Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Morals without God or Religion?


  • Please log in to reply
169 replies to this topic

#1 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,427 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 25 October 2013 - 02:46 PM

So this has been floating around Facebook lately:


carter_zps0c7b71e1.jpg

 

Now, whether you agree with Carter on this or not, it got me to thinking again about where values come from for different people. I know we have at least a couple people here that are atheists and that still feel they have a defined moral system. I also know there have been posts on here (some time ago) from religious* people who seemed to think that outside of religion there can be no moral system. 

 

* By religious I just men someone that believes in God and who's moral system comes from God, the Bible, etc. You don't have to be religious per se.

 

So, if one isn't religious, can you still be moral?

 

If you're moral, is it just by coincidence / luck, or can you have a defined moral system?

 

If you have a system, is it all relative or are there moral absolutes? 

 

If you have a system, do you ever try to convince others that something is wrong by showing them how & why it's wrong -- or do you have to just stop at, "Well, in my opinion that's wrong...but I can't tell or show you why because you don't use my system".

AND, back to the Carter quote: Do we want to be a nation (either in Government or just in the general population) of Christian values? If not, do we want to be a nation with no values? If not either of those, where should we look for our values -- to know what is right and what is wrong? ~ The constitution may cover some things, but it doesn't cover everything. 

 



#2 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,427 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 25 October 2013 - 02:47 PM

PS: It's Friday so if you want to slack off, you can consider this your homework assignment to think about for Monday.



#3 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,969 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 25 October 2013 - 02:48 PM

In before move.

 

:coffee:



#4 BHB

BHB
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,903 posts
  • LocationNY

Posted 25 October 2013 - 02:49 PM

I don't want a country based on Christian Values... can I just stop there?



#5 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 22,839 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 02:50 PM

Aesops_Fables_unabridged.jpg



#6 melissaphish

melissaphish
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,933 posts
  • LocationHawleyville, MA

Posted 25 October 2013 - 02:54 PM

Aesops_Fables_unabridged.jpg

ding!



#7 u.s.blues

u.s.blues
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,413 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 02:58 PM

in my opinion, one who is not religious can be moral.

anyone can have a defined moral system, however it may not match others system.

for me there are some relative things and some absolutes.

I talk about my values with some people but often when talking about such things I try to express that they are my opinions. 

 

I don't think we should be a nation of  Christian values because there are many people living in this nation who are not Christian.  the nation should have values.  primarily, they should be taught by families, and naturally there will not be a universal set of morals for everyone cause after all it is allegedly a free country, and we have laws which enforce a certain code to in an effort to correct the actions of those who didn't get a lesson in morals, and or at minimum provide protection for the general public.



#8 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,427 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:04 PM

in my opinion, one who is not religious can be moral.

anyone can have a defined moral system, however it may not match others system.

for me there are some relative things and some absolutes.

I talk about my values with some people but often when talking about such things I try to express that they are my opinions. 

 

I don't think we should be a nation of  Christian values because there are many people living in this nation who are not Christian.  the nation should have values.  primarily, they should be taught by families, and naturally there will not be a universal set of morals for everyone cause after all it is allegedly a free country, and we have laws which enforce a certain code to in an effort to correct the actions of those who didn't get a lesson in morals, and or at minimum provide protection for the general public.


I agree with all that. So...

* For those that are atheists, do you have a system that you can explain for your morals or is it just kind of natural / what your parents did?

* For the country's government, if we want laws to enforce a "code" what code do we use? What makes right and wrong? It is just majority = right?

 

gpna.png



#9 Feck

Feck
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,761 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:05 PM

this godless heathen hopes he has good moral values, but knows it's not my place to impose them on anyone.

 

from what i can tell i have been a ????? secular huminist long before i knew they had a name of it??



#10 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,969 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:06 PM



#11 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,427 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:10 PM

this godless heathen hopes he has good moral values, but knows it's not my place to impose them on anyone.

 

from what i can tell i have been a ????? secular huminist long before i knew they had a name of it??


I hear you. So what about in government. In issues like abortion, should we allow goverment to put a ban on if you can allow smoking in your own establishment, should government put a ban on soda size, or tell you that you can't marry your same-sex partner ?

Do we admit that our values are just opinions that we should not push on others?

 

Do we take "right and wrong" out of all policy talk and just admit that it's majority rule, that might makes right?



#12 melissaphish

melissaphish
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,933 posts
  • LocationHawleyville, MA

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:10 PM


 

gpna.png

 

Stealing.



#13 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,969 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:13 PM


I hear you. So what about in government. In issues like abortion, should we allow goverment to put a ban on if you can allow smoking in your own establishment, should government put a ban on soda size, or tell you that you can't marry your same-sex partner ?

 

No, no, no and no.



#14 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,427 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:13 PM

Stealing.

 

And there's also the one that Tim and friends will like:

nkxs.png



#15 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,427 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:16 PM

No, no, no and no.

 

Right...now the big question, and why I really started this thread...

Do we take "right and wrong" out of all policy talk and just admit that it's majority rule, that might makes right?



#16 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,736 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:20 PM

in my opinion, one who is not religious can be moral.

anyone can have a defined moral system, however it may not match others system.

for me there are some relative things and some absolutes.

I talk about my values with some people but often when talking about such things I try to express that they are my opinions. 

 

I don't think we should be a nation of  Christian values because there are many people living in this nation who are not Christian.  the nation should have values.  primarily, they should be taught by families, and naturally there will not be a universal set of morals for everyone cause after all it is allegedly a free country, and we have laws which enforce a certain code to in an effort to correct the actions of those who didn't get a lesson in morals, and or at minimum provide protection for the general public.

 

 

I agree with this, but for those who say they want a country based on Christian values, I would like to know who gets to define the values?

 

The Catholic Church?

The Protestant Church?

Billy Graham?

Jim Bakker?

The Westboro Baptist Church?



#17 Feck

Feck
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,761 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:21 PM

I hear you. So what about in government. In issues like abortion, should we allow goverment to put a ban on if you can allow smoking in your own establishment, should government put a ban on soda size, or tell you that you can't marry your same-sex partner ?

Do we admit that our values are just opinions that we should not push on others?

 

Do we take "right and wrong" out of all policy talk and just admit that it's majority rule, that might makes right?

 

people should have freedom to choose,like they have the freedom to chose in one religion or anohter, or none.

 

i admit i have no right to push my opinions on someone else,but do understand they might feel the same way back.

 

i think we would need to agree or at least agree to disagree on what is right and what is wrong before we can tke them out of any discssions.

 

simple majority rules, will always create problems – understanding and compromise on the other hand



#18 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,969 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:24 PM

Right...now the big question, and why I really started this thread...

Do we take "right and wrong" out of all policy talk and just admit that it's majority rule, that might makes right?

 

That will never happen, because if we are the world's police, we are certainly going to do what is "right" at home.

 

But that would be a good start.  Although taking out most everything that is spoken about policy should be stopped.



#19 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,106 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:24 PM

I don't want a country based on Christian Values... can I just stop there?

I actually wouldn't mind a country based on Christian values. Just don't want one based on many Christians' values. :)

#20 Julius

Julius
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,146 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:32 PM

Right...now the big question, and why I really started this thread...

Do we take "right and wrong" out of all policy talk and just admit that it's majority rule, that might makes right?

"We" already have. 



#21 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,427 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:48 PM

"We" already have. 

 

We may act that way, but very few people speak that way or admit there are no values but only majority/might makes right.



#22 matty

matty
  • VibeTribe
  • 916 posts
  • LocationBoston, MA

Posted 25 October 2013 - 03:50 PM

Human morals first developed when we began to live in groups as hunter-gatherers. Not sure what religion they had back then, but it certainly wasn't Christianity. One might even go do far as to say that religion developed out of morals, rather than the other way around. Taking all that into account, I'd say I can't really answer the questions in the original post.

#23 insolent cur

insolent cur

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 428 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 04:00 PM

I don't need an imaginary friend to know right from wrong.



#24 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,969 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 25 October 2013 - 04:03 PM

I don't need an imaginary friend to know I am right.

 

FTFY.   :kashmir:



#25 Jersey Thug

Jersey Thug
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,270 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 04:19 PM

i have a code of ethics i live by.  much of it was learned from my father...a man who stood up for what he believed in, right or wrong, passionately and without fail.

 

it's semantics perhaps, but i do prefer the word ethics to morals when discussing the ideals i stand for. 

 

as for the questions in your OP:

 

 

 

If you're moral, is it just by coincidence / luck, or can you have a defined moral system?

   - of course you can have a clearly defined moral/ethical system.  i am a flawed human being, and may fail to uphold my own beliefs from time to time.  but i strive to live by them, without fail, every day, and while i am quick to forgive others for certain behaviors that go against those standards there are some lines that i believe once crossed, you can never come back from.  

 

If you have a system, is it all relative or are there moral absolutes? 

   - there are some ethical absolutes for me.  others are more fluid, and tend toward benefiting the greater good.  

 

If you have a system, do you ever try to convince others that something is wrong by showing them how & why it's wrong -- or do you have to just stop at, "Well, in my opinion that's wrong...but I can't tell or show you why because you don't use my system".

   - oh, i would never let that stop me. if it was important to gain a person's understanding, i would try my best to demonstrate why it was in their best interest to do things the "right" way :lol: 

AND, back to the Carter quote: Do we want to be a nation (either in Government or just in the general population) of Christian values? If not, do we want to be a nation with no values? If not either of those, where should we look for our values -- to know what is right and what is wrong? ~ The constitution may cover some things, but it doesn't cover everything. 

   - morals, ethics, call it what you want.  a value system is important for individuals as well as societies.  as for who the decider should be?  no idea.  i developed mine through trial and error, borrowing a lot from what i was raised to believe was "right" or "wrong",  discarding what didn't serve me well and replacing it with what did.  but our society as a whole seems to be so separated from its instincts that finding a consensus on even the most basic human rights is difficult.  defining "greater good" in this instance is hard because everyone has an opinion on what the greater good actually IS.  

 

yeah...no idea how to bridge that gap, Gary.  sure wish i did.  xo



#26 Chip

Chip
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,858 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 04:20 PM

I am a moral atheist who learned my morals from my moral atheist father and mother.  I have no need to further prove my morals to anyone else.



#27 hippieskichick

hippieskichick
  • VibeTribe
  • 2,765 posts
  • LocationAlbany NY

Posted 25 October 2013 - 04:49 PM

I'm a moral atheist who learned morals from my fundamentalist christian parents. Many of them "don't do this" and "don't act/be like this" by watching shit they did. 

 

Because of this, I'm thinking that morals are partially subconscious, because even as a child, I would identify something that was wrong. I also learned at a young age what hypocrisy was. 



#28 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 04:50 PM

its how you were raised.



#29 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,969 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 25 October 2013 - 05:28 PM

its how you were raised.

 

in general this is true but there is always sociopaths who are raised right.



#30 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,427 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 25 October 2013 - 05:36 PM

eth·ics -- moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.

 

mor·al -- a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

 

 

it's semantics perhaps, but i do prefer the word ethics to morals when discussing the ideals i stand for. 

 

 

You said lots of good stuff Jennie, Thanks!

 

I want to look at just the words ethics and morals for a moment to get those out of the way. First, why do you prefer the word ethics?

 

I'm going to make a guess that some of it comes back to the judgement/non-judgement thing. As a society and probably even more in our group tend to think of judging others as wrong. The word morals is connected to things like moralizing and the moral majority and saying someone has loose morals which tend to indicate judging someone else. Contrarily we don't have "ethics-izing" or someone with "bad ethics". 

 

A little research and it seem that formally the word morals is to mean a person's own person code of conduct, while the word ethics is to mean a societal code of conduct. I won't explain it further here but if you Google you'll find many sites that support this view. This one explains is pretty well: 

 

http://www.wisegeek....-and-morals.htm

 



And it's actually very helpful to have introduced these words. If we use...

Morals = An individual person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

Ethics = A society's principles on what behavior is acceptable.

 

Then...

* Our own morals may sometimes match our societies ethics, and sometimes not. 

* Some people have a defined system of morals with others may have just as strong (or stronger) morals, but not have them defined in a system.

* Societies may practice an ethical code based on non-explicit rules

* Societies could have a defined ethical code -- but few have much in this way -- though some do.

 

I could word the above better but can't right now. What I'm trying to get to is...when discussing issues with others, one of the underlying reasons we disagree...a reason that doesn't get brought to the surface...is we are each starting from our own values and morals. We have little in the way of a recognized & well defined societal system of ethics. So we debate gun control and abortion until it turns into an argument, but we always discuss the surface of it and seldom dig deep to see where the divide really comes from. And if we don't explicitly state where the divide is, we will never bridge it.



#31 Feesh

Feesh
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,588 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 05:37 PM

I don't need an imaginary friend to know right from wrong.

Perfect.
 

To answer the question: Do we take "right and wrong" out of all policy talk and just admit that it's majority rule, that might makes right?
How 'bout just policies that allow people the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" regardless of what the majority thinks?

In other words: as long as what you're doing doesn't fuck someone else's shit up, then there should be no law against it.
 



#32 Sensei Miller

Sensei Miller
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,836 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 05:47 PM

I don't think any moral is fundamentally true/valid in its own right.  Even if 999,999 people out of a million agree that stealing is bad, it doesn't mean that stealing is bad in and of itself.

 

It just means that most people agree that stealing is bad.  When that happens, we assign "not stealing" to be a moral or ethical practice.

 

Anybody who behaves in a way that is consistent with what their society deems moral can be said to be a moral person.

 

Many foreign/alien practices may seem immoral to us, as outside viewers.  But that doesn't mean they're fundamentally bad.  It just means that they're inconsistent with the moral constructs of our own immediate society.

 

In fact, nothing can be said to be fundamentally good or bad.  It's all relative, as has been said above.

 

All in all, I don't think "moral" behavior is dependent on religion whatsoever.  Is a Jewish person fundamentally immoral because they are not Islamic?  Vice-Versa?  Or is it just that a person needs to follow some religion, regardless of what that religion may be?  Does a human sacrifice-practicing sect of Satan worshipers count as a religion? 

 

It gets mighty dirty mighty quickly if we say morality is dependent upon religion.

 

Similarly, I don't believe in fundamental human rights.  Don't get me wrong: I live in a way that values equality and other things that we define as "rights."  However, we are not entitled to anything just because we were born.  In fact, I think it's a downright GIFT that someone didn't leave the constantly crying, pant-shitting, helpless being that was me as a baby in a basket floating down a river.

 

In the end, we typically agree on certain things as a society.  We classify these things as human rights, or moral behaviors, or fundamentally good.  But this is all a social construct, and as such, it is just an illusion.



#33 Feesh

Feesh
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,588 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 05:59 PM

Corpus delecti. Without one there is no crime.



#34 Sensei Miller

Sensei Miller
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,836 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 06:07 PM

Can't have a murder without a body!

 

They say 10 million flies can't be wrong...

 

I beg to differ.  Or at least, they can't be fundamentally wrong.  Just wrong according to my pallet. 



#35 Feesh

Feesh
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,588 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 06:12 PM

What I'm trying to say is: stealing is inherently "bad" because it fucks up someone else's shit (presuming, of course that the victim of the robbery is an innocent), while doing durgs is not necessarily inherently "bad" becuase it is a victimless "crime" (presuming, of course, the prep is not fucking up someone else's shit by sitting on the couch eating doritos and playing video games).



#36 Sensei Miller

Sensei Miller
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,836 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 06:18 PM

How about a job opening.  Someone applied weeks ago, and is on the verge of getting hired.

 

Then you apply.  Turns out you're a better candidate for the position. 

 

They hire you, and you take the job.

 

You've just royally fucked up the original applicant's shit.  Was it fundamentally bad of you to take the job?

 

 

How about accidental theft?  It happens.  Is that type of stealing also fundamentally bad?  Or is it a case that the act needs to be a conscious decision to be considered bad?  Many people don't know "right from wrong."  Does a rape committed by someone with Down's syndrome not qualify as "bad" because they don't necessarily realize what they are doing?

 

 

Nothing is inherently bad.  It's just bad, according to our social construction of what is or isn't good.



#37 Feesh

Feesh
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,588 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 06:24 PM

Specious argument. What is the crime the 2nd applicant committed?
Or are you suggesting that the winner of a competition is commiting a crime against the loser?



#38 Sensei Miller

Sensei Miller
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,836 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 06:26 PM

According to you, an act that fucks up someone else's shit is fundamentally bad.

 

Your receiving the job has royally fucked up their shit.

 

Does taking it mean you're immoral?  Is taking the job fundamentally bad?

 

 

The concept of inherently good versus perceived good seems attractive, because it is a logical view that is shared by many.  Nothing specious about that.  Along those lines, there is no right or wrong view on this subject.  I'm just trying to elicit some thoughts and discussion.



#39 Sensei Miller

Sensei Miller
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,836 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 07:18 PM

Also...

 

What if you steal something, but the "victim" never notices.  It hasn't screwed up their life, but it's still stealing.

 

What if you are in a situation where stealing is the only way to feed a starving family?

 

Etc etc. 



#40 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,969 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 25 October 2013 - 07:27 PM

In before move.

 

:coffee:

 

Took long enough.  :lol:



#41 Feesh

Feesh
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,588 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 07:29 PM

Gotcha.
I was talking about right and wrong as it pertains to law and governance. You're talking about the concept itself.
I was trying to discuss the basis of a legal system absent of the religious morality. You're discussing the abstract concept of right and wrong. I see now how your argument is valid within that conext. I was saying that is was specious in the context of laws.

 

I still think that outside of the religious and abstract definition of right and wrong, the standard of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should be held as the standard (not what religion dictates, or what people feel is right and wrong).

 

In that context two people vying for the same job is a competition: if both applicants are competing fairly there is a winner and a loser. That's the way competitions work, and voluntarily entering into one implies there is an understanding of that.

If applicant #1 submitted a forged document implicating applicant #2 in a scandal, thus obliterating #2's hopes of a fair competition; then there is a corpus delecti. What app #1 did violates the standard stated above and they should be held in contempt of the law.



#42 Feesh

Feesh
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,588 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 07:30 PM

Also...

 

What if you steal something, but the "victim" never notices.  It hasn't screwed up their life, but it's still stealing.

 

What if you are in a situation where stealing is the only way to feed a starving family?

 

Etc etc. 

The same can  be arugued about speeding laws: where is the corpus delecti if I drive 100mph down the highway and don't get into an accident?

 

It's a tough nut to crack, I agree!



#43 Feesh

Feesh
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,588 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 07:34 PM

Took long enough.   :lol:

:lol:


...and so the conversation ends. :lol:



#44 Sensei Miller

Sensei Miller
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,836 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 07:36 PM

For the record, I don't think the applicant #2 did anything immoral either.

 

I think we both agree that moral acts, fundamental or perceived, exist outside the confines of religion. 

 

I might even go so far as to say that religion sometimes takes morality out of people's hands.  If the church bangs it into your head that it's not alright to steal, and you are a devout Christian (for example), then you don't steal.  Plain and simple.

 

A moral person, however, does things because they feel that they are the right things to do.  Not because a church is threatening fire and brimstone. 



#45 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,427 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 25 October 2013 - 07:40 PM

For what it's worth: I believe one *can* define right and wrong, within a frame of reference (being human), and not just based on "cause that's the way I was raised" or "that's what feels right to me".

 

But that will be for another week...



#46 Sensei Miller

Sensei Miller
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,836 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 07:42 PM

True, and we all have to live within the confines of reason as opposed to philosophy.

 

But...

 

The fact that you have to define it as right or wrong makes it impossible for it to be fundamentally right or wrong in the first place.

 

Mind.  Blown.



#47 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,427 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 25 October 2013 - 07:49 PM

The fact that you have to define it as right or wrong makes it impossible for it to be fundamentally right or wrong in the first place.

 

huh? No.



#48 Sensei Miller

Sensei Miller
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,836 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 07:57 PM

It most DEFINITELY does.

 

Fundamental truths do not need to be defined.  They just are.

 

Furthermore, fundamental truths don't need to be described in a certain context or frame of reference (such as humanity).  They are true in all contexts.



#49 Sensei Miller

Sensei Miller
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,836 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 08:10 PM

You could define something as wrong.  And everyone in your society might agree with your assessment.  For all intents and purposes, that act is wrong in your world.

 

But that same act may not be considered wrong in a different culture. 

 

The act is neither right nor wrong in and of itself. 

 

Just because you accept/define a consensus notion does not make that notion fundamentally correct. 

 

Fundamental truths in our universe as we know it:

 

1+1=2

The speed of light is the same in all reference frames

A hydrogen atom is a hydrogen atom.

A cow is a cow no matter what you call it.

The earth is round (despite human consensus for thousands of years!!)

 

Human constructs:

 

The notion of good or bad.

That humans in fact have rights.



#50 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,969 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 25 October 2013 - 08:12 PM

:popcorn1: