FFT: Gender as a social construct — what is the vid below telling us on where our intellectual culture has now reached?

_{kairosfocus

June 10, 2017

Academic Freedom, Evolutionary Incoherence, Logic and Reason, rhetoric, worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Someone gave the link, I think we need to watch a comparison of real vs fake papers on gender:

I ask us to ponder:

Where have we now reached, why? END

Comments

JDK, the contingent world we see around us is incapable of ultimately grounding OUGHT, though it provides considerable evidence that we are morally governed, and helps us clarify our moral thinking, if we are willing to listen to the force of plumbline test cases, especially those that show the consequences of opening the door to nihilism. KFkairosfocus_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

MS, I find it almost amusing to see the strawman caricature of my view on how the IS-OUGHT gap is in fact readily resolved. Namely, there must be an IS at the world-root, of necessary being character that also grounds ought. Given, that we are morally governed, and cannot even reason without duties to truth, logic, fairness etc being unavoidably present. There is just one serious candidate, though one that many are desperate to avoid, evade or dismiss. That is, the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. But that does not change the force of the self-evidently evil nature of kidnapping, binding, gagging, sexually assaulting and murdering a young child for one's pleasure. Attempts to deny are patently absurd, and after a time repeated attempts to studiously dismiss or evade begin to tell their own all too revealing tale. KF PS: What would be your counsel to Eisenhower et al, facing the reality that Germany was working on cruise missiles, rockets and nuclear weapons (using the resources of an occupied continent); which they could not discuss. Especially when any hope for a successful invasion required a bombing campaign that was going to kill huge numbers of civilians, not only in Germany but also in Occupied France. And earlier, what would you say to Churchill contemplating the Fleet of a defeated ally, France, with a potential invasion of the UK in the offing? Not to mention being forced to ally himself with Stalin, in some ways a worse dictator than Hitler? As well as much more? (In short, there are many thorny issues in ethics indeed, but you are not going to prepare to address them adequately without sorting out first principles of ethics and moral government, including the implication of your own appeals to our sense of being under binding moral obligations. Without seriously addressing that, resort to village atheist talking points -- and sorry, that is what they are -- comes across as little more than angry or sneering rhetorical manipulation without adequate grounding.)kairosfocus_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

WJM in 460: "His point is that a self-evident truth, if denied as such, generates logical absurdities, such as the idea that in some scenarios it can be called “good” to torture children or rape the innocent." You're darn right it can! Just look at Exodus for an example. It portrays God Himself causing the entirely needless murders of at least a million innocent children. He didnt have to do it! Pharoah threw in the towel. He was going to let the Israelis go, but God hardened Pharoah's heart so God could kill those kids. And yet, since God is supposed to be entirely good, killing those innocent kids must have also been entirely moral. I wish you'd explain just how that works in your system of morality, though, because I can't fit it into my system at all. I have another question. WHY is it immoral in your system of morality to murder innocent children? If you are confronted with a person who sincerely believes that it's alright to murder innocent children, how would you refute that belief? What reasons would you give? Please show your work. A Golden Rule based morality answers that question by saying murder is bad because it's one of the things we universally want to avoid happening to ourselves, so we forbid everybody from doing it to anybody. If you have an objective morality, you should also have an answer readily at hand.MatSpirit_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

Yes, the world that is is the IS that is! :-) Don't going looking for it in some invented metaphysical story, find it in the here and now: look around and see the vast interconnected multiplicity of the world, full of ambiguities and inconsistencies, and realize that we're all in this together, despite our differences.jdk_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

William J Murray @ 459: "Why ought we base our oughts on things that we universally would dislike if they happened to us?" So we can have an objective moral code that keeps others from doing bad things to us. KF has been searching for an IS to ground his OUGHTS on for years without much success and that's sad because there's a big IS laying there right in front of everybody he could use. It's objective, everybody can see it, you can reason from it to ought and the oughts are pretty sound. It's even recommended by Jesus under the name of the Golden Rule. So, i thought I'd give KF and all the other people on this blog who are searching for an objective ground to morality a hand by passing on Jesus's suggestion. I don't know if he will accept it though since KF seems to be pretty much married to the idea that you can somehow extract an objective morality from the Bible and Christian tradition. Frankly, I don't think anybody has ever gotten very far with that idea because there's so much plain ol' evil embedded in the "Good Book". Just look at Exodus, for example, with God deliberately hardening Pharaoh's heart two or three times so He can pile more and more horrors on the defenseless and innocent peasants, culminating with the mass murder of millions of innocent children. And all so He can show off His mightiness. Not a very good foundation for morality, in my opinion. It certainly fails the Golden Rule test, and that's pretty objective.MatSpirit_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

LT, as you imagine, snatches of attention just now. Taking a child from abuse is not kidnapping, nor part of the series as outlined. Also, unless we cut up and eat at minimum vegetables, we die. Again, not part of a relevant series. Of course, cases like this show that human capabilities can be used for good, or for evil. This is why we are and must be morally governed. More, when I can switch focus. KFkairosfocus_{June 24, 2017
June
06
Jun
24
24
2017
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT}

Pindi, fundamental truthfulness of pivotal claims is a key test for a worldview. Which, coming full circle to the OP, is precisely what is at stake on the gender as social construct perspective which now seems to be increasingly institutionally established. KFkairosfocus_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT}

SB: Yup. KFkairosfocus_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
11:21 PM
11
11
21
PM
PDT}

LT, perhaps it will help you to know the case is a [formally?] still open case, in which kidnapping or abduction, indecent assault and murder are exactly the three key LEGAL components. The presence of seminal fluid suffices to underscore the "pleasure" part of the equation. This was a schoolboy seized while returning home from school, son of an ancillary worker residing on a university campus in a university provided house, and there is no reason to believe this is revenge or the like. It is in fact a hint on the significance of the legal terms, that they are morally freighted; no "neutral" terms will do. Law, for cause, presumes us to be responsible, rational, morally governed and guided by conscience as a compass-sense. Further, the point is, this is a case of undeniable evil, so recognised by normally functional people with reasonable background. And, to try to deny the reality of evil -- privation, frustration, wrenching of a valuable and good thing such as a life out of its evident proper fulfillment -- in the case becomes patently absurd. You rightly point to the innocence, low power to escape, low power to persuade of such a child in the grip of a human predator; and that is just what we are speaking of here. This points to the absurdities of the view that asserts, implies or acts out on the nihilistic premise that might and/or manipulation make 'truth,' 'right,' 'rights,' 'justice, etc. And it points out that what opens the door to such nihilism is deeply ill advised and foolish at best, enabling at worst. This drastically undermines several popular ideologies, arguments, assumptions and agendas. Especially, when one recognises that there are no firewalls, so once such a principle of action is let loose in lives, institutions or communities, chaos follows. Indeed, earlier on, I have argued that the threat of chaotic anarchy will naturally lead to clan-lord or war-lord led feuding and a resulting multi-sided civil war, or else the desire for a strong man or strong state to restore order. Democracy, especially constitutional democracy is inherently unstable and requires buttressing stabilisers from the wider community and culture. In my view, that is precisely what has been undermined through generations now of cultural marxist subversion. And the chaos of sexuality and "gender" in our day is just the thin leading edge of the wedge. Now, strangely enough, at about the same time, in a rural parish, there was an incident in a farm pond with crocodiles. The pond was stocked with Tilapia, and a child went fishing. His line got stuck, and he went to the shallows to try to clear it. He was taken by a crocodile. It turns out, there were connexions to waterways and several crocs took up residence. Someone volunteered to swim, and a croc made after him, which was shot by the police. 400 lb, about 12 ft IIRC. It had in it remnants of the child's body. The croc, was viewed as a danger, but it was not viewed as a criminal, with evil intent. (And yes, I am aware of crocodiles as tourist attractions; even so we must realise they are extremely dangerous predators fully capable of taking a human being.) As to the debate points on loaded words, the issue is, does one acknowledge the reality of evil, and the need to so govern ourselves, families, institutions and communities informed by recognised moral principles? The sort of arguments that have been put and the rhetorical poses that have often been taken point to opening the door to nihilism. So, it is appropriate to use a plumbline case to expose the underlying dynamics of nihilism, however disguised. Further to this, I suggest it is impossible to reason and argue without moral loading, we imply duties of care to truth, logic, right and more, inescapably. That branch on which we all must sit character is, in fact, a strong sign of self-evident truth. Unprovable, but the start-point for proofs; where the attempt to deny is readily seen as sawing off the branch on which we all must sit. That premise is evidently very hard to swallow for many who are either inclined to that hyperskepticism that is now so promoted as though it were a virtue, or else are committed to ideologies and agendas that are opposed to the relevant truth. Hence the phenomenon of marches of folly stubbornly clinging to demonstrable absurdities, going over the cliff's edge. So, the hard reality of evil is a lesson in itself. Frankly, I can still recall the story oh they are searching for the missing child who did not come home from school. Then, only a little later, the shock spread across the campus regarding the grisly reality that had been discovered. Evil is undeniably real, and the need to guard against it is a challenge, individually, institutionally, in the community. (In later years, doing a compulsory accounting for managers course, I could not but observe a very familiar pattern. Then came the Enron-Arthur Anderson revelations that have now led to global accountancy standards.) I frankly suspect that we have become naive about the possibilities for nihilism in society, especially that which creeps in through manipulating matters tied to sex and sexuality, then linked law and government. It is almost as though we do not realise that law is cumulative and avalanches start by getting a build-up of critical mass. Then, a seemingly minor trigger leads to a disproportionate consequence that can be utterly destructive. I fear, that is where our civilisation now is, naively playing with disaster. On multiple dimensions. KFkairosfocus_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT}

Lar Tanner
So, I think the real question is how we characterize the “the reality of evil beyond perceptions, opinions etc.”
I think the point of the test case is to show that we can know something about the natural moral law without receiving formal or religious instruction. Sometimes, the evil in question is self-evident, as the test case shows, but other times, the natural law can only be known through the exercise of reason. A good example of the latter would be what is known as “just war theory,” which is a set of moral principles that define the conditions under which a nation can justly wage war. Like the test case, It is a part of the natural moral law, but it is, by no means, self-evident. On the other hand, if the analyst does not know the difference between murder and self-defense, he will never understand the principles of a just war. Similarly, if he doesn’t know the difference between courage and recklessness, he will never understand the principles for being a good soldier. Clearly, if the analyst disdains reason and embraces subjective morality, which is really the absence of morality, he will not understand anything at all. To understand the moral life is to know that virtues are good habits and vices are bad habits. Advocates for subjective morality never talk about habits. And of course, you are right about the importance of intentions. What a man does is important, but why he does is even more important. That is why the test case includes the words, "for one's pleasure." The whole thing shouts evil.StephenB_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT}

KF @474 – My comment #451 says without qualification that it is evil “to kidnap, bind, gag, sexually assault and murder a young child for pleasure.” While I agree that this test case is self-evidently evil – and I could have, I suppose, left the matter at self-evidence – I also gave reasons for my judgment. Those reasons are: (1) In the test case scenario, the actions (alone and in combination) exemplify depraved behavior. (2) The victim is a young child and therefore innocent and defenseless against a person who would conduct such actions as presented in the test case. (3) The motivation – “for pleasure” – only heightens the dastardliness of the perpetrator’s deeds. I hope you see this answer as a clear and full response to your request. Now, I have three points that I hope you will respond to directly and in detail. (a) My comment #451 suggests that the language used in the test case is morally charged. For example, there is no morally favorable interpretation of “kidnap,” “sexually assault,” and “murder.” These terms are morally negative by their definition. To kidnap someone is necessarily to do something harmful and wrong. Evil is part of the word’s meaning. As a result, it almost makes no sense to ask if it is evil to kidnap someone. It would be like asking if singlehood is part of being a bachelor. My question to you, then, is whether you recognize the moral freight embedded in the test case’s language. What's the point of using such morally loaded terms in a test case? (b) I gave an alternate test case in language that was more neutral morally. Nevertheless, some of the actions presented in the alternate parallel those in the test case you presented. So, if you please, can you answer the alternate test case? Is it evil? Why or why not? (c) Finally, surprisingly, I don’t have a direct explanation from you concerning your own test case. You can point me to the answer if you have provided it before, but do you find the test case to exemplify evil? Why or why not? Recall that like you I see this as a self-evident case, so you do not need to re-hash self-evidence. I'm very curious as to how you would want your own test case responded to.LarTanner_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

Vividbleau, my response is that I don't regard a worldview as something that is true or false in itself. There are factual underpinnings but a lot of it is opinion rather than fact.Pindi_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

LT, again, the test case is: is it evil to kidnap, bind, gag, sexually assault and murder a young child for pleasure? Why or why not? KFkairosfocus_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

F/N: While I am still busy elsewhere, it seems I should pause to note on some key worldview-related terms, which some objectors clearly misunderstand. These seem to be key for the moment:
Truth: That which says of what is that it is, and of what is not, that it is not. That is the accurate description of relevant reality. Knowledge: warranted, credibly true belief (I am using the softer sense that would apply to say history or science etc.) Warrant: That which gives good reason to be confident that a claim one believes is true and reliable. Self-evident truth: claims which, once one understands i/l/o appropriate experience of the world, will be seen as true, as necessarily true, and this on pain of PATENT absurdity on the attempted denial. Not to be confused with being obvious, widely acknowledged, widely understood, true by definition, an assumption, etc. Hedonism: Per IEP: "As a theory of value, hedonism states that all and only pleasure is intrinsically valuable and all and only pain is intrinsically not valuable. Hedonists usually define pleasure and pain broadly, such that both physical and mental phenomena are included." In the sexual context, I would add: making pleasure the decisive criterion of the good. A typical expression is that any mutually acceptable pleasurable sexual activity -- usually hedged around with "between consenting adults" [actually, a telling concession] -- is to be acceptable, and usually, third party interests are steeply discounted. Anarchy: absence of effective government or governance. In the sexual context, defiance of the idea that third parties, community interests, and the like have any valid place in regulating sexual behaviour, again, typically hedged around with the consenting adults clause. (Just ponder the havoc wreaked by adultery and the like to begin to see the holes in this.) Nihilism: denial or rejection of values and the possibility of giving them a warrant beyond will to power, or in effect the concept that might and/or manipulation make 'truth,' 'right,' 'rights' etc. I add, from IEP: "Ethical nihilism or moral nihilism rejects the possibility of absolute moral or ethical values. Instead, good and evil are nebulous, and values addressing such are the product of nothing more than social and emotive pressures." Thus, morality is reduced to a power struggle and justice -- held as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities -- becomes a delusion or simply a useful manipulation tool. In the sexual arena, nihilism targets traditional values and morality, undermines or subverts institutions such as conjugal marriage, and would attack defenders of same as would-be oppressors; leading towards disintegration of family founded on covenantal conjugal union as the pivot of sound sustainable society. The implications of the might makes right principle for the viability of society alone should give us sobering pause. Relativism: The view that truth, right, rights, justice, etc are not capable of being universal, and are inescapably variable across individuals, institutions, communities, etc. In effect the order of a given day has no more warrant or legitimacy than the balance of power across factions. The ideological relativisation of a given order of traditional sexual morality accompanied by rising message dominance of the rhetoric of undermining opens the way for imposing a new situation, which may in fact be an anarchic, nihilistic, ruinous chaos; a march of folly.
The inter-connectedness of these themes should at once be apparent. And, sober-minded people would take pause about what we are doing to ourselves as a civilisation. I note, again, that if one makes a crooked yardstick his standard, that which is actually true, right or sound necessarily fails the test and may seem absurd, oppressive or whatever dismissive phrase is currently fashionable. That is why independent, plumbline truths are so vital as key tests. Hence, the cases that have been repeatedly put on the table above and why they have been repeatedly studiously ignored, dismissed, or twisted into handy strawman caricatures. That pattern of behaviour by objectors is highly indicative that they are locked into ideologies and agendas that are imposing crooked yardsticks. KF PS: I again point to Girgis et al and John C Wright as providing sobering reading.kairosfocus_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

JDK, I explicitly indicated that if such misbehaviour continued, I would shut down the thread. I also explicitly pointed out that it is an OPTION to allow comments. If enough objecting commenters show a clear intent to derail threads on topics like this and drag them into the gutter, you had better believe I would post a string of FTR threads and if necessary use it to answer to the penumbra of attack sites also. I suggest that responsible behaviour is the price of serious discussion. KFkairosfocus_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

I know you mentioned the rubber ducky, Stephen. If you look at that post of mine, I first mentioned the poster, who I did not name, that brought up bestiality, and then the rubber ducky. I didn't say, or imply, that kf himself mentioned a rubber ducky. I know he didn't like you doing that, though I don't think the other poster got admonished. The whole business about his concerns about the subject matter on this thread has been pretty weird, in my opinion.jdk_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

jdk
And this is not to mention the rubber ducky! ????
Kairosfocus did not use the term "rubber ducky," I did--and for a very specific reason. Nevertheless, he doesn't agree with my methods and he warned me against any such further behavior. So your attempt to link him with my words, especially when he scolded me for using them, demonstrates how little regard you have for the truth.StephenB_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

JDK If you have " been there and done that" then you must have answered the question. What was your answer? It'really only takes a yes or no. Vividvividbleau_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

re 467: Not interested - been there, done that. Great big series of threads a month or so ago.jdk_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

JDK How about answering my question posed in 462? Thanks Vividvividbleau_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

An argument about what?jdk_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

JDK Do you have an argument or not? If you do present it please.Eugen_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Then did you not ban kmp? And what did this post of yours mean?
In effect, why are you unhappy that I have — repeatedly — dumped garbage on your front lawn? Sorry, I have a right to take strong action not just to clean up but to deter you and others from repeating such vandalism. KF
Are you referring to deleting parts of posts? Is that the action you took?jdk_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

JDK, I saw your question on passing by. if you do not know that I do not hold moderator authority for UD, you should. KFkairosfocus_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

A suggestion Rather than focus on whether or not there is such a thing as "objective" good I suggest our focus should be on the core issue that WJM brings out in 460. Our starting point should be oriented toward answering this question. If ones worldview generates logical absurdities can that worldview be true? I really think this is the core question we should be focusing on IMO. Im pretty sure that I know how KF, SB, WJM, would answer but I would like to hear back from JDK, Pindi, LT, MS , etc. What say you? Vividvividbleau_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

There's a nice verse from a Dolly Parton song, "Shattered Image" that I'll address to kf:
If you live in a glass house don't throw stones Don't shatter my image 'til you look at your own Look at your reflection in your house of glass Don't open my closet if your own's full of trash Stay out of my closet if your own's full of trash
I submit this to kf: He continually uses inflammatory, rhetorical name-calling language: for example, right before kmp was banned, kf wrote
I am utterly unsurprised to see you supporting sexual hedonism, anarchy and nihilism, I simply suggest to you that sexual behaviour is not atomised and isolated from one’s lifetime path of virtue/vice, the possibility of self-destructive and socially damaging habits at least as dangerous as alcoholic or drug addiction, and soberingly adverse impacts on the wider society; up to and including enabling and/or participation in the ongoing worst holocaust in history, the war on posterity in the womb that can be shown to have had 800+ million victims in 40+ years, mounting up at about a million more per week. If you think a generation so soaked in blood guilt will be able to think straight on matters of moral governance, you are sadly mistaken. All of this points to how J C W’s discussion might do you — and many others — some good. I stand by those words of warning. And, I find it utterly astonishing that words of warning on consequences of behaviour that are demonstrably self and socially destructive, are labelled authoritarianism or the like. That suggests, that we are seeing a nihilistic death wish that would indulge destructive habits known to be addictive, not any reasonable, responsible behaviour.
He also repeatedly post things like this:
Is it evil — and, knowably evil — to kidnap, bind, sexually assault and murder a young child for one’s pleasure? If so, why. If not so, why.
And one poster brings up bestiality, and brings up marrying, and thus implicitly having sex with, a chimpanzee. And this is not to mention the rubber ducky! :-) But you complain about some of us discussing adult sex practices which are common. So, kf, I stand with kmp. At 427, he wrote,
Believing that neither the government, the church nor any individual should have any say or influence in what two consenting adults do behind closed doors is not the same as supporting sexual hedonism, anarchy and nihilism. You are creating a false equivalence. Trying to lay a guilt trip on people who enjoy forms of sexual activity that you feel are perverse is just a form of crude manipulative behaviour. Resorting to name calling and denigration of those who disagree with you ranks right up there with the type of propoganda used by the allies during the war to demonize and denigrate the enemy. If you can step the emotion back a little, we might be able to have a civil and productive discussion.
I agree with everything he said. If you banned him, ban me also.jdk_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT}

MatSpirit said:
Wait a minute! Is that the foundation of your so-called ‘objective morality’? A ‘self evident’ truth? In other words, something you feel deeply or really really believe? Or, as the Bible outs it, doing what seems right in your own eyes?
Your "in other words" attempt to paraphrase is entire incorrect, and is obviously an interpretation based on your own biases and expectations. You seem to have completely missed KF's explanatory point, which followed:
I put it to you that the attempt to deny this ought instantly lands in absurdities. And, that this undermines any attempt to pretend that objectivity and warrant for moral truth are impossible to attain.
His point is that a self-evident truth, if denied as such, generates logical absurdities, such as the idea that in some scenarios it can be called "good" to torture children or rape the innocent. It has nothing to do with what KF "deeply feels" or what the Bible says; it has to do with the fact that a morality which can allow anything isn't a moral system at all. At the end of the day, all logical constructs depend on self-evident truths that cannot themselves be proven, but can only be realized by those that encounter such statements. Such as the principles of logic. It is by such self-evident truths that other claims or conclusions are judged. If there is a system of morality where torturing children can be a good thing, we know immediately it is a false system of morality, because we (sane people) all know upon seeing the statement that torturing innocent children for personal pleasure is wrong. Period. In all cases, in all possible worlds.William J Murray_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

MatSpirit @453: Why ought we base our oughts on things that we universally would dislike if they happened to us?William J Murray_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

KF @456 - Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.LarTanner_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

Please answer my question, kf,jdk_{June 23, 2017
June
06
Jun
23
23
2017
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 20 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply