual acceleration of one body (a tree) into another (the ground). If someone slugs you, there is obvious physical contact; there is actual force. But if a menacing stranger points a gun at you or someone makes threats against you, that is also force, because you are faced with the same inability to use your mind to escape it. The aggressor is giving you no choice: deal with me or else. Just because the force is implied and isn't taking place immediately, it doesn't make it any less of a threat to you.

Nice. I agree 100%. Repeating my self: If the outcomes are the same, I don't see the distinction between subjugation via physical force and subjugation via the intentional creation of conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see your point. However, in either case (the gravedigger or the coconut picker) the subject is being subjected to things he does not want to do. So he's essentially not free to choose what he spends his time doing to earn his subsistence. The distinction between the two (I believe) is that in the case of the gravedigger, if his circumstances are the result of another man's position or are in fact the result of another man's actions, than his lack of a choice had been inflicted. The infliction of a lack of choice coupled with an unfair wage would (in my opinion) be slavery.

How is the gravedigger enslaved? If the employer weren't there to enable him to earn *any* wages, he'd obviously starve to death because--according to you, he has no other possible means of surviving. So how did the employer "create" these circumstances?

What you're additionally doing here is completely dropping any context of how people survive in the real world, much like the people who set up impossible-to-escape "moral" hypotheticals involving kidnap by rogue scientists and instant death button-pushing. There is no such possibility as a man who is pushed into a certain career by the actions of other men--only his own defaults and refusal to do ANYTHING else can put him there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice. I agree 100%. Repeating my self: If the outcomes are the same, I don't see the distinction between subjugation via physical force and subjugation via the intentional creation of conditions.

What conditions? Without physical force, you cannot enslave (or subjugate, the meaning is exactly the same, so changing the word in mid-argument won't help you) anyone. Human beings have both free will and the right to property. What another does with his property, as long as he doesn't apply physical force on you or your property, does not affect your ability to make all the choices available to you if he didn't exist.

The fact that your choices may be limited because of your lack of ability or ambition does not give you the right to lay claim to another's property under the pretense of being subjugated by whatever he is doing. If he isn't using force against you, then you are not being subjugated or enslaved, you are being ignored!!! I have the right to ignore you, even if your children are dying of hunger. No need, no lack of options, no suffering whatsoever gives you the right to my property, as long as I am ignoring you, but not using physical force against you.

Since in a Capitalist society that is the norm: no force allowed, except in retaliation to the use of force, in such a society slavery is outlawed. In such a society, no one can claim that he is being held down, since holding someone down requires force that is illegal.

If you use slavery, and this other word you just introduced, subjugation, as something that can be done without the use of force, then define them first, clearly and concisely.

After the definition, it would also be helpful to give a nice clear example: (two people on an island, and one is enslaving/subjugating the other by <insert concrete method other than threatening to bash his head in here>)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is truly epic, Todd.

the subject is being subjected to things he does not want to do. So he's essentially not free to choose what he spends his time doing to earn his subsistence

By extension then, the only person who is not a slave is the person who doesn't have to work at all for the rest of his life, doing whatever we wishes, whenever he wishes, without any consequences. That is, the only person who is "free" is the only person freed from causality and anyone bound by causality is a slave, according to your premise that being required to "doing things you don't want to do" = slavery, whether those requirements are man made (physical force, violence) or metaphysical (the need to work to subsist oneself).

Edited by Chops
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Force is physical, but it has ethical implications to man's life, because it robs man of his only means to direct his life: his mind. When force is used, it can be different from the actual acceleration of one body (a tree) into another (the ground).

Not according to Newton. He seems to think that force is that which has an influence on a mass, changing its direction or speed. Exactly the same as when a tree hits an object or 10 objects, and gives that object/parts of the object an acceleration it didn't previously have. When it hits the groung, the acceleration is not significant enough to actually move the object (the Earth), but parts of the Earth (the surface soil) do move as far as they can go before another, opposite force is applyied by the soil under the surface.

The reason why I'm giving this physics lesson btw is to stress what force is. (not because I think you need it) That is what force is (whether magnetic, gravitational, etc.), and that is all it does. It cannot be different from that influence which gives acceleration to a mass. Ever. Whatever implications that may have, those implications are not part of this definition, and they most certainly don't allow for the phrase "force can be different, when humans come into the picture(i.e. in an ethical context)".

But if a menacing stranger points a gun at you or someone makes threats against you, that is also force, because you are faced with the same inability .

Yest, that is still force.

No, it isn't force because someone is faced with the inability to escape it or to use his mind. It is force because the bullet from the gun applies an influence on your body which will accelerate parts of it into other parts, destroying your organs and your cells, ending the process which is your life.

The threat of force is not force per se, but it is the use of force, if the threat is real. (I still do find it useful to say "use of force and the threat of force" as often as I can, even though I think "use of force" would mean the same thing.)

However, someone being allowed to die of hunger (because he is unable to provide for himself), is not force, even if he is faced with the inability to use his mind to escape his predicament.(your exact words)

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I drew your stupid little friend a nice MSPaint comic to demonstrate the fundamental difference. Sometimes children need pictures with bright colors in order to learn.

slavcap.jpg

Nice!

Do one more where the Pharaoh says "go build the pyramid and I'll give you some bread' and the other guy says "If I don't build the pyramid I'm going to die".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not according to Newton. He seems to think that force is that which has an influence on a mass, changing its direction or speed. Exactly the same as when a tree hits an object or 10 objects, and gives that object/parts of the object an acceleration it didn't previously have. When it hits the groung, the acceleration is not significant enough to actually move the object (the Earth), but parts of the Earth (the surface soil) do move as far as they can go before another, opposite force is applyied by the soil under the surface.

Newton rightly described the natural phenomenon of force as that which changes the velocity of an object with mass. As a technical aside, when a tree hits the ground, it does move the earth (in the direction that the tree hits the ground), but it moves it such a small amount that it's regarded as trivial. When a tree hits the earth, that kinetic energy has to go somewhere. The earth isn't attached to an object that absorbs the energy and pushes back on the earth to keep it in place (like if I push on a house); it's floating in space, so it has no choice but to move.

The reason why I'm giving this physics lesson btw is to stress what force is. (not because I think you need it) That is what force is (whether magnetic, gravitational, etc.), and that is all it does. It cannot be different from that influence which gives acceleration to a mass. Ever. Whatever implications that may have, those implications are not part of this definition, and they most certainly don't allow for the phrase "force can be different, when humans come into the picture(i.e. in an ethical context)".

Yest, that is still force.

No, it isn't force because someone is faced with the inability to escape it or to use his mind. It is force because the bullet from the gun applies an influence on your body which will accelerate parts of it into other parts, destroying your organs and your cells, ending the process which is your life.

The threat of force is not force per se, but it is the use of force, if the threat is real. (I still do find it useful to say "use of force and the threat of force" as often as I can, even though I think "use of force" would mean the same thing.)

There is a different sense in which physical force is used in a moral, social context. Not to be repetetive, but force exists when one person gives another person no choice but to deal with him. When you lose your freedom to act rationally according to your own judgment, you are being forced to act.

Unlike natural phenomena, physical contact is not necessary for force to exist in this context. If someone points a gun at you, you are forced to act, even though no bullet has touched you. If someone defrauds you, you have had force initiated against you, even though you never saw the guy again after you happily handed him your money. If someone says to you, "I'm going to kill you," and they mean it, that is force, even if they never touch you. Someone uses their mind to present you with a situation in which you have to take a certain action, because to do otherwise would mean harm to you. That is force, and it requires no change in the velocity of your body.

However, someone being allowed to die of hunger (because he is unable to provide for himself), is not force, even if he is faced with the inability to use his mind to escape his predicament.(your exact words)

That's right, because no one is preventing him from using his mind to act. He's screwing himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone points a gun at you, you are forced to act, even though no bullet has touched you. If someone defrauds you, you have had force initiated against you, even though you never saw the guy again after you happily handed him your money. If someone says to you, "I'm going to kill you," and they mean it, that is force, even if they never touch you. Someone uses their mind to present you with a situation in which you have to take a certain action, because to do otherwise would mean harm to you. That is force, and it requires no change in the velocity of your body.

Those are all examples of force being threatened (except for the fraud example, which is a form of theft, and thus involves physical force). I made it very clear that someone making a threat of force is using force. (actual physical force, the way Nweton described it) If you're disputing that address it directly, not through repeating examples.

But you are rejecting my definition, so define force, as you see it, please. By define I mean mention the category from which you are selecting all existens with the set of specific, fundamental characteristics that you also provide, as part of the definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said: However, someone being allowed to die of hunger (because he is unable to provide for himself), is not force, even if he is faced with the inability to use his mind to escape his predicament.(your exact words)

Your reply: That's right, because no one is preventing him from using his mind to act. He's screwing himself.

I didn't say he's screwing himself. I said he is unable to provide for himself. (we are on an island and he's paralized)

Let's say I (using my mind) decide to feed him, but only with one condition. Now he, thanks to what I decided using my mind, is in a situaltion where he has no choice except do what I tell him to do or die.

This scenario fits the description you give of force prefectly. Let me quote you:

Someone uses their mind to present you with a situation in which you have to take a certain action, because to do otherwise would mean harm to you. That is force, and it requires no change in the velocity of your body.

I have two questions:

1. Do you admit that my scenario fits what you described? If not, what's the difference?

2. Am I, in your opinion, violating his rights (initiating force against him) in my scenario?

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but force exists when one person gives another person no choice but to deal with him.
I think the main problem with this is that the threat of force is not the same as actual force (even if it is treated similarly in a moral system for rational beings), and yet because of the "give no choice" problem, force and threat of force are both violations of rights and to be morally condemned. What makes it imperative to treat threatened actions like actual actions is because reason tells you that the threat will become actual force. Whereas actual force is an axiomatic concept, a threat is often a very high-level inference, and the inference can never be certain when dealing with rational beings (since we have free will). Just because force and threats of force are "as good as the same" in terms of a system of rights, doesn't mean that force is a non-physical concept.

Force is physical force, as Rand said in Galt's Speech: "So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice!

Do one more where the Pharaoh says "go build the pyramid and I'll give you some bread' and the other guy says "If I don't build the pyramid I'm going to die".

He could, but it really doesn't relate to slavery. He could also draw one where the Pharaoh says "go build the pyramid and I'll give you some bread' and the other guy says, "Sorry, I'm working for another Pharaoh who is giving me bread, water, and a brand new Lincoln Town car. Care to sweeten the pot?" Or the potential builder could say, "No thanks, I have to give my dog a flea bath."

Heck, there are endless scenarios of responses, but the one he chose actually related to the topic at hand, how Capitalism is not slavery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice!

Do one more where the Pharaoh says "go build the pyramid and I'll give you some bread' and the other guy says "If I don't build the pyramid I'm going to die".

Right. So your solution to that scenario would be bash the pharao's head in and get his stuff, because you feel he's not willing to pay the worker enough.

And that is exactly the plan being implemented in the US today. What the people doing the looting don't understand however is that the pharao, once robbed blind, isn't going to go ahead and keep producing the goodies he's being attacked for. He'll either move to a place where he is allowed to keep his property, or if no such place is available, he'll adapt and start stealing instead of producing just like everyone else.

As capitalists keep leaving or quitting, more and more will need to be stolen from the few who are still honest, and the end result will be the same society that's leaving millions to starve in North Korea. In the US I give it three more generations. In Europe there'll be civil wars, anarchy and mass starvation in less then two, if they stay on their current course.

In fact you should start watching Greece about now. In a few years, they'll be the first example in a long line of european societies to collapse.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the people doing the looting don't understand however is that the pharao, once robbed blind, isn't going to go ahead and keep producing the goodies he's being attacked for. He'll either move to a place where he is allowed to keep his property, or if no such place is available, he'll adapt and start stealing instead of producing just like everyone else.

Right-o. Not to mention their additional delusions that the goods were never produced, but must have been somehow acquired through force. The looters assume that if anyone has a lot of anything, then some sort of criminal activity must have taken place in order for them to have acquired that much. Thus, their pissant psychological justification for looting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice!

Do one more where the Pharaoh says "go build the pyramid and I'll give you some bread' and the other guy says "If I don't build the pyramid I'm going to die".

If the guy starves if he doesn't build the pyramid, is it somehow the Pharaoh's fault?? Does he owe the guy a living?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are all examples of force being threatened (except for the fraud example, which is a form of theft, and thus involves physical force). I made it very clear that someone making a threat of force is using force. (actual physical force, the way Nweton described it) If you're disputing that address it directly, not through repeating examples.

But you are rejecting my definition, so define force, as you see it, please. By define I mean mention the category from which you are selecting all existens with the set of specific, fundamental characteristics that you also provide, as part of the definition.

But force in the moral sense is not the same as the force that Newton describes in his Second Law of Motion. That physical force requires a change in the velocity of an object. It requires the physical interaction between two objects. Some physical event must take place for force to exist. There is no part of that law that includes the idea of implied physical force. If a change in velocity occurs, then force happens. If it is "implied" ("potential" in physics terms), no force happens.

In the Newtonian sense, there is no force occurring from someone pointing a gun at you; the force is implied. Here is my spur-of-the-moment definition of force (in the moral sense): an action that requires a person to act, because to do otherwise would result in harm to that person. It means that someone presents you with a situation which, in order to be rational, you must consider it and evaluate a course of action, because if you ignore it, you'll suffer harm. It is a person causing you to use your mind against your will by exploiting the relationship between facts of reality and your nature as a human being. (I'll provide examples of what I mean by this, if you wish.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Do you admit that my scenario fits what you described? If not, what's the difference?

2. Am I, in your opinion, violating his rights (initiating force against him) in my scenario?

The difference is that the paralyzed man has not been put on that island by the able-bodied guy, at least not against his will. If he ended up on that desert island by chance or choice, the paralyzed man's dire situation was not created by someone else violating his rights, i.e. no force has been initiated.

How disabled or how unfortunate a man is has no impact on the simple fact that he has no claim to your life or your property. If you produce food and decide to share it with him, fine. If you want to ask something in return for the food you give him, that's your right, too. If you decide against it, or he declines, you're not causing him any harm. What happens then is merely exactly the same as what would happen if you weren't there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my spur-of-the-moment definition of force (in the moral sense): an action that requires a person to act, because to do otherwise would result in harm to that person. It means that someone presents you with a situation which, in order to be rational, you must consider it and evaluate a course of action, because if you ignore it, you'll suffer harm. It is a person causing you to use your mind against your will by exploiting the relationship between facts of reality and your nature as a human being. (I'll provide examples of what I mean by this, if you wish.)

You've been posting for pages now, so you probably could spend some time to think your answer through. I've made the effort, you replied with a "spur of the moment" definition. I gave an example in my previous post that contradicts your idea of what force is, you didn't even address it.

So, after I took a quick glance at your "spur of the moment definition" I think it doesn't qualify as a definition. I'd explain, but I'm in a rush.

My spur of the moment idea is that you should read "Introduction of Objectivist Epistemology" before you try coming up with further definitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is that the paralyzed man has not been put on that island by the able-bodied guy, at least not against his will. If he ended up on that desert island by chance or choice, the paralyzed man's dire situation was not created by someone else violating his rights, i.e. no force has been initiated.

How disabled or how unfortunate a man is has no impact on the simple fact that he has no claim to your life or your property. If you produce food and decide to share it with him, fine. If you want to ask something in return for the food you give him, that's your right, too. If you decide against it, or he declines, you're not causing him any harm. What happens then is merely exactly the same as what would happen if you weren't there.

Kurt described force this way:

Someone uses their mind to present you with a situation in which you have to take a certain action, because to do otherwise would mean harm to you. That is force, and it requires no change in the velocity of your body.

A difference between two sets (of situations in this case) are those elements which appear in one but not the other.

You listed the following differences:

1.The difference is that the paralyzed man has not been put on that island by the able-bodied guy

2. you're not causing him any harm.

3. What happens then is merely exactly the same as what would happen if you weren't there

Look at the two sets of situations: my example and what Kurt said (and I quoted again above). Obviously all three are part of/implied by my example. Now, all it would require for them to be differences would be to have been excluded by Kurt, in his description of force:

Were they?

Does Kurt's description tell you that my action has to cause the harm? Does "someone uses their mind to give you a choice between harn and safety" tell you that you had to have been safe before that choice was offered?

Does it tell you that I had to have been the source of actual physical force directed at the paralyzed man, in order to be guilty, or does it leave room for a monopoly for instance to be accused of creating a situation in which workers need that monopoly to survive, and therefore is an initiator of force?

The answer is no: Saying that "Someone uses their mind to present you with a situation in which you have to take a certain action constitutes force" does not speak to your situation before the action. It instead says exactly what Marx was saying: the capitalists are using force and exploiting you, the worker, simply because their factories are the only choice you have to survive and support your family.

The only proper way to describe the relationship between rights violations and force is the way Ayn Rand did it:

A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man cannot deprive another of his life, nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue his happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent—his right has been violated.

Therefore, we can draw a clear-cut division between the rights of one man and those of another. It is an objective division—not subject to differences of opinion, nor to majority decision, nor to the arbitrary decree of society. No man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against another man.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does Kurt's description tell you that my action has to cause the harm? Does "someone uses their mind to give you a choice between harn and safety" tell you that you had to have been safe before that choice was offered?

Does it tell you that I had to have been the source of actual physical force directed at the paralyzed man, in order to be guilty, or does it leave room for a monopoly for instance to be accused of creating a situation in which workers need that monopoly to survive, and therefore is an initiator of force?

I agree with what you are saying, maybe the misunderstanding was caused by a different interpretation of "to present". One possible meaning is to present someone with a dilemma as one presents a gun, in which the word is interchangable with "produce". E.g. one produces a predicament by producing a gun from one's pocket while "asking" for money. Another possible meaning, and the one I now assume you had in mind, is "present" as in "explain", e.g. saying "Look, here are your options." The latter is obviously not force.

Could also be that my English skills failed me or that I just didn't read the thread thoroughly enough. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've been posting for pages now, so you probably could spend some time to think your answer through. I've made the effort, you replied with a "spur of the moment" definition. I gave an example in my previous post that contradicts your idea of what force is, you didn't even address it.

So, after I took a quick glance at your "spur of the moment definition" I think it doesn't qualify as a definition. I'd explain, but I'm in a rush.

My spur of the moment idea is that you should read "Introduction of Objectivist Epistemology" before you try coming up with further definitions.

Which example are you talking about, the starving man? I did address that. I said that "he's screwing himself" by not being able to eat. If someone is preventing him from eating, then that is force.

Insulting me is not going to elicit my interest in discussing this. I have spent plenty of time thinking this through, I have directly addressed the flaw in your conception of Newtonian force vs. force in a moral context, I think the definition is pretty decent and you haven't named what you find wrong with it, and I have read ITOE three times. If insults and snarkiness have to part of your comments, don't bother.

Jake, I see that you're talking about your post from 4:20 yesterday. I haven't addressed it because I haven't had time to get to it. I wasn't blowing it off. I haven't gotten to David's post, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...