Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Compatible? Not Really.

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

One of our commenters says he has solved the determinism problem by becoming a “compatibilist.”  Briefly, a compatibilist is someone who tries to avoid the logic of his premises by resorting to semantic dodges about the meaning of free will.  The compatibilist says that free will is compatible with determinism (thus the name).  Isn’t that kinda like saying my existence is compatible with my nonexistence?  Yes, it is.  But the compatibilist avoids this problem by re-defining “free will.”  The compatibilist says that “free will” does not mean “the liberty to choose;” instead, says he, it means “the absence of coercion.”  In other words, he says that so long as a choice is not coerced it is completely free even if it is utterly determined. 

 

The problem with this approach is easy to see – just as we don’t get to win a game by changing the rules to suit us in the middle of the game, we don’t get to impose meaning on words to suit the conclusion we want to reach.  The entire issue in the determinism/free will debate is whether we have liberty to choose.  Suppose I ask my friend Joe the following question:  “Do I have free will, if by “free will” I mean ‘the liberty to choose?’”  It is obviously no answer to that question to say, “Yes, you have free will if by free will you mean, “the absence of coercion.”  I really do want to explore the question about whether I have the liberty to choose, and Joe’s answer is not helpful.  You might even say Joe dodged the question.  Thus, in the end, the compatibilist answers a question no one has asked. 

 

“Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.”  Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1953, aphorism 109

Comments
Paul Giem: Re:
Your [Khan's] comments on the ladder remind me of a controversy going on at another thread at UD, where the complaint is raised that someone has posted too long a comment. I have chosen to be more brief, but the attempt to dodge the force of the argument by complaining about the analogy used makes the length of the comment on the other thread a little more understandable. If you don’t want text walls, try to be more understanding and less nitpicking.
Thanks. It has been my longstanding, sad experience that we too often face Cargillian "logic with a swivel":
1 --> If we use brief summaries [which inherently cannot stand by themselves and are easily subjected to nit-picking objections], they are twisted into strawmen and occasions to dismiss and even disdain the case being made. 2 --> If we use such summaries and link to external longer discussions, that is also ignored/dismissed or even met with the demand to "show us here and now," joined to the same sort of strawmen as at 1. 3 --> If we make comments of sufficient length and development of points to even initially deal with the issue and likely objections, that becoems "too long" to address and/or is dismissed as mere empty verbosity.
That sounds uncommonly like: "heads we win, tails you lose, sides -- you lose yet again." In the end, my position is to [perhaps with the able assistance of folks like SB!] make summaries for decision-makers, backed up with adequate discussions when these show up as necessary, and trust the many onlookers [FYI: by far and away most of these are NOT banned, AE folks . . . ] to across time see who is seriously engaging evidence and issues, and who is in the end playing rhetorical games. [Let us never forget that that rather ungainly and rhetorically less than scintillatingly brilliant figure, Paul of Tarsus, was literally laughed out of court in Athens in Ac 17. But, at length, he it was who built the future.] G'day all . . . GEM of TKI PS: your points on retiring without conceding are also quite apt.kairosfocus
December 29, 2008
December
12
Dec
29
29
2008
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT
A couple of footnotes: 1] AntiEvo: I note that they continue to comment on this thread, sadly mostly in an ad hominemish tone. That is itself -- sadly -- revealing. And when they do turn to matters of substance, sadly, far too much of it is based on strawmen. For instance . . . 2] Logos theology and Jn 1:1 ff I am astonished at the failure of many Evo Mat advocates to see that in Jn 1:1 the Old Exile from Gallilee (by way of Jerusalem and Ephesus, thence Patmos) actually exposed the foundation-era core theology of the Christian Faith to empirical tests by saying that reason/information was foundational to reality; per the Christian worldview. To see the force of this, think about how the very same advocates would pounce on Jn 1:1 as a point of obvious dis-confirmation, were it the case that the cosmos and life in it showed that they were NOT based on intricate, finely-tuned, function-specifying complex information! (Cf my always linked, Sections A - D.) 1910+ years after the Old Man from Galilee wrote about the central events in his life from the days of his youth, we instead see abundant and indeed rapidly growing empirical support for his bold worldview level opening statement to his Gospel. But, we evidently face what columnist Morris Cargill of Jamaica was fond of calling "logic with a swivel." So, the inference is made to the tired, ad hominem-laced rhetorical point of Design Thought being nothing but Creationism in the disguise of a cheap tuxedo. [The very fact that it draws on a longstanding -- back to "redneck Bible-thumping fundies" like Cicero, Plato and beyond -- line of empirically anchored inference from observation of FSCI to intelligence as its empirically anchored best explanation, is overlooked in a rush to take persuasive advantage of US court rulings of the 1980's which were in themselves questionable and anchored in even more questionable philosophy of science. (E.g. Cf how Mr Ruse has had to back away from his 1981 - 82 era claims.)] Gentlemen, please, retire this line of strawmannish, ad hominem-laced rhetoric. It is long past its sell-by date. Step into the sunshine, and get out of the stale air of the cave! In any case, a happy new year to one and all! GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 28, 2008
December
12
Dec
28
28
2008
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT
Stephen Thanks. Let us see if MF or any other Evo mat champion is willing to take it up. So far, on your short summary, he has responded:
According to my version of materialism there is truth. I am not familiar with any version that denies the possibility of truth.
Evidently, he does not recognise that the issue is not whether one formally accepts that truth exists [through the more extreme relativists seem to have a problem with that, and their name is Legion]; but that -- as shown step by step above and in the onward linked -- the evo mat system runs into serious trouble accounting for how we come to see and work with it using our minds. Starting with origin of said minds. Further lurking is the little issue of the definition of "truth." I have stated that "that which says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not" is both reasonable and has stood since Aristotle. On long observation, many relativists implicitly or explicitly reduce "truth" to perception and belief conditioned by circumstances and one form or another of conditioning. That soon enough becomes yet another reductio ad absurdum. And, the sets of radical relativists of various stripes and those of evolutionary materialists and their fellow travellers, overlap considerably. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 28, 2008
December
12
Dec
28
28
2008
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PDT
Hi KF: Yes, this is a worthwhile and valuable amendment. Let it serve as an abbreviated model of the argument that stands unrefuted or, for that matter, unapproached.StephenB
December 28, 2008
December
12
Dec
28
28
2008
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Hi Stephen I like your summary. Mind if I expand and adjust it a bit to be a bit more along the fuller lines of my argument?
The purpose of reason is to lead us towards the truth, reliably detecting and correcting error along the way. However, according to materialism all things in the end reduce to only matter-energy and space-time; interacting per physical forces and chance circumstances. Therefore, reason, even if it exists (a questionable proposition for materialists), has no capacity to surmount the physical chains of cause-effect that produce and control it. These chains act through evolutionarily produced genetic and socio-cultural conditioning and constraints, which manifest themselves in what is nothing more than "the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules" in our central nervous systems. As a direct result, materialistic reasoning is self-referential and inconsistent with itself; as can be shown through many illustrative cases: e.g. Marx, Freud, Skinner, Dawkins, Lewontin and Crick.
But, such a summary -- 134 words, BTW, MF -- cannot stand by itself; especially in a hotly debated context. But, take it as my executive summary, created by aid of the kind inspiration and impressive summarising work of Stephen. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 28, 2008
December
12
Dec
28
28
2008
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT
Mark: I will bring together a few threads of thought here, in response to your "offer." [I am willing to discuss here, but not there under your terms. For reasons that will be apparent. (Onlookers, how many even basic proofs in Geometry can effectively be presented in 200 words in a context where challenge is likely? As noted previously, that is the length of a synopsis that needs immediately present backup, not a serious case. Or, why do corporate presentations not simply stop at the Executive Summary? or, why is it often said that "the devil is in the details"?)] I observe, now too, that I showed in 156 above how and why the argument from the reality of reason -- which even materialists must use to argue for materialism -- is tightly linked to the basic reductio ad absurdum faced by evolutionary materialism. For those who won't scroll up, I excerpted your application of Crick's 1994 "astonishing hypothesis" to yourself:
I, Mark Frank, my opinions, and even the thoughts expressed in this comment, consist of nothing more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.
I then inferred, and from your site, evidently correctly:
. . . you have signed on to the most reductionist forms of evolutionary materialism, as an account for mind. That brings you up against the basic reductio ad absurdum problem that any such monistic, deterministic, reductionistic philosophy runs into. That is, you face an issue of self-referential incoherence.
I then pointed out in steps that: a --> An evolutionary materialist account of the cosmos has to explain all phenomena per reduction to material forces, phenomena and factors, i.e. chance + necessity acting on matter-energy across space-time. (Thus, the relevance of the Wales example on the limits of C + N when it comes to creating real and epistemologically credible, not just apparent messages.] b --> This, plainly, includes mind. But in so having to account for mind, evo mat thinkers are in a context of self reference, and . . . c --> that it is one in which they argue that what we imagine are reasonings and logical conclusions are wholly produced and controlled by forces that have nothing inherently to do with purpose, truth or validity. [I gave several real-world instances that were still relevant in the 1980s when the original to the cite was constructed: Marx, Freud and Skinner, and added also the 1990's case of Crick; which you applied to yourself, MF.] d --> I observed that the logical knife cuts both ways, and so we see evident self-undermining of the credibility of even materialistic reasoning. Reductio, in a nutshell; and . . . e --> claimed compatibilism by which if the controlling forces are those implanted in the brain by nature and nurture and force majeure of prevailing forces and circumstances, one has "free will" is no out. f --> I addressed Rib's favourite "out," the appeal to natural selection; by pointing out from Plantinga that NS addresses survival; enhancing behaviour, not accuracy of beliefs. That is, NS is not an out and arguing that in some cases accurate beliefs have survival value is a strawman. (I have also pointed out that even highly reliable and useful theories in science -- e.g. Newtonian Dynamics -- have limitations and are not to be equated to truth in the sense of "that which says of what is,t hat it is, and of what is not, that it is not"; cf Ari's Metaphysics 1011b.] g --> On the direct point, I then excerpted Reppert on the AFR:
. . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts. . . . In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the [credibly logical] ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
h --> This of course speaks pretty directly to the Crick assertion that you, Mark, have applied to yourself. How do you move from action-potentials in milli-Volts and physically causally structured cybernetic loops to the radically different ones of meaningfulness, reasoning and yea even truth; all of which demand more than physical cause-effect bonds? At this point, given the cumulative force of the issues outlined above, I drew a conclusion: Unless you have a cogent answer to that [and to the like], your position has defeated itself. I believe that still summarises the balance of the matter on the merits. GEM of TKI PS: For those still distracted by the "length" debate-point, especially as turned into an ad hominem. Above, I have presented both shorter and longer comments, as appropriate. Where I deemed it necessary to bring focus back to the cluster of key issues, I have used a longer comment. MF's remarks on how "subtle" the AFR is, is an implicit acknowledgement that to address it responsibly will require significant length. But, he has painted himself into a rhetorical corner.kairosfocus
December 28, 2008
December
12
Dec
28
28
2008
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT
Mark, thanks for the gracious invitation, but I don't think it would do justice to KF, who has, as of yet, not been answered. Also, I want onlookers at UD to get a chance to witness the exchange. So, if we have to wind it down, we can wind it down. I don’t mean that as a put down, believe me. I just wanted to make it clear that arguments can be reduced to their simplest essence. In any case, I did take a peek at your site, and I got a chance to see where you might want to take this. Let me assure you, and I mean this in the spirit of friendliness and mutual respect, that materialism leaves no room for truth. Truth, justice, and goodness are all non-material realities. By definition, they transcend matter. It’s just one more reason why materialism can’t work. In any case, if we have any more exchanges, you will get my best in terms of courtesy.StephenB
December 27, 2008
December
12
Dec
27
27
2008
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
#192 Stephenb Happy to follow this particular debate but this post (a) is not about the argument from reason (b) already has 190+ comments So I suggest moving the discussion. I have started a post specifically to do this on my own blog. This also allows me to impose a word limit on comments.Mark Frank
December 27, 2008
December
12
Dec
27
27
2008
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
-----Mark: (To KF) "Re argument from reason. A subtle and complex argument. I am scared of the length of the items you might write if I got started on this." Mark, I have resolved to curb my snippiness, and I will hold to it. Here is an argument that is not so subtle: The purpose of reason is to lead us to the truth. According to materialism, there is no such thing as truth. Therefore, reason, even if it exists, (a questionable proposition for materialists), has no purpose.StephenB
December 27, 2008
December
12
Dec
27
27
2008
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
----alllanius: "So according to the Bible, the question of free will is neither a scientific one nor a philosophical one. Freedom is possible through faith; everything else is slavery." From the Biblical perspective, the fundamental question would seem to be this: Can a person really choose which side of the worship ledger he will commit to, or, put another way, can a person really choose to accept (and submit to) the faith that liberates rather than the faith that enslaves, which is materialism. Everyone believes something, worships something and, in that sense, chooses to be a slave to that which he worships. So the question is, to which ultimate value will he submit? Will it be "survival," "matter," "self," "power," "pleasure," or "the Gospel." In that respect, free will permits you to decide on that to which you will submit. We are all seeking the best for ourselves, but most of us don't seem to know that that is. Our free will is severely limited. By that I mean there is no freedom from submission, because we must all submit to that which we worship, and we must all worship something. So, in a Biblical sense, free will consists in the decision to worship idols, self, or God. To not worship is not an option.StephenB
December 27, 2008
December
12
Dec
27
27
2008
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the Biblical view of free will is quite sensible. Freedom is contingent upon faith. As long as a man lives “in bondage to the grave,” he is not free and cannot make free choices with regard to happiness (not common choices, like what kind of ice cream I’ll have today, but choices relevant to the trajectory of existence). According to this view, there are two possible paths in life. One is the will to power, dictated by the flesh and its mortality. Those who choose this path are attempting to cheat death by building themselves up in the world; by dominating others. The Bible indicates that this is “vanity,” since all men are like the grass—all men are equally mortal. There is said to be another path to follow, however, which is described as the path to life. This path tells us not to worry about what we eat and drink because our needs will be provided; not to attempt to raise ourselves up at the expense of others because the only thing that matters in the end is God’s approval and not the glory of this transitory world. Now without this faith in the providence and loving-kindness of God, human will is fully determined and not free, because men are mortal. This is what Barb alluded to elsewhere when she pointed to the important verse, “God has put eternity into the hearts of men, but they cannot find it out by any means.” Without faith, men are simply slaves to the grave; their fate is determined by their natural limitations. With faith, however, they are free to choose between the way of life and the way of the world. For instance, let’s say that someone has double-crossed us at work. We can either seek revenge, or we can follow the principle of turning the other cheek, which is said to lead to a greater happiness in the end. So according to the Bible, the question of free will is neither a scientific one nor a philosophical one. Freedom is possible through faith; everything else is slavery.allanius
December 27, 2008
December
12
Dec
27
27
2008
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
PS: lest I overlook -- on Welcome to Wales, kindly note that we are looking at the thought experiment -- i.e logically and physically possible case -- where we SEE the improbable happen. What would such an incident indicate, and what does it imply? [Apart from, you imply by the reworking in 183 above, that you do accept the epistemological force of the exhaustion of probabilistic resources point made by the explanatory filter to discern cases of chance and intent per observation of CSI.]kairosfocus
December 27, 2008
December
12
Dec
27
27
2008
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
kf #186 Are you serious or just teasing?Mark Frank
December 27, 2008
December
12
Dec
27
27
2008
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
Mark I trust you had a good Christmas. You will see above that I have specifically invited you to take up points on the merits, one at a time; suggesting the very first one as a start. You have indeed responded to that one, but unfortunately in a way that materially understates what you did. For, sir, you accused of VITRIOL, an extremely harsh claim; one that if true would go seriously to character. I (along with others) pointed out what it really means. You have backed off; pleading being overly sensitive. I will leave it to you to reflect on the disproportion in your earlier language. However, on the merits, the balance is clear. Next, you suggest just above that I am crowing over triumph by length. Pardon a bit of pedantry, but this, too -- given what just happened on point 1 -- sounds just a little strawmannish. If you wish to seriously address the case on the merits, I and others will be happy to accommodate; as we have repeatedly said. But if the pattern of the past few days continues, it suggests rather strongly -- or even implies -- that, having no real case on the merits, one side is resorting to changing the subject through strawmen and ad hominems. So, as I pointed out at 176:
I must note — with just a tinge of sadness — that sharp comments on length or style etc that are at the same time unresponsive to the substantial issues raised, can all too easily become a species of distractive red herring plus strawman plus ad hominem fallacy.
So, again: let's hear you on the merits. Why not look at the reductio issue in point 2, 156? G'day, GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 27, 2008
December
12
Dec
27
27
2008
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
shorter GEM at 181: I win the thread because no one has responded to my 1663 word epistle at 156. As opposed to what? I win the thread because your post was too long for me to read so I don't have to respond, ha ha ?tribune7
December 27, 2008
December
12
Dec
27
27
2008
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
crater: "I win the thread because no one has responded to my 1663 word epistle at 156" well, maybe there are other reasons too... Mark: I hope you had a great Christmas too! I want to say that this thread has been great fun, deeply interesting and really, really fair and agreeable.gpuccio
December 27, 2008
December
12
Dec
27
27
2008
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT
kf Re eloquent silence - it was Christmas. Re Vitriol - I already recognised I was being oversensitive in #155. Re argument from reason. A subtle and complex argument. I am scared of the length of the items you might write if I got started on this. Welcome to Wales - I would believe it because it is far more likely that some person arranged the stones in that pattern than that they fell that way naturally. I hope you had a great Christmas.Mark Frank
December 26, 2008
December
12
Dec
26
26
2008
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT
Onlookers: Shorter GEM at 181: I win the thread because no one has responded to my 1663 word epistle at 156. Congratulations, KF, on a hard fought victory.crater
December 26, 2008
December
12
Dec
26
26
2008
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT
MF (and onlookers): Season's greetings It seems, so far; per eloquent silence, that the matters of substance for this thread are over. [Of course, you may choose to respond . . . :-) ] That leaves it fairly clear, by default, just where the substantial matters stand on the merits; at least as at no 156. In a nutshell: even compatibilist materialism evidently fails the reality test. ___________ Others in recent days: The effect in the end of the substance of 156 (as, in the end, a capstone to several substantial comments and one outstanding one at 21) -- whatever real or perceived defects one may find in style or length -- speaks for itself. Just as the contrast in tone over the past few days, also speaks; in its own way . . . (And, Sparc et al, it is still so that "sharp comments on length or style etc that are at the same time unresponsive to the substantial issues raised, can all too easily become a species of distractive red herring plus strawman plus ad hominem fallacy.") _____________ Administrator: thanks. ___________ A happy New Year to all . . . GEM of TKI PS: Lurkers from Anti-Evo, that greeting is also for you.kairosfocus
December 26, 2008
December
12
Dec
26
26
2008
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
EDIT: Sparc, quoting someone else insulting kf is not something to be appreciated. If you don't like kf's style that's fine--just say so. But this comment went too far. --Adminsparc
December 25, 2008
December
12
Dec
25
25
2008
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT
will note that I have taken up issues where as far as I can see there is need for more detailed commentary, given the stalemated back-forths that sometimes occur. And, sometimes, due to the simple and manifest want of capacity on the Design side to address issues and arguments put up by some evolutionary materialist advocates who come to visit.
You know, it really isn't necessary to be insulting to others in the design community. We were doing fine before you chose to grace these pages and will no doubt continue to advance the science long after you retire a second time.crater
December 25, 2008
December
12
Dec
25
25
2008
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
Verily, scrolling through kf length dissertations (comments are bible verse length not bible book length) doth weareth out thou mouse wheel and cause a great weariness to come upon thy fingers. It testeth the patience even of Job.DaveScot
December 25, 2008
December
12
Dec
25
25
2008
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
sharp comments on length or style etc that are at the same time unresponsive to the substantial issues raised, can all too easily become a species of distractive red herring plus strawman plus ad hominem fallacy.
The remaining question is if they do so by design or chance. ;-)sparc
December 24, 2008
December
12
Dec
24
24
2008
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT
Dave: First: A happy Christmas to you. On the point you raised: I have no desire to enter into a flame war with you, especially on Christmas Day of all days. I will note that I have taken up issues where as far as I can see there is need for more detailed commentary, given the stalemated back-forths that sometimes occur. And, sometimes, due to the simple and manifest want of capacity on the Design side to address issues and arguments put up by some evolutionary materialist advocates who come to visit. As you will see from some of the responses above, that is a legitimate contribution on my part and on the part of several other long time and valuable commenters. of this, no 21 above is a classic; and I have hosted a similar classic by GP as well that was recently removed from UD on an after the fact policy change, to the detriment of a thread, in my own blog. I believe it is fair comment to say that such contributions are not mere bloviation. (And, I must note -- with just a tinge of sadness -- that sharp comments on length or style etc that are at the same time unresponsive to the substantial issues raised, can all too easily become a species of distractive red herring plus strawman plus ad hominem fallacy.) Finally, I have no interest in becoming a main contributor at UD, and as I noted I am actually only intervening because of a recent crisis on the site with implications for the wider Design movement. (I believe, on evidence, not without some positive outcome.) A happy Christmas to all. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 24, 2008
December
12
Dec
24
24
2008
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
Merry Christmas one and all :-)tribune7
December 24, 2008
December
12
Dec
24
24
2008
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
That hurts Apollos :-)
LOL tribune7, I wasn't thinking of you...but now that I consider it, you're quite the marksman! :PApollos
December 24, 2008
December
12
Dec
24
24
2008
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
vivid: maybe laziness in using one's right not to read a comment? :-) Anyway, I take all the responsibility for the "laziness" concept. I hope nobody takes offence for that. I am the most lazy person in the world...gpuccio
December 24, 2008
December
12
Dec
24
24
2008
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
"and not to simple laziness in using the scroll bar?" Who attributed the lack of using the scroll bar to laziness? Apollos simply said "It’s a great way to exercise my right not to read a comment, if time or interest forbids it." Trib and I registerd our agreement. Vivid Vvividbleau
December 24, 2008
December
12
Dec
24
24
2008
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
Don't want to be nasty on Christmas night, but would it be possible that some positions against kf be due in part to scarce affinity with him, his style and his arguments, and not to simple laziness in using the scroll bar? One thing is certain: kf leaves a sign and gets strong reactions. I love that.gpuccio
December 24, 2008
December
12
Dec
24
24
2008
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
They are a nice contrast to the one-or-two line sniping that some commenters are wont to offer. That hurts Apollos :-) Anyway I'll add my kudos for KF's hard work. Vivid is right about the scroll bar.tribune7
December 24, 2008
December
12
Dec
24
24
2008
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
1 2 3 7

Leave a Reply