In a free nation, should opinions against freedom be allowed?

Wolfy48

I am a firm believer in freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. People should be allowed to believe whatever they want, say whatever they want, and express themselves however they want. Obviously, that expression shouldn't extend to hurting others. As of right now, freedom of thought is safe, as I don't know of any current methods to read and erase thoughts of the average civilian. But freedom of speech and freedom of expression? I feel like both of these are currently under threat, openly in the polar east, and subtly in the polar west. In the East, censorship of dissenting voices is praised by both the government and the people of those nations, as it increases stability and government control. But it the West, it is different. People claim to want free speech, but it seems they only want that freedom to extend to people of the same opinion of them. Let me start this by being very clear: I DO NOT support nazism. But in Germany, it is illegal to throw up a nazi salute or speak the words "heil hitler". I agree that those words and actions represent terrible things, and if said seriously, should be condemned. But should the government be able to make it illegal? People are fine with it because it is widely agreed that the nazis were terrible. But is that not a gross violation of free speech? You are literally saying: "This kind of speech is bad, and is now illegal". What if that were applied to something else, like supporting racism? Racism is bad, I fully believe that, but the lines of what's "racist" can be blurred. I don't like racist people, but should they not be given a voice? If they're not hurting anyone, can you justify silencing them for having a dissenting opinion? If you can justify silencing racist people, can you really be mad at China for silencing gay people? It is my opinion that while I will judge you for being racist, I will still listen to your opinion and take it into consideration. EVERY opinion must be heard, not just the ones that agree with the majority. What if someone support slavery, or wants to enforce gender roles back into society? Is it ok to silence them? I still say no. EVERYONE, and I mean every single person of every background and with every opinion, has a voice, no matter how distasteful. So long as you are not hurting others, you should be allowed to express yourself however you want. Hate speech should be allowed. You may argue against this, but let me say this: "I hate nazis, and I want all nazis to die." You probably don't have much of an issue with me saying that. But what if I said "I hate black people, and I want all black people to die." You hopefully have an issue with me saying that. This is how it is with hate speech too. It only applies to some groups of people, with certain opinions. It is literally a targeted attack on people's ability to express opinions. A law that states "You can say and have this opinion, but not this one". Given, they are distateful and wrongful opinions being attacked, but that is still a violation of free speech. It feels fine for most people since it doesn't affect them, and they agree that nazis are bad. But what if one day YOU are part of the silenced group? How would you feel if one day YOU weren't allowed to express your opinion, just because the majority of people say that it's bad? I do not wish to defend nazis or racists, but I do wish to defend free speech. If they are wrong, let society and reason be the judge, not the law. I think that everyone should have a voice, and that freedom to speak your mind it what makes a country free and democratic. Ummm... anyways those are my thoughts on the matter, lemme know if you think that certain types of speech should be restricted, or if some opinions are bad enough that you can justify giving up free speech to silence them.

Fire Ologist

Hey Wolf,
There’s another thread here about this. My thought are here.

And I generally agree with you. Limiting any speech, by law, based on its content (meaning because you don’t like what it says) is the antithesis of a free society.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/988251

But the title of your OP here is a bit different. To protect freedom, should enslaving and oppressive speech be allowed? It’s like asking if we should be able to vote to change our government into a monarchy.

I think we have to say, yes. And rely on the powers of persuasive speech to win the day.

Or we simply are not free and will certainly be abused by the government.

Wolfy48

↪Fire Ologist

Thank you! I didn't see the other discussion

Wolfy48

"To protect freedom, should enslaving and oppressive speech be allowed? It’s like asking if we should be able to vote to change our government into a monarchy" --

↪Fire Ologist

The problem here is the nature of society. What is moral now may not be moral in the future, just as what was moral in the past is not moral now. As of right now, Democracy, Equality, and Freedom of speech are considered moral, hence why a democracy is the most moral form of government. But what if in the future society considers Domination, Loyalty, and Stability to be more moral? Can we judge and make moral decisions for a future society with different morals? Do we have the right to impose our morals on a future that may not share the same views? If so, do the people of the past have the right to impose their morals upon us? Morality shifts and changes based on time and location, and you have to take that into account when talking about politics and the society of the future. Between just going with the flow of morality, or trying to argue that we can impose our morals on the future, I personally don't know which is the right answer, perhaps that is something I should dive further into and form an opinion on.

Fire Ologist

What is moral now may not be moral in the future — Wolfy48

And that is why today and into the future, we have to protect a society that can continue to make its own laws, to reflect its own changing values.

Democracy and the individual freedoms of self-government, it seems to me, are too obvious to ever really alter. Self-government will always be a facet of the better societies that will ever exist, from now on. And it can only be taken away from societies that have such freedom through bloodshed.

Live free or die. People who understand this mean it.

Wolfy48

Democracy and the individual freedoms of self-government, it seems to me, are too obvious to ever really alter --

↪Fire Ologist

You say that, but democracy fell in Greece, in Rome, in China, in Perisa, and in various other nations. Democracy has failed and turned into dictatorship many times, so is it really too obvious to be altered?

Fire Ologist

↪Wolfy48

True. I just mean from this earth. People will always move towards or revert back to democracy now.

Even if the reversion starts with a prison riot.

Wolfy48

"People will always move towards or revert back to democracy now" --

↪Fire Ologist

Well, yes, but the same argument can be made that democracy will always crumble because of internal dissent and collapse into a dictatorship. History paints a cycle of political philosophies crumbling, not showing up for centuries, and then popping back up. For the record, I'm all for democracy, but it's inevitable that no nation can stay democratic forever. Or even exist forever.

flannel jesus

In a free nation, long posts without paragraph breaks shouldn't be allowed

Fire Ologist

↪Wolfy48

I agree with that too. Democracies legislate themselves into paralysis and bitter faction.

And today with the media rooting for sides, faction ing has become profitable both for corporations and for political parties.

But in the end, the best way to a better world has to be by consent of the governed or the factions will just fight for dominance and pick each other apart.

Common sense is always the undercurrent. Always will be. But without good leadership representing we commoners, anything is possible.

Wolfy48

"But without good leadership representing we commoners, anything is possible." --

↪Fire Ologist

I agree 100%, the issue is that good leadership isn't very common. People like to pick sides and factionalize. The media profits from this and stokes the fires, to the point where people choose leaders out of fanaticism or hatred of the other side, instead of based on what would be best for themselves and their country. As much as I wish for the situation to de-escalate as it has in the past, it's a very real possibility that hate festers and the factions manifest into a legit coup, or god forbid a civil war, as it has in the previously democratic states of the past.

Athena

I am a firm believer in freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. People should be allowed to believe whatever they want, say whatever they want, and express themselves however they want. — Wolfy48

:scream: I can not agree with that much freedom, for such freedom leads to anarchy, and because anarchy is not tolerable, it leads to a dictatorship and totaleran state. Especially not when the population is educated for technology but not educated about the virtues and principles of a liberal democracy.

Especially, freedom of expression is problematic because that can mean unacceptable acts of violence.

On the other hand, I have heard in India it is a given that when speaking of one thing, you speak of its opposite as well. If we also held this understanding, increased knowledge could get better results than what I see in the US today. Right now, too many people have very limited knowledge, and letting them loose is about like letting all the animals in a zoo loose.

Athena

Common sense is always the undercurrent. Always will be. But without good leadership representing we commoners, anything is possible. — Fire Ologist

Ah, what is common sense? How does it become common?

How about a return to civics for high school students and health books that prepare first graders for civics in high school? Education for technology has manifested a nightmare for a nation that is supposed to stand for liberty and justice.

Thomas Jefferson believed that education was crucial for developing a virtuous and informed citizenry, essential for a functioning republic. He saw education as a means to improve both individual character and society as a whole, with morality being a key outcome. Jefferson emphasized that an educated citizenry would be able to make sound judgments about public affairs and participate effectively in democratic processes. AI

Wolfy48

"Right now, too many people have very limited knowledge, and letting them loose is about like letting all the animals in a zoo loose" --

↪Athena

So you wish to silence the uneducated? That seems very... uhhhh.... bad? No offense but to me everyone should have a voice, not just those you deem "educated"

"freedom of expression is problematic because that can mean unacceptable acts of violence"
--

↪Athena

Yes, for sure, but this is why I quickly specified that I only support the freedom of expression if it does not harm others

"Especially not when the population is educated for technology but not educated about the virtues and principles of a liberal democracy" --

↪Athena

Hm... I understand the viewpoint that unrestricted freedom leads to anarchy, but how can you simultaneously argue for liberal democracy and the restriction of speech? I support non-violent expression, and I feel like suppressing those with a different viewpoint than yourself is the OPPOSITE of a liberal democracy...

Wolfy48

"How about a return to civics for high school students and health books that prepare first graders for civics in high school?" --

↪Athena

I agree that education is good, and leads to better decisions, but that education should something that people are able to explore on their own to form their own opinions. If the education about the state is coming only from the state, that will bias people and will almost certainly result in an authoritarian state. If the state controls education, who has the education to control the state?

I just don't see the value in the point of "You are either taught to support what we want, or you are considered uneducated and silenced." Well, I do see the value if you're a dictator or a pervasive authoritarian state, but if you are standing for a liberal democracy, that really seems counter-intuituve.

Right now, too many people have very limited knowledge, and letting them loose is about like letting all the animals in a zoo loose. — Athena

Well, most of the US "founding fathers" agreed with you. These from Hamilton:

"The body of people … do not possess the discernment and stability necessary for systematic government. To deny that they are frequently led into the grossest errors by misinformation and passion, would be a flattery which their own good sense must despise."

"The history of ancient and modern republics has taught [us]… that popular assemblies are frequently misguided by ignorance, by sudden impulses and [by] the intrigues of ambitious men."

Nonetheless, I'd respectfully suggest that the next couple hundred years of US history represented an attempt to find a way to further democracy without treating vast sections of citizens as if they were animals who ought to be caged. I doubt even Hamilton went that far. Just curious: In the metaphor you employ, who are the zookeepers?

Athena

So you wish to silence the uneducated? That seems very... uhhhh.... bad? No offense but to me everyone should have a voice, not just those you deem "educated" — Wolfy48

I don't think I said the ignorant should be silenced. However, neither should ignorance be ignored.

"Especially not when the population is educated for technology but not educated about the virtues and principles of a liberal democracy" -- ↪Athena

Hm... I understand the viewpoint that unrestricted freedom leads to anarchy, but how can you simultaneously argue for liberal democracy and the restriction of speech?

Please keep in mind, I argue for better education. That is how I argue for liberal democracy.
That goes with associating human ignorance with animals being unleashed from a zoo. At some point, Socrates explains our question should not be what is, but what should be. A liberal democracy coming out of the Enlightenment is a dream of what can be. We can not silence the ignorant, but we can encourage a remedy for ignorance, and we can work on manifesting a culture that is better than the one we have now.

I support non-violent expression, and I feel like suppressing those with a different viewpoint than yourself is the OPPOSITE of a liberal democracy...

What did I say that speaks of suppressing those with a different point of view? My goodness, there is so much I don't know; it would be foolish for me to act as though I can judge all things, and I should have the power to force my will on others.

Tonight, I called my local TV station to object to one-sided reporting of the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Excluding the opposite point of view at this time in our history threatens our freedom of speech. I have to call attention to this error from time to time, or our news station gets lazy and goes with the popular story and ignores the less available opposite side of the story. I must compliment our local news because in the past, they have put in the extra effort when I have objected to the exclusion of the other side.

As Obama said a couple of weeks ago, you and I have to do something if we want to keep the great country we inherited. Restricting our political activity to our duty to vote is not enough. If the masses are left ignorant, they will make bad decisions, and that can destroy the democracy with liberty that we inherited. Our local newspaper was called the Register Guard because back in the day, reporters thought it was their duty to keep us well informed, so we could make good decisions. That will not happen if we don't ask for it.

Tom Storm

People should be allowed to believe whatever they want, say whatever they want, and express themselves however they want. — Wolfy48

I don't have strong views on this. Americans seem really activated by discussions about freedom. I am sympathetic to some forms of censorship. I like the idea of outlawing hate speech. We can't allow people to scream out "fire!" in a crowded theatre - we know what stampedes do.

I understand the viewpoint that unrestricted freedom leads to anarchy, but how can you simultaneously argue for liberal democracy and the restriction of speech? I support non-violent expression, and I feel like suppressing those with a different viewpoint than yourself is the OPPOSITE of a liberal democracy... — Wolfy48

Liberal democracy is more than free speech, in the USA, say, it is also responsibility and:

Free and fair elections: Citizens elect representatives at local, state, and national levels.

Rule of law: Laws apply equally to all individuals, including government officials.

Separation of powers: The government is divided into executive (President), legislative (Congress), and judicial (Supreme Court) branches.

Protection of civil liberties: The Constitution (especially the Bill of Rights) protects freedoms like speech, religion, and the press.

Checks and balances: Each branch of government can limit the powers of the others to prevent abuse.

Do you believe strongly in all of these?

Athena

I agree that education is good, and leads to better decisions, but that education should something that people are able to explore on their own to form their own opinions. If the education about the state is coming only from the state, that will bias people and will almost certainly result in an authoritarian state. If the state controls education, who has the education to control the state?

I just don't see the value in the point of "You are either taught to support what we want, or you are considered uneducated and silenced." Well, I do see the value if you're a dictator or a pervasive authoritarian state, but if you are standing for a liberal democracy, that really seems counter-intuituve. — Wolfy48

Oh please, no one is going to look for something they know nothing about. That is not possible. When is the last time you went into a store and bought the best thing a human being can have, given you don't even know it exists or is needed?

Ask people what the best virtues are. I would be surprised if many people named even one virtue. I think young people may not know what a virtue is, and you tell me they should explore this information on their own. It ain't going to happen until they know what virtues are and why they are important.

Can you name 10 characteristics of democracy? In my experience, asking people to do that results in them being very angry with me. I would not know the characteristics of democracy if I didn't have the grade school Democracy Series textbooks. I found these books in a bookstore because I knew we once taught our national values, and I looked for a book explaining them. :lol: That put me on a life path I was not expecting.

No, no the education I am talking about does not bias people. We used the Conceptual Method of education. Teachers were told not to pay too much attention to names and dates, but rather to focus on concepts. Under this system, the student may totally disagree with the teacher and get a good grade based on their understanding of the concept.

We taught children HOW to think, not WHAT to think. However, with education for technology, knowing the right answer has nothing to do with a concept, and it is the only way to get a high grade, because all answers are only right or wrong. And boy, does this education lead to belligerent people! And with Bush Jr.'s No Child Left Behind Act, teachers were preparing children to pass the test so their school wouldn't lose funding. That is what makes the US score very low on education when compared to the rest of the world. We replaced the Conceptual Method with the Behaviorist model.

The behaviorist model, or behavioral learning theory, suggests that learning occurs through interactions with the environment, primarily through conditioning (reinforcement and punishment). It emphasizes observable behaviors and external stimuli over internal mental processes. Key figures associated with this model include John B. Watson, B.F. Skinner, and Ivan Pavlov. AI

For years, we have taught children as we train dogs. That justifies your concern. That is why I am always trying to talk about education! Teaching a child how to think is different from the Military Industrial Complex education we have had since 1958.

Janus

↪Fire Ologist

To agree democratically to abolish democracy seems like a performative contradiction. When I elect a party different to the one you want I haven't taken away your freedom, and your party can always win the next election. But a democratic vote to abolish democracy, if it were not supported by everyone, would illegitimately abolish the freedom of those who opposed it. If absolutely everyone agreed to abolish their freedom then it might be okay, but then what about those yet to reach voting age?

Fire Ologist

To agree democratically to abolish democracy seems like a performative contradiction. When I elect a party different to the one you want I haven't taken away your freedom, and your party can always win the next election. — Janus

I was just pointing out that a free society could all agree to hold a vote to elect one final dictator as leader, and vote to abolish the constitution. That would be insane, and (most likely) never happen, but it is legally possible.

If absolutely everyone agreed to abolish their freedom then it might be okay — Janus

Yeah, that was my point. Although it would be nuts, there is nothing in the constitution of a free democratic society preventing it from electing a king.

When one party loses, that’s not taking away freedom. Whatever one side does can be undone after the next election, because the people remain free. That is precisely why free speech is so important. We need politicians and voters to be free to criticize and campaign against the sitting government.

Free speech, and all that it means, is a cornerstone to all other freedom.

All government limits freedom. Government is a necessary evil - necessary because people limit other people’s freedom too, so we need the rule of law and police and the elected leaders to keep ourselves a coherent society. But it’s an evil, because bureaucracy and government will always limit freedom stupidly, unfairly at times, and wastefully and expensively (taxing me takes away my power, but again, necessary evil so we can have any government).

I’ve been hearing most of my life of how the conservative parties are facist and seek to take away freedom. Reagan, Bush 2, and Trump have all meant the end of democracy. Seems a lot of people think that if their party loses, the other party is merely taking away all freedom. I say win the arguments and reverse things in the next election. Every time the other party wins, it’s not a military coup.

The fear spread by claiming the other party wants to permanently take away freedom is propaganda mostly to help defeat that party in an election. It’s unfortunate our leaders say that, and unfortunate so many people fall for it.

We all have to guard and protect our freedom and our constitution. But telling people what they can and can’t say, that is the opposite of protecting our freedom.

Someone says something ignorant, like a racist does, or a communist does, we should be free to tell them they are idiots. We should not make laws that tell all of us what to say. Plus, people are people - we need to hear what they say to know who we are dealing with. If we limit public speech, the badness just goes underground where it can boil like a volcano waiting for something to allow it to erupt. Let’s let all the assholes speak their minds and hold rallies. So we know who they are, what they think, and then work out publicly how best to deal with them.

Freedom of speech is absolutely bedrock, as well as fragile. That’s why I love it when I hear stuff I totally disagree with. I know that I’m hearing a brave person speaking their mind at least, and keeping free speech alive and loud.

Leontiskos

To agree democratically to abolish democracy seems like a performative contradiction. When I elect a party different to the one you want I haven't taken away your freedom, and your party can always win the next election. But a democratic vote to abolish democracy, if it were not supported by everyone, would illegitimately abolish the freedom of those who opposed it. If absolutely everyone agreed to abolish their freedom then it might be okay, but then what about those yet to reach voting age? — Janus

Unless you want to say that democratic votes require unanimity, they do not illegitimately abolish the freedom of those who voted differently.* In a majoritarian democracy a majority consensus is required; in a super majority democracy a super majority consensus is required; in a unanimous democracy a unanimous consensus is required. There is simply no reason why a democratic consensus must be unanimous in order to be valid. I would say that if a democracy cannot be democratically disbanded then it is not a democracy at all. But of course democracies can be democratically disbanded, in most cases according to the formal rules of the democracy itself.

If a democracy votes to disband itself, then the last act of that democracy is the act of disbanding. The act of disbanding is a democratic act. There is no performative contradiction here; there is just a majority of people who decide to order their political arrangement differently.

* In all likelihood you are conflating democracy with liberalism and particularly with a governmental defense of natural rights. But the idea of unalienable rights is not democratic - it does not flow from democracy. In fact it is undemocratic in the sense that it places a constraint on the democratic principle. Democratic rights are always alienable.

Tzeentch

'Dangerous opinions' to citizens are what running with scizzors is to toddlers. The grown-ups in government must protect us against the dangerous opinions!

No, but in all seriousness, there's scarcely a more iliberal thought than the various iterations of the 'dangerous opinions' argument.

If you don't believe citizens themselves are capable of telling right from wrong, then what's the point of a free society in the first place? Why argue for a free society if one believes citizens are essentially adult children that need to be nannied by the state about what to think, say and do?

SophistiCat

If a democracy votes to disband itself, then the last act of that democracy is the act of disbanding. The act of disbanding is a democratic act. There is no performative contradiction here; there is just a majority of people who decide to order their political arrangement differently. — Leontiskos

The performative contradiction is in performing a democratic act by someone who perforce rejects democracy.

flannel jesus

↪SophistiCat

it's only as much a performative contradiction as someone who is anti violence using violence to protect themselves from other violence, it seems to me.

If you want a dictatorial monarchy, and the only way to achieve a dictatorial monarchy is to vote for it, that seems like an acceptable action towards that end.

SophistiCat

it's only as much a performative contradiction as someone who is anti violence using violence to protect themselves from other violence, it seems to me. — flannel jesus

That would indeed be a performative contradiction, without additional qualifications of what "anti-violence" entails in this context.

Leontiskos

The performative contradiction is in performing a democratic act by someone who perforce rejects democracy. — SophistiCat

But why assume they reject democracy? Maybe they say, "I think democracy is the wrong system for our nation; I will vote against it; I hope the vote succeeds and the nation is no longer democratic; if the vote does not succeed I will abide by the decision."

To say that it is a performative contradiction for a society to vote itself out of democracy is to reify a democracy into a being of its own. The reification is fictional; the democracy does not destroy itself; rather, citizens are opting for a different form of government.

Given that democracies can legally disband themselves via amendments to the legal charter, do you think that provision means that the charter is itself self-contradictory? Surely there is a difference between, say, legally disbanding a contract and illegally disbanding a contract. One can honor the terms of a contract while simultaneously seeking that it be dissolved.

flannel jesus

I think democracy is the wrong system for our nation — Leontiskos

that's what rejecting democracy means...

Fire Ologist

How about a return to civics for high school students — Athena

Hey Athena - yes, education goes hand in hand with political freedom.

You can't truly have one of them without truly having the other.

If the things your are taught are controlled and censored, you don't really get an education for sake of your own mind, but instead get indoctrination to control your mind, and so no freedom. If you are not educated, you can't easily identify and sift through your choices, to make a truly free choice.
And if you are not free in the first place, you can't seek to learn the things you alone can identify need to be learned.

Freedom demands we learn more. Learning more demands that we free ourselves and build a freer, more self-determining, mind.

Athena

Hey Athena - yes, education goes hand in hand with political freedom.

You can't truly have one of them without truly having the other.

If the things your are taught are controlled and censored, you don't really get an education for sake of your own mind, but instead get indoctrination to control your mind, and so no freedom. If you are not educated, you can't easily identify and sift through your choices, to make a truly free choice.
And if you are not free in the first place, you can't seek to learn the things you alone can identify need to be learned.

Freedom demands we learn more. Learning more demands that we free ourselves and build a freer, more self-determining, mind. — Fire Ologist

You said that so well. I wish schools had statues or at least a picture of the Statue of Liberty to keep the connection between learning and liberty alive. She holds a torch for the enlightenment that comes with learning, and in her other hand is a book.

However, today we also need a reminder of what good moral judgement has to do with liberty and justice. Education for technology is like Pandora's box. We have high school boys who can make bombs, but also who can not manage their emotional/social experience. And the sexual scene has pushed everything over the edge of insanity, with good Christians insisting they don't want anyone teaching "their children" morals, thinking only of their own children and not the thousands of young people who are also growing up in our schools. Children who need guidance because we were not born knowing good from evil (concepts), nor are we born with the thinking skills to have good judgment.

We must understand we can not

I am a firm believer in freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. — Wolfy48

without preparing the young for this freedom.
That surely leads to appearing to prove the Christian notions of Satan and being born in sin and the evil nature of humans. We must replace such mythology with the science of human nature and the humanities to have good moral judgment and not superstition and anarchy leading to chaos and destruction.

Athena

But freedom of speech and freedom of expression? — Wolfy48

What you are saying is like starting a fire in August and walking away.

I am a woman, and as such, I am strongly against media and games of violence and especially violence against women, such as the offensive games I am offered when I attempt to play solitary online, where females are chained to a wall and struggling to get loose. How is that not condoning the voyeuristic behavior and feeling, that some people have when imagining such an act, and what is to stop someone from taking this a step further when we have socially condoned what should be taboo.

On the other hand, I have read some awful stuff in history books, such as tortures and horrific ways of killing people that have been used in the past. :rofl: I was feeling very superior to a male friend who was enjoying a violent TV show, until I realized what I was reading in a history book was worse. I think it would be very wrong to sanitize history.

Now, back to the question, how can we have media with totally unacceptable behavior and not trigger some people to go from voyeurism to a real-life experience? Should we ignore that some mentally unstable people are triggered to act on taboo impulses?

In a class about personal power, I watched a big, tough biker break down in tears when he explained his violent past and how this is a socially motivated behavior because that is what big, bad bikers do. Today, thanks to our misguided freedom of speech, we have policemen who are no better than the criminals. We are teaching that this is what powerful men, manly men, sexy men do. It is how to be a good man and a good Nazi or biker, or soldier, or whatever. This is your wildfire and our social failure to keep the fire under control. That is a failed civilization because of the growing number of poorly socialized people.

In a free nation, should opinions against freedom be allowed?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions