Teaching is often acculturating. Most sustainable cultures acculturate their children. Children tend eventually to adopt the religions and politics of their parents or significant peers and teachers. After a number of years of acculturation (indoctrination?), it is very hard to reorient a person's worldview. Unless, that is, the person's ego is on a weak foundation, or the person has learned how to think for himself or to be receptive to new ways of reconciling ideas. It may be nearly impossible to teach a person to think for himself unless he was raised in such a way, before his basic orientation solidified.
This is why I think a lot of people from liberty-illiterate cultures cannot ever be fixed to become liberty-literate. What value is a belief that is only regurgitated, unthinkingly? Why should I care what a person claims to believe, if he has never subjected his belief system to any kind of rigorous testing, or if he is intimidated from ever engaging with any such a test?
Regardless, I think the good news is this: The idea of an inviting godhead makes reasonable, innate sense to every informed analysis. As does the idea of what is needed to sustain a decent republic that avails freedom and dignity for its citizenry.
Literalistic Authoritarians -- secular and sectarian -- are seen to have overstepped their bounds. Younger people are rebelling against that. Problem is, they are being led too far by authoritarians in opposing directions. By that I mean to refer to Socialists, Marxists, Muslims, Scientisimists, Tools, and People Farmers. IOW, they are being primed more to rebel than to learn to think for themselves.
So they band and gang together to oust everyone from their midst who disagrees with them. They do this by shouting down speakers invited to campuses, banning dissenters from blogs, spreading their own decrepit dogma, getting lawmakers to criminalize opposing speech as hate speech, and mobilizing pc to tear down monuments and reminders of the past. They are tolerant of everyone who does not disagree with them. And who helps tear down the representative republic.
They tried to do this to Trump. They did not anticipate that he would have means and fortitude to play their crap against them.
You cannot reach people who think they have answers in all details to all the important questions. You know, like carbon bankers, wazoo regulators, gun grabbers, snowflakes, and entitlement minded wussies. The only people who think that way are the enormously ignorant and/or corrupt. Those, you cannot fix. But I respect your effort. When I detect intelligence, I respond in kind. For the ignoranti/corrupti who think they have all the answers. I see little point in giving them the time of day. Before they ban you, just have your comment copied and then repost it in a more intelligent blog.
Nah. My opinion. Do your own research.* A scientisimist is a phoney who pretends science supports a position for which there are as yet no valid scientific models. Like a Witch Doctor, but certified.
*If you still think Marx, Obama, Mohammad, Al Gore and Soros had or have the best interests of the people at heart, then I cannot help you.
Literalistic Authoritarians -- secular and sectarian -- are seen to have overstepped their bounds. Younger people are rebelling against that. Problem is, they are being led too far by authoritarians in opposing directions. By that I mean to refer to Socialists, Marxists, Muslims, Scientisimists, Tools, and People Farmers. IOW, they are being primed more to rebel than to learn to think for themselves.
So they band and gang together to oust everyone from their midst who disagrees with them. They do this by shouting down speakers invited to campuses, banning dissenters from blogs, spreading their own decrepit dogma, getting lawmakers to criminalize opposing speech as hate speech, and mobilizing pc to tear down monuments and reminders of the past. They are tolerant of everyone who does not disagree with them. And who helps tear down the representative republic.
They tried to do this to Trump. They did not anticipate that he would have means and fortitude to play their crap against them.
The media owners want to bring Trump down. They like journalists who help with that. They will reward those journalists, so long as they keep a sufficient fig leaf to cover their impropriety. Problem is, with anonymous sources, it tends to be easy to keep a fig leaf sufficient to cover just about any scurrilous lie. Our America-hating Oligarchy has become a despicable, deranged blight against humanity. Yet they call Trump deranged!?
In the War of the Mud, it was the Oligarchs and their Tools that fired first, not Trump. They were the pigs, firing from their mud hole. Having no shame, they thought no one could or would wade out to confront them. From their mud hole, the shameless pigs called others, pigs. So Trump grabs them by the ears and takes them stammering and squealing, wee wee wee, mud boarding them deep in their own mud hole.
Which is filthier: Trump pushing the Oligarchic Pigs deeper into their mud hole, or the Oligarchic Pigs doing all they can at every turn to destroy the republic? Soooey!
*****************
Well, do you know what a vow is? Do you vow that you are of any belief system? Do you attest you are an atheist? Are you dramatic or passionate about your profession? Do you pine for a day when everyone will attest to being an atheist? Do you think those who do not pose as atheists tend to be vulgar?
To me, an avowed atheist tends to be someone who likes to take a public vow or stance against the letters G o d. A militant atheist is someone who wants to use group force (as in the case of laws or riots) to erase monuments to belief systems they seek to replace with their own leaps of faith.
Do you think you're on the scent of discovery? Are you seeking some kind of "aha" moment?
What I love is a society that defends the freedom and dignity of its members. For that, some things about Canada and the U.S. are admirable, and some are not. I do not admire the willingness of many Canadians and Californians to enforce pc with criminal punishment.
You might also suffer from a distorted or overly literalistic belief about the god you say you don't believe in.
I don't believe in an old guy in a long beard, either. To me, the Trinitarian Godhead is what reconciles the fluxing expression of qualitative Consciousness, measurably manifesting Substance, and accumulating Information. (Do you believe in consciousness, substance, and information?) For substance, matter is stored information, while energy is transmitting information. No expression of substance is entirely matter or entirely energy, but a mix.
In practice, Atheists tend to indulge their own leaps of faith about moral connections and reconciliations (good faith and good will), but they have a fetish-like aversion to the letters G o d. Also, a metaphysical belief that banishing the sequential use of the letters G o d would result in more happiness and fewer conflicts. I agree, it's not a fancy belief, just a simplistic one.
Do Canadians need more hugs? The thing about churches (forums for assimilating community good will) is that they tend to dispense hugs and help assimilate feelings of moral purposefulness. Which tends to help strengthen and preserve societies and nations.
Are you an "avowed Atheist?"
I agree that most avowed Atheists tend not to be patriotic.
I understand that those who claim statements must be either true or false must be defining statements in a context that excludes broad moral statements. However, even then, I doubt they are as rigorously correct as they imagine. For a non-trivial statement to be true or false under an explanatory model, the model itself would generally need to be complete. However, most, if not all, non-trivial models are incomplete. That said, for many practical tinkerings, it works well to take some statements to be "true" and others to be "false."
Just as other math-verses can be imagined in which their empirical observations would not hold, our own math-verse may flux and phase shift, so that old values for absolutes change. (Some imagine that the speed of light may shift over time.)
My participatory concern for moral statements is contingent on this: I test for what seems to be needed to establish and defend a decent representative republic. I think too much multi-culti, polygamy, Islam, and power in oligarchs is corrosive to that desire (purpose). I think traditional families, assimilating faith (Great Commandment and Golden Rule), and civic fidelity are essential, but they are being undermined.
To be moral, a person needs to become human --- not sub-human. He needs to enjoy enough individual freedom and dignity to become responsible for his choices and actions. He needs to become strong enough not to need to shout down invited speakers or run to safe spaces. He needs to tolerate and find joy in other people becoming individually competent and free. He needs to become intolerant of poison that would harm himself, his family, his republic.
Human trafficking is such a poison. As is Islam. As to Gays, I could care less. But I don't think Scotus was right in allowing them to force the nation as a whole to recognize gay marriage. I think that is not a healthy way to strengthen a representative republic.
I don't pretend to know whether the Godhead wants all nations to become representative republics. But if God wants the U.S. to remain one, then I think He is available to our faith, intuition and empathy to guide us to do our part to help that purpose.
If you have a worldview about whether or not nations should seek to become republics, then it will, at some point, entail leaps of faith about what is moral or conducive to that purpose.
Does the Godhead change his mind? Yes, I think so. I think there is feedback part-icipation. Continuous reconciliation. In that respect, we participate as moral agents. Apart from Good Faith and Good Will, I don't believe morality, in specific applications, exists by itself, in a vacuum.
One can also think he is an atheist, even as, in many of his choices and actions, he faithfully serves the Godhead. Ayn Rand, David Deutsch (not Danny Deutsch), and Isaac Asimov SAID they were atheists (or agnostics). But I share much of their thinking, which, from my interpretation, seems quite spiritual. And also, in many ways, not inconsistent with various metaphors as taught by Jesus.
Whatever individual desires I personally may not approve of, I do not attribute to the Almighty as absolute rules. I am not strictly speaking an absolutist or a relativist. I think the injunction to Be Empathetic is an innate absolute. I think it is experienced and interpreted from each subject perspective, subjectively. So, there is ongoing feedback between the absolute and the relative. Like a flux of the Changeless-Changer.
Consensus is sometimes possible when the necessary ingredients come together. For awhile, the U.S. had a consensus that could more or less support a representative republic. However, that is unraveling (for which I severely castigate Progs), as that consensus is undermined by race-baiting, non-assimilating, multi-culti, and as they are farmed by international oligarchs now in control of most institutions of persuasion and indoctrination.
If the U.S. for awhile was suitable for a representative republic, it is losing that. Many other cultures and nations never did become suitable. I don't believe it is moral to try to impose democratic values on non-suitable cultures. Neither do I believe it is moral for people who seek to escape non-democratic societies to come to America to try to turn it into the kind of society they found it necessary to flee.
It may have been cute for awhile for Progs to delude themselves to think their worldviews are not faith based, but it has become cloying and annoying.
To imagine that Prog SJW/Critical Social Studies/Warmism/Open Society-ism /Entitlement-ism/Socialism/Scientism/Race-Baiting/Islamophilia/MarryYourGoat-ism/50 Gender-ism is not as faith-based and authoritarian as most literalistic Religions is the height of self-delusion.
Communism and Fascism are the same demented people-farming Totalitarianism, except Fascists wear more stylish uniforms and use corporate legalisms. Grow up. It's time.
If your system of morality is relevant, then it at the very least ought to help sustain a society, to help that society defend itself from depredations of international corporatists and human traffickers.
Are you blind to the swamping of the republic with third-world liberty-illiterates, who are child's play for being manipulated by corporate people-farmers seeking cheap labor? What do you think the NWO Open Society is all about?
If people can be "just as moral and ethical without organized religion in their lives," then how is it that the Progs with such a worldview tend to fall behind oligarchs who want to replace our representative republic with an open bordered, open society? How is it "just as moral and ethical" to allow yourself to be used as a tool for destroying borders and institutions that are requisite to preserving a representative republic?
It seems coincidental that, just as religion is coming under heavy fire, the morals of our society no longer support the sustenance of the nation. Not even its borders. These are "functional" morals?
Re: "Goodness is defined by atheism as being whatever works to achieve a desired result."
If goodness is only what facilitates an individual's subjective gratification, then goodness is only assimilated among groups to the extent they use the power of each group to facilitate the gratifications of its members. Such inculcation facilitates a constant tendency for warring and re-aligning between and among groups. As in the case of race-baiting. Such inculcation tends to define the desires of an individual as being mainly constricted to the perimeter of his skin or his allies of convenience.
But why should any individual's perspective of consciousness be conceptualized as being mainly constricted to his body, as opposed to identifying with a wider system of interests? What should an individual desire, and what should be the wider extent of his interests? How is that concern responded to, without respect for, reference to, and inspiring guidance and inculcation regarding, more encompassing interests?
When should an individual forego his own immediate desires in order to facilitate his identification with more encompassing interests? How unlikely is civic mindedness to become inculcated in an individual, using a philosophy of morality and goodness that does not extend much beyond servicing individual desires? How long can a decent society likely endure, when its members seek mainly to service or justify only their own desires?
Among Lefties who are willing to allow the destruction of their nation's borders, how many adopt that mindset to justify (rationalize) their own unwillingness to serve much that is higher than themselves? How many are content to groom their children to perversions of adults? How many are willing to allow the destruction of a government of, by, and for the people ... so they can feel good about themselves? (Even when they were nurtured by that government from the blood of patriots that was shed to establish it.) This is "moral"?
***************
The people who ran the Nazi gas chambers in accord with Nazi orders should not be subjected to shame?
As to sexual orientation, gays have been tolerated for quite some time now. What is now being weaponized is not bias against gays, but gays against the culture. Scratch a militant atheist, find a militant gay. Who deludes himself that his program will survive confrontation with a more militant strain of mind enslavement: Islam.
First, they just wanted to be understood and tolerated. Now, they want not only to be celebrated, but to be able to punish all who decline to join their celebration. Along their merry way, they seek to replace the First Amendment with the PC Amendment: No one shall speak ill of rampant sexual expression of all kinds, except on pain of punishment, assessment of fine, and forfeiture of pension and belongings.
They want your tax money to be spent to indoctrinate grade school kids. They want to groom children in much the same way the pushers and tobacco sellers groom kids --- except they want the gov/law to provide the enforcement goons. They do not care whether their program for normalizing deviancy may unravel the institutions that have assimilated the wider society.
So long as they serve their sexual predilections, they do not care whether they corrupt youth or flood the electorate with wussies and liberty-illiterates.
In effect, gays are used by oligarchs that want to replace the republic with the worldwide cheap labor farm and pc scientisimists. Most of them seem to be down for that. Had they succeeded in electing Hillary, the republic and the First Amendment would, in main, have been lost by now, in all ways except its name.
I don't care what gay adults want to do among themselves. I do care when they want to groom children and undermine institutions important to preserving the republic and the Bill of Rights.
So they band and gang together to oust everyone from their midst who disagrees with them. They do this by shouting down speakers invited to campuses, banning dissenters from blogs, spreading their own decrepit dogma, getting lawmakers to criminalize opposing speech as hate speech, and mobilizing pc to tear down monuments and reminders of the past. They are tolerant of everyone who does not disagree with them. And who helps tear down the representative republic.
They tried to do this to Trump. They did not anticipate that he would have means and fortitude to play their crap against them.
You cannot reach people who think they have answers in all details to all the important questions. You know, like carbon bankers, wazoo regulators, gun grabbers, snowflakes, and entitlement minded wussies. The only people who think that way are the enormously ignorant and/or corrupt. Those, you cannot fix. But I respect your effort. When I detect intelligence, I respond in kind. For the ignoranti/corrupti who think they have all the answers. I see little point in giving them the time of day. Before they ban you, just have your comment copied and then repost it in a more intelligent blog.
Nah. My opinion. Do your own research.* A scientisimist is a phoney who pretends science supports a position for which there are as yet no valid scientific models. Like a Witch Doctor, but certified.
*If you still think Marx, Obama, Mohammad, Al Gore and Soros had or have the best interests of the people at heart, then I cannot help you.
Literalistic Authoritarians -- secular and sectarian -- are seen to have overstepped their bounds. Younger people are rebelling against that. Problem is, they are being led too far by authoritarians in opposing directions. By that I mean to refer to Socialists, Marxists, Muslims, Scientisimists, Tools, and People Farmers. IOW, they are being primed more to rebel than to learn to think for themselves.
So they band and gang together to oust everyone from their midst who disagrees with them. They do this by shouting down speakers invited to campuses, banning dissenters from blogs, spreading their own decrepit dogma, getting lawmakers to criminalize opposing speech as hate speech, and mobilizing pc to tear down monuments and reminders of the past. They are tolerant of everyone who does not disagree with them. And who helps tear down the representative republic.
They tried to do this to Trump. They did not anticipate that he would have means and fortitude to play their crap against them.
The media owners want to bring Trump down. They like journalists who help with that. They will reward those journalists, so long as they keep a sufficient fig leaf to cover their impropriety. Problem is, with anonymous sources, it tends to be easy to keep a fig leaf sufficient to cover just about any scurrilous lie. Our America-hating Oligarchy has become a despicable, deranged blight against humanity. Yet they call Trump deranged!?
In the War of the Mud, it was the Oligarchs and their Tools that fired first, not Trump. They were the pigs, firing from their mud hole. Having no shame, they thought no one could or would wade out to confront them. From their mud hole, the shameless pigs called others, pigs. So Trump grabs them by the ears and takes them stammering and squealing, wee wee wee, mud boarding them deep in their own mud hole.
Which is filthier: Trump pushing the Oligarchic Pigs deeper into their mud hole, or the Oligarchic Pigs doing all they can at every turn to destroy the republic? Soooey!
*****************
Well, do you know what a vow is? Do you vow that you are of any belief system? Do you attest you are an atheist? Are you dramatic or passionate about your profession? Do you pine for a day when everyone will attest to being an atheist? Do you think those who do not pose as atheists tend to be vulgar?
To me, an avowed atheist tends to be someone who likes to take a public vow or stance against the letters G o d. A militant atheist is someone who wants to use group force (as in the case of laws or riots) to erase monuments to belief systems they seek to replace with their own leaps of faith.
Do you think you're on the scent of discovery? Are you seeking some kind of "aha" moment?
What I love is a society that defends the freedom and dignity of its members. For that, some things about Canada and the U.S. are admirable, and some are not. I do not admire the willingness of many Canadians and Californians to enforce pc with criminal punishment.
You might also suffer from a distorted or overly literalistic belief about the god you say you don't believe in.
I don't believe in an old guy in a long beard, either. To me, the Trinitarian Godhead is what reconciles the fluxing expression of qualitative Consciousness, measurably manifesting Substance, and accumulating Information. (Do you believe in consciousness, substance, and information?) For substance, matter is stored information, while energy is transmitting information. No expression of substance is entirely matter or entirely energy, but a mix.
In practice, Atheists tend to indulge their own leaps of faith about moral connections and reconciliations (good faith and good will), but they have a fetish-like aversion to the letters G o d. Also, a metaphysical belief that banishing the sequential use of the letters G o d would result in more happiness and fewer conflicts. I agree, it's not a fancy belief, just a simplistic one.
Do Canadians need more hugs? The thing about churches (forums for assimilating community good will) is that they tend to dispense hugs and help assimilate feelings of moral purposefulness. Which tends to help strengthen and preserve societies and nations.
Are you an "avowed Atheist?"
I agree that most avowed Atheists tend not to be patriotic.
I understand that those who claim statements must be either true or false must be defining statements in a context that excludes broad moral statements. However, even then, I doubt they are as rigorously correct as they imagine. For a non-trivial statement to be true or false under an explanatory model, the model itself would generally need to be complete. However, most, if not all, non-trivial models are incomplete. That said, for many practical tinkerings, it works well to take some statements to be "true" and others to be "false."
Just as other math-verses can be imagined in which their empirical observations would not hold, our own math-verse may flux and phase shift, so that old values for absolutes change. (Some imagine that the speed of light may shift over time.)
My participatory concern for moral statements is contingent on this: I test for what seems to be needed to establish and defend a decent representative republic. I think too much multi-culti, polygamy, Islam, and power in oligarchs is corrosive to that desire (purpose). I think traditional families, assimilating faith (Great Commandment and Golden Rule), and civic fidelity are essential, but they are being undermined.
To be moral, a person needs to become human --- not sub-human. He needs to enjoy enough individual freedom and dignity to become responsible for his choices and actions. He needs to become strong enough not to need to shout down invited speakers or run to safe spaces. He needs to tolerate and find joy in other people becoming individually competent and free. He needs to become intolerant of poison that would harm himself, his family, his republic.
Human trafficking is such a poison. As is Islam. As to Gays, I could care less. But I don't think Scotus was right in allowing them to force the nation as a whole to recognize gay marriage. I think that is not a healthy way to strengthen a representative republic.
I don't pretend to know whether the Godhead wants all nations to become representative republics. But if God wants the U.S. to remain one, then I think He is available to our faith, intuition and empathy to guide us to do our part to help that purpose.
If you have a worldview about whether or not nations should seek to become republics, then it will, at some point, entail leaps of faith about what is moral or conducive to that purpose.
Does the Godhead change his mind? Yes, I think so. I think there is feedback part-icipation. Continuous reconciliation. In that respect, we participate as moral agents. Apart from Good Faith and Good Will, I don't believe morality, in specific applications, exists by itself, in a vacuum.
One can also think he is an atheist, even as, in many of his choices and actions, he faithfully serves the Godhead. Ayn Rand, David Deutsch (not Danny Deutsch), and Isaac Asimov SAID they were atheists (or agnostics). But I share much of their thinking, which, from my interpretation, seems quite spiritual. And also, in many ways, not inconsistent with various metaphors as taught by Jesus.
Consensus is sometimes possible when the necessary ingredients come together. For awhile, the U.S. had a consensus that could more or less support a representative republic. However, that is unraveling (for which I severely castigate Progs), as that consensus is undermined by race-baiting, non-assimilating, multi-culti, and as they are farmed by international oligarchs now in control of most institutions of persuasion and indoctrination.
If the U.S. for awhile was suitable for a representative republic, it is losing that. Many other cultures and nations never did become suitable. I don't believe it is moral to try to impose democratic values on non-suitable cultures. Neither do I believe it is moral for people who seek to escape non-democratic societies to come to America to try to turn it into the kind of society they found it necessary to flee.
It may have been cute for awhile for Progs to delude themselves to think their worldviews are not faith based, but it has become cloying and annoying.
To imagine that Prog SJW/Critical Social Studies/Warmism/Open Society-ism /Entitlement-ism/Socialism/Scientism/Race-Baiting/Islamophilia/MarryYourGoat-ism/50 Gender-ism is not as faith-based and authoritarian as most literalistic Religions is the height of self-delusion.
Communism and Fascism are the same demented people-farming Totalitarianism, except Fascists wear more stylish uniforms and use corporate legalisms. Grow up. It's time.
If your system of morality is relevant, then it at the very least ought to help sustain a society, to help that society defend itself from depredations of international corporatists and human traffickers.
Are you blind to the swamping of the republic with third-world liberty-illiterates, who are child's play for being manipulated by corporate people-farmers seeking cheap labor? What do you think the NWO Open Society is all about?
If people can be "just as moral and ethical without organized religion in their lives," then how is it that the Progs with such a worldview tend to fall behind oligarchs who want to replace our representative republic with an open bordered, open society? How is it "just as moral and ethical" to allow yourself to be used as a tool for destroying borders and institutions that are requisite to preserving a representative republic?
It seems coincidental that, just as religion is coming under heavy fire, the morals of our society no longer support the sustenance of the nation. Not even its borders. These are "functional" morals?
Re: "Goodness is defined by atheism as being whatever works to achieve a desired result."
If goodness is only what facilitates an individual's subjective gratification, then goodness is only assimilated among groups to the extent they use the power of each group to facilitate the gratifications of its members. Such inculcation facilitates a constant tendency for warring and re-aligning between and among groups. As in the case of race-baiting. Such inculcation tends to define the desires of an individual as being mainly constricted to the perimeter of his skin or his allies of convenience.
But why should any individual's perspective of consciousness be conceptualized as being mainly constricted to his body, as opposed to identifying with a wider system of interests? What should an individual desire, and what should be the wider extent of his interests? How is that concern responded to, without respect for, reference to, and inspiring guidance and inculcation regarding, more encompassing interests?
When should an individual forego his own immediate desires in order to facilitate his identification with more encompassing interests? How unlikely is civic mindedness to become inculcated in an individual, using a philosophy of morality and goodness that does not extend much beyond servicing individual desires? How long can a decent society likely endure, when its members seek mainly to service or justify only their own desires?
Among Lefties who are willing to allow the destruction of their nation's borders, how many adopt that mindset to justify (rationalize) their own unwillingness to serve much that is higher than themselves? How many are content to groom their children to perversions of adults? How many are willing to allow the destruction of a government of, by, and for the people ... so they can feel good about themselves? (Even when they were nurtured by that government from the blood of patriots that was shed to establish it.) This is "moral"?
***************
The people who ran the Nazi gas chambers in accord with Nazi orders should not be subjected to shame?
As to sexual orientation, gays have been tolerated for quite some time now. What is now being weaponized is not bias against gays, but gays against the culture. Scratch a militant atheist, find a militant gay. Who deludes himself that his program will survive confrontation with a more militant strain of mind enslavement: Islam.
First, they just wanted to be understood and tolerated. Now, they want not only to be celebrated, but to be able to punish all who decline to join their celebration. Along their merry way, they seek to replace the First Amendment with the PC Amendment: No one shall speak ill of rampant sexual expression of all kinds, except on pain of punishment, assessment of fine, and forfeiture of pension and belongings.
They want your tax money to be spent to indoctrinate grade school kids. They want to groom children in much the same way the pushers and tobacco sellers groom kids --- except they want the gov/law to provide the enforcement goons. They do not care whether their program for normalizing deviancy may unravel the institutions that have assimilated the wider society.
So long as they serve their sexual predilections, they do not care whether they corrupt youth or flood the electorate with wussies and liberty-illiterates.
In effect, gays are used by oligarchs that want to replace the republic with the worldwide cheap labor farm and pc scientisimists. Most of them seem to be down for that. Had they succeeded in electing Hillary, the republic and the First Amendment would, in main, have been lost by now, in all ways except its name.
I don't care what gay adults want to do among themselves. I do care when they want to groom children and undermine institutions important to preserving the republic and the Bill of Rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment