Algmtkrr t1_j2lj11n wrote
Reply to comment by _Zirath_ in Atheistic Naturalism does not offer any long-term pragmatic outcome of value when compared to Non-Naturalist views, such as Theism by _Zirath_
There will always be debates over what is real. Secular reasoning for values are still real unless you say only objective values of supernatural origins are real, which is a claim. If you say secular arguments can disagree therefore they aren’t as real, well, theists disagree between religions or within their own over the nuances of values. Basically everyone says “Murder is wrong”, naturalist or theist. Naturalism is not pessimistic nihilism. I see plantation slavery being outlawed as a wonderful moment of society directing its values towards good bc if theism was going to be the catalyst of that, it would’ve done that a long long time ago
I’ll admit I was being cheeky with my wording, but it’s effectively the same effect. You paint your own view of what naturalism has to offer and then pull the Pascal of “Well it doesn’t have as much to offer so it’s only logical”
I don’t think you understood my point with the story. I wasn’t creating a story to disprove your story, I created a story to show how anyone can create a story that creates ideal framing, so it is a bad argument. It can be done for anything especially if you necessitate the naturalist as someone saying “We’re all gonna die, there’s no point in trying anything” just like I necessitated the guy with faith to rely on his god saving him rather than making any effort of his own to save his own life
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2lkvv9 wrote
I'm not sure I find your first paragraph relevant, since I am not talking about the objectivity of values on naturalism, but rather objective purpose. How is man-sourced purpose anything short of a self-imposed illusion?
"You paint your own view of what naturalism has to offer and then pull the Pascal of 'Well it doesn’t have as much to offer so it’s only logical'"
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here.
"I created a story to show how anyone can create a story that creates ideal framing, so it is a bad argument."
But I don't think you succeeded in that, since the story you painted only reiterates my point: the naturalist would have no recourse, and praying with the religious friend would still seem to be a better option than the naturalist alternative of just dying.
"It can be done for anything especially if you necessitate the naturalist as someone saying 'We’re all gonna die, there’s no point in trying anything'"
Remember, the naturalist does in fact assert "we're all gonna die." I didn't make any statement about whether he would think to try and do anything about it, but I would hope he would do the following: seek to falsify naturalism.
Algmtkrr t1_j2llwao wrote
My first paragraph is relevant bc you are specifically framing naturalism as pessimistic nihilism when it isn’t. You claim naturalism doesn’t offer “real” value or purpose just bc it isn’t as allegedly objective as theistic claims given to us by other humans, and then you compare your own framing to alternatives ala Pascal
You are still focusing on the argument within my story when I am telling you my point is that stories like this can be crafted to paint any narrative you want, so your story is just as valid as mine despite them coming to opposite conclusions
I don’t understand how you can say my story validates your framing. You are comparing a pessimistic nihilist giving up vs a theist with optimism. I am comparing a guy being pragmatic in self-preservation vs a theist relying solely on a divine miracle to intervene. I don’t think you can seriously say in good faith (pun intended) that praying is more pragmatic than taking actionable steps to survive. I am very glad that countries didn’t wait for their god to finally declare slavery to be immoral after thousands of years
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2prq7j wrote
"You are specifically framing naturalism as pessimistic nihilism when it isn’t."
I haven't said any such thing, and I haven't said anything about the objectivity of values.
"your story is just as valid as mine despite them coming to opposite conclusions [...] I don’t think you can seriously say in good faith (pun intended) that praying is more pragmatic than taking actionable steps to survive.
But they don't have opposite conclusions, as I already explained: the naturalist wouldn't be searching for a life jacket because the naturalist already doesn't believe there is such thing as a life jacket (life beyond death or something). And oh, I very much do believe praying for your life would be a better option that doing nothing. Doing nothing results in death. Meanwhile, if there remains even the tiniest honest uncertainty about naturalism, praying might possibly result in salvation from your circumstance.
"I am very glad that countries didn’t wait for their god to finally declare slavery to be immoral after thousands of years."
This seems like a debate you want to have, but its not one that's relevant to the post. Perhaps another time.
Algmtkrr t1_j2sk69m wrote
I see the problem finally. You think that bc naturalists don’t believe in a supernatural afterlife, they must have absolutely no desire to fight for their own life and don’t even believe in the value of a literal life jacket. You won’t engage in my contrasting story bc it doesn’t affirm your rigid strawman. I can’t tell if your arguing in good faith
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2snhiu wrote
To be clear, dying in the boat analogy is not just death, but perma-death. Naturalists believe this is what will happen to them- why would they be looking for a life jacket (e.g. some way to survive perma-death) unless they're taking my advice and seeking to disprove what naturalism entails? I think that's what they should do, but it's not what many naturalists who are content with their naturalism actually do. Instead, they cling to their naturalism.
As for your contrast story, I don't see the contrast, and I already engaged it in my last comment. Is there something there that you think I haven't yet engaged with?
Algmtkrr t1_j2spfpt wrote
My bad, perhaps I’ve just continually misinterpreted you if you only discussing the purely metaphorical permadeath bc I kept thinking you were arguing both the metaphor and the literal. I got lost in the metaphor in that case
But this is just Pascal, again. “If there is permadeath and I don’t pray, I die. If there is permadeath and I do pray, I die. If there is an afterlife and I don’t pray, I die. If there is an afterlife and I do pray, I live. Therefore, I should pray bc I lose nothing but possibly gain everything”
I don’t know how many naturalists would deny others of the comfort of a metaphorical life jacket to permadeath, but if someone is frantically searching and finding nothing, then it seems reasonable for a naturalist to help them come to terms with the situation instead of living in eternal panic
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2sv4jn wrote
But I did step into your story. I said the naturalist ought to join his religious friend in prayer. If what you mean is that I'm not agreeing with the way you've reimagined the boat analogy, then yeah- it's faulty, because it misinterprets what naturalism entails (no life jacket).
"It is completely unreasonable to assume that by believing there isn’t an afterlife, naturalists must therefore have no desire to preserve their own life."
I wasn't making that point at all. In fact, I'm saying the opposite: the naturalist's life preserving instinct should motivate him to seek to disprove naturalism, since that worldview entails perma-death. You seem to be confusing my statement that naturalism entails perma-death (no life jacket) with an assumption that naturalists wouldn't try to survive perma-death. As I said, I very much think they should try and survive perma-death! But this would be a rejection of naturalism, since naturalism leaves no room for such things when the universe is destined to perma-death itself (heat death) and leaves no room for things like afterlives.
"Your strawman is a fallacy, your story is absurd, and you can talk with any naturalist to realize this yourself if you want to do more than speculate."
I mean, I've been discussing this with literally just about everyone on this comment section (mostly naturalists), and I don't find your assessment accurate. In fact, this whole post has been heartening to me, since this hostile comment section (reddit being what it is) has had little to say that I haven't already discussed or thought of with colleagues and theological minded friends of mine. I think if I were on that boat, an effort to survive would be a clear choice.
Algmtkrr t1_j2swmao wrote
I apologize, I edited my comment entirely once I realized what you were saying and I didn’t get it done before you saw and responded. I’ll repost here
My bad, perhaps I’ve just continually misinterpreted you if you only discussing the purely metaphorical permadeath bc I kept thinking you were arguing both the metaphor and the literal. I got lost in the metaphor in that case
But this is just Pascal, again. “If there is permadeath and I don’t pray, I die. If there is permadeath and I do pray, I die. If there is an afterlife and I don’t pray, I die. If there is an afterlife and I do pray, I live. Therefore, I should pray bc I lose nothing but possibly gain everything”
I don’t know how many naturalists would deny others of the comfort of a metaphorical life jacket to permadeath, but if someone is frantically searching and finding nothing, then it seems reasonable for a naturalist to help them come to terms with the situation instead of living in eternal panic
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2sypwo wrote
No problem! Sorry if I wasn't clear.
"But this is just Pascal, again. “If there is permadeath and I don’t pray, I die. If there is permadeath and I do pray, I die. If there is an afterlife and I don’t pray, I die. If there is an afterlife and I do pray, I live. Therefore, I should pray bc I lose nothing but possibly gain everything”
It's similar, but only insofar as it is a pragmatic approach to the issue of infinite gain/loss around beliefs and such. To compare:
Pascal's Wager more or less says one should believe in God because doing so entails infinite gain if correct and only finite loss if wrong. Meanwhile the atheist position entails only finite gain if correct and infinite loss if wrong (hell). So the rational person should believe in God and/or Christianity.
My argument has a different conclusion. In short, it says naturalism (if correct) entails infinite loss. This is less preferable than worldviews that don't entail such loss, so it should motivate one to seek to disprove naturalism.
"I don’t know how many naturalists would deny others of the comfort of a metaphorical life jacket to permadeath, but if someone is frantically searching and finding nothing, then it seems reasonable for a naturalist to help them come to terms with the situation instead of living in eternal panic."
I can see why that would be a course of action in non life or death circumstances, but when perma-death is around the corner, there's nothing to be gained by coming to terms. Panic, despair, frantic searching, and even crying out to a God all make sense to me! If there's even an infinitesimal chance that naturalism is incorrect, it would worth investigating for the naturalist.
Algmtkrr t1_j2szadf wrote
Naturalism only has infinite loss if you are starting with the axiom that there is an afterlife. It doesn’t matter if your argument isn’t literally the exact framing of Pascal, it is rooted in the exact same logic
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2szp16 wrote
I mean, on naturalism we will lose the universe to heat death. That's about as bad as it gets. In light of that, do you see why I would think it's prudent for the naturalist to try and disprove his/her naturalism?
Algmtkrr t1_j2t1m0b wrote
A naturalist is in all likelihood a supporter of science, and science is not based on answers we find comfortable. Not liking a fact in front of us and deciding to believe something else solely bc it is more comfortable is not a persuasive argument. There isn’t anything prudent about it, it feels more immature than anything
Besides, no human being will be around for the heat death of the universe. The sun will go supernova in 5 billion years, a time frame 1 million times longer than human civilization has existed
If science is used to better our world away from the interference of political ideology or reliance on miracles, and a consequence of that is knowing of the end to the universe being so far away that the human mind cannot even comprehend a time scale that large, where any life is long long gone, I and many people are perfectly okay with that
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2t34bn wrote
To be clear, I'm definitely not saying you should believe something you have no justification to believe. That would be foolish- agreed. I'm saying the implications of naturalism should spark motivation to seek out holes in naturalism, to seek to disprove it, even if you remain convinced for the time being.
"Besides, no human being will be around for the heat death of the universe. The sun will go supernova in 5 billion years"
Funny enough, I agree! I'm not even sure we'll make it that far. Some naturalists I've spoken to have been rather...optimistic about our future as a species, which is why I point out the big kaput (heat death).
Algmtkrr t1_j2t3xg2 wrote
The motivation to seek out holes in naturalism based on the discomfort of facts of reality sounds exactly like going into denial bc facts of life and society are uncomfortable. Not every answer in life is comfortable, regardless of if someone believes in the supernatural or not. It is how life is, it isn’t perfect, it isn’t always happy. To me, that motivation is antithetical to humans maturing from childhood and adolescence
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2t5fha wrote
But it's not denial, since I'm not saying anyone should deny naturalism on this basis. If they find it to be most rational, they're rational to hold that view. But I think there's no reason to be satisfied with it, however. There's good reason to hope it's not true and no reason to hope it is. If "maturity" is sitting on the boat waiting for death, then I'll take fighting to live every time. I don't see naturalism as a certainty, and therefore I see life as a possibility.
1.) Do you agree there's good reason to hope it's not true?
2.) Do you want to live? If so, isn't fighting to live worth it?
Algmtkrr t1_j2t7aga wrote
If you want to operate off that hope, okay, but I take issue with you saying that others should operate off your blind hope and pursuit of comfort over life. Is there a good reason to hope that no one will ever murder ever again? To hope that an abusive relative will stop hurting me if I just love them even harder? I’m not saying acceptance of naturalism is a mark of maturity, I am saying that arguing based entirely on hope and comfort is antithetical to children learning about life and maturing
It’s not that anyone is hoping there isn’t an afterlife in any form whatsoever, it is that is completely pointless to hope for something that will not happen. Blind hope based on nothing but comfort keeps people from moving on with their lives. It can waste emotional energy, it can encourage unhealthy passivity, and it can be directly harmful to life. Hoping for years that an ex partner will take me back will prevent me from moving on and finding the relationship I am meant to be in. Hoping that every driver will swerve away as I’m walking into traffic blind will not be conducive to a goal of long life. The whole point of maturing is learning that life and existence do not operate on hope, no matter how much any of us want it to be
Your use of the analogy to say that it is either inaction or action is flawed by you are assuming that there must be a stage for action, a place of loss and gain. That isn’t a good argument for hope bc you are already supposing too much and has the exact same flaws as Pascal’s Wager
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2t9qnr wrote
If the circumstance were less dire, there might be conceivable temporary tradeoffs to accepting less favorable beliefs e.g. self preservation with the murder example. But given the life-or-death stakes of perma-death and the permanency of perma-death, avoiding the loss of literally everything seems like as good a reason as any to motivate the naturalist to try and disprove naturalism.
"It’s not that anyone is hoping there isn’t an afterlife in any form whatsoever, it is that is completely pointless to hope for something that will not happen."
You say this as if you are certain. Do you really think it's a certainty that naturalism is true? That there's not even an infinitesimal chance it's false? I don't think most naturalists I've interacted with would defend that.
"Blind hope based on subjective comfort keeps people from moving on with their lives and can be directly harmful to life."
On naturalism, why would moving on with life matter? You will die and lose everything. And temporary living doesn't seem to satisfy- I wonder, for example, how many people would bother writing a lengthy autobiography if the manuscript were to be immediately thrown away upon finishing it and the person's memory were to be wipes of its contents.
"Hoping that an ex partner will take me back will prevent me from moving on and finding the relationship I am meant to be in. Hoping that I will be fine by walking into traffic blind will not make me live longer."
Such examples don't match up, since these are not matters of life and death, and serve some benefit (albeit temporary) to believe as mentioned above.
I'm still left wondering:
1.) Do you agree there's good reason to hope it's not true?
2.) Do you want to live? If so, isn't fighting to live worth it?
Algmtkrr t1_j2tcy3q wrote
No, I don’t believe that naturalism must be true. My argument is about hope based on comfort alone and how it’s ridiculous to push that onto naturalists as if you know better when you don’t understand what they believe. This argument has shifted in so many directions from the basis of the OP. I’ll be bold and say it seems clear that you aren’t arguing to find a truth or to understand others
“Why would moving on with life matter when you will die and lose everything?” I already addressed this. If you think it’s a waste, then you are once again operating on blind hope and comfort and ignoring what others find value and beauty in
“These are not life or death” I take strong issue with someone hoping for years despite all contrary evidence that an ex will take them back, that an abuser will stop abusing, that a job will magically appear when I need it. That is all needless pain or passivity all in the service of hope. Tell this to the guys who still hope an ex will come back even after they’ve married someone else. You do not argue temporary coping, you argue for a perpetual mechanism to go through life and for everyone else to take it into consideration
If you still wonder those questions, then I don’t think you understand my point, so I’ll spell it out. Do I want an afterlife? Yes. Do I want to never again feel physical or emotional pain in my entire life? Yes. Do I want to end all suffering in the world? Yes. Do I want the ability to time travel and change things in my life? Yes. Were there many things I wanted for myself and for others as a kid that I later learned could not happen bc life doesn’t work that way? Yes. What do any of those wants get me? Nothing. We operate in reality, not fantasy. We grow up from being naive children because maturity is an admirable trait. This is the world, regardless of what we hope for in our heads, regardless of what we find comfortable
If you want to ask a direct answer to understand my view, go ahead. If we are just going to keep arguing Pascal and returning to points already addressed, then I’m gonna bid farewell. It’s been a pleasure
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2tfs3k wrote
"No, I don’t believe that naturalism must be true. [...] Do I want an afterlife? Yes."
That means you believe there is a chance that perma-death might not be the end of everything you love and that you'd prefer it. Why not take hold of that and investigate it with every second you have left to spend? There is nothing you will gain by clinging to (or turning a blind eye to) naturalism that you won't lose eventually.
"If you think it’s a waste, then you are once again operating on blind hope and comfort"
I think it's a waste in the same way the trashed manuscript would be a waste. I wonder what you think about that analogy I gave?
"I take strong issue with someone hoping for years despite all contrary evidence that an ex will take them back, that an abuser will stop abusing, that a job will magically appear when I need it. That is all needless pain or passivity all in the service of hope."
I don't think that's what they should believe and I didn't say they should. You spent a lot of time talking about accepting hard truths, and I agree that this usually makes sense. In fact, I said believing that things won't get better at times provides a beneficial (but temporary) tradeoff. However, this is not the case with naturalism and perma-death, since there's nothing you will gain by believing it that won't be lost forever when you die. Again, this is like sitting down and waiting to die on the boat- any sense of virtue gained by doing so will matter little when the boat sinks and no one is left to care.
"I’m gonna bid farewell. It’s been a pleasure"
Despite our hearty disagreement, I've enjoyed having your input.
Algmtkrr t1_j2thpl0 wrote
You seem to ask me about this personally, so I’ll answer personally. I am agnostic. I can be wrong, but I have already investigated claims of theism and life after death, and found no reason to believe and no reason to think there is a way to definitively say one way or the other. Occam’s Razor is that reality is the way it appears to be unless there is definitive proof, and I do not consider hundreds of religions and sects with contradictory end games as proof. Why would I waste more time on that instead of living my life as best as I can? I do not need a god to tell me to help those around me and to do good
As for the reality of loss via naturalism, that is just how life is. Life has loss and I find it immature to think it’s bad to accept that life has gifts and losses. I won’t live in a fantasy just bc it more comfortable than real life
Yes to trash a manuscript is a waste. That has nothing to do with believing in an afterlife though. Your example is a deliberate trashing that reveals your presumption, not the inevitable degradation of paper over hundreds of years or the unfortunate reality that there are destructive people or accidents that happen that destroy things dear to us. We are not meant to be naive children anymore
It is not waiting to die, it is about living my life without wasting time speculating about something that seems impossible to prove. Nihilism and blind faith are waiting to die, and I am neither. If an after life exists, then I will learn that when I get there. If I live as good of a life as I can for myself, my friends, my family, my community, my world including the people and cultures I haven’t met, and that still isn’t enough for me to not be sent to hell, then I am comfortable calling the god that made it that way evil bc then the afterlife is no longer for the virtuous, it is merely a nepotistic vip club
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2u4243 wrote
To your point: "I have already investigated claims of theism and life after death [...] Why would I waste more time on that instead of living my life as best as I can?"
Because so long as it's possible that naturalism is false, then it is possible that such investigation may have eternally beneficial consequences. Compared to the infinite loss naturalism offers, the journey of seeking to disprove naturalism is worth the potential gain.
"As for the reality of loss via naturalism, that is just how life is."
Unless naturalism is false, which you admit is possible. As I keep saying, that's worth investigating due to it's eternal benefit.
"I won’t live in a fantasy just bc it more comfortable than real life"
As I said before, no one is asking you to live in a fantasy or believe what you don't have reason to believe. I'm saying you should have strong motivation to investigate and disprove your naturalism.
"Yes to trash a manuscript is a waste."
Then, analogously, everything we endeavor to accomplish on naturalism is a waste. Like the manuscript, our lives will be thrown away, destroyed, and no memory will eventually remain of our actions.
"It is not waiting to die, it is about living my life without wasting time speculating about something that seems impossible to prove."
If you think the manuscript being thrown away is a waste, then so is your time "living your life" on naturalism anyway. And it's not so impossible to prove. At least on the Christian side of things, for example, there exists 2000 years worth of an intellectual tradition answering and discussing such things. Now you may not find it convincing currently, but there's probably a great deal there you aren't fully aware of and many great people have found such arguments of natural theology convincing. All an example just to say that it's not as impossible and opaque as you make it sound. Philosophy allows us to consider such things and make convincing cases. Given that you want there to be an afterlife, that you think it's possible, and that your thinking on the manuscript reveals our lives will be a waste on naturalism, I see no reason not to dig into it. Or anything besides naturalism for that matter.
"If an after life exists, then I will learn that when I get there. If I live as good of a life as I can for myself, my friends, my family, my community, my world including the people and cultures I haven’t met, and that still isn’t enough for me to not be sent to hell, then I am comfortable calling the god that made it that way evil"
For one, if naturalism is true, there is no such thing as objective evil. Evil is simply whatever humans designate distasteful, unacceptable, or not-liked (i.e. it becomes subjective, human-dependent). So I don't know why you make such strong moral condemnation when you have no objective moral foundation to stand on and call anything evil. It's just your opinion at best.
Secondly, if God exists, then pragmatically speaking, all bets are off. At that time, all that matters is that it would have been better to have sought understanding of God and understood the situation you are in instead of having clinged to naturalism, since God is going to have the say on what happens thereafter.
Algmtkrr t1_j2u5aiy wrote
I am not explaining my beliefs further to you. Your inability to listen to my experiences out of your constant need to proselytize, going as far as to bring up the completely irrelevant topic of objective evil as every proselytizer does, is offensive. You aren’t listening to me at all. You completely disregard my view at how there is beauty even in something that isn’t eternal. You completely disregard how I am more than comfortable living as I am, having wasted years on that search anyway when you think I should spend my whole life doing it. How arrogant of you to think I didn’t do enough research, that I should dedicate the rest of my life to finding your faith instead of being a good person in the world. If I live a virtuous life doing good to the people around me, and you believe I will go to hell simply bc I did not pray to your God in your specific way instead of some other one, then I will reiterate:
I am interested in being a good virtuous person, not in joining your nepotistic vip club
The fact that agnosticism and science are open to possibilities does not give credence to your unfalsifiable belief. This is not us having doubts about whether or not to have faith, it is a feature that lets us investigate if we're wrong, unlike you
You do not need to convince me to live a fulfilling worthwhile wasteless life through theism bc I already do with my agnosticism. You waste your breath the more you repeat that point
My only loss is if I am going to hell despite being a good person in which I am thankful for not falling prey to an evil god who is more interested in worship than in humankind being good
If you think me living a good life isn’t good enough for your God, then go proselytize somewhere else. I have no desire to hear you talk at me about what you think I should feel instead of listening to what I say
_Zirath_ OP t1_j2ue9mr wrote
You say: "I am not explaining my beliefs further to you" yet you clearly can't let go of this conversation.
"You completely disregard my view at how there is beauty even in something that isn’t eternal."
Yes, because (as you agree with the manuscript example) temporary things are lost forever on naturalism.
"You completely disregard how I am more than comfortable living as I am, having wasted years on that search anyway when you think I should spend my whole life doing it."
Yes, because I am intentionally here to spur people who have chosen to die away from that choice. I do think life is worth spending every moment searching for.
"How arrogant of you to think I didn’t do enough research, that I should dedicate the rest of my life to finding your faith instead of being a good person in the world."
Unless you are omniscient, there is always more to learn. I doubt you know everything there is to know about every non-naturalistic view. I never said you should dedicate the rest of your life to finding my faith (Christianity) though you're very welcome to. And I never said you shouldn't be a good person- be a good person. Though that will be difficult on naturalism because there is no such thing as objective moral good on naturalism any more than there is such thing as objective evil.
"You do not need to convince me to live a fulfilling worthwhile wasteless life through theism bc I already do with my agnosticism."
There is no such thing as an objective purpose on naturalism, therefore there is no way to fulfill anything in your life in any real meaningful way as there never was any real point to it. There is no such thing as a wasteless life on naturalism, since it will all be destroyed. On naturalism, we are simply the byproducts of biology, accidents of natural forces, and orphans in the universe. There really is nothing more to it, and nothing noble about what you describe.
"My only loss is if I am going to hell despite being a good person in which I am thankful for not falling prey to an evil god who is more interested in worship than in humankind being good"
Again, there is no such thing as a good person or evil God on your worldview in any objective sense. All you're saying is something like "I'm glad I did what was enjoyable in my own eyes; I don't like God!" This post has revealed what is only confirmatory of my suspicions: naturalists are more in love with their own throne, their own temporary power over this life than Life itself. People like you choose eternal death.
[deleted] t1_j2ugezp wrote
[removed]
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j2ukayi wrote
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Be Respectful
>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
[deleted] t1_j2ui4d8 wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments