Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

A place for more formal debate. Be a spectator, vote on the winner, or start one of your own. Read about how the forum works.

Moderator: Carleas

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby AnitaS » Tue Oct 05, 2010 7:14 am

After reading and re-reading both arguments, I have to say that I’m struggling with the idea that the two sides are mutually exclusive. Seems to me there is a distinction to be made between the two, but it is a fine distinction, almost like comparing apples to oranges.

Tab concedes that on an individual level, we certainly feel like we’re able to make autonomous choices. Even while refuting Pav’s cereal guy argument, he brings in quantum indeterminacy and the butterfly effect. Which seems to support Pav’s cereal guy argument. But Tab’s main argument relies on a grander scale, anthropologically, demographically, and temporally. And although he posits that the optimal solutions exist outside of time, that doesn’t seem like an especially useful axiom, because we don’t exist outside of time. We can only judge those solutions as optimal after the fact, and hindsight is 20/20.

If I understood correctly, Tab’s position can be summarized in this sentence:
Tab wrote:…despite individual free-will, the universe acts as if the future is pre-determined right from the very beginning, at least with respect to life, because *best* solutions to given situations and problems exist, eternal, outside of time.


Pav points out that one must consider the role irrationality plays, introducing a somewhat random factor which results in our inability to predict future events with a high degree of accuracy. He agrees that probability enables us to make fairly reliable predictions, but the door is left open for deviations from those predictions. Whereas Tab’s argument analyzes the past to reveal inevitability, Pav’s seems to focus more on the unfolding of the future and our inability to predict developing events.

I'd sum up Pav's argument with this:
Pav wrote:A prediction, as it were, is nothing more than a statement of probability which also serves as a statement of assumption. The Compatabilist can and should predict that nothing catastrophic will derive from an individual choosing one cereal over another, but simply acknowledges the possibility that something catastrophic could happen as a result. Reagrdless of how infinitesimal the percentage of the possibility is, the fact that a percentage of possibility is there is what prevents almost all future events from being absolute, or inevitable.


You both did a great job in illustrating your points and making your case. The fact that you each came at this debate from differing vantage points makes it difficult to judge; and as I said earlier, the positions themselves are not so far apart. It would’ve been easier if one of the positions was for strict determinism.

But since that was not the case, I’ll have to give a slight, very slight edge to Pav. You two are both excellent in your rhetorical skills, both were eloquent and compelling, and actually both arguments were convincing. If Tab would’ve talked a little more about how inevitabilism can help us view the future as well as the past, I probably would’ve given him the edge.

Well done, both of you.

“Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs.”
- Leo Tolstoy

"Fair and softly goes far."
- Miguel de Cervantes
User avatar
AnitaS
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1642
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 1:51 am
Location: L'Étoile du Nord

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby Tab » Tue Oct 05, 2010 10:18 am

A fine and reasoned decision.

Image

What, me, disappointed..? No [sob] not at all.
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby Tab » Tue Oct 05, 2010 1:23 pm

Image
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby Tab » Tue Oct 05, 2010 4:40 pm

Image
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Tue Oct 05, 2010 11:10 pm

I agree that Anita came to a well-reasoned Judgment. Thank you Anita for all of the compliments that you paid to both myself and Tab!
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby Ingenium » Wed Oct 06, 2010 12:14 am

I'm going contrary to my nature to comment on one of these debate things, probably because I ended up feeling sorry when you kept begging for people to choose who wins. Christ, my kids do that to me what seems like a million times a day, give me a break. And it's a little ironic given the topic, no? But WTF, you probably won't be surprised that it's my opinion that neither of you wins. :D

Also, as far as style, I thought you both proceeded into discussion without clarifying well enough up front your individual understandings of the critical terms used here. Because of this, it seemed to me to end up as a debate of exploring some fundamental meanings as one goes along rather than refining a more concise initial position, so I took points away (before I'd even given any, as a matter of fact!) for that.

As for the specific stuff, here's a little bit. I didn't have time to read all that dialogue Tab wrote. And I'm pretty sure that had I read all of it, my opinion wouldn't change. But I could be wrong.

Okay so Pav says:
Compatibilism: Agree that Cause/Effect chain has led us to this point, disagree that future effects have necessarily been pre-determined because choices have not yet been made.
And Tab says:
from my point of view, those choices do not matter because the system imposes certain results. I call it 'inevitabilism' - things are bound by their nature to unfold in a certain way

Again, neither of you really identifies which definition of you're aruguing over. I think that's a problem that ends up confusing the debate, because when you're discussing one, another one stands in the background without note but influencing the argument anyway. If free will is an agent's ability to control his or her action according to his/her will (as long as conditions of the situation permit this), then that's one thing. And mostly what you're arguing over, I think. But the broader idea about free will as something that transcends our physical existence and how the workings of the world ultimately control us is lurking back there, not really elaborated upon by either of you. I think Tab comes closer when he talks about an individual "experiencing" the freedom of choosing and how he can "feel" after-the-fact as though he could've chosen differently. I think he's reaching for the ultimate when he says...

"Regardless of the truth of the matter, a society believing, and acting upon the belief, that it possesses freedom of choice will act very differently from one that does not. The simple existence of the concept in the group mind, frivolous or real, has effect."

...and yet doesn't explain the "effect", so I'm not sure how or why that's relevant. Anyway, just because anyone -- or an identified group of anyones -- believes they possess freedom of choice doesn't mean that they do. What he's labelled "freedom of choice" is the fact that agents have the ability to control their behavior and choose their actions. That doesn't mean they possess self control in the ultimate sense.

Pav's view of the ultimate sense of it shows up (I think!) as he notes the "unpredictability of happenstance in the purely physical world"...but then assumes once a "sufficiently sentient breed of agents came into being" were prompt to mentally categorize all of this unpredictability into "the novelty of choice".

"...and later the novelty of choice expressed in the world of the mind, once a sufficiently sentient breed of agents came into being."

Of course right off, "came into being" implies causality and I assume the point is that it took humans to construct the idea of causality. But humans also constructed "happenstance". So what's the point here, really?

The classic chaos-theory snowball rolling downhill, tapped by the tiny finger of quantum indeterminacy early enough on in its path, will end up in a wildly different place than its utterly determined fellows.

What does "quantum indeterminacy" mean and whose finger is doing the tapping?

Moving along, Pav elaborates upon what he believes to be a valid depiction of a chain of cause and effect to illustrate how events of the "past" will have impact on "the future". As I read, I could hear the ice cracking and I wanted to shout a warning to him to get out of there NOW...but I figured the noble souls who enter this ILP Chamber do so with the understanding that sinking into the freezing depths is, well, an option. :)

He says it's all because a guy chose Cocoa Puffs for breakfast. Actually, he said "wanted", which would've (should've IMO) allowed him to introduce the concept of intention into the mix. But anyway, his point is that the decision that, on the surface, seems relatively inconsequential, actually leads to "vast intended and unintended consequences". Really?

I didn't care for hypothetical Cocoa Puffs example because he started with a simple decision and then selected a chain of events in a linear way, so that he could base all the contingencies along the line on that one. But this doesn't reflect the intricacy of the web of causality. On the surface, he makes his neat linear case. No doubt he would respond "but I only meant that as one possible example!" But that's not how it works. He doesn't realize that each of the occurrences that he has isolated at each point along the way to his chosen outcome are, in fact, at each moment, interrelated in this web through an infinite number of relationships that he can't possibly identify.

In other words, it's not even remotely that simple and I'd say it's, in fact, so complex, that he can't claim that the example can prove anything about causality. Just as I can hold an orange in my hand and, as an exercise, try to imagine everything that occurred in the past to place it there. My way is a teensy weensy bit better, because I'm starting with an actual orange (versus ending up with an imaginary ghost town) and I know a few facts about how it got there (I saw it, I bought it, I sat down at the table and gazed at it and thought about it. I have a reasonable certainty that it came from a particular tree in a particular location, and that it was picked, packed, distributed, displayed, chosen, paid for, etc. That's my little linear chain...but I'm of course ignorant of the lion's share of what actually caused that orange to be in my hand at the precise moment. I may deduce that it was part of a causal process, but there is absolutely no way that I can know this, because the web is too intricate.

Of course, future effects have not been pre-determined because the decisions (Causes) have not yet been made to yield the results. (Effects)

This is a non sequitur to me. The future is simply a projection of thought, it's not about causes- and effects-to-be.

All I've got the time for, sorry.
I have been loved, Edward told the stars.
So? said the stars.
(The Miraculous Journey of Edward Tulane)
User avatar
Ingenium
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1723
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 5:11 am
Location: Misogyny-free Zone

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 12:37 am

Good breakdown, Ingenium. The only thing that I would mention for now (and only because mentioning this won't sway any votes) is that you attributed a couple of Tab's quotes to me.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby Tab » Wed Oct 06, 2010 1:12 am

So I've put that down on the score sheet as another big fat double zero.

Tally stands at 2-1 to Pav. Thanks Ingenium. Should have read the dialogue though. That was my favourite bit. Quantum indeterminancy. Wiki.
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby brevel_monkey » Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:59 am

Tab and myself have just concluded our Debate in the Chamber of Debate, an excellent, but not often enough used Forum.


I do not think you should ever expect the Chamber of debate to be well used compared to other forums. Obviously, debates like this take considerable time investment and aren't going to occur every day. But, in my view a forum that produces the occasional gem is probably more worthwhile than one that produces eons of crap.


This debate was pretty excellent. The standard very, very high throughout. I enjoyed both positions and think both were very well explicated. The heavily metaphorical approach worked well and was entertaining. I also appreciated the break from the 'quote and shoot' approach.

Here is my breakdown:

In Tab's first post, he argued that there was room for indivdual maneover, but that his verision of 'inveitabilism' leads to the view that the path of societies as a whole is determined:

What I mean to say by this is, throughout history, despite there being implicitly a diversity of choices to be made at any one point, overall, mimicking pre-determinism, only a select section of the starting populations would ever remain in existence, namely the ones who acted to follow exactly the path delineated by the best solutions to certain problems. Solutions which existed, in hypothetic form, prior to the event.


I felt this initial line of argument had promise. However, I feel the response from Pav somewhat missed a key element of Tab's argument - that Tab was allowing for personal freedom and for decisions freely made to have an effect. The cheerio's example, for example, was about how one person could trigger something in a society to happen - an example which Tab correctly defeated with his response that he has already allowed for this: that his argument was that this can only happen when the socitey at whole was in trouble. I couldn't see much trouble for Tab's position after Pav's first response.

However, in my view - Pav delivered a surefire real hit a bit further on:

Inevitabilism would indicate that anytime a fucked situation exists that there will be a trigger to set it off, however, this fails to take into account the fact that an unstable system not presented with a trigger will still maintain.

This point may be devastating, and I feel it is something Tab should have explicitly answered. However, if Tab does answer this in his final post, I can not locate precisely where (perhaps a disadavntage of his eccentric style?). This is certainly a disadvantage, in my eyes, for his inevitablism theory and a hit well scored by Pav.

That said, I do not feel that Pav's one mighty blow was enough, and during the debate I personally felt that much of Pav's posts were skirting round the edge of relevency. I think it was a tough one for Pav - you let Tab start which means he got to define the debate, and in my view Pav never fully caught up with the way it had been defined - preferring to talk about the freedom of individuals and the limited scope effect of that freedom, without latching on fully to the debate about societies and the general path of human kind. This is probably seen best in his final statement:

The Compatabilist believes in mobility, horizontal, vertical, rotational and circular mobility. In other words, the Compatabilist understands and accepts that there are going to be aspects of his own individual experience that are beyond his control, but that there are also aspects fully within the realm of his control. To wit, while some things have been determined, many things (quite possibly, most things) have not.

Thus, despite the fact that Pav defined, defended and supported his own theory excelently, I personally feel the debate went to Tab.

Post Edit: I've just read Anita's commentary (I didn't read other commentaries before - I thought it fair to give mine uninfluenced). I agree with everything Anita is saying, I guess we differ on votes cast as I am going more the style of debate-marking which says that the first speaker gets to define the motion, as it were, and thus it was Pav's responsibility to respond to Tab's arguments about societial inevitability. The fact that I am also struggling with the idea that the two sides are mutually exclusive (Anita) is a weakness for Pav as he did no set his account up clearly in a way that would refute Tab's initial position.
Life is infinitely stranger than anything which the mind of man could invent. We would not dare to conceive the things which are really mere commonplaces of existence. If we could fly out of that window hand in hand, hover over this great city, gently remove the roofs, and peep in at the queer things which are going on, the strange coincidences, the plannings, the cross-purposes, the wonderful chains of events, working through generations, and leading to the most outre results, it would make all fiction with its conventionalities and foreseen conclusions most stale and unprofitable.
- Sherlock Holmes, A Case of Identity
User avatar
brevel_monkey
'
 
Posts: 1439
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:01 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:04 am

That was definitely a well-reasoned Judgment, Brevel-Monkey.

I really appreciate everyone who has Judged this Debate, for me, against me, or with a, "No-Confidence/Draw/You Both Suck," vote for taking the time to do so. These Judgments have been fantastic thus far and have also presented arguments that I think it would be very difficult for me or Tab to argue against. I'm looking forward to responding to some of these Judgments after the Judging has concluded.

Current Score:

Tab: 2
Pav: 2
Draw: 2
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby Tab » Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:25 am

Image

AND THE CROWD GOES WILD!!!
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby tentative » Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:26 pm

For the record: I can't vote, so call this an abstention. Tab and I have spent years hashing this over in too many ways to count, so I am biased. (sorry, Pav) Still a couple of comments:
Tab, I think you might have spent more time emphasizing the limits of choice at the micro level. Each input in a causal chain is restricted to extremely limited parameters of behavior, typically yes, no, maybe. There is no smorgasbord of choices, and what is choice can only occur inside those narrow parameters so that outcomes are predictably deterministic, or as close to inevitable as possible. Had you punched this aspect up, Pav would have played hell countering it.

Pav, You correctly spoke to sponteniety and novelty but not enough emphasis. Tab acknowledged the mindboggling problem when he mentioned quantum indeterminacy and you didn't push him into the corner with it. Even though inevitabilism is a well reasoned theory, appearances are still a guessing game and the utter complexity of a causal chain with all the feedback loops left plenty of wiggle room for choice. Had you pushed this, Tab would have had to try to negate chance as part of the causal process and failing to do so would have given you the upper hand.

All in all, a good debate. The lack of formaity was a plus. You guys done good. :)
IGAYRCCFYVM
Sorry, arguing with the ignorant is like trying to wrestle with a jellyfish. No matter how many tentacles you cut off there are always more, and there isn't even a brain to stun. - Maia

I don't take know for an answer.
tentative
.
 
Posts: 12274
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Idaho

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby Kygron » Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:38 pm

My vote isn't supposed to count, but seeing as I've just read everything here, agree with many of the previous critics, and know that you've accepted a low-post-count vote already, I'll say my part:

I had trouble seeing where you two disagreed! The arguments were on two different scales. The first half of each of your main examples I took as cases for the others' point of view. Since you couldn't come to a disagreement, I'll refrain from coming to an agreement :mrgreen:

Tab wins for clarity of argument, ease of reading. It was fun to read, but he also made his point clearly enough that I have trouble believing there's anything more he could ever say. Pav, as others have said, kept going 'round his points like he wanted to say more, but couldn't figure out how to do it.

Pav wins for getting me to believe his stance is more complete. The few times he said meaningful things, they incorporated and advanced Tab's arguments. Or maybe that's just the conclusion I reached in trying to translate his thoughts. Tab's points were just too simple, and relied on the enormity of scale to impress.

The arguments were all about prediction. This is different from my (likely out of date) knowledge of the fate vs. free will debate (which I settled myself here, :evilfun: ). Tab was able to show that, on large scales, important events can be predicted quite accurately. Unfortunately for him, if scale doesn't impress me, I could use the same argument to say that the final position of a thrown baseball can be predicted with similar, if not better accuracy.

Neither discussed the difference between physics-like systems and (perceived) free-will systems. Neither discussed predictability within a complex environment. Both of these were mentioned by Pav and ignored by Tab.

Super simple summary:

Tab: I'm entertaining!
Pav: But there's more!
Kygron
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:07 pm

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby Tab » Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:41 pm

Thanks to Tents for reading through all the bumf, particularly my bumf, again, and for his commentry. In hindsight I should have pushed a couple of things further, the situational-programming bit for example, but opted to cut them short - particularly in the story, because they'd have made it [even more] ridiculously long. Another day, another thread.

Tab: I'm entertaining!
Pav: But there's more!


Hey Kygron, thanks for the review. Story of my life - too many laughs, too little substance :o .

Anyway, since you gave a very positive win-win vote, I think we'll accept it.

Score stands now at:

3-3.

I don't know about you, but my nails are down to the quick.
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:50 pm

Great breakdown, Kygron!

Referring to me:

The few times he said meaningful things...


I love it!
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby Tab » Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:36 am

Image
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby Tab » Sat Oct 09, 2010 12:35 am

Image
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Sat Oct 09, 2010 1:30 am

That's a speed bump, are you trying to tell them to slow down about judging this thing?
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby Tab » Sat Oct 09, 2010 9:50 am

:lol: If they were any slower they'd be going backwards. Let's face it, even google image search is running out of ideas to bump this thread.
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby objet petit a » Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:18 pm

I vote for Tab.

I would like to state that I do not vote for Tab because he is right. Both Pav and Tab are wrong, however, Pav has failed in motivating his argument properly because he misunderstands he argument of Chaos theory, which is one AGAINST cause and effect. The reality of this problem is that causality exists in our minds and we cannot prove that it exists outside of our minds as well. Since this is the case we must separate between the noumenon and the phenomenon, which is what Tab is pointing towards: one thinking he chooses x, might be simply a computer program deluded into thinking it actually can choose or something. However, Tab does not make the proper jump towards the inapplicability of quantum indeterminacy to reality since it is a model and therefore applies the causal workings of our mind, as opposed to the reciprocity of reality.

Anyway, the vote was for Tab.
Phase one, man objectifies in two cardinal numbers two collections he has counted; phase two, with these numbers he realizes the act of adding them up.
~Immanuel Kant

<<Warum willst du dich von uns Allen
Und unsrer Meinung entfernen? >>
- Ich schreibe nicht euch zu gefallen,
Ihr sollt was lernen.
~Goethe
User avatar
objet petit a
Thinker
 
Posts: 641
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:11 pm
Location: Borderless

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby Tab » Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:27 pm

Christmas has come early this year.

Thanks for taking the time to vote Arjen.

Okay, so the tally sits now at:

4-3 to dear old me. My God, I'm in the lead. :o
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby tentative » Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:58 pm

Hmmmm... I might have to change my abstention to a vote just to even things up.... :evilfun:
IGAYRCCFYVM
Sorry, arguing with the ignorant is like trying to wrestle with a jellyfish. No matter how many tentacles you cut off there are always more, and there isn't even a brain to stun. - Maia

I don't take know for an answer.
tentative
.
 
Posts: 12274
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Idaho

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby Tab » Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:34 pm

Ah-ah-ah No takey-backies...
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby Tab » Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:04 pm

Image
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: Inevitabilism Vs. Compatabilism

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:56 am

Two hours remain for voting.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

PreviousNext

Return to Chamber of Debate



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users