Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
NEWS BOX
We last left off where Seth decided to go to Valor on his black dragon Erath. And when he got there...And if anyone forgot the story, Kyan found his long lost friend Seth on Valor, and his black dragon Erath. Kyan is a mamkute that can still use swords as well as dragon stone attack.
Welcome to BEHG. We hope you enjoy your trip through our cesspool of hatred and lies.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 7
at least half of Americans = TRASH
Topic Started: Apr 12 2007, 08:07:01 PM (1,909 Views)
Hammer Kirby
Member Avatar
Go outside
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Flarebringer
Apr 13 2007, 03:07:40
A) With nobody hiring Asians anywhere in the 60s' and the scholarship that let them afford classes in the first place stipulating that they gave full attention to classes?

B) As a more detailed defense of welfare: This argument will rest upon the concept of the Veil of Ignorance, or the Original Position. As reference, core ideals can be found in the works of John Rawls, especially A Theory of Justice.

Let us consider what makes a fair, just society. The common argument against welfare is that some people, the talented or physically strong or charismatic will have an advantage anyways, and it's fair to let them keep that advantage. I will counter that argument by moving into abstraction, with a hypothetical example.

Let us say that you are a soul about to be born, or whatever prenatal awareness scenario you'd like to dream up. It is your task to fashion a society that is most fair to you, most advantageous to you. The catch is, of course, if you knew you would be born smart, you'd choose capitalism or anarchy or something like that. This is called minimaxing, because similar to min/maxing in DnD (sorry, had to do that), you maximize the advantages for one group, the strong, at the expense of the weak. Kinda like how you take 18 Int and throw dump stats into strength and wisdom and charisma if you're gonna be a wizard. But, with the scenario of the original position, the hypothetical scenario that I've described, we can see that's not just.

Because you don't know and have no control over what body you'll be born into: not-discriminated-against or discriminated against, weak, strong, smart, dumb, or so on, your best bet will not be to minimax. I mean, sure, you have a chance of doing great, but more often, you'll just be treated like dirt. So unless you're a serious gambler, and I don't think you are because nobody rational chooses to 'gamble' with their entire life, you don't minimax. You choose the government that offers maximum benefit to both the strong and the weak. That's our welfare government today: you provide the strong with a way to suceed through capitalism, and you provide the weaker people with welfare as a safety net.

It's kinda like if you have no clue what class you're gonna be, you're not going to pit 18 into Int. I mean, should the dice come up poorly...well, Mr. 18 Int with Str-Dump Fighter is not going to do so well, barring some serious multiclassing twinks.

And I'm sorry, but you can't twink your life.

I understand that some people are weaker than others, but I don't think anyone's so weak that they're incapable of doing any better than being on welfare. Anyone who makes any real effort can at least get some sort of job.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abyssal_Shrimp
Member Avatar
GREGOR SMASH!

gringe
Apr 12 2007, 23:15:17
Darts
Apr 13 2007, 03:11:02
gringe
Apr 13 2007, 03:09:01
Darts
Apr 13 2007, 02:58:39
Flarebringer
Apr 13 2007, 02:51:24
Oh, and welfare only for bums? When my parents came to the States, they were on welfare for about a year. And demographically, both of them have degrees higher than almost everyone on this board are ever gonna get.

Unless, I dunno, all of you are after PhDs.

No offense, but they behaved immorally. They could have at least gotten a cheap job. It's easy to do. I know - I applied for a minimum wage job last week and I've already started working there only a week after applying.

But would you be able to live off of it and feed a family while still working toward whatever your career goal is? I think welfare has its benefits, though it could probably use some trimming back.

If welfare is more rewarding than a minimum wage job, that's completely ridiculous and counterproductive.

Well, maybe a person could work part-time, go to school and study the rest of the time, and get welfare that is less than they make? It still helps.

I don't really know much about how welfare works though, so maybe I can't say too much. :P

Pretty sure you won't get welfare legally if you have a part-time job and go to school.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zigludo
Member Avatar
うおっ、眩しい!

Darts, it's not just getting a job. It's also working for something better, "fulfilling the American dream." You won't be going anywhere if you're stuck working at McDonald's.

I dunno, maybe the solution is to make people pay welfare back after say, 10 years.
I'm gringe and I don't give a chainsaw
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zigludo
Member Avatar
うおっ、眩しい!

Abyssal_Shrimp
Apr 13 2007, 03:20:03
gringe
Apr 12 2007, 23:15:17
Darts
Apr 13 2007, 03:11:02
gringe
Apr 13 2007, 03:09:01
Darts
Apr 13 2007, 02:58:39
Flarebringer
Apr 13 2007, 02:51:24
Oh, and welfare only for bums? When my parents came to the States, they were on welfare for about a year. And demographically, both of them have degrees higher than almost everyone on this board are ever gonna get.

Unless, I dunno, all of you are after PhDs.

No offense, but they behaved immorally. They could have at least gotten a cheap job. It's easy to do. I know - I applied for a minimum wage job last week and I've already started working there only a week after applying.

But would you be able to live off of it and feed a family while still working toward whatever your career goal is? I think welfare has its benefits, though it could probably use some trimming back.

If welfare is more rewarding than a minimum wage job, that's completely ridiculous and counterproductive.

Well, maybe a person could work part-time, go to school and study the rest of the time, and get welfare that is less than they make? It still helps.

I don't really know much about how welfare works though, so maybe I can't say too much. :P

Pretty sure you won't get welfare legally if you have a part0time hob and go to school.

Like I said, I dunno what I'm talking about.
I'm gringe and I don't give a chainsaw
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hammer Kirby
Member Avatar
Go outside
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
gringe
Apr 13 2007, 03:20:51
Darts, it's not just getting a job. It's also working for something better, "fulfilling the American dream." You won't be going anywhere if you're stuck working at McDonald's.

I dunno, maybe the solution is to make people pay welfare back after say, 10 years.

Welfare won't help you accomplish the American dream any better than working at McDonald's will.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abyssal_Shrimp
Member Avatar
GREGOR SMASH!

gringe
Apr 12 2007, 23:20:51
Darts, it's not just getting a job. It's also working for something better, "fulfilling the American dream." You won't be going anywhere if you're stuck working at McDonald's.

I dunno, maybe the solution is to make people pay welfare back after say, 10 years.

You know though, working for McDonalds doesn't mean you're stuck with that job for life. What Dart means is that it's more productive and just to get work for a temporary time when waiting for something else to come up than just do nothing and sit down while waiting for Welfare income.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zigludo
Member Avatar
うおっ、眩しい!

Then in that case, maybe I agree with Dart. It kind of depends on the kind of time investment that one's goal requires.
I'm gringe and I don't give a chainsaw
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flarebringer
Comrade
[ *  *  * ]
Darts
Apr 13 2007, 03:17:38
Flarebringer
Apr 13 2007, 03:07:40
A) With nobody hiring Asians anywhere in the 60s' and the scholarship that let them afford classes in the first place stipulating that they gave full attention to classes?

B) As a more detailed defense of welfare: This argument will rest upon the concept of the Veil of Ignorance, or the Original Position. As reference, core ideals can be found in the works of John Rawls, especially A Theory of Justice.

Let us consider what makes a fair, just society. The common argument against welfare is that some people, the talented or physically strong or charismatic will have an advantage anyways, and it's fair to let them keep that advantage. I will counter that argument by moving into abstraction, with a hypothetical example.

Let us say that you are a soul about to be born, or whatever prenatal awareness scenario you'd like to dream up. It is your task to fashion a society that is most fair to you, most advantageous to you. The catch is, of course, if you knew you would be born smart, you'd choose capitalism or anarchy or something like that. This is called minimaxing, because similar to min/maxing in DnD (sorry, had to do that), you maximize the advantages for one group, the strong, at the expense of the weak. Kinda like how you take 18 Int and throw dump stats into strength and wisdom and charisma if you're gonna be a wizard. But, with the scenario of the original position, the hypothetical scenario that I've described, we can see that's not just.

Because you don't know and have no control over what body you'll be born into: not-discriminated-against or discriminated against, weak, strong, smart, dumb, or so on, your best bet will not be to minimax. I mean, sure, you have a chance of doing great, but more often, you'll just be treated like dirt. So unless you're a serious gambler, and I don't think you are because nobody rational chooses to 'gamble' with their entire life, you don't minimax. You choose the government that offers maximum benefit to both the strong and the weak. That's our welfare government today: you provide the strong with a way to suceed through capitalism, and you provide the weaker people with welfare as a safety net.

It's kinda like if you have no clue what class you're gonna be, you're not going to pit 18 into Int. I mean, should the dice come up poorly...well, Mr. 18 Int with Str-Dump Fighter is not going to do so well, barring some serious multiclassing twinks.

And I'm sorry, but you can't twink your life.

I understand that some people are weaker than others, but I don't think anyone's so weak that they're incapable of doing any better than being on welfare. Anyone who makes any real effort can at least get some sort of job.

I assume by "welfare" you mean unemployment benefits? I mean, what you said has nothing to do with most forms of welfare, e.g government-provided education, social security, medical care, police and fire, etc. Because your argument is nonspecific to those more-important forms of societal welfare, I claim partial victor on those grounds unless you can come up with a substantiative attack against welfare that's not unemployment benefits.

But even on the side of unemployment benefits, your attack falls short. First off, you fail to address the normative, ethical truth of what I said. My argument was that it is ethical for a government for seek to minimize the gap between people who are well-to-do and people who are not. The "fact" that you cite in order to counter my argument makes no impact upon the moral truth of it.

By the way, the only claims you've offered in response to my arguments are also flawed. First off, you claim that

Darts
 
I understand that some people are weaker than others, but I don't think anyone's so weak that they're incapable of doing any better than being on welfare. Anyone who makes any real effort can at least get some sort of job.


, which frankly is utterly mistaken. What about a factory worker, a good, hard, all-American sort of guy, who gets his hand sliced off by a freak industrial accident? A restaurant worker out of work while his restaurant is being remodeled? The hypothetical scenario of another Great Depression? You assume in that argument that the only reason for disadvantage is stupidity or laziness, when in fact random chance is just as prevalent.

You also claim that:

Darts
 
If welfare is more rewarding than a minimum wage job, that's completely ridiculous and counterproductive.


I cite U.S Department of Labor regulations on who gets welfare and how much:

Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration website
 
You must meet the State requirements for wages earned or time worked during an established (one year) period of time referred to as a "base period".


This has two impacts. First off, your points about people being too lazy to get a real job, bums, etc. ignore the fact that you have to have had steady employment before being unemployed in order to collect benefits. In addition, as for amounts,

Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration website
 
benefits are based on a percentage of an individual's earnings over a recent 52-week period - up to a State maximum amount.


Which means that welfare will never be more rewarding than a minimum wage job, unless you need the time for a more coherent task. True, some people use that time for nothing productive (but that's why the code stipulates you "must be unemployed through no fault of your own"), but in other scenarios such as I've detailed before, the time is needed to get back on one's feet, find a new job in a nasty job market such as today's, and so on and so forth.

In fact, I'd better restate that last thing out of parenthesis. You must be unemployed through no fault of your own. Again, most of the anti-unemployment benefits arguments in this topic, if not all, have been working under the assumption that the only people who collect welfare are the sort who sit at home cashing checks and doing nothing--exactly the sort of people that welfare law does not provide benefits to.

To conclude, the reasons why you should accept the affirmative position are as such:
1) "Welfare" as defined by any reasonable source you can find includes any societal welfare program, such as public education and such. There hasn't been a point made against 'em yet.
2) The moral and ethical implications of the veil of ignorance have yet to be addressed by my opponents, and point positively towards the affirmative side. Silence is equivalent to consent, therefore unless my opponents find a credible way to counter that argument, it provides compelling ethical support for welfare.
3) The points that have been brought up against welfare are all working under the "lazy bum" hypothesis, which is both nonspecific to the matter at hand and thoroughly rebutted in this post, in the last main paragraph. Working as they are under flawed premises, points derived off of them are entirely without merit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abyssal_Shrimp
Member Avatar
GREGOR SMASH!

Talk about a counter for a 2 line reply. >_>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hammer Kirby
Member Avatar
Go outside
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
In cases where unemployment is not the person's own fault, private charity - not government - should help out the person.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
F3nr1L
Unregistered

Abyssal_Shrimp
Apr 12 2007, 19:48:21
Darts
Apr 12 2007, 22:05:52
Any good Christian preacher thinks that women should not have jobs other than raising children, don't you know?

hahaha, no.

I shall say I am not coming close to getting involved in this land mine of a topic.

However, outside of that, I have to disagree with your disagreeance, Shrimp. Now, things may be different in Canada, I wouldn't know. But I was having to deal with a different preacher every wednesday for three years of my life. Few were repeats, very few. Now that seriously adds up to a lot of different holy men.

If there is one theme that all of them followed-- not just them, but my entire school's philosophy(the bible) followed-- was that of women being below men. My school library, what with consisting of 9 bookshelves, had an entire row-- about 20 or so books-- on how to be a proper wife. These taught how a woman should always have dinner made by the time the man is home, that she should organize his lecture notes, that she should prepare to praise god when they are both in the bedroom(I kid you not, it was put very similarly to that in one of the books).

The preachers were just as bad. They, aside from the usually insanities, taught that men should hold the door for women-- not because it was polite-- but because it is your moral duty to help those inferior to you. That was just one of the ways, there were many others. These included, but were not limited to: Adam Came first, Eve is just a rib of Adam, not equal to the full skeleton(person), the bible shows women staying at home, men have always owned everything, "even false religions are smart enough to know men come first", and "God is a man, so it is obvious that men are better".

Sorry, I can go right ahead and let the rest of this thread argue, I just had to speak up about that.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flarebringer
Comrade
[ *  *  * ]
Darts
Apr 13 2007, 05:10:31
In cases where unemployment is not the person's own fault, private charity - not government - should help out the person.

Framework, you've yet to talk about any of my 3 voting issues yet, so even if I throw this one and give you the benefit of the doubt, the judge still votes on the deontological implications of welfare. But I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt, so meh.

The first thing I'd like to do is lay an overview on his entire argument, or at least that's what it'd be called if it was more than a sentence long. He still hasn't addressed the point we're dealing with here, that welfare is a good thing. He hasn't talked about the veil of ignorance, or the fact that unemployment benefits =/= all of welfare, so you vote affirmative just based on those two issues. All he's said right now is that private charity > welfare, which as long as he can't prove that welfare is a bad thing (and he hasn't touched any of the points I've made along that direction), he's basically arguing that "yeah, ice cream is pretty awesome, but it sucks because bacon's better."

Because of those two metarguments, it doesn't even matter if he wins this point. However, that doesn't change the fact that it's a stupid point. I'll stack a few arguments against private charity. Remember, he's advocating an alternative, so unless he can provide a solid reason why private charity is superior, the points I'm about to make outweigh his unsupported statement anyday.

First off, private charity has neither the guaranteed funds nor the power of a government. This is the most pragmatic argument against sole reliance upon private charity. Many people in this world aren't altruistic enough to actually donate money to a private charity, but a government doesn't have to worry about whether or not the fickle motives of the people want to give it money--it gets the money in any case. For this reason alone, you can't depend on private charity to provide welfare. Furthermore, there are models of welfare that a private charity, being, well, private, can't do. For example, there is no way for a private charity to emulate the Social Security program.

Translation: Unless you can guarantee that a private charity will have the same reach and funding as a government, governmental welfare still has more utility.

Secondly, private charities operate without public oversight. You thought that governmental welfare was wasting people's money? Just wait until you see welfare run by a private corporation. Enron charity, anyone? At least in the current model, we can vote out anyone who abuses the powers that they're given. With a Board of Directors, you don't even have that option.

Also, making private charity the sole provider of welfare raises questions of ideological power. To see what I mean, consider a world in which Darts gets his way. A family in some city is down out of luck, and they need welfare for a short while for everyone to find work. Unfortunately, the only private organization in town gives aid only if you happen to be, I dunno, let's say Christian. And this family isn't. What happens?

The last argument I'm going to stack onto this is abstract--I note that private charity changes nothing from the moral point of view. The veil of ignorance tells us that a government's duty is to level the playing field between well-endowed and not. And at that point, because your private charities don't have the reach or power that a government does, your scenario leaves less coverage than we have today. So at that point, the original position argument stands, and the Government's obligated to provide welfare to the people.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Abyssal_Shrimp
Member Avatar
GREGOR SMASH!

F3nr1L
Apr 13 2007, 01:35:21
Abyssal_Shrimp
Apr 12 2007, 19:48:21
Darts
Apr 12 2007, 22:05:52
Any good Christian preacher thinks that women should not have jobs other than raising children, don't you know?

hahaha, no.

I shall say I am not coming close to getting involved in this land mine of a topic.

However, outside of that, I have to disagree with your disagreeance, Shrimp. Now, things may be different in Canada, I wouldn't know. But I was having to deal with a different preacher every wednesday for three years of my life. Few were repeats, very few. Now that seriously adds up to a lot of different holy men.

If there is one theme that all of them followed-- not just them, but my entire school's philosophy(the bible) followed-- was that of women being below men. My school library, what with consisting of 9 bookshelves, had an entire row-- about 20 or so books-- on how to be a proper wife. These taught how a woman should always have dinner made by the time the man is home, that she should organize his lecture notes, that she should prepare to praise god when they are both in the bedroom(I kid you not, it was put very similarly to that in one of the books).

The preachers were just as bad. They, aside from the usually insanities, taught that men should hold the door for women-- not because it was polite-- but because it is your moral duty to help those inferior to you. That was just one of the ways, there were many others. These included, but were not limited to: Adam Came first, Eve is just a rib of Adam, not equal to the full skeleton(person), the bible shows women staying at home, men have always owned everything, "even false religions are smart enough to know men come first", and "God is a man, so it is obvious that men are better".

Sorry, I can go right ahead and let the rest of this thread argue, I just had to speak up about that.

Well you've had sucky preachers, because of the several I've seen, none ever promoted such a thing. >_>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Unregistered

Quote:
 
First off, private charity has neither the guaranteed funds nor the power of a government. This is the most pragmatic argument against sole reliance upon private charity. Many people in this world aren't altruistic enough to actually donate money to a private charity, but a government doesn't have to worry about whether or not the fickle motives of the people want to give it money--it gets the money in any case. For this reason alone, you can't depend on private charity to provide welfare. Furthermore, there are models of welfare that a private charity, being, well, private, can't do. For example, there is no way for a private charity to emulate the Social Security program.


However, government taking people's money and giving it to others is coercive - not paying your taxes (the source of welfare, this case) can result in jailing. Now, how ethical and moral is to tell someone that they must support another person simply because others want to? You are also forgetting that Welfare hardly provides enough to live on - my mother, brother, and I had to stay with an emotionally abusive man simply because we had no other recourse, despite her receiving assistance from the government. Even after we moved out, into a subsidized apartment, there was still not quite enough money, forcing her to take up a job. In my personal experience, this utility you speak of is an illusion. Let us not forget the number of seniors (your vaunted Social Security in action) who do not have enough to live on - perhaps they might have had enough, had they been forced to plan for their own retirements, rather than being assured that SS would support them, only to find inadequate support.

Translation: The most effective support is self-support.

Quote:
 
Secondly, private charities operate without public oversight. You thought that governmental welfare was wasting people's money? Just wait until you see welfare run by a private corporation. Enron charity, anyone? At least in the current model, we can vote out anyone who abuses the powers that they're given. With a Board of Directors, you don't even have that option.


A private charity can not truly waste anyone's money, because these people willingly gave their money to the charity. Dart is not advocating private welfare - he is advocating self-support. Furthermore, you must consider how often people who squander money are actually voted out of office. Don Young, Alaska's representative, earmarked $223,000,000 for a bridge to an island of 50 people - the island was already serviced by a ferry that ran in 3-7 minutes every half hour. This was in 2005, and although the measure was eventually taken down, Young was still elected. This is hardly the only case of its kind, either. Meanwhile, whenever a company becomes unprofitable, those in charge are usually removed by the shareholders. The public is apathetic, and at large doesn't really seem to care what happens to its money, as evidenced by our voting habits. However, a charity would likely be directed by a group of passionate people who do not want to see its money wasted.

Quote:
 
Also, making private charity the sole provider of welfare raises questions of ideological power. To see what I mean, consider a world in which Darts gets his way. A family in some city is down out of luck, and they need welfare for a short while for everyone to find work. Unfortunately, the only private organization in town gives aid only if you happen to be, I dunno, let's say Christian. And this family isn't. What happens?


This is nothing by hypothesis. I doubt this happens enough to be of significant consequence. There are numerous national charities - they may be forced to work a bit harder and deal with poor living conditions for a time, but ultimately, it is not the government's responsibility to protect people from every threat possible. There is risk inherent in life - no amount of social support and good intentions will change that.

Quote:
 
The last argument I'm going to stack onto this is abstract--I note that private charity changes nothing from the moral point of view. The veil of ignorance tells us that a government's duty is to level the playing field between well-endowed and not. And at that point, because your private charities don't have the reach or power that a government does, your scenario leaves less coverage than we have today. So at that point, the original position argument stands, and the Government's obligated to provide welfare to the people.


The veil of ignorance is hardly the only philosophy on government's duties. There is also Libertarianism, which states that it is government's job to give everyone a fair chance in life, as opposed to a fair lot in life. On the whole, most of the people on welfare are capable of supporting themselves - they have been given a chance to educate themselves, and have functional bodies. If they turned down the chance to work or educate themselves, both of which the government provides through public schooling and anti-discrimination policies, then is it fair for them to expect the support of others? I would contend that it is not. This group comprises many of those who would receive welfare. Those who have a fair chance in life, but do not utilize are not, in my eyes, entitled to the support of others.

There are two others groups - those who have not been given a fair chance by life (mental/physical retardation/damage), and those who do not have jobs, but want them and have the skills to get them.

Given the relatively small number of people who are entirely unable to support themselves because life has not given them a fair chance, I would not have a problem with supporting them - here, the veil of ignorance idea works. However, one must realize that last group has been given a fair chance - what more can we provide? Given the rate of turnover in the job market, it is unreasonable to think that a skilled person will remain unemployed for very long.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
F3nr1L
Unregistered

Abyssal_Shrimp
Apr 13 2007, 10:28:12
F3nr1L
Apr 13 2007, 01:35:21
Abyssal_Shrimp
Apr 12 2007, 19:48:21
Darts
Apr 12 2007, 22:05:52
Any good Christian preacher thinks that women should not have jobs other than raising children, don't you know?

hahaha, no.

I shall say I am not coming close to getting involved in this land mine of a topic.

However, outside of that, I have to disagree with your disagreeance, Shrimp. Now, things may be different in Canada, I wouldn't know. But I was having to deal with a different preacher every wednesday for three years of my life. Few were repeats, very few. Now that seriously adds up to a lot of different holy men.

If there is one theme that all of them followed-- not just them, but my entire school's philosophy(the bible) followed-- was that of women being below men. My school library, what with consisting of 9 bookshelves, had an entire row-- about 20 or so books-- on how to be a proper wife. These taught how a woman should always have dinner made by the time the man is home, that she should organize his lecture notes, that she should prepare to praise god when they are both in the bedroom(I kid you not, it was put very similarly to that in one of the books).

The preachers were just as bad. They, aside from the usually insanities, taught that men should hold the door for women-- not because it was polite-- but because it is your moral duty to help those inferior to you. That was just one of the ways, there were many others. These included, but were not limited to: Adam Came first, Eve is just a rib of Adam, not equal to the full skeleton(person), the bible shows women staying at home, men have always owned everything, "even false religions are smart enough to know men come first", and "God is a man, so it is obvious that men are better".

Sorry, I can go right ahead and let the rest of this thread argue, I just had to speak up about that.

Well you've had sucky preachers, because of the several I've seen, none ever promoted such a thing. >_>

Quite possibly. I forgot to put it in, but these are only Protestant preachers. I can't vouch for Catholicism or other obscure sects.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Serious Business · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
  • 7

Auspice Zeta created by sakuragi-kun of the ZBTZ