Why is USMB a hub for bad views?

midican, I wonder how we can reconcile rationality and critical thinking..you seem to imply that our faculty of rationalization leads to trouble since it's mean to justify our beliefs instead of justify true beliefs. But if critical thinking could be taught, at least what logical fallacies are (some 20-200) of them, then we'd be better equipped to seek out justification that correspond to what humans know instead of what humans want to believe.

For anyone who would like to be challenged that reason, rationality, or even critical thinking work wonders or lead to a safe place, I'd suggest the book quoted below.

"...In the United States large sections of the population were happily abandoned to illiteracy from the very beginning. Now new sections are added to this lumpen proletariat with each passing year. Everywhere one hears the elites saying to each other, in private: "Well, of course, they are not educable." There are endless statistics to confirm the already educated in their pessimism. Seventy-two million Americans are illiterate, the majority of them white. This doesn't include the functionally illiterate. One-quarter of American children live below the poverty level. Forty percent of children in public schools are from racial minorities. The whites who can afford to are slipping away into the private school system. Twice as many children are born to American teenagers as to those of any other democracy. But if you begin to add such facts as that forty million Americans do not have access to medical care, you are also obliged to wonder if the problem lies not with the population but with the elites, their expectations and their own education." p131 'Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West' John Ralston Saul


"Within the ethos of reason there was also the idea of encouraging generalized education. Education instilled knowledge. Knowledge dispelled superstition, thus making it possible to reason. A man capable of reasoning was fit to be a citizen. But this idea of creating citizens was vague. What did the elites want them for? The eighteenth-century philosophers believed, after all, in permanently established but benevolent authority. Educating the masses was intended only to improve the relationship between the top and the bottom of society. Not to change the nature of the relationship. [..] Like any elite holding great power, the technocrats are not particularly interested in the creation of subsidiary elites. Thus, while a fortune continues to be spent on state schools and universities, the entire system continues to decline. The intellectual muscle needed to give it direction is concentrated instead upon the continued refining of the education of the technocratic elite. Indeed, whatever may be quoted about the need for general education, there has always been an underlying contradiction in what the nation-state wished to teach the citizen. The masses, it was believed, could not be given more than a basic education: basic skills and - nowhere in elite education does this appear - a moral framework. In other words, they were to receive the nuts and bolts of a humanist formation." p130 'Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West' John Ralston Saul
 
You probably shouldn't be hostile, period. This is debate, nobody has done you grievous harm.

Somebody gets how debate works.

Why can't we discuss ideas instead of constantly bringing up how the other person is posturing or other nonsense that has little substance. I don't know why anyone thinks they have the first clue as to the accuracy of their judgments; but accuracy and substance doesn't matter: what matters is yelling typed words and being aggressive.

Might does not make right. But why would I expect any of you hostile folks to get that? That's your WHOLE existence!

Maybe a new question ought to be what is debate?
 
You probably shouldn't be hostile, period. This is debate, nobody has done you grievous harm.

Somebody gets how debate works.

Why can't we discuss ideas instead of constantly bringing up how the other person is posturing or other nonsense that has little substance. I don't know why anyone thinks they have the first clue as to the accuracy of their judgments; but accuracy and substance doesn't matter: what matters is yelling typed words and being aggressive.

Might does not make right. But why would I expect any of you hostile folks to get that? That's your WHOLE existence!

Maybe a new question ought to be what is debate?

My nephew was debate co-captain with his then high school sweetheart, and they coached debate as husband and wife for ten years after they graduated. :thup:
 
We can never be close to rationality because you are not rational. You have a liberal worldview and are prepared to argue and advocate it no matter what I say. You seem to think you can do this by appealing to my ability to reason and by claiming you are neither liberal or conservative, which is a lie.

Every statement made by liberal politicians over the past 20 years has been a platitude. Emotively appealing to the lowest common denominator. Conservatives have done nothing BUT compromise. Not only with liberals, but with our own political party. McCain WAS a conservative compromise, Romney as well.

I presented "Hope and Change" as an example of how liberals are idealistic. You responded by defending the mantra and attempting to connect republicans to the phrase as well. But I was not attacking hope and change, merely giving an example of liberal idealism. Then you want to parse "idealism" and claim conservatives are ideologues as well, but I know better. Conservatism isn't an ideology like liberalism. This is why conservatives often have a difficult time coalescing behind a platform suitable to all. But the point is, you aren't wanting to genuinely listen to what I am saying, you want to defend liberalism and argue over semantics. Yet, you want ME to be reasonable, rational, and willing to compromise.

When you start muttering nonsense about the 1%, you give yourself away as a liberal. Conservatives recognize the "occupy movement" rhetoric for what it is, which is actually repackaged Maoist philosophy. If you go back and study Mao's rise to power, you will find the exact same arguments being made. The 1% vs. The 99%.... sparked the People's Revolution. Now I don't have time to argue with you over the merits of Maoist philosophy, if you want to believe in it, that's up to you.

Conservative philosophy is based on what is tried and true, what works for humanity, which is freedom and liberty. Not class warfare rhetoric and emotive pleas to idealism.

I appreciate the personal attack that I am not rational. Wait...youre a psychologist? Aren't you suppose to gather some information about me (one post over the internet is insufficient) before committing with full belief to such a sweeping generalization?

I tried to consider you as a rational peer so we could have rational dialogue but you don't know the first thing about me and you've already dismissed us as never being able to have rational dialogue because of me.

That judgment on your part excludes rational dialogue to be sure. You don't even give us the chance. Why? Because I simply challenged your beliefs on objective grounds. I was respectful and you still could care less.

Good day. Please don't waste your time responding since you think I'm inept at discussion.
 
Somebody gets how debate works.

That somebody is not you.

Why can't we discuss ideas instead of constantly bringing up how the other person is posturing or other nonsense that has little substance. I don't know why anyone thinks they have the first clue as to the accuracy of their judgments; but accuracy and substance doesn't matter: what matters is yelling typed words and being aggressive

Because that is part of the process of debating. Debate is the process of challenging another person's position, and that includes pointing out all of the factors in that position.

Your position is that people have bad views. You don't talk about what the fuck gives you the unilateral right to decree a view to be good or bad, you just presume that everyone else will go along with your moronic position because you are so much better educated than they are.

We are supposed to believe this even after you totally misrepresent what critical thinking is, confusing it with actual debate, and then you pretend that the only way people can actually fucking debate abothe person is if they don't fucking care about who is right.

Why the fuck should we debate if we don't care about the answer? We talk about things that directly impact our lives, and you think we should all pretend we are talking about the difference between British and American English.

Guess what, really people who talk about that get passionate too. There is a reason for that, only pretentious assholes talk about things they don't care about. If you want to limit your discourse to the circle of pretentious assholes I suggest you keep playing in your study group. In the real world, people care.

Might does not make right. But why would I expect any of you hostile folks to get that? That's your WHOLE existence!

Who the fuck is being hostile? The fact that people get passionate, that they actually care about something, does not mean they are hostile.

Your fucking problem is you haven't actually lived yet. You actually believe the claptrap you get in school from those professors that spent their entire pathetic lives in an ivory tower, isolated from the consequences of playing god with the lives of real people. This shit we talk about here matters, it isn't idle intellectual speculation, and passion is not hostility.

Maybe a new question ought to be what is debate?

Debate is not pretending that people have bad views, and declaring yourself the winner. If my views are bad, prove it by tearing them apart. If you are afraid to do that, then expect to get treated like a douche bag when you insist that everyone who is not you is wrong.
 
Last edited:
We can never be close to rationality because you are not rational. You have a liberal worldview and are prepared to argue and advocate it no matter what I say. You seem to think you can do this by appealing to my ability to reason and by claiming you are neither liberal or conservative, which is a lie.

Every statement made by liberal politicians over the past 20 years has been a platitude. Emotively appealing to the lowest common denominator. Conservatives have done nothing BUT compromise. Not only with liberals, but with our own political party. McCain WAS a conservative compromise, Romney as well.

I presented "Hope and Change" as an example of how liberals are idealistic. You responded by defending the mantra and attempting to connect republicans to the phrase as well. But I was not attacking hope and change, merely giving an example of liberal idealism. Then you want to parse "idealism" and claim conservatives are ideologues as well, but I know better. Conservatism isn't an ideology like liberalism. This is why conservatives often have a difficult time coalescing behind a platform suitable to all. But the point is, you aren't wanting to genuinely listen to what I am saying, you want to defend liberalism and argue over semantics. Yet, you want ME to be reasonable, rational, and willing to compromise.

When you start muttering nonsense about the 1%, you give yourself away as a liberal. Conservatives recognize the "occupy movement" rhetoric for what it is, which is actually repackaged Maoist philosophy. If you go back and study Mao's rise to power, you will find the exact same arguments being made. The 1% vs. The 99%.... sparked the People's Revolution. Now I don't have time to argue with you over the merits of Maoist philosophy, if you want to believe in it, that's up to you.

Conservative philosophy is based on what is tried and true, what works for humanity, which is freedom and liberty. Not class warfare rhetoric and emotive pleas to idealism.

I appreciate the personal attack that I am not rational. Wait...youre a psychologist? Aren't you suppose to gather some information about me (one post over the internet is insufficient) before committing with full belief to such a sweeping generalization?

I tried to consider you as a rational peer so we could have rational dialogue but you don't know the first thing about me and you've already dismissed us as never being able to have rational dialogue because of me.

That judgment on your part excludes rational dialogue to be sure. You don't even give us the chance. Why? Because I simply challenged your beliefs on objective grounds. I was respectful and you still could care less.

Good day. Please don't waste your time responding since you think I'm inept at discussion.

Someone pointing out that you are not rational is a personal attack.

You decalring that everyone who who lives in the United States is an idiot is reasoned debate.

See the problem here, asshole?
 
Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.....


Any thoughts?

Yes. You sound like a whiny ass self absorbed underachieving liberal tool.
 
Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.....


Any thoughts?

Yes. You sound like a whiny ass self absorbed underachieving liberal tool.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMRo5XCKddQ]Best Joke from "The Naked Gun" - YouTube[/ame]
 
"Who the fuck is being hostile?" ^^

LOL

Yes, because actually fucking caring is proof of hostility.

I actually started a thread about this one, fuckwad. I pointed out that only idiots take things on a message board personally. If you need help, and I can give it, I will. I have actually done that, which actually impressed somebody on this board that thought I hated them because I argued with almost everything they said. I am not hostile toward you, if I was I wouldn't talk to you. Grow up, then come back here and get some real adult conversation.
 
We can never be close to rationality because you are not rational. You have a liberal worldview and are prepared to argue and advocate it no matter what I say. You seem to think you can do this by appealing to my ability to reason and by claiming you are neither liberal or conservative, which is a lie.

Every statement made by liberal politicians over the past 20 years has been a platitude. Emotively appealing to the lowest common denominator. Conservatives have done nothing BUT compromise. Not only with liberals, but with our own political party. McCain WAS a conservative compromise, Romney as well.

I presented "Hope and Change" as an example of how liberals are idealistic. You responded by defending the mantra and attempting to connect republicans to the phrase as well. But I was not attacking hope and change, merely giving an example of liberal idealism. Then you want to parse "idealism" and claim conservatives are ideologues as well, but I know better. Conservatism isn't an ideology like liberalism. This is why conservatives often have a difficult time coalescing behind a platform suitable to all. But the point is, you aren't wanting to genuinely listen to what I am saying, you want to defend liberalism and argue over semantics. Yet, you want ME to be reasonable, rational, and willing to compromise.

When you start muttering nonsense about the 1%, you give yourself away as a liberal. Conservatives recognize the "occupy movement" rhetoric for what it is, which is actually repackaged Maoist philosophy. If you go back and study Mao's rise to power, you will find the exact same arguments being made. The 1% vs. The 99%.... sparked the People's Revolution. Now I don't have time to argue with you over the merits of Maoist philosophy, if you want to believe in it, that's up to you.

Conservative philosophy is based on what is tried and true, what works for humanity, which is freedom and liberty. Not class warfare rhetoric and emotive pleas to idealism.

I appreciate the personal attack that I am not rational. Wait...youre a psychologist? Aren't you suppose to gather some information about me (one post over the internet is insufficient) before committing with full belief to such a sweeping generalization?

I tried to consider you as a rational peer so we could have rational dialogue but you don't know the first thing about me and you've already dismissed us as never being able to have rational dialogue because of me.

That judgment on your part excludes rational dialogue to be sure. You don't even give us the chance. Why? Because I simply challenged your beliefs on objective grounds. I was respectful and you still could care less.

Good day. Please don't waste your time responding since you think I'm inept at discussion.

Again, why do you view things as "attacks" when they aren't? I didn't attack "hope and change" and I haven't attacked you as irrational. I said we can't be rational because you're not rational. That's an observational statement, not an attack. I never said that it's not possible for you to ever be rational. You're right, I know nothing about you. I can only go by what you've posted here, which is all I have to base my observations on. I never said you were inept at discussions or anything else. Another example of you interjecting things into what is said. People who are being rational, don't do this.
 
You probably shouldn't be hostile, period. This is debate, nobody has done you grievous harm.

Somebody gets how debate works.

Why can't we discuss ideas instead of constantly bringing up how the other person is posturing or other nonsense that has little substance. I don't know why anyone thinks they have the first clue as to the accuracy of their judgments; but accuracy and substance doesn't matter: what matters is yelling typed words and being aggressive.

Might does not make right. But why would I expect any of you hostile folks to get that? That's your WHOLE existence!

Maybe a new question ought to be what is debate?






Sounds like a great idea! You start. No longer calling sceptics "deniers" (a pejorative after all) would be an excellent start in the right direction. I'll make a deal with you....address the science and I will too.
 
We can never be close to rationality because you are not rational.

Again, why do you view things as "attacks" when they aren't? I didn't attack "hope and change" and I haven't attacked you as irrational. I said we can't be rational because you're not rational. That's an observational statement, not an attack. I never said that it's not possible for you to ever be rational. You're right, I know nothing about you. I can only go by what you've posted here, which is all I have to base my observations on. I never said you were inept at discussions or anything else. Another example of you interjecting things into what is said. People who are being rational, don't do this.

I didn't categorize your assertions as "attack," but what does it even matter? It plainly doesn't.

You claim it as fact, as observation. This is the foundation of our discussion--virtually prior to engaging you had already concluded, and then came to "observe" I am not rational. Since I am not rational, as evinced in 500 words or less, you must be rational. Why? Because before the discussion began you were carrying on about how Liberals=X and X is just bad, or whatever term you want to correct me, it doesn't matter.

I pleaded for you to not box me in as liberal because I have expressed almost no political beliefs. But because I challenged your deficient reasoning regarding liberals and conservatives (as if they are two very different ways of looking at the world but de facto they are one business party with two factions) you took it to mean I am irrational because it's not what you believe. Remember? What you believe is rational, by definition.


The terms of discussion are pre-set, and you've already defined and generalized yourself as rational. Thus it is crucial for you to define your opponent as not rational because it frees you up make any claim you want--whether it makes sense or not--because rationality is, again, on your side. How so? By definition. So naturally anything said that opposes your viewpoint is not rational, and so what's the point?

I was taught in my informal and formal education that rationality was not on anyone's side but was a tool used to facilitate human conversation and interaction. But assuming your opponents as observationally irrational after two posts is pretty ignoble of a psychologist, so again what's the point of discussion between you and I? There is none. So please save us some time. We know you know you're right. So just stop wasting your time trying to convert us lost souls, please, it's useless.
 
Last edited:
I didn't categorize your assertions as "attack," but what does it even matter? It plainly doesn't.

You claim it as fact, as observation. This is the foundation of our discussion--virtually prior to engaging you had already concluded, and then came to "observe" I am not rational. Since I am not rational, as evinced in 500 words or less, you must be rational. Why? Because before the discussion began you were carrying on about how Liberals=X and X is just bad, or whatever term you want to correct me, it doesn't matter.

I pleaded for you to not box me in as liberal because I have expressed almost no political beliefs.

Sure Sparky.. That's why this appears in the OP...

I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.

Hey -- Jerk walks into a bar, sees a parrot on a lady's shoulder and says "Screw your stupid parrot".. And the parrot says ------- Enjoy your Brawl Gnarly...

P.S. Would still like a definition of those "bad ideas" in the Title....
 
We can never be close to rationality because you are not rational. You have a liberal worldview and are prepared to argue and advocate it no matter what I say. You seem to think you can do this by appealing to my ability to reason and by claiming you are neither liberal or conservative, which is a lie.

Every statement made by liberal politicians over the past 20 years has been a platitude. Emotively appealing to the lowest common denominator. Conservatives have done nothing BUT compromise. Not only with liberals, but with our own political party. McCain WAS a conservative compromise, Romney as well.

I presented "Hope and Change" as an example of how liberals are idealistic. You responded by defending the mantra and attempting to connect republicans to the phrase as well. But I was not attacking hope and change, merely giving an example of liberal idealism. Then you want to parse "idealism" and claim conservatives are ideologues as well, but I know better. Conservatism isn't an ideology like liberalism. This is why conservatives often have a difficult time coalescing behind a platform suitable to all. But the point is, you aren't wanting to genuinely listen to what I am saying, you want to defend liberalism and argue over semantics. Yet, you want ME to be reasonable, rational, and willing to compromise.

When you start muttering nonsense about the 1%, you give yourself away as a liberal. Conservatives recognize the "occupy movement" rhetoric for what it is, which is actually repackaged Maoist philosophy. If you go back and study Mao's rise to power, you will find the exact same arguments being made. The 1% vs. The 99%.... sparked the People's Revolution. Now I don't have time to argue with you over the merits of Maoist philosophy, if you want to believe in it, that's up to you.

Conservative philosophy is based on what is tried and true, what works for humanity, which is freedom and liberty. Not class warfare rhetoric and emotive pleas to idealism.

I appreciate the personal attack that I am not rational. Wait...youre a psychologist? Aren't you suppose to gather some information about me (one post over the internet is insufficient) before committing with full belief to such a sweeping generalization?

I tried to consider you as a rational peer so we could have rational dialogue but you don't know the first thing about me and you've already dismissed us as never being able to have rational dialogue because of me.

That judgment on your part excludes rational dialogue to be sure. You don't even give us the chance. Why? Because I simply challenged your beliefs on objective grounds. I was respectful and you still could care less.

Good day. Please don't waste your time responding since you think I'm inept at discussion.

Again, why do you view things as "attacks" when they aren't? I didn't attack "hope and change" and I haven't attacked you as irrational. I said we can't be rational because you're not rational. That's an observational statement, not an attack. I never said that it's not possible for you to ever be rational. You're right, I know nothing about you. I can only go by what you've posted here, which is all I have to base my observations on. I never said you were inept at discussions or anything else. Another example of you interjecting things into what is said. People who are being rational, don't do this.

Neither do people who actually believe in adult discourse, yet gnarly, the guy that is complaining about how other people talk to him, is dumping insults on everyone who dares to disagree with him.
 
Last edited:
We can never be close to rationality because you are not rational.

Again, why do you view things as "attacks" when they aren't? I didn't attack "hope and change" and I haven't attacked you as irrational. I said we can't be rational because you're not rational. That's an observational statement, not an attack. I never said that it's not possible for you to ever be rational. You're right, I know nothing about you. I can only go by what you've posted here, which is all I have to base my observations on. I never said you were inept at discussions or anything else. Another example of you interjecting things into what is said. People who are being rational, don't do this.

I didn't categorize your assertions as "attack," but what does it even matter? It plainly doesn't.

Well, you've twice used the word "attack" to describe my responses to things you've said. First, you claimed I had "attacked" the Hope and Change mantra. Then, you claimed I had personally "attacked" you as not being rational. It matters because if you view objective honest evaluation as "attacks" you can't be rational and I can't have a rational discussion with you because you're not being rational.

You claim it as fact, as observation.

Observations are indeed "facts" as they have been observed.

This is the foundation of our discussion--virtually prior to engaging you had already concluded, and then came to "observe" I am not rational.

I had not "already concluded" anything before I read your post. After reading your post and your initial response to me, I made the observation that you are not rational.

Since I am not rational, as evinced in 500 words or less, you must be rational. Why? Because before the discussion began you were carrying on about how Liberals=X and X is just bad, or whatever term you want to correct me, it doesn't matter.

I never claimed that because you are not rational, I must be rational. That would be a "logical fallacy" and I try to avoid them. I merely stated we cannot have a rational discussion because you are not rational. I didn't "carry on" about Liberals=X and X is just bad. I stated that liberal policies tend to be idealistic and frivolous, then gave an explicit example. Here again, you are demonstrating how you are not rational.

I pleaded for you to not box me in as liberal because I have expressed almost no political beliefs.

But you did. You immediately viewed my critique as an "attack" and began defending the "hope and change" mantra. You have continually lobbed passive insults at conservatism, while pleading for reasonable discourse.

But because I challenged your deficient reasoning regarding liberals and conservatives (as if they are two very different ways of looking at the world but de facto they are one business party with two factions) you took it to mean I am irrational because it's not what you believe. Remember? What you believe is rational, by definition.

Here again you passively insult me by suggesting my reasoning is deficient. I say you are not being rational because you are not being rational, no other reason. People are rational who don't agree with me all the time.

As for libreals and conservatives, I tried to explain it earlier... Liberals are ideologically driven, they are ideologues who believe in idealistic theories that are often frivolous and do not work in practice. Conservatives are not ideologues. Their worldview is based on reasoning and past human experience. On ideological issues, they can be all over the board. I know conservatives who favor gay marriage, pot legalization and abortion. The country is currently run by two parties, the Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are largely liberal ideologues, Republicans are often supported by conservatives because conservatives are not liberal ideologues.

The terms of discussion are pre-set, and you've already defined and generalized yourself as rational.

No, I defined and generalized myself as conservative and you as liberal and not rational.

Thus it is crucial for you to define your opponent as not rational because it frees you up make any claim you want--whether it makes sense or not--because rationality is, again, on your side. How so? By definition. So naturally anything said that opposes your viewpoint is not rational, and so what's the point?

I've never claimed any of this. I simply pointed out that we cannot have a rational discussion because you are not rational.

I was taught in my informal and formal education that rationality was not on anyone's side but was a tool used to facilitate human conversation and interaction. But assuming your opponents as observationally irrational after two posts is pretty ignoble of a psychologist, so again what's the point of discussion between you and I? There is none. So please save us some time. We know you know you're right. So just stop wasting your time trying to convert us lost souls, please, it's useless.

I never claimed rationality was on my side. I only pointed out that it's not possible to have a rational conversation with someone who is not being rational. I did not say that you are irrational, just that you are not rational.

As for my psychology background, while it does help me figure people out here sometimes, I don't always use my training in discourse with others as I would a patient or client. I reveal much more of my personal opinion and views than I ever would in a professional setting.

Now, I am not here to "convert lost souls" whatever that's supposed to mean. And perhaps it is a useless waste of time to attempt conversing with you, but I have genuinely been trying to help you realize that you're not being rational. This seems to have offended you. I would recommend stepping back and examining your own commentary to see how others may view it as non-rational. Realize and understand that we all believe our views to be rational, unless we are admittedly insane.
 
You have never stated anything other than your lies about being a "nuclear watch officer", a position which doesn't exist in the US Navy. So you are both a liar and a moron.

For those who haven't ever seen Westwall's true face showing through the mask, he would be guy who will belittle someone's military service if he gets angry at them.
 
Last edited:
You are making me dizzy watch you spin circles trying to justify why you regard someone you know almost nothing about so plainly not rational. Namely, me, whom you have NO consequential information about, yet repeatedly affirm I am not rational.

How is that respectful dialogue? From a psychologist? I've come to expect higher standards from people who study interpersonal relationships. I guess youre an exception. Or do you want to try again, this time, returning my respect for mutual benefit? We can but that choice is up to you, I can't make it for you.

You harp on the word attack like it makes the some meaningful demarcation between rational and not. An "attack" in the context I used it is quite appropriate. It means a challenge or "attack" on a position, an objection; it is simply an argument against something or viewpoint. What do you take "attack" to mean? How does my use of "attack" become the defining characteristic of my lack of rationality?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top