Recommended Posts

  • Replies 567
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Excellent post, Jeff.

Jeesh, I'd hate to hear what MSK believes about low birth weight infants, if the parents don't have the money or insurance to cover the enormous cost of care. See here, for instance. Excerpt: "While costs vary considerably depending on the individual and the severity of their condition, the costs for a single infant with LBW may exceed $1 million. The average cost for initial hospitalization (only) for surviving infants weighing 500 to 600 grams was $1 million per child." Moreover, the cost numbers are from several years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff,

I don't blame you for bowing out of this. I will bow out, also. I personally don't like double standards and I will probably get irritated and say something I regret. Here is what I am talking about:

This is why I'm through with this discussion. ... turn around and insult us by saying that we are blanking out.

I wouldn't mind that criticism if I did not have to read things like the following:

In your quote above you show that you do not really understand what is meant by positive rights and negative rights.

Or the following:

On this topic you fail to comprehend what others and I have repeatedly articulated with great clarity, explaining exactly how rights pertain to children...

Or the following:

You are using this as a red herring to simply avoid addressing the points we raise here.

And so on. This is despite me showing clearly that I do understand how you (and others) consider rights pertain to children, etc. I fully understand that according to the positive-negative rights model that the right to life is not a guarantee of success. Have you even read what I have written about this?

You have not even mentioned what you consider to be human nature, which is the core of my discussion so far (a premise for basing rights), yet you know exactly what I fail to comprehend—presumably because I do not agree with you and am approaching the issue from another angle. And you are accusing me of willfully muddying to waters to avoid addressing issues.

That's just in this last post. I could go on and on from previous ones (from you and others) with similar comments. You don't find any of that insulting? Yet you get insulted. What kind of double standard is that?

You refuse to even ask, "What are you talking about?" You presume to already know what I am talking about, embark on teaching me master of the obvious stuff (more than once), which has been nothing but a rehash of the jargon and summary of standard arguments, and already know that this shows my mental deficiencies. And further, you do not refuse to address the issues I raise, you ignore them. I state them over and over and over and over and what is the response to them? Zero. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. But I do get something. What do I get? Long-winded posts on other stuff, post-premise stuff, with criticisms about me.

I am discussing metaphysics and you are insisting on jumping over that and discussing politics (in terms of philosophical branches).

What should I call this? If you find the term "blanking out" insulting, find a replacement for ignoring substance while criticizing someone and I will be more than happy to use it.

So, like you, I am done—at least for now. Out of time. But I stand by every word I wrote and I will be working on a theoretical paper on all this. Maybe a forum is not the best venue.

Still, I will be more than willing to discuss this later with anyone willing to discuss it for real. I start with trying to define human nature and, from there, build the rest. I find it ludicrous to discuss rights without having a proper definition of where they come from. As I stated, I reject the positive/negative status mold as all-inclusive identification of human nature and as a metaphysical state because I do not see it correspond to reality, thus, by logic, I must reject it as the all-inclusive basis of human rights in society. I am willing to even discuss that and see if there is more to it, or if I missed something, or another angle, or whatever, but I am not interested in further lessons on the obvious to teach me how wrong I am and how little I understand while ignoring what I am actually discussing.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
... I reject the positive/negative status mold as all-inclusive identification of human nature...

Nobody said it was an all-inclusive identification of human nature!! We are just talking about rights here. Rights derive from one aspect of human nature, the fact that we require freedom of thought and action in order to thrive. The concept of rights doesn't have to subsume every aspect of human nature; let's keep it simple!

What's the definition of a right? Merriam-Webster: "something to which one has a just claim", "the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled" -- these definitions seem pretty circular to me; they just say that a right is something you have a right to. Rand: "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context." Since rights are about freedom of action, it is impossible to violate someone's rights by doing nothing. If it were possible to violate someone's rights by doing nothing, that means the other person has the right to take away your right to freedom of action - to determine what you have to do. How do we decide who has the right to take away our rights? Oh, whoever is needy, starving baby in the woods being the prime example. It's either/or - "live and let live" vs. "tin cup as a claim check."

Link to post
Share on other sites
The question of whether we're obligated to help starving children everywhere isn't a "straw man argument" as pertaining to the original scene. Instead, it's the slippery slope down which any attempt to argue positive rights for children promptly heads. What you're doing is to divide the original problem, that of a child in an emergency situation, into its two components and then to address just the emergency component and forget the issue of a-child-too-young-to-fend-for-itself, which is the core issue producing the inflamed arguments.

My point is that Objectivists say that you shouldn't be punishable by law if you ignore the person in an emergency situation. I disagree. If that is an example of a positive right, then I'm all for positive rights - in an emergency situation. Whether it is the injured man at the roadside or the baby in the woods, you should try to remedy the emergency. That does not imply that you have the obligation to have to take care indefinitely of those persons. The slippery slope argument is bullshit, if you use that you can as well forbid abortion or euthanasia. These are all situations where no simple black-and-white solutions out of a book with formulas exist, but where we must look for a reasonable solution. That there are many people who want to extend positive rights to life-long commitments is no reason to ban positive rights in all circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rights derive from one aspect of human nature, the fact that we require freedom of thought and action in order to thrive. The concept of rights doesn't have to subsume every aspect of human nature; let's keep it simple!

Laure,

I wish to ignore the part about keeping it simple, but you are one of the first people to actually discuss human nature with this issue.

Thank you.

Your response requires some thought since it is in the ballpark of where I am at. I understand rights as deriving from ethics, which are human values that go to survival at core. The basic human value is rationality, since it is the main element of survival man has. Yet rationality (hell, even thought and action) doesn't do an infant much good. And if he is dead from starvation, he has no "freedom of thought and action in order to thrive" (or grow) in a social context or any other. His means of survival comes from outside himself and it is imposed on him at the beginning of life. Yet he is human and supposedly bears rights. I am presuming that this is not a meaningless phrase thrown in for whatever reason.

I also stumble on this word "thrive" in your statement.

I agree that "the concept of rights doesn't have to subsume every aspect of human nature," but the essential aspects it does have to subsume. And it cannot contradict human nature, otherwise the logic breaks down. Part of my premise-checking is to make sure the essential aspects on a metaphysical level are included and no contradiction is present before moving on to politics (rights)—but going through ethics first. I am not convinced that this is all as it should be. I am still mulling a lot over this.

Once again, thanks for discussing the topic I was discussing and not comparing me to Hillary and so forth.

EDIT:

Nobody said it [positive/negative status] was an all-inclusive identification of human nature!!

Incidentally, I have gotten the exact opposite impression. Whenever I have said "human nature" or "metaphysics" in this discussion, I have normally gotten "positive rights this" and "negative rights that."

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
If that is an example of a positive right, then I'm all for positive rights - in an emergency situation.

It's one thing to say there are positive rights and to invoke on obligation on somebody who caused the emergency. It's another thing to say there are positive rights and to invoke an obligation on anybody convenient. The latter makes the slippery slope.

For the baby abandoned in the woods, there are (1) the caretaker(s) who abandoned it and (2) anybody who happens to be in the area.

Consider the low birth weight infant example I gave in post 102. Presumably that's an emergency. There are (1) the parent(s), (2) the medical staff, and (3) anybody convenient, e.g. the wealthy owners or directors of the hospital or taxpayers.

Consider an extension of the low birth weight example. Suppose the infant's life is saved, but it turns out that very expensive ongoing care is required for many, many years. Is it an emergency situation throughout? Who is obligated to pay for it involuntarily?

Link to post
Share on other sites

MSK, maybe this will advance things an inch or two:

Legendary tough guys like Winston Churchill saw the wisdom of guarding and nurturing little ones: "There is no more far-seeing investment for a nation than to put milk, food and education into young children. If you add to that respect for law, knowledge of the traditions of the country and love of freedom, you have at any rate the foundations of national survival," he told the Carlton Club in 1939, just two months before war was declared and Britain's national survival was sorely tested.

This trenchant, enduring liberality of feeding and educating our young comes to us from many sources, practical as well as sentimental. Heinlein and Churchill used rational arguments to buttress the innate paternal impulse to cherish and defend the family. Good men see the joy of life in every child and every mom, with a charity and happy exception that is seldom extended to grown men, our competitors and rivals in life.

DeVoon, Flag, Faith, and Family Values, 2005

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
The slippery slope argument is bullshit, if you use that you can as well forbid abortion or euthanasia. These are all situations where no simple black-and-white solutions out of a book with formulas exist, but where we must look for a reasonable solution. That there are many people who want to extend positive rights to life-long commitments is no reason to ban positive rights in all circumstances.

It's bullshit in fantasy land. In the real world, yeah, you sure can "as well forbid abortion or euthanasia." For instance, for years a woman named Doris Gordon, who calls (or called; I don't know if she's even still alive) herself a "libertarian" used precisely the argument from "emergency situation" against abortion and euthanasia, especially against abortion. She argued that by conceiving a child, the parents have placed the child in an emergency situation, therefore... (This wasn't her only line of argument, but it was one she'd immediately start using if she got flak on her main approach of claiming personhood from the zygote stage.) Apparently, however, though you didn't answer the question directly, you would draw the line at the idea that you're responsible for feeding your neighbors' child if your neighbors don't. So that makes you just as morally monstrous in a great many people's books as the Objectivists you disdain.

Ellen

___

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ellen,

I looked her up: Doris Gordon's Pro-life Position in Brief.

Interestingly enough, it is precisely the lack of a firm definition of human nature by Objectivists/libertarians that allows her to use almost euphemistic phrases like "prenatal human offspring" and "wrongful homicide" when talking about a fetus and convince so many people.

To me it ain't "offspring" until it sprung off, but there is mush and things like positive/negative rights where an Objectivist/libertarian definition of what a human being is supposed to be (a definition that corresponds to reality) in order to properly rebut her. People listen, look and choose her argument for being the most consistent. She has a definition of human being that corresponds to reality.

I believe it is wrong to attribute the prenatal stage of human development the same privileges as post-natal, but no one can deny that you can point to any fetus at all and say two humans had to mix to result in it. In that part, her definition of human nature (even when implicit and not given qua definition) is vastly more consistent than that of Objectivists and libertarians.

This ain't a slippery slope. It's a cliff.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are more definitions. (I do not agree with the major part of them because of fundamental reasons and questions of scope, not because I think the standard arguments against them are any better. But that is another issue.)

From Libertarians for Life:

The Libertarian Case Against Abortion

To explain and defend our case, LFL argues that:

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.

2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.

3. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally depersonify any one of us, born or preborn.

6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

They have a definition. Right or wrong, one can conceivably call fertilization from birth a "person" because a fetus becomes one, just like a sperm and an egg become a fetus. So there is some reality there.

Objectivists say "rational animal" then treat the animal part as if it does not exist. The biological connection is completely severed in Objectivist ethics, for instance. They ignore the part of reality they find inconvenient. But reality has a way of not going away simply because it is inconvenient. And that is just one issue.

People on the outside look at that mess in the premises. Is it any wonder they mostly choose the other view as being the more rational?

I strongly believe this is something that needs to be cleaned up.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
Consider an extension of the low birth weight example. Suppose the infant's life is saved, but it turns out that very expensive ongoing care is required for many, many years. Is it an emergency situation throughout? Who is obligated to pay for it involuntarily?

Yes, why are hospital employees allowed to "save" the life of your premature baby and saddle you with a life of financial and emotional burden? This is the result of blindly following an "interventionalist" model of medicine which assumes that treatment must be given in all circumstances without question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Consider an extension of the low birth weight example. Suppose the infant's life is saved, but it turns out that very expensive ongoing care is required for many, many years. Is it an emergency situation throughout? Who is obligated to pay for it involuntarily?

Yes, why are hospital employees allowed to "save" the life of your premature baby and saddle you with a life of financial and emotional burden? This is the result of blindly following an "interventionalist" model of medicine which assumes that treatment must be given in all circumstances without question.

That's what they are hired to do--by you.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
The question of whether we're obligated to help starving children everywhere isn't a "straw man argument" as pertaining to the original scene. Instead, it's the slippery slope down which any attempt to argue positive rights for children promptly heads. What you're doing is to divide the original problem, that of a child in an emergency situation, into its two components and then to address just the emergency component and forget the issue of a-child-too-young-to-fend-for-itself, which is the core issue producing the inflamed arguments.

My point is that Objectivists say that you shouldn't be punishable by law if you ignore the person in an emergency situation. I disagree. If that is an example of a positive right, then I'm all for positive rights - in an emergency situation. Whether it is the injured man at the roadside or the baby in the woods, you should try to remedy the emergency. That does not imply that you have the obligation to have to take care indefinitely of those persons. The slippery slope argument is bullshit, if you use that you can as well forbid abortion or euthanasia. These are all situations where no simple black-and-white solutions out of a book with formulas exist, but where we must look for a reasonable solution. That there are many people who want to extend positive rights to life-long commitments is no reason to ban positive rights in all circumstances.

I appreciate where you are coming from, but you are coming from "There outta be a law" context. I also appreciate that you appreciate that this child-in-tbe-wilderness example is inferior to a more likely example of the point you are trying to make. However, all "positive" rights are an infringement of "negative" rights or initiation of physical force via law. There are actually only ("negative") human rights. "Positive" rights are sophistical, rhetorical attempts to occupy the same moral or even higher moral ground than actual rights by parasitical, unwarranted association via using the word "right" by throwing in "negative" and "positive." Actually, all "negative" rights are positive. The anti-rights crowd is here attacking rights by associating them with the negative word "negative."

The starving child in the wilderness means you are essentially beyond the law and will do whatever-the-hell-you-want. So, what kind of human being are you? Shit--or not shit? Etc.

_______________

Jeff, I deeply admire the calm rationality of your "last" post and the effort you made in making it. I don't admire your running away from the discussion as if MSK were the only adversary worthy of your engagement here and if you couldn't sway him--goodbye! MSK wins???? That's your message. Why put so much weight on what he says? Because he's prolific? A list owner? If he's not engaging you properly just say that and then essentially ignore him. I personally don't even have the time to read most of his posts. That's a sort of price he pays for writing so much. I cannot even make a general comment supporting a general evaluation of the quality of his contributions because I don't have time to research and create and justify such comment. He's a literary genius, but that's not what he is on OL.

As for you, my basic criticism is your stated desire for calm, rational discussion on--whatever. If a subject makes steam come out of some of our ears that might more rationally dictate the locus of the discussion before returning to a purported more desireable state of ratiocination. "The passionate search for passionless truth" is how Rand put it, not the "passionless search."

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to post
Share on other sites

The starving, abandoned baby in the wilderness discussion is not about law but the kind of person you are. Law requires a better, different example. If it were only about the law people wouldn't get so hotted up about it. There was actually an old William Holden/Ricky Schodder (sp.?) movie along these lines set in Australia. Anyone remember the title?

--Brant

edit: It's "The Earthling" with Ricky Schroder.

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, as near as I can tell from your various posts -- in which I see no clear line of "argument" -- you believe that an issue of "definition" is crucial. See, e.g., your posts #111 and #112. I'm sure that Daniel Barnes would be entertained.

In my view the core issue isn't that of when "personhood" starts but instead that of obligations. One thing I firmly agree with AR about is her statement in "Causality Versus Duty" that there are no unchosen obligations. Translated into human relationships this means that no one is entitled to try to force me into doing anything whatsoever. If people want me to do X, then they're to proceed by acquiring my consent. The only way children too young to care for themselves can be brought under the umbrella of being entitled to care while maintaining consistency with "no unchosen obligations" is by virtue of an "implicit contract," thus a chosen obligation, on the part of the parents of a child. Not on anyone else's part.

Ellen

___

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't admire your running away from the discussion as if MSK were the only adversary worthy of your engagement here and if you couldn't sway him--goodbye! MSK wins???? That's your message. Why put so much weight on what he says?

Brant:

I'm not running away from the discussion or Michael, nor am I upset with him or anyone else. This subject was thrashed upon for a long while over on the RoR site a little over a year ago. I thought that there might be some new insights here a year later, but it is just the same discussion with the same points being raised on both sides with no one apparently any closer to an understanding of the other's position. For me, it's simply a waste of time to cover the same ground. If anyone wants to dig deeper into the issues, they can peruse the topic there. The RoR site is down right now, but I believe the discussion took place under the heading of "Ethics of Emergencies" or something like that.

As for you, my basic criticism is your stated desire for calm, rational discussion on--whatever. If a subject makes steam come out of some of our ears that might more rationally dictate the locus of the discussion before returning to a purported more desireable state of ratiocination.

I don't mind passion, but when communicated through written words, it is often impossible to distinguish passion from anger or insult. I'm sure Michael has no intention of insulting me or anyone else, just as I do not, but that doesn't stop people from taking offense at expressions that are benign to someone else. But, in general you are correct, I personally prefer carefully thought out, rational discussion to impassioned stump speeches, rambling searches for meaning in the intellectual desert or cruel insults masquerading as clever ripostes. I do tend to be more thoughtful than emotional, although I have my moments! :-)

Regards,

--

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites
The starving child in the wilderness means you are essentially beyond the law and will do whatever-the-hell-you-want. So, what kind of human being are you? Shit--or not shit? Etc.

I think the same applies to Dragonfly's example of, say, a motorcyclist who's lying in danger of death and is observed by a passing motorist on an otherwise-deserted road. In the stipulated circumstances, who is to know anyway what the potential rescuer does? Why the desire to pass a law to cover such a circumstance? What's the pay-off? To scare people by an exercise of threat if they don't do what you (the law-passer) thinks they should do in other circumstances? I see a great deal of potential harm for wider circumstances from emergency-situation laws, but not any pay-off for the hapless person in the situations used as examples. I agree with Brant. In such situations what will count in terms of whether you help the person or not is what kind of human being you are.

Ellen

___

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael, as near as I can tell from your various posts -- in which I see no clear line of "argument" -- you believe that an issue of "definition" is crucial. See, e.g., your posts #111 and #112. I'm sure that Daniel Barnes would be entertained.

In my view the core issue isn't that of when "personhood" starts but instead that of obligations.

Ellen,

Here is the whole problem. Yes, my line of argument—the one you find unclear—is precisely that of definition (of human nature). I have only been saying that for 3 years, now, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, precisely in those words.

In Objectivism, you base the construction of concepts on metaphysics and epistemology and build up from there, and you validate them by observation and logic. If the observation and logic conflict with the concept, you revise the concept.

I don't give two hoots if Daniel Barnes is entertained or not. I hope he is and he makes great use of this. People who belittle and ignore the need for clear definitions and want to talk about obligations and freedom deserve what they get.

There are people out there who do have clear definitions, as I posted above. They want to obligate everyone for everythoing under the sun. I wonder why it is that they convince so many people while those who think clear definitions (or don't mind fudging their definitions) is a mere detail do not convince all that many.

That's a hell of a way to run an ideological battle.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't admire your running away from the discussion as if MSK were the only adversary worthy of your engagement here and if you couldn't sway him--goodbye! MSK wins???? That's your message.

Brant,

I wish I could do something about that kind of message. That is so not me. This business about adversaries and winning and so forth when hashing out concepts and defintions—I just don't think in those terms.

Reality is what has to win. And we have to identify reality properly. That is what has to win.

The rest is merely entertainment for the readers.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
There are people out there who do have clear definitions, as I posted above. They want to obligate everyone for everythoing under the sun. I wonder why it is that they convince so many people while those who think clear definitions (or don't mind fudging their definitions) is a mere detail do not convince all that many.

This is because there is an unsuspecting, ignorant mass of people waiting to get sucked in by the "clear definitions". People like nice clear credos with no ambiguity because then they don't have to think anymore. This is why science isn't normally used as a tool to manipulate people - in science we know that we build models and they will never be complete and they will always be inexact to some extent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you mean by a right then? What is your definition?

Ethan,

You haven't been reading me correctly. I have been constructing the definition from the ground up and I have stated clearly I do not have the answer. And I have essentially been asking you these questions. All I get is recycled jargon, not concepts.

I reject recycled jargon. This is too important.

Michael

This is a repeat of my post #96 which seems to have gotten overlooked in the debate.........

Okay, let's throw away Rand's comments and all that has come before this and start fresh with what you've said.

You have stated clearly a conclusion that the child has a right to life. If you are building this from the ground up, and have come to this conclusion, the process of building it should give you the answer. Please explain your process so I can see how you have arrived at the child having a right to life.

Ethan

Link to post
Share on other sites
You have stated clearly a conclusion that the child has a right to life. If you are building this from the ground up, and have come to this conclusion, the process of building it should give you the answer. Please explain your process so I can see how you have arrived at the child having a right to life.

Ethan,

That's totally backwards. You don't start with a conclusion. On a metaphysical level there are no rights for anyone or anything. There is only existence. Philosophically, rights pertain to the branch of politics. The concept of rights rests on metaphysics, not the other way around.

This is very indicative of the problem with understanding I have experienced on this issue. You appear to be debating to win some kind of pre-determined position or arguing to arrive at some kind of pre-determined conclusion—or expecting me to do the same. I'm on another wave-length entirely.

When I start from the ground up, I start from the ground up. I empty my mind of prejudice.

Why not start with Socrates?: "I only know that I do not know."

Then one can look, see, integrate, learn and conclude.

The way I have typically expressed this time and time again is that the proper manner of conceptual thinking is make a cognitive identification, and only after that has been done, to make a normative evaluation.

I do not subscribe to Peikoff's admonition that all existence is normative by nature to a human being. I have seen too often people who follow this replace facts with their beliefs and opinions. Normative only works conceptually if the cognitive part is correct.

Rights are normative by definition. They belong to politics, which sits on ethics, which is the normative branch of philosophy.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
You have stated clearly a conclusion that the child has a right to life. If you are building this from the ground up, and have come to this conclusion, the process of building it should give you the answer. Please explain your process so I can see how you have arrived at the child having a right to life.

Ethan,

That's totally backwards. You don't start with a conclusion. On a metaphysical level there are no rights for anyone or anything. There is only existence. Philosophically, rights pertain to the branch of politics. The concept of rights rests on metaphysics, not the other way around.

This is very indicative of the problem with understanding I have experienced on this issue. You appear to be debating to win some kind of pre-determined position or arguing to arrive at some kind of pre-determined conclusion—or expecting me to do the same. I'm on another wave-length entirely.

When I start from the ground up, I start from the ground up. I empty my mind of prejudice.

Why not start with Socrates?: "I only know that I do not know."

Then one can look, see, integrate, learn and conclude.

The way I have typically expressed this time and time again is that the proper manner of conceptual thinking is make a cognitive identification, and only after that has been done, to make a normative evaluation.

I do not subscribe to Peikoff's admonition that all existence is normative by nature to a human being. I have seen too often people who follow this replace facts with their beliefs and opinions. Normative only works conceptually if the cognitive part is correct.

Rights are normative by definition. They belong to politics, which sits on ethics, which is the normative branch of philosophy.

Michael

Michael,

I know that. EDIT (That you don't start with a conclusion. That's why it's called a conclusion.)

You said you are building this from the ground up.

You said the child has a right to life.

You said that you don't agree with the positive/negative right thing.

I'm saying show me how you have built from the ground up to that right to life.

I'm saying show me how that translates into an obligation.

You are saying you think it does.

I don't want to hear how the Oist version is wrong, or Rand said this or that.

I don't want to rehash this from the old angles.

I want to hear YOUR grounds-up reasoning since YOU SAY that's what you are doing. You are saying that you believe that this right to life exists and is legally enforceable. Show me how you arrive there. (CAPS for accent not "yelling")

Edited by ethan dawe
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now