Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What are your biggest issues with Objectivism?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

Rand said if you invest in something for 5 years (homesteading) it establishes this right.

I don't think she made that argument, so if you really think that's the position, please provide a quote.

13 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

If I wanted to build a road and place it where your house currently is, why can't I just move your house somewhere else. What establishes your monopoly over occupying that space with your house?

At the very least, the patch of land that the house rests on is in use. You physically cannot simultaneously use that patch of land at the same time as me. If you want to use that patch of land, you have to force me off of it (get a crane and push my house to the side) or you can persuade me to get off of it (trade money with me so that I give you the land that the house is sitting on). 

Now, it might seem like this is all true of man-made resources, but not true of natural resources. The resources are there already! But here's a similarity: the value of those natural resources is man-made because those natural resources have literally no value until somebody figures out how to make use of the resources. The resources are unused, there is no other person occupying the land and doing stuff with it. Anyone is completely free to walk by and start using the land, but again, no one will be making use of the land if they don't know what to do with it. 

12 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

He is asking not who will let me, but who will stop me and why.

If the reason is, perhaps, that all the people in the town are extreme racists and for that reason deliberately make your life more difficult, we would have a major moral issue here. The issue wouldn't be property rights anymore, though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'd like to think my reference to the other stink juice inspired it.

But your own philosophy, which you live by every day, certainly is.  And if one must arrive at precisely each conclusion Rand ever put into writing (including, as the OP'er pointed out, homosexuality)

Empirical psychology is not exactly a part of philosophy, but the Objectivist writings make several assertions in this field without providing more than intuitive or anecdotal evidence: Personali

Posted Images

23 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

Its like being prevented or impeded mentally until you can pay others to lift these restrictions. That goes against objectivist morality, doesn't it?

No.  It would if that were a valid analogy but it really is not, because ...

23 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

Say you don't want to work for him and instead want to establish your own business. However to do so you require access to land but you are socially excluded from all viable locations. It is not then possible.  [italics mine]

HOW?????  How could that ever happen???????

Antarctica, Alaska, the ocean floor (or surface!), the Sahara desert, vast swathes of (the admittedly uninhabitable) northern Minnesota, every single thing above the Earth's atmosphere and let's not forget the miles upon cubic miles of senseless dirt beneath our feet; in the name of Galt, how could any combination of people ever restrict you from accessing any of that?

Unless they collectively owned every single centimeter that exists within this universe, they could not.  Which makes it rather difficult for me to follow along with any of the reasoning which proceeded from that sentence.

Now, if someone was preventing you from using your own materials and initiative to exploit any of these resources (such as preventing you from building your own rocket by the sweat of your own brain) then THAT certainly would violate the Objectivist ethics, which would demand that we find ways of resisting such an evil.  But one or two or even thirty individuals denying you access to their labor, material resources or land (which is only another material resource) simply cannot keep you from the entirety of the currently-wasted universe.

 

I don't know where you found that premise but you should probably put it back there.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Eiuol said:

If I took a rocket to the moon, could I claim to own the entire moon because no one else occupies the moon?

NO!  I CALL DIBS ON THE MOON!  I know there's an American flag there right now, and I know what that historically has always signified, but I swear it's just a placeholder until I get up there.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Made it.

That's awesome.

On 2/23/2021 at 3:46 PM, Doug Morris said:

What are the current rules, in the U.S and in the U.K.?

I really don't know.

 

15 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

The only alternative to employment would be to starve to death in this situation.

What?  Or you could take off on your own and become one of the forest people.  It wouldn't be easy, but it wouldn't be impossible either; you could think of it like a camping trip that never ends.  Plus you could ditch the institution of clothing and devise your own language, which is how I'd endure such a camping trip.  Actually, I think I might rather die, but that's not the point; the point is that it is always an option if you ever get THAT sick of having to deal with other people.

15 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

He wants to know what grounds an Objectivist would give for granting such exclusive rights. When doing so grants a perpetual right to one person obtaining resources, at the expense of everyone else. 

Nothing more than the fact that it is right.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I don't think she made that argument, so if you really think that's the position, please provide a quote.

I would agree with a lot you said but there is a quote.

Jon's fundamental issue seems to be with property rights in general. To "own" something seems to mean having a monopoly on its use. (that is where monopoly loses its meaning). Implication is that any moral right is a monopoly, implying illegitimate and unearned. As in, you have a monopoly over your life or body, it ends up being something like an argument for original sin.

As far as a quote you wanted goes, here Rand seems to endorse what Jon mentioned.

The Property Status of Airwaves
by Ayn Rand
Chapter 10 of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

Quote

A notable example of the proper method of establishing private ownership from scratch, in a previously ownerless area, is the Homestead Act of 1862, by which the government opened the western frontier for settlement and turned "public land" over to private owners. The government offered a 160-acre farm to any adult citizen who would settle on it and cultivate it for five years, after which it would become his property. Although that land was originally regarded, in law, as "public property," the method of its allocation, in fact, followed the proper principle (in fact, but not in explicit ideological intention). The citizens did not have to pay the government as if it were an owner; ownership began with them, and they earned it by the method which is the source and root of the concept of "property": by working on unused material resources, by turning a wilderness into a civilized settlement. Thus, the government, in this case, was acting not as the owner but as the custodian of ownerless resources who defines objectively impartial rules by which potential owners may acquire them.

This should have been the principle and pattern of the allocation of broadcasting frequencies.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

57 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

I would agree with a lot you said but there is a quote.

The difference, I think, is that the quote doesn't argue that "working 5 years on the land establishes the right to own land". I disagree that it's a proper standard, but it is still a legal standard of how to judge when someone can claim to be certainly using the land. Private property doesn't depend on a "five-year rule" so this disagreement would be one of application (how do I know that your claim is legitimate), not of the underlying principle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2021 at 11:35 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

That's awesome.

I really don't know.

 

What?  Or you could take off on your own and become one of the forest people.  It wouldn't be easy, but it wouldn't be impossible either; you could think of it like a camping trip that never ends.  Plus you could ditch the institution of clothing and devise your own language, which is how I'd endure such a camping trip.  Actually, I think I might rather die, but that's not the point; the point is that it is always an option if you ever get THAT sick of having to deal with other people.

Nothing more than the fact that it is right.

The concept of a thought experiment may have been lost here.

Also missing is an argument in support of your final remark? 🤷🏻‍♂️

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2021 at 11:15 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

No.  It would if that were a valid analogy but it really is not, because ...

HOW?????  How could that ever happen???????

Antarctica, Alaska, the ocean floor (or surface!), the Sahara desert, vast swathes of (the admittedly uninhabitable) northern Minnesota, every single thing above the Earth's atmosphere and let's not forget the miles upon cubic miles of senseless dirt beneath our feet; in the name of Galt, how could any combination of people ever restrict you from accessing any of that?

Unless they collectively owned every single centimeter that exists within this universe, they could not.  Which makes it rather difficult for me to follow along with any of the reasoning which proceeded from that sentence.

Now, if someone was preventing you from using your own materials and initiative to exploit any of these resources (such as preventing you from building your own rocket by the sweat of your own brain) then THAT certainly would violate the Objectivist ethics, which would demand that we find ways of resisting such an evil.  But one or two or even thirty individuals denying you access to their labor, material resources or land (which is only another material resource) simply cannot keep you from the entirety of the currently-wasted universe.

 

I don't know where you found that premise but you should probably put it back there.

Read the word "viable" and it makes sense. 

Stop thinking in absolutes.

Our character would still be dependent on the charity of others to travel vast distances to discover lands which he can utilise freely without interference from locals who would lay claim to it. And so being dependent on charity, he would not be able to become a self made man by his own thoughts and merits alone. Unless he resorts to theft and other criminal means.

Does making conceited comments make you feel good about yourself? You would benefit from some self reflection on that. It doesn't have any bearing on my judgement, just so you know. I'm not going to indulge you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jon Southall said:

And so being dependent on charity, he would not be able to become a self made man by his own thoughts and merits alone.

What you gave us is an example of trade, not of dependence. Not sure really what you're issue is with the situation as presented, except maybe that you think being independent means not needing to trade with anyone? I don't see what the person is being deprived of that ruins his ability to be independent. Independence is about first-hand thinking, not about doing everything alone without help. 

But you might want to change your thought experiment because you seem to be also thinking of a person being explicitly excluded from places. Not because of lack of money or goods to trade or ideas to offer, but because of some other irrelevant characteristic like class or race or the type of car you drive. That's what it sounds like. Your concern seems to be "but what if everyone else is irrational?" Would that be accurate?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2021 at 8:54 PM, Eiuol said:

I don't think she made that argument, so if you really think that's the position, please provide a quote.

At the very least, the patch of land that the house rests on is in use. You physically cannot simultaneously use that patch of land at the same time as me. If you want to use that patch of land, you have to force me off of it (get a crane and push my house to the side) or you can persuade me to get off of it (trade money with me so that I give you the land that the house is sitting on). 

Now, it might seem like this is all true of man-made resources, but not true of natural resources. The resources are there already! But here's a similarity: the value of those natural resources is man-made because those natural resources have literally no value until somebody figures out how to make use of the resources. The resources are unused, there is no other person occupying the land and doing stuff with it. Anyone is completely free to walk by and start using the land, but again, no one will be making use of the land if they don't know what to do with it. 

If the reason is, perhaps, that all the people in the town are extreme racists and for that reason deliberately make your life more difficult, we would have a major moral issue here. The issue wouldn't be property rights anymore, though. 

That's the issue. Why should you get to use that space over someone else? 

Under objectivism you have the right to build yourself a house, or perhaps a statue. I will need to place both somewhere specifically. If someone said they want to use that space, what is an objectivists argument for refusing it?

What if what someone else wants is for that space not to be used and they oppose you building a house there to start with, or choosing to locate your statue where you have done.

Forget the original sin point about monopoly, that comment missed the point and its not my argument. Its mistaken to think it is. 

The monopoly term specifically refers to your exclusive use of the land. You want to be able to say, "I am using this land as the location of my house, which is my property. You cannot force me to move my property, because you have no property rights to the land. You may not use it or force me off of it".

If they counterclaim that you do not own the land either and you should not have built your house there, that you are blocking them, then what would be your "defense". I mean specifically using Objectivist reasoning.

Further their argument may be that by preventing them from using the space, you are as much violating their rights to use it, as forcing you off of the land would violate your rights.

I'm curious how objectivists would resolve this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jon Southall said:

Does making conceited comments make you feel good about yourself? You would benefit from some self reflection on that. It doesn't have any bearing on my judgement, just so you know. I'm not going to indulge you.

If you mean the "I don't know where you found that premise" bit then yes; I thought it was funny and it made me all warm and tingly inside.  It's unfortunate that you weren't able to get a kick out of it (since I really was trying not to be mean or nasty about it) but since I don't think it was either of those things I'm not really sorry.

It is a bad premise which you should drop and I'm not sorry that I thought of a punchy way of saying so.

20 minutes ago, Jon Southall said:

Read the word "viable" and it makes sense. 

Stop thinking in absolutes.

I read the word "viable" and I still disagree.  How can anyone prevent you from setting up your own lunar empire, with your own materials and labor, unless they're actually violating your rights in a totally non-land-related way (such as stapling you to a boulder or setting your materials on fire)?  I still don't see a way.

I know it was a bit over-the-top to caps-scream "how" about it twice but you still have not answered that question.

 

As for thinking in absolutes - no thank you.  I'm quite comfortable thinking with them.

 

24 minutes ago, Jon Southall said:

Our character would still be dependent on the charity of others to travel vast distances to discover lands which he can utilise freely without interference from locals who would lay claim to it.

What locals in which lands and why would charity be his only option?  Couldn't he pick up various sub-optimal oddjobs along the way (if there are any locals, which there certainly are not in the rest of this solar system) until he reaches his optimal setup?

 

You can whine all you'd like about my tone and mannerisms but your scenario still seems extremely silly to me for the reason listed above (namely: how could anyone prevent you from using any unoccupied piece of land without violating various other rights of yours).  And although I have been and will continue trying not to turn the conversation into anything ugly I am not going to pretend that it's not a silly question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jon Southall said:

The monopoly term specifically refers to your exclusive use of the land. You want to be able to say, "I am using this land as the location of my house, which is my property. You cannot force me to move my property, because you have no property rights to the land. You may not use it or force me off of it".

Jon, can you make it clear if you are arguing against "rights" / "property rights", or are you specifically arguing against how one comes to initially own something?

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

What you gave us is an example of trade, not of dependence. Not sure really what you're issue is with the situation as presented, except maybe that you think being independent means not needing to trade with anyone? I don't see what the person is being deprived of that ruins his ability to be independent. Independence is about first-hand thinking, not about doing everything alone without help. 

But you might want to change your thought experiment because you seem to be also thinking of a person being explicitly excluded from places. Not because of lack of money or goods to trade or ideas to offer, but because of some other irrelevant characteristic like class or race or the type of car you drive. That's what it sounds like. Your concern seems to be "but what if everyone else is irrational?" Would that be accurate?

Thinking is not sufficient to live by, as is clear under Rand's arguments. You must be able to produce value and utilise it as well.

My thought experiment is what happens if this second step (thought into value creation) is severely impeded by lack of access to resources due to existing social conventions. 

Specifically when those conventions force our character to trade. It would then be a matter of chance whether terms favourable to our character's self interest exists or not. If its a lesser of two evils situation (an immoral choice if I've understood Objectivist morality correctly) what is the resolution. This state of affairs is specifically where he can't produce value by himself otherwise. Do you follow? We are purposely limiting that variable and exploring the implications and what the resolution is.

My point is if he could use natural resources without permission he could create his own value. The only reason he can't is that others control those resources exclusively. If he challenged this right, what would their defense be?

The homesteading argument is pretty weak, hence me saying this is a flaw.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

Jon, can you make it clear if you are arguing against "rights" / "property rights", or are you specifically arguing against how one comes to initially own something?

Neither. I am in favour of property rights and in establishing ownership.

My criticism is that under objectivism the basis for establishing ownership of natural resources (homesteading) is arbitrary and seems to contradict other aspects of objectivism (being free to direct your thoughts and productive effort to create value self interestedly in order to live).

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

If you mean the "I don't know where you found that premise" bit then yes; I thought it was funny and it made me all warm and tingly inside.  It's unfortunate that you weren't able to get a kick out of it (since I really was trying not to be mean or nasty about it) but since I don't think it was either of those things I'm not really sorry.

It is a bad premise which you should drop and I'm not sorry that I thought of a punchy way of saying so.

I read the word "viable" and I still disagree.  How can anyone prevent you from setting up your own lunar empire, with your own materials and labor, unless they're actually violating your rights in a totally non-land-related way (such as stapling you to a boulder or setting your materials on fire)?  I still don't see a way.

I know it was a bit over-the-top to caps-scream "how" about it twice but you still have not answered that question.

 

As for thinking in absolutes - no thank you.  I'm quite comfortable thinking with them.

 

What locals in which lands and why would charity be his only option?  Couldn't he pick up various sub-optimal oddjobs along the way (if there are any locals, which there certainly are not in the rest of this solar system) until he reaches his optimal setup?

 

You can whine all you'd like about my tone and mannerisms but your scenario still seems extremely silly to me for the reason listed above (namely: how could anyone prevent you from using any unoccupied piece of land without violating various other rights of yours).  And although I have been and will continue trying not to turn the conversation into anything ugly I am not going to pretend that it's not a silly question.

Not whining Harrison. 

Where do you live? Can you name one viable plot of unowned land you could use to produce value from near to you? If you can't identify this how far would you have to relocate until you find this? At what cost?

Didn't Rand state "reason is man's only absolute"? Seems like a wise statement.

Feel free to think in absolutes, but wisdom is seldom found at the extremes but in the point of balance, harking back to Aristotle.

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

If someone said they want to use that space, what is an objectivists argument for refusing it?

If it's still unused then of course it can't be refused. Otherwise the only argument you need is "I'm using it right now" (and so on back in time until we find the original owner). That's it. No other justification needed. That's why I later mentioned that your options are then to persuade me to let you use it, or to force me off the land. I'm not sure what other standard you can use besides who is using the land (or who is using whatever it is in question). 

1 hour ago, Jon Southall said:

What if what someone else wants is for that space not to be used and they oppose you building a house there to start with, or choosing to locate your statue where you have done.

This is a derivative question that I think can only be answered after we establish what the basis for owning property even is. I'm not sure what to say about owning property for the specific purpose of not using it in the sense of conservation areas.

1 hour ago, Jon Southall said:

If they counterclaim that you do not own the land either and you should not have built your house there, that you are blocking them, then what would be your "defense". I mean specifically using Objectivist reasoning.

If the land was unoccupied and unused prior to my arrival, then all that matters is who got there first. The only defense I need is "I got here first." I would also say that figuring out how to use things with my mind is important for my existence, so it is entirely moral for me to be the one to decide in what way this property best suits my existence. 

1 hour ago, Jon Southall said:

Specifically when those conventions force our character to trade. It would then be a matter of chance whether terms favourable to our character's self interest exists or not.

I think this is a different question. This still sounds like you're asking what to do when the society you live in is irrational on a deep level that is actively detrimental to a rational life. I can think of a black person in the Jim Crow South during the fifties. The moral concerns in this situation have little to do with property. But these are problems to solve, not evidence that homesteading (very very loosely defined as property first acquired through first use) is weak or a bad basis.

Some of your objections resemble positions or arguments dealt with by Nozick. I wrote about it here: 

 

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

Neither. I am in favour of property rights and in establishing ownership.

My criticism is that under objectivism the basis for establishing ownership of natural resources (homesteading) is arbitrary and seems to contradict other aspects of objectivism (being free to direct your thoughts and productive effort to create value self interestedly in order to live).

Ok, that makes it clearer.

I assume you mean the Lockean idea is more chaotic than what you would propose. Which comes to the next question. What do you propose?

Currently Homesteading as you describe can't be applied in the US because everything is owned either by a person or the government. But in California, if you pay someone's real estate taxes for 7 years, you can ask for the property to become yours (it is abandoned). Unowned may exist in the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

And there is common law marriage, again not exactly arbitrary although one could call it that. It takes into account your relationship with the land person etc.

I 'm not sure, but I believe that in Albania, there are no deeds of ownership but people know who owns what.

Would you object to "if you occupy something, and there is no objection by anyone for some period of time", that you gain ownership? After than the police enforces your usage rights.

Edited by Easy Truth
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

Can you name one viable plot of unowned land you could use to produce value from near to you? If you can't identify this how far would you have to relocate until you find this? At what cost?

Not necessarily unowned, no; I'm not even sure how to go about determining that. But in northern Minnesota there are empty lots for sale all over the place (presumably because our environment and government are both hostile to human life).

Furthermore there is plenty of wilderness that obviously isn't being used and theoretically should be fair game for anyone to put to use if they wanted to. There's a good chunk of empty wilderness about fifty feet from where I'm at right now.

 

As for the cost of putting it to use that really depends on what it's to be used for. There are plenty of hobos who set up temporary shelters wherever they please at the cost of a few hours of their labor (quite literally doing the thing that I keep saying people can do) but using the land to actually produce something valuable would require a bit more capital than is required for a tent.

20 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

Didn't Rand state "reason is man's only absolute"? Seems like a wise statement.

Feel free to think in absolutes, but wisdom is seldom found at the extremes but in the point of balance, harking back to Aristotle.

I believe she also used the word "moral" in front of "absolute" but I'm not entirely certain of that point, and it's not entirely relevant anyway.

 

The law of gravity is an absolute. So are the facts that contradictions cannot exist, that no thing can travel faster than the speed of light and that two plus two makes four.

 

Some things truly are absolutes.

 

---

 

20 hours ago, Jon Southall said:

This state of affairs is specifically where he can't produce value by himself otherwise. Do you follow? We are purposely limiting that variable and exploring the implications and what the resolution is.

That's actually helpful; you probably should've started with that. But thank you.

 

Almost everything Rand ever said about the Objectivist ethics assumes that the character in question is capable of doing something of value in some way. If they can't then they have to rely on the charity and good will of those who can.

It's hard for me to imagine a situation in which I wouldn't be able to do any useful thing at all, but if that was ever true I'd just have to be very nice to those who had the material assets and ask them to please help me to survive.

 

In that situation I certainly would be working on my people skills. :P

 

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I have no "issues" with Objectivism. I use the philosophy to lead the best life possible in an irrational society. I may be an outlier, but I'm better off knowing and acting on the truth than I would be if I were to invest in a bad cultural movement. I focus on tings I can control and enjoy, and limit my exposure to politics except to the extent that I enjoy crafting arguments on issues I'm passionate about as an end in itself, regardless of the likelihood that my views will prevail in my lifetime. I enjoy going online and saying things that are on a totally different wavelength than the mainstream political narrative, things that people have never heard before. It's an art to me.

Supporting closed borders in our current situation is not a contradiction of Objectivism. Objectivism doesn't have anything to say about borders, it says that life is the standard of value. If open borders would threaten our lives under the status quo, Objectivism leads to the conclusion that we should keep them closed. Although this scenario is perhaps so unrealistic that it's worthless to consider, in my opinion, if a group of Objectivists somehow founded a free country today, a policy of free immigration would result in an influx of people who would corrupt the government in a short time, so I wouldn't support it. 

Edited by happiness
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, happiness said:

if a group of Objectivists somehow founded a free country today, a policy of free immigration would result in an influx of people who would corrupt the government in a short time, so I wouldn't support it. 

What if they set things up so that in order to actually vote (citizenship), people had to demonstrate an understanding of rational politics and take an oath to vote accordingly?  (Perhaps there could also be a background check to catch people likely to have hostile ulterior motives.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever the merits of the first part of your proposal, it looks like a literacy test, and the US outlawed these tests in the 60s (some states used them blatantly as a way to disqualify blacks). You'd need an act of Congress to change the law.

The second part would never fly, and we should be glad. Ask yourself who'd pick the criteria and who'd decide who met them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, happiness said:

If open borders would threaten our lives under the status quo, Objectivism leads to the conclusion that we should keep them closed.

Well, yeah, if peoples' peaceful movement across an imaginary line ever constitutes a threat to our very survival then of course we should prevent it.  I keep trying to think of a way that could be the case (assuming the immigrants are, in fact, peaceful) but I don't think I can.  I often crack jokes about people who're afraid of maskless, naked faces but being afraid of the movement of fully-clothed people you can't even see is a much better one.

I think an O'ist society would probably be sturdier than that!

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

What if they set things up so that in order to actually vote (citizenship), people had to demonstrate an understanding of rational politics and take an oath to vote accordingly?  (Perhaps there could also be a background check to catch people likely to have hostile ulterior motives.)

I'm far from an expert on this but it seems to me that this situation would be highly unstable. If non-voters came to vastly outnumber Objectivist "citizens," they could revolt and overwhelm the pro-rights government.

Edited by happiness
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...