Bertrand Russell (a Nobel Prize winner in literature) did not believe in religion. He stated that religious documents are not verifiable. He claims that since religion causes so many wars and that it does more bad then good, it must be a fallacy and that we must face the facts that religion is not real, like Santa. I feel he does raise so fair points, but that does not prove anything. What we perceive as bad may actually be a good thing, we just don’t know. He also says that there is not life after death, and that there is no reason why there should be. Russell declares that there is no real evidence to prove religion, directly or indirectly. Russell explains on pages 15-16 of the handout, “The evidence for the Christian scheme of things is The Bible; the evidence for the scientific world is observation and induction. Science asks on what ground The Bible account should be accepted. Were the authors of the Pentateuch present at Creation? Obviously not. Can we believe that God revealed inquirer to know which to believe?” Russell stresses that the only reason people believe religion is fear and the religion controls people. I feel yes the may be true, but if people truly did not believe religion they would not have any fear at all. In conclusion, Russell does have a few good ideas against religion, but for me they do not prove to nonexistence of the matter.
Like Russell, Hume took the same view on religion. He took an opposed view on religion also. He felt that religion was just a mystical experience. Hume felt that religion was good, in the fact that it gave for a wonderful feeling for some, but that was all. There is no more to religion other then the feeling of bliss it can bring. Hume used Aquinas’ idea of the design argument. It said that in religion, nobody ever looks at the negatives, just the positive. He also used the idea, “cosmological argument”. Which said that we tend to use metaphors way too much and the way you think stuff works (like religion) depends on the metaphor you use? In the case of religion, the universe is looked at as a machine and someone had to start that machine (the universe). Furthermore, he argues that we should not believe religion because it is based on scriptures from something that was written down over 2,000 years ago. The reason we should not believe ideas from this time is because scribes tended to over exaggerate what they write. Although a weaker argument, Hume says that we should not believe because of miracles, which are based on ignorance. We should try to figure out why they occur and not use God as an escape.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Erick Fromm
Erich Fromm (1900-1980) was a strong believer in the idea that existential problem cannot be solved by technology, compared to the easier and more solvable dilemma of historic problems. Existential problems are problems that deal with fear and situations of the inner self. For example, the awareness of death becomes more and more prevalent as one gets older. It also becomes more recognized if and when someone close to you that is the same ages dies, because the idea of death is now put on the table. Another example is the complex choices that we all have to make throughout our lives. Thirdly, the sense of aloneness is also an existential problem because it is something that must be faced-although people may help you-ultimately the problem needs to be dealt with the inner self. These are examples of existential problems because they need to be solved within, and not with technology.
Fromm used three examples of anxiety to help one work through problems. He broke up the anxiety into the following categories: normal, neurotic, and existential anxiety. You do not want to any neurotic anxiety. Normal anxiety is okay in moderation and existential is something that should be worked through. Neurotic anxiety is simple fears like snake, spider, or anything that is an irrational fear.
Fromm felt that the authentic way to solve a problem was to face life without excuse and become totally responsible for own existence. Fromm would say that following a cult leader would not be authentic because it does not face life head on. He would argue that turning to a cult is an inauthentic way to deal with existential anxiety. He claims, in an inauthentic solution the subject will use southing ideologies to comfort the mind and run away from real decisions. Inauthentic ideology is a way to keep people busy all the time, it is a way for people to not think about their problems. An example of this is workaholics or people that seek the following of a cult.
Being a Cyrenaica hedonist could be a way of avoiding being authentic. Since a Cyrenaica hedonist is all about doing what bring the most pleasure and what make you feel good, a Cyrenaica hedonist could be the way to go. They could explore the inauthentic way to deal with anxiety. Ultimately, it does not matter in the eyes of this group, just as long as it makes someone feel the happiest.
Fromm said that love is to care about someone other than yourself and that love gets easier the more you practice it. He argues that love is training, an art porsay. It is difficult, but also possible. Fromm expresses his beliefs in “The art of living” on page 4, “The first step to take is to become aware that love is an art, just as living is an art; if we want to learn how to love we must proceed in the same way we have to proceed if we want to learn any other art, say music, painting, carpentry, or the art of medicine or engineering.”
Fromm used three examples of anxiety to help one work through problems. He broke up the anxiety into the following categories: normal, neurotic, and existential anxiety. You do not want to any neurotic anxiety. Normal anxiety is okay in moderation and existential is something that should be worked through. Neurotic anxiety is simple fears like snake, spider, or anything that is an irrational fear.
Fromm felt that the authentic way to solve a problem was to face life without excuse and become totally responsible for own existence. Fromm would say that following a cult leader would not be authentic because it does not face life head on. He would argue that turning to a cult is an inauthentic way to deal with existential anxiety. He claims, in an inauthentic solution the subject will use southing ideologies to comfort the mind and run away from real decisions. Inauthentic ideology is a way to keep people busy all the time, it is a way for people to not think about their problems. An example of this is workaholics or people that seek the following of a cult.
Being a Cyrenaica hedonist could be a way of avoiding being authentic. Since a Cyrenaica hedonist is all about doing what bring the most pleasure and what make you feel good, a Cyrenaica hedonist could be the way to go. They could explore the inauthentic way to deal with anxiety. Ultimately, it does not matter in the eyes of this group, just as long as it makes someone feel the happiest.
Fromm said that love is to care about someone other than yourself and that love gets easier the more you practice it. He argues that love is training, an art porsay. It is difficult, but also possible. Fromm expresses his beliefs in “The art of living” on page 4, “The first step to take is to become aware that love is an art, just as living is an art; if we want to learn how to love we must proceed in the same way we have to proceed if we want to learn any other art, say music, painting, carpentry, or the art of medicine or engineering.”
Gabriel Marcel
Gabriel Marcel (1889-1973) believed that there are three steps to knowledge. His process to knowledge started with participation. It is the wiliness to focus and listen to others and not focus on ourselves, to not be egocentric all the time. Participation can go hand in hand with creativity which as Marcel defines, is the transfer of ideas especially between one another. For example, a conversation and the chemical formula of water. Hydrogen and oxygen come together to form what we call water. Next in his process is primary reflection, which is when someone analyzes what they did before. For example, if someone were to edit an essay they have written the editing process would be an example of the primary reflection. Finally comes secondary reflection, which is when someone learns from the first two processes and in reality can now participate better.
Marcel says that we need to always be available in life. Marcel defines availability as always being ready to participate in life, especially with other people and their conversations. He claims that availability leads to happiness. Marcel says that with the availability we need to trust people because there is something more in life and we need faith in more than just facts.
Availability does have something to do with religion. A spiritual presence is one of the reasons why we need to trust people. When we trust people we can become happier and when we are happy we are available. Marcel also says that we need to be open in our life towards God. He claims that we sometime get tricked by turning God into a noun. And the more we participate the more morals we will have and the more ethical we will be.
Marcel said that our faith comes from the person that started it. We must believe and trust in the person who gave the fact on the faith. It is described in the Marcel handout on page 144, “We see the primacy of person again when we consider the nature of faith or belief. Marcel tells us “in order to believe that…we must first believe in.” In short, before we can believe any fact, we must first believe in the person who has related the fact. For the Christian, belief must first be in Christ, the in Christianity, first in the person, only then in dogmas.”
Even during his time, Marcel saw the fact the technology tends to depersonalize us. He recognized that technology does however increase the quality of life. On the down end, he stressed the idea that technology tend to play down the worth of a man or woman. It promotes the idea that humans are just creatures that live among one another.
Marcel says that we need to always be available in life. Marcel defines availability as always being ready to participate in life, especially with other people and their conversations. He claims that availability leads to happiness. Marcel says that with the availability we need to trust people because there is something more in life and we need faith in more than just facts.
Availability does have something to do with religion. A spiritual presence is one of the reasons why we need to trust people. When we trust people we can become happier and when we are happy we are available. Marcel also says that we need to be open in our life towards God. He claims that we sometime get tricked by turning God into a noun. And the more we participate the more morals we will have and the more ethical we will be.
Marcel said that our faith comes from the person that started it. We must believe and trust in the person who gave the fact on the faith. It is described in the Marcel handout on page 144, “We see the primacy of person again when we consider the nature of faith or belief. Marcel tells us “in order to believe that…we must first believe in.” In short, before we can believe any fact, we must first believe in the person who has related the fact. For the Christian, belief must first be in Christ, the in Christianity, first in the person, only then in dogmas.”
Even during his time, Marcel saw the fact the technology tends to depersonalize us. He recognized that technology does however increase the quality of life. On the down end, he stressed the idea that technology tend to play down the worth of a man or woman. It promotes the idea that humans are just creatures that live among one another.
Aristotle and Sartre
Jean-Paul Sartre (1906-1980) was born in Paris, France. Aristotle (384 B.C – 322 B.C) said that we are happy when we fulfill our essence. Sartre can be viewed as the anti-Aristotle. Sartre says that there is no such thing as a human essence. He explains that it is what we choose to do that determines who we are, not our essence. He also states that we convince ourselves we do not have choices, known as self-deception. At the end of the day, Sartre and Aristotle are on opposite sides of the coin when it comes to essence, and happiness.
Sartre believed in a do what you what attitude. He coined the phrase, “Existence Precedes Existence” Which basically says, you are your choices. He said that humans should be able to do what they want to do. They should have full freedom over their actions. There are reasons why humans feel they cannot do what they. Society does have an effect, but this is not the vital role in reasoning. Sartre says that people convince themselves that they cannot do something, these people do not have “freedom”. So Sartre would say that humans are completely free to act as we choose, but most do not choose to exercise this inner freedom.
Sartre says that there is no meaning to life for anyone. Sartre says that life is absurd and gives three reasons why. He states that the supposedly meaning of life varies across cultures. He says that the meaning of life and religion is an invention. Furthermore, he claims that the meaning of life differs across time. Also life is absurd because of personal tragedies.
Sartre would not agree with Kant in the terms of ethics. Sartre felt that we are free to make whatever choice we want, ww just have to live with the consequences. In the handout on page 442, “According to Sartre, since nothing limits our choices, we are not psychologically required to be this or that person. We are not chained to the past through heredity or environmental conditioning. Science and nature cannot tell us what to do, Sartre thought, and neither can God.”
Sartre was unique in the way that he claimed everyone is automatically self-centered. Even when they appear to be doing something good they are actually it for an ulterior motive that is not seem by the impartial observer. He argued that it is not possible to love another person and love is just a made up idea. What appears to be love is actually a relationship that has two people that are trying to dominate the other person. All relationships are power struggles. During the mid 1900s Sartre brought a somewhat strange philosophical approach to philosophy, in a way that proves to be a selfish thought.
Sartre believed in a do what you what attitude. He coined the phrase, “Existence Precedes Existence” Which basically says, you are your choices. He said that humans should be able to do what they want to do. They should have full freedom over their actions. There are reasons why humans feel they cannot do what they. Society does have an effect, but this is not the vital role in reasoning. Sartre says that people convince themselves that they cannot do something, these people do not have “freedom”. So Sartre would say that humans are completely free to act as we choose, but most do not choose to exercise this inner freedom.
Sartre says that there is no meaning to life for anyone. Sartre says that life is absurd and gives three reasons why. He states that the supposedly meaning of life varies across cultures. He says that the meaning of life and religion is an invention. Furthermore, he claims that the meaning of life differs across time. Also life is absurd because of personal tragedies.
Sartre would not agree with Kant in the terms of ethics. Sartre felt that we are free to make whatever choice we want, ww just have to live with the consequences. In the handout on page 442, “According to Sartre, since nothing limits our choices, we are not psychologically required to be this or that person. We are not chained to the past through heredity or environmental conditioning. Science and nature cannot tell us what to do, Sartre thought, and neither can God.”
Sartre was unique in the way that he claimed everyone is automatically self-centered. Even when they appear to be doing something good they are actually it for an ulterior motive that is not seem by the impartial observer. He argued that it is not possible to love another person and love is just a made up idea. What appears to be love is actually a relationship that has two people that are trying to dominate the other person. All relationships are power struggles. During the mid 1900s Sartre brought a somewhat strange philosophical approach to philosophy, in a way that proves to be a selfish thought.
Emiricism and Bertrand Russell
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was an empiricist. He believed that knowledge is through our senses, it is through sense impressions. He stressed the idea that knowledge must be verifiable, to be considered as reality. He coined the phrase, “What is knowledge must be capable of being directly or indirectly verified through the senses.”
Russell felt that verifications came in two forms. One form of verification is direct verification and the other, less reliable, indirect verification. Direct-to Russell- is the act of actually seeing something and being able to know that what you are actually seeing is real. For example, if your see a dog running across the road you can verify that the dog is indeed running. Another example is when your see a thunderstorm rolling in you can verify with your eyes that the thunderstorm is prevalent. Indirect verification, on the other hand, is far less reliable. Russell divides this idea into two subsections: historical and cumulative. Historical evidence is when you check sources and documents for information, but do not actually see what happened, hence the tern indirectly verifiable. The further back in time you go the less reliable the information is, because events were sometimes exaggerated or recorded in error. Cumulative is when science can point toward something being the case. For example, at the speed of light time is supposedly zero. Scientists cannot prove this, but all evidence points toward it being the case. An example of how science build and builds in on page 21 in Russell handout, “Newton discovered the law of gravitation, which lasted without modification for over 200 years, Tiny discrepancies led Einstein to a change which was in practice very minute, through very revolutionary are regards, was not exactly right, although the errors in its prediction could only be discovered in a few cases, and then only by the utmost precision in measurement. This development may serve as a sample and model of scientific method. Hypothesis and observation alternate; each new hypothesis calls for new observations, and, if it is to be accepted, must fit the facts better that any previous hypothesis.” And finally, anecdotal evidence is when someone tells you something that happened. This is neither direct verification nor indirect verification it is not verifiable at all, like religion.
Bertrand Russell (a Nobel Prize winner in literature) did not believe in religion. He stated that religious documents are not verifiable. He claims that since religion causes so many wars and that it does more bad then good, it must be a fallacy and that we must face the facts that religion is not real, like Santa. I feel he does raise so fair points, but that does not prove anything. What we perceive as bad may actually be a good thing, we just don’t know. He also says that there is not life after death, and that there is no reason why there should be. Russell declares that there is no real evidence to prove religion, directly or indirectly. Russell explains on pages 15-16 of the handout, “The evidence for the Christian scheme of things is The Bible; the evidence for the scientific world is observation and induction. Science asks on what ground The Bible account should be accepted. Were the authors of the Pentateuch present at Creation? Obviously not. Can we believe that God revealed inquirer to know which to believe?” Russell stresses that the only reason people believe religion is fear and the religion controls people. I feel yes the may be true, but if people truly did not believe religion they would not have any fear at all. In conclusion, Russell does have a few good ideas against religion, but for me they do not prove to nonexistence of the matter.
Russell felt that verifications came in two forms. One form of verification is direct verification and the other, less reliable, indirect verification. Direct-to Russell- is the act of actually seeing something and being able to know that what you are actually seeing is real. For example, if your see a dog running across the road you can verify that the dog is indeed running. Another example is when your see a thunderstorm rolling in you can verify with your eyes that the thunderstorm is prevalent. Indirect verification, on the other hand, is far less reliable. Russell divides this idea into two subsections: historical and cumulative. Historical evidence is when you check sources and documents for information, but do not actually see what happened, hence the tern indirectly verifiable. The further back in time you go the less reliable the information is, because events were sometimes exaggerated or recorded in error. Cumulative is when science can point toward something being the case. For example, at the speed of light time is supposedly zero. Scientists cannot prove this, but all evidence points toward it being the case. An example of how science build and builds in on page 21 in Russell handout, “Newton discovered the law of gravitation, which lasted without modification for over 200 years, Tiny discrepancies led Einstein to a change which was in practice very minute, through very revolutionary are regards, was not exactly right, although the errors in its prediction could only be discovered in a few cases, and then only by the utmost precision in measurement. This development may serve as a sample and model of scientific method. Hypothesis and observation alternate; each new hypothesis calls for new observations, and, if it is to be accepted, must fit the facts better that any previous hypothesis.” And finally, anecdotal evidence is when someone tells you something that happened. This is neither direct verification nor indirect verification it is not verifiable at all, like religion.
Bertrand Russell (a Nobel Prize winner in literature) did not believe in religion. He stated that religious documents are not verifiable. He claims that since religion causes so many wars and that it does more bad then good, it must be a fallacy and that we must face the facts that religion is not real, like Santa. I feel he does raise so fair points, but that does not prove anything. What we perceive as bad may actually be a good thing, we just don’t know. He also says that there is not life after death, and that there is no reason why there should be. Russell declares that there is no real evidence to prove religion, directly or indirectly. Russell explains on pages 15-16 of the handout, “The evidence for the Christian scheme of things is The Bible; the evidence for the scientific world is observation and induction. Science asks on what ground The Bible account should be accepted. Were the authors of the Pentateuch present at Creation? Obviously not. Can we believe that God revealed inquirer to know which to believe?” Russell stresses that the only reason people believe religion is fear and the religion controls people. I feel yes the may be true, but if people truly did not believe religion they would not have any fear at all. In conclusion, Russell does have a few good ideas against religion, but for me they do not prove to nonexistence of the matter.
Women, and Feminism
Feminism, voting rights for women, and simple ethical rights for women all came on strong in the 20th century. There are two main branches of feminism. One being liberal feminism and the other being social feminism. Liberal feminism is about how men and women are equals. They feel that there is a faith in the rationality of the universe and the possessions of reason by all human, men and women. Also there needs to be an acceptance of natural right for all humans. The liberal feminists stress the idea that every person is the center of his or her own life decisions. Finally, they feel that education is the key to unlocking the potential of both men and women.
Social feminists on the other hand, feel that there are things that women tend have more or not all at of something compared to men. Carol Gilligan was a strong social feminist. A social feminist believes that women are more prone to emotional sensitivity. They are more likely to cry or to feel bad for others. Gilligan and her counterparts believed that women can look at something and better understand the larger picture, they are holistic. The main point that social feminists stressed was that they are more sharing and are more empathetic. They like to explore relationships and are very life-affirming people.
Carol Gilligan is a true social feminist. She felt that the way of thinking is simply different than that of a man. The contrast of thoughts is in no superior or inferior to men alike, it is just different. James Rachels explains it in the handout on page 164, “Gilligan suggests that women’s basic moral orientation is caring for others-“taking care” of others in a personal way, not just being concerned for humanity in general-and attending to their needs.” Believing this, Gilligan scrutinized Kohlberg’s moral developmental stages. She said that during his time psychology only focused on behavior, and there is far more than just behavior and the popular image. She did not agree with his stages: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. Preconventional is all about self interest, egocentrism, and the affect of an authority figure. Convention has to deal with the want to please others. Although Kohlberg says not everyone get here, the postconventional stage is about the great good and start to think about principals and ideas. Gilligan did agree with the preconventional stage, but was not to certain about the second and third stage. She felt the stages to moral development were: self-centered, self-giving, and a mature combination of the first two.
Men and women do see moral situations differently. There are three likely categories why this is the case: culture, biology, and psychology. The cultural impact deals with the toys, the colors, and the overall sense of what a boy and a girl should be. Society says that girls play with dolls and have tea party like game and boys play with toy trucks and play rough sports. The biological impact roots simply from the fact that women give birth and men don’t. Because of the experience of birth women tend to be more sensitive and caring to other humans. Also, men have the presence of testosterone and women do not. This chemical is proven to produce a higher degree of aggression then males. The psychological fact is that the female is the primary care-giver in the family. Girls can relate to the mom and boys cannot.
Social feminists on the other hand, feel that there are things that women tend have more or not all at of something compared to men. Carol Gilligan was a strong social feminist. A social feminist believes that women are more prone to emotional sensitivity. They are more likely to cry or to feel bad for others. Gilligan and her counterparts believed that women can look at something and better understand the larger picture, they are holistic. The main point that social feminists stressed was that they are more sharing and are more empathetic. They like to explore relationships and are very life-affirming people.
Carol Gilligan is a true social feminist. She felt that the way of thinking is simply different than that of a man. The contrast of thoughts is in no superior or inferior to men alike, it is just different. James Rachels explains it in the handout on page 164, “Gilligan suggests that women’s basic moral orientation is caring for others-“taking care” of others in a personal way, not just being concerned for humanity in general-and attending to their needs.” Believing this, Gilligan scrutinized Kohlberg’s moral developmental stages. She said that during his time psychology only focused on behavior, and there is far more than just behavior and the popular image. She did not agree with his stages: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. Preconventional is all about self interest, egocentrism, and the affect of an authority figure. Convention has to deal with the want to please others. Although Kohlberg says not everyone get here, the postconventional stage is about the great good and start to think about principals and ideas. Gilligan did agree with the preconventional stage, but was not to certain about the second and third stage. She felt the stages to moral development were: self-centered, self-giving, and a mature combination of the first two.
Men and women do see moral situations differently. There are three likely categories why this is the case: culture, biology, and psychology. The cultural impact deals with the toys, the colors, and the overall sense of what a boy and a girl should be. Society says that girls play with dolls and have tea party like game and boys play with toy trucks and play rough sports. The biological impact roots simply from the fact that women give birth and men don’t. Because of the experience of birth women tend to be more sensitive and caring to other humans. Also, men have the presence of testosterone and women do not. This chemical is proven to produce a higher degree of aggression then males. The psychological fact is that the female is the primary care-giver in the family. Girls can relate to the mom and boys cannot.
The Two-Sided Topic of Euthanasia
Euthanasia is a hot topic these days. There is, however, a fine line between active and passive euthanasia. The clear difference is that active is illegal in all states (except Oregon) and passive euthanasia is not. Active is when someone helps another human to die. Active euthanasia is two-fold: it can be voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary is when the person dying and someone else both agree to kill the patient. Involuntary is when the patient is too sick to talk or express desires that their family or someone else for that matter steps in and kills the patient so that he or she does not have to suffer, or in some cases another reason. Moving on to passive, it is the simple and legal procedure that let nature take its course. For example, just letting someone die instead of hooking them up to a life support system like the more conventional way people do things when a patient is sick. Like active euthanasia, there are two ways of doing this, voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary is when the patient can express that they want to end their life. Involuntary is when-for example- the family helps someone die so that the patient does not suffer, it is not active because they are not helping them die, but rather letting nature take its course.
Personally, I feel that the intention on euthanasia depends on the situation. For voluntary euthanasia the intention is usually to end the pain and suffering and to let God take His course. James Rachels said on page one in the handout, “To begin with a familiar type of situation, a patient who is dying of incurable cancer of the throat is in terrible pain, which can no longer be satisfactory alleviated. He is certain to die within a few days, even if present treatment is continued, but he does not want to go on living for those days since the pain is unbearable. So he asks the doctor for an end to it, and his family joins in the request.” And lets him die. In this case it seems to be no ulterior motives, but this may not be entirely true. The family could be in pursuit of the patient’s inheritance and let die for the desire of the money. This is even more especially true in involuntary active euthanasia, where the family may want to have the patient let go in life solely for the inheritance. For me, the intention of euthanasia always depends on the situation, most of the time it is because the family cares and does not want to see a loved one suffer. These feelings can be prevalent in active and passive euthanasia. Same holds true for the want for money, but this desire is most likely to occur in involuntary active euthanasia, where the patient has no say in the matter.
Active euthanasia, in any form, is never morally justified. I feel that killing someone is never reasonable to do. My main argument is that there is no way to prove that someone is actually going to die definitely. By killing them you never give that particular person a chance to survive. At least with a deadly sickness there is always a, although very slim, chance to live.
Personally, I feel that the intention on euthanasia depends on the situation. For voluntary euthanasia the intention is usually to end the pain and suffering and to let God take His course. James Rachels said on page one in the handout, “To begin with a familiar type of situation, a patient who is dying of incurable cancer of the throat is in terrible pain, which can no longer be satisfactory alleviated. He is certain to die within a few days, even if present treatment is continued, but he does not want to go on living for those days since the pain is unbearable. So he asks the doctor for an end to it, and his family joins in the request.” And lets him die. In this case it seems to be no ulterior motives, but this may not be entirely true. The family could be in pursuit of the patient’s inheritance and let die for the desire of the money. This is even more especially true in involuntary active euthanasia, where the family may want to have the patient let go in life solely for the inheritance. For me, the intention of euthanasia always depends on the situation, most of the time it is because the family cares and does not want to see a loved one suffer. These feelings can be prevalent in active and passive euthanasia. Same holds true for the want for money, but this desire is most likely to occur in involuntary active euthanasia, where the patient has no say in the matter.
Active euthanasia, in any form, is never morally justified. I feel that killing someone is never reasonable to do. My main argument is that there is no way to prove that someone is actually going to die definitely. By killing them you never give that particular person a chance to survive. At least with a deadly sickness there is always a, although very slim, chance to live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)