rexcalibur Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 It comes from the fact that humans are the dominant species on Earth. In nature, might makes right. Just being natural does not make something right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Just being natural does not make something right. Yes, it does. By hunting, we ensure that only the most fit members of a species survive. Hunting is needed to further natural selection. For example, in many areas humans are the only natural predator of deer. If we suddenly stopped hunting deer, they would become overpopulated, killing all plant life, and eventually destroying the ecosystem. In many cases, human hunters are an essential part of the ecosystem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 (edited) Just being natural does not make something right. Just ignore him. His opinion is just silly. Even .I don't really want to get into his silly argument, but just because in nature "might makes right" (there is no objective evidence for this claim either) it doesn't mean that objective morality is determined by nature, lol. The objective morality could easily be independent of nature if someone wants to be a moral realist. Alternatively, you can be an ethical naturalist, where you base ethics on empirical facts, but it doesn't follow that "might is right." As Richard Dawkins points out, we have to "rise above our selfish genes to behave morally." Edited February 16, 2014 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexcalibur Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 (edited) Yes, it does. By hunting, we ensure that only the most fit members of a species survive. Hunting is needed to further natural selection. For example, in many areas humans are the only natural predator of deer. If we suddenly stopped hunting deer, they would become overpopulated, killing all plant life, and eventually destroying the ecosystem. In many cases, human hunters are an essential part of the ecosystem. I get what you're saying but sometimes people hunt for no good reason other than to have fun which is disgusting to me. Population control and food are good reasons but unfortunately people don't always hunt for those reasons. If people wanted only the fit members of their species to survive, they could just kill the old and disabled people which is definitely wrong. Just ignore him. His opinion is just daft. Even Richard Dawkins doesn't think this is true. I don't really want to get into his silly argument, but just because in nature "might makes right" (there is no objective evidence for this claim either) it doesn't mean that objective morality is determined by nature, lol. The objective morality could easily be independent of nature if someone wants to be a moral realist. Alternatively, you can be an ethical naturalist, where you base ethics on empirical facts, but it doesn't follow that "might is right." As Richard Dawkins points out, we have to "rise above our selfish genes to behave morally." Yeah, I remember reading about that. Edited February 16, 2014 by eclipse Merged double post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 I get what you're saying but sometimes people hunt for no good reason other than to have fun which is disgusting to me. Population control and food are good reasons but unfortunately people don't always hunt for those reasons. If people wanted only the fit members of their species to survive, they could just kill the old and disabled people which is definitely wrong. Yeah, I remember reading about that. It may be for those reasons, but that does not change the fact that the results are the same. Someone could hunt for fun, but that wouldn't change the fact that they would be controlling the population at the same time. Keep in mind, I think this only applies to animals. Humans have risen above natural selection, but animals have not. I am not a social Darwinist. A social Darwinist thinks that Darwinism should apply to humans. I do not think that. Humans are above animals, and one of the reasons why is that natural selection does not apply to us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 (edited) It may be for those reasons, but that does not change the fact that the results are the same. Someone could hunt for fun, but that wouldn't change the fact that they would be controlling the population at the same time. Keep in mind, I think this only applies to animals. Humans have risen above natural selection, but animals have not. I am not a social Darwinist. A social Darwinist thinks that Darwinism should apply to humans. I do not think that. Humans are above animals, and one of the reasons why is that natural selection does not apply to us. Going by your "might is right" logic, it's okay to let tigers eat little vulnerable children and let adults do the same simply because they're stronger. Tigers and adults are above children on the food chain, after all. Edited February 16, 2014 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narga_Rocks Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Going by your "might is right" logic, it's okay to let tigers eat little vulnerable children and let adults do the same simply because they're stronger. Tigers and adults are above children on the food chain, after all. Going by "might is right" logic, which I don't agree with but let's go with this, it would be more like "If I can't stop you or your tiger from eating my child, then I can't complain if you successfully eat my child" and also "if I can kill your tiger before it eats my baby then you can't complain that I killed your tiger" and stuff like that. Although, frankly, if you let your tiger attack my baby, I think you don't get to complain if I kill the tiger anyway, so maybe I should drop the other part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 Going by your "might is right" logic, it's okay to let tigers eat little vulnerable children and let adults do the same simply because they're stronger. Tigers and adults are above children on the food chain, after all. No, it is not. The tiger must eat to survive, but it is our duty as humans to protect our own. If there is anyone present with the power to stop the tiger, they must do it. As. I said before, natural selection does not apply to humans. Say that the baby's mother was there with a gun. That tiger would have to go through her to get to the baby. Good luck with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted February 16, 2014 Share Posted February 16, 2014 No, it is not. The tiger must eat to survive, but it is our duty as humans to protect our own. If there is anyone present with the power to stop the tiger, they must do it. As. I said before, natural selection does not apply to humans. Say that the baby's mother was there with a gun. That tiger would have to go through her to get to the baby. Good luck with that. Obviously you don't have a clue on what you're talking about. I could easily make a stipulation that there is no one around to protect the baby. That wouldn't justify the tiger's killing of the baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Obviously you don't have a clue on what you're talking about. I could easily make a stipulation that there is no one around to protect the baby. That wouldn't justify the tiger's killing of the baby. The tiger is a predator. It must kill to survive. TO A TIGER, KILLING THE BABY IS NECCESARY SO AS TO NOT STARVE. IT IS JUSTIFIED FOR A TIGER TO KILL AND EAT A BABY. IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED FOR A HUMAN TO KILL A BABY, BECAUSE A HUMAN'S LIFE DOES NOT DEPEND ON IT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 The tiger is a predator. It must kill to survive. TO A TIGER, KILLING THE BABY IS NECCESARY SO AS TO NOT STARVE. IT IS JUSTIFIED FOR A TIGER TO KILL AND EAT A BABY. IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED FOR A HUMAN TO KILL A BABY, BECAUSE A HUMAN'S LIFE DOES NOT DEPEND ON IT. I think this reply proves my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narga_Rocks Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I think this reply proves my point. What's your point, though? You said the tiger isn't justified in killing the baby, whereas he gave evidence for why the tiger is justified. Yes, at the same time he basically ditched "might is right" because he starts talking about humans not being justified to do something, when might is right would indicate that a human can do whatever he/she can get away with. I'm not sure what his point even is anymore (somehow it's cool for humans to work might is right on anything else, but not on other humans?). But we should at least agree that the tiger can do whatever it wants without justification, and it's our job to prevent it from doing stuff we'd rather it not do. Also, blah, what's with the shouting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) What's your point, though? You said the tiger isn't justified in killing the baby, whereas he gave evidence for why the tiger is justified. Yes, at the same time he basically ditched "might is right" because he starts talking about humans not being justified to do something, when might is right would indicate that a human can do whatever he/she can get away with. I'm not sure what his point even is anymore (somehow it's cool for humans to work might is right on anything else, but not on other humans?). But we should at least agree that the tiger can do whatever it wants without justification, and it's our job to prevent it from doing stuff we'd rather it not do. Also, blah, what's with the shouting? First off, tigers can't choose between right or wrong. There are no ethical considerations for a tiger. It's strange to say that a tiger's action can be right or wrong when it can't even think before doing a certain action! Even if we take for granted that tigers can choose between right or wrong, he says it's right "for the tiger" which is a form of relativist ethics. Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false from the standpoint of a group. For example, tigers are one such group. I don't want to get into the details of that view, but here are some common objections to it: 1. One would have to define "x is good" as "x is good iff x is good from a certain standpoint" which is a circular definition. Or, in more detailed terms, for any action x, x is good iff a society S believes x is good. This leads to infinite regress: S believes x is S believes x is S believes x is... and so on. If for example you defined a Ferrari as a luxury car called Ferrari, and said "a Ferrari is a car," it would lead to the following infinite regress: "a luxury car called a luxury car called a luxury car called... is a car." 2. Relativism implies obvious moral wrongs aren't wrong. For example, it implies that it's okay for tigers to eat human babies. You might not find that objectionable, but here's an even worse example. It was okay and morally acceptable back in Nazi Germany to persecute Jews. But that's obviously objectionable. 3. Relativism implies that whatever a society chooses is correct, so there's no room for improvement. It implies that societies are perfect since whatever they consider to be right is right. It makes a lot more sense to say that, while the tiger is doing something objectively immoral (if indeed someone rejects moral relativism), it cannot be blamed for it since it is not a human being and its cognitive abilities are not as well-developed as ours. A tiger does not have a free will (or, at least, as much free will as a human does) because it doesn't have the ability to self-reflect as we humans can. A tiger can do free actions but it can't self-reflect prior to doing an action as we humans can. It doesn't understand good or evil. Why blame it? Also, he conveniently ignored my example about the adult killing the baby because he knew it proved him wrong. Even if relativist ethics is true, it doesn't follow that adults can kill babies since the adult belongs to the same group as the baby. It doesn't follow that the mother has the right to kill her baby simply because she is stronger than it. It can't be the case that it's right from the perspective of the adult because an adult is in the same group as the baby. Edited February 17, 2014 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 What's your point, though? You said the tiger isn't justified in killing the baby, whereas he gave evidence for why the tiger is justified. Yes, at the same time he basically ditched "might is right" because he starts talking about humans not being justified to do something, when might is right would indicate that a human can do whatever he/she can get away with. I'm not sure what his point even is anymore (somehow it's cool for humans to work might is right on anything else, but not on other humans?). But we should at least agree that the tiger can do whatever it wants without justification, and it's our job to prevent it from doing stuff we'd rather it not do. Also, blah, what's with the shouting? First off, tigers can't choose between right or wrong. There are no ethical considerations for a tiger. It's strange to say that a tiger's action can be right or wrong when it can't even think before doing a certain action! Even if we take for granted that tigers can choose between right or wrong, he says it's right "for the tiger" which is a form of relativist ethics. Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false from the standpoint of a group. For example, tigers are one such group. I don't want to get into the details of that view, but here are some common objections to it: 1. One would have to define "x is good" as "x is good iff x is good from a certain standpoint" which is a circular definition. Or, in more detailed terms, for any action x, x is good iff a society S believes x is good. This leads to infinite regress: S believes x is S believes x is S believes x is... and so on. If for example you defined a Ferrari as a luxury car called Ferrari, and said "a Ferrari is a car," it would lead to the following infinite regress: "a luxury car called a luxury car called a luxury car called... is a car." 2. Relativism implies obvious moral wrongs aren't wrong. For example, it implies that it's okay for tigers to eat human babies. You might not find that objectionable, but here's an even worse example. It was okay and morally acceptable back in Nazi Germany to persecute Jews. But that's obviously objectionable. 3. Relativism implies that whatever a society chooses is correct, so there's no room for improvement. It implies that societies are perfect since whatever they consider to be right is right. It makes a lot more sense to say that, while the tiger is doing something objectively immoral (if indeed someone rejects moral relativism), it cannot be blamed for it since it is not a human being and its cognitive abilities are not as well-developed as ours. A tiger does not have a free will (or, at least, as much free will as a human does) because it doesn't have the ability to self-reflect as we humans can. A tiger can do free actions but it can't self-reflect prior to doing an action as we humans can. It doesn't understand good or evil. Why blame it? Also, he conveniently ignored my example about the adult killing the baby because he knew it proved him wrong. Even if relativist ethics is true, it doesn't follow that adults can kill babies since the adult belongs to the same group as the baby. It doesn't follow that the mother has the right to kill her baby simply because she is stronger than it. It can't be the case that it's right from the perspective of the adult because an adult is in the same group as the baby. I have said this before and I will say it again: Might Makes Right does not apply to humans. Animals are fundamentally inferior to humans. So no, it would not be right for an adult to kill a baby, because they are both humans. We as humans have a duty to prevent animals from doing things like this. NR got my point right. The shouting was for emphasis. Might I suggest that we move this to a different thread, considering everything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) I have said this before and I will say it again: Might Makes Right does not apply to humans. Animals are fundamentally inferior to humans. So no, it would not be right for an adult to kill a baby, because they are both humans. We as humans have a duty to prevent animals from doing things like this. NR got my point right. The shouting was for emphasis. Might I suggest that we move this to a different thread, considering everything? Humans will always be more important than animals. In fact, all animals belong to us. We have a right to do whatever we want with any animal. It comes from the fact that humans are the dominant species on Earth. In nature, might makes right . I think you're clueless about the fact that you're contradicting yourself. Edited February 17, 2014 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 . I think you're clueless about the fact that you're contradicting yourself. Let me make myself clearer. Might makes right does not apply between humans. Sorry for the confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narga_Rocks Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I have said this before and I will say it again: Might Makes Right does not apply to humans. Animals are fundamentally inferior to humans. So no, it would not be right for an adult to kill a baby, because they are both humans. We as humans have a duty to prevent animals from doing things like this. NR got my point right. The shouting was for emphasis. Might I suggest that we move this to a different thread, considering everything? This is on-topic, though. Not the part about the tiger being bad or good or having those words not apply to it, but for the "what are humans like" part the rest is very on topic. Basically, you are suggesting humans can do whatever we want with animals because we have brains that make guns and whatever we need to rule over them, and yet it doesn't apply to humans. I like to think we can rise above our basic instincts and not lord it over animals (killing for sport instead of food, clothing), but I have no issue per se with your alleged contradiction. Doing bad things to animals is fine, but doing the same things to other humans isn't. I disagree, but I don't find it to be a contradiction. Might makes right except human to human. The alleged contradiction, in case it isn't clear, is "might makes right does not apply to humans" does not mesh with us doing whatever we want to animals. Sure, "might makes right" does not apply (or should not apply) to human versus human interactions. Saying that isn't a contradiction. However, insofar as a blanket "might makes right does not apply to humans" statement, you are contradicting yourself because you've given us the freedom to apply our might to animals as if it is right. I'm choosing to read into it what you probably mean rather than what you are saying, so I basically skip the contradiction and focus on what you mean to say, which is why I don't find your viewpoint to be a contradiction. Just make sure you add the disclaimer and then you won't be contradicting yourself. So "what are humans" is asking, in a broad sense, what does "the average human" mean to you? So to get more on-topic, if indeed we were off-topic, to you a human is something that has the power to do whatever to animals but shouldn't apply the "I can get away with it so I can do it" to doing stuff to other humans. Would you say the average human keeps that in mind, or would you say that, given the opportunity, an average human would do whatever it could get away with? Applying might makes right to human to human interactions. Personally, I believe that there is actually a majority of humans that would do some horrible things in the right situation with the right opportunity, but believe we shouldn't. However, I believe this should apply to all interactions, not just human to human. The problem with this viewpoint, really, is I'm drawing an arbitrary line between food and hunting for kicks. Or like, you can kill the cow for food, but try to make a quick kill rather than, like, mutilating it and letting it bleed out from its leg or something until it dies and then dancing on its corpse. Again, arbitrary line. Again, though, I'm cool with that. Come to think of it, maybe your viewpoint is more "pure" than mine. Anything at all to animals instead of drawing arbitrary lines on what is moral behaviour towards plants and animals and what isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) This is on-topic, though. Not the part about the tiger being bad or good or having those words not apply to it, but for the "what are humans like" part the rest is very on topic. Basically, you are suggesting humans can do whatever we want with animals because we have brains that make guns and whatever we need to rule over them, and yet it doesn't apply to humans. I like to think we can rise above our basic instincts and not lord it over animals (killing for sport instead of food, clothing), but I have no issue per se with your alleged contradiction. Doing bad things to animals is fine, but doing the same things to other humans isn't. I disagree, but I don't find it to be a contradiction. Might makes right except human to human. The alleged contradiction, in case it isn't clear, is "might makes right does not apply to humans" does not mesh with us doing whatever we want to animals. Sure, "might makes right" does not apply (or should not apply) to human versus human interactions. Saying that isn't a contradiction. However, insofar as a blanket "might makes right does not apply to humans" statement, you are contradicting yourself because you've given us the freedom to apply our might to animals as if it is right. I'm choosing to read into it what you probably mean rather than what you are saying, so I basically skip the contradiction and focus on what you mean to say, which is why I don't find your viewpoint to be a contradiction. Just make sure you add the disclaimer and then you won't be contradicting yourself. So "what are humans" is asking, in a broad sense, what does "the average human" mean to you? So to get more on-topic, if indeed we were off-topic, to you a human is something that has the power to do whatever to animals but shouldn't apply the "I can get away with it so I can do it" to doing stuff to other humans. Would you say the average human keeps that in mind, or would you say that, given the opportunity, an average human would do whatever it could get away with? Applying might makes right to human to human interactions. Personally, I believe that there is actually a majority of humans that would do some horrible things in the right situation with the right opportunity, but believe we shouldn't. However, I believe this should apply to all interactions, not just human to human. The problem with this viewpoint, really, is I'm drawing an arbitrary line between food and hunting for kicks. Or like, you can kill the cow for food, but try to make a quick kill rather than, like, mutilating it and letting it bleed out from its leg or something until it dies and then dancing on its corpse. Again, arbitrary line. Again, though, I'm cool with that. Come to think of it, maybe your viewpoint is more "pure" than mine. Anything at all to animals instead of drawing arbitrary lines on what is moral behaviour towards plants and animals and what isn't. I understand what your saying. I probably should have been more clear about that. An average human will do whatever they want if they can get away with it. The law exists to prevent humanity from going to hell. This can be proven by what we did before the law, namely, slaughtered each other. Edited February 17, 2014 by blah2127 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) Animals are fundamentally inferior to humans. this is only true from our privileged point of view. there is nothing to suggest that animals or other organisms are "fundamentally" inferior to humans other than our predisposition to favor our own species over other species (i don't even know what exactly is fundamental about this). Edited February 17, 2014 by dondon151 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 There's a contradiction, though for different reasons that are unrelated to blah's previous poor posts. The reason we care about kiilling other humans is due to their ability to feel fear, pain, empathy, happiness etc. all of which is a consequence of our intelligence. Now I'm not saying that we need to be intelligent to feel fear (many animals can do that) but it seems to matter more when we humans feel fear. This is because we humans have the ability to self-reflect and understand the concept of death and so on unlike other animals. Due to our intellect, we humans can care more about our lives compared to other animals. On the other hand, children and people with mental retardation are not able to feel fear and pain on the level that we adults do, but we still do consider it bad when they suffer pain. We don't discriminate against them, and rightfully so, despite their lack of intellect compared to us. They can still feel pains at a level that we consider significant. So, since rationality is the primary reason why committing crimes, going off on this tangent, why should we stop at humans? Aren't the lives of chimpanzees, dolphins and elephants valuable too? Elephants, great apes and dolphins are all self-aware. Human children start being self-aware at around 2 years old. This might be an oversimplification but I think it's accurate to say that these animals are at least as intelligent as 2 year old humans. So, when the Japanese massacre a bunch of dolphins (who are so intelligent that they seek sex merely for the sake of pleasure) it's no different than killing a bunch of children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excellen Browning Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Your statement equates dolphins to human babies, and while I will not deny dolphins being self aware, I will call this a preposterous logical flaw, considering how obvious it is that a dolphin is not a human. Sure there are some similarities between the two species, but good luck arguing them being the same. So the reality is that a distinction between humans and dolphins can be made, and obviously has to be made, and is going to be made. And because dolphins are thus different from humans, it stands to reason that humans don't treat dolphins as humans (because talking to them obviously wouldn't work), and that our human morality does not apply to dolphins. It's very normal(and reasonable) to treat different people in different ways, and the same applies to dolphins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) I will call this a preposterous logical flaw, considering how obvious it is that a dolphin is not a human. I'm not calling a dolphin a human. =_= Please quote me where I said that. Though some scientists argue that they should be treated as humans. http://phys.org/news181981904.html I'm saying they're worth as much as a human child, since they're as intelligent and can (at least likely) feel pain and fear on the level of 2 year old children. Edited February 17, 2014 by Chiki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narga_Rocks Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) I think the problem here is we don't care as long as its human, and even that is only to a point. If it's not born yet, most "civilized" places couldn't care less if you kill it, despite whatever pain and fear it might feel. It's not "human" yet. So however much you can try to equate their worth, the simple fact is that their worth isn't the same. Being "as intelligent" and being able to "feel pain and fear" on the same level does not make them worth as much. They aren't human, therefore they aren't worth as much. Imagine the fun times if aliens exist and ever show up. I doubt the majority would care if you harm an alien, either. But that aside, it's only a contradiction if you equate worth, and you have given insufficient reason to equate their worth. How do you break the "not human" barrier? Also, I find it ironic that you are calling him out on a potential strawman while performing the same act yourself. He didn't accuse you of calling a dolphin a human. He basically said what I said. As a dolphin is very obviously not a human, equating their worth just because they feel pain and might have the brains of a two year old human is not possible. edit: there's an argument that you aren't suggesting he accused you of calling a dolphin a human, but then your statement becomes a non-sequitur and it's still funny. Edited February 17, 2014 by Narga_Rocks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiki Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 He didn't accuse you of calling a dolphin a human. a dolphin is not a human It doesn't take a five year old to realize that that's exactly what he said. Maybe he was expressing himself poorly, in which case the blame lies with him. I'd really appreciate if you could give me some formal definition on what being a human even is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narga_Rocks Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 (edited) really? you want a definition on what being a human even is? Fine, simple definition is about your dna. An alien, should one exist, is not human. Even if it has human-like traits, it is not human because it does not share our dna. What's a human to you? Does it need to be able to think? Feel pain? What? And you quoted "a dolphin is not a human"? Shouldn't you quote "but good luck arguing them being the same." You can say he accused you of calling them the same when you aren't. That's fine. He said it, you didn't. But he did NOT accuse you of calling a dolphin a human. A dolphin not being human is his proof that they aren't the same or "of equal worth", to paraphrase your words. If you can't comprehend that fact, then I don't know what to say. You are reading into things incorrectly, and maybe you should stop that. A person need not right an essay to make clear their meaning to a "reasonable person", which according to the courts is all you really need to do. If you aren't a "reasonable person", it's not his fault you don't understand what he is doing. Edited February 17, 2014 by Narga_Rocks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.