Home › Forums › MGTOW Central › Is Moral Relativism the Root of Cultural Collapse?
This topic contains 103 replies, has 20 voices, and was last updated by 
John Doe 4 years ago.
- AuthorPosts
A suggested (not by me) global moral system is the Noahide Laws. Google it. Explore the emerging theocratic trends around us.
Funny you should mention those, because my neighbor did about a week ago. I haven’t looked it up yet.
With that being said the UN is pushing for an interfaith movement, which is a fact that you can google. We are entering a time of a global religion being pushed. Athiesm/Nihilism/World Wars will weaken the foundations of the old ones.
Google albert Pike and the World Wars. Regardless of whether this document is legitimate or not, I would have to agree with it.
2. Mentalism primarily supposes that what we create first exists in the mind, which is absolutely true. I’ve already stated that every invention first existed as a concept of the human brain before the person constructed it with the material. Yes, the concept of a creator is in there, as was proposed by Thomas Aquinas, but even though I am secular I don’t have a problem with that. I still view the principle of mentalism for what it is: the ability of the mind to formulate ideas that can be made into a reality.
I agree the mind formulates ideas that can be made a reality by action. That part, I agree with. This is a philosophical question of whether the mind is part of physical reality, and perceives same reality, or is apart from it and ‘creates it’. I see no way to prove it one way or another. The part I disagreed with is minds co-creating the same reality, and presumably existing outside it — that, there is no way to prove. We cannot even know if other individuals truly exist, or exist, only in our minds. We typically choose to believe they do exist, and exercise the moral principle of reciprocity to allow for peaceful coexistence. But there is no way to know if we’re creating peaceful coexistence with figments of our imagination, or other people. Such are the limits of knowledge and perception.
3. (which you labeled as a second 2) I’m going to call your bluff on this. I’d like to see a specific reference backing up your claim on this. You also misspelled the “Schrödinger” equation, which leads me to question just exactly how familiar you are with the material.
Very familiar, though I did mis-spell it. Guess I’m a typical engineer there. I’ve studied basic QM in college, including operator mathematics, the Hamiltonian, Eigenvalues, etc — basic undergrad physical chemistry. Reference? Back in high school, to illustrate the principle that wave-behavior was insignificant for macroscopic particles, my instructor had us calculate the De Broglie wavelength of a baseball. answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090313071505AAcxQs1 — I suppose that’s as good a reference as any. When you talk about the way nucleons attract at short range (protons) and are repulsive at greater distances due to like charge, there is simply nothing like that going on in the larger scale universe. Similarly, a planet or large object doesn’t jump in large, discrete steps the way, say, an electron absorbing a photon does. Look at the shape of ‘orbitals’ in atoms and compare to planetary orbits. Even the term ‘orbital’ has a completely different meaning, even though it’s the same word — orbital for an atom is a statistical distribution, whereas for a macroscopic object like a planet an orbit, is a well-defined, predictable path unless other bodies exert gravitational forces that perturb the motion significantly. So yes, everything is described by a wave function… but it doesn’t matter for macroscopic objects, because quantum effects are vanishingly small and completely insignificant. So that’s why this ‘principle’ and Passio’s comparison or planetary motion to atoms, is non-sensical. The way in which he describes this doesn’t make any sense. Wave functions DO govern macroscopic objects — IF you could solve for a complex system comprising many bodies, you would come up with an answer, with HIGH (essentially unity) probabilities of, say, a definite trajectory for a baseball or a planet, as opposed to a probability blur. That is NOT correspondence as Passio describes it.
4.(which you labeled as 3) The effect may not be until later in the persons life, but it happens. Even Julius Caesar was murdered by his own best friend. When a person does enough harm, eventually the harm returns to them. It’s only a matter of time before someone retaliates. Harm is a cause, retaliation or social consequences are the effect.
There’s no way for me to prove karma one way or the other. This is an ancient belief in Hinduism and Buddhism; even if I argued bad things happen to good people, the counter-argument would be, they did the opposite in a previous life and so, got their just deserts. OR, they’re gonna be punished in some afterlife (e.g. some Christians). Social consequence is sometimes, but not always, the effect; note I referred to cases where one was not caught. Even so, I cannot prove there aren’t past lives, so this one isn’t provable one way or the other.
As for property rights, if there weren’t any in natural law, then how can it forbid (and it does) theft? In order for someone to steal something from you, it first has to be owned. In fact, in natural law, stealing, whether it be health, life, or property is the only true wrong doing. All of those are forms of harm (theft). /RIP argument.
I’m actually a staunch believer in private property, because I believe it maximizes freedom and prosperity. However, I don’t believe in a natural rights basis like, say, Murray Rothbard or Ayn Rand advocated — or even a TRUE intellectual heavyweight, like Ludwig von Mises (‘Human Action’) advocated.
However, there are certainly others, who believe private property, is a great evil — that it destroys community, separates people, and leads to inequality, materialism, and excesses. There is no ‘theft’ in this world, because all property is communal, and decisions, should be made by the group or polis. What makes this a lesser formulation of ‘natural rights’? Clearly, some would prefer to live in such a world — even if it were less prosperous. In other words, if I favor this world view, I simply make an axiom of my natural rights that ‘creation should be shared’ or ‘private property causes discontent’, etc.
Again, this goes back to values. If I’m at work, not using my warm house, why shouldn’t you be free to come over, kick back, and relax? Some may value this society, without property rights. Or a better example still — why shouldn’t you be allowed to copy and re-sell books, movies, and computer programs? Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists often disagree about artificial ‘copyright’ laws, yet incentives for creativity are diminished without such protections. When you sell less copies, you cannot attract the same capital for high production values. Then again, others may value that — and dislike a monolithic media culture.
Similarly, how does one formulate an objective, natural rights position on, say, whether abortion should be legal?
John Doe: Okay, I have a few questions for Frankone.
Lets assume all morality is relative. Any governmental authority that seeks order must establish laws through use of force. If all morality is relative then eventually the government with interfere with someones moral obligation of individual choice. So are all governments by default “tyrannical”?
Well then how are people suppose to act without a government/lawbody? How can a government enforce moral relativity without impeding on certain peoples rights and therefore being tyrannical?
If all of this can be solved through an advanced equation then people have no choice, because everything is preprogrammed, so how can their be any moral relativity?
John Doe: Anarcho-Libertarianism is one third way. In it, there is no governmental authority. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ — the Machinery of Freedom is an interesting read.
In the world we live in today, I would say, most governments become progressively more tyrannical as far as economic liberties. In civil liberties, we enjoy profound and remarkable freedom — of OR from religion, freedom of association, freedom of press and expression, etc. In only a few ‘victimless’ crimes we do not enjoy such freedoms — drugs, prostitution, etc.
Whether free will is ‘real’ or not, people have different conceptions of right and wrong; so everyone’s moral viewpoints can never be respected — unless they’re allowed to live in communities of like-minded people. Even then, the anti-abortionist, will want all women to stop killing babies. And the pro-choicer will want free access to abortions. The two cannot be reconciled.
What are ‘rights’? As the list grows in America, to include health care, disability, etc, ‘rights’ increase, and my economic freedom decreases to pay for it all.
As for the UN world religion, it doesn’t sound like much fun to me. You won’t even be able to point to other religions and say ‘They’re all wrong, and are going straight to hell!’
Survivor: The Noahide laws are ancient, but are certainly discussed by the modern Christian fundamentalists I’ve known.
I would say we’re less religious, at least in the US. Why? Belief in God has dropped, slowly, from 92% to 80% in about 50 years in going from the silent generation to younger millenials http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-religious/
A suggested (not by me) global moral system is the Noahide Laws.
1. Idolatry is forbidden. Man is commanded to believe in the One G-d alone and worship only Him.
Only way to archieve this is by killing all true christians.
The Bible says that Jesus created the earth. He must be worshipped (and deserves it) or no eternal life.
I agree the mind formulates ideas that can be made a reality by action. That part, I agree with. This is a philosophical question of whether the mind is part of physical reality, and perceives same reality, or is apart from it and ‘creates it’. I see no way to prove it one way or another. The part I disagreed with is minds co-creating the same reality, and presumably existing outside it — that, there is no way to prove. We cannot even know if other individuals truly exist, or exist, only in our minds. We typically choose to believe they do exist, and exercise the moral principle of reciprocity to allow for peaceful coexistence. But there is no way to know if we’re creating peaceful coexistence with figments of our imagination, or other people. Such are the limits of knowledge and perception.
We cannot even know if other individuals truly exist? That’s a ridiculous claim. If others didn’t exist, it wouldn’t be possible for them to harm us. Likewise, to end our lives. We most definitely KNOW that other people exist. Are you really a Solipsist Frank? Surely you must be kidding. Solipsism? On a regular basis you have made references to world war II, The Nazi’s, Stalin, etc but you believe that we do not co-create our reality? The truth is so self evident that anyone who goes outside and actually experiences the world can see it. We most certainly do co-create our reality. That’s why people are able to team up to build things, and formulate ideas. That’s why universities exist. That’s why teams of different people exist.
Concerning the microcosm and macrocosm; I’m still going with my earlier statement and reference. You have said nothing to actually refute what they said, and honestly I don’t think even with your current level of knowledge that it’s possible for you to refute their studies.
“Karma”, is not the principle of cause and effect. It is true that it’s possible that a person may not receive an effect during their entire lives for doing harm to people, it’s just highly improbable. The effect may not happen until after they die; people who rely mostly on harm do most of the time end up getting harmed. It’s a natural occurrence. Family Feuds of history have lasted for centuries. People sought revenge for actions of a previous generation, from the current generation. How many rulers in history have been tossed inside their own torture devices by the people they slighted? Poisoned? Assassinated? There is only so much that a mass of people can tolerate. You walk up to the street and punch someone in the face, that person might punch you back. If they don’t, someone who saw you do it might show up to defend that person. It could be a police officer. Likewise that person might have been someone with the power to make an important decision in your life. In no way does the cause and effect principle claim that justice always happens to a person that causes harm. However, injustice does create justice, in the form of a resentment of it that leads to changes that improve society. That’s one reason why people have a higher quality of life now than in previous times of history. Injustice, causes justice. Not necessarily on a case by case basis, but it most certainly does over time. There is a reason why we humans have formulated all of these defense mechanisms.
However, there are certainly others, who believe private property, is a great evil — that it destroys community, separates people, and leads to inequality, materialism, and excesses. There is no ‘theft’ in this world, because all property is communal, and decisions, should be made by the group or polis. What makes this a lesser formulation of ‘natural rights’? Clearly, some would prefer to live in such a world — even if it were less prosperous. In other words, if I favor this world view, I simply make an axiom of my natural rights that ‘creation should be shared’ or ‘private property causes discontent’, etc.
Again, this goes back to values. If I’m at work, not using my warm house, why shouldn’t you be free to come over, kick back, and relax? Some may value this society, without property rights. Or a better example still — why shouldn’t you be allowed to copy and re-sell books, movies, and computer programs? Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists often disagree about artificial ‘copyright’ laws, yet incentives for creativity are diminished without such protections. When you sell less copies, you cannot attract the same capital for high production values. Then again, others may value that — and dislike a monolithic media culture.
Similarly, how does one formulate an objective, natural rights position on, say, whether abortion should be legal?
If they are using harm, they are going to receive a backlash. This is why wars have been fought over..and over…and over. There is no moral justification for theft and harm. It simply doesn’t exist. People can be deceived into thinking so, but in the end, the injustice leads to more justice. It is only through deception and manipulation that people can be lead to do harm to people under the color of a moral doctrine. Techniques like demonizing a particular group of people to foster hatred and exploit it. Not everyone can love, but anyone can most definitely hate. Likewise, fear is a similar tool. Once the majority grasps how they are being manipulated, and learns how not to be, this particular “con” will no longer be effective.
John Doe: Anarcho-Libertarianism is one third way. In it, there is no governmental authority. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ — the Machinery of Freedom is an interesting read.
All this means is to literally reduce the world to a bunch of in fighting gangs……………….. is there something I am missing?
Which ever gang wins is the one that forces their morality. And in many respects oppression lives again. Anarcho-libertarianism promotes oppression this way.Whether free will is ‘real’ or not, people have different conceptions of right and wrong; so everyone’s moral viewpoints can never be respected — unless they’re allowed to live in communities of like-minded people. Even then, the anti-abortionist, will want all women to stop killing babies. And the pro-choicer will want free access to abortions. The two cannot be reconciled.
The quote “so everyone’s moral viewpoints can never be respected- unless they’re allowed to live in communities of like-minded people” implies a governing force already in effect that enforces whether or not people can get into the communities they want. Under anarcho-libertarianism, the truth is some groups will want slaves. What about what the slave wants? What determines who has the right to practice their values over that of others? If you say force then by default you contradict your anarcho libertarianist “values.”
What are ‘rights’? As the list grows in America, to include health care, disability, etc, ‘rights’ increase, and my economic freedom decreases to pay for it all.
Why does your economic freedom matter? According to you the world is morally relative, and if that is the case it becomes survival of the fittest as some values clash with others with the result being decided by force.
As for the UN world religion, it doesn’t sound like much fun to me. You won’t even be able to point to other religions and say ‘They’re all wrong, and are going straight to hell!’
Ironically that is what they would be doing by attempting to nullify them.
Good work John doe. Kicking Frank’s ass is easy if you can wade through his smokescreen of bulls~~~, red herrings, lies, erroneous assertions, and general flimflammery.
I appreciate the comment survivor. I don’t want to come out full of pride, but what can I say? I sense ignorance like a wolf sense’s blood. And like the wolf, I enjoy tearing apart my victims. Does that make me an asshole? I don’t know, I just know I like the scent of blood.
This survival of the fittest, culling of the herd mentality is propagated by globalist elitist f~~~toids. Darwin’s family was an illuminated family, and he actually had a partner, Alfred Wallace, who has been basically forgotten because he refused to generalize his findings on birds and flowers to humans because our uniquely human trait which elevated us above all others is our ability to cooperate. That parasitic classes hate humanity and the love we share, and the void of their own darkness separates them from us. They seek to infect us with their hatred.
I always found it interesting that Darwin’s philosophy of “survival of fittest/adaptable” came around a time when industrialization was starting to go into full swing and much of the societal structure and ethics were beginning to change.
I appreciate the comment survivor. I don’t want to come out full of pride, but what can I say? I sense ignorance like a wolf sense’s blood. And like the wolf, I enjoy tearing apart my victims. Does that make me an asshole? I don’t know, I just know I like the scent of blood.
You “forgot” to mention that you come out like a little whiner when it goes wrong, when “someone” immediately sences your own ignorance and catches you lying on the spot and then you claim to be the victim of the sheeps nastyness. Oh you great wolf…
you dont see it. Hes not a non christian, hes anti christians. And when hes against something, he will pull out a lie. Didnt I catch him doing that? Ok then just ignore it all. Your choice.
And in fact, the God said so argument is being put into place to enslave western societies as we speak.
You have to listen to what god says and not trust man saying what god wants.
You think you are telling me something new here?
I wonder why you dont ask yourself why I still dont agree with you, even though what you just said is correct and everyone knows that.Im using my head and logic.
Survivor: There are many non-religious formulations of Ethics, some of which, are very much against totalitarianism — Friedman’s The Machinery of Freedom comes to mind, as does Ludwig von Mises’ The Ethics of Liberty. Those are two classics as far as I’m concerned.
Of course some non-Christians are good people. And I’ve also known some fundamentalist Christians who were good people.
I’d disagree about our [human] ability to cooperate being unique; herd animals like lions, hunt in packs animals like monkeys exist in a social order and cooperate, insects like bees and ants, they all cooperate.
Frankone writes: Anarcho-Libertarianism is one third way. In it, there is no governmental authority. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ — the Machinery of Freedom is an interesting read.
John Doe Writes: All this means is to literally reduce the world to a bunch of in fighting gangs……………….. is there something I am missing?
Which ever gang wins is the one that forces their morality. And in many respects oppression lives again. Anarcho-libertarianism promotes oppression this way.I think competing States can work. Canada and the US have different laws; yet they do not go to war when they disagree. There is a high cost to violence. The representatives of States generally prefer to negotiate differences rather than fight. Can you have competing States? I believe you can — if free movement is permitted, as it is between the States comprising the US, they can ‘compete’ for citizens. If the federal government were much smaller, with fewer mandates to the States, States could compete more effectively — some may have higher taxes/more services, others, lower taxes and fewer services. That is a less extreme example, but I think it illustrates the concept of competition between governments. Much has to do with a culture or tradition of liberty. It’s difficult to control people that have it.
The two cannot be reconciled.
The quote “so everyone’s moral viewpoints can never be respected- unless they’re allowed to live in communities of like-minded people” implies a governing force already in effect that enforces whether or not people can get into the communities they want. Under anarcho-libertarianism, the truth is some groups will want slaves. What about what the slave wants? What determines who has the right to practice their values over that of others? If you say force then by default you contradict your anarcho libertarianist “values.”
<\blockquote>Actually, I indicated in my post ‘Even then’ they STILL often could not be reconciled; the anti-abortionist wants abortion illegal EVERYWHERE. ISIS would like a WORLD caliphate. So competing States does not resolve all disputes — a point made in my original post.
Some individuals may want slaves in an anarcho-capitalist society. Just as large plantation owners in the American South wanted slaves in a representative democracy, and they got what they wanted. Anarcho-capitalism is not the solution to everything. But true capitalism does discourage racism, for instance — if I hire a less talented candidate of one race over a more talented applicant of another race, I don’t get as much productivity per dollar, and my competitor who isn’t a racist, gets the better worker & so I suffer economically. I prefer that over an ‘Equal Employment’ scheme of laws.
Why does your economic freedom matter? According to you the world is morally relative, and if that is the case it becomes survival of the fittest as some values clash with others with the result being decided by force.
I value personal/economic/individual freedom and high levels of economic growth and technological advancement. So that’s why my economic freedom matters to me. Others, may value security or the status quo — I’d say, that’s the majority. When values clash, it can be decided at the polls or with guns. I prefer the polls. That’s one of the beauties of the liberal democracy; you can change governments without shedding blood. Unfortunately, with all parties being Statist, such change is not particularly effectual. As for anarcho-capitalism, we already have limited private protection services — security guards, surveillance systems, etc.
Jogn Doe writes: All this means is to literally reduce the world to a bunch of in fighting gangs……………….. is there something I am missing?
Which ever gang wins is the one that forces their morality. And in many respects oppression lives again. Anarcho-libertarianism promotes oppression this way.In a system of competing nation-States, the representatives of these States, most typically resolve differences through negotiation rather than violence. We have a different political system than the UK, Russia, China, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia. But we are not going to war with them.
As for the reason, I would say it is due to the high cost of war
We have infighting gangs within our urban cores today, so the present social organization has not eliminated armed gangs. Furthermore, we don’t have a one-world government, and thus far, have never had one, even though nation-states can currently employ force against each other. So from a historical standpoint, this hasn’t happened. We have had empires, but they did not control the entire globe.
Let’s take an example that isn’t so extreme. If the federal government were 10 times smaller in terms of GDP consumption, and imposed almost no regulations/unfunded mandates upon the States, then they would be free to compete with one another.
Some might have more government services/benefits (social security, welfare, disability) and higher taxes. Other States would have fewer. There would still be a cost to move between them, but your choices in how to live would be greater.
————–
Whether free will is ‘real’ or not, people have different conceptions of right and wrong; so everyone’s moral viewpoints can never be respected — unless they’re allowed to live in communities of like-minded people. Even then, the anti-abortionist, will want all women to stop killing babies. And the pro-choicer will want free access to abortions. The two cannot be reconciled.
The quote “so everyone’s moral viewpoints can never be respected- unless they’re allowed to live in communities of like-minded people” implies a governing force already in effect that enforces whether or not people can get into the communities they want. Under anarcho-libertarianism, the truth is some groups will want slaves. What about what the slave wants? What determines who has the right to practice their values over that of others? If you say force then by default you contradict your anarcho libertarianist “values.”
Note the ‘even then’ in my statement — that indicates not everyone’s wishes in every area, may ever be accommodated. ISIS wants world ISLAM; somebody else wants world Christianity.
Yes, some individuals or groups may want slavery under anarcho-capitalism. Just as they may want it in a representative democracy such as that which existed in the United States under slavery — albeit one that didn’t allow the slaves to vote. Historically, slavery has caused a lot of revolts with major implications, even if crushed (e.g. the Servile Wars in ancient Rome).
What are ‘rights’? As the list grows in America, to include health care, disability, etc, ‘rights’ increase, and my economic freedom decreases to pay for it all.
Why does your economic freedom matter? According to you the world is morally relative, and if that is the case it becomes survival of the fittest as some values clash with others with the result being decided by force.
Good question. My values, are different than your values, are different than that of the public. Currently, the result is determined by voting, but enforced by force. Imagine a system of many smaller States, competing with each other for citizens based upon good governance. Again, I am not seeing force deciding most conflicts between governments historically.
You “forgot” to mention that you come out like a little whiner when it goes wrong, when “someone” immediately sences your own ignorance and catches you lying on the spot and then you claim to be the victim of the sheeps nastyness. Oh you great wolf…
The Book of DanielI merely remarked to ask for “proof of knowledge” when the internet is in front of the individual is no proof at all. If I quote it I lose, as you would say I took it off the internet. If I don’t you call me ignorant. I don’t know why you are offended that I said “prophecies” should be taken in a neutral perspective because otherwise it can be dangerous.
In regards to the “nastiness” I simply was confused how you can push out “Christian” you are and at the same time say “blah, blah” and “f~~~ you” when someone gives a different perspective that never even disagreed with you in the first place. That’s what you never understood.
German truther. Do you not see what we’re doing? We’re trying to pull humanity back from the brink of global tyranny at the hands of these Nietzschan/darwinian hate mongers. Some nonchristians are good people. John doe is doing important work.
I am actually a semi practicing Catholic. The semi part comes from the fact I don’t go to mass/liturgy often.
You have to listen to what god says and not trust man saying what god wants.
You think you are telling me something new here?God created the intellect their is nothing wrong with using it. In regards to the first quote you are the one pushing the video of the “man saying what god wants”.
Of course some non-Christians are good people. And I’ve also known some fundamentalist Christians who were good people.
You actually can’t say that Frankone, everything is relative (morally speaking) according to you. But then if reply “well their good because they are not hypocites” you still cannot say that as that would be implying a universal moral standard of behavior.
I’d disagree about our [human] ability to cooperate being unique;
That implies a universal nature among humans.
I think competing States can work.
But that goes againsts all anarcho libertine philosophies as that forces a government over a people contradicting their relative moralities and in many respects oppressing them. First its gangs, then its states….what next a dictatorship?
Note the ‘even then’ in my statement — that indicates not everyone’s wishes in every area
That’s my point, you push anarcho liberty philosophy but then state a class of people still must have their values oppressed for the sake of the greater good. But everything is relative so their is no right or wrong.
Is there something I am missing?I value personal/economic/individual freedom and high levels of economic growth and technological advancement. So that’s why my economic freedom matters to me. Others, may value security or the status quo — I’d say, that’s the majority. When values clash, it can be decided at the polls or with guns. I prefer the polls. That’s one of the beauties of the liberal democracy; you can change governments without shedding blood. Unfortunately, with all parties being Statist, such change is not particularly effectual. As for anarcho-capitalism, we already have limited private protection services — security guards, surveillance systems, etc.
My point is that if everything is decided through force, then that is a universal form or morality (behavior), and morality is not relative.
Also to force a “democracy” on a people who do not want it is a form of totalitarianism as that would clash with their subjective values.
In a system of competing nation-States, the representatives of these States, most typically resolve differences through negotiation rather than violence.
But nation states are against anarcho libertarianist values as all morality is relative meaning someone’s values must be oppressed for the greater good.
I would continue but this second post is just a reflection of the first.
God created the intellect their is nothing wrong with using it. In regards to the first quote you are the one pushing the video of the “man saying what god wants”.
No, the video proofs that Nebukadnezzars dream came true.
The man in the video says what god wants only in 1 way
“God wants you to have an expected end”
But that is self-explanatory, because the prophecies are there all over the bible.
What you and Frank did there is seeding doubts about the credibility right away.
I saw that you guys tried to make people not watch it.
successfully! so GOOD JOB!In regards to the “nastiness” I simply was confused how you can push out “Christian” you are and at the same time say “blah, blah” and “f~~~ you”
I dont need to be like Ned Flanders from the Simpsons!
I dont need to be like Ned Flanders from the Simpsons!
Dude………….chill out………….. This is the internet, you can only take it so seriously. Moral relativism is still bulls~~~ though. I have to call it as I see it.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
