|
Liberal_L33t, defender of women's rights posted:Bitch how dare you go out in public dressed like that! Dress like I (a man) tell you or so help me you WILL be punished! Dude, seriously, that's what you sound like. I'm not even strawmanning, that is pretty much what you sound like. EDIT: On an unrelated note, what happened to that guy who was posting the surahs? Those posts were cool (or was this already asked?).
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Well, first of all, because I'm interested in effective communication. I want people to actually feel something. So, for example, I've got you pissed off to the point where you're making these really prejudicial statements about how I'm inherently, essentially incapable of behaving in the way you find acceptable. Not exactly much of an achievement, since you're an extremely angry man and your heart will undoubtedly explode before you turn 45, but it's got you to drop some of the professorial act. Your posting radicalized me. How's that complicity taste? Tesseraction posted:For the record I 100% agree here. As said above my recommendation is community outreach and finding prayer leaders and Imams who are happy to follow the teachings of the Qu'ran (and hopefully discount some of the less reputable Hadith). I think the culture of misogyny perpetrated in the name of Islam should be addressed. I think reaching out to both Islamic feminists and progressive leaders (of any gender) will be the best method to help. That doesn't work so well when the slightest government comment or involvement on such affairs results in conservative religious leaders cynically ringing the alarm bells about religious liberty being under attack. For the record, I don't necessarily think bans on niqabs or burqas, whether in Turkey or France, were an appropriate idea or the most helpful way to go about the problem of regressive cultural and religious practices. What I dispute is that 1) support for such a law was motivated by mere racial bigotry and 2) the widespread wearing of such clothing isn't symptomatic of a social problem meriting governmental intervention.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Hammurabi posted:Dude, seriously, that's what you sound like. I'm not even strawmanning, that is pretty much what you sound like. If there were, say, a woman who worked at the local pre-school and made a point of wearing tee-shirt with "THE RIGHTFUL PLACE OF ALL WOMEN IS AS MALE PROPERTY", or "KILL HOMOSEXUALS" or something equivalent, I would be feel pretty justified in saying those exact words, minus the 'bitch' part.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 04:11
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:What? In no way do I think you're essentially incapable of not being mean to everybody you disagree with. It would probably take a lot less effort on your part to dial back the personal attacks. I'm annoyed that you do this, yes, because I'm genuinely trying to be constructive and not-insulting, and it's hard not to be annoyed when it's so obvious someone is trying to get a negative outburst out of you. But I reject your ascribing to me some prejudicial belief that you're somehow unable rather than unwilling to write posts that aren't designed to make people feel bad. That would be absurd. It's entirely your choice. And yet, your choice of words was about incapacity. It's pretty telling, what people say when they're angry. quote:I know this is largely tongue-in-cheek, but do you really believe the bolded part? That you would be somehow complicit in the perceived evil if you weren't as unkind as possible to people who espouse it? Who said anything about being as "unkind as possible?" I'm not running over his dog, or mailing him pictures of his house with targets composited on top. I am saying that treating the belief that Muslims are antithetical to civilization as though it deserves respect... means that you are treating it as though it deserves respect. And it does not. Or, at least, it does not if you believe that bigotry is wrong. Treating beliefs with respect validates them. Now, judging from this, you believe that there's nothing inherently immoral about prejudice, in the abstract and in the particular against a racialized religion like Islam is in America, which suggests that you are morally incompetent in some way, not that I care much to speculate about the particulars. quote:OK, but this really does beg the question of why you talk to them in a much more significant way than the stock-standard "well if you don't like it why don't you leave the thread?" sort of nonsense. If it's really in order to change minds and thereby help to reduce the prevalence of beliefs you consider harmful in the world, I think you should probably reconsider the effectiveness of your methods. Belittling people as crudely as you do isn't going to help you realise that goal with anybody with enough wherewithal to actually do anything with the beliefs you want them not to have. It's not about changing minds, because you don't change minds by talking at people or confronting them head-on. I mean, I might manage to break through to one of these multitudinous assholes who clamor for violence but are unwilling to accept the responsibility for it, but that would be a miraculous event, not something I expect. However, it does constitute a rejection of the idea that all ideas are equal, which is a dangerous one both because it's false and because it's easy to manipulate people who want to believe in it. Liberal_L33t posted:Your posting radicalized me. How's that complicity taste? Please. You don't have the guts to admit that, yes, criminalizing an article of clothing ultimately means violence against anyone who resists and continues to wear it. You don't have the guts to commit that violence yourself. You don't have the guts to generalize your unwillingness to break someone's arm for wearing a scarf to the agents of the state that would carry it out in any implementation. You are an intellectual, moral, and physical coward. Granted, if you had the guts, you'd merely be consistent in your evil beliefs, so the world should be thankful that you're so lily-livered.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:If there were, say, a woman who worked at the local pre-school and made a point of wearing tee-shirt with "THE RIGHTFUL PLACE OF ALL WOMEN IS AS MALE PROPERTY", or "KILL HOMOSEXUALS" or something equivalent, I would be feel pretty justified in saying those exact words, minus the 'bitch' part. But the thing is, they don't. I really don't think it's the equivalent. Like, I've met and spoken to women who are completely independent and also wear niqabs. At worst -- at absolute worst -- it's no different than Amish or Haredi dress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:And yet, your choice of words was about incapacity. It's pretty telling, what people say when they're angry. You mean this choice of words? Smudgie Buggler posted:Why can't you just make your point without getting personal and insulting people? The choice of words that I edited out of my post almost immediately and before you replied because I realised it was uncharitable and unnecessary? The choice of words I will quite readily admit were not entirely accurate, given the question I really wanted to communicate was, "Why do you almost never make your point without getting personal and insulting people?" OK, I guess if you want to latch onto that, that's your prerogative. But I don't think it leads anywhere that bears any fruit. I am clarifying now: I do not believe you are incapable of not being deliberately nasty to people whose opinions you don't share. Why do you choose to be? quote:I am saying that treating the belief that Muslims are antithetical to civilization as though it deserves respect... means that you are treating it as though it deserves respect. And it does not. Or, at least, it does not if you believe that bigotry is wrong. Treating beliefs with respect validates them. But your thesis is (or at least was) that treating the believer with respect validates their beliefs. You're not being deliberately unkind to posts on the internet. You're being deliberately unkind to the posters. I don't think refraining from personal insults in a discussion in anyway gives aid and comfort to wrong ideas. quote:It's not about changing minds, because you don't change minds by talking at people or confronting them head-on. I mean, I might manage to break through to one of these multitudinous assholes who clamor for violence but are unwilling to accept the responsibility for it, but that would be a miraculous event, not something I expect. However, it does constitute a rejection of the idea that all ideas are equal, which is a dangerous one both because it's false and because it's easy to manipulate people who want to believe in it. Why do you feel the need to demonstrate your (correct) belief that not all ideas are equal by trying deliberately to piss off and hurt the people who hold them? If it's not about changing minds, but rather signalling your rejection of the ideas expressed, you don't need to call people worms and subhuman and all the other hyperbolic vitriol you carry on with to do that. The way you operate just doesn't make any sense in light of your stated goals. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Please. You don't have the guts to admit that, yes, criminalizing an article of clothing ultimately means violence against anyone who resists and continues to wear it. You don't have the guts to commit that violence yourself. You don't have the guts to generalize your unwillingness to break someone's arm for wearing a scarf to the agents of the state that would carry it out in any implementation. You are an intellectual, moral, and physical coward. Granted, if you had the guts, you'd merely be consistent in your evil beliefs, so the world should be thankful that you're so lily-livered. I'm not following you here. Why are we breaking her arm?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:You mean this choice of words? Smudgie Buggler, who gives a poo poo what his tone is? This is an internet discussion forum. Anonymous invective is the norm, and I highly doubt anyone who is seriously bothered by it would post here. Nobody is here to change anyone else's minds. If he's breaking the forum rules, report him. If he's not, nobody is forcing you to read his posts or respond to them. Hammurabi posted:But the thing is, they don't. I really don't think it's the equivalent. Like, I've met and spoken to women who are completely independent and also wear niqabs. At worst -- at absolute worst -- it's no different than Amish or Haredi dress. As if "no different than Haredi dress" is a good thing? That poo poo is pretty awful too and I'd gladly see it officially discouraged and banned from certain institutions. The Amish, meanwhile, have no reputation for enforcing their dress code, especially not amongst visiting outsiders - and I'm fairly sure their women are not required to cover their faces under any circumstance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:
Isn't this essentially an inverted equivalent to the much-derided strawman argument that Muslims who engage in violent and/or misogynist practices are 'more authentic'? Also, could we please stick to the subject of the justifiability or not of the laws instead of lurid descriptions of hypothetical violence?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Smudgie Buggler, who gives a poo poo what his tone is? This is an internet discussion forum. Anonymous invective is the norm, and I highly doubt anyone who is seriously bothered by it would post here. Nobody is here to change anyone else's minds. First, please don't mistake this for a tone argument. It's not a question of form, but content. It's about the pointless inclusion of highly personal and over-the-top vitriol. Second, just because anonymous invective is common doesn't mean that's the way it ought to be, nor should it stop it from being pointed out when the invective goes well above and beyond what would ordinarily be expected. Third, I absolutely am here to change minds. Not in the sense that that's my sole mission and one to which I'm so irrationally committed I'm willing to write off others as subhuman scum when I fail, but why would I be arguing at all if I didn't want to (a) improve other people's understanding of what I think and why I think it; (b) get them to agree with me; or (c) update my own beliefs in light of new evidence or better reasoning? I think that has to be true to some extent of everybody here, regardless of how caustic and recalcitrant they seem. I mean, if you don't care at all about value and knowledge alignment, why bother with the invective at all? If participation in the back-and-forth insults is an end in itself, why bother with all the window dressing like a topic of conversation? Fourth, I don't think we have good reasons to think Effectronica prefers male pronouns, so it's probably a good idea to use neutral terms of reference unless they say they would like it to be otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:As if "no different than Haredi dress" is a good thing? That poo poo is pretty awful too and I'd gladly see it officially discouraged and banned from certain institutions. Do you think there is any particular reason no one is pushing for that? And "certain institutions"? Your standard for Muslim headgear seems to be "you don't get to wear it in public."
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Blah blah blah fines = violence because I'm a huge pro-religious freedom nut
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:
Zhe is certainly not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:As if "no different than Haredi dress" is a good thing? That poo poo is pretty awful too and I'd gladly see it officially discouraged and banned from certain institutions. The Amish, meanwhile, have no reputation for enforcing their dress code, especially not amongst visiting outsiders - and I'm fairly sure their women are not required to cover their faces under any circumstance. Oh, don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you about the Haredis. That's why I said "at worst", but I find that, generally speaking, when people talk about banning religious garments, they usually aren't talking about Haredi dress, and they drat sure never care about the Amish, and when people talk about repressive religious sects, they usually forget about them, in my experience. As for the Amish, they are also abominable and treat women like poo poo. And yet people adore the Amish and only ever consider everything about them to be charming and quaint. The closest Islamic equivalents of those types of groups would be awful backwards Wahhabi sects -- not just anyone who happens to be religious and probably conservative-leaning -- and most women who wear niqabs don't belong to any sect even remotely as bad. That's why I said "at absolute worst." Though, since I'm rambling and am not sure how to link my point to the rest of this, I'll just tack it on awkwardly at the end here: I'd still say that banning articles of clothing does nothing to solve the problems with religious repression of women, I also don't think all women with niqabs (or even most) are being repressed/oppressed/brainwashed/forced into it, and I take some issue with legally-enforced dress-codes for women no matter how secular the dress-codes are. Hammurabi fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
According to effectronica's logic, not harassing a veiled woman is validating evil fundamentalist beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:That doesn't work so well when the slightest government comment or involvement on such affairs results in conservative religious leaders cynically ringing the alarm bells about religious liberty being under attack. So a law banning it would work better?  Liberal_L33t posted:For the record, I don't necessarily think bans on niqabs or burqas, whether in Turkey or France, were an appropriate idea or the most helpful way to go about the problem of regressive cultural and religious practices. What I dispute is that 1) support for such a law was motivated by mere racial bigotry and 2) the widespread wearing of such clothing isn't symptomatic of a social problem meriting governmental intervention. I agree with (1) in that I do not believe the desire for a ban stems solely from bigotry, and as linked by (I think it was) Cat Mattress several Islamic feminists supported the ban in France. However, there are plenty of people who will happily back such laws because it counters the 'Islamisation of the West' that they live in fear of. There are benign and malevolent motivations behind support for a law, and often by discussing (or arguing about it) with people you can get an idea whether it's the former or the latter. As for (2) my proposed method was not necessarily a government outreach thing. I believe I already said it in this thread but you can't always legislate social issues, and like you say in the first part of the reply, openly-government intervention can come across as attacking freedom of religion, in which case the wagons will circle. Hence why I didn't specifically mention government-led community outreach. I meant community outreach in general.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
Here's the next verse from the Koran (sorry, I'm not the person who usually posts these). This one is Surah Al-Muddathir (The One Enveloped). Again, sorry, it's the Khan translation. http://www.noblequran.com/translation/surah74.html I'm not an Islamic scholar, but I believe this one describes the kinds of hell I can expect as a secularist. "I will cast him into Hell-fire / And what will make you know exactly what Hell-fire is? / It spares not (any sinner), nor does it leave (anything unburnt)! / Burning the skins!" I hope there's a non-atheist-bacon version of this, but I don't have immediate access to it. Also, I'm not automatically opposed to burning the skins because I play for the shirts. bitey fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
My concern with burqa banning is the payoff. So you've taken a risk, accepted a cost, both in terms of manpower and diplomatic capital: what's the benefit here? The obvious response is mutual identification, but how far do you take that? I feel like a big reason France did it was a kind of symbolic imposition, as a kind of ritual to declare that the broader ethical values associated with 'France' are not subject to change, and immigrants must adopt them...but as a symbolic measure, it doesn't actually deal with the underlying concerns, so even assuming the ban passes, that only leads to more and more demands, that must be continually satisfied in order to keep the symbolism working..I've got to think about this some more, actually thinking of making a thread about it.Smudgie Buggler posted:but why would I be arguing at all if I didn't want to (a) improve other people's understanding of what I think and why I think it; (b) get them to agree with me; or (c) update my own beliefs in light of new evidence or better reasoning? I think that has to be true to some extent of everybody here, regardless of how caustic and recalcitrant they seem. Effectronica and Liberal_leet (and let's not kid around: you) are here for the same thing, the rush of Adrenalin that accompanies self-righteous anger, the freedom to express your passion to a space where you know people are listening and you are personally safe from reprisal, and pride achieved asserting dominance over another person through words alone - THIS is the spirit of D&D. Not just D&D either - dipshits in GBS/GiP complaining about D&D/SA hivemind are riding the same rhetorical carousel, as are SS fuckheads calling mods pedos because they got banned using the n word, or the same 20 people posting the same dumb political cartoon authors, then taking turns to feign outrage. The drama! The clash of personalities! Oh my, what fun! Trash, but fun trash, so sit back and at least enjoy it, because it is not going anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 11:20
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I not sure you really 'get' internet forums. I totally understand this, but I also think this thread might be onto something constructive. After all the insults and dishonest arguments, we seem to agree on something -- the Abbot translation of the Koran is better than the Khan translation. It's better for both believers and nonbelievers. So, progress. bitey fucked around with this message at 11:51 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 11:44
|
|
|
I actually don't feign outrage I only feign levity. As I type my light-hearted responses and joke around with puns I'm actually screaming so loud IRL that where once my vocal chords were lie only the still-bleeding wounds whose pain merely fuel my impotent bellow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
Personally, I enjoy the people who immediately call someone a tranny/woman because they make posts they dislike. Whether it's dressed up in faux politeness, or crude pseudo-jokes, it's always a pleasure to see that hatred is pretty universal. So what a lot of people don't understand is that criminal laws allow the state to use force against you when you break them. So, if someone is committed to civil disobedience, and refuses to not wear the niqab in public, or to pay the fines, eventually her crimes will reach the point where violence will necessarily be used, such as prison, or in forcing her to come to the police station to be booked. Usually, the point of violence is reached well in advance of necessity, as every civil disobedience campaign has shown. And this is visceral violence, that would happen to real people. It's one thing to justify abstract violence against the faceless, and quite another to say that you would be willing to have someone's arm broken, have pepper spray aerosoled into their eyes, have them starved and tortured in solitary confinement- it takes a real bastard to say that this is acceptable. Now, you could say that we will wave a magic wand and ensure this won't happen, but apart from that being bullshit, it also represents a confession that these laws are entirely about selective enforcement. They are terrorism directed by the state against its people. Clearly, it is wrong and insulting and MURDERING THE DISCOURSE to call that evil.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 11:52
|
|
|
For example, Russia's criminalisation of promotion of homosexuality saw a major increase of homophobic hate crimes, including things like that chilling photo of a gay teen forced to pose nude while beaten and bruised while surrounded by the men who later beat him to death. It has given a carte blanche to homophobic abuse and while some of it will just be rude words on the street, that case mentioned above is what the normalisation of otherisation allows if not outright endorses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 11:56
|
|
|
That argument is identical to libertarian arguments about taxation as inherent violence. In fact, all law is violence, even civil law (just try and stop paying a fine for long enough, and you'll feel that very real violence). Do you feel comfortable about that? What exactly is the point you're making w.r.t. burqa bans?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
The rule of law necessitates torture, an American post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 11:57
|
|
|
It may be naive to think people are being sincere instead of just trolling; but dammit, I'm trying to get something out of this. Are we all wasting our time here? Should we disperse? edit: poo poo, thread moves fast. Running away now. bitey fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
Come back 'ere or I'll knife ya.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 12:03
|
|
rudatron posted:That argument is identical to libertarian arguments about taxation as inherent violence. In fact, all law is violence, even civil law (just try and stop paying a fine for long enough, and you'll feel that very real violence). Do you feel comfortable about that? What exactly is the point you're making w.r.t. burqa bans? The libertarian argument is reliant on the belief that violence is never justified. You are inferring that belief on my part, despite writing about how I'm dishonest and insane and should be ignored. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. But there is another argument, beyond the apparently "socialist" one that argues the hegemonic structure of the capitalist state is actually really cool and just lets criminals go if they resist enough, where this violence is justifiable in certain circumstances but not in others. Which is what underpins civil disobedience, which you and Cat Mattress have approximately zero understanding of.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Come back 'ere or I'll knife ya. Guh! *bleeds out, dies*
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 12:06
|
|
|
Additionally social violence and economic violence are two spheres which interact but don't overlap, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 12:06
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Additionally social violence and economic violence are two spheres which interact but don't overlap, IMO. I mean, if you refuse to pay your taxes, period, you'll eventually commit a crime (such as by stealing back the garnished wages). But there's also good reasons for it, too.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 12:17
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Personally, I enjoy the people who immediately call someone a tranny/woman because they make posts they dislike. Whether it's dressed up in faux politeness, or crude pseudo-jokes, it's always a pleasure to see that hatred is pretty universal. I actually really don't think it's a good idea to use gendered pronouns unless you know that's what the subject wants. It wasn't a joke, or a jibe, or faux-politeness. The use of the masculine pronoun as the default is toxic and stupid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 12:20
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:I actually really don't think it's a good idea to use gendered pronouns unless you know that's what the subject wants. It wasn't a joke, or a jibe, or faux-politeness. I was talking about Sethex, since I didn't even see your post.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 12:22
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Additionally social violence and economic violence are two spheres which interact but don't overlap, IMO. And to the contrary, I don't think you're insane! You're a normal human being, that's the point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
bitey posted:It may be naive to think people are being sincere instead of just trolling; but dammit, I'm trying to get something out of this. I am unironically a practicing Muslim.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I was talking about Sethex, since I didn't even see your post. I doubt they meant anything sinister either, but OK. As misguided as I think your way of going about expressing it is, you've got the right of it re: banning niqabs etc. I don't see how anybody can justify using coercion to stop someone wearing a thing on the grounds that they wouldn't be wearing the thing if they hadn't been coerced into it. You can't defend a woman's right to wear what she likes in a liberal democracy by telling her she can't wear this particular type of thing regardless of how much she says she wants to. Like, even if you succeed, you fail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 12:31
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I can't see this as anything but special pleading, especially since the poor are often caricatured as as social subaltern and, conversely, poor minorities are the ones most subject to violence. I was mostly trying to differentiate from 'the economic violence of being taxed' vs. 'the social violence of segregation.' An example where they overlap would be, for example, slavery.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 12:33
|
|
rudatron posted:I can't see this as anything but special pleading, especially since the poor are often caricatured as as social subaltern and, conversely, poor minorities are the ones most subject to violence. Well, I missed that, because I feel this unaccountable drowsiness whenever I read your posts and I nearly fell asleep in my breakfast. Actually, rudatron, the arguments of civil disobedience are valid. Using the consequences of policy is legitimate. Attacking ideology, such as requesting people confront what a criminal ban really means, and what selectively enforcing laws is,in real terms- this is also valid. Further, someone who is convinced that anyone who wears the niqab is deluded or a victim, and anyone who defends wearing the niqab is either deluded or maleficent, is unassailable on those grounds you're arguing as being the only valid ones, because they have the ability to easily ignore anything you say without effort on their part.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 12:49
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:You can't defend a woman's right to wear what she likes in a liberal democracy by telling her she can't wear this particular type of thing regardless of how much she says she wants to. Like, even if you succeed, you fail. Have you thought that maybe banning the niqab goes to defend women's rights beyond the right to choose how she dresses? You guys would be defending the rights of Jews to proudly wear the yellow star in Nazi Germany, because there might be a handful of them who want to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 12:56
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:You guys would be defending the rights of Jews to proudly wear the yellow star in Nazi Germany, because there might be a handful of them who want to. Yes, I certainly would.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
And in doing so, you poo poo over all those who are coerced into doing it against their will.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2015 13:02
|
|