Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Discussion Predestination makes no sense

Caesercel

Caesercel

Salem’s Lot Cel
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Posts
20,254
Lol stop pretending that there's some deep complicated point to be made here. Its embarrassing to see that you think your argument is something profound that "plebs" can't get, when I could dissect it within half an hour,present it in a simpler manner then proceed to point its flaws. But then again I am talking to a guy who thinks that we can experience infinite heaven or hell after death because our brain slows down infinitely.
 
Last edited:
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command, Strategic Operations
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
20,349
Lol stop pretending that there's some deep complicated point to be made here. Its embarrassing to see that you think your argument is something profound that "plebs" can't get, when I could dissect it within half an hour,present it in a simpler manner then proceed to point its flaws. But then again I am talking to a guy who thinks that we can experience infinite heaven or hell after death because our brain slows down infinitely.
You're haughtily skeptical and demanding when it's clear to me that you don't know the material and haven't put in any of the work. You're going off from my posts only, instead of researching the things you don't know and learning the well-established philosophical positions on this topic. It's like watching a movie trailer and then giving your review critique. JFL

The point being made isn't necessarily deep (that's a matter of opinion anyway), but it is complicated. This has been an on-going discussion for literally eons, yet you're acting smug like you've deboonked some retarded tinfoil hat conspiracy and are seemingly butthurt that you just don't get this stuff. That's OK, brocel, this shit ain't easy.

Your dissections are the same old recycled points I've dealt with in the past, except it's worse this time, because it's coming at me from a place of ignorance. I'll reply as a courtesy, but I know I'm wasting my time, because you've demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about and aren't showing that you'll put in an honest effort into learning about this.

As for you dig at me, you've failed to understand that this was a theological speculation on the reasons why there is an emphasis in many religions on an afterlife and how it could be explained as experiential moments within the framework of our consciousness dissipating as we die to give context to the allegories and metaphors of infinite bliss and suffering (heaven and hell).

That was mostly a response to the ridiculous claim that my argument is unsubstantiated when I've been repeating multiple times the rationale behind why those things are incompatible.
And I've shown in the post before how it is in fact compatible. You wouldn't make that post if you had so much as a minimalist understanding of the basic free will positions. I mean, it's literally called "compatibilism," like I already said ( :feelskek: ). I wish you'd take 15 minutes to do a cursory reading on just this specific thing, let alone on the broader metaphysics of free will.

I understand the flaw in your thought process. We apply certain standards to a system to determine if it falls under the category of deterministic or not. But you refuse to apply the same analysis to the concept of free will itself. For some reason free will, to you, exists outside the confines of things in this world that could be held as predetermined or not. I.e. its over and above everything else. So of course you'd think " it's logically possible to have free will within a deterministic system". I don't have any problem with this idea if free will were nothing more than a ghost that couldn't influence day to day outcomes. But as it turns out, the exercise of will does influence the state of this world and hence is a part of the system.
Again, you're demonstrating an abject failure of lacking the background understanding. I'm going to keep telling you to read up on the thesis of compatibilism until it's drilled into your head that you can, in fact, have both free will and determinism without any logical contradictions.

Free will is the concept of self-determination that is FREE from the constraints of causality (mechanically in terms of physics) and any other (physical) externalities. That is, it's independent of the truth of any metaphysic, be it determinism, indeterminism, or some other unclear, fuzzy, and bizzarre ternary alternative.

As such, the "standards" applied to a system don't apply here, because free will is, by definition, conceptually free from those things. Consequently, this entails that any agent with free will is, in essence, its own generator of causal chains. Those causal chains can be closed loops with any kind of system, because those causal chains are ultimately still subordinate to the First Cause ("God", "Prime Mover," or Ontic Progenitor, as I call it, but it's the same thing), and also because the agents are finite (our free acting bodies are not eternal or immortal). If it wasn't (subordinate), you'd be left with the well-known problem of infinite regress (recursive causal chains with no origin point).

So, in essence, this is just plain mental bias. If you were to actually apply your analysis to free will itself you'd soon realise that a world with free will operating within it cannot be deterministic because free will itself is inherently un-deterministic. I know you claim otherwise and I know you point to lots of material around it but so far I've heard zero arguments on how free will isn't inherently undeterministic. Zero arguments on how can the "will" be "free" if the outcome is already determined. How can 1+1 = 7.

As an example of this mental bias, in the game you posited you assume that the outcome is deterministic based on the fact that its solved. But you fail to consider the player who makes the first choice as part of the game itself. Sure if the game is solved then we know all the possible outcomes but that doesn't mean it is deterministic. Because how one particular instance of this game evolves still depends on that first choice that the player makes. A choice which renders the entire outcome undetermined.
My nigga, there is no mental bias. :feelshaha:

Just fucking use the internet - the biggest damn library in human existence - to educate yourself on this. These confusions will eventually go away as your understanding matures. However, I can't guarantee that bigger confusions won't replace them.

To clarify, I meant that the games themselves are inherently deterministic, based on the limited combinatorial options available within the rule set to achieve the win condition(s). Games of chance, on the other hand, are inherently indeterministic. Note that we're talking about the games in a vacuum and not subject to the physical mechanics of our universe.

Ok wow. Now I can clearly see where all the "free will is not random" BS was coming from. Such a collossal confusion of terms.

Bear with me here. Lets assume for the sake of argument that free will is indeed random. Also lets assume that in this universe there are a set of truly random events whose outcomes are not determined by any mechanism and are randomly generated on a fundamental level and that free will is a subset of those. (I know you don't believe that free will is random because you've confused yourself with your own bs about predestination but listen further )
If free will is random, then it is neither free, nor does it have will. Herp derp.

Do RNGs have will? Do a pair of dice have will? (Don't ask Schopenhauer. :feelshaha: )

All of what you just said is moot.

Also lets assume that an all knowing God does exist who does know the outcome of all those random events. And thus the future of this world is predestinated since God knows everything.
Just one last time: The knowledge of a future outcome is not a preordination of said outcome. It only appears to someone with imperfect knowledge as though someone with perfect knowledge preordains (predestines, same shit, it's synonymous) the outcome.

But when you place an all knowing entity as part of this system then by very possibility of the existence of such entity it is rendered that the said events were never truly random to begin with. Since their outcomes were predestinated. And hence either God is not omniscient for these events to be truly random or they were never random to begin with since God exists.
Omniscient means knowing everything. Literally everything. Infinitely everything. EEEEVERYTHING. ALL OF THE THINGS. Randomness or not, it won't matter as far the property of omniscience is concerned. I'm not convinced you truly understand the concept. :feelsbadman:

As a side note, true randomness probably doesn't exist in our reality, but there is some evidence that it may. The closest thing to it is subatomic particle behavior and radioactive decay. If it truly did (even at the macro scale), then see the first line of what I said two quoted segments above. However, probability clearly does exist (abstractly and concretely), and in any closed, probabilistic system (dice, cards, seeded pseudo-RNGs etc.) the outcomes are known (expected, but not predicted).

Literally the same thing applies to free will because it shares the property of random events just like random events cannot be predestinated for them to be random, free will cannot be predestinated for it to be free. For some reason your mind is unable to comprehend this simple thing. that's how these things are literally defined. Your insistence that the existence of an OB does not contradict this definition is completely unsubstantiated.

Whether the outcome of the said events appeared via some causal mechanism or they just poofed into existence has no bearing on this. Even if outcomes were to just magically appear out of circumstances they would still neither be "random" nor "free" if they were predestinated.
I've already addressed these in this post.

I get what you're saying. You believe that the choice was always mine and it was always in my hands. Its just that God knows already what I was going to chose. He doesn't force that choice on me, I could chose otherwise . He just passively knows what that choice is gonna be. But you're wrong because the very existence of that knowledge tied my hands. I know that you try to differentiate "God choosing for me" from "God knowing the choice", but the truth is there was no choice in either of those cases.
So you continue to insist, despite argument to the contrary.

Let's forget about God. Let's say that I have a crystal ball that'll show me exactly what you're gonna do one week from now. I believe that since this is definitely gonna be your future then the choices you made that lead up to that were outside your control, since the outcome was always gonna be the same as seen in the ball. You, on the other hand, believe that the choices were still yours and you had all the power to choose otherwise and create another outcome ,its just that the ball told me what you were going to end up choosing beforehand.
This analogy is flawed and does not work for two main reasons, the first of which is because nobody except an OB knows what having perfect knowledge is like. You - the user of said crystal ball - are also not omniscient, so you have no idea how this ball works and cannot be certain of its effectiveness and reliability. God (or an omniscient being), on the other hand, knows exactly how He knows (if that makes sense).

This is the difference in our viewpoints and to me the former makes way more sense than the latter. Such a "free will" that is compatible with predestination seems amputated at best and downright illogical at worst. Its a rather dubious contradictory notion to hold in your head
None of this makes any sense to you because you haven't seriously studied this and looked at the arguments and positions from all sides. You have tunnel vision and are trying to square the circle without being aware that you have a square lying around somewhere.
 
Last edited:
Caesercel

Caesercel

Salem’s Lot Cel
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Posts
20,254
You're haughtily skeptical and demanding when it's clear to me that you don't know the material and haven't put in any of the work. You're going off from my posts only, instead of researching the things you don't know and learning the well-established philosophical positions on this topic. It's like watching a movie trailer and then giving your review critique. JFL
Of course I'm only going off your posts only! This is a forum thread lol. Its not my fault that you're unable to use all the material you've read to produce a profound argument that couldn't immediately be countered. And its not my fault that you fall for the same intellectual traps that are found commonly among apologists, of claiming that your opponent hasn't read the required material instead of actually making good arguments for your beliefs

retarded tinfoil hat conspiracy and are seemingly butthurt that you just don't get this stuff. That's OK, brocel, this shit ain't easy.
This pretention will never not be embarrassing lmao. Never expected this from someone who's supposed to be educated enough to know how complicated can things really get in certain topics if you dive deep. Still pretending that anything you've presented thus far was anything but easily apparent.

And I've shown in the post before how it is in fact compatible.
I can clearly see why you'd think its compatible. I've also already explained why I disagree with it in my last paragraph in previous post.



Free will is the concept of self-determination that is FREE from the constraints of causality (mechanically in terms of physics) and any other (physical) externalities.
I have literally zero issues with this. Of course I know that this is not how exercise of will takes place in the real world but so far I've been willing to put up with spiritualistic nonsense for the sake of argument. Because that is a different debate altogether

That is, it's independent of the truth of any metaphysic, be it determinism, indeterminism, or some other unclear, fuzzy, and bizzarre ternary alternative.
You cannot just side step the inherent logical contradiction between free will and determinism by jumping two steps forward and claiming that its independent of the notions of determinism/indeterminism. When the question is whether free will can even exist in a deterministic world, making such claims is akin to ignoring the question instead of answering it. The question is whether an agent actually had the power to generate one causal chain instead of another if the first choice itself was predetermined.

Those causal chains can be closed loops with any kind of system, because those causal chains are ultimately still subordinate to the First Cause ("God", "Prime Mover," or Ontic Progenitor, as I call it, but it's the same thing), and also because the agents are finite (our free acting bodies are not eternal or immortal). If it wasn't (subordinate), you'd be left with the well-known problem of infinite regress (recursive causal chains with no origin point).

Prime mover is not the same thing as the first cause.

To clarify, I meant that the games themselves are inherently deterministic, based on the limited combinatorial options available within the rule set to achieve the win condition(s). Games of chance, on the other hand, are inherently indeterministic. Note that we're talking about the games in a vacuum and not subject to the physical mechanics of our universe.

And my argument is that the deterministic game's(with no dice) outcome was never deterministic to begin since a free thinking agent was involved. If the player truly has free will then nothing could predict the outcome of the game.

If free will is random, then it is neither free, nor does it have will. Herp derp.
I was just giving an analogy here to explain how these things are not compatible with a predestinated world. You can have any other concept of free will the conclusion will be the same. This is notwithstanding the fact that any exercise of truly free will cannot be anything but random. Its not that RNGs have free will but any conception of free will must operate on the same principle as an RNG for it to be considered "free". Because the moment it becomes deterministic or dependent on outside factors it can no lo ger ve considered free.

Just one last time: The knowledge of a future outcome is not a preordination of said outcome. It only appears to someone with imperfect knowledge as though someone with perfect knowledge preordains (predestines, same shit, it's synonymous) the outcome.
I love how this idea is so utterly contradictory and non-sensical that the only thing one can say to fix the debacle is "Cuz God". And of course since God is above everyone else therefore we cannot even understand how this contradiction is reconciled in God's head. We just have to take it on faith like everything else. I mean its fine but then why have you been pretending for so long that you could provide a rational explaination for this ridiculous belief when it is by definition " beyond us" according to you. Because it is indeed true that knowledge of a future outcome is indeed a pre ordination of said outcome. Its maybe not a preordination by this God's will but its predecided nonetheless.

Omniscient means knowing everything. Literally everything. Infinitely everything. EEEEVERYTHING. ALL OF THE THINGS. Randomness or not, it won't matter as far the property of omniscience is concerned. I'm not convinced you truly understand the concept. :feelsbadman:

I have no problem with this. If you carefully read what you quoted from me you'd realise that this indeed was my starting assumption from which the rest of the argument follows. But it is simply true that the randomness of random events is rendered untrue if the outcome is known. I understand what you're trying to say but God's Omniscience does not absolve you from using logic. Infact preordination is necessary for such knowledge to even exist. I know you claim that it isn't necessary "cuz God" but that's not rationality.
On a more abstract level you cannot define two entities X and Y with properties that are inherently contradictory to the other's existence and then claim that X and Y can co-exist because by definition X is X and Y is Y. You haven't resolved the contradiction here. ( for example X = God's omniscience and Y = randomness of truly random events. )


As a side note, true randomness probably doesn't exist in our reality, but there is some evidence that it may. The closest thing to it is subatomic particle behavior and radioactive decay. If it truly did (even at the macro scale), then see the first line of what I said two quoted segments above. However, probability clearly does exist (abstractly and concretely), and in any closed, probabilistic system (dice, cards, seeded pseudo-RNGs etc.) the outcomes are known (expected, but not predicted).
I won't claim that I know the answer to that.

So you continue to insist, despite argument to the contrary.
"It is because I said so" and "cuz God" are not arguments. Here's an argument:

Free will cannot exist in a deterministic world since the choice made by the agent is pre known and hence any alternative was impossible to begin with.

Crisp, clear and makes total sense. Any perceived discrepancy between "pre-known" and "pre-decided" is nothing more than mental gymnastics. How can it be known if it isn't decided lol? Cuz God?

This analogy is flawed and does not work for two main reasons, the first of which is because nobody except an OB knows what having perfect knowledge is like. You - the user of said crystal ball - are also not omniscient, so you have no idea how this ball works and cannot be certain of its effectiveness and reliability. God (or an omniscient being), on the other hand, knows exactly how He knows (if that makes sense).

This analogy actually works perfectly fine because its a word to word copy of your own rational argument for your beliefs. Replacing a magic God with magic crystal ball is only a trivial difference in terms. Its the core argument that I'm targeting here. (Unless the core argument necessarily requires the "cuz God" sophistry)

None of this makes any sense to you because you haven't seriously studied this and looked at the arguments and positions from all sides.
If I had a dollar for every time I heard this from an apologist
 
parzurnacs

parzurnacs

neets.net: parzurnacser
★★★★★
Joined
Mar 25, 2023
Posts
5,271
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command, Strategic Operations
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
20,349
Of course I'm only going off your posts only!
That's precisely the problem. You don't have the background knowledge, yet you're stubbornly steadfast without realizing your ignorance.

This is a forum thread lol. Its not my fault that you're unable to use all the material you've read to produce a profound argument that couldn't immediately be countered.
This is definitely a you problem, brocel. I don't stick in my nose in discussions I have little or zero knowledge of and then opine strongly about shit I have no idea on. I stay quiet and learn about things I'm both curious and ignorant about. And if people ask me, I state up front that I don't know or I'm not sure. Like economics. I know shit about economics past the basic theory of micro and macro that most people are exposed to, supply demand curves etc. Generally, I know that it's a cross between psychology and mathemathics, but I just don't have an interest in the theoretical side of economics to pursue it and satisfy any personal curiosities.

That's the rational approach.

You, however, are skeptical for its own sake (/r/atheism tier NPC behavior, ironically), and that ends up stifling your knowledge, because you believe that anything that doesn't conform to your (obviously correct) understanding of the world is bullshit to be discarded. This is the irrational skepticism again rearing its head that I've mentioned to you elsewhere.

And its not my fault that you fall for the same intellectual traps that are found commonly among apologists, of claiming that your opponent hasn't read the required material instead of actually making good arguments for your beliefs
They're not traps. They're common mistakes laymen make, and then I have to respond to it (well, I don't HAVE to) with more jargon and concepts to explain the things I already explained and argued for. JFL

And what beliefs? Did you even once ask about any of my beliefs and what my positions are, or did you (in your arrogance) just assume them? I'm making arguments and they're evidently not clicking for you, because it conflicts with the preconceived notions you have going into this.

This pretention will never not be embarrassing lmao. Never expected this from someone who's supposed to be educated enough to know how complicated can things really get in certain topics if you dive deep.
Which you haven't even done on a surface level. WTF ARE YOU EVEN DOING?! :lul:

Still pretending that anything you've presented thus far was anything but easily apparent.
It's sometimes funny when a person is wrong but doesn't know about it. We laugh and poke fun. It's all harmless fun.

But it's annoying when they're wrong, don't know about it, think they're right, and then vehemently argue why they think they're right. You're clearly too arrogant to take time out of your day to learn something new, while instead using that time to fling shit.

Whatever bro, I won't stop you from acting like a monkey. Enjoy.

I can clearly see why you'd think its compatible. I've also already explained why I disagree with it in my last paragraph in previous post.
And I've already explained how your disagreements are invalid, misinformed, and misguided.

I have literally zero issues with this. Of course I know that this is not how exercise of will takes place in the real world but so far I've been willing to put up with spiritualistic nonsense for the sake of argument. Because that is a different debate altogether
You're coming at this with baggage, as well as ignorance. I suspected that this was going to be a waste of time, but I didn't think it would be this bad.

You cannot just side step the inherent logical contradiction between free will and determinism by jumping two steps forward and claiming that its independent of the notions of determinism/indeterminism. When the question is whether free will can even exist in a deterministic world, making such claims is akin to ignoring the question instead of answering it. The question is whether an agent actually had the power to generate one causal chain instead of another if the first choice itself was predetermined.
There is no "inherent logical contradiction." I've been explaining it for the past few posts and giving you the pointers to educate yourself, and it's just not getting through to you.

Do the fucking work.

Prime mover is not the same thing as the first cause.

Literally in the first sentence. This is basic shit in this kind of discussion and your lack of fundamentals is further cementing the fact that you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.

And my argument is that the deterministic game's(with no dice) outcome was never deterministic to begin since a free thinking agent was involved. If the player truly has free will then nothing could predict the outcome of the game.
Do you understand what I mean when I say "solved game?" Tic tac toe is an example of a solved game. That's one more thing you need to look for up for your own edification.

I'm just done. I don't have patience anymore for anyone who argues out of a place of ignorance. I can't believe I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Continue on with whatever it is you think you're doing here, but I just DGAF anymore until you do the work (for yourself, really, not for me KEK).
 
Caesercel

Caesercel

Salem’s Lot Cel
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 14, 2020
Posts
20,254
That's precisely the problem. You don't have the background knowledge, yet you're stubbornly steadfast without realizing your ignorance.


This is definitely a you problem, brocel. I don't stick in my nose in discussions I have little or zero knowledge of and then opine strongly about shit I have no idea on. I stay quiet and learn about things I'm both curious and ignorant about. And if people ask me, I state up front that I don't know or I'm not sure. Like economics. I know shit about economics past the basic theory of micro and macro that most people are exposed to, supply demand curves etc. Generally, I know that it's a cross between psychology and mathemathics, but I just don't have an interest in the theoretical side of economics to pursue it and satisfy any personal curiosities.

That's the rational approach.

You, however, are skeptical for its own sake (/r/atheism tier NPC behavior, ironically), and that ends up stifling your knowledge, because you believe that anything that doesn't conform to your (obviously correct) understanding of the world is bullshit to be discarded. This is the irrational skepticism again rearing its head that I've mentioned to you elsewhere.


They're not traps. They're common mistakes laymen make, and then I have to respond to it (well, I don't HAVE to) with more jargon and concepts to explain the things I already explained and argued for. JFL
That's quite an elaborate cope for "my arguments are demonstrably illogical and my viewpoint is self contradictory". If the only response you can come up with for my rebuttals is " U dun undersan" then what can I say:rolleyes:. Maybe there's a good argument for how two opposite notions like free will and determinism could be reconciled but its apparent I won't find them here.

And what beliefs? Did you even once ask about any of my beliefs and what my positions are, or did you (in your arrogance) just assume them? I'm making arguments and they're evidently not clicking for you, because it conflicts with the preconceived notions you have going into this.

I'm only talking in the frame of reference of the things you posit. Forgive my language.

Which you haven't even done on a surface level. WTF ARE YOU EVEN DOING?! :lul:
Atleast I'm not pretending that anything that's been said so far in this thread by either of us is "le deep and complicated". For someone who has apparently studied advanced math and computer science you demonstrate zero awareness about how surface level your own arguments are.

That's precisely the problem. You don't have the background knowledge, yet you're stubbornly stea

It's sometimes funny when a person is wrong but doesn't know about it. We laugh and poke fun. It's all harmless fun.

But it's annoying when they're wrong, don't know about it, think they're right, and then vehemently argue why they think they're right. You're clearly too arrogant to take time out of your day to learn something new, while instead using that time to fling shit.

Whatever bro, I won't stop you from acting like a monkey. Enjoy.
Whatever helps you cope I guess. I have no intention of flinging shit. But when I'm faced by someone who holds contradictory viewpoints , and instead of explaining how it makes sense or countering valid rebuttals to those explainations, starts claiming that the other party won't understand because they haven't done adequate research. Yeah I'm gonna call that shit out for what it is.

Which is double embarrasing when the arguments themselves are surface level sophistry. This is just cringe.
Literally in the first sentence. This is basic shit in this kind of discussion and your lack of fundamentals is further cementing the fact that you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...YQFnoECC0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw2DKT4opPSHW7oUt71BHPRa


Argument of the unmoved mover is not the same as argument of the universal cause. Atleast read on the stuff that you claim to know better than me lel.

There is no "inherent logical contradiction."

Its right here:

Free will cannot exist in a deterministic world since the choice made by the agent is pre known and hence any alternative was impossible to begin with.
I've been explaining it for the past few posts and giving you the pointers to educate yourself, and it's just not getting through to you.
Your so called explaination has been rebutted right here :

But it is simply true that the randomness of random events is rendered untrue if the outcome is known. I understand what you're trying to say but God's Omniscience does not absolve you from using logic. Infact preordination is necessary for such knowledge to even exist. I know you claim that it isn't necessary "cuz God" but that's not rationality.
. ..

Do you understand what I mean when I say "solved game?" Tic tac toe is an example of a solved game. That's one more thing you need to look for up for your own edification.
Lets say two agents with perfect free will play a closed game like tic tac toe or chess. Can you "determine" the exact outcome of the game when the first move hasn't been made? No? Well gg. I can literally see how you're confusing yourself with this one and its sad to see that you won't acknowledge where you went wrong with this example.

I'm just done. I don't have patience anymore for anyone who argues out of a place of ignorance. I can't believe I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Continue on with whatever it is you think you're doing here, but I just DGAF anymore until you do the work (for yourself, really, not for me KEK).

I'll just repeat the fundamental flaw in your thought process again for everyone's benefit:

On a more abstract level you cannot define two entities X and Y with properties that are inherently contradictory to the other's existence and then claim that X and Y can co-exist because by definition X is X and Y is Y. You haven't resolved the contradiction here. ( for example X = God's omniscience and Y = randomness of truly random events. )
 

Similar threads

Kantlie
Replies
4
Views
330
Kantlie
Kantlie
Lonelyus
Replies
3
Views
279
NΩVA
NΩVA
wantedwanter
Replies
5
Views
408
CHOoseWisely123
CHOoseWisely123
S
Replies
24
Views
833
Rotter
Rotter
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape7
shape8
Top