Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Social Issues
 Poor kid.
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 9

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 03/18/2006 :  03:24:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message


Haeckel's Drawings





"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

pleco
SFN Addict

USA
2998 Posts

Posted - 03/18/2006 :  05:25:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit pleco's Homepage Send pleco a Private Message
quote:
Science may never be able to say conclusively exactly what the ultimate cause of life on Earth was, but there are already numerous plausable abiogenetic theories, and I dare say that it certainly not ludicrous to think that at some time in the future we may not be able to re-enact these early life generating stages on demand.


And even if science finds the ultimate cuase of life on Earth, this will have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of god, despite what the religious fantics (christian, muslim, etc.) will say.

These fanatics feel so threatened that their ancient collection of stories from bronze age people is being disproved by modern science, that they will create lies to discredit the science, including the lie that the science is actually some type of religion or philosophy, or the science is trying to prove there is no god, etc.

These fanatics are leading a pogrom against knowledge. After all, some these fanatics believe that their god did not want humans have any knowledge at all.

Little do they realize that their lies further help to put their fanatical point of view into the history books where it belongs along with witch trials, inquisitions, crusades, suicide bombings, pogroms, and other primative barbarism that is characteristic of the fanatical side of believing in a deity.

by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart.
Go to Top of Page

R.Wreck
SFN Regular

USA
1191 Posts

Posted - 03/18/2006 :  11:10:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send R.Wreck a Private Message
quote:
(bill) Maybe so for some. My whole point is that the unique, irreplaceable you is left to contemplate the ultimate meaninglessness of his/her very existence when pondering on the naturalistic universe as in the end, nothing will even matter. No wonder all the ultimate despair for those who have no eternal hope. That is why we see the rock star, actor, sport hero throw it all away on vice. They have been to the top, they have had the best that the world had to offer, and yet they have found all this to be meaningless, a chase after the wind. What do you do when you have reached the top of that the world and experienced the best it could offer and you still find meaninglessness? Many of them turn to medicating themselves to escape the reality they now know to be true. The poor still have the hope that money and fame can solve all their troubles, while the rich know better.



Are you claiming that vice is unique to the non-believer? That no religious person has ever had the same problems? If you are, then that can easily be shown to be false (Swaggart anyone?). If you are not, then what is the point? Whether you are a believer or not, if you are human, you are susceptable to excessive vice as a salve for other problems. So your meaningful hope of an eternal life really doesn't matter.

The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley

The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
Go to Top of Page

R.Wreck
SFN Regular

USA
1191 Posts

Posted - 03/18/2006 :  11:15:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send R.Wreck a Private Message
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, we have always invented these afterlives with no factual basis in nature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(bill) That is your speculative conclusion, while billions come to a very different conclusion based on their observations of the world around them.



Can you give an observation which has not been better explained by a naturalistic explanation?

The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley

The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 03/18/2006 :  12:00:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message
Bill wrote:
quote:
(bill) (bill) From a naturalist's perspective all conversations are ultimately rendered meaningless. All actions are rendered meaningless. All the choices you have ever made in your life are rendered meaningless. And yes even your life itself is ultimately rendered meaningless in the naturalist universe.

This doesn't make sense. I am giving my life meaning right now. Ergo, my life has meaning. You keep saying “ultimately” meaningless. “Ultimately” would include everything, so since people are giving our lives meaning right now, our lives are ultimately meaningful.
quote:
(bill) Temporary meaning that is.
Temporary is all the meaning we need seeing as we're not around to be aware of its absence before or after our lives.
quote:
What good is a record of time if no one is even around to observe the record?
If there was someone around to observe the record, that would be meaningless to us since we'd be dead. The only meaning in our lives that is of any significance to people, is the meaning that we give our lives while we are alive. That it is temporary does not degrade its worth at all.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 03/18/2006 :  12:04:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message
verso wrote:
quote:
You are listing a set of criteria that you typically associate with "people," and trying to use that to build a definition of a "person." Why should I accept your criteria? As far as I'm concerned, you conveniently left "AND they are not yet biologically human."
“Person” is not a biological term. I agree with you that once a zygote starts growing and becomes a embryo (not conception itself) it is biologically human, but that doesn't make it a person. I didn't conveniently leave anything out. I have never denied that a embryo is human. There is no reason to hold human life in of itself as something sacred.

quote:
Obviously more than genes factor into a "person" (otherwise monozygotic twins would have identical personalities). But I can't accept those factors as basis for determining "personhood" because they are all dependant on purely subjective analysis, or even worse, they depend on current the state of medicine.
I agree with you when it comes to severely retarded people, people in comas, the very senile, or newborn babies. Again, the reason we debate the personhood of the unborn is because they are dependent on another human whose personhood and rights over their own body are not debatable.

quote:
My point is - you criteria is completely arbitrary.
My criteria is no more arbitrary than yours. People here have put to shame the idea that conception is totally nonarbitrary. It may be less arbitrary, but it is arbitrary. And my marker of viability is also less arbitrary. And other peoples' marker of birth is also less arbitrary.

quote:
Some cultures have used your exact same reasoning with slightly different criteria to rationalize leaving children out to die (i.e. Sparta). How would you argue with them?
You really haven't been paying attention. This entire time I've said that the reason a embryo/fetus's personhood is up for debate is because it is biologically a parasite on the mother, thus requiring us to consider her right over her own body. Once they are born, the debate ends because the mothers' rights can no longer be violated.


Also, you need to be more specific about what Sparta was doing. If you are talking about infanticide (other people killing children, you know, like God did to the Egyptians' first born) that certainly has nothing to do with my argument.

If you are talking about the phenomenon of neonaticide, I consider that to be a strong argument in favor of legal abortion because the phenomenon exists in all human cultures, but drops dramatically in places where abortion and birth control are accessible. Neonaticide is when mothers recklessly abandon (leading to death) or kill their newborn babies. I encourage anyone interested to read more about neonaticide:

Links:
Getting Tough on Moms That Kill http://www.bright.net/~dknox/clips/moms.html
Why They Kill Their Newborns http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/pinker.html

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 03/18/2006 :  16:53:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
verso siad:
quote:
My point is - you criteria is completely arbitrary. And you've picked your criteria such that a fetus enters "personhood" at some grey point in development because that's what seems to be culturally acceptable at the moment.


You fail to comprehend.

The non-arbitrary point that we are arguing for is when a fetus is capable of living outside the womb. Unless you are suggesting that it is arbitrary to claim that a fetus capable of surviving outside the womb is a living person?


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Siberia
SFN Addict

Brazil
2322 Posts

Posted - 03/18/2006 :  17:00:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Siberia's Homepage  Send Siberia an AOL message  Send Siberia a Yahoo! Message Send Siberia a Private Message
Marf: Spartans had this habit of leaving disabled or otherwise unfit babies to die in the wilderness.

"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa

"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 03/18/2006 :  22:19:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message
I will have to search for the story when I have time but I was listening to the radio the other day and the guy was discussing Roe vs. Wade. I will look for the exact story when I get some time but he was giving his notion for the rise in conservative values and philosophies in the youth and how this was a direct effect of Roe vs. Wade.

Basically he threw out some statistics that shown that the overwhelming majority of those who have had abortions since R v W carry a liberal worldview rather then a conservative one. Because of the millions of abortions since R-v-W, as well as other reasons, households who profess to be liberal have a far less average of children/household then do conservative homes. It was like 1.3 per liberal household to almost 4 children per conservative households. Statistically most liberals come from a liberal household where their parents raise them with a liberal worldview and philosophy, while most conservatives come from a conservative home where the parents raised them with conservative upbringing.

In a nutshell, his notion was that abortion, and simply having a much lower priority on raising children, has caused the average child/household from a household who would profess liberal values, to be much lower, then households who profess conservative values. Therefore as the baby boomer generation of the 60's is dieing off they are being replaced by generation which is running about 3:1 conservative value upbringing to liberal value upbringing.

He then went on to note that the statistics show that a vast majority of the millions of aborted baby's since R-v-W would have been raised in a liberal values setting had they not been aborted. In 2000 Al Gore could have won the White House with 5 million more votes. Without R-v-W Al would have had his 5 million liberal voters and then some. So in the end R-v-W put GWB in the white house as it has probably killed off about 20 million or so future liberal voters since R-v-W, while the conservative camp seems to be spitting out kids, raised under conservative values, at a disproportional rate to their liberal countryman.

Again, I will try to find the story and the numbers when I get the time but a very interesting notion to say the least, that abortion has terminated over 20,000,000 future liberal voters since 1973.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26031 Posts

Posted - 03/18/2006 :  22:35:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
That is interesting, Bill, because it fits with the evolutionary notion that when the future lives of your kids are uncertain, you pump out more kids with the hopes that at least one of them will survive. This is, some say, the reason why women in famine-plagued countries pop out 10 kids, while those in stable, well-fed countries may fail to reach the "replacement rate" of 1.2 children per woman (average).

So, because conservatives tend to focus on things to be afraid of, it seems to me that they'll likely have more kids, just in case the one or two they had first go off to war or otherwise fail to prosper under a conservative government. Liberals, on the other hand, seem to be more likely to think about what to do to ensure their kids don't face such threats in the first place, giving them a sense of security which suggests that one kid is enough.

Of course, with the current government doing what it's doing, there may be a liberal baby-making backlash. It's hard to ignore the fact that Bush and company are pretty terrifying all by themselves.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 03/18/2006 :  22:53:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

That is interesting, Bill, because it fits with the evolutionary notion that when the future lives of your kids are uncertain, you pump out more kids with the hopes that at least one of them will survive. This is, some say, the reason why women in famine-plagued countries pop out 10 kids, while those in stable, well-fed countries may fail to reach the "replacement rate" of 1.2 children per woman (average).

So, because conservatives tend to focus on things to be afraid of, it seems to me that they'll likely have more kids, just in case the one or two they had first go off to war or otherwise fail to prosper under a conservative government. Liberals, on the other hand, seem to be more likely to think about what to do to ensure their kids don't face such threats in the first place, giving them a sense of security which suggests that one kid is enough.

Of course, with the current government doing what it's doing, there may be a liberal baby-making backlash. It's hard to ignore the fact that Bush and company are pretty terrifying all by themselves.




quote:
That is interesting, Bill, because it fits with the evolutionary notion that when the future lives of your kids are uncertain, you pump out more kids with the hopes that at least one of them will survive. This is, some say, the reason why women in famine-plagued countries pop out 10 kids,


(bill) Yeah maybe, or maybe they have no birth control measures what so ever?




quote:
while those in stable, well-fed countries may fail to reach the "replacement rate" of 1.2 children per woman (average).


(bill) This would be the liberal households who aborted their children for convenience and/or for a career.





quote:
So, because conservatives tend to focus on things to be afraid of, it seems to me that they'll likely have more kids,


(bill) Or maybe they just love kids and this is why they don't abort them?





quote:
Liberals, on the other hand, seem to be more likely to think about what to do to ensure their kids don't face such threats in the first place, giving them a sense of security which suggests that one kid is enough.


(bill) Or maybe kids just get in the way of all the “important” stuff of life so the libs just don't have them or they terminate them if they get prego.





quote:
Of course, with the current government doing what it's doing, there may be a liberal baby-making backlash. It's hard to ignore the fact that Bush and company are pretty terrifying all by themselves.


(bill) We might have had a “liberal baby backlash” but you guys have killed over 20,000,000 of the future liberal babies who would have back lashed. That is why GWB is in office this very day.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 03/18/2006 :  22:57:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message
Bill, while it is definitely true that conservatives are having more babies than liberals, abortion is hardly the only culprit. Liberals tend to use birth control more, and they tend to have smaller families. And many would argue it is because we value children so highly that we are more hestitant to bring more children into the world. We tend to wait until we're older and financially secure, and we tend to have less kids so we can give them more. For instance, my aunt and uncle planned to have 4, but stopped after 2 because of income limitations. My husband and I are planning to adopt partially because we don't want to introduce more children into the world, and we won't adopt until we have a reliable income.

Also, you don't know what would have happened to all those aborted pregnancies had Roe v Wade never happened. Many would have been aborted anyway illegally or abroad. Many would have ended in neonaticide. Many would have been put up for adoption. Many would have grown up in bad circumstances where they would be likely to land in jail or impoverished, and those people tend not to vote as often as middle class and rich people. I'm not just making this stuff up. Neonaticide, and the number of young men in prison for violent crime both went down in corrolation with Roe v. Wade. I think it is safe to say that there would have been a conservative boom regardless of the Roe ruling.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26031 Posts

Posted - 03/18/2006 :  23:34:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott

Yeah maybe, or maybe they have no birth control measures what so ever?
No, that's not the only answer, because the situation is that the mothers and fathers are busy starving to death. Would sex be on your mind at all?
quote:
quote:
while those in stable, well-fed countries may fail to reach the "replacement rate" of 1.2 children per woman (average).
This would be the liberal households who aborted their children for convenience and/or for a career.
No, actually, I was thinking of Germany and other West European countries, in which Roe v. Wade doesn't apply at all.
quote:
quote:
So, because conservatives tend to focus on things to be afraid of, it seems to me that they'll likely have more kids,
Or maybe they just love kids and this is why they don't abort them?
I love my kid, Bill, and the reason my wife and I aren't having any more has nothing to do with abortion.
quote:
Or maybe kids just get in the way of all the “important” stuff of life so the libs just don't have them or they terminate them if they get prego.
Or maybe you've just got an oversimplified strawman version of reality so that you can feel comfortable insulting other people.
quote:
We might have had a “liberal baby backlash” but you guys have killed over 20,000,000 of the future liberal babies who would have back lashed. That is why GWB is in office this very day.
According to National Right to Life, there have been 47,282,293 abortions since Roe v. Wade. If less than half of those were in liberal households, then at least another 20,000,000 of them were in conservative households (the rest being in non-political or fringe households, per national averages). How would a conservative explain that, Bill? It certainly doesn't support the idea that Bush is in office simply because of Roe v. Wade.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 03/20/2006 :  05:42:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox

Bill, while it is definitely true that conservatives are having more babies than liberals, abortion is hardly the only culprit. Liberals tend to use birth control more, and they tend to have smaller families. And many would argue it is because we value children so highly that we are more hestitant to bring more children into the world. We tend to wait until we're older and financially secure, and we tend to have less kids so we can give them more. For instance, my aunt and uncle planned to have 4, but stopped after 2 because of income limitations. My husband and I are planning to adopt partially because we don't want to introduce more children into the world, and we won't adopt until we have a reliable income.

Also, you don't know what would have happened to all those aborted pregnancies had Roe v Wade never happened. Many would have been aborted anyway illegally or abroad. Many would have ended in neonaticide. Many would have been put up for adoption. Many would have grown up in bad circumstances where they would be likely to land in jail or impoverished, and those people tend not to vote as often as middle class and rich people. I'm not just making this stuff up. Neonaticide, and the number of young men in prison for violent crime both went down in corrolation with Roe v. Wade. I think it is safe to say that there would have been a conservative boom regardless of the Roe ruling.




quote:
Bill, while it is definitely true that conservatives are having more babies than liberals, abortion is hardly the only culprit.


(bill) But it is a big one, besides, I never said it was the only one.




quote:
Liberals tend to use birth control more,


(bill) Including abortion.

However, this flies in the face of the wellfare generation that the liberal dems have grown to count on for votes.



quote:
and they tend to have smaller families.


(bill) Which means less liberal offspring to repopulate the society.

What about the the wellfare generation that vote liberal dem hands down?




quote:
And many would argue it is because we value children so highly that we are more hestitant to bring more children into the world.


(bill) Right, how you would abort for convenience.




quote:
We tend to wait until we're older and financially secure,


(bill) That is true of most these days as it takes a college education, anymore, to land a job that you can raise a family on.

What about the the wellfare generation that vote liberal dem hands down?



quote:
and we tend to have less kids so we can give them more.


(bill) Give them more what? More stuff? More love? More Sq. Ft?

What about the the wellfare generation that vote liberal dem hands down?


quote:
For instance, my aunt and uncle planned to have 4, but stopped after 2 because of income limitations. My husband and I are planning to adopt partially because we don't want to introduce more children into the world,


(bill) That is your choice and that was my point. Liberals are repopulating society at a much lower birthrate then their fellow conservative country men, for a number of reason, including abortion.



quote:
and we won't adopt until we have a reliable income.


(bill) Many times adoption is more expensive then having your own.



quote:
Also, you don't know what would have happened to all those aborted pregnancies had Roe v Wade never happened. Many would have been aborted anyway illegally or abroad. Many would have ended in neonaticide. Many would have been put up for adoption. Many would have grown up in bad circumstances where they would be likely to land in jail or impoverished,


(bill) And many would have grown up to be liberal voters. Statistics show about 3:1 over those who would have voted conservative, had they not been aborted.

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Edited by - Bill scott on 03/20/2006 07:20:01
Go to Top of Page

Bill scott
SFN Addict

USA
2103 Posts

Posted - 03/20/2006 :  05:51:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Bill scott a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott

Yeah maybe, or maybe they have no birth control measures what so ever?
No, that's not the only answer, because the situation is that the mothers and fathers are busy starving to death. Would sex be on your mind at all?
quote:
quote:
while those in stable, well-fed countries may fail to reach the "replacement rate" of 1.2 children per woman (average).
This would be the liberal households who aborted their children for convenience and/or for a career.
No, actually, I was thinking of Germany and other West European countries, in which Roe v. Wade doesn't apply at all.
quote:
quote:
So, because conservatives tend to focus on things to be afraid of, it seems to me that they'll likely have more kids,
Or maybe they just love kids and this is why they don't abort them?
I love my kid, Bill, and the reason my wife and I aren't having any more has nothing to do with abortion.
quote:
Or maybe kids just get in the way of all the “important” stuff of life so the libs just don't have them or they terminate them if they get prego.
Or maybe you've just got an oversimplified strawman version of reality so that you can feel comfortable insulting other people.
quote:
We might have had a “liberal baby backlash” but you guys have killed over 20,000,000 of the future liberal babies who would have back lashed. That is why GWB is in office this very day.
According to National Right to Life, there have been 47,282,293 abortions since Roe v. Wade. If less than half of those were in liberal households, then at least another 20,000,000 of them were in conservative households (the rest being in non-political or fringe households, per national averages). How would a conservative explain that, Bill? It certainly doesn't support the idea that Bush is in office simply because of Roe v. Wade.





quote:
quote:
Yeah maybe, or maybe they have no birth control measures what so ever?


No, that's not the only answer,


(b

"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-

"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-

The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-

Edited by - Bill scott on 03/20/2006 07:27:25
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 9 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.58 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000