First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
There's No Nature VS Nurture
Posted 11/27/09
Such a rousing topic! Our nature and nurture are at the top of what makes us tick. It's everything! How else do you define humans but acutely different from everything else and each other? I went over every word said here by everyone, especially NovembersDoom, and noticed much brilliance, firsthand. We are definitely not the only ones who may be so concerned with our nature and nurture. Think of what may lie beyond our fair solar system. Extraterrestrials no doubt would have their views of nature and nurture. They could teach much if we don't have problems upon a ''first contact'', though it seems we have been acquainted before. Roswell maybe/hopefully.

The animal inside us all is something we shouldn't ignore and suppress. The reasoning part of us should know when to unleash that animal. Weakness is bred in humanity when the all-wise beast is pent up and dies of suffocation.

I hope I've said something applicable in this debate.
Posted 11/27/09

leviathan343 wrote:

All these useless words. Bah. People, "literary talk" is most often a bad thing.

Nature vs. nurture is just a gross generalization of the factors that influence human physiology and behavior. It's the association of the two with value judgments that create this dichotomy in the first place. One is no more "good" than the other.

November, cut the mystical nature crap. Considering how primates actually operate in nature, I sure as hell wouldn't want to take advice from them about socialization. You shouldn't talk about the "unenlightened masses" when 90% of your talk is pure fluff.

Dom, I like how you attempt to synthesize the two but your thesis is so vague that I can't really understand it at all. Haven't we learned to stop apply purely human concepts to the world as if they are objective truths? How do all the aspects of human nature "nurture" humanitarianism? It sounds like you have a mistaken view of evolution as "progressive". I mean, I don't even believe humanitarianism is a good thing half of the time.


Your words have immense power, but perhaps, there is something you are forgetting. When you said "fluff" you are possibly labeling everything I've said as being, how should I put this, gay? Are you homophobic? If so, that is a dangerous condition, because you will come to fear almost everything around you out of fear of becoming gay yourself.

Sure, the concepts I explored where a bit outlandish... too some. Consider this; we don't know exactly what is going on out there in the wild. And when you said ''mystical'' were you implying that I have some kind of religious beliefs or maybe that what I said was merely rhetorical hocus pocus? Are we not all insane when viewed from afar? Look at things more closely, please. For one, absolutely nothing DomFortress said was vague, you simply failed to grasp the concept of what he was stating.

I question your views on this subject, leviathan. How you seem to partly condemn humanitarianism gives me the feeling that you are possibly one for condemning humanity itself. Making improvements in our world takes what is called effort. Is that something you are afraid of? Is that also a far-flung concept which you would rashly stick labels on? Never forget that the night is darkest before the day.
Posted 11/27/09 , edited 11/27/09

NovembersDoom wrote:



"If nothing in the world can change our children will inherit nothing." lyrics of the song Born (the Retribution of Spiritual Sickness) from the album This Godless Endeavor by Nevermore.

http://www.myspace.com/nevermorefans: music with meaning.

I think Social Darwinism is the most important form of evolution we can be concerned with. Humanity will become an endangered species unless it can change the worst of our problems which are contributed to how we treat each other, leading to how we treat our world. I view change as a good thing when it is strictly for the better. Some people are against change, however. This being apparent because they have already achieved a state they feel has little to no need of improvement. No matter how far one climbs, infinity exists beyond that to climb towards. The sky is the limit.

The human way of nature and nurture is amazingly fragile. I wonder how it goes with other creatures, if it does in any way like ours that a comparison can be made. I think of dolphins and what they do, how they might think and what it means to be a dolphin. It could be that we are entirely unable to see the depth of their existence. For one, we can not always observe them during all the moments in their lives nor read if they are consciously making decisions much like ourselves. They do speak a language like all living beings. Possibly and most likely (if we continue to work towards it) we will be able to commune with all our earthly brethren in a meaningful way. I wonder what an old orangutan would have to say about about our ways. Surely such intelligent creatures like orangutans would be sensible more so than the vast majority of unenlightened masses belonging to humanity. Their relative simplicity keeps them from becoming more complicated than they can handle, making them an ideal model for socialization. I think all of our ape and monkey relatives can teach us so many things about nature and nurture in their own way beyond what they have already.

Our duty is to learn from the ecosystem what we lost so long ago from the evolution we underwent over the course of millions of years. A huge problem is helping those of us unwilling to open up to this idea. The creatures we are and the creatures so distant from us are separated by a tremendous schism. We need to build a bridge over that gap.

If our complicated civilization makes us collectively to become too complex for our own intellectual capacity, then it's only logical for us to interdependently pursuit what each of us are really good at as individuals.

And I think individual feelings can very well be that bridge of interdependency, as long as we allow ourselves to feel deeply and then express ourselves likewise just how we think and feel as individuals.

While Social Darwinism is calling for simplicity in individual social behaviors in our lives, if I caught your drift correctly. Literary Darwinism OTOH is advocating complexity in individual personalities with our choices. And when we simply consult their own options respectively, they can both work out to make changes for the betterment of mankind. Because we humans are definitely not short of individual phenotypes by our nurture, while we are emotionally sociable creatures by our nature.
Posted 11/27/09

DomFortress wrote:


NovembersDoom wrote:



"If nothing in the world can change our children will inherit nothing." lyrics of the song Born (the Retribution of Spiritual Sickness) from the album This Godless Endeavor by Nevermore.

http://www.myspace.com/nevermorefans: music with meaning.

I think Social Darwinism is the most important form of evolution we can be concerned with. Humanity will become an endangered species unless it can change the worst of our problems which are contributed to how we treat each other, leading to how we treat our world. I view change as a good thing when it is strictly for the better. Some people are against change, however. This being apparent because they have already achieved a state they feel has little to no need of improvement. No matter how far one climbs, infinity exists beyond that to climb towards. The sky is the limit.

The human way of nature and nurture is amazingly fragile. I wonder how it goes with other creatures, if it does in any way like ours that a comparison can be made. I think of dolphins and what they do, how they might think and what it means to be a dolphin. It could be that we are entirely unable to see the depth of their existence. For one, we can not always observe them during all the moments in their lives nor read if they are consciously making decisions much like ourselves. They do speak a language like all living beings. Possibly and most likely (if we continue to work towards it) we will be able to commune with all our earthly brethren in a meaningful way. I wonder what an old orangutan would have to say about about our ways. Surely such intelligent creatures like orangutans would be sensible more so than the vast majority of unenlightened masses belonging to humanity. Their relative simplicity keeps them from becoming more complicated than they can handle, making them an ideal model for socialization. I think all of our ape and monkey relatives can teach us so many things about nature and nurture in their own way beyond what they have already.

Our duty is to learn from the ecosystem what we lost so long ago from the evolution we underwent over the course of millions of years. A huge problem is helping those of us unwilling to open up to this idea. The creatures we are and the creatures so distant from us are separated by a tremendous schism. We need to build a bridge over that gap.

If our complicated civilization makes us collectively to become too complex for our own intellectual capacity, then it's only logical for us to interdependently pursuit what each of us are really good at as individuals.

And I think individual feelings can very well be that bridge of interdependency, as long as we allow ourselves to feel deeply and then express ourselves likewise just how we think and feel as individuals.

While Social Darwinism is calling for simplicity in individual social behaviors in our lives, if I caught your drift correctly. Literary Darwinism OTOH is advocating complexity in individual personalities with our choices. And when we simply consult their own options respectively, they can both work out to make changes for the betterment of mankind. Because we humans are definitely not short of individual phenotypes by our nurture, while we are emotionally sociable creatures by our nature.


Precisely. Social Darwinism and Literary Darwinism are quite compatible with humanity when used where they are most effective. I think humans prefer complexity when they become familiarized with it, yet certain aspects of our conduct should be kept simple. People can get pretty dramatic when the complexities in socialization get out-of-hand and chaos takes over. War is a theater where the actors can actually be killed.

Nature and nurture, how else can I put it... maybe with nature we should just comprise everything we really need from nurture into it. Nurture can, in a sense, be set aside if we achieve what I would call ''benevolent nature''. Being kind to other as you would like for yourself. Perhaps that would be purely nurture as nature, but we have to remember and respect that we will all and should still be individuals, just not the sort of individuals who prefer committing large-scale atrocities i.e. Adolph Hitler.

I have really enjoyed this thread thus far.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 11/27/09

DomFortress wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:

All these useless words. Bah. People, "literary talk" is most often a bad thing.

Nature vs. nurture is just a gross generalization of the factors that influence human physiology and behavior. It's the association of the two with value judgments that create this dichotomy in the first place. One is no more "good" than the other.

November, cut the mystical nature crap. Considering how primates actually operate in nature, I sure as hell wouldn't want to take advice from them about socialization. You shouldn't talk about the "unenlightened masses" when 90% of your talk is pure fluff.

Dom, I like how you attempt to synthesize the two but your thesis is so vague that I can't really understand it at all. Haven't we learned to stop apply purely human concepts to the world as if they are objective truths? How do all the aspects of human nature "nurture" humanitarianism? It sounds like you have a mistaken view of evolution as "progressive". I mean, I don't even believe humanitarianism is a good thing half of the time.

Who is a postmodernist, but someone who took modern civilization for granted.

Here's my question about those pro-choice supporters: will they support those who made their choice to pro-life because of what they believed to be their life purpose? And if so, why?

That's the question I came down to when I looked at nature vs nurture, of pro-life vs pro-choice. You can choose to say that I subjected my view as the objective truth, for I am indeed human. While I can only be humane when it comes to me making my choices, as long as I am still human. However, through my individual efforts and experiences, I have came to think that the human nature is nurture through emotions, just like all other animals with a naturally developed limbic system. Which enables them to nurture their own species. And I have no doubt that the possibility of this natural design in us humans, enabled us to civilize humanitarianism based on our shared positive and negative emotions, of triumphs and setbacks. That there is opportunity for goodness through selflessness in each and everyone of us, as long as we're still individuals choose to living in interdependency. That is true even for utilitarians like these gamers. Although a video game can never be an adequate substitute for real people. But hey, what does a gamer know.

And just like what NovembersDoom had said earlier, I personally have no problem with individuals making changes for the better.


...well, that wasn't very coherent. Are you addressing me at all?
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 11/27/09

NovembersDoom wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:

All these useless words. Bah. People, "literary talk" is most often a bad thing.

Nature vs. nurture is just a gross generalization of the factors that influence human physiology and behavior. It's the association of the two with value judgments that create this dichotomy in the first place. One is no more "good" than the other.

November, cut the mystical nature crap. Considering how primates actually operate in nature, I sure as hell wouldn't want to take advice from them about socialization. You shouldn't talk about the "unenlightened masses" when 90% of your talk is pure fluff.

Dom, I like how you attempt to synthesize the two but your thesis is so vague that I can't really understand it at all. Haven't we learned to stop apply purely human concepts to the world as if they are objective truths? How do all the aspects of human nature "nurture" humanitarianism? It sounds like you have a mistaken view of evolution as "progressive". I mean, I don't even believe humanitarianism is a good thing half of the time.


Your words have immense power, but perhaps, there is something you are forgetting. When you said "fluff" you are possibly labeling everything I've said as being, how should I put this, gay? Are you homophobic? If so, that is a dangerous condition, because you will come to fear almost everything around you out of fear of becoming gay yourself.

Sure, the concepts I explored where a bit outlandish... too some. Consider this; we don't know exactly what is going on out there in the wild. And when you said ''mystical'' were you implying that I have some kind of religious beliefs or maybe that what I said was merely rhetorical hocus pocus? Are we not all insane when viewed from afar? Look at things more closely, please. For one, absolutely nothing DomFortress said was vague, you simply failed to grasp the concept of what he was stating.

I question your views on this subject, leviathan. How you seem to partly condemn humanitarianism gives me the feeling that you are possibly one for condemning humanity itself. Making improvements in our world takes what is called effort. Is that something you are afraid of? Is that also a far-flung concept which you would rashly stick labels on? Never forget that the night is darkest before the day.


My bisexuality stews a rabid fear of all things homosexual. Perfectly logical.

We know what's happening in the wild. Animals are killing each other and raising families and living symbiotically while beating the crap out of each other. Things are destroyed, created, changed. The universe goes on without consideration of concepts of "good" and "evil". It simply exists.

I partially condemn humanitarianism because of its unfounded assumptions on what "progress" is. Personally, I see humanitarianism as the atheist attempt to preserve Christian values. Also, "improvement" doesn't include all people in it.

So much of what Dom said implicated vague relationships and vague concepts. Obviously he's not making a philosophy out of it, but it's pretty hard to follow when he gives it all at once. Not to mention his lines of thought often wander. Nothing wrong with that, my brain simply doesn't process things like his does.

Posted 11/28/09

leviathan343 wrote:


NovembersDoom wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:

All these useless words. Bah. People, "literary talk" is most often a bad thing.

Nature vs. nurture is just a gross generalization of the factors that influence human physiology and behavior. It's the association of the two with value judgments that create this dichotomy in the first place. One is no more "good" than the other.

November, cut the mystical nature crap. Considering how primates actually operate in nature, I sure as hell wouldn't want to take advice from them about socialization. You shouldn't talk about the "unenlightened masses" when 90% of your talk is pure fluff.

Dom, I like how you attempt to synthesize the two but your thesis is so vague that I can't really understand it at all. Haven't we learned to stop apply purely human concepts to the world as if they are objective truths? How do all the aspects of human nature "nurture" humanitarianism? It sounds like you have a mistaken view of evolution as "progressive". I mean, I don't even believe humanitarianism is a good thing half of the time.


Your words have immense power, but perhaps, there is something you are forgetting. When you said "fluff" you are possibly labeling everything I've said as being, how should I put this, gay? Are you homophobic? If so, that is a dangerous condition, because you will come to fear almost everything around you out of fear of becoming gay yourself.

Sure, the concepts I explored where a bit outlandish... too some. Consider this; we don't know exactly what is going on out there in the wild. And when you said ''mystical'' were you implying that I have some kind of religious beliefs or maybe that what I said was merely rhetorical hocus pocus? Are we not all insane when viewed from afar? Look at things more closely, please. For one, absolutely nothing DomFortress said was vague, you simply failed to grasp the concept of what he was stating.

I question your views on this subject, leviathan. How you seem to partly condemn humanitarianism gives me the feeling that you are possibly one for condemning humanity itself. Making improvements in our world takes what is called effort. Is that something you are afraid of? Is that also a far-flung concept which you would rashly stick labels on? Never forget that the night is darkest before the day.


My bisexuality stews a rabid fear of all things homosexual. Perfectly logical.

We know what's happening in the wild. Animals are killing each other and raising families and living symbiotically while beating the crap out of each other. Things are destroyed, created, changed. The universe goes on without consideration of concepts of "good" and "evil". It simply exists.

I partially condemn humanitarianism because of its unfounded assumptions on what "progress" is. Personally, I see humanitarianism as the atheist attempt to preserve Christian values. Also, "improvement" doesn't include all people in it.

So much of what Dom said implicated vague relationships and vague concepts. Obviously he's not making a philosophy out of it, but it's pretty hard to follow when he gives it all at once. Not to mention his lines of thought often wander. Nothing wrong with that, my brain simply doesn't process things like his does.



I see. Your bisexuality is an individual trait of yourself deserving respect. As for good and evil, we know that the concept of it was invented by humanity. It's purpose is for humanity and certainly not for animals in the wild. They do, of course, know what is acceptable in their social structures. Humanitarianism should not be used as a tool for anyone but those feeling that mankind is a creature deserving the right to live. Improvement involves those who want to improve.

DomFortress, I feel, has taken a look at things from numerous perspectives and possibly on dimensions we are likely not capable of knowing. He truly sees nature and nurture as being hand in hand with each other and not opposed because of the effort he put into studying this subject. Our nature certainly decides everything we do, including what we nurture and also if we can change by the capacity and decision to do so. Each person has a unique nature that only they can define from their perspective. Nurturing is, as we know, caring and feeding for something. To nurture is a part of basic nature, and for every nature, there is the choice made as to what that nature prefers to feed. If there was no nurture, everything living would never have existed in the first place. I'd say he made his point well.
Posted 11/28/09 , edited 11/28/09

Dajjal_AD wrote:

Such a rousing topic! Our nature and nurture are at the top of what makes us tick. It's everything! How else do you define humans but acutely different from everything else and each other? I went over every word said here by everyone, especially NovembersDoom, and noticed much brilliance, firsthand. We are definitely not the only ones who may be so concerned with our nature and nurture. Think of what may lie beyond our fair solar system. Extraterrestrials no doubt would have their views of nature and nurture. They could teach much if we don't have problems upon a ''first contact'', though it seems we have been acquainted before. Roswell maybe/hopefully.

The animal inside us all is something we shouldn't ignore and suppress. The reasoning part of us should know when to unleash that animal. Weakness is bred in humanity when the all-wise beast is pent up and dies of suffocation.

I hope I've said something applicable in this debate.

I think it all comes down to what impression our individual beasts can make, and as long as we are making an impression, make it a good one. However, just what constitute as being "good" can be limited by our age and knowledge. And that's why mankind still need heroes and leaders, when there are those among us not challenging their individual phenotypes.


NovembersDoom wrote:



Precisely. Social Darwinism and Literary Darwinism are quite compatible with humanity when used where they are most effective. I think humans prefer complexity when they become familiarized with it, yet certain aspects of our conduct should be kept simple. People can get pretty dramatic when the complexities in socialization get out-of-hand and chaos takes over. War is a theater where the actors can actually be killed.

Nature and nurture, how else can I put it... maybe with nature we should just comprise everything we really need from nurture into it. Nurture can, in a sense, be set aside if we achieve what I would call ''benevolent nature''. Being kind to other as you would like for yourself. Perhaps that would be purely nurture as nature, but we have to remember and respect that we will all and should still be individuals, just not the sort of individuals who prefer committing large-scale atrocities i.e. Adolph Hitler.

I have really enjoyed this thread thus far.

Whenever I'm reminded of benevolence I think of strength and virtue, the natural goodness of humanity as defined by positive psychology. And I think of nurturing humanitarianism is to empower individuals with various character strengths and virtues. While material wealth or power to rule have no benevolence whatsoever. When I see them as the various causes of war, and not the results of authentic happiness.

And I too have been enjoying the discussion, it's certainty constructive and engaging.


leviathan343 wrote:



...well, that wasn't very coherent. Are you addressing me at all?

That's because I'm an individualist who thinks humanity is a natural progression of nurturing humanitarianism. While I am not a Christian who believes humanitarianism is God's work; something that you obviously thought of otherwise:

leviathan343 wrote:



My bisexuality stews a rabid fear of all things homosexual. Perfectly logical.

We know what's happening in the wild. Animals are killing each other and raising families and living symbiotically while beating the crap out of each other. Things are destroyed, created, changed. The universe goes on without consideration of concepts of "good" and "evil". It simply exists.

I partially condemn humanitarianism because of its unfounded assumptions on what "progress" is. Personally, I see humanitarianism as the atheist attempt to preserve Christian values. Also, "improvement" doesn't include all people in it.

So much of what Dom said implicated vague relationships and vague concepts. Obviously he's not making a philosophy out of it, but it's pretty hard to follow when he gives it all at once. Not to mention his lines of thought often wander. Nothing wrong with that, my brain simply doesn't process things like his does.

Let me be perfectly clear; I am an individualist who believes in individual character strengths and virtues of positive psychology. I am not an atheist who doesn't believe in anything, himself included.
Posted 11/28/09 , edited 11/28/09


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA It seems that he didn't address you. But I have to concur with Dom, all of what he said is quite true. It is hard to follow some of the things he says because they are certainly advanced. His insight into numerous subjects and how he understands them is remarkable. I have learned some things from him and question now what I've always felt before that our nature and nurture struggled against each other like two coiling serpents inside of us. They mostly coincide, but take note that the two come from two different sectors of the brain. Our basic nature is stored in the limbic sector and our thinking takes place in the forebrain, which is comprised of the cerebrum, thalamus, hypothalamus, basal ganglia and hippocampus. When we are observed doing instinctive actions, such as having sex, the level of consciousness decreases since the limbic system is taking over and the forebrain is lowering its level of activity. If we have a very strong control of our minds naturally, we can keep certain things from happening should we not desire them to.
Posted 11/28/09

NovembersDoom wrote:



I see. Your bisexuality is an individual trait of yourself deserving respect. As for good and evil, we know that the concept of it was invented by humanity. It's purpose is for humanity and certainly not for animals in the wild. They do, of course, know what is acceptable in their social structures. Humanitarianism should not be used as a tool for anyone but those feeling that mankind is a creature deserving the right to live. Improvement involves those who want to improve.

DomFortress, I feel, has taken a look at things from numerous perspectives and possibly on dimensions we are likely not capable of knowing. He truly sees nature and nurture as being hand in hand with each other and not opposed because of the effort he put into studying this subject. Our nature certainly decides everything we do, including what we nurture and also if we can change by the capacity and decision to do so. Each person has a unique nature that only they can define from their perspective. Nurturing is, as we know, caring and feeding for something. To nurture is a part of basic nature, and for every nature, there is the choice made as to what that nature prefers to feed. If there was no nurture, everything living would never have existed in the first place. I'd say he made his point well.


Dajjal_AD wrote:



AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA It seems that he didn't address you. But I have to concur with Dom, all of what he said is quite true. It is hard to follow some of the things he says because they are certainly advanced. His insight into numerous subjects and how he understands them is remarkable. I have learned some things from him and question now what I've always felt before that our nature and nurture struggled against each other like two coiling serpents inside of us. They mostly coincide, but take note that the two come from two different sectors of the brain. Our basic nature is stored in the limbic sector and our thinking takes place in the forebrain, which is comprised of the cerebrum, thalamus, hypothalamus, basal ganglia and hippocampus. When we are observed doing instinctive actions, such as having sex, the level of consciousness decreases since the limbic system is taking over and the forebrain is lowering its level of activity. If we have a very strong control of our minds naturally, we can keep certain things from happening should we not desire them to.

This is what I wrote on my Facebook profile under "About Me":

No matter how ground-breaking you would think my ideas were, I simply perceive them as something that got overlooked because well, you overlooked something about me: I don't take on all challenges, but only those that I perceive them as challenging.
The concept of my mental control is but a simple one, however the discipline and effort it requires have no limit.
Posted 11/28/09

Dajjal_AD wrote:



And I certainly hope that for the future we have good leaders to teach and guide those requiring it. I have often challenged myself to change, seeing that since there are so many possible phenotypes. If I had the means to, I could splice my genes with that of a different creature, becoming something entirely different than what I am now, given that one part of a phenotype is physiological traits. Imagine what I would look like then. Interesting. If I had such a phenotype to so avidly and strongly pursue a path towards obtaining such a level of personal knowledge that I could decide how I might change myself in every way, that would prove incredibly useful. As always, change is there to be attained even if your basic nature is not one who readily tries to change since you can eventually be changed by something or someone else. Outside influences are always there potentially to effect something which can possibly be influenced by it.

I find the will to change is as easy as answering my own questions with possibility that leads to opportunity, not solutions for the end to a means.
Posted 11/28/09 , edited 11/28/09
ignore this post
Posted 11/28/09
Okay, nature and nurture are not really at odds with each other as we've gone over here. So now I "wonder" about each person's nature and nurture and the best way to study it given that we are all different. My answer to that is quite naturally; social interaction. If one has the nature to not interact with others like itself, it is cut off from everything truly beneficiary. No forward progress is attainable when the only thing a mind is concerned with is what happens inside it. Such a condition is called introversion. We do best to stay out of our shells.
Posted 11/28/09


Benevolence is hard to come by, anymore. The greatest people of history were those of a truly good nature. They nurtured primarily what helps themselves and others, the best raison d'être anyone can have.
Posted 11/28/09

Dajjal_AD wrote:

Okay, nature and nurture are not really at odds with each other as we've gone over here. So now I "wonder" about each person's nature and nurture and the best way to study it given that we are all different. My answer to that is quite naturally; social interaction. If one has the nature to not interact with others like itself, it is cut off from everything truly beneficiary. No forward progress is attainable when the only thing a mind is concerned with is what happens inside it. Such a condition is called introversion. We do best to stay out of our shells.

Introversion can still be beneficial, when it offers the possibility of contemplation and meditation; a rare opportunity of pure individuality. The difference is that while an individual with antisocial behaviors could be introverted, not all individuals who's good at introversion are antisocial, myself included.

Personally, I find time slows down during my moments of introversion. And when I am in a different timezone than the rest of people, I have more "free time" for my self-discipline.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.