FAQ
It is currently Wed Sep 20, 2017 11:12 am


Author Message
yaromil
Post  Post subject: Foundations of objective ethics  |  Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:16 pm

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:06 pm
Posts: 7

Offline
Hi, if you are interested in (theory of) ethics, you may find the following info useful.
Here are the main theses of (the theory of) objective ethics. It is a new theory/ethics.

1) Freedom is an objective property of the universe opposite to determinism; it is responsible for the development of the universe (evolution) and at the same time is the aim of this development. Determinism is repeatability, regularity, certainty. It feels like a necessity, inevitability, compulsion, violence.

2) Freedom is fundamentally unknowable; the question of the existence of freedom is insolvable. Determinism is learned by observations and reflections. Determinism predetermines the future but freedom makes the future unpredictable and unknowable by denying determinism.

3) Freedom is perceived as Good and determinism as Evil. Freedom begets all other values. The duty of man, the purpose and meaning of human existence is to overcome determinism and to make the world freer. Cognition is part of this process. Knowledge entails responsibility; the criterion of truth is movement to freedom.

4) The man is one who follows his moral duty, who is striving to freedom. The unwillingness or inability of a sentient being to be a man brings it down to the level of animals. The animal follows the laws of the universe, submits to forces without trying to overcome them.

5) There is no absolute moral law; ethical norms are derived from the general contract. The basis of the consent is rejection of all forms of violence. The requirements of ethics cover conclusion of the contract (honesty, openness, objectivity) and compliance with it (fidelity to given word, adherence to rules, responsibility for violation).

6) Ethical norms are formal; they are constantly improving; the old are replaced by new, more free and fair - this is the essence of moral progress. The meaning of the norms is to stimulate creative and constructive activities by limiting violence. The ethics treats people as abstractions; all private is ignored.

7) A special case of the contract is the exchange of man with society by the results of his activities. Ethics requires a fair (equivalent) retribution for both the harm and benefit brought by the man. Universal value units, money, express the value of freedom.

8) Personal relations are governed by a sacrificial morality (emotions, love, care, etc.), and catastrophic situations by a heroic morality. Both types of morality are informal, limited in space and time, and require a clear separation from the public space (non-personal relations) governed by the ethics.


Top
Olinguito
Post  Post subject: Re: Foundations of objective ethics  |  Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:33 pm
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 3:56 pm
Posts: 156

Offline
yaromil wrote:
It is a new theory/ethics.

Not really. There are already philosophical systems based on the idea of freedom and free will – for example, existentialism.

_________________
Blog


Top
yaromil
Post  Post subject: Re: Foundations of objective ethics  |  Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:51 pm

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:06 pm
Posts: 7

Offline
Olinguito wrote:
Not really. There are already philosophical systems based on the idea of freedom and free will – for example, existentialism.

Yes, there are because freedom is the only possible foundation for ethics. However all of them treat freedom incorrectly.


Top
Lynx_Fox
Post  Post subject: Re: Foundations of objective ethics  |  Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 2:54 am

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 249
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

Offline
yaromil wrote:
Hi, if you are interested in (theory of) ethics, you may find the following info useful.
Here are the main theses of (the theory of) objective ethics. It is a new theory/ethics.

1) Freedom is an objective property of the universe opposite to determinism; it is responsible for the development of the universe (evolution) and at the same time is the aim of this development. Determinism is repeatability, regularity, certainty. It feels like a necessity, inevitability, compulsion, violence.


Completely untrue. Aside from quantum scale events, many natural systems turn out to be strongly deterministic even when chaotic.


Top
yaromil
Post  Post subject: Re: Foundations of objective ethics  |  Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 1:26 pm

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:06 pm
Posts: 7

Offline
Lynx_Fox wrote:
Aside from quantum scale events, many natural systems turn out to be strongly deterministic even when chaotic.

We should not understand determinism simplistically: anything that can be more or less predicted is deterministic. This is how we derive natural laws - by watching things. However, the more complex a system is, the freer it is. At this point in evolution the most free system we know about is human (not always but nevertheless).


Top
Lynx_Fox
Post  Post subject: Re: Foundations of objective ethics  |  Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:16 pm

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 249
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

Offline
yaromil wrote:
Lynx_Fox wrote:
Aside from quantum scale events, many natural systems turn out to be strongly deterministic even when chaotic.

We should not understand determinism simplistically: anything that can be more or less predicted is deterministic. This is how we derive natural laws - by watching things. However, the more complex a system is, the freer it is. At this point in evolution the most free system we know about is human (not always but nevertheless).


What?

Why the conflation between the development of the Universe and evolution? Why use a different and unique definition of freedom, that neither makes sense from a mathematical or a well-reasoned perspective? What do you mean by "free?" Even from a social-psychological perspective, it pretty well is known that most of our perceptions of "free action"....(aka decision making) don't even arise from our conscious minds--and are largely determined by our subconscious shaped from experience, emotions, and limited sensory perceptions. And even in the event that our subconsicous is largely chaotic (a bit far-fetched), it could still be 100% deterministic (we know this from chaos theory).

"
6) Ethical norms are formal; they are constantly improving; the old are replaced by new, more free and fair - this is the essence of moral progress. "
This too seems rather shaky. Even if you based objective morality on something tangible such as survival or of the person, their genes, or their society-- the environment inevitably changes and thus their ethical norms to maintain those advantages or perish-- change doesn't infer improvement, or more "freedom" or "fairness". Like natural selection, most changes doesn't' improve things and either need another change to survive or simply comes to a dead end. (Your comment is akin the bogus idea that humans are more evolved than a bug--it's demonstrably untrue. )


Top
yaromil
Post  Post subject: Re: Foundations of objective ethics  |  Posted: Mon Jun 19, 2017 8:06 pm

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:06 pm
Posts: 7

Offline
Lynx_Fox wrote:
Why the conflation between the development of the Universe and evolution?

Because evolution of living matter is part (or continuation) of evolution of the Universe. It makes perfect sense.
Quote:
Why use a different and unique definition of freedom, that neither makes sense from a mathematical or a well-reasoned perspective?

Mathematics is a formal tool for modeling determinism. Freedom cannot be formalized. This definition allows a plausible explanation of morality. Otherwise, you cannot explain where morality/freedom comes from.
Quote:
What do you mean by "free?"

"Free" means a subject can behave absolutely unpredictable - like by creating new things (in case of humans, for example, art or induction).
Quote:
Even from a social-psychological perspective, it pretty well is known that most of our perceptions of "free action"....(aka decision making) don't even arise from our conscious minds--and are largely determined by our subconscious shaped from experience, emotions, and limited sensory perceptions. And even in the event that our subconsicous is largely chaotic (a bit far-fetched), it could still be 100% deterministic (we know this from chaos theory).

Science deals with determinism, science cannot accept/study freedom. However, freedom is the only possible basis for ethics, responsibility, etc. People who assert that they are 100% deterministic robots lacking any freedom do not understand that it makes no sense to argue with them. It is simple logic. Either you have a free goal, a meaning of life, or you are just following external or internal forces.
Quote:
"6) Ethical norms are formal; they are constantly improving; the old are replaced by new, more free and fair - this is the essence of moral progress. "
This too seems rather shaky. Even if you based objective morality on something tangible such as survival or of the person, their genes, or their society-- the environment inevitably changes and thus their ethical norms to maintain those advantages or perish-- change doesn't infer improvement, or more "freedom" or "fairness". Like natural selection, most changes doesn't' improve things and either need another change to survive or simply comes to a dead end.

You cannot base morality on determinism. Survival is necessity, it is determinism. Only freedom to chose your own goals, values, etc, makes you moral.
Quote:
(Your comment is akin the bogus idea that humans are more evolved than a bug--it's demonstrably untrue. )

Demonstrably?! So you are just like a bug? But why limit yourself? Say you are like a stone - it will be more impressive. (Or may be I do not get you, do you mean something else?)


Top
paleoichneum
Post  Post subject: Re: Foundations of objective ethics  |  Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:28 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 507

Offline
yaromil wrote:
Lynx_Fox wrote:
Why the conflation between the development of the Universe and evolution?

Because evolution of living matter is part (or continuation) of evolution of the Universe. It makes perfect sense.

No, actually it is not and there is little to no connection between the two.

_________________
The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Foundations of objective ethics  |  Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:03 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5698
Location: Iowa

Offline
While the points being made most certainly do not make "perfect sense," and while it's painful to watch yet another person online conflate biological evolution with cosmic inflation, there is validity in the point that matter changing is included as a subset of the larger set that includes the universe changing.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
scoobydoo1
Post  Post subject: Re: Foundations of objective ethics  |  Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:52 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:39 am
Posts: 203
Location: Singapore

Offline
yaromil wrote:
Hi, if you are interested in (theory of) ethics, you may find the following info useful.

I am interested in the subject, however I do not find the eight items that you have listed useful. While I am not certain how you have arrived at the your conclusions and do not know how widely read you are on the subject, I will leave you with a little additional reading in the link below, in the hopes that it may refine what you have come up with so far.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-theory/

yaromil wrote:
Here are the main theses of (the theory of) objective ethics. It is a new theory/ethics.

1 to 8

Lets put the meat of your conclusions to the test shall we.

Are you familiar with the classic trolley problem thought experiment? I would like you to give us a detailed rationale for your (in)action. Should you not be familiar with the thought experiment that I have mentioned, please refer to the link below and give it five minutes of your time before attempting to solve it.


Top
yaromil
Post  Post subject: Re: Foundations of objective ethics  |  Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 4:43 pm

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:06 pm
Posts: 7

Offline
paleoichneum wrote:
yaromil wrote:
Because evolution of living matter is part (or continuation) of evolution of the Universe. It makes perfect sense.

No, actually it is not and there is little to no connection between the two.

This may seem from the scientific point of view (ie differences in some mechanisms of both evolutions) but from the wider point of view they are basicaly the same:
1) both evolutions can be described as emergence of new forms of matter while the rest of matter just endlessly repeating its life cycle(s),
2) we do not know and we never know the reasons for and the exact mechanisms of the emergence of the new forms,
3) all new forms are more complex (and have more degrees of freedom).
But I leave it at that as this subject is off topic.

scoobydoo1 wrote:
...I will leave you with a little additional reading in the link below, in the hopes that it may refine what you have come up with so far.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-theory/


Thanks but I am not interested in analythical philosophy. However, I will help you assuming that you are interested in value theory (but have not noticed what I already said in the OP). The value theory does not have a plausible explanation of the substance of values and where they come from. The objective ethics has. Please see item 1 "Freedom is [...] responsible for the development of the universe (evolution) and at the same time is the aim of this development" and item 3 "Freedom begets all other values". Specifically, the more things or events or people help promote freedom, the better they are (they have instrumental values from the "point of view" of the Universe or, rather, of all ethical people). Freedom is the absolute of values (it is intrinsically good), goodness is measured relative to it.

scoobydoo1 wrote:
Lets put the meat of your conclusions to the test shall we.

Are you familiar with the classic trolley problem thought experiment? I would like you to give us a detailed rationale for your (in)action. Should you not be familiar with the thought experiment that I have mentioned, please refer to the link below and give it five minutes of your time before attempting to solve it.

I am not incline to take an exam here. Besides, it is a moral imperative for any ethical man to evaluate new ethical ideas and to apply them in practice (or reject). However, again, as a mater of courtesy, assuming you are interested in the trolley problem, I will try to help you solve it.

A particular interaction between people is governed by sacrificial morality, not objective ethics. From the point of view of the morality, the close you are to a person, the more sacrifices you are required to do for them. For instance, if you see a person needs help (or read about him in a newspaper but personaly know him) you feel compeled to help, but if you read about somebody you do not know and do not care you may completely ignore him. Similar, in case of the trolley, while it may be acceptable for you to kill somebody you barely know remotely, you can hardly do this while standing rigth in front of him. Closeness governs your actions.

In case of objective ethics closeness does not matter - all people are equal abstractions. The trolley problem is "unsolvable" as long as you do not separate the two (ethics and morality). After that you can solve/explain it easy enough. One solutions is people can have specific rules for conflicts like this. Also, you have to keep in mind that morality (both sacrificial and heroic) is inherently conflictual (like when you love two people and they are fighting each other) and its conflicts could not be resolved formally (in a formal way). In contrast, conflicts of ethics (between old and new norms, or in case of accidental misdeeds) can be resolved by way of negotiation and agreement.


Top
scoobydoo1
Post  Post subject: Re: Foundations of objective ethics  |  Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 5:41 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:39 am
Posts: 203
Location: Singapore

Offline
yaromil wrote:
The value theory does not have a plausible explanation of the substance of values and where they come from. The objective ethics has. Please see item 1 "Freedom is ...

In short, you are promoting a personal set of values with no justification as to why anyone else should accept them. You may want to consider reevaluating your approach.

yaromil wrote:
I am not incline to take an exam here. Besides, it is a moral imperative for any ethical man to evaluate new ethical ideas and to apply them in practice (or reject). However, again, as a mater of courtesy, assuming you are interested in the trolley problem, I will try to help you solve it.

Pity, and you are mistaken, I have already resolved the thought experiment for myself.

I am however curious as to whether you are willing both to apply your eight points to the trolley problem and give us a detailed rationale as to how you have arrived at your answer. In doing so, you will demonstrate to your readers whether your "foundations of objective ethics" has any shortcomings and/or limits to its application, and by giving us a rationalistion as to how you have arrived at a/any answer, I/we can take a closer look at how you assign component values to the subjects in the scenario and deriving a course of (in)action.

yaromil wrote:
A particular interaction between people is governed by sacrificial morality, not objective ethics. From the point of view of the morality, the close you are to a person, the more sacrifices you are required to do for them. For instance, if you see a person needs help (or read about him in a newspaper but personaly know him) you feel compeled to help, but if you read about somebody you do not know and do not care you may completely ignore him. Similar, in case of the trolley, while it may be acceptable for you to kill somebody you barely know remotely, you can hardly do this while standing rigth in front of him. Closeness governs your actions.

In case of objective ethics closeness does not matter - all people are equal abstractions. The trolley problem is "unsolvable" as long as you do not separate the two (ethics and morality). After that you can solve/explain it easy enough. One solutions is people can have specific rules for conflicts like this. Also, you have to keep in mind that morality (both sacrificial and heroic) is inherently conflictual (like when you love two people and they are fighting each other) and its conflicts could not be resolved formally (in a formal way). In contrast, conflicts of ethics (between old and new norms, or in case of accidental misdeeds) can be resolved by way of negotiation and agreement.

As I have suspected, you neither appear to be well read on the subjects of ethics and/or values, nor have you a matured foundational basis for evaluating issues of a ethical nature in a philosophical setting. The worse of which is that you also appear not understand the trolley problem sufficiently to make an attempt at a/any sort of answer.

Sigh, I thank you for your time.


Top
yaromil
Post  Post subject: Re: Foundations of objective ethics  |  Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 6:51 pm

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:06 pm
Posts: 7

Offline
scoobydoo1 wrote:
In short, you are promoting a personal set of values with no justification as to why anyone else should accept them. You may want to consider reevaluating your approach.

If you need justifications you may want to read more extensively about objective ethics. (In short, you cannot have any values at all without having freedom first. But I cannot go more deep. My goal here is just to give the basics.)
scoobydoo1 wrote:
I am however curious as to whether you are willing both to apply your eight points to the trolley problem and give us a detailed rationale as to how you have arrived at your answer. In doing so, you will demonstrate to your readers whether your "foundations of objective ethics" has any shortcomings and/or limits to its application, and by giving us a rationalistion as to how you have arrived at a/any answer, I/we can take a closer look at how you assign component values to the subjects in the scenario and deriving a course of (in)action.

It seems like my English is completely unusable. I can only repeat. Objective ethics treats people as abstractions and creates ethical norms by consensus. So the only solution to your problem (I do not consider the trolley problem viable at all) is to have prior rules for dealing with such situations. Following the rules is the only ethical course of action.

Everything else I said about sacrificial morality was meant to help you better understand real behaviour problem, not formal ethical solutions. If you chose to ignore that, it is your right.

Quote:
As I have suspected, you neither appear to be well read on the subjects of ethics and/or values, nor have you a matured foundational basis for evaluating issues of a ethical nature in a philosophical setting. The worse of which is that you also appear not understand the trolley problem sufficiently to make an attempt at a/any sort of answer.

There is no need for personal insults.
Quote:
Sigh, I thank you for your time.

You are welcome.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Foundations of objective ethics  |  Posted: Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:15 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5698
Location: Iowa

Offline
scoobydoo1 wrote:
As I have suspected, you neither appear to be well read on the subjects of ethics and/or values, nor have you a matured foundational basis for evaluating issues of a ethical nature in a philosophical setting. The worse of which is that you also appear not understand the trolley problem sufficiently to make an attempt at a/any sort of answer.
yaromil wrote:
There is no need for personal insults.

That wasn't a personal insult. If you disagree, please use the Report post function so site staff can review to determine what actions are warranted.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Lynx_Fox
Post  Post subject: Re: Foundations of objective ethics  |  Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:30 pm

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 249
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

Offline
Quote:
"Free" means a subject can behave absolutely unpredictable - like by creating new things (in case of humans, for example, art or induction).

At any scale from quantum to the entire observable universe, we have zero objective evidence that freedom, as you've defined it, exist.

Quote:
Freedom cannot be formalized. This definition allows a plausible explanation of morality. Otherwise, you cannot explain where morality/freedom comes from.

Then it's not really worthy of discussion.


Quote:
This may seem from the scientific point of view (ie differences in some mechanisms of both evolutions) but from the wider point of view they are basicaly the same:
1) both evolutions can be described as emergence of new forms of matter while the rest of matter just endlessly repeating its life cycle(s),
2) we do not know and we never know the reasons for and the exact mechanisms of the emergence of the new forms,

Horse crap, higher local order at the expense of larger scale disorder is pretty well understood and virtually everywhere in nature--from the formation of a seabreeze on a lake to the primate typing this.

Quote:
3) all new forms are more complex (and have more degrees of freedom).

Not at all--in reality, only a tiny % are more complex, for example, there are only a few species close to human intelligence, but millions of "bug" species.

Quote:
However, I will help you assuming that you are interested in value theory

Sure, it's a fascinating area--though it seems most coming from the philosophical side completely ignore neural biology and what we know about the brain, behavioural sciences, and sociology.

Quote:
You cannot base morality on determinism. Survival is necessity, it is determinism. Only freedom to chose your own goals, values, etc, makes you moral.

Again you are ignoring science. You conscious options--even if we truly get to decide with some degree of freedom, are entirely dependent on thoughts generated by the subconscious--that it a fact. There's no evidence of freedom as you have defined it--not a hint.

Quote:
So you are just like a bug?

Nowhere did I way that. what I said is we, nor any other life, is more evolved than other life--every organism on Earth seems to have a common origin--statements that claim some as more evolved than others are pure nonsense.


Top
yaromil
Post  Post subject: Re: Foundations of objective ethics  |  Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 2:35 pm

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:06 pm
Posts: 7

Offline
Lynx_Fox wrote:
At any scale from quantum to the entire observable universe, we have zero objective evidence that freedom, as you've defined it, exist.

Quote:
Freedom cannot be formalized. This definition allows a plausible explanation of morality. Otherwise, you cannot explain where morality/freedom comes from.

Then it's not really worthy of discussion.
[...]
Horse crap, higher local order at the expense of larger scale disorder is pretty well understood and virtually everywhere in nature--from the formation of a seabreeze on a lake to the primate typing this.
[...]
Sure, it's a fascinating area--though it seems most coming from the philosophical side completely ignore neural biology and what we know about the brain, behavioural sciences, and sociology.
[...]
Again you are ignoring science. You conscious options--even if we truly get to decide with some degree of freedom, are entirely dependent on thoughts generated by the subconscious--that it a fact. There's no evidence of freedom as you have defined it--not a hint.


Ok. I see you are completely lost in philosophy. I'll explain you some basics. Again, just as a courtesy.

Your blind belief in science is... you guess?... religion (once it was called "positivism" if I am not mistaken). Now prove that it is not so. You cannot. It is exactly like another poster here having a blind belief in ethics in "philosophy" or"academic" or whatever else "settings" (it is called "scholastics").

Every kind of knowledge is based on assumptions (axioms, postulates). There are no objective facts separate from our consensus about them. I repeat. Every free being can have only his subjective opinion. Objectivity is a result of consensus of free beings. We can base our consensus on assumptions which are the most plausible. And the most plausible of all is freedom -- freedom to have: 1) your own opinion 2) the common basis for consensus, without which there cannot be consensus and therefore any knowledge (including science). Without freedom everything is loosing sense. So, start with freedom and then you will get to science.

But if you are not a free being, then all your "thoughts" are put into your brain by somebody else (my guess is by your teachers and holy "scientific" books). As I said, robots do not deserve discussions -- no point.

Thanks for your attention. No need to answer.


Top
Lynx_Fox
Post  Post subject: Re: Foundations of objective ethics  |  Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:57 am

Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:17 am
Posts: 249
Location: US Pacific NorthWest

Offline
Your logical fallacies and false equivalents of science to religion aside, Philosophical logic basic on premises that spurn what it has known about the real world is complete garbage. Learn a bit about the about neural science, psychology and sociality before even starting to have serious discussions about ethics--otherwise, it's just mental masturbation and an example of why philosophy isn't taken seriously by science or anyone else.

Unfortunately, we don't have a philosophical equivalent subforum to pseudoscience.


Top
Dywyddyr
Post  Post subject: Re: Foundations of objective ethics  |  Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2017 10:44 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:53 pm
Posts: 96

Offline
Lynx_Fox wrote:
Unfortunately, we don't have a philosophical equivalent subforum to pseudoscience.
Which is why this thread should go into Pseudo (or Trash).
We have, again, the old crank refrain:
Quote:
Now prove that it is not so. You cannot.

I.e. the OP can't prove, nor even support, his contentions ergo they're correct unless someone can "prove" they're wrong.
The entire thing is inane drivel, unsupported by fact or logic.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Foundations of objective ethics  |  Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:13 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5698
Location: Iowa

Offline
Dywyddyr wrote:
Lynx_Fox wrote:
Unfortunately, we don't have a philosophical equivalent subforum to pseudoscience.
Which is why this thread should go into Pseudo (or Trash).

Agree with you both. Thread moved.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   


Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy