Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Self-interest versus rights

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

mustang19

Seriously.

Just shut up until you've read her stuff.

If you can't stomach that then ask really basic non-leading questions like "what does Ayn Rand mean by selfishness" rather than making assertions about what you think she believed.

You are reminding me of creationists who barge onto atheist websites and tell people evolution is wrong because it says man is descended from chimpanzees, yet there are still chimpanzees around. Or that there ought to be a crockoduck.

Edited by Steve D'Ippolito
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Okay, but we need to add a bit more context to this question to have an intelligible answer. First of all, in a truly emergency situation, one can be justified in violating property rights. For inst

Well yeah. Absolute does not mean without limit, for nothing in reality is limitless. And it doesn't mean "property rights are intrinsically good," for that would mean "good apart from human life." Ab

It is indeed not a literal contradiction to sacrifice others while refusing to sacrifice yourself, and that is not the correct reasoning to support the notion that we should not sacrifice others. The

“How do you prove that force is negation of the mind?

I had this question a couple of weeks ago. To see the entire thread, click here: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=22020

Firstly, let me say I’m very glad you used the word ‘prove’. To prove something presupposes there is something to be proven, so I don’t have to take you through the whole identification of an objective metaphysical reality thing.

I’ll give you the best answer I got on my thread. Consider what you are doing when you use force against someone. You’re making them do something that they otherwise would not have done, or making them not do something that they otherwise would have done. If they did what you wanted them to, no force would be necessary would it?

Men decide what they will and will not do based on their rational judgment. In this way, force is the attack of another man's rational judgment: the negation of the mind.

Both systems rely on the state; both have laws that limit individual freedom. Neither capitalism nor socialism give the individual complete freedom of action as long they require the existence of a state.

All of the human race is destroyed except for you. Are you free? Yes or no? I'm sure you can put it together from there. If not, then I can explain.

Finally, you could ask for an explanation before you assert that I have created a new axiom. The only axiom in Objectivism is that existence exist. Everything else about the philosophy is based on that.

Edited by NateTheGreat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now how is Social Security against Grandma's self interest?

We've already answered this. "Self interest" means people being interested in their own welfare, and in order for people to do that, they have to treat others the way they want to be treated. If you take money using force (i.e. social security, and force is getting used even if you aren't the one holding the gun), then you're acting on the same principle as someone else taking your money by using force. I'm sure you'd agree there is no way someone taking money from you can be in your self interest. So the question boils down to: can you think in terms of principles? Or look at it this way: how can you say you are better off if you steal? You may have some tangible thing you didn't before, but you've lost your integrity. How can you value yourself if you don't value your integrity? You're saying, in effect, "Look how much I hate myself: I'm stealing."

Go read "The Objectivist Ethics." It would take you far less time than it's taken you to write posts on this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've already answered this. "Self interest" means people being interested in their own welfare, and in order for people to do that, they have to treat others the way they want to be treated.

Okay, please explain why this is so. Why does one have to treat others the way they want to be treated in order to be interested in their own welfare? How can you tell that this is true for people other than yourself?

If you take money using force (i.e. social security, and force is getting used even if you aren't the one holding the gun), then you're acting on the same principle as someone else taking your money by using force. I'm sure you'd agree there is no way someone taking money from you can be in your self interest.

Grandma's primary concern is her self interest. Justice, morality and so on are secondary concerns. They matter, but I'm pretty sure she doesn't stay up at night pondering the gross immorality of her taking a social security check out of the mailbox each month.

So the question boils down to: can you think in terms of principles? Or look at it this way: how can you say you are better off if you steal? You may have some tangible thing you didn't before, but you've lost your integrity. How can you value yourself if you don't value your integrity? You're saying, in effect, "Look how much I hate myself: I'm stealing."

I don't think Grandma feels that way collecting social security. At least any guilt she feels about collecting SS is more than made up for by the comfort of having food on her plate and a roof over her head thanks to an SS check she gets. She could work more perhaps- she already makes a little bit of money working part time- but she much prefers to just collect survivor's insurance and live comfortably.

How are you more qualified than Grandma to know what is in her self interest? If she says that she prefers to collect SS, and is not at all interested in voting against SS, how can you jump into her head and know her "real" reasons for doing this?

Go read "The Objectivist Ethics." It would take you far less time than it's taken you to write posts on this thread.

I could do that, but I'm more interested in seeing how an actual Objectivist defends their position. What if I wanted to mount a defense of Objectivism myself some day?

Nate, thank you:

I’ll give you the best answer I got on my thread. Consider what you are doing when you use force against someone. You’re making them do something that they otherwise would not have done, or making them not do something that they otherwise would have done. If they did what you wanted them to, no force would be necessary would it?

Men decide what they will and will not do based on their rational judgment. In this way, force is the attack of another man's rational judgment: the negation of the mind.

I'm not clear on what you mean by "negation of the mind". In philosophical logic, negation, or logical complement, is an operation on propositions, truth values, or semantic values. Is the mind a proposition, truth value or semantic value? How so?

Edited by mustang19
Link to post
Share on other sites

I could do that, but I'm more interested in seeing how an actual Objectivist defends their position. What if I wanted to mount a defense of Objectivism myself some day?

If you wanted to mount a defense of Objectivism, the best way would be to read the source material yourself, think for yourself, and come to your own conclusions rather than rely on the second-handed method of relying on the conclusions of others. You are using others to do your heavy lifting for you.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is that Objectivists have their own arbitrary definition of self interest which is very different from the dictionary one, and is actually similar to the dictionary definition of altruism. The problem is when O'ists tell other people that their philosophy is based on self interest when that's not entirely true and has what would be called altruistic aspects (like respecting property when it is in your self interest to steal) by the conventional definition of these terms.

Well, for what it's worth every time I have used self interest in this thread I have meant the dictionary definition of the term, not the one Ayn Rand came up with. In that sense I cannot see how Objectivism places self interest as its highest value. The Grandma Debate remains unresolved.

The definitions are not arbitrary, there are reasons for the differentiation. Ayn Rand redefined many terms to include the essential concept "Rational".

Altruism defines any act of self interest as an attack on the collective, "Rational" Self Interest is designed to establish the value of self defense against Altruism. Ayn Rand puts altruists and thieves in the same category of aggressors, and gives only 'Rational' man the right to self defense. Ayn Rand defined man as a "Rational Animal". If man behaves like an animal by initiating an attack, he ceases to be a man, and becomes sub-human. The thieves/attackers are the reason Altruism has been so attractive through history, it was designed as control through guilt. Altruism and thieves/attackers are two sides of the same coin, continually attempting to justify themselves by trying to provide 'protection' against their opposite.

Objectivism wasn't really written for parasites. It was written for those whom they are feeding off of, to let a producer know he has a right to defend himself. If the producers of the world refused to be fed upon, and were effective in defending themselves, the parasites would have to resort to their own rationality or devour each other. By rejecting Altruism an Objectivist asserts his right to his own property.

Is there nothing for an individual to gain from positive relationships?

A Rational Man doesn't see respecting another man's property as an act of altruism. He sees it as a nearly mathematical justice. Objectivists often refer to A = A. Property = Property. Respect = Respect. Rational = Rational. Theft is not equal, one individual believes it is a gain and another individual looses more than property. He looses the life he spent earning his property, he looses his benevolence, he looses his generosity, he treats the next stranger suspiciously. Earning your own living is good for one individual, and good in a universal, non-sacrificial way. A Rational Man sees respecting property as an act of his own self esteem. He thinks and plans long range. A sacrifice is trading something of value for something of lesser value. To a Rational Man stealing is of lesser value than his self respect, but dying is usually of lesser value than stealing. So, in a rare situation where he steals to survive, he will pay the cabin owner back in order to regain his self respect. This is the stable kind of world he selfishly wants to live in, these are the kind of men he selfishly wants to deal with. Had a previous man stolen food from the cabin, how would it be in the owners self interest to keep the place accessible or stocked?

Doesn't the Grandmother have anyone in her life who sees her as a value worth preserving? Isn't there anyone in her life who would want to pay her back for the investment she made in him? Not as an impersonal act of charity or obligation, but a personal rationally selfish act of admiration and gratitude? Did she invest in the intelligence of the individuals who were close to her, did she inspire them to be successful in their own lives?

A rational man does not engage in sacrifice, he trades value for value.

Edited by Tenderlysharp
Link to post
Share on other sites

The definitions are not arbitrary, there are reasons for the differentiation. Ayn Rand redefined many terms to include the essential concept "Rational".

Altruism defines any act of self interest as an attack on the collective, "Rational" Self Interest is designed to establish the value of self defense against Altruism. Ayn Rand puts altruists and thieves in the same category of aggressors, and gives only 'Rational' man the right to self defense. Ayn Rand defined man as a "Rational Animal". If man behaves like an animal by initiating an attack, he ceases to be a man, and becomes sub-human. The thieves/attackers are the reason Altruism has been so attractive through history, it was designed as control through guilt. Altruism and thieves/attackers are two sides of the same coin, continually attempting to justify themselves by trying to provide 'protection' against their opposite.

Objectivism wasn't really written for parasites. It was written for those whom they are feeding off of, to let a producer know he has a right to defend himself. If the producers of the world refused to be fed upon, and were effective in defending themselves, the parasites would have to resort to their own rationality or devour each other. By rejecting Altruism an Objectivist asserts his right to his own property.

Okay, okay. I already admitted I was talking about a misunderstood definition there.

Is there nothing for an individual to gain from positive relationships?

Yes. There are things. And there are things to be gained from parasitism too. The balance one way or the other may vary with the situation.

A Rational Man doesn't see respecting another man's property as an act of altruism. He sees it as a nearly mathematical justice. Objectivists often refer to A = A. Property = Property. Respect = Respect. Rational = Rational. Theft is not equal, one individual believes it is a gain and another individual looses more than property. He looses the life he spent earning his property, he looses his benevolence, he looses his generosity, he treats the next stranger suspiciously. Earning your own living is good for one individual, and good in a universal, non-sacrificial way. A Rational Man sees respecting property as an act of his own self esteem. He thinks and plans long range. A sacrifice is trading something of value for something of lesser value. To a Rational Man stealing is of lesser value than his self respect, but dying is usually of lesser value than stealing. So, in a rare situation where he steals to survive, he will pay the cabin owner back in order to regain his self respect. This is the stable kind of world he selfishly wants to live in, these are the kind of men he selfishly wants to deal with. Had a previous man stolen food from the cabin, how would it be in the owners self interest to keep the place accessible or stocked?

It may not have been, although whether or not someone stole food from the cabin doesn't really affect the chance of the food getting stolen again unless it's the same person. However past events weren't something I asked about, only present choices for the hungry person.

Doesn't the Grandmother have anyone in her life who sees her as a value worth preserving? Isn't there anyone in her life who would want to pay her back for the investment she made in him? Not as an impersonal act of charity or obligation, but a personal rationally selfish act of admiration and gratitude? Did she invest in the intelligence of the individuals who were close to her, did she inspire them to be successful in their own lives?

Yes, she did. They visit and maybe send her money or do yard work from time to time. How should other people's opinion of her influence her decision to collect social security however?

A rational man does not engage in sacrifice, he trades value for value.

I don't really see that following from your previous statement. I still don't get what Grandma looses from collecting SS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really see that following from your previous statement. I still don't get what Grandma looses from collecting SS.

She blindly puts herself at the mercy of an impersonal system that is failing. Her vote isn't going to guarantee anything if there is no money to vote toward herself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, please explain why this is so. Why does one have to treat others the way they want to be treated in order to be interested in their own welfare? How can you tell that this is true for people other than yourself?

Because there is no rational reason why you shouldn't. In order to do so, you'd have to say why one person's life is more important than another's (in terms of rights).

Grandma's primary concern is her self interest. Justice, morality and so on are secondary concerns.

No, the morality of Objectivism is self-interest. And a society which conforms to the morality of self-interest is justice. There's no hierarchy here.

They matter, but I'm pretty sure she doesn't stay up at night pondering the gross immorality of her taking a social security check out of the mailbox each month.

So what? I should also point out that (1) people who start getting social security have probably paid way more into the system than they've gotten out and (2) social security should be phased out gradually because of how many people are dependent on it and how many people have paid a great deal into the system and haven't seen anything come out of it for them.

How are you more qualified than Grandma to know what is in her self interest? If she says that she prefers to collect SS, and is not at all interested in voting against SS, how can you jump into her head and know her "real" reasons for doing this?

What about a bank robber?

Edited by Mnrchst
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because there is no rational reason why you shouldn't. In order to do so, you'd have to say why one person's life is more important than another's (in terms of rights).

I can't "say why" one person's life is more important than another's. But if you are behaving in your self interest your own life is probably going to be more important to you than anyone else's life is.

So what? I should also point out that (1) people who start getting social security have probably paid way more into the system than they've gotten out and

Social security (formally, the OASDI program) is not just for workers. It's also for survivors and the disabled. My grandma has virtually never paid into social security. Before her husband died and she began collecting SS, she had been a housewife all her life. So in her case she's paid in nothing but taking out a lot.

(2) social security should be phased out gradually because of how many people are dependent on it and how many people have paid a great deal into the system and haven't seen anything come out of it for them.

Why should my grandma support gradual phaseout? I guess it would make no difference to her if present benefits remained unchanged. However, a phaseout would create other problems- because SS is not a funded system but a pay-as-you-go system, younger workers would have to support retirees with the expectation of being able to take less out than they put in. A phaseout cannot be performed without either breaking promises or exploiting someone.

What about a bank robber?

Bank robbers may or may not benefit from stealing. However I don't see Grandma getting arrested or attacked for collecting SS. What other problems might arise for her?

She blindly puts herself at the mercy of an impersonal system that is failing.

Enrolling in SS costs her nothing. It costs her nothing system fails but for the period in which it works she gets free money.

My question was, how does Grandma's individual action of enrolling in OASDI (Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) and taking their check out of her mailbox every month harm her. If Social Security is going to cause the world to end, Grandma leaving OASDI is not going to save the world.

Sure, you could say that Social Security is going to collapse before Grandma collects her allotted benefits or OASDI going to lead to the total collapse of industrial civilization. But unless you prove that it would remain an unsupported assertion. There's that word again!

Her vote isn't going to guarantee anything if there is no money to vote toward herself.

Maybe, but why should she oppose SS?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't "say why" one person's life is more important than another's. But if you are behaving in your self interest your own life is probably going to be more important to you than anyone else's life is.

Probably? Sure, but not necessarily. You might derive selfish pleasure from dying so save someone else's life.

younger workers would have to support retirees with the expectation of being able to take less out than they put in.

That's true. They'd also have plenty of time to prepare for their retirement.

A phaseout cannot be performed without either breaking promises or exploiting someone.

Just because someone is promised something doesn't mean they should get it. And how does someone get exploited?

Bank robbers may or may not benefit from stealing. However I don't see Grandma getting arrested or attacked for collecting SS. What other problems might arise for her?

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because someone is promised something doesn't mean they should get it. And how does someone get exploited?

Taxes. With an SS phaseout young workers would have to be taxed more than they would receive in benefits.

Bank robbers may or may not benefit from stealing. However I don't see Grandma getting arrested or attacked for collecting SS. What other problems might arise for her?

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Basically my original question: How are you more qualified than Grandma to know what is in her self interest? If she says that she prefers to collect SS, and is not at all interested in voting against SS, how can you jump into her head and know her "real" reasons for doing this?

Bank robbers aren't really a useful comparison when you can at least sometimes tell that they're messed up people if they pull guns on bank tellers, while my grandma isn't directly trying to kill or threaten anyone by writing to OASDI and getting a check in the mail.

Edited by mustang19
Link to post
Share on other sites

But its ok for her to hire or black mail a bank robber into getting money for her? Or vote him into office?

Yeah, in this case. It's not like there are libertarian vigilantes going around arresting people for collecting SS. And like I said as far as I know she's not wetting her pants or having panic attacks each time she takes the SS check out of the mailbox. I don't have any particular evidence showing that she even feels guilty for collecting SS. Rather as far as I know she feels entitled to it despite not working a real job for a day in her life beforehand.

I realize you can say collecting SS turns Grandma into a nervous wreck somehow. But how do you prove this claim about what someone other than yourself is thinking or experiencing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Taxes. With an SS phaseout young workers would have to be taxed more than they would receive in benefits.

It's a necessary evil in order to get to the day when there is no SS payments for young people. I'd say it's far worse to end SS tomorrow. Also, "young workers would have to be taxed more than they would receive in benefits" is already the case with young people an SS today (baby boomers haven't paid enough to pay about the same as what they'll get in benefits.

Basically my original question: How are you more qualified than Grandma to know what is in her self interest?

I'm not, but my arguments might be more qualified than hers. Keep in mind I would never suggest that her listening to music she doesn't like would be in her self-interest.

Bank robbers aren't really a useful comparison when you can at least sometimes tell that they're messed up people if they pull guns on bank tellers, while my grandma isn't directly trying to kill or threaten anyone by writing to OASDI and getting a check in the mail.

She supports a system where force is used to steal. She doesn't have to hold the gun to be complicit.

Edited by Mnrchst
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mustang,

The whole problem is that you believe that it would be in someone's "self-interest" to rob a bank, or cheat, or whatever provided there was a guarantee they could not get caught. Objectivism rejects this view of self-interest and as long as you hold this position, nothing we can possibly say is going to make any sense to you.

Objectivists reject any conception of self-interest in which people's interests are naturally in conflict.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mustang,

The whole problem is that you believe that it would be in someone's "self-interest" to rob a bank, or cheat, or whatever provided there was a guarantee they could not get caught. Objectivism rejects this view of self-interest and as long as you hold this position, nothing we can possibly say is going to make any sense to you.

Objectivists reject any conception of self-interest in which people's interests are naturally in conflict.

I know that. But I want to know the arguments why.

She supports a system where force is used to steal. She doesn't have to hold the gun to be complicit.

Okay. Now do you believe you have addressed my question of why collecting SS hurts Grandma more than it helps her, and how so?

I'm not, but my arguments might be more qualified than hers. Keep in mind I would never suggest that her listening to music she doesn't like would be in her self-interest.

So are you not certain, then, whether or not the existence of a government wealth transfer program, SS, is in Grandma's self interest? Because if Grandma supports Social Security, I myself wouldn't doubt her belief that the program is in her self interest. She's the best judge of that as far as I can tell, and I haven't seen a compelling argument as to why this isn't so.

Edited by mustang19
Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you not certain, then, whether or not the existence of a government wealth transfer program, SS, is in Grandma's self interest? Because if Grandma supports Social Security, I myself wouldn't doubt her belief that the program is in her self interest. She's the best judge of that as far as I can tell, and I haven't seen a compelling argument as to why this isn't so.

This was explained well in the Prudent Predator thread. I'll echo what others have already suggested and tell you again that you should go back and read it.

As far as a real world example is concerned, the looming debt crises in Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the US and other countries are the direct result of grandma's system of morality. Social welfare systems like those in the US and Western Europe are fundamentally altruistic in nature. When one pressure group is able to extract wealth from another group at the point of a gun, that system can only function for so long. Eventually the producers tire of being fleeced, they shrug and the system collapses. Of course this may take years to come to a head and grandma might be able to cheat reality for a while and live off of the unearned wealth of others, but eventually that will end. Unfortunately, the end will probably be very bad for everyone and the damage caused by grandma and her system of morality will cause a lot of people to be hurt. I suppose that grandma might even be lucky enough to live like a parasite and die before the day of reckoning comes, but she will have left one hell of a mess for her grandson to sort out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as a real world example is concerned, the looming debt crises in Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the US and other countries are the direct result of grandma's system of morality. Social welfare systems like those in the US and Western Europe are fundamentally altruistic in nature. When one pressure group is able to extract wealth from another group at the point of a gun, that system can only function for so long. Eventually the producers tire of being fleeced, they shrug and the system collapses. Of course this may take years to come to a head and grandma might be able to cheat reality for a while and live off of the unearned wealth of others, but eventually that will end.

And when it does and she has to work a few more hours a week to cover the lost income, like she would have to without the program anyway? Assuming the US does become Greece ten or twenty years down the road, she'll still have gained tens of thousands of dollars more than if she had never enrolled in the system. SS has it's own fund anyway separate from the government budget and the current shortfall in projected funding can be made up by pretty minor adjustments to benefits and revenue stream once it stops running a surplus and spends all the trust fund way off in 2040.

Not to mention that without SS she would probably be unemployed and penniless given the current economy.

Unfortunately, the end will probably be very bad for everyone and the damage caused by grandma and her system of morality will cause a lot of people to be hurt. I suppose that grandma might even be lucky enough to live like a parasite and die before the day of reckoning comes, but she will have left one hell of a mess for her grandson to sort out.

Pretty likely considering she's about 70. But speculative arguments about what may be in the self interest of people other than herself are going to be evaluated against the large amount of wealth and leisure time she gains from SS in her determination of self interest, and it's not like she couldn't save and invest in her survivalist gold stash if she saw the collapse of industrial civilization due to one single government program as a realistic concern. Overall she would most likely have somewhat less money- perhaps $50k already- if it wasn't for the existence of social security.

Edited by mustang19
Link to post
Share on other sites

And when it does and she has to work a few more hours a week to cover the lost income, like she would have to without the program anyway? Assuming the US does become Greece ten or twenty years down the road, she'll still have gained tens of thousands of dollars more than if she had never enrolled in the system. SS has it's own fund anyway separate from the government budget and the current shortfall in projected funding can be made up by pretty minor adjustments to benefits and revenue stream once it stops running a surplus and spends all the trust fund way off in 2040.

Not to mention that without SS she would probably be unemployed and penniless given the current economy.

Pretty likely considering she's about 70. But speculative arguments about what may be in the self interest of people other than herself are going to be evaluated against the large amount of wealth and leisure time she gains from SS in her determination of self interest, and it's not like she couldn't save and invest in her survivalist gold stash if she saw the collapse of industrial civilization due to one single government program as a realistic concern. Overall she would most likely have somewhat less money- perhaps $50k already- if it wasn't for the existence of social security.

Oh well, you continue to miss the point. Welfare statism is based on a system of morality that is anti-man. You started this thread to learn about the Objectivist view of morality and it has been adequately explained to you why man needs a moral system and why living as a thief off of the un-earned wealth of others is contrary to rational morality and not in your long-term best interest. At this point, that's about all anyone here can do for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it has been adequately explained to you why man needs a moral system and why living as a thief off of the un-earned wealth of others is contrary to rational morality and not in your long-term best interest.

That has been repeatedly asserted in this thread. However, no one has been able to prove what exactly is going to happen to Grandma because she supports social security. I have heard Grandma's support of the program is not in her long term best interest. But how? What about wanting to collect a $1000 OASDI check every month is going to cause her to get killed or whatever terrible thing happens to people who support social security?

Edited by mustang19
Link to post
Share on other sites

Altruism's appeal to Grandma's greed is exactly why it is so evil. It fools people into thinking it is a good idea, while it quietly destroys the very foundation upon which they could have stood. Its evils are the blinders people place on the nature of reality. The poor man sees a productive man and he doesn't want to learn what that man did to earn his money, the poor man doesn't want to exert the effort necessary to be like the productive man, the poor man doesn't want to think about anything he just wants the "rich" man's money. He is a thief and he assumes all men are thieves and he can't imagine that a productive man earned his money by adding to the world rather than taking from it.

You keep asking 'If Grandma can get away with it then why shouldn't she?' Well I am saying why should she? Why should she get away with living a lie? Why shouldn't Grandma worry over how miserable all of her grand kids are because they can't buy their own homes, they can barely make rent, they are going hungry, they dont' get enough attention, their relationships are breaking up over money problems, they move back in with her, and they are getting drunk all the time in order to escape the reality they don't want to face. Why should I dissipate the fight for my own future on a person who never fought for anything important? Why should I let the grandchildren I will have one day inherit a bigger mountain of debt?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...