Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 27, 2016, 07:04:18 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 858
1  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Update for Everyone IV - Hungover on: Today at 10:09:47 am
I want to hear more about afleitch's kitten.

His name is Finn (we passed through the Finnieston area of Glasgow in the train and it stuck.) He's a 9 week old ginger tom who is nothing but energy. Though he's comfortable being picked up and his paws played with which is something! His nick name is 'puppy'...

This is him with me and a Celtic scarf.

2  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: UK General Discussion: Corbyn vs the Pigdiddler on: May 25, 2016, 09:02:16 am
This is completely unrelated, but how relevant is the issue of abortion in the UK? Are there any pro-life leaders, or pro-life labourites, and are they allowed to vote with their conscience.

Abortion is a conscience vote yes. Laws at present are balanced enough  (despite being quite restrictive in parts) to generally satisfy everyone except the most rabid pro-lifers who are generally a fringe movement who can't get the ear of policy makers or the attention of the public.

They got permission to protest outside a Glasgow hospital earlier this year for the whole of lent and while I ended up on an informal list of people who were planning to escort women to and from appointments we weren't needed as they drifted away after a few days.
3  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Update for Everyone IV - Hungover on: May 24, 2016, 05:01:45 pm
We bought a kitten.

There is one major problem with kittens. They grow up to become cats.

If anything that will be a relief.
4  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Hypothetical: God is disproved on: May 24, 2016, 06:33:02 am
There seems to be a lot of this in threads about religion here.  It doesn't make sense to arbitrarily apply much higher standards of scrutiny toward arguments against one's current belief system, than those in favor.

It’s what I’ve been discussing further up the thread. Standards of proof for god or more accurately a specific theistic interpretation of god are ‘lower’ (in part to get ‘buy in’ from a believer) and involve different assumptions than when god is defended.

The classic metaphysical defence of god (as unfalsifiable etc) is perfectly acceptable for a deist. But the bridge between that concept and being able to identify the intent, will and actions of a god leading to specific (physical) theistic claims is not one that relies purely on metaphysics.

(This is slightly off topic but explains this a little: The scientific method mayonly study that which is material, but it can also study anything that interacts with what is material and observable; That which has an effect on reality can be investigated in reality. Things that do not have an effect on reality, or things for which no sufficient investigative evidence has been provided to support having any effect on reality cannot be said to exist in any meaningful way.

If god is interacting with physical reality, then the effects would be observable even if the cause is not understood. Now clearly the effects had to observable in the Christian tradition because Jesus of Nazareth was a physical being (even if he was an avatar). Whether you’re a named person on the New Testament or some unnamed street sweeper that once saw him buy something from a market place, that’s an effect on physical reality.

There are specific claims made on the nature of Jesus and everything that flows from it that have an effect on physical reality. Inferring that ‘sometimes’ this interaction happens, leaves the interpretation of when the ‘sometimes’ is happening in the lap of those who inhabit material reality, making such experiences subjective. And Christianity is not much of a fan of metaphysical subjectivism, despite having to continually apply the damned thing...)
5  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Hypothetical: God is disproved on: May 23, 2016, 12:23:38 pm

The pre-assumption that god is omniscient and omnipresent is itself a hypothetical based on a particular theistic interpretation of the concept of god in a dichotomy where a god has to present itself as an option (despite different ontologies existing that don’t require the concept of god-v-no god) You can’t resort to your base hypothetical construct of the nature of god to then explain over a series of different posts, why you find engaging in hypotheticals meaningless. Because you clearly engage with hypothetical concepts already!

I'm sorry but I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

I'm saying that questions of the format "If X happens, what happens next" where  X is some event in human history may be fun, but they're fundamentally unanswerable and aren't really a serious debate.

You're saying that because God might not exist or might not be how I think He is (so is hypothetical) this is a hypocritical suggestion?  (I might be wrong because as I said I am having difficulty parsing this) But that's a ridiculous argument. It's perfectly possible to argue, for example, about whether, say, Jesus was entirely fictitious or based on a real person and then turn around and say that discussing how the world would have turned out without him (or, if you like, the idea of him) is pointless. The two are entirely unconnected.


So if god is not a hypothetical concept (as much as no god is), then what concept is it?

Define hypothetical concept. If you mean that God may or may not exist than sure. I agree with that.
It's a hypothetical concept. But so what? What does that have to do with the matter at hand? Where is the hypocrisy?

Take the debate over whether there is life on Mars. There might or there might not be. It's a hypothetical concept. You can debate that for as long as you like. But surely it's obvious that the question "If life was discovered on Mars how would that change the course of the history?" and whether you think that's a meaningful debate is unrelated.


Because if the existence of god is hypothetical, where is the value, where is the 'meaningfulness' in arguing forit or a condition under which it might exist, whether because you believe it exists, or thinking it's worthwhile talking about even if you don't?

So for example in saying this;

The reason that it doesn't make sense is that the conventional, orthodox belief right across (most) different faiths is that God is Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing, Why Anything At All Exists, He's not some person who is basically like us but also has some pretty neat superpowers. What this means for proof and disproof is that you can't just find him by looking throughout the universe and taking some readings,

You're making a hypothetical assumption that the 'means for proof and disproof' is founded on broadly agreed theistic notions of an omnipotent omipresent god. 'You can't just find him by looking through the universe and taking some readings'. Why not? Who said you can't? That was what I was talking about in my earlier effort post.

What you end up with is, amongst most of those who have contributed so far, is believers arguing against the relevance of this particular hypothetical and those who don't believe arguing it has merit as an exercise in cognitive science. It has merit as an exercise for the same reason dealing with god (nominally a Christian god) as a hypothetical 'start point' and engaging with it (which is the basis of 90% of posts on this board)

What has piqued my interest, and I think Alcon's is exactly why 'what if god was disproved' has seemingly less merit among some as a hypothetical than the equally as hypothetically based assumption that 'god is proven (at least in my understanding as a believer)', which leads people to discuss whether pets go to heaven, whether the church should welcome female deacons or where did humans acquire original sin?
6  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Hypothetical: God is disproved on: May 23, 2016, 11:28:23 am
The difference is that it's proven history the Nazis lost and that Stalin died in 1953. I'm an atheist. I truly don't think there is a God or a higher power and it's a serious debate. Knowing that there's no higher power might change people's line of thinking.

That's a distinction without a difference. They are all questions about what would happen if some event X occurred. But of course event X (be that Stalin living longer, the battle of hastings being won by Harold, God being disproved or whatever) has not happened, so we simply can't say with any degree of accuracy what it's effects would be, for the simple reason that history and people are just too complex. They change rapidly and in unforeseen ways. We can of course speculate, but we'll never even come close to knowing. Any response is quite literally unfalsifiable, so it's not really serious.

As a side note someone will probably raise the fact that I seem to be saying the same thing about pretty much everything upthread, so this isn't a good objection. And there may be some truth to that. But I'd say that I'm arguing that pretty much everything is unfalsifiable in the most general sense (we can't prove that the earth was created a few moments ago with the appearance of age, for instance), but hypotheticals aren't even falsifiable in a more limited cases that we actaully use in our day to day lives. For instance if we accept a few basic axioms of science (that things are repeatable and so on) then an experiment  can be used to falsify something, if we accept that documents can tell us about the past in some sense then we can use them to falsify historical statements,  if we accept that the Bible is a revelation from God than we can use it to falsify theological statements. My point is that for all these things we accept a set of assumptions and then we use them to discuss and prove and disprove various statements. But for hypotheticals, how can we even attempt to do that?

The pre-assumption that god is omniscient and omnipresent is itself a hypothetical based on a particular theistic interpretation of the concept of god in a dichotomy where a god has to present itself as an option (despite different ontologies existing that don’t require the concept of god-v-no god) You can’t resort to your base hypothetical construct of the nature of god to then explain over a series of different posts, why you find engaging in hypotheticals meaningless. Because you clearly engage with hypothetical concepts already!

I'm sorry but I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

I'm saying that questions of the format "If X happens, what happens next" where  X is some event in human history may be fun, but they're fundamentally unanswerable and aren't really a serious debate.

You're saying that because God might not exist or might not be how I think He is (so is hypothetical) this is a hypocritical suggestion?  (I might be wrong because as I said I am having difficulty parsing this) But that's a ridiculous argument. It's perfectly possible to argue, for example, about whether, say, Jesus was entirely fictitious or based on a real person and then turn around and say that discussing how the world would have turned out without him (or, if you like, the idea of him) is pointless. The two are entirely unconnected.


So if god is not a hypothetical concept (as much as no god is), then what concept is it?
7  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Hypothetical: God is disproved on: May 23, 2016, 09:46:39 am
The difference is that it's proven history the Nazis lost and that Stalin died in 1953. I'm an atheist. I truly don't think there is a God or a higher power and it's a serious debate. Knowing that there's no higher power might change people's line of thinking.

That's a distinction without a difference. They are all questions about what would happen if some event X occurred. But of course event X (be that Stalin living longer, the battle of hastings being won by Harold, God being disproved or whatever) has not happened, so we simply can't say with any degree of accuracy what it's effects would be, for the simple reason that history and people are just too complex. They change rapidly and in unforeseen ways. We can of course speculate, but we'll never even come close to knowing. Any response is quite literally unfalsifiable, so it's not really serious.

As a side note someone will probably raise the fact that I seem to be saying the same thing about pretty much everything upthread, so this isn't a good objection. And there may be some truth to that. But I'd say that I'm arguing that pretty much everything is unfalsifiable in the most general sense (we can't prove that the earth was created a few moments ago with the appearance of age, for instance), but hypotheticals aren't even falsifiable in a more limited cases that we actaully use in our day to day lives. For instance if we accept a few basic axioms of science (that things are repeatable and so on) then an experiment  can be used to falsify something, if we accept that documents can tell us about the past in some sense then we can use them to falsify historical statements,  if we accept that the Bible is a revelation from God than we can use it to falsify theological statements. My point is that for all these things we accept a set of assumptions and then we use them to discuss and prove and disprove various statements. But for hypotheticals, how can we even attempt to do that?

The pre-assumption that god is omniscient and omnipresent is itself a hypothetical based on a particular theistic interpretation of the concept of god in a dichotomy where a god has to present itself as an option (despite different ontologies existing that don’t require the concept of god-v-no god) You can’t resort to your base hypothetical construct of the nature of god to then explain over a series of different posts, why you find engaging in hypotheticals meaningless. Because you clearly engage with hypothetical concepts already!
8  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Hypothetical: God is disproved on: May 23, 2016, 06:36:59 am
I think Alcon is doing a tremendous job here and I agree completely that there has been a very uncharacteristically terse response to a very simple counterfactual. The question was asking you to assume that this had been over ridden. It is an experiment in understanding the cognitive science of religion. These things are worth talking about.

The answer to the premise (which at this stage doesn’t really matter now) is broadly simple. It is overridden, to each individuals satisfaction as one moves out of a system of belief. I offered myself as an example. The end result of that, is not measurable; i.e there is nothing in the wide spectrum of human experience that belief or non-belief mitigates. Or in layman’s terms. There are as many Christian assholes as non-Christian assholes. Being Christian doesn’t stop you being an asshole and not being one doesn’t make you more or less of one.

All this feeds into, the cognitive science of religion (which is not a strictly secular pursuit). Justin Barrett (who is actually a Christian) is fairly accessible on this. He talks about ‘counter intuitives’, which Alcon has described in part without using the term. For example, the gods that are currently popular (i.e; they have survived) are significantly more complex than some earlier, more base gods (gods relating to farming, the sun, water etc). These base gods, or rather their base actions is what is called ‘minimal counter intuitives’ i.e taking a simple concept like a bush, which we all know of, then making it talk. You would be hard pressed to believe that happens now, though some do and indeed these things still appear in core texts. I’ll come back to this later.

Teleology is essentially the basis for all attempts at human understanding. Theology is a subset of this and through this, certain successful religions have become theologically complex but still accessible. So the Christian god for example is made omniscient, omnipresent and essentially all powerful existing outside of all applications of human understanding (which people have argued up thread in their opposition to this counterfactual) yet believers tend to revert to more intuitive, more anthropomorphic understandings of god when faced with making rapid inferences. So gods are ‘highly counterintuitive’ yet believers rely on ‘minimal counterintuitive’ notions of god (he was there for me, he answered my prayer, I need him, he helps me) in part because they are easier to process than highly counterintuitive notions of god that may be theologically more correct.

 It’s also worth noting that it helps them square not only belief in god but ‘respect’ for god as a tenet, with core theological texts that in many ways are theologically correct, but fantastical or indeed disturbing. Their application either on contemporary Judea or applied to modernity can be considered inhuman. (eg bears mauling children for making fun of a bald prophet)

There is another angle to this and in fact Ernest, you just did it so it makes my job on explaining this easier Smiley! You demonstrated a ‘highly counterintuitive’ notion of god, when defending the concept. There is no physical, philosophical or scientific sword by which you can puncture god. There he has been moulded. There has been made untouchable.

But the untouchable doesn’t really provide succour does it? If you describe to someone the omniscient, omnipresent concept of god, you might impress them, but you will struggle to get the investment to sustain belief. So personal concepts of god have to be precisely that. You need the ‘minimal counterintuitive’ notion of god to make it tangible. To make the connection between the believer and the belief.

So Christian apologists have constructed a god that is not allowed to be ‘disproved’ using basically any arsenal against it. But yet ‘proof’ is sustained based on the very same concepts that you’re not apparently allowed to use to scrutinise or disprove god. In other words, the exit out is a 6 foot steel door, but the entrance in is a screen door.

Christianity being true is partly based on physical, observable and measurable claims; claims to do with time, with history, with geography, biology, celestial events, physics and with god made man and so on. Indeed the proof of Jesus being a real person is one that has always had one foot based on the physical. On history. On the plausibility of the setting. That’s the minimal counter intuitive; a Jewish carpenter, in a named place at a named time being the son of god. Very few successful religions don’t have that ‘way in’.

The standards of proof (excluding faith, which is a separate issue) are designed to be far more physical, far more tangible and far less theological than the desired standard of proof against.
Which leads those who are standing outside of this to demand ’why?’ Now if you’re a deist, then it’s perfectly acceptable to place unbeatable standards by which to disprove a deity. It’s therefore equally acceptable to place unbeatable standards by which to prove a deity and it’s intent or goal(if any). If that was the case no one would perhaps have even thought of the concept in the first instance or if they did, they wouldn’t lose much sleep over it. But with theism, it’s a different matter.

Cognitive science is, as I said a fascinating subject and all this obfuscation is a pretty poor attempt to not want to stretch your legs a little.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Hillary really in trouble? on: May 22, 2016, 06:05:31 am
No. It's May.
10  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: Austrian Elections & Politics 2.0 (Presidential Election: April 24 & May 22) on: May 22, 2016, 06:03:58 am
If Hofer wins, as much as he is political scum I expect disproportionate  bleatings from the EU. They have form. Though not when it comes to Poland or Hungary.
11  General Discussion / History / Re: Most underrated evil person in history? on: May 22, 2016, 04:45:41 am
I'd agree with Che, on the basis of that fact he was needlessly idolised in the first instance.
12  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Hypothetical: God is disproved on: May 22, 2016, 02:11:26 am
There's a serious amount of 'not wanting to answer' dressed up as wank in this thread.
13  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Pope Francis says he's open to Female Deacons, paving the way to Female Priests on: May 21, 2016, 08:01:00 am
Whatever next? Letting them drive cars?
14  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Update for Everyone IV - Hungover on: May 21, 2016, 04:13:35 am
We bought a kitten.
15  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Hypothetical: God is disproved on: May 21, 2016, 04:09:43 am
God was disproved for me. And here I am. I think unless my income source depended on it most people would adjust.
16  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Hypothetical: God is disproved on: May 20, 2016, 07:24:54 am
First off, define "God". What exactly is your absurd hypothetical disproving?

That's not what he asked. He asked if god was disproved what would your reaction be?
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Seriously democrats, this is getting out of hand. on: May 18, 2016, 01:53:42 am
Sanders wins off the back of hipsters, angry white trust fund liberals and anti-establishment rural types who tossed a coin between him and Trump. That coalition will fall apart and Sanders will be begging for the $27ers to pay off his debts. I don't really see them as a force by 2020.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: NV Democratic State Convention on: May 17, 2016, 11:43:14 am
Sanders was always going to eat himself. The fact he's gotten this far is as much of a shocking indictment of the US political system as Trump winning on the other side.
19  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama mandates All Public Schools to let Trans students use bathroom of choice on: May 17, 2016, 05:57:57 am
This entire policy is driven by men who fantasise about what they might do if they had access to female restrooms. Dirty f-ckers.

So you side with those of us who want to keep our wives and kids safe?

JCL. I've asked you this repeatedly and I will do so again. Look at the image above and the image below this post. One word answers will do.

1. Should these individuals use the men's room or the women's room?

2. If you think they should use the women's room to keep 'wives and kids' safe because they have or have had a vagina, please explain precisely why this benefits 'wives and kids' and benefits these
men for these men to be sharing the restroom with women?

3. If they use the women's room, what should they show women to prove to them that they are, as far as the 'law' is concerned, women and not men?
20  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Update for Everyone IV - Hungover on: May 17, 2016, 05:47:04 am
A crisis with my girlfriend and subsequent prayer have convinced me that I need to return to my roots as a religious, pro-life, vintage-vibe leftist, not the weird embittered quasi-reactionary I've been slowly sliding towards being.

Yes. This iteration of Natheline was the most annoying of the past six.

"Natheline"? Seriously? And I bet you're the kind of guy who (rightfully) gets outraged when conservative assholes misgender trans people, aren't you? Do you even see the contradiction? Or is not respecting people's basic personal choices perfectly OK as long as it suits your cultural agenda (whatever that even is)?

Also, this forum has multiple people who went from libertarian to communist, from mainstream Democrat to North Korea apologist, from centrist Republican to fundie and then to right-populist, and countless other combinations of random ideologies. Heck, weren't you a Thatcherite until a couple years ago? Pretty sure all of Nathan's "iterations" have been far more consistent than the random phases most posters have gone through.

Nathan for the past few weeks has been f-cking annoying. I’m, not saying that as someone who doesn’t like him; quite the contrary I can assure you. He has he admitted himself he’s been putting on the air of a strange ‘embittered quasi reactionary’. It showed and it sucked.

I have no idea why he went down this path (and it coincided with his return to Nathan) because it’s was so dull and so disengaging and so patently forced that it’s a great relief he’s finally noticed. ‘Natheline’ was a barb. I accept that, but if you think it’s somehow anti trans or anti queer or against whatever banner of indignation you’re hoisting today then the point has flown over your head and hit the ground a hundred yards behind you.

Sometimes people are better than who they think they are or should be. Sometimes you want someone who’s smart, engaged, thoughtful and clearly capable of complex thinking that exists outside of basic regurgitation that counts for discussion these days to not rhetorically gut themselves. Nathan knows enough about the world and everything  wrenchingly painful or exhaustingly beautiful not to be publically embittered by it.

I don’t care what journey someone goes through. This is nothing to do with identity or politics; I hate people who cheapen themselves


I can't speak for Antonio, but for me the "Natheline" thing was the main thing that was horribly wrong with your post. It's not that it's "anti-trans" or "politically incorrect"; it just violates human decency to not refer to people by their preferred name, regardless of what their reason for preferring that name is. In this particular case it gives off the impression (rightly or wrongly) that you care about trans people primarily because they fit your ideology. You seem like a decent enough person so I'm sure that isn't actually how you feel, but that's what's coming across here.

I used ‘Natheline’ as a stupid portmanteau for various iterations of the one poster. I will accept a flogging for that

However, the idea that I only care about trans people (why is this even the topic being discussed?) for ideologically reasons is something I’m struggling to even see in the one line response I gave earlier. However I’ll answer the charge that everyone else seems to be making. I care about trans people because they are human beings. If you like or dislike the inherent nature of a person or yourself ‘ideological’ reasons then there’s something wrong with you. I think that’s been something I’ve been consistent about for the 13 years I’ve been on this forum. I don't think there's anything remotely ideological about basic humanism.
21  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Update for Everyone IV - Hungover on: May 17, 2016, 03:11:22 am
A crisis with my girlfriend and subsequent prayer have convinced me that I need to return to my roots as a religious, pro-life, vintage-vibe leftist, not the weird embittered quasi-reactionary I've been slowly sliding towards being.

Yes. This iteration of Natheline was the most annoying of the past six.

"Natheline"? Seriously? And I bet you're the kind of guy who (rightfully) gets outraged when conservative assholes misgender trans people, aren't you? Do you even see the contradiction? Or is not respecting people's basic personal choices perfectly OK as long as it suits your cultural agenda (whatever that even is)?

Also, this forum has multiple people who went from libertarian to communist, from mainstream Democrat to North Korea apologist, from centrist Republican to fundie and then to right-populist, and countless other combinations of random ideologies. Heck, weren't you a Thatcherite until a couple years ago? Pretty sure all of Nathan's "iterations" have been far more consistent than the random phases most posters have gone through.

Nathan for the past few weeks has been f-cking annoying. I’m, not saying that as someone who doesn’t like him; quite the contrary I can assure you. He has he admitted himself he’s been putting on the air of a strange ‘embittered quasi reactionary’. It showed and it sucked.

I have no idea why he went down this path (and it coincided with his return to Nathan) because it’s was so dull and so disengaging and so patently forced that it’s a great relief he’s finally noticed. ‘Natheline’ was a barb. I accept that, but if you think it’s somehow anti trans or anti queer or against whatever banner of indignation you’re hoisting today then the point has flown over your head and hit the ground a hundred yards behind you.

Sometimes people are better than who they think they are or should be. Sometimes you want someone who’s smart, engaged, thoughtful and clearly capable of complex thinking that exists outside of basic regurgitation that counts for discussion these days to not rhetorically gut themselves. Nathan knows enough about the world and everything  wrenchingly painful or exhaustingly beautiful not to be publically embittered by it.

I don’t care what journey someone goes through. This is nothing to do with identity or politics; I hate people who cheapen themselves
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Politico: Is Bernie Sanders Becoming the Ralph Nader of 2016? on: May 16, 2016, 01:27:03 pm
Bernie has always been for Bernie.
23  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Update for Everyone IV - Hungover on: May 15, 2016, 01:26:27 pm
A crisis with my girlfriend and subsequent prayer have convinced me that I need to return to my roots as a religious, pro-life, vintage-vibe leftist, not the weird embittered quasi-reactionary I've been slowly sliding towards being.

Yes. This iteration of Natheline was the most annoying of the past six.
24  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama mandates All Public Schools to let Trans students use bathroom of choice on: May 15, 2016, 01:20:16 pm
I want to support the whole transgender thing. If men want to wear dresses and get a sex change, I'm cool with it.

As liberal as I am, even I have my own reservations on the bathroom issue.

What bathroom should he use?



Show me the rest of the body and I'll tell you.

If he has a vagina, or a prosthetic penis, should he be using the women's room? Why should a man be in the women's room? Should he pull his pants down to keep the women at ease to show them he's 'not really a man'? Will women even wait for that? Will they call on security, or have someone they are with rough him up for abiding by the law?

Or should he use the mens room, because he's a man?
25  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama mandates All Public Schools to let Trans students use bathroom of choice on: May 15, 2016, 02:34:26 am
I want to support the whole transgender thing. If men want to wear dresses and get a sex change, I'm cool with it.

As liberal as I am, even I have my own reservations on the bathroom issue.

What bathroom should he use?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 858


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines