Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Str8tEdge

Lisa B claims man without government is a monster.....

Recommended Posts

I belive you started the thread along the lines a good upbringing makes for a better society ... and generally it does. Now Lisa and the other one tunes jerkoffs are bringing religion into this....

Several people on this board say that without religion you can't have morality. If that's true, and they aver that it is, then without religion you can't have a good upbringing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Several people on this board say that without religion you can't have morality. If that's true, and they aver that it is, then without religion you can't have a good upbringing.

 

 

No... man shinato brought religion into this argument making comparisons between his homosexual activities and boy raping priests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several people on this board say that without religion you can't have morality. If that's true, and they aver that it is, then without religion you can't have a good upbringing.

 

Who? I took an entire ethic course with one mention of divine command theory and zero mention of religion. :D not to mention having to write a fuking ethics paper for EVERY nursing course where religion was NEVER mentioned.....

 

Obviously whoever said was mistaken. Hopefully it wasn't Shintao cause he thinks raping boys and girls is moral.

 

I've heard liberals and progressives babble about all morals being subjective...... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No... man shinato brought religion into this argument making comparisons between his homosexual activities and boy raping priests.

Yep, I said I felt sorry for you getting butt fked ever sunday in the confession booth.

 

 

Who? I took an entire ethic course with one mention of divine command theory and zero mention of religion. :D not to mention having to write a fuking ethics paper for EVERY nursing course where religion was NEVER mentioned.....

 

Obviously whoever said was mistaken. Hopefully it wasn't Shintao cause he thinks raping boys and girls is moral.

 

I've heard liberals and progressives babble about all morals being subjective...... :)

It is when it is your wife spread eagle & I fucjing the chit out of her. She always says to fk her harder, make her feel like a slut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


It is when it is your wife spread eagle & I fucjing the chit out of her. She always says to fk her harder, make her feel like a slut.

 

Well DUH. When you have micro-penis OF COURSE my wife is going to DEMAND you fuk her harder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I said I felt sorry for you getting butt fked ever sunday in the confession booth.

 

It is when it is your wife spread eagle & I fucjing the chit out of her. She always says to fk her harder, make her feel like a slut.

Gottdamn, you are one stupid little dickless piece of shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Who? I took an entire ethic course with one mention of divine command theory and zero mention of religion. :D not to mention having to write a fuking ethics paper for EVERY nursing course where religion was NEVER mentioned.....

 

Obviously whoever said was mistaken. Hopefully it wasn't Shintao cause he thinks raping boys and girls is moral.

 

I've heard liberals and progressives babble about all morals being subjective...... :)

 

Try reading Situation Ethics, one of the most condemned-by-the-right books ever, usually by people who've not read it and who can't even get the title right. They call it "Situational Ethics." It makes just one point: in any situation, you do that which serves love the best.

 

Example: A woman is in prison for a crime she did not commit. Her husband and children need her terribly, as one would expect. A guard comes to her and says If you'll have sex with me I'll get you out of here, make it look like you were killed by accident, and you can go home to your family.

 

The woman has choices. She could think, "Going to bed with the guard would be a breaking of my marriage vows. I cannot do this. I will just have to suffer the rest of my life, and never see my husband or children again."

 

She could also reason, "Going to bed with this man would not be wrong because I am not attracted to him and his probing my body would be, for me, no different than a gynecological exam, and my reason for doing it, far from having anything to do with me, would be so that I could get back to people whom I love and who need me desperately.

 

She could further reason, "Going to bed with the guard would be a sin, but God will forgive me for it when I ask him, and I can't believe God would want me in this situation, which doesn't just punish me but my husband, my sons, and my daughters."

 

So which decision would be "right?" Which would serve love the best?

 

Plenty of people who were presented with this went with her first option. God's rules are absolute, we are here to serve God, not the other way around, and we must accept whatever circumstances we're in, no matter how much they hurt or even destroy us. The overriding concern is that we do not sin." I say that makes God out to be pretty cruel. But that's how I feel. How do you feel? What course should she take?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Try reading Situation Ethics, one of the most condemned-by-the-right books ever, usually by people who've not read it and who can't even get the title right. They call it "Situational Ethics." It makes just one point: in any situation, you do that which serves love the best.

 

Example: A woman is in prison for a crime she did not commit. Her husband and children need her terribly, as one would expect. A guard comes to her and says If you'll have sex with me I'll get you out of here, make it look like you were killed by accident, and you can go home to your family.

 

The woman has choices. She could think, "Going to bed with the guard would be a breaking of my marriage vows. I cannot do this. I will just have to suffer the rest of my life, and never see my husband or children again."

 

She could also reason, "Going to bed with this man would not be wrong because I am not attracted to him and his probing my body would be, for me, no different than a gynecological exam, and my reason for doing it, far from having anything to do with me, would be so that I could get back to people whom I love and who need me desperately.

 

She could further reason, "Going to bed with the guard would be a sin, but God will forgive me for it when I ask him, and I can't believe God would want me in this situation, which doesn't just punish me but my husband, my sons, and my daughters."

 

So which decision would be "right?" Which would serve love the best?

 

Plenty of people who were presented with this went with her first option. God's rules are absolute, we are here to serve God, not the other way around, and we must accept whatever circumstances we're in, no matter how much they hurt or even destroy us. The overriding concern is that we do not sin." I say that makes God out to be pretty cruel. But that's how I feel. How do you feel? What course should she take?

 

First of all, in order to make this an "ethical dilemma" you will first need to define "love".

 

We can't perform an ethical analysis of the scenario without having an accurate measuring stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, that's an interesting premise. The first thing that came to mind was Adolf Hitler. CLEARLY, most people would consider him a monster and yet, he was the leader of a government!!!!! How about Stalin? Another government leader considered a "monster"....

 

History is rife with governments that were considered monsters, along with their leaders..... so there must be something missing in Lisa B's stunning analysis of the creature we term "man".

 

Can anyone else give us the reason( hint hint) that separates us from animal? :huh:

 

Her example of feral humans was very interesting. It reminds me of a little banter Cannonpointer and I got into about two years ago. Cannonpointer claimed "humans are social creatures! It's in their nature!". I gave him several examples of feral humans who were nothing more than the animals they lived with. Absolutely no signs of humanness within them. So obviously humans, left to their own devices are not social creatures, as evidenced by feral humans.

 

What separates us from animal is the ability to reason. What keeps us from becoming monsters is the ability to reason coupled with the process of "socialization"(the passing of social norms AKAvalues/morals), specifically that socialization that occurs from infancy until childhood/early adolescence. The part of your human growth and development that has the least to do with government interaction the MOST to do with.....parenting.....

 

Cognitive ability is a developed process. A child does not think like an adolescent. An adolescent does not think like an adult( assuming you have the mature cognitive ability of an adult....). It's essential that proper socialization occurs along with the development of cognitive thinking skills.

 

All government can do at best is attempt to protect you FROM monsters and as we saw a few days ago, it usually fails miserably. Teachers can are part of the socialization process but as we've seen, their ability to influence children is directly related to parental influence.....

 

The REAL responsibility to keep "man" from becoming a monster lies solely on the PARENT(S).

 

Now you can see WHY I make such a big deal about society obliterating the nuclear family( a solid social structure/vehicle for transmission of socialization) without replacing that essential socialization process..... We end up with generations of "monsters".

 

There are also biological factors than can create monsters AKA schizophrenia, bipolar, etc. Ironically though, the more severe the condition, the least likely the individual is of causing severe harm to others. Another topic for debate perhaps.

 

Feel free to discuss or disagree with any of my OP(underlined parts for important premises).

The worst genocides of the 20th and 21st Centuries

A list of mass murderers - all because of insane ideologies - insane governments. So exactly who is the "monster" ? I'm guessing, all these deaths may have been avoided if it were not for the particular governments at those places in time. Just me.

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000 Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians deliberately killed in WWII plus 3 million Russian POWs left to die) Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) 8,000,000 Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 7,000,000 (the gulags plus the purges plus Ukraine's famine) Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII) Ismail Enver (Ottoman Turkey, 1915-20) 1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20) Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000 Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps) Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) 1,500,000 Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) 1,000,000 Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) 900,000 Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) 800,000 Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) 600,000 Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1980) 570,000 Suharto/Soeharto (Indonesian communists 1965-66) 500,000 Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39) 500,000? (Chinese civilians) Jonas Savimbi - but disputed by recent studies (Angola, 1975-2002) 400,000 Mullah Omar - Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001) 400,000 Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) 300,000 Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1970-71) 300,000 (Bangladesh) Ante Pavelic (Croatia, 1941-45) 359,000 (30,000 Jews, 29,000 Gipsies, 300,000 Serbs) Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Libya, 1934-45; Yugoslavia, WWII) 300,000 Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97) ? Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996) 220,000 Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone, 1991-2000) 200,000 Suharto (Aceh, East Timor, New Guinea, 1975-98) 200,000 Ho Chi Min (Vietnam, 1953-56) 200,000 Michel Micombero (Burundi, 1972) 150,000 Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, 1992-99) 100,000 Hassan Turabi (Sudan, 1989-1999) 100,000 Jean-Bedel Bokassa (Centrafrica, 1966-79) ? Richard Nixon (Vietnam, 1969-1974) 70,000 (Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians) Efrain Rios Montt - but disputed by recent studies (Guatemala, 1982-83) 70,000 Papa Doc Duvalier (Haiti, 1957-71) 60,000 Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic, 1930-61) 50,000 Bashir Assad (Syria, 2012-13) 50,000 Francisco Macias Nguema (Equatorial Guinea, 1969-79) 50,000 Hissene Habre (Chad, 1982-1990) 40,000 Chiang Kai-shek (Taiwan, 1947) 30,000 (popular uprising) Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) 30,000 (dissidents executed) Francisco Franco (Spain) 30,000 (dissidents executed after the civil war) Fidel Castro (Cuba, 1959-1999) 30,000 Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam, 1963-1968) 30,000 Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez (El Salvador, 1932) 30,000 Hafez Al-Assad (Syria, 1980-2000) 25,000 Khomeini (Iran, 1979-89) 20,000 Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe, 1982-87, Ndebele minority) 20,000 Rafael Videla (Argentina, 1976-83) 13,000 Guy Mollet (France, 1956-1957) 10,000 (war in Algeria) Harold McMillans (Britain, 1952-56, Kenya's Mau-Mau rebellion) 10,000 Paul Koroma (Sierra Leone, 1997) 6,000 Osama Bin Laden (worldwide, 1993-2001) 3,500 Augusto Pinochet (Chile, 1973) 3,000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh uh!!!!! Government is shutting down!!!! Are we going to get attacked by throngs of zombie progressive monsters now that their humanity has been unrestrained!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

maybe Lisa B was right!?!?!?!?!?!

 

AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!1!!!

 

:D:D:D:D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mao Te Tung - 70 Million

Pol Pot - 3 million

Stalin - 700 thousand

Hitler - 9 miln 6 million were Jews

 

And the list goes on and on. The above are atheists ans were making their world over into what they believed it should be. The killed anybody that thought different and let people know that.

 

The term "politically correct" is a communist statement telling people that they are starting to stray and to et back in line. Look who uses that phrase now.

Wrong. Only Pol Pot was a true atheist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

First of all, in order to make this an "ethical dilemma" you will first need to define "love".

 

We can't perform an ethical analysis of the scenario without having an accurate measuring stick.

 

This one:

 

Selfless love of one person for another; the one who loves puts the welfare of the object of that love before his or her own welfare. It is what causes people to give up their own lives for others. Christ put it this way: no one has greater love than one who would lay down his life for his friends.

 

In this case, the woman's love for her family and its needs overrides any thoughts she has for herself.

 

Oh uh!!!!! Government is shutting down!!!! Are we going to get attacked by throngs of zombie progressive monsters now that their humanity has been unrestrained!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

maybe Lisa B was right!?!?!?!?!?!

 

AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!1!!!

 

:D:D:D:D:D

 

It hasn't been "unrestrained" unless all the cops under state or local jurisdictions have been nullified. :wacko::wacko::wacko: :wacko: :wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This one:

 

Selfless love of one person for another; the one who loves puts the welfare of the object of that love before his or her own welfare. It is what causes people to give up their own lives for others. Christ put it this way: no one has greater love than one who would lay down his life for his friends.

 

In this case, the woman's love for her family and its needs overrides any thoughts she has for herself.

 

Love isn't measurable so how are you going to be able to measure between a right and wrong action?

 

If you want to allow yourself to be ruled by emotions and make decisions based purely on subjective emotions, be my guest.

 

But WHEN you DEMAND I support your subjective fluffy care bear non-sense? You better have some logic and reason to back it up.

 

It hasn't been "unrestrained" unless all the cops under state or local jurisdictions have been nullified. :wacko::wacko::wacko: :wacko: :wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko::wacko:

 

 

AH HA!!!!! So it's not government specifically that keeps humans from becoming monsters it's the police!!!!!!!!

 

:lol::lol: :lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Classic illustration of how progressives FAIL to understand human growth and development.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Love isn't measurable so how are you going to be able to measure between a right an wrong action?

 

If you want to allow yourself to be ruled by emotions and make decisions based purely on subjective emotions, be my guest.

 

But WHEN you DEMAND I support your subjective fluffy care bear non-sense? You better have some logic and reason to back it up.

 

This ^ is one of the dumbest attempts at whatever you're attempting I've ever seen.

 

 

 

 

AH HA!!!!! So it's not government specifically that keeps humans from becoming monsters it's the police!!!!!!!!

 

:lol::lol: :lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

It's fear of punishment. That's what the police represent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This ^ is one of the dumbest attempts at whatever you're attempting I've ever seen.

 

Well HOW do you know it's dumb when you don't even understand that you can't make an ethical determination based on subjective feeling........

 

You can for yourself but you DEFINIATELY can't for other people RETARD but THAT is EXACTLY what you do on a daily basis.

 

EVERYONE MUST SHARE HOW I FEEL AND MAKE THE SAME DECISIONS I DO OR YOU DON'T CARE!!!!!!!!!!

 

:lol::lol: :lol: :lol::lol: Keep your feelings to yourself dopey.

 

 

 

It's fear of punishment. That's what the police represent.

 

So fear of punishment is what keeps humans from becoming monsters........ Have you ever studied Kohlberg's moral stages of development??????

 

Fear of punishment is about the most basic form of moral development. MOST people are WELL BEYOND it before the police can even get involved in their lives. Typically in kindergarten or grade school......

 

Any other stupidity you'd like to add to your ridiculous premise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic example of when you drill down a progressive to their ethical underpinnings of their ridiculous indoctrinations? THERE ARE NONE!

 

I even went so far as to MENTION ethics and Kuntrary ran from a thread like her head was on fire! :lol::lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well HOW do you know it's dumb when you don't even understand that you can't make an ethical determination based on subjective feeling........

 

You can for yourself but you DEFINIATELY can't for other people RETARD but THAT is EXACTLY what you do on a daily basis.

 

EVERYONE MUST SHARE HOW I FEEL AND MAKE THE SAME DECISIONS I DO OR YOU DON'T CARE!!!!!!!!!!

 

:lol::lol: :lol: :lol::lol: Keep your feelings to yourself dopey.

 

 

So fear of punishment is what keeps humans from becoming monsters........ Have you ever studied Kohlberg's moral stages of development??????

 

Fear of punishment is about the most basic form of moral development. MOST people are WELL BEYOND it before the police can even get involved in their lives. Typically in kindergarten or grade school......

 

Any other stupidity you'd like to add to your ridiculous premise?

 

The knowledge of love, which is a behavior based on known motives, is quantifiable. We all know what it means and we all agree on what it means. It is behavior based on self-sacrifice. Not talking here of eros, or romantic sex-based attraction. That's not love.

 

Republicans live to punish people. If you read Kohlberg to them they'd say "sounds like communism to me." Piaget, whose name comes up in any discussion of Kohlberg, and from whose theories of cognitive development Kohlberg borrowed, said himself that developmental stages did not always follow predictable paths. Anyway, Republicans shut down a program in the Washington Metro area whose purpose was to keep kids from becoming criminals in the first place rather than spending zillions to imprison them after they've committed a crime. The ROI for every dollar spent on the program was a dollar seventy-three that was not lost to crime. Yet Republicans shut down the program in order to get money to -- what else -- build a new prison. It's just like them. They don't want to spend money to help anyone, but by God, if you mess up, we'll put you away and lose the key. In other words, stay out of our way and don't bother us. You don't look like us, don't talk like us, we're still mad that you aren't slaves anymore, so we're not going to lift a finger to help you. And we'll punish you six ways to Sunday if you do wrong.

 

Every time I watch a DVD I'm shown a screen saying the FBI will have you thrown in the pokey for 10 years and / or fined $250,000. But Straight says punishment is -- well, whatever you said it was, the point being that it's not too sophisticated, implying that it's a dumb way to keep people from committing crimes. So I ask you -- why do laws come with the promise of punishment when those laws are broken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The knowledge of love, which is a behavior based on known motives, is quantifiable. We all know what it means and we all agree on what it means. It is behavior based on self-sacrifice. Not talking here of eros, or romantic sex-based attraction. That's not love.

 

:lol::lol: :lol: :lol: It's subjective DUMBASS. Even self sacrifice is often times SELFISH in nature.

 

If it's SO quantifiable then you'll have no problem explaining how to measure "love".

 

 

Republicans live to punish people. If you read Kohlberg to them they'd say "sounds like communism to me." Piaget, whose name comes up in any discussion of Kohlberg, and from whose theories of cognitive development Kohlberg borrowed, said himself that developmental stages did not always follow predictable paths. Anyway, Republicans shut down a program in the Washington Metro area whose purpose was to keep kids from becoming criminals in the first place rather than spending zillions to imprison them after they've committed a crime. The ROI for every dollar spent on the program was a dollar seventy-three that was not lost to crime. Yet Republicans shut down the program in order to get money to -- what else -- build a new prison. It's just like them. They don't want to spend money to help anyone, but by God, if you mess up, we'll put you away and lose the key. In other words, stay out of our way and don't bother us. You don't look like us, don't talk like us, we're still mad that you aren't slaves anymore, so we're not going to lift a finger to help you. And we'll punish you six ways to Sunday if you do wrong.

 

Every time I watch a DVD I'm shown a screen saying the FBI will have you thrown in the pokey for 10 years and / or fined $250,000. But Straight says punishment is -- well, whatever you said it was, the point being that it's not too sophisticated, implying that it's a dumb way to keep people from committing crimes. So I ask you -- why do laws come with the promise of punishment when those laws are broken?

 

Here's the problem with your premise that laws and punishment stop crime. THEY DON'T YOU FUCKING RETARDED MONKEY. OUR PRISONS ARE ALL AT MAXIMUM CAPACITY WITH MORE BEING BUILT DAILY.

 

LAWS DON'T DETERMINE MORALITY. MORALITY AND VALUES OF SOCIETY DETERMINE LAWS. YOU'D KNOW THAT IF YOU HAD ANY ETHICAL VALUES OR MORALS BEYOND YOUR FEELINGS.

 

NOT DOING SOMETHING BECAUSE IT'S AGAINST THE LAW IS KINDERGARDEN ETHICS. I BETTER NOT THROW A PIECE OF PAPER CAUSE I'LL GET IN TROUBLE BY THE TEACHER.

 

MEANWHILE, OUR REAL PROBLEM IS WE HAVE A BUNCH OF PROGRESSIVES RUNNING AROUND SOCIETY WITH NO ETHICS, NO MORALS AND NO VALUES FOR ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES AND THEIR "FEELINGS". :lol:

 

 

Well, that's an interesting premise. The first thing that came to mind was Adolf Hitler. CLEARLY, most people would consider him a monster and yet, he was the leader of a government!!!!! How about Stalin? Another government leader considered a "monster"....

 

History is rife with governments that were considered monsters, along with their leaders..... so there must be something missing in Lisa B's stunning analysis of the creature we term "man".

 

Can anyone else give us the reason( hint hint) that separates us from animal? :huh:

 

Her example of feral humans was very interesting. It reminds me of a little banter Cannonpointer and I got into about two years ago. Cannonpointer claimed "humans are social creatures! It's in their nature!". I gave him several examples of feral humans who were nothing more than the animals they lived with. Absolutely no signs of humanness within them. So obviously humans, left to their own devices are not social creatures, as evidenced by feral humans.

 

What separates us from animal is the ability to reason. What keeps us from becoming monsters is the ability to reason coupled with the process of "socialization"(the passing of social norms AKAvalues/morals), specifically that socialization that occurs from infancy until childhood/early adolescence. The part of your human growth and development that has the least to do with government interaction the MOST to do with.....parenting.....

 

Cognitive ability is a developed process. A child does not think like an adolescent. An adolescent does not think like an adult( assuming you have the mature cognitive ability of an adult....). It's essential that proper socialization occurs along with the development of cognitive thinking skills.

 

All government can do at best is attempt to protect you FROM monsters and as we saw a few days ago, it usually fails miserably. Teachers can are part of the socialization process but as we've seen, their ability to influence children is directly related to parental influence.....

 

The REAL responsibility to keep "man" from becoming a monster lies solely on the PARENT(S).

 

Now you can see WHY I make such a big deal about society obliterating the nuclear family( a solid social structure/vehicle for transmission of socialization) without replacing that essential socialization process..... We end up with generations of "monsters".

 

There are also biological factors than can create monsters AKA schizophrenia, bipolar, etc. Ironically though, the more severe the condition, the least likely the individual is of causing severe harm to others. Another topic for debate perhaps.

 

Feel free to discuss or disagree with any of my OP(underlined parts for important premises).

 

 

The REAL responsibility to keep "man" from becoming a monster lies solely on the PARENT(S).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...