News Don't want your kid learning about the evils of evolution? Move to Missouri

  • Thread starter Thread starter SixNein
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Evolution
Click For Summary
Missouri's Amendment 2 allows students to opt out of academic assignments that conflict with their religious beliefs, raising concerns about educational standards. Critics argue this could lead to a significant gap between the educated and uneducated, as students may refuse to engage with essential subjects like science and history. The amendment's implications suggest a potential division of classes based on religious beliefs, complicating the teaching process. There is apprehension that this trend may foster a theocratic influence in education, undermining critical thinking and scientific understanding. Overall, the amendment poses serious questions about the future of education and societal knowledge.
  • #31
"will this transformation cause an intellectual collapse in the nation?"

SixNein, You raise important issues about the quality of the education our students are getting. My first impression is that your characterization of the problem as a potential “intellectual collapse” is not an exaggeration. Our USA students are lagging behind many other countries in proficiency:

“Fifteen-year-olds in the U.S. ranked 25th among peers from 34 countries on a math test and scored in the middle in science and reading, while China’s Shanghai topped the charts, raising concern that the U.S. isn’t prepared to succeed in the global economy.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-07/teens-in-u-s-rank-25th-on-math-test-trail-in-science-reading.html

At the national level:
“About a third of eighth-graders who took a national science exam in 2011 were proficient, according to results released Thursday, a statistic called "unacceptable" by a teachers association leader.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...cational-progress-science-test_n_1504537.html

And this, dated 11 August 2012:
“In recently released rankings of how states' primary education systems are preparing students for careers in engineering, Massachusetts, Minnesota and New Jersey top the list. Mississippi trails as the worst in the country, following West Virginia and Louisiana.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/state-education-rankings-_n_894528.html

The comment from the first source above, “raising concern that the U.S. isn’t prepared to succeed in the global economy” is especially worrisome to me. How can the United States of America expect to compete in this “globalized” economic system when its students are not adequately prepared in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)? My answer is: The US cannot expect to be a successful international competitor if it continues to graduate unprepared and uneducated citizens.

If I wanted to hire folks for my company I would direct my Human Resources Manager to use that map in the last source above, showing individual state rankings. I would not hire youngsters educated in those “below average” and “far below average” states and conversely, and would give preference to students educated in those states that excelled. This is simply because I want the best educated employees at my firm. Who would want to hire an ignoramus? It is a sad commentary that here in the USA some religious groups prefer to educate their children based on Iron Age myths and fantastic stories of miracles. This not only threatens our country’s competitive chances internationally, but is grossly unfair for those students left ignorant and in the dark. In my opinion, it borders on criminal neglect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
phinds said:
No. Reread post #31

UH ... somebody messed with this thread and the "post #31" that I referenced seems to be gone.
 
  • #33
Bobbywhy said:
If I wanted to hire folks for my company I would direct my Human Resources Manager to use that map in the last source above, showing individual state rankings. I would not hire youngsters educated in those “below average” and “far below average” states

That's foolish.

First, this is a statement about preparation, not about outcomes. This says nothing about an engineer who graduated college despite coming from a far below average state being any worse than one who came from another state.

Second, this is a statement about averages, not about individuals.

Third, despite the fact that there are numbers, this is a subjective score. Why should 8th grade standardized test scores get the same weight as AP Calculus scores? In this index, if you had one state who did poorly in 8th grade and caught up in high school, they still can't wash the taint of poor grades four years ago. Is this what we want the index to do? Maybe, maybe not.

Finally, there is the opposite of the Lake Wobegon Effect here. 12 states are in the three above average categories, and 14 in the two below average categories.
 
  • #34
Bobbywhy said:
"will this transformation cause an intellectual collapse in the nation?"

SixNein, You raise important issues about the quality of the education our students are getting.

I'm just coming from the perspective that the attack on science education has real world consequences. We can't teach kids fairy tails instead of science without risking an intellectual collapse in the nation. Eventually, the generation currently in school graduates, and it takes a place in society and global society.

Our USA students are lagging behind many other countries in proficiency:

The PISA results you cite are the most important. There is a huge skill gap in the global economy and here at home in America.

If your a company, where are you going to go to try and fill that gap? PISA may very well be an important indicator of the future US economy.
 
  • #35
Haborix said:
I don't think we'll make any progress on this topic. If we were to even try we would have to agree on what harassment means.
Use the word coercion instead, it works wonders on kids (and adults for that matter). "Do you want an ice cream?" "Yes!" "Right then sit up here and do your ten times tables" or in other cases "Stop playing with your toys and go to bed or else we won't go to the playground tomorrow".

The reason children don't make decisions for themselves is that in many cases they are not capable of making informed decisions. Because of this we give responsibility for their decisions partly to parents/guardians with oversight from the legal system. The reasoning behind all this is mostly solid but has many grey areas, many under 18s can make informed decisions on a wide variety of topics but aren't allowed and many over 18s can't make informed decisions but are allowed. Because we find it hard to draw a line between the two extremes of definitely can't and definitely can we choose a roughly arbitrary line and say "after this point the person is an adult and is responsible for themselves". This should be an obvious thing and it's interesting that you don't see it that way.

One last point though; the decisions people take inevitably affect others. It's at this point that others have a say on those people's actions. If an anti-intellectual movement is not challenged then there will be a detriment to society at large as a larger portion of people have a lack of education. It might be all well and good to be proud that you live in a country where there is no societal or legal problem with people hiding their kids from the facts about the world until one of those kids is your doctor and he can't treat your antibiotic-resistant infection because he doesn't believe it's possible.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
The public education system is as much about indoctrination as it is about education. I would be OK with just the facts being presented along with differeing viewpoints but that's not how it goes. This isn't even considering the massive behavior problems the kids at public schools have.

Homeschooling or private schools are what I will do with my future children.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
Skrew said:
The public education system is as much about indoctrination as it is about education.
Indoctrination of what?
Skrew said:
I would be OK with just the facts being presented along with differeing viewpoints
Why on Earth would you be OK with that? Why not the facts and the demonstrably rational conclusions based on those facts? Otherwise you'll just end up with scientific theory taught alongside theological evolution, intelligent design, Raëlism, the Omphalos hypothesis etc etc.
 
  • #38
I would like somebody, for once, to demonstrate a correlation between the teaching of creationism, religion, or creation myths of any type (Christian, Native American, Mayan, Inuit, etc...) with a general decline in education excellence.

Private schools (80% of those students attend religious-based schools) outperform public schools in science. How is the exclusive teaching of evolution correlated with academic excellence? Aren't there other much more significant factors that drive the numbers?

Does anyone here really believe that the potential religious opt out in Missouri will result in some schools teaching 'fairy tails' [sic] instead of science?
 
  • #39
  • #40
Evo said:
That has nothing to do with strictly religious schools that don't teach real science, history, etc...

Could you tell me more about these schools? Where are they in the US, how many of them and what are their scores? I think you are all tilting at windmills again...
 
  • #41
chemisttree said:
I would like somebody, for once, to demonstrate a correlation between the teaching of creationism, religion, or creation myths of any type (Christian, Native American, Mayan, Inuit, etc...) with a general decline in education excellence.

Private schools (80% of those students attend religious-based schools) outperform public schools in science. How is the exclusive teaching of evolution correlated with academic excellence? Aren't there other much more significant factors that drive the numbers?

Does anyone here really believe that the potential religious opt out in Missouri will result in some schools teaching 'fairy tails' [sic] instead of science?

Correlation does not imply causation. That is something that I'm sure you have heard on more than one ocassion, and it fits into this situation perfectly.

Sift through your fallacies on your own, because it's late here, and I don't have the patience nor time to point them out to you. If you are confused, I will gladly steer you in the right direction when I can find the time to do so.
 
  • #42
AnTiFreeze3 said:
Correlation does not imply causation. That is something that I'm sure you have heard on more than one ocassion, and it fits into this situation perfectly.

Sift through your fallacies on your own, because it's late here, and I don't have the patience nor time to point them out to you. If you are confused, I will gladly steer you in the right direction when I can find the time to do so.

You took the time to respond to a post to tell me you won't respond in a meaningful way. Typical. Causation? I'm not asking about causation... just correlation. A much easier test to pass, I'm sure you will agree. So, do you think that teaching evolution only vs. evolution plus creationism or any other myth of your choosing has any measurable effect on science scores? Just answer that one question... if you can. Otherwise you sound like you have no clue what you are talking about. I'm open to any information that you may have to support your position but absent any data, information, measurable outcome, etc... your argument has no more weight than any other 'faith'. Show me your numbers. Let's get science involved here!

Fallacies? I only asked questions. The fallacies are your 'creation'.
 
  • #43
chemisttree said:
I would like somebody, for once, to demonstrate a correlation between the teaching of creationism, religion, or creation myths of any type (Christian, Native American, Mayan, Inuit, etc...) with a general decline in education excellence.

Private schools (80% of those students attend religious-based schools) outperform public schools in science. How is the exclusive teaching of evolution correlated with academic excellence? Aren't there other much more significant factors that drive the numbers?

Does anyone here really believe that the potential religious opt out in Missouri will result in some schools teaching 'fairy tails' [sic] instead of science?

The issue is that children, or their parents, will be able to "opt-out" of courses that are against their religious beliefs, which includes more than just a course in evolutionary biology. I don't think it takes much thought to see why this is a bad thing for education.
 
  • #44
chemisttree said:
You took the time to respond to a post to tell me you won't respond in a meaningful way. Typical. Causation? I'm not asking about causation... just correlation. A much easier test to pass, I'm sure you will agree. So, do you think that teaching evolution only vs. evolution plus creationism or any other myth of your choosing has any measurable effect on science scores? Just answer that one question... if you can. Otherwise you sound like you have no clue what you are talking about. I'm open to any information that you may have to support your position but absent any data, information, measurable outcome, etc... your argument has no more weight than any other 'faith'. Show me your numbers. Let's get science involved here!

Fallacies? I only asked questions. The fallacies are your 'creation'.

Since when do science scores have something meaningful to say about the competence in science? Sure, science scores are supposed to gauge the science knowledge. But what things are supposed to do and what things are actually doing are very different things.

You can get decent science scores by just memorizing everything, and many people do get good scores like that. That doesn't imply an understanding of the fundamentals of science. Things like the scientific method are rarely tested.

Schools are now trying to teach that the Loch Ness monster is a proof that the Earth is 6000 years old. You're not going to tell me that this contributes in any way to a good understanding of science. Sure, the science scores may be high, but their understanding of science is still rubbish.
 
  • #45
Dembadon said:
The issue is that children, or their parents, will be able to "opt-out" of courses that are against their religious beliefs, which includes more than just a course in evolutionary biology. I don't think it takes much thought to see why this is a bad thing for education.

Opt out of courses? What are you talking about? The Amish in PA can OPT OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL! Do you have any evidence that anyone other than the Amish in PA opt out of courses in public school based on religious belief?
 
  • #46
chemisttree said:
Opt out of courses? What are you talking about? The Amish in PA can OPT OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL! Do you have any evidence that anyone other than the Amish in PA opt out of courses in public school based on religious belief?

I'm talking about the document that is linked in the OP: lines 21 and 22. I've been sharing my opinions about potential issues should its contents be enforced.

I'm well aware that, in general, students aren't allowed to opt-out of classes due to religious beliefs; discretion is left to the public schools on whether to honor such requests. However, I made no claims about opt-outs in the current system, so I'm not sure why you're asking me for evidence.

Edit: My verb tense in the last sentence of my previous post could be confusing. It should be "I don't think it takes much thought to see why this would be a bad thing for education."
 
Last edited:
  • #47
micromass said:
Since when do science scores have something meaningful to say about the competence in science? Sure, science scores are supposed to gauge the science knowledge. But what things are supposed to do and what things are actually doing are very different things.

What utter nonsense! Test scores mean nothing? What's the point of this discussion then? Perhaps you would declare our US students superior to students in Asia or the EU based on your 'faith' in their abilities? Or would your argue that they are inferior based on your 'faith' in their inability?

You can get decent science scores by just memorizing everything, and many people do get good scores like that. That doesn't imply an understanding of the fundamentals of science. Things like the scientific method are rarely tested.

An indefensible belief on your part. Prove it! Here are some example questions from the NAEP science test. You are saying that students memorize this?

[Schools are now trying to teach that the Loch Ness monster is a proof that the Earth is 6000 years old. You're not going to tell me that this contributes in any way to a good understanding of science.

No, I'm not. I'm still trying to find that reference for myself but unless I buy a book I can't. I've seen it reported much but not discussed much. Still, it doesn't seem to adversely affect science scores from those schools that use the book in question (PACE Biology 1099). Perhaps you have access to some deeper insight than I do about this? I'm all ears.

Sure, the science scores may be high, but their understanding of science is still rubbish.

This is such a ludicrous statement that I have no words to respond. Well, maybe this... what the heck are you talking about? How do you measure 'understanding of science' absent test scores? Again, I'm all ears.
 
  • #48
Dembadon said:
I'm talking about the document that is linked in the OP: lines 21 and 22. I've been sharing my opinions about potential issues should its contents be enforced.

OK then. Here is what the new law states, "...that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs;" How does that allow anyone to opt out of class? Are you saying that a student not being required to "participate in academic assignments" or "educational presentations" means opting out of class?

I'm well aware that, in general, students aren't allowed to opt-out of classes due to religious beliefs; discretion is left to the public schools on whether to honor such requests. However, I made no claims about opt-outs in the current system, so I'm not sure why you're asking me for evidence.

Only because Missouri isn't unique in this aspect. School districts across the country accommodate religious exemptions based on content as well. http://www.fcps.edu/hr/oec/relcal/guidelines.shtml in VA.
If parents ask to have their child excused from specific instructional activities that they feel violate their religious beliefs, teachers and principals should consult with curriculum specialists in the Instructional Services Department (ISD) to determine alternatives. Then the principal and teacher should discuss the proposed alternatives with the parents. Religious accommodations cannot include excusing students completely from courses, testing, or other activities required by state law for graduation. Requests to remove instructional materials or activities from an entire class of students must be presented according to the procedures outlined in Regulation 3009, Challenged Materials.

1.Students may express their religious beliefs in homework, artwork and other oral and written assignments, subject to nondiscriminatory academic standards regarding substance, relevance, and other legitimate pedagogical concerns...
Since learning about 'biological evolution' is a state requirement in VA and school districts allow students to be absent for 'specific instructional activities', I was sure that you would have a litany of examples either in VA or throughout the country of exemptions being either granted or denied and how that led to the downfall or 'salvation' of science education in those cases. Any information here? Or are we tilting at windmills... AGAIN?

Of course in Missouri it isn't clear to me that knowledge of evolution or creationism is a required skill (or faith) for graduation. What I found regarding the Missouri 'Show Me Standards' in Science follows:
In Science, students in Missouri public schools will acquire a solid foundation which includes knowledge of

1. properties and principles of matter and energy
2. properties and principles of force and motion
3. characteristics and interactions of living organisms
4. changes in ecosystems and interactions of organisms with their environments
5. processes (such as plate movement, water cycle, air flow) and interactions of earth’s biosphere, atmosphere, lithosphere and hydrosphere
6. composition and structure of the universe and the motions of the objects within it
7. processes of scientific inquiry (such as formulating and testing hypotheses)
8. impact of science, technology and human activity on resources and the environment
Perhaps evolution or creationism is taught relative to requirement #4 of this list. Who knows? What is known is that private schools in Missouri do no worse than public schools in science education.

Perhaps if we knock over a few windmills things will improve.
 
  • #49
Private versus state education is not a fair comparison unless the effects of selection are accounted for. State schools cannot get rid of clueless or disruptive pupils in the way that selective schools can; they can be expected to have worse results even if all else were equal.

As I recall, faith-based state schools in the UK do get better exam results than non-faith schools. However, a study by the London School of Economics concluded that the difference was entirely due to selection effects (faith schools in the UK can select; other state schools cannot), using postcode as a proxy.

I am afraid I don't have the study at my fingertips and am about to go offline for a few days, so I am only able to present this as an unsupported recollection. Might be interesting to track down if you can, though.
 
  • #50
There are countries in which high school students are taught that biological diversity exists because of god's will and wisdom. They admit that adaptation occurs but only because god created the structures and characteristics that enable different organisms to adapt to their respective environments.

In my third year high school biology textbook, two pages, at the end of the biological diversity chapter, are exclusively made to mention the evils of the theory of evolution. They support their nonsensical writing by the well-known out of context quotes, with religious verses that show the wisdom of god's creation, all in a tearful and conspiracy-themed context that blame the theory for atheism and materialism.

I must tell you that it's not really for the sake of the religion, but for political reasons; to keep young generations think from one social and political perspective. I experienced something that can prove it, but it's not suitable to expand on this here.
 
Last edited:
  • #51
chemisttree said:
I would like somebody, for once, to demonstrate a correlation between the teaching of creationism, religion, or creation myths of any type (Christian, Native American, Mayan, Inuit, etc...) with a general decline in education excellence.

Private schools (80% of those students attend religious-based schools) outperform public schools in science. How is the exclusive teaching of evolution correlated with academic excellence? Aren't there other much more significant factors that drive the numbers?

Does anyone here really believe that the potential religious opt out in Missouri will result in some schools teaching 'fairy tails' [sic] instead of science?

I believe it's a simple matter of logic. If students are taught creationism and not science, they aren't going to be good or knowledgeable of science. Creationism != science.

There are indeed quite a lot of factors that affect the ability to compare public and private education. Public schools nor private schools are homogenous. In addition, the social economic backgrounds of the students isn't homogenous and differs with public vs private. In addition, the parent-student relationship and involvement isn't homogenous. At the end of the day, it's inconclusive. One can find studies showing either way.

For example, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090226093423.htm

The Missouri opt-out means that those who opt out with not be gaining knowledge of science; instead, they will remain ignorant about it.
 
  • #52
CDTOE said:
There are countries in which high school students are taught that biological diversity exists because of god's will and wisdom. They admit that adaptation occurs but only because god created the structures and characteristics that enable different organisms to adapt to their respective environments.

In my third year high school biology textbook, two pages, at the end of the biological diversity chapter, are exclusively made to mention the evils of the theory of evolution. They support their nonsensical writing by the well-known out of context quotes, with religious verses that show the wisdom of god's creation, all in a tearful and conspiracy-themed context that blame the theory for atheism and materialism.

I must tell you that it's not really for the sake of the religion, but for political reasons; to keep young generations think from one social and political perspective. I experienced something that can prove it, but it's not suitable to expand on this here.

In which country do you live?
 
  • #53
Ibix said:
Private versus state education is not a fair comparison unless the effects of selection are accounted for. State schools cannot get rid of clueless or disruptive pupils in the way that selective schools can; they can be expected to have worse results even if all else were equal.

As I recall, faith-based state schools in the UK do get better exam results than non-faith schools. However, a study by the London School of Economics concluded that the difference was entirely due to selection effects (faith schools in the UK can select; other state schools cannot), using postcode as a proxy.

I am afraid I don't have the study at my fingertips and am about to go offline for a few days, so I am only able to present this as an unsupported recollection. Might be interesting to track down if you can, though.

Very interesting! I'll see what I can find but look forward to your input when you have time.
 
  • #54
chemisttree said:
What utter nonsense! Test scores mean nothing? What's the point of this discussion then? Perhaps you would declare our US students superior to students in Asia or the EU based on your 'faith' in their abilities? Or would your argue that they are inferior based on your 'faith' in their inability?
An indefensible belief on your part. Prove it! Here are some example questions from the NAEP science test. You are saying that students memorize this?
No, I'm not. I'm still trying to find that reference for myself but unless I buy a book I can't. I've seen it reported much but not discussed much. Still, it doesn't seem to adversely affect science scores from those schools that use the book in question (PACE Biology 1099). Perhaps you have access to some deeper insight than I do about this? I'm all ears.
This is such a ludicrous statement that I have no words to respond. Well, maybe this... what the heck are you talking about? How do you measure 'understanding of science' absent test scores? Again, I'm all ears.

Belief in the loch ness monster would be a textbook example of a failure to understand the basic principles of science, especially if you're using it to 'show' that the Earth is so young. The first claim is about a lack of evidence. We can't prove a negative, but that's no reason to accept an unproven positive. But the young Earth myth actually has mountains of evidence against it.

This doesn't have anything to do with memorizing facts, as a test might measure; this is about a way of thinking. Science is not a collection of facts; it's a way of thinking about the world. If you want to think about the world as something you can ignore evidence about, then you can essentially say anything is true. That doesn't get us anywhere, and can be harmful when it comes to policy making.

(credit: paraphrased Carl Sagan in second to last paragraph, last sentence)
 
Last edited:
  • #55
chemisttree said:
Very interesting! I'll see what I can find but look forward to your input when you have time.

I think these are the reports Ibix referenced:

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2007/FaithSchools.aspx

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/cp228.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
chemisttree said:
In which country do you live?

I won't give a direct answer to this, but here's a brief study on this subject which will answer your question, and in addition to this, it gives more insight into this nonsense:

http://harvard.academia.edu/EBurton/Papers/902459/Evolution_Education_in_Muslim_States_Iran_and_Saudi_Arabia_Compared

I would like to add that in this country, when you go to the academic level, this nonsense doesn't exist anymore. Evolution is taught for university students, because most of the textbooks used are from authors in American universities, and to meet the academic standards. However, some professors like to show their personal beliefs by avoiding talking too much about it, or they try to make silly comments about it. Still, there are some professors who do researches that are directly on indirectly related to evolution, but it's still a taboo topic within the general society. Some people like to believe that it's another attempt of westernization and americanization of the local curriculum.
 
Last edited:
  • #57
CDTOE said:
I won't give a direct answer to this, but here's a brief study on this subject which will answer your question, and in addition to this, it gives more insight into this nonsense:

http://harvard.academia.edu/EBurton/Papers/902459/Evolution_Education_in_Muslim_States_Iran_and_Saudi_Arabia_Compared

I would like to add that in this country, when you go to the academic level, this nonsense doesn't exist anymore. Evolution is taught for university students, because most of the textbooks used are from authors in American universities, and to meet the academic standards. However, some professors like to show their personal beliefs by avoiding talking too much about it, or they try to make silly comments about it. Still, there are some professors who do researches that are directly on indirectly related to evolution, but it's still a taboo topic within the general society. Some people like to believe that it's another attempt of westernization and americanization of the local curriculum.

It is much of the same way here even in our public schools.

Many teachers among the 60 percent that kept evolution instruction brief explained that they wanted to avoid confrontation with students and parents who believe in creationism. In many cases, their own evolution knowledge was also limited.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/31/evolution-vs-creationism-_n_815664.html
 
  • #58
CDTOE said:
Some people like to believe that it's another attempt of westernization and americanization of the local curriculum.

That would have been Christian missionaries for the last 100 years...
 
  • #59
CDTOE said:
I must tell you that it's not really for the sake of the religion, but for political reasons; to keep young generations think from one social and political perspective. I experienced something that can prove it, but it's not suitable to expand on this here.

Same on this side of the pond.
 
  • #60
Ok, PLEASE, no more off topic posts! We need to get back on the thread topic.

Chemistree, please furnish the rankings for the religious schools that do not teach mainstream evolution, geology, biology, history, etc.. Nothing else matters. Private schools are NOT the issue here.

It should be obvious that if a subject isn't taught that the student will not be able to get a passing grade on a standardized test unless they have studied the mainstream subject somewhere else.

If you do not have the test rankings I mentioned above, then please stop the nonsense. You have completely derailed this thread with your irrelevant posts. You made a claim, now back it up.

As far as your claim that private schools as a whole are better, here is the study from the Center on Education Policy

The study found that low-income students from urban public high schools generally did as well academically and on long-term indicators as their peers from private high schools, once key family background characteristics were considered. In particular, the study determined that when family background was taken into account, the following findings emerged:

1. Students attending independent private high schools, most types of parochial high
schools, and public high schools of choice performed no better on achievement tests
in math, reading, science, and history than their counterparts in traditional public
high schools.

http://www.edline.com/uploads/pdf/PrivateSchoolsReport.pdf

And no, this is not going to be discussed in this thread because it's not specifically addressing the thread topic.
 

Similar threads

Replies
28
Views
8K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K