My philosophy of life

  • Thread starter Sprinter
  • Start date
  • #36
57
0
I think it is ideology that changes the world the most, such as communism, capitalism and Religion.
Individually, I think I just need to work hard to earn more $ to improve my material life, then I'll be happy.

End here today, to be continued...................................
 
  • #37
Sprinter,
In defence of dgood, what is wrong with communism?
Sure, we know it doesn't work in practice, on a large scale, but having a few people who morally follow the basic idea is good for our society.
 
  • #38
57
0
The idea of communism is theoretically good, but anyway, you need somebody to MANAGE the wealth, the management will have absolute power and because of human's sinful nature, it will deteriorate into Misappropriation/Embezzlement of power and Corruption will prevail. Look at China, though its economy grows very fast (~9% GDP growth/year), but the corruption is too bad, billions dollar was taken by dirty governors. There are still many many poor people in China, they can't keep pace with modernisation in City like Shanghai. Over the year, you read the news about many coal-miners died in accident, so far no significant protection was ensured for their lives.
 
  • #39
203
1
Sprinter said:
If I am starving now, I need 10 dollar to buy food, the meaning of 10 dollar is intrinsically important, it is regardless of my mindset about money.
The meaning is determined by your appreciation of the value it has for obtaining with it what you need. If nobody else has respect for the value of your money it will not afford you a morsal of what you need. Money is not the value, it only represents value. Just try surviving on a diet of $100 bills, or bars of gold for that matter. The meaning of a dollar is not defined on a printing press but by the thought and effort of those which produce the value it represents.
 
  • #40
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,776
5
Why is everybody focusing on money? The poor guy just said he wants material well-being. I doubt he's going to lay around in a pile of cash. He's going to spend the money he earns to buy goods and services that do have real value to him; things like a comfortable house, a nice car, regular vacations, good health coverage, food that both nourishes and tastes good, a top education for his kids. What exactly is the problem with this?

One thing I will say is that material well-being by itself is probably not enough to ensure happiness, except possibly in people that are very asocial by nature. Most of us, however, require working and friendly relationships with others, regular interactions extended over a period of time, with at least a few intimate relationships strewn here and there. So don't ignore that. All this stuff generally won't do you much if you have no one to share it with; that's just the nature of our, and really any social, species.

But hey, don't let any self-appointed expert tell you what does or doesn't make you happy. If it's meditation, then meditate. If it's sky-diving, then sky dive. If it's raking in a big payday at the end of every week, then do that. As Joseph Campbell would say, "follow your bliss." Don't let anyone else judge you on whether or not they think what you're doing is of value.
 
  • #41
57
0
Most of us, however, require working and friendly relationships with others, regular interactions extended over a period of time, with at least a few intimate relationships strewn here and there. So don't ignore that
Friendship is important too, if you have $$$, surely it is easy to get friends!
 
  • #42
347
1
My philosophy? Simple.

No pain, No gain, No brain.
 
  • #43
Lewis
loseyourname said:
Why is everybody focusing on money? The poor guy just said he wants material well-being. I doubt he's going to lay around in a pile of cash. He's going to spend the money he earns to buy goods and services that do have real value to him; things like a comfortable house, a nice car, regular vacations, good health coverage, food that both nourishes and tastes good, a top education for his kids. What exactly is the problem with this?

Where do you suppose the idea that these things will improve oneself comes from? Surely from your thoughts. Your thoughts are a product of your memories, which are to a very large extent not under your control. I can't help but remmember that catchy tune, or that movie I saw last week.

Now, if your thoughts come from memories, and memories are obviously of the past, how are your suppose to do anything new by thinking of how to do it? Perhaps you don't want to do anything new, you would rather live the life laid out by society--that is one of material possesion. However, I see a need in the world for a change. A VERY large portion of the world is starving, dying of preventible diseases and live without access to what they need to survive. Another significant portion live in fear and misery--they want more and are afraid of not getting it. How can we justify living the opulent lives we live while this is the reality we live in? This is not a question about changing society, you have to change yourself first.

I think the major question here is not what makes you happy, but why it does so.
 
  • #44
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,776
5
Lewis said:
Where do you suppose the idea that these things will improve oneself comes from?

Who said anything about improving oneself? He and I just want to be happy. I can't speak for him, but I'd also like to have a happy family.

Perhaps you don't want to do anything new, you would rather live the life laid out by society--that is one of material possesion. However, I see a need in the world for a change.

Good. Then that is what you see yourself needing to do with your life. Go do it, and let the rest of us live our lives. I have no problem with anything you do, so long as you aren't harming anybody, and I guess that's the only difference between you and I. You want people to feel guilty and devote their lives to others. I want people to do whatever it is that does it for them. It isn't the same for you and me, and it isn't the same for the starter of this thread.

A VERY large portion of the world is starving, dying of preventible diseases and live without access to what they need to survive. Another significant portion live in fear and misery--they want more and are afraid of not getting it. How can we justify living the opulent lives we live while this is the reality we live in? This is not a question about changing society, you have to change yourself first.

Damn right it's not a question about changin society, at least not my society. No one in my town is rich, but there is no homelessness or starvation, either, and I don't particularly feel that by going to school and eventually providing for a family, I'm contributing to anybody else's, either. Depriving myself of material well-being isn't going to do any of these starving one damn bit of good. In fact, given the way in which our particular American society has an economy that relies heavily on consumption, it's entirely possible that I might indirectly hurt people by doing so. Frankly, I'm not going to plan for every possible outcome at seven degrees of separation from every one of my actions.

I think the major question here is not what makes you happy, but why it does so.

If you're a psychologist, perhaps. But that certainly wasn't a question raised by the thread. In fact, the gentleman didn't even ask how he should be happy. He said he already knew what would make him happy and simply told us what it is. Not surprisingly, the judgemental masses here at PF come in and tell him his planned life isn't good enough. No, he needs to live the way you want him to live.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
I guess what I was implying was somewhat communistic, although I did forget to mention that I was referring to societies where no money is involved and we'd all have to realize that we need each other more than we need these materials, and in doing so we'd also realize that we could get along a lot better in this way. Take a step out of these prison bars that hold your perception of reality to a standardized limitation of material and monetary well being. Do you understand why we fight large scale wars now? There's nothing to fight over when we're not in competition of material goods. Any large scale war that has threatened or had a major impact on mankind that you could ever name can be tracked back to a cause of money or material goods. We ARE capable of setting up small communities throughout the world that are self servant to the needs of the people which reside inside them. Bam, in an instant wars vanish, poverty vanishes, almost everything we've ever negatively accomplished in the history of mankind will suddenly stop. The perpetrator of these things that I just mentioned is a reflection of the greed that is within the being, which is a direct manifestation of money and material. What we need is survival, or those who can't, will lose the will to live, and in the process lose all respect for the value of life, and this is precisely what we are seeing today. It's not about value or survival of life today, it's about compeition. Every single aspect of life is now about competition and it's going to boil over soon.
 
Last edited:
  • #46
57
0
dgoodpasture2005 said:
we'd all have to realize that we need each other more than we need these materials, and in doing so we'd also realize that we could get along a lot better in this way. T

Any large scale war that has threatened or had a major impact on mankind that you could ever name can be tracked back to a cause of money or material goods. We ARE capable of setting up small communities throughout the world that are self servant to the needs of the people which reside inside them.

, it's about compeition. Every single aspect of life is now about competition and it's going to boil over soon.
Yes, we need each other, we are interdependent.
War of course can cause a lot of troubles to people, but a country without war also may have poverty and social injustice, I think the government's policy plays an improtant role to ensure the lives of the people are good.
What makes you to be able to compete? It is your knowledge, skill etc. We can't live without competition, IMO, natural selection is true, our FATE lies on the fact that how good can we compete to survive.

Again, I still insist that in order to be happy, I must have enough money to fullfil my physiological needs! Money can also buy mental/spiritual happiness? Why not? With money, you can buy songs/books/video etc. that are related to your religion/belief, and get indulged in them to be happy.
Why do people feel they are like working machines and have to wake up early to cramp into commuter to go to work and come back to home with tired bodies? Because they need money! Imagine you hit a jackpot and be able to get rid of your job, you're not only financially free, but also spiritually free!
Therefore, I think money is essential for us to get Freedom of mind and body as well.
 
  • #47
57
0
I beleive, MONEY can buy FREEDOM.
It is GREED for money that causes problems to us, not money itself.
You know, Money can REALISE your Dreams, for example, the Millionaire adventurer Steve Fossett who took on his attempt to become the first person to complete a solo trip around the world in an airplane without making a single stop; why he is able to do so? Because he has money! I may have the same dream, but I am not able to realize it because I have not enough money.

MONEY --------> DREAM + FREEDOM
 
  • #48
105
3
Of course we need money, but it is not the money itself that makes us happy. I agree that it is neccesary and extremely helpful, but it itself is not that which brings joy. It is what you do with money that brings happiness. Money does not buy happiness, it is the books you read, the music you listen to, etc. While money is esential for these things, it is not them. The problem we have is that we know money can bring about things that cause happiness, but many people grow so caught up with the pursuit of money they forget that it is a mere key to open up a gateway. This is a very easy trap to fall into, and it leads to disastrous ends. The pursuit of money under the belief that it can cause happiness is hopeless, becuase happiness is brought by what money can bring. Thus rich people who spend their money in all the wrong ways can be horribly depressed, while relatively poor people who know what is important can use a little amount of money to bring about their happiness. Ultimetly it is not the money that causes happiness, but the ability to use it wisely that brings about joy.
 
  • #49
Sprinter said:
I beleive, MONEY can buy FREEDOM.
It is GREED for money that causes problems to us, not money itself.
You know, Money can REALISE your Dreams, for example, the Millionaire adventurer Steve Fossett who took on his attempt to become the first person to complete a solo trip around the world in an airplane without making a single stop; why he is able to do so? Because he has money! I may have the same dream, but I am not able to realize it because I have not enough money.

MONEY --------> DREAM + FREEDOM

My dream is to live in a world whose residents respect one another, not for the name of their countries, their wealth, or the size of their military... but for the individuals that reside inside this Earth, which should be viewed as one, and not 120+ different individual nations all competing against each other. So my equation would go.

DREAM-----------> NO MONEY + TRUE FREEDOM = FREE OF THE GREEN PAPER SLAVEMASTER. Of course this is just a dream, we're so far into money now, there may be no way to reverse the effects. Difference of opinions. Think about it from two or three different perspectives, not just one, you can't get anywhere that way... you just stay "yourself". You can self educate yourself in philosophy by viewing things from different peoples shoes/perspectives. Once you do, you can choose which shoes fit you best. I guess we have to agree to disagree here. No worries... our lives go on :)
Logically... Like Einstein would say... you can't solve a problem with the same thinking(reasons) that got you there in the first place. If we give everyone money.. it just compounds the problem. The problem is within us. It's our emotions. We'll all figure this out in the near future. I'm not predicting... I'm just using reason and logic. It's easy to see these things. It's all I study. Our emotions ARE independent of money. Try it. Smile when you're crying, get mad while you're happy. You're in full control of everything.
 
Last edited:
  • #50
Good on you, sprinter!
The modern method of controlling a child's greed is to temper it with guilt. This makes sense before the child is old enough to develop a proper understanding of value and consequence, but it seems to give people the idea that there is something automatically bad about wanting money.

Money gives security. Money makes you an asset (through taxes) to your country. Money gives you the power to help others. And money does help some people enjoy life.

Money isn't for everyone, but it's good to hear from someone who has identified that money will make his/her life easier and isn't irrationally ashamed to go for it.
 
  • #51
dgood,
Good for you, too! I find it refreshing to see people identify their own value system and go for it. But I don't understand why you and sprinter are arguing... you have identified what I think are two of the most important aspects of happiness (material security and community harmony).
These are not mutually exclusive. Where's the argument?
 
  • #52
57
0
Someone does think money is evil and shouldn't be an object of pursuit.
I agree that it is those things we possess that make us happy, anyway, when having money, you are automatically triggered to happiness.
 
  • #53
I didn't think we were arguing :) I said we can agree to disagree. Otherwise I think we'd be arguing. I gladly accept when I am wrong or when someone I am debating with has made a good point. How else can we get anywhere? I was just making my point and case, see what he thought of it, and let him know what I thought of his... in the meantime maybe we both learned something from it. It's all in how you go about it. Something can be learned from everything if you have an open mind to anything.

But I think, of course, in todays day and age that we DO have to persue money. I just don't think it buys us happiness. Possibly, it can buy the individual a brief moment of happiness, yet there is a bigger picture here. We're all on a planet and we cannot escape each other. I think we should learn how to take care of each other, and solve OUR problems first before we start putting gold and diamonds in our mouth. You know? People see and hear about that in a country where they are eating their own fecies just to stay alive.. and it drives them to kill. We've gotta value life, all life. Unfortunately, materials are at the top of the pedestal for the majority of humans now days. I think we've gotta start over and view the whole human race as one individual, then we can have a clear perspective on what it is that needs to be taken care of in our lives, otherwise we've got 6.5 billion Earths of their own running around trying to solve their own problems, when they could do that by solving all of their problems together as one. What's easier? One trying to solve the problems of 6.5 billion, or 6.5 billion trying to solve the probems of one? Some tell me I am much too far fetched... I tell them to give it a try first. Their current models don't seem to be working.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
57
0
We tend to be selfish and greedy, this is the problem of human beings since long time ago.
 
  • #55
dgood,
People don't fight over money or goods (unless they're starving, of course). People fight due to an inherent need for conflict. If we did as you suggest and broke the world up into small self-sustaining communities, you would of course stop large-scale war, but it won't be long before people become attached to their community as their "people" (like many of us do today with our countries); after all, their community is all they need. Then our inherent need for conflict would resurface eventually and we'd have tribal warfare.
Not that I'm dissing the suggestion. I love the idea, and you're right, it would most likely reduce things such as starvation, but it wouldn't stop things that we as a species have a need for.
 
  • #56
57
0
Friends, there is no Utopia, Natural Selection is always ruling, let's accept the fact!
 
  • #57
There would be no need to fight... all the communities would help each other as well. There's no form of money, and no form of governmental power. The only thing that may be needed would be a small police like force for each town.... if even that... imagine what happens to crime when there is no money and everyone is self sufficient... :) why war? Even technology and energy are free. The only type of government I would suggest is a scientific government... the best minds in the world working towards curing all diseases with no biudget of course, and working on anything and everything in space exploration and new technology... and all the findings would be made known to the public.. along with the current research.
 
Last edited:
  • #58
388
0
I think i want to learn, the f-word and make alot of money.
 
  • #59
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
20,468
4,389
clouded.perception said:
People fight due to an inherent need for conflict. If we did as you suggest and broke the world up into small self-sustaining communities, you would of course stop large-scale war, but it won't be long before people become attached to their community as their "people" (like many of us do today with our countries); after all, their community is all they need. Then our inherent need for conflict would resurface eventually and we'd have tribal warfare.
The 'need' for conflict is an interesting idea. Apparently some people do, e.g. bullies, for whatever reason.

I however would prefer to do without conflict. I would rather spend my time watching and enjoying Nature, and solving problems and contemplating the mysteries of the Universe.

As for small communities, look at the Amish or Quakers. I believe they work quite successfully without a police force.
 
  • #60
105
3
I'm not sure it's a need for conflict so much as the inability for everyone to escape conflict. As Astronuc pointed out there are groups that can live peacebly without need of anyone to enforce the peace. Not everyone is compelled towards conflict, and I'd probably say that most people would prefer to be without any conflict. Unfortunatly there are some who seek out conflict for various reasons, and those few force conflict on everyone else.
 
  • #61
Everyone seems to be (assuming I don't have the wrong end of the stick) looking at conflict as a bad thing.
Human beings, as with all social mammals, have an inherent comparative ranking system. We call it 'respect'; the more respect, the higher the ranking, the more power. The only way to compare people is through some kind of conflict, even if it is one that takes place entirely in your head (as some do, but most don't).
War is simply conflict on a very large scale. People can't escape conflict and very few people want to escape it entirely (although of course most people don't like bullying, violence, etc.). It is an inherent part of our natures. Competition, for instance, is controlled conflict, and we often do it for fun, or to test our skills relative to others (such as sport).
Let's say we have 'good' conflict (organised, fun competition) and 'bad' conflict (bullying, unnecessary violence). Obviously, a world without good conflict is inconcievable, but we mostly want to stay away from bad conflict. However, accepting that a need for conflict is an inescapable part of us, and accepting that people are often defensive of their own families, or morals, or societies, etc. (anything "them"), we can see that it is very easy for good conflict to escalate into bad conflict. Remember that some people thrive on the things that I have defined as 'bad' conflict (to them it's good of course), and the best way to stop them is to meet them on their level.
Basically: there will always be someone ready to escalate our need for conflict into something dangerous.
Permanent end to war is impossible because it goes against our nature.
 
  • #62
I agree with most of what you say.... but, permanent end to war is impossible and part of your nature only because you accept it to be that way... simple as that. Your nature is whatever you make it. You're no longer an animal run by survival instincts, we are totally capable of going higher than that. We can control our thoughts, our actions and our "nature". What you bring into acceptance... will manifest.
 
Last edited:
  • #63
If we accept to deny violence, poverty, selfishness and war as a part of our nature, we will manifest into a peaceful global society. The action is simple ; Anything that we bring into acceptance will manifest. What do you accept as a part of human nature? Is it death, destruction and violence? Then so be it, we will continue to war and suffer. Or is it peace, care, love and giving. Then so be it, our world will change. What do you wish to manifest? Accept it.

Change comes from within every single individual, including myself. What do you wish the future of this world to look like? Start the change today, accept the good, deny the bad. We are a species of manifestation, not a controlled heirarchy of manipulation. Please, wake up.
 
Last edited:
  • #64
105
3
dgoodpasture2005 said:
If we accept to deny violence, poverty, selfishness and war as a part of our nature, we will manifest into a peaceful global society. The action is simple ; Anything that we bring into acceptance will manifest. What do you accept as a part of human nature? Is it death, destruction and violence? Then so be it, we will continue to war and suffer. Or is it peace, care, love and giving. Then so be it, our world will change. What do you wish to manifest? Accept it.

Change comes from within every single individual, including myself. What do you wish the future of this world to look like? Start the change today, accept the good, deny the bad. We are a species of manifestation, not a controlled heirarchy of manipulation. Please, wake up.
That's all well and good when it comes to individuals, but how far will a peace loving attitude last in a violent world. Now, don't get me wrong, I mean no slur to pacifists or whatever your personal beliefs are. I wish violence and pain to no person, but how can you convince other people of that? In a world of confusion and freedom, how can there be anything but pain and suffering? What motivation is there to follow the path of peace and justice, other then altruism? Unless everyone is inherently good, which rests on a metaphysical concept of good and evil, this utopian world of peace can never be realized. In the material world of flesh and blood there is no good and evil, there is only comfort. Good and evil can only be applied as an abstract concept with no motivation to believe it. It then stands to reason that there will be people who take this notion of peace, give it serious thought, but then say, "screw it, I want what you have, no give it to me or I'll kill you". What do you do then, but be prepared to fight back. We must be vigilant against threats and dangers, and not turn a blind eye and hope they won't be there.
 
  • #65
Lead by example. There's no better example in life... than leading by example itself. I understand what you are saying, and how you could be a bit baffled at the prospect of my view. I've been bringing about change in many people myself. Even those who wish to do me harm. Simply by not doing harm back... not giving in to the emotion of the moments actions... and taking over your otherwise instinctual reactions. Mental and physical self control. If we can all start to do this and not give up on the goal, others will come around. That's all I can ask for... none of us can force change in a forceful way, yet we can give everyone a little nudge in the butt. If someone punches you, and you punch them back... a fight breaks out. If someone punches you, and you ask them why... maybe you'll come to an understanding of what it is that drives their negative energies and actions... in doing so you might also wake them up to the good of the world. Some people just never experience that kind of interest or care being given to them. It can't be any other way... if we want change.. it must come from within... we aren't controlled... we are the controllers. Think of it like a hydraulic engine(this may be hard for you to udnerstand.. I'm not very good with engines.. but this is what I see in my head when I visualize good and bad in this world) so when the piston shoots up on one side, the other side is filled with water, and the side where the piston shot up, all the water is pushed out of. Let's say that the water is the people... and the right side is the bad of the world... while the left side is the good of world. Right now the left sides influence is pretty low. The right side needs to be pushed all the way up.. so that the left(good is full...) it's like a teeter totter... we're in a constant battle for peace... but none of us realize it(or the one's that do, don't do anything about it). Let's all sit on the good side and flip the bad out of here. Sorry... that first analogy with the engines was horrible.. but I'll leave it up here for your personal entertainment lol.
 
Last edited:
  • #66
Dawguard said:
That's all well and good when it comes to individuals, but how far will a peace loving attitude last in a violent world.

This seems to be the biggest misunderstanding in the world today. The WORLD is made up of INDIVIDUALS. A violent WORLD means we have too many violent INDIVIDUALS. You ARE the world. You ARE both the whole and the peice. You are as ONE together, but also as one individual in 6.5 billion. We are all connected and we all have influence, regardless of linguistics or religions. Like a landslide... if you can get enough individuals to become good, the rest of the world will fall down that same path. Or it can go towards the bad... it's our choice. Right now we seem to be stagnant and somewhere in the middle... with a sense of bad beginning to win out.
 
Last edited:
  • #67
105
3
dgoodpasture2005 said:
This seems to be the biggest misunderstanding in the world today. The WORLD is made up of INDIVIDUALS. A violent WORLD means we have too many violent INDIVIDUALS. You ARE the world. You ARE both the whole and the peice. You are as ONE together, but also as one individual in 6.5 billion. We are all connected and we all have influence, regardless of linguistics or religions. Like a landslide... if you can get enough individuals to become good, the rest of the world will fall down that same path. Or it can go towards the bad... it's our choice. Right now we seem to be stagnant and somewhere in the middle... with a sense of bad beginning to win out.
I understand what you mean, but I think it is overly optimistic. The problem with this worldview is the way it is applied to crime and punishment, and intercountry relationships. Example, a murderer is on trial. He has admitted his guilt, and according to your philosophy then we should give him the lightest sentence possible, in an effort to turn the other cheek and spread good. Well, the ideal is fine and good, but someone else will see this and realize that they don't have much to fear, and they will be more likely to kill someone. They won't come away with the idea of good that you gave an example of, they will come away with less inhibition to do evil.
However, on a personal note, I think you are right, at least to a degree. Violence should always be a last resort, but you should always be prepared to use it. Not all evil can be understood or tolerated. Not all evil will follow an example of good. Sometimes there is only one way to defend ourselves, and we must always be prepared to use that way, the way of violence.

Now, I'm not advocating violence. I hope that all conflicts can be resolved peacefully and without violence. I hope that we can always reason and understand each other, but it is, in my opinion, naive to think that everyone can become good by example. It is never a good idea to turn a blind eye to problems in the hope they will go away, or to ignore evil in the hope it will see you and become good.
 
Last edited:
  • #68
Dawguard said:
I understand what you mean, but I think it is overly optimistic. The problem with this worldview is the way it is applied to crime and punishment, and intercountry relationships. Example, a murderer is on trial. He has admitted his guilt, and according to your philosophy then we should give him the lightest sentence possible, in an effort to turn the other cheek and spread good. Well, the ideal is fine and good, but someone else will see this and realize that they don't have much to fear, and they will be more likely to kill someone. They won't come away with the idea of good that you gave an example of, they will come away with less inhibition to do evil.
However, on a personal note, I think you are right, at least to a degree. Violence should always be a last resort, but you should always be prepared to use it. Not all evil can be understood or tolerated. Not all evil will follow an example of good. Sometimes there is only one way to defend ourselves, and we must always be prepared to use that way, the way of violence.

Now, I'm not advocating violence. I hope that all conflicts can be resolved peacefully and without violence. I hope that we can always reason and understand each other, but it is, in my opinion, naive to think that everyone can become good by example. It is never a good idea to turn a blind eye to problems in the hope they will go away, or to ignore evil in the hope it will see you and become good.

No, according to my philosophy that is NOT the case... I said to understand them and help them... not just dismiss them on a short sentence and let them back out. When we come to understandings we solve problems, not only on a small scale but also on a large scale. We can make change happen by example and by changing our current roles. There is no other way... we cannot escape this planet(that I'm aware of at this moment). I agree with the rest of what you stated... we should always be prepared for a last resort. If this conversation is coming to an end, thank you for the input, you gave me some new ideas and helped me learn a bit more. Take it easy Dawgaurd ;) Rumble on.
 

Related Threads on My philosophy of life

  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
43
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
128
Views
12K
H
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
1K
Top