Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - For my Libertarian friends
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedFor my Libertarian friends

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 231232233234235 269>
Author
Message
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2010 at 15:36
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

 
In Pat's hypothetical, the treatment exists.

Bad terminology on my part - in your question, the cures/treatments are available:  the producers of the treatments are willing to provide one with them for (presumably) some amount of money.  In Pat's scenario (presumably), the treatment is unavailable:  the producer will not distribute the treatment at all.


That doesn't change the thrust of my question.  Let me go at it a better way...let's say a cure is available, but costs $1 trillion a dose.  No amount of feasible fundraising will get that, and certainly not for more than one person.  Thus, a cure is available, but for a very high cost.  At what point is something so expensive that it is considered "unavailable" and T would be willing to steal the cure for people? 

He (evidently) would not try to steal a cure that is available for $10, so where is that line?

What's the practical difference between selling something such that no one can possibly buy it and not selling it?


There isn't one.  That's what I'm saying.  And I'm asking what price point would stealing a cure for a disease be ethical?

Stealing isn't ethical.  I'm pointing out that someone may apply a utilitarian, cost/benefit analysis to the situation and decide that the benefit of the theft outweighs the personal cost (the legal consequence of theft).
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2010 at 15:42
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Oh, Rob, you Godwin'd the discussion.


I specifically avoid such talk because of that reason, but in this case, it is not an analogy at all- it is a clear, historic, and horrific example of what happens when a regime declares that people's rights to life, liberty, and property are trumped by government.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2010 at 15:47
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

 
In Pat's hypothetical, the treatment exists.

Bad terminology on my part - in your question, the cures/treatments are available:  the producers of the treatments are willing to provide one with them for (presumably) some amount of money.  In Pat's scenario (presumably), the treatment is unavailable:  the producer will not distribute the treatment at all.


That doesn't change the thrust of my question.  Let me go at it a better way...let's say a cure is available, but costs $1 trillion a dose.  No amount of feasible fundraising will get that, and certainly not for more than one person.  Thus, a cure is available, but for a very high cost.  At what point is something so expensive that it is considered "unavailable" and T would be willing to steal the cure for people? 

He (evidently) would not try to steal a cure that is available for $10, so where is that line?

What's the practical difference between selling something such that no one can possibly buy it and not selling it?


There isn't one.  That's what I'm saying.  And I'm asking what price point would stealing a cure for a disease be ethical?

Stealing isn't ethical.  I'm pointing out that someone may apply a utilitarian, cost/benefit analysis to the situation and decide that the benefit of the theft outweighs the personal cost (the legal consequence of theft).


In that case, I would take it a step further.  If my brain had some special property to cure any form of cancer, could I be killed and my brain taken to save any number of people?  If a utilitarian would justify stealing via cost/benefit, what about murder?

Question stays the same no matter what scenario is raised- at what point is it justifiable to trump the individual rights of one person for the benefit of many?
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2010 at 15:56
Damned if I know - what's your answer?
Back to Top
jammun View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 14 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3449
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2010 at 16:00
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

The military-industrial complex has given me a career, so I can't complain about it too much.
Boeing put a roof over our heads and food on the table for 16 years.  I ain't complaining.
Can you tell me where we're headin'?
Lincoln County Road or Armageddon.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2010 at 16:05
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Damned if I know - what's your answer?


My answer would be absolutely not- it would not be okay, for the same reason it was wrong for a nation to exterminate a group of people it honestly believed was plaguing the country.

I would never ask for anyone to fight (and possibly die) in my stead, but I'm so grateful for those who voluntarily do.  Likewise, if I got sick and it took someone dying to cure it, I would never ask that.  But if someone volunteered to it, I would be earnestly thankful if I took them up on the offer (and thankful even if I didn't).


Edited by Epignosis - November 04 2010 at 16:09
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2010 at 16:10
My turn for silly hypothetical.

An alien ship comes down and gives you two options:  you can shoot me in the head, killing me, or they will exterminate every other human being on the planet.
Back to Top
akamaisondufromage View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2010 at 16:14
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Damned if I know - what's your answer?


My answer would be absolutely not- it would not be okay, for the same reason it was wrong for a nation to exterminate a group of people it honestly believed was plaguing the country.

I would never ask for anyone to fight (and possibly die) in my stead, but I'm so grateful for those who voluntarily do.  Likewise, if I got sick and it took someone dying to cure it, I would never ask that.  But if someone volunteered to it, I would be earnestly thankful if I took them up on the offer (and thankful even if I didn't).
 
If it was your family who were dying.  And someone had the drug to cure it.  Would you steal it from them if they refused you it?   And if you had to would you hurt them to get it?
Help me I'm falling!
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2010 at 16:34
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

My turn for silly hypothetical.

An alien ship comes down and gives you two options:  you can shoot me in the head, killing me, or they will exterminate every other human being on the planet.


Thinking about it while I cook.  Smile

Although if by "every other" you mean "all others," then humanity will be extinct no matter which I choose (just thinking out loud).

Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2010 at 16:40
Originally posted by akamaisondufromage akamaisondufromage wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

Damned if I know - what's your answer?


My answer would be absolutely not- it would not be okay, for the same reason it was wrong for a nation to exterminate a group of people it honestly believed was plaguing the country.

I would never ask for anyone to fight (and possibly die) in my stead, but I'm so grateful for those who voluntarily do.  Likewise, if I got sick and it took someone dying to cure it, I would never ask that.  But if someone volunteered to it, I would be earnestly thankful if I took them up on the offer (and thankful even if I didn't).
 
If it was your family who were dying.  And someone had the drug to cure it.  Would you steal it from them if they refused you it?   And if you had to would you hurt them to get it?


No, because I'm a lousy thief.  Tongue

I'll get back to you with a serious response (I'm cooking).

Back to Top
Paravion View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2010 at 17:29
Originally posted by Epiglottis Epiglottis wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

My turn for silly hypothetical.

An alien ship comes down and gives you two options:  you can shoot me in the head, killing me, or they will exterminate every other human being on the planet.


Thinking about it while I cook.  Smile

Although if by "every other" you mean "all others," then humanity will be extinct no matter which I choose (just thinking out loud).

If you can mate with the female species of this alien race, humanity, partially, will live on. 

I'd probably pursue self-interest and spare myself on the expense of every other human being. What worries me though, is how coexistence with this hostile alien race would be like.  
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2010 at 17:33
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

^ In practical terms, whoever has the most power in the country (perhaps the world) when things go bad. The hope lies in that hopefully it will be a western people/country that wields the power, who have at least mind to respect the individual as much as possible under extreme circumstances. As with most things, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Hard-nosed libertarians might want to keep it simple and draw it at zero incursion on one's rights, but in times of really great hardship, humanity might not be able to afford the luxury of the libertarian perspective.


Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

And if, stony, you don't see where this murky insidiousness lies, then just know that the same justification you gave for trampling individual rights to benefit everybody has been used to incredibly horrific ends.



I very much realize that, but I given the choice between trampling on one person's rights and getting a cure for a horrific disease to millions when all other options have failed versus letting him keep it because of his rights, it's the best option I see.

I can foresee this applied to multiple scenarios to the same result until you convince me absolute freedom under all circumstances is better not only for a small group and an isolated incident, but for all of humanity during all possible circumstances.


We've had plenty of convincing just in the 20th century.  For Hitler, the dire circumstances was not a disease, but a people called Jews.

Until you unequivocally assert that all innocent citizens of a nation have very specific, inalienable rights that cannot be trampled on regardless the circumstances (and people willing to defend those rights), you will continue to have Hitlers in various shapes and sizes.


I'll take that as an admission of "libertarians can't come up with anything better for the circumstances."

You can talk of Hitler all you want. The scary specter of somehow becoming Hitler by giving stealing a cure for AIDs and giving it away to people is not going to phase me. Bad things are sure to happen in your scenario; people will continue to die of AIDs as long as the singular greedy person keeps he cure away. In my situation, the roads to hell may be paved with good intentions, but at least the intentions are good and the immediate results speak for themselves, regardless of the unforeseeable future.

But, hey, you had to Godwin the argument so you lost, anyway.
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2010 at 17:36
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

My turn for silly hypothetical.

An alien ship comes down and gives you two options:  you can shoot me in the head, killing me, or they will exterminate every other human being on the planet.


Man you guys are really bringing out the utilitarian in me.

Tough choice, considering they might not actually do it. I'll say that if I initially said no, and they they blew up a large city and said they'd continue doing it, then yes I'd kill you.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2010 at 17:51
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

^ In practical terms, whoever has the most power in the country (perhaps the world) when things go bad. The hope lies in that hopefully it will be a western people/country that wields the power, who have at least mind to respect the individual as much as possible under extreme circumstances. As with most things, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Hard-nosed libertarians might want to keep it simple and draw it at zero incursion on one's rights, but in times of really great hardship, humanity might not be able to afford the luxury of the libertarian perspective.


Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

And if, stony, you don't see where this murky insidiousness lies, then just know that the same justification you gave for trampling individual rights to benefit everybody has been used to incredibly horrific ends.



I very much realize that, but I given the choice between trampling on one person's rights and getting a cure for a horrific disease to millions when all other options have failed versus letting him keep it because of his rights, it's the best option I see.

I can foresee this applied to multiple scenarios to the same result until you convince me absolute freedom under all circumstances is better not only for a small group and an isolated incident, but for all of humanity during all possible circumstances.


We've had plenty of convincing just in the 20th century.  For Hitler, the dire circumstances was not a disease, but a people called Jews.

Until you unequivocally assert that all innocent citizens of a nation have very specific, inalienable rights that cannot be trampled on regardless the circumstances (and people willing to defend those rights), you continue to have Hitlers in various shapes and sizes.


I'll take that as an admission of "libertarians can't come up with anything better for the circumstances."

You can talk of Hitler all you want. The scary specter of somehow becoming Hitler by giving stealing a cure for AIDs and giving it away to people is not going to phase me. Bad things are sure to happen in your scenario; people will continue to die of AIDs as long as the singular greedy person keeps he cure away. In my situation, the roads to hell may be paved with good intentions, but at least the intentions are good and the immediate results speak for themselves, regardless of the unforeseeable future.

But, hey, you had to Godwin the argument so you lost, anyway.


You said nothing but, "My intentions were good according to me, so I am right."  Sleepy

I didn't "Godwin" anything.  The holocaust happened.  Why did it happen?  Because someone decided an entire group of people must be disposed of to save a country.  It's unfortunate that you must replace logic with Internet memes. 
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2010 at 17:51
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

My turn for silly hypothetical.

An alien ship comes down and gives you two options:  you can shoot me in the head, killing me, or they will exterminate every other human being on the planet.


Thinking about it while I cook.  Smile

Although if by "every other" you mean "all others," then humanity will be extinct no matter which I choose (just thinking out loud).


They'll spare me, and if you want, my wife so we can repopulate the species.  Tongue
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2010 at 17:52
Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

My turn for silly hypothetical.

An alien ship comes down and gives you two options:  you can shoot me in the head, killing me, or they will exterminate every other human being on the planet.


Wait, if I had to shoot you?  Well that's easy then!  Tongue Wink

Actually, it would be easy.  I would shoot you (though I would try to just hit your jaw or something not lethal Wink).  Seriously, you have a wife and two good looking young fellas.  I presume you would rather die and save your family.

Of course, that only forces the question further: Now the question is, "Would you shoot a homeless guy with no family and who is dying of a disease and has 24 minutes to live and has absolutely nothing to live for but wants to live anyway, in order to live to save all of humanity?"

I would not pull the trigger.  If the aliens asked me to kill myself, I reckon that'd be different.

Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2010 at 18:19
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

^ In practical terms, whoever has the most power in the country (perhaps the world) when things go bad. The hope lies in that hopefully it will be a western people/country that wields the power, who have at least mind to respect the individual as much as possible under extreme circumstances. As with most things, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Hard-nosed libertarians might want to keep it simple and draw it at zero incursion on one's rights, but in times of really great hardship, humanity might not be able to afford the luxury of the libertarian perspective.


Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

And if, stony, you don't see where this murky insidiousness lies, then just know that the same justification you gave for trampling individual rights to benefit everybody has been used to incredibly horrific ends.



I very much realize that, but I given the choice between trampling on one person's rights and getting a cure for a horrific disease to millions when all other options have failed versus letting him keep it because of his rights, it's the best option I see.

I can foresee this applied to multiple scenarios to the same result until you convince me absolute freedom under all circumstances is better not only for a small group and an isolated incident, but for all of humanity during all possible circumstances.


We've had plenty of convincing just in the 20th century.  For Hitler, the dire circumstances was not a disease, but a people called Jews.

Until you unequivocally assert that all innocent citizens of a nation have very specific, inalienable rights that cannot be trampled on regardless the circumstances (and people willing to defend those rights), you continue to have Hitlers in various shapes and sizes.


I'll take that as an admission of "libertarians can't come up with anything better for the circumstances."

You can talk of Hitler all you want. The scary specter of somehow becoming Hitler by giving stealing a cure for AIDs and giving it away to people is not going to phase me. Bad things are sure to happen in your scenario; people will continue to die of AIDs as long as the singular greedy person keeps he cure away. In my situation, the roads to hell may be paved with good intentions, but at least the intentions are good and the immediate results speak for themselves, regardless of the unforeseeable future.

But, hey, you had to Godwin the argument so you lost, anyway.


You said nothing but, "My intentions were good according to me, so I am right."  Sleepy

I didn't "Godwin" anything.  The holocaust happened.  Why did it happen?  Because someone decided an entire group of people must be disposed of to save a country.  It's unfortunate that you must replace logic with Internet memes. 


I actually said my intentions were good, but on top of that I achieved an immediate positive result. On the contrary position, I state now  that your intentions achieved nothing except an AIDs plagued immediate future. Oh joy.

You really haven't addressed the libertarian perspective here though, except state the abstract "freedom at any cost" mantra. You imply my position is a slippery slope, and it might well be, but there isn't even a slope with your position (at least I assume it to be yours; you never really offered anything a libertarian would do, so let's hope it's something other than let millions die for one person's freedom).


Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32530
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2010 at 18:32
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:

^ In practical terms, whoever has the most power in the country (perhaps the world) when things go bad. The hope lies in that hopefully it will be a western people/country that wields the power, who have at least mind to respect the individual as much as possible under extreme circumstances. As with most things, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Hard-nosed libertarians might want to keep it simple and draw it at zero incursion on one's rights, but in times of really great hardship, humanity might not be able to afford the luxury of the libertarian perspective.


Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

And if, stony, you don't see where this murky insidiousness lies, then just know that the same justification you gave for trampling individual rights to benefit everybody has been used to incredibly horrific ends.



I very much realize that, but I given the choice between trampling on one person's rights and getting a cure for a horrific disease to millions when all other options have failed versus letting him keep it because of his rights, it's the best option I see.

I can foresee this applied to multiple scenarios to the same result until you convince me absolute freedom under all circumstances is better not only for a small group and an isolated incident, but for all of humanity during all possible circumstances.


We've had plenty of convincing just in the 20th century.  For Hitler, the dire circumstances was not a disease, but a people called Jews.

Until you unequivocally assert that all innocent citizens of a nation have very specific, inalienable rights that cannot be trampled on regardless the circumstances (and people willing to defend those rights), you continue to have Hitlers in various shapes and sizes.


I'll take that as an admission of "libertarians can't come up with anything better for the circumstances."

You can talk of Hitler all you want. The scary specter of somehow becoming Hitler by giving stealing a cure for AIDs and giving it away to people is not going to phase me. Bad things are sure to happen in your scenario; people will continue to die of AIDs as long as the singular greedy person keeps he cure away. In my situation, the roads to hell may be paved with good intentions, but at least the intentions are good and the immediate results speak for themselves, regardless of the unforeseeable future.

But, hey, you had to Godwin the argument so you lost, anyway.


You said nothing but, "My intentions were good according to me, so I am right."  Sleepy

I didn't "Godwin" anything.  The holocaust happened.  Why did it happen?  Because someone decided an entire group of people must be disposed of to save a country.  It's unfortunate that you must replace logic with Internet memes. 


I actually said my intentions were good, but on top of that I achieved an immediate positive result. On the contrary position, I state now  that your intentions achieved nothing except an AIDs plagued immediate future. Oh joy.

You really haven't addressed the libertarian perspective here though, except state the abstract "freedom at any cost" mantra. You imply my position is a slippery slope, and it might well be, but there isn't even a slope with your position (at least I assume it to be yours; you never really offered anything a libertarian would do, so let's hope it's something other than let millions die for one person's freedom).




I'm not really sure what you're saying (asking?).  Am I supposed to "address the libertarian perspective here?"

I'm going to go play cards with my son.
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2010 at 18:39
Basically just what you would do in the situation. We've been criticizing my opinion this whole time, and I've been assuming you'd just let millions go on suffering dying when a few people are in the way of their immediate reprieve. If this is a wrong assumption explain what you would do. If it is a correct assumption, I find it curious how I'm being the bad guy.
Back to Top
Padraic View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 04 2010 at 18:50
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Padraic Padraic wrote:

My turn for silly hypothetical.

An alien ship comes down and gives you two options:  you can shoot me in the head, killing me, or they will exterminate every other human being on the planet.


Wait, if I had to shoot you?  Well that's easy then!  Tongue Wink

Actually, it would be easy.  I would shoot you (though I would try to just hit your jaw or something not lethal Wink).  Seriously, you have a wife and two good looking young fellas.  I presume you would rather die and save your family.


OK, sounds like a good choice.  Do it soon so I won't have to pay estate taxes.  Wink
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 231232233234235 269>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.445 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.