Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

People who doubt “evolution” are more likely to be racist?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

So academic elite types claim in a recent study:

A disbelief in human evolution was associated with higher levels of prejudice, racist attitudes and support of discriminatory behavior against Blacks, immigrants and the LGBTQ community in the U.S., according to University of Massachusetts Amherst research published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Similarly, across the globe — in 19 Eastern European countries, 25 Muslim countries and in Israel — low belief in evolution was linked to higher biases within a person’s group, prejudicial attitudes toward people in different groups and less support for conflict resolution…

“People who perceive themselves as more similar to animals are also people who tend to have more pro-social or positive attitudes toward outgroup members or people from stigmatized and marginalized backgrounds,” Syropoulos explains. “In this investigation, we were interested in examining whether belief in evolution would also act in a similar way, because it would reinforce this belief that we are more similar to animals.”

University of Massachusetts Amherst, “Disbelief in human evolution linked to greater prejudice and racism” at ScienceDaily (April 4, 2022)

The paper requires a fee or subscription.

A friend who has read the paper kindly writes to say,

I think this study is a prime example of the temptation to make the correlation equals causation fallacy. What this paper is measuring has nothing to do with evolution or belief in it. It is measuring parochial attitudes among people in insulated groups who don’t have much contact with the outside world. These people tend to be prejudiced against other races and also have little contact with evolution so they are skeptical. It just shows that isolation breeds prejudice against the other.

The principle that isolation breeds prejudice against the “other” is a truism. And you could find evidence supporting this truism from very different groups. If you surveyed attitudes of ivory tower types you’d find similar prejudice against conservative religious groups, you’d find similar discriminatory attitudes. Why? Because those evolutionary secular academic types who accept human evolution have very little contact with conservative religious people.

So what’s interesting isn’t the finding of this paper. What’s interesting is why they chose to study isolated people who happen to be religious and defined prejudice as attitudes towards certain privileged groups in society (eg LGBTQ). Why not study prejudice of secular types who accept human evolution towards religious consevatives? You’d find analogous prejudices. But the researchers weren’t interested in studying that…because they are evolutionary secularists with an agenda to make religious conservatives look bad.

Come to think of it, if you are here anyway, you may also wish to read: E. O. Wilson and racism: The smoking gun is found. Some have dismissed the findings but others say they fit a pattern. From Schulson’s story: “I don’t really care that Wilson had racist ideas, because I know pretty much all of the people that I dealt with, when I was coming up through the science system, had racist ideas,” said [evolutionary biologist Joseph] Graves, who in 1988 became the first Black American to receive a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. “Wilson was just one of many.” Oh.

And remember, Wilson was supposed to be the second Darwin. Funny no one talks about that now.

Comments
To repeat, " I am only interested in the topic as a purely mathematical topic about the integers on the number line, and ... the issue [for me] is simply that there is no smallest integer, so you can’t say that the negative integers “begin” anyplace. That’s all."Viola Lee
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
LCD, believing that I have a moral nature and free will to exercise it does not mean that I therefore think all moral judgements are equal: in fact, it means exactly not that. "Judgement " means I can judge, and I judge Putin as evil. Putin obviously (I think) doesn't think he is evil, but that is irrelevant to me. I have to live by my judgments, as do you and everyone else. But this has been rehashed too may times, so I'll try to leave it at that.Viola Lee
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
VL, you are aware that there are those who have advocated a beginningless past, leading to a range of issues relevant to their claims. The point of showing that for reason, proposed beginningless past leads to transfinite traverse which is infeasible (for logic of structure and quantity reasons) is to set a baseline. We then have a world with a beginning, often suggested as about 13 - 14 BYA; if it is true there is an onward quantum foam that pops up subcosmi like ours as bubbles triggered by fluctuations, by the logic it too is not beginningless. . So, we have a contingent world, which it was shown points to a cause. So, we face the onward logic of origins, of root of reality. That pivots on logic of being, impossible vs possible, contingent vs necessary. As non being can have no causal powers, the root is not non being. Nor is circular retrocausation feasible. So we have finitely remote necessary being as objectively warranted world root. Furthermore as we are morally governed, we can identify first duties i.e. self evidently true and objectively knowable first moral truths, starting with the result of attempted denial. These, despite your earlier attempts to deny objective knowable truths on such matters. So, too, not empty repetition, summary of much more detailed working through cumulatively across several years here at UD. Therefore, your attempted dismissive talk points are inappropriate and as fair comment do smack of the turnabout fallacy, given suppressed context. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT
Viola Lee I can’t ground the existence of evil is an external source – true. I can ground the existence of evil in my own moral nature and my freely chosen moral judgments.
So why do you blame Hitler/Putin/whatever for doing exactly what you do: choosing his preferred moral judgments ? You have your personal moral preferences ,Putin has his personal moral preferences. If you really think that morality is personal preference you would judge no one for their preferences but you do judge other people for their preferences like you believe that your personal moral law should govern all of us including Putin. Very strange. :lol:Lieutenant Commander Data
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
Are we in for hundreds of comments of nonsense? It looks that way. On an OP about racism. So far two comments mentioned racism. Two out of 42. That’s on target. Good for a hundred comments?
there is no smallest integer
jerry
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
KF, I am never going to discuss all this in terms of "the past" again, as I've made it clear that I don't think we are at all justified in thinking that the model of time as points on the number line extends back before the beginning of our universe. I am sure that in all our discussions I said I was only interested in the topic as a purely mathematical topic about the integers on the number line, and that I was using time as a mere analogy, no matter how convenient” that might have seemed. I regret doing that, and I will never do it again. The issue is simply that there is no smallest integer, so you can’t say that the negative integers “begin” anyplace. That’s all.Viola Lee
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
VL, by your admission, you are a Mathematics educator. You were present when at least some of the discussion on the claimed beginningless past was live. You should be aware that we had to first bring to the table a framing of logic of structure and quantity that allows us to see what a transfinite span involves, whether explicit or implicit. This then extends to projecting the past of our temporal-causal world, for convenience a succession of years. It was shown that stepwise traversal of a proposed beginningless succession of years involves transfinite traverse, which can be seen to be an infeasible supertask. So, we can be confident our world had a finitely remote beginning. In turn that requires a causal root, and so a necessary being as that root. The is-ought gap then raises the issue of a bridge, in that root. Thence, a bill of requisites, inherently good, utterly wise, capable of causing worlds. And more. Such is far from empty repetition, and you were around for at least the summary. Such points to serious fallacy problems with your dismissive comments above. And that is before we duly note that in a context of objection to objective moral truths, you have actually implicitly appealed to the same first duties. Repeated denials only further exemplified the pattern. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
I can't ground the existence of evil is an external source - true. I can ground the existence of evil in my own moral nature and my freely chosen moral judgments.Viola Lee
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Viola Lee I believe we are existentially free moral agents, and that no one is out there providing moral messages.
So you did agree with what I said:
Your worldview can’t ground the existence of evil .
Chuckdarwin apologists use the mantra “without God there’s no objective morality.” By using this semantic bait and switch they claim that human instituted moral systems are all “subjective” so non-believers have no moral grounding to distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong, etc.
You are wrong because: 1.you can't ground LOGICALLY objective morality in YOUR atheist dogma(your reference point and judge is matter/atoms. Invalid.) while 2. being created by God you obviously have the intuitions of good and evil exactly like all other people but you just "translate" (artificially) your God's given intuitions to make sense into your worldview.Lieutenant Commander Data
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
CD writes,
.. a number of apologists use the mantra “without God there’s no objective morality.” By using this semantic bait and switch they claim that human instituted moral systems are all “subjective” so non-believers have no moral grounding to distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong, etc. I view this as one of religion’s biggest sophistries.
Well said. I've said many times recently that the confusion (possibly a bait-and-switch one) between different meanings of "objective" makes it hard to make clear distinctions about some issues. For example, At 29, SA writes,
That’s true with regards to the objective nature of the rules in that sense – they’re accessible and people can point to them, versus rules that people have made up in their own head and nobody but the individual knows what they are. ... [CD] But, unlike absolute laws, they can be changed and modified. [SA] Yes, but this is why they’re not “objective” in another sense, that they apply in all circumstances and have not been generated by a group of people or some individuals.
So which is it? What does “objective” mean? Switching back and forth without any clarity on these two meanings (and they would both need further specificity) makes discussion very difficult.Viola Lee
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
Hey KF, I never said one could "traverse a transfinite span in finite stages." It would be nice if you recognized that.Viola Lee
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
Hey KF, I never said one could "traversal of a transfinite span in finite stages." It would be nice if you recognized that.Viola Lee
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
SA Subjective and objective are opposites. (See e.g., https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/objective-subjective/) I understand what you’re trying to say but I don’t think it works. It’s important for a few reasons. First a number of apologists use the mantra “without God there’s no objective morality.” By using this semantic bait and switch they claim that human instituted moral systems are all “subjective” so non-believers have no moral grounding to distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong, etc. I view this as one of religion’s biggest sophistries. Second, all moral systems derive from power, whether human or divine. Two of our greatest founders, Jefferson and Madison, knew that the solution to the issue of power was to dilute it (checks and balances) and make it accountable to people (representative government). Finally, words have meaning and it is a pet peeve of mine to see words misappropriated and misused.chuckdarwin
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
Not bad, LCD. I believe we are existentially free moral agents, and that no one is out there providing moral messages. I also agree a lot with the second Peterson quote: it's how we act that counts.Viola Lee
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
CD, you know that many times I have taken you up point by point so your characterisation is a strawman fallacy led to an ad hominem. I suggest to you that your attempted dismissal just now appeals to my allegedly having failed in duties to truth, right reason and warrant, likely with side helpings of implying my unfairness. However, that just inadvertently underscores the point that Cicero was right about first duties of reason (and how they frame law) and that indeed it is manifest that objectors to said duties cannot but appeal to same. You may refuse correction, indeed, that is a consequence of the responsible, rational freedom that brings us under moral government. However, you cannot then avert the manifest consequence, the absurdity of implicitly appealing to what you would deny. Which simply shows yet again that they really are pervasive first principles. Many popular worldviews and linked ideologies nowadays may hotly object, but the branch on which we sit manifest reality is there for anyone willing to simply attend to it. Willing. So, so much the worse for such worldviews that reduce themselves to absurdity. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
Viola Lee Just to see if you know what you’re talking about, can you give me a summary of what you think my worldview is? I’m curious about what you think you know?
Impersonal far away power that doesn't have a moral message for you is the same as being an atheist . I don't know why you protest when people think of you as atheist ? "Alongside our wish to be free of rules, we all search for structure. " (Jordan Peterson) "You can only find out what you actually believe  (rather than what you think you believe)  by watching how you act. You simply don’t know what you believe,  before that. You are too complex  to understand yourself. "(Jordan Peterson)Lieutenant Commander Data
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
JH, kindly see the just above, i/l/o more that is further above. VL was not merely repeating a fact, indeed just the issue of the hyperreals and their implication on transfinite traverse in finite stage steps were hammered out over three years of long exchanges, IIRC some went to thousands of comments. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
VL, If you had instead said, despite exchanges of argument on a wide range of linked themes that go as far as the hypereals and the impossibility of traversal of a transfinite span in finite stages, there is persistent disagreement, and it will not be easily settled, that would have been a very different matter. Instead, you skipped over a little matter of there having been in this blog an establishing of warrant for the claims you tried to sweep off the table. Where, that first duties of reason are branch on which we all sit level first principles can be seen from how even your own objections appeal implicitly to duties to truth, right reason, warrant, fairness etc, so the point is, inescapably pervasive so self evident. That is, there really is warrant on the table. I know, you rejected objectivity in previous exchanges, especially in regards to objective moral truth, but warrant was in fact presented for the point, some of which -- as a summary -- appears above (doubtless, more of that by suggestion empty repetition you raised: NOT). It is time for you and others to reassess some positions i/l/o actual warrant. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
We have an absolute moral requirement to the truth. The proof of this is that the truth does not need a moral justification for itself, but a lie always needs some kind of justification (and can only find it in rare cases). We are oriented to the truth - and thus we are oriented to absolute moral norms (since the truth is a function of the good).Silver Asiatic
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
CD
These rules are objective because they are publicly communicated, readily understood by members of the culture, carry consequences and are clear as to what is and is not appropriate behavior.
That's true with regards to the objective nature of the rules in that sense - they're accessible and people can point to them, versus rules that people have made up in their own head and nobody but the individual knows what they are.
But, unlike absolute laws, they can be changed and modified.
Yes, but this is why they're not "objective" in another sense, that they apply in all circumstances and have not been generated by a group of people or some individuals.
A person may not agree with them but is still subject to them unless that person chooses to opt out and either leave the culture, suffer the consequence for non-compliance or overthrow or change the culture.
This is 'might makes right'. The lawmakers force people to comply with laws for no other reason than they want control or they think the laws are right. But those lawmakers could be totally corrupt themselves, or at any rate, they have no idea of the laws are good or not. Their authority to make the laws is arbitrary. If elected, they can be replaced. So, it doesn't really work to say that people are "subject" to such moral norms, given they can change at each election cycle and one can plea-bargain against them or find legal loopholes, or find ways to get influence (buying it) and thus never pay any consequences. This is why poor people suffer from the law more than rich. If there is no real objective standard of justice, then the law is "subjective" - it comes from the interest of a person (dictator) or group of people (legislature) that has no real authority as "moral lawmakers". They may be authorized to create civil laws, and that's fine. But a moral law speaks about the "moral character of the person". Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King showed they had greater morality by appealing to a "higher law" than that of the civil law. They appealed to God's justice. Otherwise, without that, the government is the highest law. Whatever rights the government gives, it can take away. Not so with God's law. God's moral teaching remains the standard whether leftist-Democrats are in power or rightist-Republicans.
Christian apologists keep trying to mischaracterize the latter as “subjective” morality or mere “preferences.”
There are those two senses of "subjective" (as with "objective"). In one sense, subjective is that it is a law created in the mind of the individual. In another sense, it's subjective because, even though it is "objectively visible" as a set of social norms for example, it still has its origin in "the subjective interests of a group of people". Those interests can change and so the law can change. But "objective law" in that sense would mean something "inbuilt in human nature and which cannot change" no matter what the culture is. That's a higher law, even natural law, that Aristotle pointed to.
But they are not merely preferences, they are applicable to anyone living in that given culture.
True, but that's also the problem. Why should people be required to adhere to them. Some very great people have fought against unjust laws to the point of death (martyrs have). A "cultural law" like that cannot make demands on people.
They also vary from culture to culture, but, again, that does not make them subjective or preferences.
They're not "privately subjective" that is true. But they're "publicly subjective". They're objective because we can discuss them and refer to them. But they were created by human beings who do not have the right or authority to bind people morally, since humans are not the ultimate moral judges of the virtue or sin of people (and that's what being a moral person is about). It's that concept of what it means to be a "morally good person" that is at stake. If morality is generated by governmental or cultural laws, then a person can be morally good by following a certain law (the laws of the Third Reich) and then become morally good by opposing those same laws (after Nurenberg trials, for example). Joe Biden opposed tax payer abortion at one time when that was a more popular opinion, now he favors it as the culture has changed. President Obama opposed gay marriage and then he promoted it. That cannot create a morally good person since it's just a matter of following trends and "whatever you think is the most popular opinion". There's no moral standard in those cases.Silver Asiatic
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
Hey, LCD. Just to see if you know what you're talking about, can you give me a summary of what you think my worldview is? I'm curious about what you think you know?Viola Lee
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
:-) Sometimes "turnspeech" is appropriate, KF. I think "“regurgitating the same stuff for years, unwaveringly, almost as if [they] are metaphysically certain of [their] position” applies to you as much as anyone here.Viola Lee
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
KF: VL, you remarked by making resort to the agit prop tactic and fallacy of turnspeech projection. That is why I pointed to its leading proponents, it is that ruthlessly destructive a rhetorical resort. I suggest, that insistence on such tactics becomes tantamount to confession by projection. Let us instead focus the substantial issues and merits. KF
All VL said was that both sides in various arguments repeatedly regurgitate the same points. How do you jump from this statement to equating her to Hitler? Your response seems to have jumped the hyperbolic shark.JHolo
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
KF I'm going to respond to your comments the same way you respond to mine--you have no idea what you are talking about and are manifestly wrong. ENDchuckdarwin
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Hitler was a very bad, evil person (as is Putin, FWIW).
Your worldview can't ground the existence of evil . How convenient.Lieutenant Commander Data
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
VL, you remarked by making resort to the agit prop tactic and fallacy of turnspeech projection. That is why I pointed to its leading proponents, it is that ruthlessly destructive a rhetorical resort. I suggest, that insistence on such tactics becomes tantamount to confession by projection. Let us instead focus the substantial issues and merits. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
I see. You are talking about HItler. That wasn't clear at all, since my previous remarks was about posters here at UD. Yes, Hitler was a very bad, evil person (as is Putin, FWIW).Viola Lee
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
PS: I note,
We may readily identify at least seven branch- on- which- we- all- sit (so, inescapable, pervasive), first principle . . . first duties of reason: "Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to their legitimate authority; inescapable, so first truths of reason, i.e. they are self-evidently true and binding. Namely, Ciceronian first duties,
1st - to truth, 2nd - to right reason, 3rd - to prudence [including warrant], 4th - to sound conscience, 5th - to neighbour; so also, 6th - to fairness and 7th - to justice [ . . .] xth - etc.
Likewise, we observe again, that the objector to such duties cannot but appeal to them to give their objections rhetorical traction (i.e. s/he must imply or acknowledge what we are, morally governed, duty-bound creatures to gain any persuasive effect). While also those who try to prove such cannot but appeal to the said principles too. So, these principles are a branch on which we all must sit, including objectors and those who imagine they are to be proved and try. That is, these are manifestly first principles of rational, responsible, honest, conscience guided liberty and so too a built-in framework of law; yes, core natural law of human nature. Reason, inescapably, is morally governed. Of course, there is a linked but not equivalent pattern: bounded, error-prone rationality often tied to ill will and stubbornness or even closed mindedness; that’s why the study of right reason has a sub-study on fallacies and errors. That we sometimes seek to evade duties or may make inadvertent errors does not overthrow such first duties of reason, which instead help us to detect and correct errors, as well as to expose our follies. Perhaps, a negative form will help to clarify, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law, then, is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate's cynical "what is truth?": truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence -- in key part -- the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.
BTW, the onward discussion on the SOURCE of our morally governed nature is philosophical, rather than religious. That for instance is why I point to Cicero, who was setting out to provide a built in foundation for law that is universal, rooted in our nature. These principles are self evident, undeniable on pain of the absurdity of implying the same principles as one tries to object, and are intelligible to all. Our civilisation has come to a sad pass about foundations of justice, as I just noted in the Schaeffer thread: https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/francis-schaeffers-line-of-despair-model-of-our-civilisations-intellectual-history/#comment-751339 KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
CD, instead, objective first duties of reason are so much first principles of reason that in trying to project BLAME to the obviously despised religious other, you cannot but appeal to same. You would be well advised to reconsider. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
VL, AH and his cabinet colleague JG (Along with the likes of MB, HH, HG etc) were among the absolute worst of the worst ever. The first listed should have been called Schicklegruber instead. Turnspeech accusation was their favourite propaganda tactic ; confession by projection of their own wrongs to the despised other, rather than dealing in truth, sound warrant, justice. They actually launched the European phase of the worst war in history to date, by murdering prisoners and dressing them up in the military uniforms of their targetted nation, to twist about who was responsible for war of murderous aggression. KFkairosfocus
April 9, 2022
April
04
Apr
9
09
2022
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
1 10 11 12 13

Leave a Reply