The rights to be harmonious

  • News
  • Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date
  • #1
3,077
4
Can human rights in general be mutually compatible?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
russ_watters
Mentor
20,573
7,234
Is that a complete sentence? It certainly isn't a complete thought. Please provide a real OP as per the PF guidelines otherwise this thread will be locked.
 
  • #3
Can human rights be mutually compatible when applied to all people?... I doubt it... they don't really exist you know? If not that, then like Russ I'm stumped as to what you're asking or saying.
 
  • #4
3,077
4
Is it possible that human rights for some (the right to food, for instance) ever be fulfilled without interference to the human rights of others (the right to medical care, for instance) - that is, despite lack of resources? Even advanced nations have enough difficulty defending their own constitutions. Are human rights realized through money, will, law or other means?
 
  • #5
This strikes me as something for the Philosophy forum, not politics and world affairs.
 
  • #6
Jasongreat
Is it possible that human rights for some (the right to food, for instance) ever be fulfilled without interference to the human rights of others (the right to medical care, for instance) - that is, despite lack of resources? Even advanced nations have enough difficulty defending their own constitutions. Are human rights realized through money, will, law or other means?


Not as long as people think they have a right to something someone else produced, like food or medical care. If people only exercised true rights, like the right to be free to procure their own food, or the right to their own labor so they can pay for medical care, yes they can, imo.
 
  • #7
Al68
Is it possible that human rights for some (the right to food, for instance) ever be fulfilled without interference to the human rights of others (the right to medical care, for instance) - that is, despite lack of resources?
No. The only kind of rights that can be mutually compatible are natural rights, since their existence doesn't depend on the servitude of others.
 
  • #8
FlexGunship
Gold Member
369
8
Can human rights be mutually compatible when applied to all people?... I doubt it... they don't really exist you know? If not that, then like Russ I'm stumped as to what you're asking or saying.

Meh, take it as a simple question with the most far-reaching possibilities. Since human physiology is not significantly different from region to region we would expect that the same types of stimuli cause similar reactions.

People prefer to be fed than starved. People prefer to be able to speak than to be silenced. People prefer to have fun, listen to music, and share ideas! People generally do not enjoy being beaten, abused, or killed.

In a grand sense, yes! There really is no reason for human rights to be fundamentally incompatible with each other.
 
  • #9
Meh, take it as a simple question with the most far-reaching possibilities. Since human physiology is not significantly different from region to region we would expect that the same types of stimuli cause similar reactions.

People prefer to be fed than starved. People prefer to be able to speak than to be silenced. People prefer to have fun, listen to music, and share ideas! People generally do not enjoy being beaten, abused, or killed.

In a grand sense, yes! There really is no reason for human rights to be fundamentally incompatible with each other.

Everyone is free to define anything as a right... who decides which is a right? You immediately run into problems the moment you try to do anything in this model. You can feed everyone, but do you have good surgeons for them? Good teachers? A safe environment? Who gets to live in which spot?

The moment conflict emerges, and is solved, you're just back at 'go'.
 
  • #10
FlexGunship
Gold Member
369
8
Everyone is free to define anything as a right... who decides which is a right? You immediately run into problems the moment you try to do anything in this model. You can feed everyone, but do you have good surgeons for them? Good teachers? A safe environment? Who gets to live in which spot?

The moment conflict emerges, and is solved, you're just back at 'go'.

Well, let's not speak in terms of "rights." The word has too many connotations. Let's rephrase the question a little more clearly:

"Is it possible to invent a social construct which maximizes well-being in individuals?"​

I would instantly argue that "well-being" isn't as subjective as it used to be. If someone can't tell you if they're happy, then throw them in an MRI; you can figure it out pretty easily.

Imagine a huge multi-dimensional topology where each axis is a different input variable. For example, one input could be "women beaten" with a range from never beaten to constantly beaten with some conditional nuance to the other values (i.e. only beaten if disrespectful to a man).

Yes, the topology would be varied and the peaks and valleys may show no discernible pattern, but no one could claim "there is nothing to be said here." You could then use the strongest contributing variables to form the "rights" of humans. For example, the "right to continue to live." This would seem to be a deciding factor in our topology of human well-being; so let's make it a human right.
 
  • #11
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
Is it possible that human rights for some (the right to food, for instance) ever be fulfilled without interference to the human rights of others (the right to medical care, for instance) - that is, despite lack of resources? Even advanced nations have enough difficulty defending their own constitutions. Are human rights realized through money, will, law or other means?
I think the American Declaration of Independence is the best first stop for a reference on the topic. The rights enumerated there - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness - are mutually compatible with the same rights held by others. They are realized by the mere fact of being human, that is, granted by the creator, not by human law or government dictate. As soon as one expands the notion of 'rights' to something that must be granted in part by other people - food, housing, vacation at the beach - then immediately those rights necessarily i) become incompatible as my clamoring for you to make my food conflicts with your right to vacation, ii) require a third party institution to be stood up (typically governmental) compelling A to fulfill the rights of B, but at any time that institution can at any later time deny they exist and take them away.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
FlexGunship
Gold Member
369
8
As soon as one expands the notion of 'rights' to something that must be granted in part by other people - food, housing, vacation at the beach - then immediately those rights i) necessarily become incompatible as my clamoring for you to make my food conflicts with your right to vacation and ii) whatever third party institution is stood up (typically government) to execute those expanded rights can also later decide to deny they exist and take them away.

Wow, what a great distinction!! I disagree with the reference to a creator, so I'll see if I can simplify your distinction.

Rights must be implicit in the existence of the individual and can never guarantee action or material.

You cannot say someone has the "right to food" since it isn't implicit in the person's existence. However the "right to free thought" is! The "right not to be hidden in a cloth bag" is another good one.
 
  • #13
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
Wow, what a great distinction!! I disagree with the reference to a creator,
Heh, ok, apparently so does the US President, as he is known to drop that term when quoting the American Declaration.

so I'll see if I can simplify your distinction.

Rights must be implicit in the existence of the individual and can never guarantee action or material.

You cannot say someone has the "right to food" since it isn't implicit in the person's existence. However the "right to free thought" is! The "right not to be hidden in a cloth bag" is another good one.
Yes I agree that construction also provides a compatible set of rights when shared equally among individuals. But I have a problem with it, and this a digression from the OP so it need not go further; your construction alone doesn't get to why those rights obtain to the individual. History is well populated with examples showing that, given the chance and self-indulgence, person A will claim person B has no intrinsic rights whatsoever, that B exists only to serve A.
 
  • #14
FlexGunship
Gold Member
369
8
Yes I agree that construction also provides a compatible set of rights when shared equally among individuals. But I have a problem with it, and this a digression from the OP so it need not go further; your construction alone doesn't get to why those rights obtain to the individual. History is well populated with examples showing that, given the chance and self-indulgence, person A will claim person B has no intrinsic rights whatsoever, that B exists only to serve A.

That's an ugly trap you're setting. The argument should be that these rights are implicit. Not that we need to rely on some external source to validate them. It's actually kind of a sickening idea that we need permission (either from a real entity or fictional) to endow ourselves with rights.

I'm afraid we don't see eye-to-eye on this point at all.
 
  • #15
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
That's an ugly trap you're setting. The argument should be that these rights are implicit. Not that we need to rely on some external source to validate them. It's actually kind of a sickening idea that we need permission (either from a real entity or fictional) to endow ourselves with rights.

I'm afraid we don't see eye-to-eye on this point at all.
As I thought we might, that is why in my second post I dropped discussion of my personal motivation (which was also the US Declaration's), but asked you to explain your reason 'why'. We've had hundreds of generations of human civilization all the way to King George (and beyond) wherein it was common to believe individuals had no rights whatsoever without the blessing of an anointed few. So again, when you say the rights "should be ... implicit", why?
 
  • #16
FlexGunship
Gold Member
369
8
As I thought we might, that is why in my second post I dropped discussion of my personal motivation (which was also the US Declaration's), but asked you to explain your reason 'why'. We've had hundreds of generations of human civilization all the way to King George (and beyond) wherein it was common to believe individuals had no rights whatsoever without the blessing of an anointed few. So again, when you say the rights "should be ... implicit", why?

Well, I think you're trying to define the axiom with the resultant proof. We're starting with the idea that we should have rights and moving from there to "which rights" and "who should have them?" If we're going to grant the existence of personal rights, then I don't think they should be contingent on something external. Specifically something (a belief) that 1) might not be shared by all, 2) could be considered "transient" or "malleable", or worse, 3) be the basis for faction fighting.

"Why should rights be implicit?" Because any other foundation can't provide the requisite stability.
 
  • #17
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
Well, I think you're trying to define the axiom with the resultant proof. We're starting with the idea that we should have rights and moving from there to "which rights" and "who should have them?" If we're going to grant the existence of personal rights, then I don't think they should be contingent on something external. Specifically something (a belief) that 1) might not be shared by all, 2) could be considered "transient" or "malleable", or worse, 3) be the basis for faction fighting.
Well in my view rights are bestowed eternally to all, whether they agree with my philosophy or not. But as you say lets drop this line on my view.

"Why should rights be implicit?" Because any other foundation can't provide the requisite stability.
Couple problems there. First, on stability the historical evidence is of course the opposite, that empires like the Roman's existed for centuries, for a good part of it with the most stability seen in Europe before or since. And I do include today. A Roman citizen during http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana" [Broken] could walk from one end of the continent to the other in near absolute certainty that they would not be robbed or molested in any way. Most Europeans - West Asians of that era assumed no implicit rights; they assumed that all the world was ruled by Ceasar, that's the way it nearly always had been and always would be. Second, if you say that a modern day Roman dictatorship would be unstable because people would insist on their rights to life, liberty, pursuit ..., then you are begging the question, simply asserting the initial point again that rights should be implicit, therefore they are. So again, why should rights be implicit?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
FlexGunship
Gold Member
369
8
Second, if you say that a modern day Roman dictatorship would be unstable because people would insist on their rights to life, liberty, pursuit ..., then you are begging the question, simply asserting the initial point again that rights should be implicit, therefore they are.
That seems to be more the purview of enforcement, not deciding whether or not a universal set of human rights could (or does) exist.

So again, why should rights be implicit?
Because contingency guarantees exceptions.
 
  • #19
That seems to be more the purview of enforcement, not deciding whether or not a universal set of human rights could (or does) exist.


Because contingency guarantees exceptions.

re bold: Amen.

I agree that the Roman example is one of the structure which supports and administers the business end of those rights, not a problem with the structure of rights themselves. I also agree that no rights exist, but that we can work to some from 'the golden rule' and foresight.

I don't agree that they're implicit in the human condition however, anymore than a hydrogen cloud has rights. Even if mheslep's personal view is correct, there's an eternal force to care for matters except for this brief period we call life, and the source is something. Flex, you and I seem to agree that rights are constructions, and simply the best we can manage, not an implicit function of being a person.
 
  • #20
FlexGunship
Gold Member
369
8
Flex, you and I seem to agree that rights are constructions, and simply the best we can manage, not an implicit function of being a person.

The question was "why should rights be implicit?"

I'm not attempting to frame the list of rights, or argue for a specific implementation, and I can't tell you how to enforce them!

But if you want universal rights, they can't be "based" on some set of conditions. They certainly can't be on loan from an arguably-existent deity. And they definitely can't rely on cultural and social structures for security.

If you want "harmonious" (to use the OP's word) human rights, then the only pre-condition that they apply to you must be that you are vaguely a member of homo sapiens. I'm sorry, but leasing them from the god du jour isn't sufficient. All it takes is someone who doesn't ascribe to your ideology to make these rights non-universal.
 
  • #21
The question was "why should rights be implicit?"

I'm not attempting to frame the list of rights, or argue for a specific implementation, and I can't tell you how to enforce them!

But if you want universal rights, they can't be "based" on some set of conditions. They certainly can't be on loan from an arguably-existent deity. And they definitely can't rely on cultural and social structures for security.

If you want "harmonious" (to use the OP's word) human rights, then the only pre-condition that they apply to you must be that you are vaguely a member of homo sapiens. I'm sorry, but leasing them from the god du jour isn't sufficient. All it takes is someone who doesn't ascribe to your ideology to make these rights non-universal.

Hmmm, it almost sounds as though you just summed up human history in that last paragraph. Oh wait, you did!... which is depressing, but true. I agree; if we can't formulate our own rights, then how can we expect to make them universal of all things?
 
  • #22
FlexGunship
Gold Member
369
8
Hmmm, it almost sounds as though you just summed up human history in that last paragraph. Oh wait, you did!... which is depressing, but true. I agree; if we can't formulate our own rights, then how can we expect to make them universal of all things?

This is where one of my earlier posts comes in. There seems to be only one set of universal rules. We don't know all of the rules, and some of the details seem hazy, but for the first time in human history we are really starting to understand our factual existence.

Science (specifically neuroscience) can finally answer some questions about which fundamental rights lead to the happiest, healthiest, most vibrantly creative and constructive society!!

Does storing women in cloth bags encourage a healthy existence?
Do people flourish under the dictate of lex talionis or the Native American "blood law"?
Does repressing criticism of ruling parties help hold the society together on the individual level?
Can a healthy society be formed in which ritual suicide is an integral part?
What about a culture in which the desire to seek out love and affection is frowned upon?

These aren't rhetorical questions. The answers are knowable! And I can't possibly imagine that every one of them will tell us about "human rights" (they are more likely to describe laws, rules, or regulations)... but we have an absolute starting point. No more guessing.

Please try to find the nuance in my argument.

EDIT: Perhaps we will truly find out that women have happier existences when they are encouraged to simply cook and clean and raise children. I'm saying this specifically because it's such a controversial (wrong?) thing to say! But perhaps the "right to be a homemaker" is implicit in our existence as a product of evolution because our society (as individuals and as a whole) is happier, healthier, and more productive this way.

AGAIN!!!! I'm not actually suggesting that's true.
 
  • #23
This is where one of my earlier posts comes in. There seems to be only one set of universal rules. We don't know all of the rules, and some of the details seem hazy, but for the first time in human history we are really starting to understand our factual existence.

I believe this too, but I have to be realistic: when haven't people believed this? I would add that universal physical laws ARE, whether or not either of us believes in them, or agrees about them; the same cannot be said of the outcome of human rights. One is absolute, and the other is situational depending on the necessities of the time. Not eating shellfish and pork is situationally wise even now, but I don't believe it's a divine mandate, and the fact that later generations focus on such things as a virtue in and of themselves can lead to repression of self and oppression of others. Women in sacks, lex talionis/vendetta, blood feud, blood law, Rache, Vergeltung... so many words, but they existed for a reason. Women in sacks I'm not touching because I find it too annoying.

Vendetta is a very interesting concept that can be traced back to the Code of Hammurabi, where there's little indication that it was a new concept. When a nation-state isn't capable of settling conflicts of certain types by mandate or direct action, systematic feud is preferable to spiraling conflict.

Wikipedia said:
Various ideas regarding the origins of lex talionis exist, but a common one is that it developed as early civilizations grew and a less well-established system for retribution of wrongs, feuds and vendettas, threatened the social fabric. Despite having been replaced with newer modes of legal theory, lex talionis systems served a critical purpose in the development of social systems — the establishment of a body whose purpose was to enact the retaliation and ensure that this was the only punishment. This body was the state in one of its earliest forms.

The principle is found in Babylonian Law (see Code of Hammurabi) (1780 BCE).[1] It is surmised that in societies not bound by the rule of law, if a person was hurt, then the injured person (or their relative) would take vengeful retribution on the person who caused the injury. The retribution might be much worse than the crime, perhaps even death. Babylonian law put a limit on such actions, restricting the retribution to be no worse than the crime, as long as victim and offender occupied the same status in society, while punishments were less proportional with disputes between social strata: like blasphemy or laesa maiestatis (against a god, viz., monarch, even today in certain societies), crimes against one's social better were systematically punished as worse.

Roman law moved toward monetary compensation as a substitute for vengeance. In cases of assault, fixed penalties were set for various injuries, although talio was still permitted if one person broke another's limb.[2]

This has to be understood in the context of a society, but when a nation-state CAN effectively rule and settle disputes, lex talionis should obviously be abolished... if only people had "on off" switches for feuds. That doesn't mean that it wasn't central to the formation of organized civilizations, with the further act of transition to a weregild system (monetary or LTL punitive) obviously taking time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weregild

Science (specifically neuroscience) can finally answer some questions about which fundamental rights lead to the happiest, healthiest, most vibrantly creative and constructive society!!

You're correct, and it's also showing us that people who act irrationally and criminally don't always (or often) have what we'd consider a healthy brain or psyche. Of course there are people still wedded to vendetta, and people still wedded to weregild (in the form of prison usually) with a constant push to roll back to "better days". :rolleyes: Anyway, you see the social issue... your outrage is probably much the same as that felt by those early Mesopotamians, "Why can't people stop killing entire families or villages, and make even exchange of life for life?"

I personally believe as you do, that we have objective ways of rapidly measuring the 'temperature' now and adjusting our rights to match. UNFORTUNATELY, that seems to be used sometimes to make great advances (civil rights!), but also to champion retreats to barbarism, (everything else ha... ha). I think you should recognize that many parts of the world ARE doing exactly what you describe (apeiron can cite some great examples, such as Finland), but that this is a ragged front. In a world were some people live in failed states and suffer under worse than vendetta, and others are essentially living in what I consider to be enlightened social experiments... we're not going to see even a uniform PERCEPTION of what is a right. In other words, you have a lifetime's work ahead, and that's just a speck.

Does storing women in cloth bags encourage a healthy existence?
The justification often boils down to protecting women, but in practice I haven't seen the evidence that this ever conferred a real benefit. In practice it seems to be a method of subjugation and control where culture and law mingle.

Do people flourish under the dictate of lex talionis or the Native American "blood law"?

Absolutely, and the latter were doing just that until civilized folk got all 'genocidey'. There is a point as with so many things, where the stability of a society can allow it to progress beyond that point, and then vendetta is corrosive, not stabilizing.

Does repressing criticism of ruling parties help hold the society together on the individual level?
For the majority of history the clear answer is: YES, and there were no parties. Now, again, we're in a period where the answer is, 'no' in many countries, but look at China... in the midst of transition [STRIKE]at light speed[/STRIKE] 99.999999...% of c.

Can a healthy society be formed in which ritual suicide is an integral part?
Phew... tough one, but only because the word, "healthy" is a weasel word (I know that's not how you meant to use it). Obviously ritual suicide can be a part of a society for generations, and that society can still thrive and become a leading nation (Japan for instance, but just one example). I've read a lot about this one, and my personal belief is that condoning suicide reflects a lack of regard for human life, which in turn reflects the state of a society ALREADY. Much like civil war, this is probably a better measure of where a society is, so to speak, than it is a basis for a society.

The exception obviously is the Inuit people, and other cultures in which elder-suicide is expected, and based in survival imperatives. Should that happen NOW?... no.

What about a culture in which the desire to seek out love and affection is frowned upon?

At first blush this seems to be clearly anti-life, but what if civilization just crashed (asteroid, to avoid any controversy) and the need to repopulate was FAR more important than the needs of some generations to find love? That took me all of 5 seconds to think of, so I'm betting there are other valid examples, but certainly the situation would have to be terribly dire for a society to have some kind of anhedonic goal.

These aren't rhetorical questions. The answers are knowable! And I can't possibly imagine that every one of them will tell us about "human rights" (they are more likely to describe laws, rules, or regulations)... but we have an absolute starting point. No more guessing.

Every situation presents a unique starting point; thus the trouble with universality. If you confer what you think is a right (giving religion to the savages?) to people, you might get them killed. Would you encourage Afghan women to risk death and not wear their sack? I wouldn't normally encourage someone to press their face into the dirt either, but if bullets are flying overhead, I'd reconsider.

Please try to find the nuance in my argument.

It's nuanced, it's humane, and I admire you for having this passion. I don't believe that changes the relative nature of this, or that you're ignoring complexities in your outrage at what some suffer.

EDIT: Perhaps we will truly find out that women have happier existences when they are encouraged to simply cook and clean and raise children. I'm saying this specifically because it's such a controversial (wrong?) thing to say! But perhaps the "right to be a homemaker" is implicit in our existence as a product of evolution because our society (as individuals and as a whole) is happier, healthier, and more productive this way.

AGAIN!!!! I'm not actually suggesting that's true.

There's no doubt that many women do or DID have a happier existence... I know I'd rather clean m'lord's privy than go off to the crusades! It's the insistence that they have no CHOICE BUT THAT, which is the abrogation of their rights. I'd add, there are guys who fall into this same category, and I think we all remember the ridicule "stay at home dads" faced at first!

If you gave people a choice and lots of money, it's possible that BOTH parents would be thrilled to stay home with their child, and not grind away at work. Most people aren't lucky in their occupations, and if it's not stimulating for you, I'm guessing home and hearth are preferable... Hence 'early retirement'. There are a lot of people who would also lose their minds (hysteria anyone?) if they were trapped in such a role... and indeed we've done just that to (predominantly) women for thousands of years.

Oh, and Flex... you know that I am positive you're not a sexist, bigot, or anything else like that? You don't have to worry that I'll take offense; you're clearly a mix of rationality and what seems to be a painfully deep compassion.
 
  • #24
FlexGunship
Gold Member
369
8
Okay, Nismar, I'm not going to try to rebuttal-quote. Your response is well reasoned and rational, but I'm going to see if I can't hammer at the center-fire cap in this particular argumental bullet.

1) I'm saying that, in contrast to earlier periods of human history, science finally has something to say about morals, morality, and the well-being of individuals and societies. This is something that is new and unprecedented.

2) I'd like to very clearly contrast a "rule" and a "right." Once we've established rights, we still have to devise laws that could protect them. They are two separate issues. Some rights might turn out to be entirely impractical to protect.

Here are some example rights:
  • The right to physical security
  • The right to sexual freedom
  • The right to emotional freedom
  • The right to intellectual freedom

These are rights, but not laws. In fact... protecting a person's "sexual freedom" could be an incredibly complicated legislative concern. Obviously, we would have to adopt an Asimov-esque rule (not right), that pursuit of an individual's rights cannot impinge upon the pursuit of another individual's rights.

EDIT: What could it mean to protect someone's emotional freedom? All we could know is that people are healthier when they are allowed to express their emotions. But could that lead to violence and violation of other rights? I'm not shirking the considerable problem of laws and rules... but, surely, rights are something science can help us all agree on.l

Sigh... I feel like I have a much stronger point than the one I'm able to demonstrate.
 
  • #25
Okay, Nismar, I'm not going to try to rebuttal-quote. Your response is well reasoned and rational, but I'm going to see if I can't hammer at the center-fire cap in this particular argumental bullet.

1) I'm saying that, in contrast to earlier periods of human history, science finally has something to say about morals, morality, and the well-being of individuals and societies. This is something that is new and unprecedented.

2) I'd like to very clearly contrast a "rule" and a "right." Once we've established rights, we still have to devise laws that could protect them. They are two separate issues. Some rights might turn out to be entirely impractical to protect.

Here are some example rights:
  • The right to physical security
  • The right to sexual freedom
  • The right to emotional freedom
  • The right to intellectual freedom

These are rights, but not laws. In fact... protecting a person's "sexual freedom" could be an incredibly complicated legislative concern. Obviously, we would have to adopt an Asimov-esque rule (not right), that pursuit of an individual's rights cannot impinge upon the pursuit of another individual's rights.

EDIT: What could it mean to protect someone's emotional freedom? All we could know is that people are healthier when they are allowed to express their emotions. But could that lead to violence and violation of other rights? I'm not shirking the considerable problem of laws and rules... but, surely, rights are something science can help us all agree on.l

Sigh... I feel like I have a much stronger point than the one I'm able to demonstrate.

Wait... why are they "rights"?... they're just rules boiled down to a more general form. I think that's good, but if you believe that people have intrinsic rights to be protected, then that's where we disagree. I believe that reasoning rapidly leads us to the conclusion that we SHOULD use "human rights", much as we use currency while accepting its essentially fictional nature. In this case, it's the desire for a better world we want, and in the other a departure from decentralized banking or a barter economy.

As for the difference between rules and rights, should rights exist, then yes. The problem is that Asimovian rules work for machines that are hardwired to think in those limited terms (well... works for a while). The moment two people's exploration of their rights collides, we tend to have at least one consider how much more freedom they'd have without having to respect the RULE
 

Related Threads on The rights to be harmonious

  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
3K
K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
154
Views
12K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
D
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
Top