|
jrodefeld posted:I have an actual substantive question to pose for you all. A while back we were talking about minimum wage laws. I was arguing that raising them would not translate to higher living standards but only higher prices for goods and/or more unemployment since it is marginal productivity of the worker that determines wage rates not some arbitrary edict from Washington. You took the opposite position and argued for higher minimum wage laws. You know what would be great? If businesses only hired people they knew would work for slave wages or else people just didn't work until adulthood. You goddamn fool. It's crazy too I've been working since I was sixteen and I'm twenty four now and I'm only making ten bucks an hour in awful conditions it's almost like your bullshit isn't based in reality.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:42 |
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I have an actual substantive question to pose for you all. Now that you've conceded that you've said nothing of substance in this thread I feel like we can really get back on track! quote:As a practical compromise, would you or would you not support the elimination of minimum wage laws for teenagers only? Surely teenagers living with their parents don't require the same "living wage" as a working adult trying to raise a family? No. There are plenty of teenagers out there who are working to help ensure that their parent can support the overall family unit. quote:The problem is that teenage unemployment is much higher and for black teenagers it is astronomically higher. Making minimum wage go away doesn't suddenly make people hire more, unless of course you're talking about slave labor but I'd like to think you're not crossing this bridge yet again after you've given up on the healthcare discussion. quote:What are your thoughts on this proposal? It amounts to living life in a Charles Dickens novel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What are your thoughts on this proposal? Teenagers are unskilled and those that need to work most (those from poor families) are one of the most vulnerable demographics to be exploited by capital. Additionally, this demographic is the most at risk to sacrifice education in order to provide for immediate needs. We should be working toward a society that does not put teenagers in position to require an income so that they can realize their full potential anyway, so in my mind there is no need to encourage employment for this demographic. This is, of course, assuming that other social programs are in place to assist those in poverty and to help at risk teenagers pursue educational growth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What are your thoughts on this proposal? I think it's loving stupid. It supposes that all teenagers live with their parents or don't contribute to overall household income, which isn't the case. A lot of kids have to work to support their families because their parent/s lost a job, or maybe one died and they were a single income family so now an older child has to go to work to help support younger siblings. That poo poo happens a lot more than we like to admit. On top of that it would give businesses a strong incentive to keep turning over their older workforce for fresh teenagers once they hit the minimum wage age. And it's all built on a foundation of poo poo anyhow. Actual real world evidence has shown that increases in minimum wage don't do what you think they will.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Yea but what about those teenagers whose time preference something something
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You literally posted a sound file of a crank economist praising Christopher Columbus as a civilizing force. Also informing us that yeah sure technically other people found America first, but inventions and discoveries only count when a Western European does it for the first time. This of course can't be racist because it's open to people of all races to agree that only Western Europeans can discover things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I have an actual substantive question to pose for you all. A while back we were talking about minimum wage laws. I was arguing that raising them would not translate to higher living standards but only higher prices for goods and/or more unemployment since it is marginal productivity of the worker that determines wage rates not some arbitrary edict from Washington. You took the opposite position and argued for higher minimum wage laws. Oh, the Walter Block five is greater than zero argument. For once I don't have to argue at all since people beat me to it so I'll just say, no.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
Pepperdine university is a private Christian college that has never been recognized for anything other than a dubious assertion that its MBAs tend to do OK. It has been singled out for producing a particularly stringent (I would say virulent) conservative mindset in its students. Reisman being a professor there is not a mark in his favor, indeed it detracts from any research credibility he might otherwise have.
Political Whores fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Nov 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What are your thoughts on this proposal? I'm fine with completely eliminating the minimum wage, but only after we aggress the poo poo out of rich people and corporations to provide a decent baseline for life for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Just to clarify that stupid big bang thing he is starting with completely wrong assumptions. Space is not expanding into anything since the universe is already infinite in size. The expansion is simply that all objects in the universe are moving away from each other equally. Secondly the big bang wasn't the universe coming into existence, it was the universe staring as a singularity and then expanding as it still is today. Also there is massive amounts of observational and experimental evidence that the big bang occurred including the fact that we can "see" it (well at at at least a few 100,000 years after the big bang in the form of microwave background radiation) so at this point it is essentially a scientific "fact" that the big bang occurred a no actual physicist will argue otherwise. To shift topic slightly what proof do libertarians have that western individualistic western cultures are superior to collectivist ones? In fact modern studies on mental illness have found that individualistic cultures often see much more mental illness that are more severe. A good example is schizophrenia which in collectivist cultures like those in southeast Asia we see about %50 of cases the sufferer permanently recovers and 25% partially recover. In the United States that number is essentially 0% for partial or permanent recovery. There are many likely factors for this but major ones are that collective communities tend to provide support for schizophrenics while individualistic ones stigmatize and hospitalize them. This applies to many other mental illnesses as well and our individualistic approach to studying them in western countries led to a focus on genetics or "broken brain' models for mental illness and while those might be factors in mental illness newer studies focusing on social causes have found them to be much more significant in causing mental illness than internal factors. Poverty, neglect, lack of food security, and stigmatization due to our individual blaming view of mental illness all appear to significantly worsen mental illness. Combined with a lack of collective community support and you create a society worse off than collective one in terms of menatl health. This issue can be clearly seen with spreading western culture to eastern collectivist cultures too. Anorexia didn't even exist in Hong Kong in the form that we know it in western culture until less then a decade ago as we began trying to export our theories of mental illness to these countries. Essentially by exporting our western culture we are exporting the mental health issues of our society that arise from individualistic culture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
Reisman posted:And by that perspective, if an american indian were educated and made western civilization his own, because he understood mathematics, science and the laws of logic and all of the other essentials of western civilization, and when he was asked who discovered america, he would say columbus. Because he would understand that columbus was the one who brought to the western hemisphere his ideas and values, what were now his ideas and values. Alternatively jrod, we could discuss praxeology. I don't see any point to talking about the pros and cons of the minimum wage when you've already told us that those things don't matter because praxeology says it's immoral so it Cannot Be, so let's talk about praxeology. VitalSigns posted:Beginning from the axiom Humans Act, von Mises concluded that the proper way to arrange society is with a night-watchman State that uses its geographical monopoly on force only to police crime, enforce contracts, and for national defense. Yet you, starting from the same premise conclude that minarchism is immoral on its face, an irredeemable coercive burden upon the brow of the noble industrialist. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Nov 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
If jrod is so eager to change topics (again), maybe he could finally answer the questions about public health care outside the United States and their unmatched success?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
I'd also like to point out that libertarians refuse to acknowledge climate change because the market has absolutely no answers. Market solutions and legal restitution are both reactive. The "free market" can't proactively address collective problems, especially on the scale and scope of something like global warming.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Climate change is, like the Big Bang, Evolution, and quantum physics, questionable because it relies on empirical evidence and observations about the real world. We can disprove all of those things a priori after taking a few good bong rips to free our pure reason maaaaaaaaan 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
That answers my child labor question pretty handily, thanks JRode.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:I'd also like to point out that libertarians refuse to acknowledge climate change because the market has absolutely no answers. Market solutions and legal restitution are both reactive. The "free market" can't proactively address collective problems, especially on the scale and scope of something like global warming. I think you'll find that no problems can't be solved by the Free Market, so the Market's inability to meaningfully address climate change means a priori it doesn't actually exist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:If jrod is so eager to change topics (again), maybe he could finally answer the questions about public health care outside the United States and their unmatched success? This is actually an easy one: any benefit derived by the State is moot because STATIST VIOLENCE was used to achieve it, and besides a true Free Market would be even more efficient with better prices it just hasn't been tried yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Ahaha I need to start following this guy Don't like plastic bags clogging up your rivers and killing the fish we eat? Are you sure it's not Man's Reason that you don't like?  You drive a Geo, but you don't want doctors cutting corners and operating on you with cheap unreliable implements? Does not compute.  Everything started to go wrong in the 18th Century when the poor were taught to read and started encountering dangerous ideas. Oh hey, should the children of the rich be cut off from their parent's character-destroying largesse and forced to earn their kindergarten tuition in the mines?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
I should also remind anyone still willing to take jrode's minimum wage bait that the answer "Actually, eliminating minimum wage would just hurt unskilled laborers, an already incredibly vulnerable group that already owns close to 0% of wealth in this country" doesn't actually count because libertarians see those people as lazy parasites who don't want to bother finding a better job.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh hey, should the children of the rich be cut off from their parent's character-destroying largesse and forced to earn their kindergarten tuition in the mines? Hahaha! gently caress no. Come on VitalSigns, stop believing what the man tells you. On that subject, Jrodefeld, what is your opinion on the Estate Tax? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
Haha jrod went apoplectic over us belittling this idiot and his 1200! page book. Coincidentally this thread is currently sitting at about 1/10 Reisman's creditability.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Yea but what about those teenagers whose time preference something something It is a simple biological truth that teenagers take more time off of work than the average adult because of their hormones, and so it only makes rational sense to pay them less you see.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:It is a simple biological truth that teenagers take more time off of work than the average adult because of their hormones, and so it only makes rational sense to pay them less you see. Teenagers are definitely subhuman though. Can we agree on that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Due to the Conservatives being a bunch of dicks the UK actually had no minimum wage between 1993 and 1999. The unemployment figures didn't change much from projections because of it, no jobs were created or lost, it's almost like wage amount don't really define the number of jobs available. For fun guess what years our massive income inequality problems in the UK really got started? If you were a Part Time Worker or, god forbid, a woman in 1993-1999 you got hosed hard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Surely teenagers living with their parents don't require the same "living wage" as a working adult trying to raise a family? Now, supposedly you believe that things are supposed to work according to market principles. What do you think happens to the cost of labor when you insert a large number of people who do not need to provide for their own necessities of survival, and are working only for nebulous "work experience" or pocket money? Independent adults bidding for the same jobs have actual responsibilities and require a minimum level of income for their survival and the survival of their families, so there is a hard limit on how low they can bid. Therefore, doing away with minimum wage regulations for teens results in a race to the bottom because all incentives are for employers to hire teenagers for every practical position and eliminate any adult employees in the same roles. Adult unemployment created by this action will lower the value of labor and drive down wages not only at the lowest levels but also throughout the economy. Families whose primary earners were at low-to-minimum levels will, at best, have that income replaced by their children going to work to earn literal pennies on the dollar. Either way, they will go on welfare to make up the shortfall, as is already the case with enterprises like Walmart and McDonalds. Moreover, the premise that work experience as a child will lead to employment later on is spurious, because these workers will be employed in the most menial capacities on a temporary basis and be replaced by younger models the instant they turn 18 and age out of the zero minimum wage bracket. This is, incidentally, not based on praexology or pure logical reasoning or whatever you call it, this is what child labor did to the labor market in historical practice. Basically your idea is poo poo and it would be a social disaster. quote:What are your thoughts on this proposal? I think your understanding of everything you write about is embarrassingly superficial and I'm certain you've never subjected any of your beliefs to the least intellectual scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
JRod, I just want to assure you that I will gladly keep paying my taxes so that you will be supported while being treated for your crippling stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ahaha I need to start following this guy is this motherfucker five years old
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:It is a simple biological truth that teenagers take more time off of work than the average adult because of their hormones, and so it only makes rational sense to pay them less you see. What if those teenagers are also black? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:What if those teenagers are also black? It's ok, their WASP employers are Natural Social Elites and their dictates are not to be questioned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:Just to clarify that stupid big bang thing he is starting with completely wrong assumptions. Space is not expanding into anything since the universe is already infinite in size. The expansion is simply that all objects in the universe are moving away from each other equally. Secondly the big bang wasn't the universe coming into existence, it was the universe staring as a singularity and then expanding as it still is today. Also there is massive amounts of observational and experimental evidence that the big bang occurred including the fact that we can "see" it (well at at at least a few 100,000 years after the big bang in the form of microwave background radiation) so at this point it is essentially a scientific "fact" that the big bang occurred a no actual physicist will argue otherwise. Eh, you're not wrong that the guy was starting with wrong assumptions, in fact he was starting with one single wrong assumption and then using a bunch of absurd logic based on other wrong assumptions to arrive back where he started. A couple things though. As far as we understand it (as I understand it), the singularity was everything, all of space time, not just the stuff in it. It's not just a bunch of stuff expanding into a void, the entirety of everything is expanding; there's no outside it for it to expand into because as the universe contains everything, anything outside it would by that definition be part of it. It's just expanding. Maybe into some 5th dimension we can't wrap our heads around, I dunno. But not uniformly. Not all objects are moving away from one another. You and me and our computers and pets and all the billions of Chinese and everything else on Earth, our solar system, neighboring star systems and so on are all probably going to find ourselves in very close quarters in the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy some many, many billions of years in the future. And with the relation between gravity and space time being what it is, some places it grows fast, some slow, and some places probably not at all (in a black hole). Remember, it's all part of the universe. And then we don't really know that it's infinite. Definitely very large, far more so than we can currently observe, but it may be finite. In either case, it doesn't have any edges. If it's infinite then obviously it can't by definition, and if it's finite we're probably talking about some shape where it wraps around back on itself, like a torus or Klein bottle or some crazy poo poo like that only we can't perceive the curvature of it. Even with as much as we've learned, all we know is that we have a lot left to learn before we can begin to understand it all. This guy though doesn't understand it well enough to realize that. Jrode either if he thought they were good questions. Of course if they were able to understand things better generally, they probably wouldn't be libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Eh, you're not wrong that the guy was starting with wrong assumptions, in fact he was starting with one single wrong assumption and then using a bunch of absurd logic based on other wrong assumptions to arrive back where he started. A couple things though. As far as we understand it (as I understand it), the singularity was everything, all of space time, not just the stuff in it. It's not just a bunch of stuff expanding into a void, the entirety of everything is expanding; there's no outside it for it to expand into because as the universe contains everything, anything outside it would by that definition be part of it. It's just expanding. Maybe into some 5th dimension we can't wrap our heads around, I dunno. But not uniformly. Not all objects are moving away from one another. You and me and our computers and pets and all the billions of Chinese and everything else on Earth, our solar system, neighboring star systems and so on are all probably going to find ourselves in very close quarters in the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy some many, many billions of years in the future. And with the relation between gravity and space time being what it is, some places it grows fast, some slow, and some places probably not at all (in a black hole). Remember, it's all part of the universe. And then we don't really know that it's infinite. Definitely very large, far more so than we can currently observe, but it may be finite. In either case, it doesn't have any edges. If it's infinite then obviously it can't by definition, and if it's finite we're probably talking about some shape where it wraps around back on itself, like a torus or Klein bottle or some crazy poo poo like that only we can't perceive the curvature of it. Even with as much as we've learned, all we know is that we have a lot left to learn before we can begin to understand it all. This guy though doesn't understand it well enough to realize that. Jrode either if he thought they were good questions. It is almost as if the human mind has limitations in understanding based on the fact that it is good at analyzing personal experiences but not so good at comprehending things that cannot be personally witnessed or overriding cognative bias, and thus it is a fallacy to rely on memory recall or assumptions based on experience because that leads to conclusions that do not apply across populations and varied experiences. The idea that you can derive aggregated human truths via individual experience is the first hurdle that any child must overcome in order to truly appreciate society, and it is why libertarian musings are indistinguishable from childlike ranting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'd love to get into discussing some other issues, but I need some indication of a willingness to discuss these issues without resorting to the use of epithets. Then discuss them! Take healthcare for example. Many of us posted serious arguments to the things that you've said, and what have you've done? You've gone on and ignored them and instead decided to play the "I'm going to try and argue that these people aren't racists!" Here's the thing. It's a losing game because someone can always argue a lot longer than you can. So if you want to argue in good faith, then why don't you actually argue in good faith. Here's how it goes. You say something, we make a counterclaim, you ignore the counterclaim and move onto something else. jrodefeld posted:I have an actual substantive question to pose for you all. A while back we were talking about minimum wage laws. I was arguing that raising them would not translate to higher living standards but only higher prices for goods and/or more unemployment since it is marginal productivity of the worker that determines wage rates not some arbitrary edict from Washington. You took the opposite position and argued for higher minimum wage laws. Did you toss this off in five minutes? First off, having ran a retail store that paid near minimum wage for a few years, I can tell you that most employees don't actually make substantive raises. So your assumption that a person working 5 or 6 years would be making more than minimum wage is absurd. They might be making a buck more. In many regards too, this work experience isn't valuable to a lot of jobs beyond the character building aspect of working. But let's get to the core point of your argument - it would be almost impossible to enforce. And oddly, it would likely end up in teenagers getting hired a lot less. See, here's the thing - teenagers as employees are not the best. Many of them are very immature, they can be unreliable, because they're young, they can't work during certain hours, you can't work them more than a certain amount of hours. Basically, teenagers bring in a lot of baggage, and having actually dealt with having employees that were minors, I can't tell you how careful I had to be about things like breaks and the jobs I gave them. So now, you're adding one more complication onto the matter. I can pay them a lower wage, until they hit this age. And then what do I do with them? Do I give them a bigger raise, and suddenly pay more for the same labor as before? But if I fire them when they hit that age, then I'm not going to get dedicated people working for me. And then what are they going to do when they realize they are getting paid less for the same labor as some one else? I'd quit. I'd walk off. It's just a bad situation waiting to happen. So I wouldn't hire teenagers at all. That's why we didn't consider people under 16. The laws and regulations were too onerous for us to deal with that they weren't worth it. Also, how do we know the needs of teens? Maybe a 17 year old is emancipated, or their parents are dead or unemployed. Maybe they're trying to save up for college. And you're proposal would give these people a roadblock to success. Oh, I tossed this off in about five minutes. That's how weak your ideas are. I don't actually need to spend a lot of time thinking about why they're wrong. I can just pick it out. From a guy who actually ran a business.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator I really like the argument but to get your prepared for disappointment, he's going to cherry pick the child labor laws thing and say that statist use of force is why your completely valid and good argument is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Teenagers are definitely subhuman though. Can we agree on that? Oh, I agree entirely. I'd honestly not bother even paying my teenage employees, I'd just buy them from their owners ("parents"). CharlestheHammer posted:What if those teenagers are also black? Are you implying I am racist? How dare you?! I am just saying white people are genetically superior you statist rube!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:In many regards too, this work experience isn't valuable to a lot of jobs beyond the character building aspect of working. Oh my god this forever. Most jobs that aren't minimum wage retail want you to have some experience in that field before you'll get hired. Unless you're applying for a slightly better retail gig or something close to it in another customer service field, you're hosed if your experience is all minimum wage stuff. I couldn't even apply for a job in housekeeping at a hotel this summer because I didn't have experience cleaning, on paper, and all I wanted was a job to bust my rear end at to pay rent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I merely want to be left alone to use my property as I see fit. I want my self ownership respected. I should be able to choose which charities I support and voluntary associations should never be interfered with. That's because you're taking a deontological view of ethics; the rationale for the existence of the state is pretty much entirely consequentialist. If the state didn't exist, pretty much everyone would be a lot worse off - from our point of view, getting rid of the state would be profoundly unethical because of the extremely negative results. Also, the language you're using here is a bit stilted - it makes it sounds like you're being victimised because you made a principled stand, whereas you're really being sanctioned for breaking the rules. The fact that you're following your conscience isn't the deciding factor at all. Lots of people follow their conscience and don't get violent results.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ahaha I need to start following this guy
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I have to reiterate that you favor the use of violence against me for following my conscience. I merely want to be left alone to use my property as I see fit. I want my self ownership respected. I should be able to choose which charities I support and voluntary associations should never be interfered with. No one wants to use violence against you for following your conscience. You, like all libertarians, wish to live a life of luxury taking every single advantage of the State that you can while contributing nothing to it. You are the thief here, not the State, you wish to guzzle resources for free. Your conscience is massively and probably irreparably damaged and your entire worldview is myopic and unethical.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:He is the Professor Emeritus of Economics at Pepperdine University. Ah, cool, he's an economics prof at a school associated with the Churches of Christ. The Cs of C are a fun group everybody. I've had dealings with them before. They're a biblical literalist sect that arose in the Second Great Awakening in the American northeast, around the same time and place as Joseph Smith's Mormons. As is relatively common among protestant sects they hold all other Christian traditions to be corruptions of the original teachings. To escape all the cruft and legalism they see in Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Baptism etc. they adhere only to what they find in the Bible. This leads to some innocuous eccentricities, like disallowing any form of musical instrument in their services, but some rather more serious behavioral quirks arise from taking absolutely to heart everything Paul wrote in his epistles. Among them, the firm belief that women can never be allowed to hold a position of authority over adult men. They can lead church classes for children, they can occasionally speak during services, but if they ever even pursue a role as other than submissive subordinates to the men in their community they are literally transgressing against God's law. Though surely according to Reismann that's all just the natural conclusion of Man's Logic working itself out through the divine medium of Anglo-Saxon heterosexuality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:42 |
|
|
JRodefeld, you support the use of violence against us when we follow our consciences, whenever our consciences dictate that we should take stuff that is currently in someone else's possession. I imagine you will say "Oh, but I only support defensive violence, you support initiatory violence!" - which is bunk, because all it means is you support the violence you support. If ever you think there is a justification for violence, you simply label the justifying circumstances 'initiatory violence', despite the absence of anything remotely like 'violence' in its normal meaning; and if you don't support violence, you don't label the circumstances 'initiatory violence', and then throw up your hands in horror at violence happening when you haven't applied such a label. This is completely circular. Oh dear me fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Nov 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 15:47
|
|
