Sign in to follow this  
BaalChatzaf

A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Morality is a human artifact.  It is as made up  as  the game of checkers.

Yup, it is made up. Unless you prefer it to fixed be in our DNA. Handed down by God? Intuited?

(You've somewhat shifted from doxa and opinion, I see).

Does one need a guiding principle to choose and take actions, in our lives? It would either be "opinion" (subjective), or reality (objective) which determines the ~sort~ of morality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, anthony said:

Yup, it is made up. Unless you prefer it to fixed be in our DNA. Handed down by God? Intuited?

You've somewhat shifted from doxa and opinion, I see. Does one need a guiding principle to choose and take actions in our lives? It would either be "opinion" (subjective), or reality (objective) which determines the ~sort~ of morality. 

Doxa is Greek for opinion as opposed to something that is necessarily true. 

Not only is morality made up,  it is not constrained by physical law.  That is why there are so many moral/ethical systems.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Doxa is Greek for opinion as opposed to something that is necessarily true. 

Not only is morality made up,  it is not constrained by physical law.  That is why there are so many moral/ethical systems.  

It's "not constrained by physical law" because "physical law" is not axiomatic. Your "law" was derived (by men) solely from the metaphysical nature of things. But you still expect a secondary stage derivation for morality ... from physical law. Ha!

And your usual flat rejections of metaphysics offer no argument. Doxa. Some philosophers' opinion. What's the use, debating morality with someone who advertises he doesn't subscribe to the existence of the mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Doxa is Greek for opinion as opposed to something that is necessarily true. 

Not only is morality made up,  it is not constrained by physical law.  That is why there are so many moral/ethical systems.  

A science "fact" is not necessarily true. The atom will never be split turned out to be just an opinion--a wrong one in fact. These facts range from obviously true or accepted as true to well constructed theories looking for better theories if there be any.

You oversell science and undersell philosophy, both with richly applied hubris.

Morality is validated by reference to the human organism--or there's no validation. Science by reference to physical reality. But there is nothing outside reality including morality including incorrect moralities. Morality so far is poorly understood and applied. The Objectivist Ethics has much more truth in it than any Objecetivist morality. In fact, Rand used morality as a weapon more often than not.

Just as Aristotle lived in times of primitive science we live in times of primitive morality. Science was rescued by observation, experiment and numbers. Morality only has observation and analysis and advocacy.

--Brant

BTW, man needs morality so there's a morality to be needed or needed to be invented just like human rights are a human invention referencing the human organism--Science invents nothing; science is discovery; John Galt was an inventor who used (his) science (which science Rand didn't and couldn't explain)--morality needs to be discovered by observing how and why people behave then modified for better live-enhancing behavior as needed then sold to hoi polloi, in which endeavor she didn't do a bang up job

you may say science needs ethics not morality but ethics are based on morality and if morality is doxa so too ethics so too science itself--that reality too is doxa (go find reality; there is nothing that is reality; it's a collective abstraction like existence; you cannot "prove" reality exists or "existence exists")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, anthony said:

It's "not constrained by physical law" because "physical law" is not axiomatic. Your "law" was derived (by men) solely from the metaphysical nature of things. But you still expect a secondary stage derivation for morality ... from physical law. Ha!

And your usual flat rejections of metaphysics offer no argument. Doxa. Some philosophers' opinion. What's the use, debating morality with someone who advertises he doesn't subscribe to the existence of the mind.

Physical laws are ultimately derived from observations.  They are the result of epistemology at work.  Without senses there would be no science.

Also physical laws are subject to epistemological testing and falsification.   Morality is such that factual falsification is not possible.  Either one follows moral/ethical laws or one does not.  Facts and observations have little to do with it.  And you can discuss morality with me.  My brain can handle it. My brain probably does more for me than your mind does for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

A science "fact" is not necessarily true. The atom will never be split turned out to be just an opinion--a wrong one in fact. These facts range from obviously true or accepted as true to well constructed theories looking for better theories if there be any.

You oversell science and undersell philosophy, both with richly applied hubris.

Morality is validated by reference to the human organism--or there's no validation. Science by reference to physical reality. But there is nothing outside reality including morality including incorrect moralities. Morality so far is poorly understood and applied. The Objectivist Ethics has much more truth in it than any Objecetivist morality. In fact, Rand used morality as a weapon more often than not.

Just as Aristotle lived in times of primitive science we live in times of primitive morality. Science was rescued by observation, experiment and numbers. Morality only has observation and analysis and advocacy.

--Brant

BTW, man needs morality so there's a morality to be needed or needed to be invented just like human rights are a human invention referencing the human organism--Science invents nothing; science is discovery; John Galt was an inventor who used (his) science (which science Rand didn't and couldn't explain)--morality needs to be discovered by observing how and why people behave then modified for better live-enhancing behavior as needed then sold to hoi polloi, in which endeavor she didn't do a bang up job

you may say science needs ethics not morality but ethics are based on morality and if morality is doxa so too ethics so too science itself--that reality too is doxa (go find reality; there is nothing that is reality; it's a collective abstraction like existence; you cannot "prove" reality exists or "existence exists")

Errors occur in science.  The main thing about the physical sciences is that error is ultimately exposed by experiment, observation and measurement. The history of science is a trail  on which the bones  of  falsified theories and hypothesis rest.   Almost without a doubt our best regarded current theories will be show to be either erroneous (in some regard)  or incomplete.  We know for sure our best theories,  the ones we have right now,  are incomplete.  Quantum physics can account for three of the four basic  interactions:  electromagnetic force, the nuclear strong force and the nuclear weak force.  Gravitation is lacking a quantum theory to account for it.  Our current best theory of gravitation is Einstein's general theory of relativity.   It does not account for any of the nuclear forces nor does it predict dark matter (matter which gravitates by does not produce any electromagnetic radiation)  nor does it account for the accelerating rate of cosmic expansion. Physics is right now  based on two kinds of theory,  neither of them complete.  There are many effects which cannot be fully accounted for by current physics.  Physical scientists generally nor longer hope to achieve a theory that will explain every last physical  process, effect or event.

The main virtue of physical science is that its methodology and protocols will uncover its errors.  In short paying careful attention to nature keeps the science honest.   Compare that with philosophy,  theology, morality/ethics and any of the "soft sciences".  In philosophy,  the philosophers in metaphysics  are still arguing about the same old questions without ever have to come to some kind of conclusion will grounded in fact. Apparently philosophy does not have within itself the means to detect and correct its errors.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Ba'al wrote, "Without senses there would be no science."

Whales and dolphins are considered very intelligent but perhaps the reason they have not evolved into something as intelligent as our human ancestors is because of their watery environment and their subsequent inability to see clearly, feel or produce an artifact or writing, underwater.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Physical laws are ultimately derived from observations.  They are the result of epistemology at work.  Without senses there would be no science.

Also physical laws are subject to epistemological testing and falsification.   Morality is such that factual falsification is not possible.  Either one follows moral/ethical laws or one does not.  Facts and observations have little to do with it.  And you can discuss morality with me.  My brain can handle it. My brain probably does more for me than your mind does for you.

I'd like to see it - the mind-less, skeptic zombies formulating an ethics from their epistemology and "observations"! (I think I have...)

Some news for you, "brains" couldn't need morals, they'd only need herd control and obedience (check...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, anthony said:

I'd like to see it - the mind-less, skeptic zombies formulating an ethics from their epistemology and "observations"! (I think I have...)

Some news for you, "brains" couldn't need morals, they'd only need herd control and obedience (check...).

I just got through telling you the morality/ethics is not derived from observation  like physics and  astronomy is.  Morality is made up.  It is probably impelled by sentiment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

morality/ethics is not derived from observation like physics and  astronomy is.  Morality is made up.  It is probably impelled by sentiment. 

In a previous post, Bob, you gave utilitarian reasons for following a code of behavior that made sense to you. I can understand that it's important to you to maintain moral agnosticism, because there are certain things you'd rather not examine explicitly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Errors occur in science.  The main thing about the physical sciences is that error is ultimately exposed by experiment, observation and measurement. The history of science is a trail  on which the bones  of  falsified theories and hypothesis rest.   Almost without a doubt our best regarded current theories will be show to be either erroneous (in some regard)  or incomplete.  We know for sure our best theories,  the ones we have right now,  are incomplete.  Quantum physics can account for three of the four basic  interactions:  electromagnetic force, the nuclear strong force and the nuclear weak force.  Gravitation is lacking a quantum theory to account for it.  Our current best theory of gravitation is Einstein's general theory of relativity.   It does not account for any of the nuclear forces nor does it predict dark matter (matter which gravitates by does not produce any electromagnetic radiation)  nor does it account for the accelerating rate of cosmic expansion. Physics is right now  based on two kinds of theory,  neither of them complete.  There are many effects which cannot be fully accounted for by current physics.  Physical scientists generally nor longer hope to achieve a theory that will explain every last physical  process, effect or event.

The main virtue of physical science is that its methodology and protocols will uncover its errors.  In short paying careful attention to nature keeps the science honest.   Compare that with philosophy,  theology, morality/ethics and any of the "soft sciences".  In philosophy,  the philosophers in metaphysics  are still arguing about the same old questions without ever have to come to some kind of conclusion will grounded in fact. Apparently philosophy does not have within itself the means to detect and correct its errors.  

Nor does science. Means are existentially applied by the appliers--people.

Morality (and philosophy generally) comes from observation and analysis of the human organism--or should. Science does that plus numbers and experiments. That's hardcore.

It might be better for now to drop morality and focus on ethics. If we find commonality with ethics, which is more hardcore than morality, we could expand into morality, which is much more all over the place.

--Brant

just for starters, everybody has a philosophy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I just got through telling you the morality/ethics is not derived from observation  like physics and  astronomy is.  Morality is made up.  It is probably impelled by sentiment. 

In regard to human beings, science deals with the physical meaty bits of humans and their observable behavior, usually oblivious to man's consciousness, and that it too has identity. Science needn't be overly concerned with what is the metaphysician's work. However, scientists should at least be aware of the mind.

Makes sense you'd not recognize metaphysics. It would disturb the conceit of a primacy of science.

The valid methodology of science (empiricism) is merely an adjunct - a sub-category - to man's reason, it can never supplant reasoning in man and individual - as you'd wish. Where it does, there will arise Empiricism, going on, as more than one thinker has proposed, to a certain skepticism.

(The skepticism of any or all of the following: existence, sense-perception, reason (conceptualism), of man's value - or your regular target, ethics/morality).

Morality, "Impelled by sentiment" of course you took directly out of Hume and his emotion-primacy. See:

"Hume's position in ethics, which is based on his empiricist theory of the mind, is best known for asserting four theses:

(1) Reason alone cannot be a motive to the will, but rather is the “slave of the passions” (see Section 3)

(2) Moral distinctions are not derived from reason (see Section 4).

(3) Moral distinctions are derived from the moral sentiments: feelings of approval (esteem, praise) and disapproval (blame) felt by spectators who contemplate a character trait or action (seeSection 7).

(4) While some virtues and vices are natural (see Section 13), others, including justice, are artificial". 

[The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.]

-----

Subjectivist "doxa" from David Hume.

Note (1) - The passions precede and generate reason.

(3) "Moral distinctions are derived from moral sentiments: feelings of approval..." yes, feel-good-look-good is apparent most places.

(4) - "Some virtues and vices are natural"; Hume's naturalist determinism of character. (Well, so much for a volitional consciousness...)

Skepticism->Emotionalism, or: how this Empiricist had to fall back onto the psychological power of 'causeless and unidentifiable' (i.e., neo-mystical) passions as his final and only resort to replace man's "no knowledge".

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

In a previous post, Bob, you gave utilitarian reasons for following a code of behavior that made sense to you. I can understand that it's important to you to maintain moral agnosticism, because there are certain things you'd rather not examine explicitly.

It is not "rather not".  It  is "unable to".  There are certain things I just can't parse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Nor does science. Means are existentially applied by the appliers--people.

Morality (and philosophy generally) comes from observation and analysis of the human organism--or should. Science does that plus numbers and experiments. That's hardcore.

It might be better for now to drop morality and focus on ethics. If we find commonality with ethics, which is more hardcore than morality, we could expand into morality, which is much more all over the place.

--Brant

just for starters, everybody has a philosophy

Yes indeed.  And if folks are careful enough they will not let their philosophy screw up their thinking too much....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BaalChatzaf said:

...they will not let their philosophy screw up their thinking too much....

A perfect grasp of philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anthony said:

With humans, science deals with the physical meaty bits of humans and their observable behavior, usually oblivious to man's consciousness and that it has identity. It needn't be concerned with what is the metaphysician's work, but scientists should at least be aware of the mind.

Makes sense you'd not recognize metaphysics. It would disturb the conceit of a primacy of science.

The valid methodology of science (empiricism) is merely an adjunct - a sub-category - to man's reason, it can never supplant reasoning in man and individual - as you'd wish. Where it does, there will arise Empiricism, going on, as more than one thinker has proposed, to a certain skepticism.

(The skepticism of any or all of the following: existence, sense-perception, conceptualism, of man's value, or your regular target, ethics/morality).

Morality, "Impelled by sentiment" of course you took directly out of Hume and his emotion-primacy:

"Hume's position in ethics, which is based on his empiricist theory of the mind, is best known for asserting four theses: (1) Reason alone cannot be a motive to the will, but rather is the “slave of the passions” (see Section 3) (2) Moral distinctions are not derived from reason (see Section 4). (3) Moral distinctions are derived from the moral sentiments: feelings of approval (esteem, praise) and disapproval (blame) felt by spectators who contemplate a character trait or action (seeSection 7). (4) While some virtues and vices are natural (see Section 13), others, including justice, are artificial". [The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.]

The subjectivist "doxa" of David Hume.

Note (1) - The passions precede and generate reason.

(3) "Moral distinctions are derived from moral sentiments: feelings of approval..." yes, feel-good-look-good is apparent most places.

(4) - "Some virtues and vices are natural"; Hume's naturalist determinism. (Well, so much for a volitional consciousness...)

Skepticism->Emotionalism, or how the Empiricist falls back onto 'causeless and unidentifiable' (neo-mystical) emotions as his final and only resort to explain man's "no knowledge".

 

 

 

 

The primacy of science is not a conceit.  It was hard earned.  Philosophy has muddled thinking since the days of Athens and Alexandria.  In the 16 and 17 th centuries  European thinkers began to purge metaphysical nonsense  from their study of nature.  The purge has gone on since then and it is still not complete. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Primacy of science" is primacy of consciousness.

Existence - Consciousness ... science (etc.).

You're not hearing me: the fundaments of science are the conscious mind and reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The primacy of science is not a conceit.  It was hard earned.  Philosophy has muddled thinking since the days of Athens and Alexandria.  In the 16 and 17 th centuries  European thinkers began to purge metaphysical nonsense  from their study of nature.  The purge has gone on since then and it is still not complete. 

"The rule of the airmen" (Things to Come) is a conceit. Go watch the movie.

Take philosophy out of science and there goes science--all the way back to Aristotle and ever further.

"Purge metaphysical nonsense" and what's left is metaphysics which is not nonsense. What's left is reality.

The primacy has always been and will always be philosophy which is merely human consciousness consciously structured. Scientists dive into reality off that diving board. Without it they can't even tell there's a pool with water in it and deep enough and see that board and know what to do with it and how to do it. They can't even know they are scientists for they wouldn't be scientists or know any of it cowering in their caves while the cave bears romp and play.

--Brant

I just told you why philosophy is primary now it's your turn to tell us why it isn't and science is aside from just saying so

"The primacy of science is not a conceit" is a 100% philosophical statement and epistemological hubristic nonsense

all scientific statements are also philosophical statements; you can take science out of philosophy (as a mental exercise) and still have philosophy, but you can't take philosophy out of science and do science

if Aristotle was a bad scientist--we can say he wasn't a scientist but he tried to get there--he had to be philosophically corrected or set aside to make room for science--something you've already said without using that big, bad word "philosophy" or "philosophically"

etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2017 at 9:43 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

Morality is opinion and judgement.  No of it follows from the natural physical laws that correctly describe how the cosmos works. 

Is survival irrelevant to morality? Are natural physical laws irrelevant to survival?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

"The rule of the airmen" (Things to Come) is a conceit. Go watch the movie.

Take philosophy out of science and there goes science--all the way back to Aristotle and ever further.

"Purge metaphysical nonsense" and what's left is metaphysics which is not nonsense. What's left is reality.

The primacy has always been and will always be philosophy which is merely human consciousness consciously structured. Scientists dive into reality off that diving board. Without it they can't even tell there's a pool with water in it and deep enough and see that board and know what to do with it and how to do it. They can't even know they are scientists for they wouldn't be scientists or know any of it cowering in their caves while the cave bears romp and play.

--Brant

I just told you why philosophy is primary now it's your turn to tell us why it isn't and science is aside from just saying so

"The primacy of science is not a conceit" is a 100% philosophical statement and epistemological hubristic nonsense

all scientific statements are also philosophical statements; you can take science out of philosophy (as a mental exercise) and still have philosophy, but you can't take philosophy out of science and do science

if Aristotle was a bad scientist--we can say he wasn't a scientist but he tried to get there--he had to be philosophically corrected or set aside to make room for science--something you've already said without using that big, bad word "philosophy" or "philosophically"

etc.

Metaphysics delayed the development of proper physical science for  1500 years.  Progress began when Galileo dumped Aristotle and his nonsense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Metaphysics delayed the development of proper physical science for  1500 years.  Progress began when Galileo dumped Aristotle and his nonsense. 

Rubbish - "delayed". Historical determinism at its mystical worst. Conveniently, you have never alluded to or acknowledged the fact that it was Aristotle's metaphysics which made the major breakthrough and totally undid Plato's mystical metaphysics, finally opening the door for science. You tacitly conflate their metaphysics, though you know better. You've fixated on "metaphysics" as a dirty word, without cause, whoever it came from. Let's see you make a rational counter-argument to Aristotelian metaphysics (And without relying ultimately on any of his metaphysical premises, please!)  Try to do so without basing everything on an occasional empirical error (like falling stones). Know it, then dismiss it, if you can.

Metaphysics

"Are you in a universe which is ruled by natural laws and, therefore, is stable, firm, absolute—and knowable? Or are you in an incomprehensible chaos, a realm of inexplicable miracles, an unpredictable, unknowable flux, which your mind is impotent to grasp? Are the things you see around you real—or are they only an illusion? Do they exist independent of any observer—or are they created by the observer? Are they the object or the subject of man’s consciousness? Are they what they are—or can they be changed by a mere act of your consciousness, such as a wish?

The nature of your actions—and of your ambition—will be different, according to which set of answers you come to accept. These answers are the province of metaphysics—the study of existence as such or, in Aristotle’s words, of “being qua being”—the basic branch of philosophy".

“Philosophy: Who Needs It,”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rise of western civilization birthed modern science. The ancient link had been severed for 1500 years.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ba’al wrote: The primacy of science is not a conceit.  It was hard earned.  Philosophy has muddled thinking since the days of Athens and Alexandria.  In the 16th and 17th centuries European thinkers began to purge metaphysical nonsense from their study of nature.  The purge has gone on since then and it is still not complete. end quote

And Anthony responded: Historical determinism at its mystical worst. Conveniently, you have never alluded to or acknowledged the fact that it was Aristotle's metaphysics which made the major breakthrough and totally undid Plato's mystical metaphysics, finally opening the door for science. end quote

Much of philosophy (and religion) have muddled man’s thinking for centuries.

On a personal level it’s kind of like when your kid or grandkid comes home from school and starts telling you what some other kid said about heaven and hell, or Jesus and Allah. To me that BS is practically X rated material and I don’t want them to hear it, but what can you do? They can’t “un-hear” it.

So you give them the tools to evaluate existence. They should be skeptical. Let them know that type of thinking is like scary campfire stories. Then when they hear fantastic stories they know they are listening to crap.

And giving you the tools of reason is what the philosophies of Aristotle and Objectivism continue to do. Science would not exist without a Philosophy of Science and Epistemology.  

I watched some of Leah Remini’s shows about leaving Scientology. In a way Scientologists are like medieval Catholics in their intolerance. And so is ISIS, only a bit worse. It has always irked me how those dolts worked the word “science” into their bullshit religion of hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant wrote: The rise of western civilization birthed modern science. The ancient link had been severed for 1500 years. end quote  

I remember a lot of Aristotle’s scientific evaluations were not scientific at all, so that portion of Aristotle’ thinking is no loss. If I remember correctly Thomas Aquinas brought Ari back into vogue. Some ancient thinking contributed to The Renaissance and some didn’t. It is interesting to follow the philosophical links like Ayn Rand did. Considering all they “thought,” Aristotle leads to X and Plato leads to Y.

Peter    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Peter said:

Ba’al wrote: The primacy of science is not a conceit.  It was hard earned.  Philosophy has muddled thinking since the days of Athens and Alexandria.  In the 16th and 17th centuries European thinkers began to purge metaphysical nonsense from their study of nature.  The purge has gone on since then and it is still not complete. end quote

And Anthony responded: Historical determinism at its mystical worst. Conveniently, you have never alluded to or acknowledged the fact that it was Aristotle's metaphysics which made the major breakthrough and totally undid Plato's mystical metaphysics, finally opening the door for science. end quote

Much of philosophy (and religion) have muddled man’s thinking for centuries.

On a personal level it’s kind of like when your kid or grandkid comes home from school and starts telling you what some other kid said about heaven and hell, or Jesus and Allah. To me that BS is practically X rated material and I don’t want them to hear it, but what can you do? They can’t “un-hear” it.

So you give them the tools to evaluate existence. They should be skeptical. Let them know that type of thinking is like scary campfire stories. Then when they hear fantastic stories they know they are listening to crap.

And giving you the tools of reason is what the philosophies of Aristotle and Objectivism continue to do. Science would not exist without a Philosophy of Science and Epistemology.  

I watched some of Leah Remini’s shows about leaving Scientology. In a way Scientologists are like medieval Catholics in their intolerance. And so is ISIS, only a bit worse. It has always irked me how those dolts worked the word “science” into their bullshit religion of hate.

The child should learn to be skeptical, indeed.

I'd hoped I had made clear the distinction between skepticism (philosophy) and being skeptical of what you hear, etc. (the working methodology). I don't think there is any connection. Having your doubts about some received information has implicit the seeking of truth and certainty as your ultimate goal. AGW skepticism, for instance. Totally unlike the philosophy which claims (in the final analysis) those aren't possible, our senses fool us, or we can't know reality for sure, reason is limited, or the truth is relative, and there are no absolutes.

"Primacy": - Pre-eminence, supremacy, above all, absolute superiority ... (and so on).

In a metaphysical and epistemological role reversal, Bob claims that science has "primacy" (over and above its evident, critical significance to mankind) and dominates consciousness (if such exists). I guess "a brain" could think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this