|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 10/30/2007 : 16:20:34 [Permalink]
|
BPS said:
| Damn, I never knew there was a Handbook of Critical Thinking |
Yep.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 17:54:15 [Permalink]
|
Humbert: Skepticism is the opposite of a religion, even when practiced vigorously. Maybe especially so. An uncompromising critical thinker is a person dogma cannot touch.
and addressing bngbuck
These definition games are tiresome. You're obviously plucking out the loosest definition of religion you can find so that the term is reduced to meaning nothing more than a group of people with common interests. Under such a definition, chess clubs, kite fliers, and NASCAR fans are all "religions." |
Skepticism is not the opposite of religion. You seem to be confusing faith in dogma with religion. Religion is one of those things that doesn't have a single definition that can be summed up in a sentence or two. Religion has historically in most cultures including the Western tradition been as much about practices and institutions as it has been about a set of beliefs. How many agnostics and even atheists regularly attend church and label themselves "religious". (Answer: a lot!) I think it is setting up a straw man to say that what bngbuck has put forward is equivocal to social clubs.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 20:01:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Humbert: Skepticism is the opposite of a religion, even when practiced vigorously. Maybe especially so. An uncompromising critical thinker is a person dogma cannot touch.
and addressing bngbuck
These definition games are tiresome. You're obviously plucking out the loosest definition of religion you can find so that the term is reduced to meaning nothing more than a group of people with common interests. Under such a definition, chess clubs, kite fliers, and NASCAR fans are all "religions." |
Skepticism is not the opposite of religion. You seem to be confusing faith in dogma with religion. Religion is one of those things that doesn't have a single definition that can be summed up in a sentence or two. Religion has historically in most cultures including the Western tradition been as much about practices and institutions as it has been about a set of beliefs. How many agnostics and even atheists regularly attend church and label themselves "religious". (Answer: a lot!) I think it is setting up a straw man to say that what bngbuck has put forward is equivocal to social clubs.
|
Well, I agree with H.H. I also find it weird to ponder the idea that "a lot" of agnostics and atheists attend church and label themselves "religious."
I don't doubt that what you describe happens, as some religions are non-theistic, and the human mind is almost infinitely capable of flexibility (to say nothing of cognitive dissonance). But by far most religions are shaped around the cults of various gods. Even some forms of Buddhism are rather theistic in actual practice, if not in dogma.
I suspect the vast majority of us agnostics and atheists regularly avoid churches and would shudder at the prospect of considering ourselves religious.
Of course, there are no doubt millions or even billions of agnostics and atheists who attend religious services and/or call themselves religious, either out of fear, because they do not want to upset family or friends, or just to be sociable. I suspect some of the most famous religious leaders are also secretly atheistic, and only are using the pretense of piety for personal advantage.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 10/30/2007 21:41:24 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2007 : 21:20:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave.....
You ask:| What do you mean by "precious little?" |
I mean as antecedent to a rebuttal, members state "I was wrong" or "you were right" far fewer times, than when they proceed to argue that they were right before rebuttal.
You, and perhaps Mabuse, have the technical ability to quantify my statement into numbers or a percentage, but I would wager that it is true far less than half the time! |
Well, I'll give you points for trying to quantify, but the more-important question, to me, is "compared to whom?" The more prominent "True Believers" admit error only at risk of their pocketbooks, but James Randi admits error on a semi-regular basis.| Perhaps you've missed the moral-dilemma threads and the "is there anything that's impossible" threads. |
I would like references to these, they would be fun! |
Well, the good news is that the SFN is still the only result (after more than two-and-a-half-years!) provided after a Google search for "shit out an SUV", but the bad news is that we've slipped to 22nd place (out of 28!) for "rectally generated" (we were once third).
Seriously, the "Is Impossible, Impossible?" thread was a blast of imagination (and includes several admissions of error by skeptics). Really, any time we start getting philosophical, hilarity ensues.| I'm pretty familiar with Half Moon's work by now, also Marf's art work (don't really grasp the Skeptical relevance, but, as I have attempted to make clear elsewhere, I am not an art critic)I would dearly love to find the role-playing games in the Archives, or wherever, as this is subject matter that I do have some familiarity with. |
Well, there's all sorts, but for a couple examples there's an old topic on online RPGs, and here is where I tried to get a game going, to no avail.| Really, the second step of the proverbial Scientific Method is "come up with a hypothesis to explain your observations," which is nothing less than a demand to be imaginitive. |
Not being an active practitioner of The Scientific Method, nor worshipping at its throne, I gather that the first step is "give me evidence for your claims" Is this correct? |
No. Don't confuse the scientific method with skepticism. They make use of each other, but they're not identical.I guess my verbose prose is failing to convey that what you are stating as the exact meaning of the good friar's observation is precisely what I learned back in 1948 as a Philosophy minor. Some things never change!| The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. |
I do fail to understand in what way I have misused the concept! |
That which you quote is prone to misuse by its very wording. I never said that you misused it.
(By the way, I surprised you didn't remark on my admission of error in my Razor discussion.)However, be careful:
Wiki says... |
Yes, Wiki and I agree, mostly.| One (I) could quibble endlessly about the true meaning of and proper application of fr.William's barber tool, but I don't see much point in slicing the poor equine cadaver to shreds. |
Well, my point was that your example earlier was an application of the Razor that "proper" skeptics should avoid.| You know, I don't know what you mean! I'm trying to talk about the exercise of imagination during the application of Critical Thinking to the solution of a problem, NOT imagination as it may apply to a hobby, or science fiction, or recreational reading, or reviewing art, or enjoying humor! |
OH! Then I (and many others, it seems) misunderstood you (please note admission of error).
Really, if someone comes here and says "a ghost knocked a picture off my wall," it's not our problem to solve. The claimant's problem is convincing us, and the first hurdle they've got to overcome is "where's your evidence that ghosts exist?" There are two premises in the claim, that a picture fell off a wall, and that a ghost caused it. Pictures fall off walls all the time - it's an uninteresting premise that we're willing to assume is true. Ghosts, on the other hand, haven't been amenable to scientific investigation, and so someone who's sure that it was one is sure to have evidence that the rest of us don't, right? Right?!
Honestly, I want there to be magic in the world. I am disappointed when people who claim that there is can't cough up a convincing demonstration. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 10:40:53 [Permalink]
|
Half wrote: Well, I agree with H.H. I also find it weird to ponder the idea that "a lot" of agnostics and atheists attend church and label themselves "religious."
I don't doubt that what you describe happens, as some religions are non-theistic, and the human mind is almost infinitely capable of flexibility (to say nothing of cognitive dissonance). But by far most religions are shaped around the cults of various gods. Even some forms of Buddhism are rather theistic in actual practice, if not in dogma.
I suspect the vast majority of us agnostics and atheists regularly avoid churches and would shudder at the prospect of considering ourselves religious.
Of course, there are no doubt millions or even billions of agnostics and atheists who attend religious services and/or call themselves religious, either out of fear, because they do not want to upset family or friends, or just to be sociable. I suspect some of the most famous religious leaders are also secretly atheistic, and only are using the pretense of piety for personal advantage. |
I'm not saying that a set of beliefs has nothing to do with religion, but dogma and even doctrine are not necessary components to all religion. Dogma is not the defining characteristic of religion, and therefore skepticism is not the opposite of religion. Also, practice is just as common a characteristic to religion as faith.
Church and state - or more specifically, the division between religious and secular - is a relatively new concept in history. Cicero was a famous ancient Roman skeptic. He wrote a number of philosophical papers that still survive, including "De Natura Deorum" (The Nature of the God) which is a fictional conversation between a skeptic (Cotta), and Epicurian (which is pretty much like a modern day atheist) and Stoic (similar to a modern day Deist.) Cotta is the clear hero and stand in for Cicero himself, and throughout the entire conversation he harshly shoots down the other two's ideas about the nature of the universe. And if you look at what he's saying, he sounds just like an agnostic. He insists that all their claims are obvious falsehoods, but he himself claims nothing because he can't be sure of anything. But when the Epicurian questions whether Cotta then is going against the Roman state religion, Cotta heavily asserts his committment to the acts of worship and religion of his forebears and to the Roman state. In the case of Cicero, it would have been dangerous to not practice the state religion since he was an official in a theocratic state. But even today in secular societies people are socially pressured or they honestly find religious institutions to be places where values and ethics are instilled and promoted, so they continue the practices.
This is very common and always has been common in the Jewish tradition. Read the book of Ecclesiastes. It is probably the best, more worthwhile thing in the whole Bible, and it is written by a guy who sits around doubting everything, pondering and often despairing over the utter randomness and meaninglessness of life, and yet remains completely pious in his actions throughout it all. We had this conversation about Mother Theresa a while ago on SFN because it turns out she had severe doubts and was without true faith for most of her career. But there are other reasons why people continue to act out the practice of their religion without the beliefs. One of those reasons is probably just gambling based on fear (Pascal's Wager.) But there are other, positive reasons.
In Doubt: A History, Jennifer Hecht writes about the author of Ecclediastes: | Yet Ecclesiastes would not be so beloved if Koheleth had offered nothing but his nihilism. The book works in its punchy, practical way because Koheleth's horror at the meaningless of life in the big picture is matched by his pleasure at the goings-on of daily life, and he gives splendid advice on how to focus on the mundane and thereby become happy. The tension is never reconciled because remembering death is his favorite technique for learning to be in the moment. Thus, his advice on taking time to laugh with loved ones is broken with grumblings about how empty it all is, and his grumbling are broken with sighs of contentment and joy. |
To me, this perfectly describes the average skeptic prone to existential angst, and here he is, the author of a book of scripture! |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 11:48:31 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for that essay, Marf. I do enjoy learning, and you've taught me some new stuff.
Though I would never share their theology anymore than another, I do appreciate the way Jews traditionally have an argumentative and bargaining relationship with their God. You point to Ecclesiastes; I point to Isaac Bashevis Singer, the great Jewish-American writer who inspired "Fiddler in the Roof" and Tevye's conversations with a God who never speaks back to him, but just keeps pouring more troubles onto his head.
What a remarkable, wonderful attitude toward a hostile universe, the Jews, religious and secular, have. And it's just one of so many ways people cope.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 13:38:22 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Glad to have roused you out of your bunker at 3450 Massachusetts Ave. and back to the real world at SFN.| Whoa, whoa, whoa. Skepticism isn't an us-versus-them proposition. If someone says it was ghosts, it's up to them to provide support for their hypothesis whether or not anyone provides any other reasons, simpler or not. The truth value of the "it was ghosts" hypothesis must be determinable on its own, or it fails. There is no theory which reads, "nothing else can explain phenomenon X, so it must be caused by Y." |
Okay, I stopped, how about you reign in for a minute? If somebody says it was ghosts, it isn't "up to them" to do a damn thing. If you, or any other Skeptic doesn't like the ghost concept, then it's up to you to do something about it! What's with this Categorical Imperative bit? (Apologies to I. Kant)(No, I can't really apologize)
Seriously, what obligation does the world at large have to The Skeptical Community to provide said Community with anything? You guys want to do your thing, go for it! But expect the Stupid rest of the world to come to you for instruction, I don't think so!
The thing is, you guys are in a vast minority. The fact that you are right doesn't change the fact that hardly anybody knows or cares that you exist. If the religion and politics of Skepticism is to take roots and flourish in a world of Islamic fundamentalists and Christian crazies; Republican Fascists and Democratic dreamers, it has to take up arms against a sea of ignorance, and, by opposing, educate it.(Apologies to the Bard)(Borrowed that one)
| We can use our imaginations all day long, from speculating about heretofor unknown species of picture-wire-eating bacteria to guessing that the army of cockroaches inside the wall hates Picasso (and so pushed the nail out). We can offer up hundreds of conjectures every day, none of which will lead us any closer to the truth because we're spending all our time imagining things instead of investigating. Skepticism doesn't function in an evidenciary vacuum. First we examine the evidence, then we imagine a hypothesis, then we test and then we modify the hypothesis using the results of the testing as further evidence (and using imagination again if necessary |
OK, no problem, but you just stated that the guy that saw the picture fall and cried "ghost" had to provide evidence that you skeptic guys could examine. What do you skeptic guys do if he refuses? Send him to Guantanamo? No, you're not Republicans. Give up on finding out why the picture fell, I guess? Yeah, if you really don't care about the damn Picasso.
Let's talk about something a little bit more substantive. Ahmadinejad says Iran doesn't want nukes. Hillary is a real Skeptic. She says to Mahmoud, prove it! MA says fuck you! Hillary needs evidence to investigate, prove her point and get Congress to let her BunkerBust Iran into considerably more of a desert than it already is. What's a poor, new lady President to do now? How go get the evidence? Well, I guess she just waits to see whether MA lights a big firecracker in another year or two, or not. No big deal either way. Except that the fate of the world may hang on it!
My point is, if obtaining the evidence to examine is mandatory for exercise of the Skeptical Method, Scientificality, or Critical Thinking, these disciplines have limited use in many real world situations. Other religions won't help much either - neither God or Allah is gonna prevent MA from getting his fireworks.
So I guess the Scientific Method isn't applicable to Politics and Foreign Relations. Maybe if Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and company had really had some Imagination, another and better solution could have been found for Saddam and Iraq!
I fully understand that this current discussion has devolved into a largely semantic squabble. This is mostly my fault. I apologize. Without any dictionaries or Wikis, I would like to say this. In about three months of fairly active participation in these Forums, I sometimes see some of the members almost reflexively reverting to a sort of default mode of "show me the evidence" at a point where it might be more appropriate to ask "tell me more so that I can imagine what you are suggesting!"
I am certain by now that "imagination" was and is a bad choice of word. It does not convey the essence of what I am trying to speak to. Dave, I would appreciate your referral to the most concise, accurate, definitive and complete short essay on Skepticism (and/or Critical Thinking) that you know of. All of us suffer from not enough time, If there is one that stands out in your mind, link it if you can.
Much troubled water has gone under the Bridge since you wrote what I quoted above. I am late to post, I see a lot of new thought, I'll be back!
P.S. Kanikula is a real quick study!
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 14:07:12 [Permalink]
|
Dave....
Just catching up!
| If you think that's "dogma," you need to go back to your dictionary. Unless you think that requesting evidence is an authoritative opinion. |
If you will stick to the position that Skepticism is not authoritative and needs to be disputed and doubted, I most certainly will rethink my definiton of "dogma"
| So now using a hammer to drive nails is dogmatic? |
No, but it was until the automatic nail driver was invented!| No, actually, those were all taken from earlier myths. |
Dave, you actually surpass me in your ability to pick nits! I, however, am a nitwit! |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 15:13:29 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| When you throw the word "dogma" around and fail to indicate a specific connotation or usage of the word, then it defaults to the most widely used meaning. Dogma indicates an unquestioned set of principles or belief, when used my most people. Even if you used a different connotation, as in a settled or established opinion or principle, it still does not correctly describe skepticism or critical thinking. |
As I told Dave, if you will strictly adhere to a position that Skepticism - as an attitude position product of the application of critical thought or the process of Critical Thinking itself - is properly subject to criticism, doubt, and serious questioning; then I will certainly change my perception of Skepticism as a religion, and critical thinking as a dogma. If we can think of the constructs of The Scientific Method, Skepticism, and Critical Thinking as completely open to doubt, critical analysis, reformation if necessary; then Skepticism is not a dogma!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 16:32:10 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck said:
| As I told Dave, if you will strictly adhere to a position that Skepticism - as an attitude position product of the application of critical thought or the process of Critical Thinking itself - is properly subject to criticism, doubt, and serious questioning; then I will certainly change my perception of Skepticism as a religion, and critical thinking as a dogma. If we can think of the constructs of The Scientific Method, Skepticism, and Critical Thinking as completely open to doubt, critical analysis, reformation if necessary; then Skepticism is not a dogma! |
These things that you ask are, in fact, already the reality. Science, skepticism, critical thinging, none of them would function or be of value if your impression of them were correct. All of these tools are also self correcting.
If you ever find a flaw in these tools you should definitely mention it. If you can make a valid and sound argument in favor of your case, then you will absolutely have the attention of all skeptics and scientists.
Just be prepared to withstand the crucible of intense scrutiny for any such claim. These tools are razor sharp and intended to cut deep, their design has been honed and the chaff cut away for quite a long time now. We use them because they work well.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 10/31/2007 20:18:26 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 16:37:40 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| I want to go back to this one more time and say... you are completely wrong. |
I have to say it's the first time it's ever been brought to my attention! May I state, not opine, that YOU are wrong and that fact makes me right. Now, I have to go read my Bible, and study the GOP ticket.| Or, from the "critical thinking handbook": You have made an unsupported assertion. Please provide some evidence that, in general or specific, skeptics or scientists exhibit the character of rather blind adherence to the Rules of Critical Thinking when faced with a difficult problem. |
Sigh....! Dude, you just did! In Pavlovian reflex, you obeyed the first Rule that Dave just got through explaining to me. Gather evidence!| Seriously, the language you use here is indicative of a non-skeptic. You deliberately mischaracterize science, skepticism, and critical thinking. |
Yeah, me and Socrates. (I'll save you all the trouble. "Bngbuck, We know Socrates, Socrates is a friend of ours, you are no Socrates!")
I plead guilty to questioning as to whether the concepts of Skepticism, Critical Thinking, and The Scientific Method are beyond questioning. If this is mischaracterization, that amounts to an admission that such constucts are, in fact, dogma.| The only reason I have ever seen for a person to create these kinds of strawmen is to agrue in favor of something (like aliens flying down and buzzing our airports in their improbable little saucer shaped ships) that is entirely unsupported by evidence. |
Dude, are you stating here that you still (dating back to my UAP thread) believe that I am a extraterrestrial visitation True Believer? Is that what you hope you are wrong about, but
don't think you are? Yes, or No?
If the answer is Yes, then I am going to have to don the mantles of Neophyte Skeptic, Captious Thinker, and Amateur Scientific Methodologist; and ask you for your evidence! |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 18:01:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I plead guilty to questioning as to whether the concepts of Skepticism, Critical Thinking, and The Scientific Method are beyond questioning. If this is mischaracterization, that amounts to an admission that such constucts are, in fact, dogma. |
Well I think you are defining dogma rather more loosely than is useful. In essense you are saying that all knowledge including methodologies for creating knowledge are dogma because all knowledge is necessarily based upon basic unprovable assumptions.
You could think of skepticism as the position that makes the minimum number of assumptions that is practically possible. It is thus the least dogmatic position that is possible for a person to hold.
Nihilism and solipsism are less dogmatic, so to speak, but completely impractical. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 18:20:55 [Permalink]
|
HalfMoon......
How are things in Halloween Heaven by the bay? (I loved Herb Caen's Bagdad when I lived in SF)| If some technique works demonstrably better than the known large arsenal of tools of critical thinking, skeptics will take it in hand and use it. In fact, that is how Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" and all other collections of skeptical tools were put together in the first place. Of course, each prospective tool itself needs to be examined skeptically, |
Thanks for the Sagan link, this may be the Skeptic's Bible I have been seeking. I really appreciate the part of your quote that I bolded, perhaps more skeptics could mention that precept from time to time.
Mooner, I actually think that in addition to the dogma of the day, the very concept of Dogma changes and is not Gospel (how's THAT for an oxyimbecile?)I would have to dig for this, but I would wager that the definition and generally accepted understanding of what Dogma is, has changed significantly in the last hundred years. Hell, it won't be long until I will just have to think back to my youth!
Real dogmatism may embrace change as stupidities evolve!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 18:45:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave.....
Glad to have roused you out of your bunker at 3450 Massachusetts Ave. and back to the real world at SFN. |
Hehehe. Naval gazing. I get it!Okay, I stopped, how about you reign in for a minute? If somebody says it was ghosts, it isn't "up to them" to do a damn thing. If you, or any other Skeptic doesn't like the ghost concept, then it's up to you to do something about it! What's with this Categorical Imperative bit? (Apologies to I. Kant)(No, I can't really apologize)
Seriously, what obligation does the world at large have to The Skeptical Community to provide said Community with anything? You guys want to do your thing, go for it! But expect the Stupid rest of the world to come to you for instruction, I don't think so! |
If someone says, "it was ghosts," it's either because they're talking to themselves or because they wish to impress the "fact" of ghosts onto someone else. If they want to convince me of the existence of ghosts, then damn straight it's up to them to provide the evidence.
Here in these forums, such a statement often gets the good ol' "I don't have to prove anything to you" response. That's true, but then why would they be here talking about the existence of ghosts?| The thing is, you guys are in a vast minority. The fact that you are right doesn't change the fact that hardly anybody knows or cares that you exist. If the religion and politics of Skepticism is to take roots and flourish in a world of Islamic fundamentalists and Christian crazies; Republican Fascists and Democratic dreamers, it has to take up arms against a sea of ignorance, and, by opposing, educate it.(Apologies to the Bard)(Borrowed that one) |
We're working on that. Slowly, but we are.
And with that, I'll let you catch up some more before I continue. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 19:01:18 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox.....
| Skepticism is not the opposite of religion. You seem to be confusing faith in dogma with religion. Religion is one of those things that doesn't have a single definition that can be summed up in a sentence or two. Religion has historically in most cultures including the Western tradition been as much about practices and institutions as it has been about a set of beliefs. |
I hope you'll be glad to hear that I could not agree with you more! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Suicide Bombing - AAI
