Sign in to follow this  
wenglund

Equality: is it overrated?

Recommended Posts

From what I can tell, the principle of equality, particularly in relation to politics, has increased in importance since the 1960's and the civil rights movement, to the point that for many it has become the prime directive.

My question is: "Should equality be all that important given that it defies the natural state of things as well as the fundamental mechanism of evolution (natural selection and survival of the fittest)?

After all, the word "equality" only shows up twice in the LDS scriptures: (see HERE) And, the varied degrees of glory in the resurrection hardly seem egalitarian.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I take it then that your answer to your question is that equality should not be all that important? Do you advocate dropping the ideal of a self-evident truth that all men are created equal, and replacing it with a self-evident truth all men are created unequal? Do you want to live in a society where survival of the fittest is taught as something like a so-called prime directive? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Mike said:

Should I take it then that your answer to your question is that equality should not be all that important? Do you advocate dropping the ideal of a self-evident truth that all men are created equal, and replacing it with a self-evident truth all men are created unequal? Do you want to live in a society where survival of the fittest is taught as something like a so-called prime directive? 

Devils advocate-

Aren't all humans in some way created unequally? I'm only 5'07" and I have no athletic talent. Should I demand "equal rights" and demand they put me on the Florida Gators baseball team?

 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Devils advocate-

Aren't all humans in some way created unequally? I'm only 5'07" and I have no athletic talent. Should I demand "equal rights" and demand they put me on the UCLA basketball team?

 

:) Of course all humans are in some way or another created unequally in the terms you offered as an example. Are you suggesting that that such inequalities are to be considered to interpret the intent of the drawers of the Declaration of Independence? I doubt it. So, I'm prone to discount the hypothetical of an unqualified player to be included on a college team. However, at the risk of being drawn of the trail by a smelly fish, hahaha, I would say that as a matter of principle in the spirit of the ideal cited in the Declaration of Independence you ought to have the chance to try out. Parenthetically, I think we wouldn't have too hard a time finding players in the height range of, say, 5'5" to 5'10" who made college and professional teams, and are considered by most objective standards to have been excellent players. :)

Edited by Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wenglund said:

From what I can tell, the principle of equality, particularly in relation to politics, has increased in importance since the 1960's and the civil rights movement, to the point that for many it has become the prime directive.

My question is: "Should equality be all that important given that it defies the natural state of things as well as the fundamental mechanism of evolution (natural selection and survival of the fittest)?

After all, the word "equality" only shows up twice in the LDS scriptures: (see HERE) And, the varied degrees of glory in the resurrection hardly seem egalitarian.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The problem in politics is not Equality.  The problem is how politicians DEFINE equality or DECIDE what is equal.

Yes, the Constitution is founded on all men created equal.  What this means is - nobody is born into nobility nor born into servitude and everything that implies.

The Equal but Separate situation with colored people is an example of this.  Politicians decided to define equality as - whites can attend college, blacks can attend college, they're equal.  But they're separate - whites go to the white college, blacks go to the black college.  But that's still equal... until politicians decide it's not equal anymore.  So now, to be equal, whites need a higher GPA and SAT scores to enter a certain college whereas blacks can get lower GPA and SAT scores.  That makes them equal.

Gay marriage is another one.  Men and Women can get married to each other.  Politicians defined that Men not able to marry Men is unequal.

Women's wages is another one.  A man gets a manager's job and gets $100K.  A woman gets a secretarial job and gets $30K.  Somehow, politicians defined that as unequal.

And so on and so forth.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mike said:

 Parenthetically, I think we wouldn't have too hard a time finding players between in the height range of, say, 5'5" to 5'10" who made college and professional teams, and are considered by most objective standards to have been excellent players. :)

Not really. In college because the talent pool is so much bigger you may find guys who are decent at 5'5-5'10. But it's not common at all.

The NBA is a totally different ball game.  You (not you in particular, royal usage of the word) can't say "Spud Webb! HA ha ! I am right!" No, he hardly proves anything. Guys that small are usually busts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The problem in politics is not Equality.  The problem is how politicians DEFINE equality or DECIDE what is equal.

Yes, the Constitution is founded on all men created equal.  What this means is - nobody is born into nobility nor born into servitude and everything that implies.

The Equal but Separate situation with colored people is an example of this.  Politicians decided to define equality as - whites can ride the bus, blacks can ride the bus, they're equal.  But they're separate - one sits infront, the other sits in the back.  But that's still equal.

Gay marriage is another one.  Men and Women can get married to each other.  Politicians defined that Men not able to marry Men is unequal.

Women's wages is another one.  A man gets a manager's job and gets $100K.  A woman gets a secretarial job and gets $30K.  Somehow, politicians defined that as unequal.

And so on and so forth.

But it isn't just politicians deciding. Many times it's people going into public service to right the wrongs established and perpetuated by other people. Such as less qualified people getting jobs ahead of better qualified people, or qualified people not even having a chance to apply for the job in the first place. Another example would be a man getting paid more money for doing the same job as his female co-worker (and doing it less effectively). And with Gay Marriage it wasn't politicians deciding men can't marry men--it was long standing traditions based on criteria other than politics. 

Edited by Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Not really. In college because the talent pool is so much bigger you may find guys who are decent at 5'5-5'10. But it's not common at all.

The NBA is a totally different ball game.  You (not you in particular, royal usage of the word) can't say "Spud Webb! HA ha ! I am right!" No, he hardly proves anything. Guys that small are usually busts. 

Right, but I didn't say it's common. I said I think we could find players. All we need are two. If I'm wrong and there aren't any at all (or only 1) I'll happily concede, but you don't really want to spend time on this detail at the expense of the real intent of my remark, do you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mike said:

But it isn't just politicians deciding. Many times it's people going public service to right the wrongs established and perpetuated by other people. Such as less qualified people getting jobs ahead of better qualified people, or qualified people not even having a chance to apply for the job in the first place. Another example would be a man getting paid more money for doing the same job as his female co-worker (and doing it less effectively). And with Gay Marriage it wasn't politicians deciding--it was long standing traditions based on criteria other than politics. 

My answer was simply addressing In Politics.

With Gay Marriage - it was politicians, more specifically 5 judges - who decided to change the definition of equality from the long standing traditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mike said:

Right, but I didn't say it's common. I said I think we could find players. All we need are two. If I'm wrong and there aren't any at all (or only 1) I'll happily concede, but you don't really want to spend time on this detail at the expense of the real intent of my remark, do you? 

Yes! I love basketball, can we? You also have to define "good". You also need more than two-just saying two people made it who were shorter than 5'10 doesn't mean much. You need many more. 

What you need to do is look at those who didn't make it and why they didn't make it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

My answer was simply addressing In Politics.

With Gay Marriage - it was politicians, more specifically 5 judges - who decided to change the definition of equality from the long standing traditions.

The definition of equality, or the definition of marriage? We can quibble over whether or not to call a Supreme Court Judge a politician depending I suppose on where we each stand on a given question, but I don't really want to. I'm more interested in the questions I put toward the OP: Should I take it then that your answer to your question is that equality should not be all that important? Do you advocate dropping the ideal of a self-evident truth that all men are created equal, and replacing it with a self-evident truth all men are created unequal? Do you want to live in a society where survival of the fittest is taught as something like a so-called prime directive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Yes! I love basketball, can we? You also have to define "good". You also need more than two-just saying two people made it who were shorter than 5'10 doesn't mean much. You need many more. 

What you need to do is look at those who didn't make it and why they didn't make it. 

No, we can't, hahaha. I have no more interest in talking about basketball. Start a thread. For now, I'll give you what you want with regard to short basketball players. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wenglund said:

And, the varied degrees of glory in the resurrection hardly seem egalitarian.

I would disagree with this assessment, too. There is nothing about the varied degrees of glory (neither hypothetically nor in reality) that should be construed as violating an egalitarian principle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, wenglund said:

From what I can tell, the principle of equality, particularly in relation to politics, has increased in importance since the 1960's and the civil rights movement, to the point that for many it has become the prime directive.

My question is: "Should equality be all that important given that it defies the natural state of things as well as the fundamental mechanism of evolution (natural selection and survival of the fittest)?

After all, the word "equality" only shows up twice in the LDS scriptures: (see HERE) And, the varied degrees of glory in the resurrection hardly seem egalitarian.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

@wenglund, I hear you. I've also thought about this. Specifically, to what point should the genders be created equal? Certainly the True Believing Mormon such as myself wouldn't think that the genders are ENTIRELY equal (where "equal" in this case means "the same"), to the point of gender not even mattering anymore (which is where the world is going with it.) Once gender doesn't matter at all, then why restrict marriage to one man and one woman -- why not let two men marry? Once gender doesn't matter at all, then why restrict who can and who can't go in a bathroom or locker room? I personally think that everyone is an equal PERSON before God, very similar to how the Declaration of Independence seems to define equality, but the GENDERS are NOT the SAME. They're equal, but different. See https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true for an explanation. :D

(Maybe this is a bad analogy, but...) Think of your tools. Is a hammer better than a screwdriver? They're both valuable tools, and each has their place. They're different, yet have equal value -- you need both around the house. 

But you have to be careful here. @wenglund mentioned that this has "increased in importance since the 1960's and the civil rights movement". This phrasing tends to lump gay/transgender rights along with racial equality, which are completely different things. I like to push back against the left's tendency to lump these two very different things together. I agree with racial equality. I do not agree with where the left is taking "gay/transgender" equality. One is righteous, the other quite evil, IMO. 

 

1 hour ago, Mike said:

There is nothing about the varied degrees of glory (neither hypothetically nor in reality) that should be construed as violating an egalitarian principle. 

Tell that to a socialist/communist, who believe that "equality" should include material possessions/riches. I think such a person (not me) would disagree with @Mike on this.

 

1 hour ago, Mike said:

Do you want to live in a society where survival of the fittest is taught as something like a so-called prime directive?

This reminds me of an evil character from the Book of Mormon: Korihor. In Alma 30:17 we read this regarding Korihor's teachings (emphasis mine):

Quote

And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.

That to me sounds like the extreme end of the "survival of the fittest". A world where you get away with whatever you want, because you can. A world where people are encouraged to grind the faces of the poor, because they can. That's not a world I want to live in.

Edited by eddified

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mike said:

Should I take it then that your answer to your question is that equality should not be all that important? 

Yes. Absolutely. To me, what should be important is striving to become the very best person/people possible.

Quote

Do you advocate dropping the ideal of a self-evident truth that all men are created equal, and replacing it with a self-evident truth all men are created unequal?

False dichotomy.  My ideal is: "becoming the very best person/people possible--as much like Christ as one/we can."

Also, I don't think the quoted phrase means what you think it does. Here is one perspective: http://americanvision.org/6227/were-the-founding-fathers-egalitarians-what-did-they-mean-by-all-men-are-created-equal/

Quote

Do you want to live in a society where survival of the fittest is taught as something like a so-called prime directive? 

No. It doesn't need to be taught since it is the natural order of things. It is like asking whether we should be taught to breath as a prime directive.

How do you answer the question of the thread?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@wenglund You think striving to become the very best person possible is important. So do I. And I think the concepts of equality before the law and equality in terms of opportunity don't conflict with striving to become the very best. Moreover, I don't think you have taken sufficient time to know what I think the quoted phrase means. I don't think anything I've said conflicts with Mr. Darnell's blog. So, I think you are the one drawing a false dichotomy.

I'm glad to know that you are not advocating a survival-of-the-fittest prime directive. But I think you're drawing straw a man when you focus on the natural order of things. No reasonable person believes that it isn't the natural order of things. So asking my question to you was nothing like asking whether we should be taught to breathe.

But you ask me for my answer to the question of the thread. Fare enough. 

Quote

 Should equality be all that important given that it defies the natural state of things as well as the fundamental mechanism of evolution (natural selection and survival of the fittest)?

Yes, equality (before the law and in terms of opportunity) is more important than is the so-called natural order of things. As children of God we rightly count ourselves as striving to live above the natural order of a dog-eat-dog world. God put us here to do so. By enshrining the ideal of such equality we participate in another ideal, i.e. striving to be the very best people possible. 

Here are just two small examples. As an employer wishing to fill an advertised position I will consider you on the same footing as any other citizen who wishes to compete for the position. That's what equality means to me. As a disciple of Christ I will share the gospel message with you without regard for characteristics that so many people have historically counted as reasons to discard you such as your lineage, your income or any other thing or reason that Christ himself would count as irrelevant. 

Edited by Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, eddified said:

 

@wenglund, I hear you. I've also thought about this. Specifically, to what point should the genders be created equal? Certainly the True Believing Mormon such as myself wouldn't think that the genders are ENTIRELY equal (where "equal" in this case means "the same"), to the point of gender not even mattering anymore (which is where the world is going with it.) Once gender doesn't matter at all, then why restrict marriage to one man and one woman -- why not let two men marry? Once gender doesn't matter at all, then why restrict who can and who can't go in a bathroom or locker room? I personally think that everyone is an equal PERSON before God, very similar to how the Declaration of Independence seems to define equality, but the GENDERS are NOT the SAME. They're equal, but different. See https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true for an explanation. :D

(Maybe this is a bad analogy, but...) Think of your tools. Is a hammer better than a screwdriver? They're both valuable tools, and each has their place. They're different, yet have equal value -- you need both around the house. 

But you have to be careful here. @wenglund mentioned that this has "increased in importance since the 1960's and the civil rights movement". This phrasing tends to lump gay/transgender rights along with racial equality, which are completely different things. I like to push back against the left's tendency to lump these two very different things together. I agree with racial equality. I do not agree with where the left is taking "gay/transgender" equality. One is righteous, the other quite evil, IMO. 

I agree that there is a difference between genetic characteristics and sexual-psychological proclivities when it comes to "rights." But, I would caution against claiming that racial equality is righteous--particularly as it relates to the role of government. Not only has government enforced "equal;ity" become an organ for inequality, and paved the way for judicial activism, which has violated the constitution separation of powers, but it has also seriously degraded the very race it was intended to help: http://whyleftistlunc.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-politics-of-race.html

Fixating on equality, rather than on freedom and personal progress and accountability, has been toxic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, eddified said:

Tell that to a socialist/communist, who believe that "equality" should include material possessions/riches. I think such a person (not me) would disagree with @Mike on this.

That was your response to my remark that "There is nothing about the varied degrees of glory (neither hypothetically nor in reality) that should be construed as violating an egalitarian principle." But your response puzzles me because I didn't see anything in the OP that would make me think about Communism. I suspect that you reject Communism, as I do. So while you're probably correct that a socialist or communist may disagree with me I think it's sort of irrelevant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far the OP seems to have the veiled objective of simply attacking the "left", the Democratic Party, politicians with whom some disagree, etc. That's pretty old and a lot less productive than examining specific issues. It would make a lot more sense to me and it would be a lot more interesting to me if there were some straightforward examples of what I'm going to call this "evil equality" @wenglund sees, and why it's evil. @eddified mentioned Communism. And my friend @MormonGator mentioned college basketball, hahaha. And @wenglund just brought up "racial equality" a bit ago.

Ok, racial equality is a lot more specific than what the very first post suggested. So that would be a good issue to discuss, but it would be even better to talk more specifically. What thing can blacks do today that they couldn't do 75 years ago because of "racial equality"? Obviously, voting comes to mind. Is that what you have a problem with? Do you have a problem with swimming together? What's the evil? I'd like to avoid running after what seem to me to be stray dogs and talk about something specific. OK, I'll steel myself for the chiding that may be in the offing for me. :)

Edited by Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politically/socially, I think equality of opportunity is crucial; and with that one needs to recognize and accept that due to varying aptitudes and talents there will not be an equality of outcomes.

Spiritually:  I'm not sure what to do with the notion of "equality of opportunity".  Abraham 3 may implicitly read as saying that since Abraham was one of the "noble and great" intelligences, there were others intelligences that weren't so noble or great as Abraham was.  Verse 18 sort of bolsters this view.  So even at mortal birth, controlling for social and political and financial and even family factors--it could well be that no two spirits are equal or are equally suited for the degree of development that would be nexessary to attain exaltation.

This sort of hypothesizing can lead to some pretty terrifying places, though; both theologically (is there an entire race of "less valiant" spirits?) and individually (what if I'm just not cut out for exaltation?).  So I prefer to just move forward as best I can, trust God, love and follow my Savior, and enjoy life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Spiritually:  I'm not sure what to do with the notion of "equality of opportunity".  Abraham 3 may implicitly read as saying that since Abraham was one of the "noble and great" intelligences, there were others intelligences that weren't so noble or great as Abraham was.  Verse 18 sort of bolsters this view.  So even at mortal birth, controlling for social and political and financial and even family factors--it could well be that no two spirits are equal or are equally suited for the degree of development that would be nexessary to attain exaltation.

This sort of hypothesizing can lead to some pretty terrifying places, though; both theologically (is there an entire race of "less valiant" spirits?) and individually (what if I'm just not cut out for exaltation?).  So I prefer to just move forward as best I can, trust God, love and follow my Savior, and enjoy life. 

Well, isn't it accurate to say that speaking spiritually the Atonement of Christ offers equality of opportunity to choose to live according to the Sacrament Prayer? As far as Abraham is concerned I don't think so much that he has more opportunity than little old me. Let's say he was greater than I--I can't see a reason to be upset about that. Christ is still an equal opportunity Savior, isn't He?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my 2 pence worth for this topic.

It is important to go by what the Bible teaches too. You have to remember that it is still of God in a way that he wants it to be. It does not teach 10 commandments to men and 10 commandments to women, or 8 commandments to good looking people and 3 commands to ugly people. It's 10 commandments that need to be lived by by everybody, equally with no bypass.

 

Hebrews 13:4 - Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.

It is NOT saying - Let marriage be held in honor among select few, and let the married bed be undefiled on 39% of my people, for I God will judge the sexually imoral and adulerous to who I choose!

Genesis 9:7 -  And you, be fruitful and multiply, teem on the earth and multiply in it.

It is NOT saying - And you, be fruitful and multiply, but women who're poor and weak, you only multiply when demanded!

1 Corinthians 7:2 - But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

It is not saying - But because of the temptation women have with sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each women must not.

I hope I got my point across lol - All I'm trying to say is, what we are taught from God is that we are all unique, and should be treated equally. But we are also given our own responsibilities, our own tasks... How so? Well he gave his own begotton son the task of dying for our sins! He gave all the apostles and prophets their own unique tasks, Mary also had a task which played a huge part in our salvation! We must study the scriptures, treat everybody like Jesus would, forgive 70 and try to be who God asks YOU to be.

Edited by Rickie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mike said:

@wenglund You think striving to become the very best person possible is important. So do I. And I think the concepts of equality before the law and equality in terms of opportunity don't conflict with striving to become the very best. Moreover, I don't think you have taken sufficient time to know what I think the quoted phrase means. I don't think anything I've said conflicts with Mr. Darnell's blog. So, I think you are the one drawing a false dichotomy.

Mr. Darnell's blog indicated that the phrase in question doesn't mean equality of opportunity. Several things you said seem to me to suggest that you think that it does. If I have misread you, I apologize. Either way, your question to me presented a false dichotomy.

Quote

I'm glad to know that you are not advocating a survival-of-the-fittest prime directive. But I think you're drawing straw a man when you focus on the natural order of things. No reasonable person believes that it isn't the natural order of things. So asking my question to you was nothing like asking whether we should be taught to breathe.

To me, breathing is the natural order of things, and survival of the fittest is the natural order of things. I see them as alike in principle. No straw man here.

Quote

But you ask me for my answer to the question of the thread. Fare enough. 

Yes, equality (before the law and in terms of opportunity) is more important than is the so-called natural order of things. As children of God we rightly count ourselves as striving to live above the natural order of a dog-eat-dog world. God put us here to do so. By enshrining the ideal of such equality we participate in another ideal, i.e. striving to be the very best people possible. 

Yes, the natural man is an enemy of God, and we are to rise above the natural by subordinating ourselves to the spiritual. The question is, do we do so by making equality important or the prime directive.  I submit that by saying "yes," one may not correctly understand the gospel--which is individually and not collectively focused (it isn't about comparing ourselves to others and striving for parity, but rather we are to be judged on our own merits and according to the level of laws we have been given, and to strive to become our best selves). The gospel is about  individual progress, not equality. We are not taught about the plan of equality for a very good reason.

Quote

Here are just two small examples. As an employer wishing to fill an advertised position I will consider you on the same footing as any other citizen who wishes to compete for the position. That's what equality means to me.

As a rational employer, your goal ought to be to hire the very best person for the job. You may evaluate applicants using the same evaluative criteria, but that isn't because you are compelled by equality, but rather by common sense and best practices. If equality were the main goal, then hiring the best person for the job wouldn't matter. Rather, it would be to hire equally based on race, gender, ect., or better yet, select employees randomly. Picking the very best person for the job is anything but equal. Picking anyone rather than others, for that matter, will result in inequality. Someone will get the job while others will not.

Quote

As a disciple of Christ I will share the gospel message with you without regard for characteristics that so many people have historically counted as reasons to discard you such as your lineage, your income or any other thing or reason that Christ himself would count as irrelevant. 

I think you may be conflating "no respecter of persons" with "equality."  The characteristics you mentioned are irrelevant to Christ, not because he is consciously attempting to treat people equally, but rather because to him those characteristics are meaningless when it comes to the gospel and the plan of PROGRESSION. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rickie said:

I hope I got my point across lol - All I'm trying to say is, what we are taught from God is that we are all unique, and should be treated equally. But we are also given our own responsibilities, our own tasks... How so? Well he gave his own begotton son the task of dying for our sins! He gave all the apostles and prophets their own unique tasks, Mary also had a task which played a huge part in our salvation! We must study the scriptures, treat everybody like Jesus would, forgive 70 and try to be who God asks YOU to be.

I certainly don't see anything to disagree with you there. I've witnessed some people go off on tangents before, and complain that we shouldn't expect to treat all of our children equally. I think that's a silly place to try and take the conversation because of course we don't treat our children exactly the same. And it would be silly of such people to think that you would be saying we do. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mike said:

I certainly don't see anything to disagree with you there. I've witnessed some people go off on tangents before, and complain that we shouldn't expect to treat all of our children equally. I think that's a silly place to try and take the conversation because of course we don't treat our children exactly the same. And it would be silly of such people to think that you would be saying we do. :)

I'm somewhat confused haha, are you saying I'm silly for thinking we do?

Because I know we certainly do not. However, I do think we are taught to try to do so, but we will never be perfect enough in this life to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this