quote
follow
|
18-04-2018 Hi Irina,I hope all is well with you. I agree that life is rough and difficult. I think our only hope is to pray, believe in Jesus and try to help our neighbor. Yes, I'm a revert back to Christianity for almost 2 years now...the worst kind I'm also going to Spain in a week for my birthday! |
|
21-04-2018 Lady Rinkadink, bored after losing at Scrabble? And Brian, you said: quote:
I think our only hope is to pray, believe in Jesus - Why did you arbitrarily pick Jesus and not Buddha? Or Muhammad? Or Spiderman? Or Engelbert Humperdinck? Also, you do realise that if Jesus actually existed and was as he is claimed to be in the Bible then it is HIS FAULT that the world is the way it is and so praying to him would be as pointless as a Thalidomide victim trying to have a wank? Here's a little flowchart based on the Epicurean Paradox to help you out and feel free to replace 'evil' with 'suffering' or any other negative aspect of being that you choose: Okaaaay, let me see now... Good. One task completed and only one more to go. Adios! |
[ link ] |
21-04-2018
heeey! I'm a Scrabble champion!)))) Actually, I got better in a few days of playing it and now I do win a lot. Helps kill time and avoid existential dread in a fun and educational manner. I even remembered a word 'octave'. And the initial 'quire' was turned lated into squire and in a yet another move into an 'esquire', hahaha)))) So lady Rinkadink thanks you for your commenting participation Mr D O'B, Esquire )))))) |
|
22-04-2018 Much like the whole bothersome kerfuffle concerning antidisestablishmentarianism of yesteryear, the floccinaucinihilipilification of Scrabble is that there are simply not enough squares on the board for a tendentious someone, possessed of such an immense vocabulary as I, to derive adequate delectation from the aforesaid activity. Either that or it could be that I'm just a pretentious and loquacious sesquipedalianist! )))God, I'm even pissing myself off with all this shit! Lol Goodnight Rina (or good morning from your perspective) and thank you for being so kind as to fix that second image link for me without criticism. |
|
22-04-2018 DOB,I picked Jesus because of the historical evidence for him and his claims and resurrection. Jesus is the most important person to ever live (I think we can agree on that) and the other people you mentioned, like Buddha, never claimed to be God. Virtually all non-religious history scholars believe that Jesus existed and was crucified. They also agree that his tomb was empty and his followers were convinced that he resurrected and were willing to die for it without anything to gain in return. The problem of evil is because of human free will. We are not robots and can do whatever we please with our free will, including acts of great evil. Here's a website you may be interested in. It was started by a former President of Gonzaga University in the U.S. https://www.magiscenter.com/ Cheers, Brian |
|
22-04-2018 DOB,I picked Jesus because of the historical evidence for him and his claims and resurrection. Jesus is the most important person to ever live (I think we can agree on that) and the other people you mentioned, like Buddha, never claimed to be God. Virtually all non-religious history scholars believe that Jesus existed and was crucified. They also agree that his tomb was empty and his followers were convinced that he resurrected and were willing to die for it without anything to gain in return. The problem of evil is because of human free will. We are not robots and can do whatever we please with our free will, including acts of great evil. Here's a website you may be interested in. It was started by a former President of Gonzaga University in the U.S. https://www.magiscenter.com/ Cheers, Brian |
|
22-04-2018 Irina,Thank you! Sorry for the double post. Please deleted one if you want to. My computer froze so I hit post twice. Are you on Reddit? If so, send me a PM! I'm BrianW1983 Thanks, Brian |
|
23-04-2018 Hi Brian,Thank you for your reply and for your explanations. I apologise for my rudeness in the previous post. I am a cheeky so and so and applaud your very mannerly response to me. With this in mind I will ask you to 'turn the other cheek' in advance of what you're about to read... quote:
I picked Jesus because of the historical evidence for him - We're not off to the best of starts. There is no definitive evidence that a historical Jesus actually lived and although I am not discounting the possibility, it certainly isn't the open and shut case you are casually making it out to be here. I'm by no means an expert on the historicity of old J-boy, but outside of the Bible there are no first hand accounts of his existence. We have to wait to the writings of Josephus and Tacitus, neither of whom were even born yet at the time of the alleged crucifixion. Let me reiterate that I'm not saying he DIDN'T exist, just that it isn't black and white by any means. quote:
Jesus is the most important person to ever live (I think we can agree on that) - Assuming he did exist then I will ask you to compromise with me and say that he's the most INFLUENTIAL person to have ever lived. This is a crucial distinction for me to make, for if he did exist then many of the claims made by him and/or for him, as laid out in all modern English translations of the Bible, are patently false, and due to this fact I'd say that what is important is to draw attention to the logical impossibility of his purported status and abilities. ANYONE capable of pointing out the absurdity of a man claiming to be the living embodiment of an all loving and all powerful deity being unable to possibly coexist in a world permeated to its core with suffering, is more important than Jesus himself. Not that I like to brag or anything. quote:
Virtually all non-religious history scholars believe that Jesus existed and was crucified. They also agree that his tomb was empty and his followers were convinced that he resurrected and were willing to die for it without anything to gain in return. - Popularity is not a prerequisite for truth and as previously noted, his actual historicity is called into question by more than an insignificant number of scholars. Off the top of my head there's Robert Price, Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier. If you're willing to pay me for the effort then I'll happily think up some more. There's also the uneasy truth to contend with that the Bible is not to be taken literally. Adam & Eve? Didn't exist. This is a fact, not a matter of belief. Noah's Ark? Apart from probably being plagiarised from the Gilgamesh epic, is clearly also not an historical happening. Feeding of the five thousand? Unless Jeezie Weezie was seriously adept at making cod in breadcrumbs then this also didn't take place as documented. The Bible has been edited and amended and translated and retranslated and messed about with innumerable times over the centuries. It is the so called holy (or should that be hole filled?) book of only one of approximately 4000 or more religions out there. Even within Christianity there are an ungodly (excuse the pun) amount of denominations and sects and interpretations and interpolations. The minister preaches differently from the priest and even within the very same church congregation you will be hard pressed to find uniform consensus amongst believers. If this is god's best plan for getting out a consistent message then I think all that spooky floating about for eternity has given him a severe case of dementia. I suggest taking several swigs of potent alcohol before reading this next section... quote:
The problem of evil is because of human free will. - 'Will' can never be 'free' - the term is oxymoronic. Will is a result of past experience, conditioning and genetics. Whatever intentions a person has or whatever choices they make are directly linked to that which have already occurred, which are innate, which happen seemingly spontaneously in the moment, and without any mystical overtones implied whatsoever, are in essence predetermined. quote:
We are not robots and can do whatever we please with our free will - Are we now? I think you'll find we are far more robotic in nature than you wish to accept. Implied in the idea of free will is that there is a 'central controller' inside our heads who is able to pick and choose between thoughts and actions taken, but that is a fallacy. The controller you perceive when you think of 'you' is made of the very same stuff as that which desires to be controlled. Or in other words, there is no thinker separate from his or her thought. You ARE thought; nothing more, nothing less. Descartes famously stated, "cogito ergo sum", or, "I think, therefore I am." But this was based on the faulty presupposition that there actually exists an 'I' in the real rather than illusory sense. So let's reverse the proposition and ask you where 'you' are when 'you' don't think? Hang on! Don't be so quick to react. For any answer you give will itself be borne of thought and therefore self-refuting. Still confused? Ok, let me try a different approach... We're all familiar with the nauseating annual tradition of New Year's resolutions. December 31st comes along and 'you' resolve to go on a diet and lose weight in the upcoming year. Why would such a resolution be necessary at all if there existed a permanent night watchman in the brain, i.e. a true 'you', with the ability to 'control' and 'choose' between thoughts and actions? Surely if such an entity existed then the second the decision was made to do something, then that would be the end of it there and then? E.g. "I wish to lose weight, therefore I will no longer eat sugar and fatty food." Done and dusted; no more junk food would ever be consumed again in life. However, if there does NOT exist a permanent mind manager inside the skull (which is the true nature of psychological existence) then what we observe in the real world would actually make sense. That's why more often than not you'll find that one 'you' wishes to lose that spare tyre round the midsection, but a day later another 'you' is more interested in seeing if it's possible to consume the whole chocolate cake in one sitting. From the layman's point of view it can easily be dismissed as being 'weak willed', but as I've pointed out, that isn't the way it works at all. It's just that there isn't a real 'you' at all and if there is no real you then there cannot be a overseer or operator at the helm. Stiiill not convinced? Jesus (excuse the pun)! Ok, picture the scene - you're sitting, reading a book about frogs' bums (why wouldn't you be?!) when all of a sudden pops into your head, "I wonder if Amy still hates me for pushing her into the swimming pool when we were eight..." Now, where the hell did that come from? It doesn't really matter though, does it? The point of this example is to show that thoughts just 'occur' in consciousness - there's nobody there controlling them. Any lingering thoughts of 'control' are the equivalent of a dog chasing his tail and amount to one thought trying to subdue and suppress another thought. It's all such a ridiculously futile game. A game with a very real implication, for if there is no such thing as a permanent 'you' then all ideas of 'free will', as well as the even more absurd ideas of 'you' going to 'heaven' after 'you' die, fly out of the window. So, free will doesn't actually exist. Sorry (and sorry to Kirk too if he's reading this. See? I told you 35 years ago that I'd one day get around to addressing the issue! Lol) about that. But let me play devil's advocate (I'm really having a great time with all these religious puns BTW) and pretend that free will COULD logically exist (which it can't) and there was a god who made it this way (which there isn't). If this were the case then it would still be god's fault. I am guessing that you skipped past the flowchart diagram that I included with my first post? It may look simplistic, but if you dispassionately follow it then you will see that even in a universe where free will exists, the problem of evil would still be god's fault; IF you also believe said god to possess the triumvirate powers of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence - for the sake of brevity we'll skip how these qualities are logical contradictions and impossibilities as well. So, no matter which way you or any other religious apologist may wish to try and twist it, the buck stops with god and if he did exist (which he doesn't) then I would echo the sentiments found scratched into a wall at Mauthausen Concentration Camp: quote:
Here's a website you may be interested in. It was started by a former President of Gonzaga University in the U.S. - Thanks Brian, but no thanks. For you see that whereas a lot of my contemporaries identify as agnostic atheists, I do not. I am a GNOSTIC atheist. In other words, I don't believe because I KNOW that all religious gods of the book are false - including yours - for the tomes which are authored or ghost authored by them make truth claims and those claims can be scientifically tested as to their veracity. I pointed out some of those claims earlier on in connection to the Bible and they simply do not pass muster in the real world. You may object that the books are not meant to be taken literally and are allegorical instead. If that's the case then what's the point of all the hassle? I mean this seriously. Because all and sundry can (and HAVE) spin the morals of the tale any way they see fit and more often than not they fail at this enterprise too. I can't be too hard on apologists because the name is well suited to the stance, i.e. they have to APOLOGISE for how badly written their cherished books are and they have to be willing to tie themselves into all manner of mental knots to try and extract anything which can be considered 'good' from amongst the slavery endorsements, non-virgin stonings and hellfire warnings. To be fair, I cannot claim to be able to know that ALL gods are false, only the anthropomorphic ones like Jehovah/Yahweh/Elohim, Allah, Krishna, Mithras, Pan, Sheela Na Gigs (pity in her case), Odin, Ra, Poseidon, Toutatis, Belenos, Belisama, etc, etc. Basically any PERSONAL god who has supposedly interacted with us and has all too familiar human characteristics is shit of the bull variety. Deistic/pantheistic gods are a different matter entirely. As they are defined as unknowable then I cannot falsify them. Occam's razor would dictate that belief in them is an unnecessary process, but doesn't rule them out per se. So on the one hand I'm a gnostic atheist, but being pedantic, I'm also an agnostic adeist. I accept that >>A |
|
23-04-2018 T'would appear that there is a character limit to Rina's blog after all and I just broke it! Either that or I mucked it up by using the double 'greater than/lesser than' arrows. This is especially annoying as I was on the final sentence too. God has an even more warped sense of humour (obviously!) than I do! As I know everyone reading this is dying to know my final words of wisdom, I'll paste them below and use my tried and tested quotation marks instead: quote:
So on the one hand I'm a gnostic atheist, but being pedantic, I'm also an agnostic adeist. I accept that 'A' god may be possible, but your particular one definitely isn't. There. Everyone can now rest easy and breathe a sigh of relief. Amen. |
|
23-04-2018 Dob,Thanks for your response. I must admit that I didn't read all of your writing on free will. I still believe people have free will. I am using my free will to type this response to you. That's my choice and I don't have to do it based on any past experience, conditioning, etc. Think of the Bible like a library. The most important part are the Gospels because they show the life of Jesus. Regarding Jesus and the Gospels, the vast majority of scholars agree that Jesus existed. The Gospels were written 30-80 years after Jesus died, which was not a long time if you consider ancient historical writing. The Gospel of Mark was written based on the personal testimony of Saint Peter, who was the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. For your information about Christian sects, I am Roman Catholic. The first biography of Alexander the Great was written 400 years after his death. Yet, most people don't claim that Alexander the Great didn't exist. Oral tradition is how we know about ancient history. Jesus's miracles are so well recorded by history that it would be odd if they never happened; specifically his healings and exorcisms. This is how Jesus got such a strong following; moral teaching only went so far at the time. Most of his disciples were brutally murdered because they believed in his resurrection. What did they have to gain by believing in Jesus? Nothing. It's not like other religions. For example, Mohammad was a warlord and had many wives. Joseph Smith was rich and had a ton of wives. Jesus's disciples had none of that. All they had to do was renounce Jesus's resurrection and they would have lived. Instead, they chose death. Of course, one must take a leap of faith in whether to believe in Jesus and his divinity or not. What does being a gnostic atheist get someone? Nothing, just a dark and bleak view of the world with no chance of a heavenly afterlife. What does believing and following Jesus get a person? First, that person will try to live a morally excellent life and they may have a chance of an afterlife. If they are wrong, it's simply a philosophical error. This seems like a pretty good deal, to me If you have any doubt about the possibility of life after death, you could research medical studies of near death experiences. What can explain the fact that 80% of people born blind can see during a near death experience? So, we all have to make a leap of faith in something. To believe in Jesus is a great choice, in my opinion |
|
23-04-2018 Hi again Brian,Seconds out, round two! quote:
I must admit that I didn't read all of your writing on free will. - Ha ha! I don't blame you. I wouldn't want to read my endless spiels either. I write far more than I should. However, if you had read it then you'd have (hopefully) seen that free will is an impossibility and therefore every other aspect of this line of argumentation fails from the get go. quote:
I am using my free will to type this response to you. That's my choice and I don't have to do it based on any past experience, conditioning, etc. - No, you're not, even although you believe that you are. In much the same way that we can watch a stage magician saw a woman in half and not see how the trick is performed, it is still nevertheless a trick. The woman is not actually in two halves. Consciousness operates along similar lines and while it 'feels' like there is a 'you' constantly present in your head, as I showed in my last post (the one you didn't read ), there actually isn't. There is no 'you' who is choosing anything. You may think that you are a free agent, deciding on a particular course of action, but this isn't actually what is going on. Your 'Jesus conditioning' is making 'you' respond from all you've taken in to do with Christianity over the years, just as someone born and raised in Pakistan would be arguing with me now based on their Islamic conditioning. You ARE these thoughts. The consciousness manifest in the brain with the label 'Brian W' identifies as Christian, so the responses you are throwing at me are naturally based on this prior indoctrination. There is nothing free about it. quote:
Think of the Bible like a library. The most important part are the Gospels because they show the life of Jesus. - Which is your personal interpretation. Mr X may interpret it differently and Mrs Y interprets it a third way. Dr Q says you're all wrong and should be reading the Koran instead and thus we have the world in which we live. Everyone arguing over correct interpretations of translatations of translations of books which necessitate being interpreted in the first place, as literal readings of them clearly don't work. quote:
Regarding Jesus and the Gospels, the vast majority of scholars agree that Jesus existed. The Gospels were written 30-80 years after Jesus died, which was not a long time if you consider ancient historical writing. The Gospel of Mark was written based on the personal testimony of Saint Peter, who was the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. For your information about Christian sects, I am Roman Catholic. - As I stated in my last post, my contention isn't that there wasn't a man called Jesus who actually lived, just that it's not air tight. I actually agree that there probably was an intinerant preacher by the name of Yeshua. Whether or not he did exist though is still an irrelevance and I showed that clearly with the rest of my reply. quote:
Jesus's miracles are so well recorded by history that it would be odd if they never happened; specifically his healings and exorcisms. This is how Jesus got such a strong following; moral teaching only went so far at the time. - You mean just like Apollonius of Tyana, who purportedly did the same kind of things as Jesus and lived at almost the same time Jesus supposedly did? Or we could forget about all these ancient guys and fast forward to modern times, to Sathya Sai Baba's 'miracles'. He only died a few years ago and there are thousands of people who proclaim the same kind of parlour tricks in relation to him as well. What does it prove? A big fat nothing is the answer. It certainly doesn't detract from the irrefutable fact that IF Jesus existed and IF he was one and the same as the alleged god who made all life then it is still HIS fault that any and all suffering exists in the first place. If I kill your entire family and chop off your legs one day and then go out and administer a couple of band aids and aspirin to others the next, then I am still an evil son of a bitch. If Goddy McJesus exists then HE is ultimately responsible for all misery and all agony. You simply cannot get away from this fact without ignoring basic logic. So don't give me any, "he cured a blind man", nonsense. How about curing everyone of all ills instantaneously throughout the world? Or better still, how about making a world where suffering was an impossibility before you even began? Do THAT and I'll be impressed. I'm not going to go, "ooh!", and kiss you're ass for any other reason. Only a ghastly, arrogant egomaniac would expect to be worshipped when they could do something of TRUE VALUE to the world, but 'chooses' not to. See? That free will business isn't what it's cracked up to be. Even Jesus isn't using it properly. He should have known that of course... if he was all knowing. We can further drum home the incontestability of god's ultimate responsibility by sidestepping the free will vs determinism (non) debate altogether. Human beings aren't the only conscious, sentient creatures in existence. All day, every day, animals big and small are sinking tooth and claw into others for mere survival. Incomprehensible terror and agony is going on this very second - and every second that follows - as one life form brutally ends the vital spark of another... for the sole purpose of being able to do the same thing again tomorrow. In your worst nightmare can you think of a more hideous and vile 'plan'? So even if we repeatedly ran head first into walls to sufficiently swallow the Adam & Eve 'forbidden fruit/ descent of man' twaddle, there is no way any sane, thinking person could possibly justify the fate of the animal kingdom as being the work of 'loving' creator. No way, Jose. If god wants to go toe to toe with me on Judgment Day for my preferring porn to the Pentateuch then fine, bring him on and I'll have him crying like a baby. But leave the animals out of it. Their pain and suffering is beyond redemption and if hell actually existed and I had the ability to send folk there, god would be first on that list. ... With no chance of parole. quote:
Most of his disciples were brutally murdered because they believed in his resurrection. What did they have to gain by believing in Jesus? Nothing. - Again, this is going on the presupposition that these people existed and all the stories associated with Jesus are in fact true. We have yet to establish this as concrete fact. Never lose sight of that. BUT, as I am always game for a laugh, even if I go with the standard narrative, then you're asking me what they had to gain? Clearly the answer is: the everlasting kingdom of heaven. So IF this were true, then clearly their motivations were selfish, as anyone with a grain of sense would give up a few crappy decades of life for everlasting bliss. It proves nothing though and you need to understand this. Jihadi suicide bombers blow themselves up because they believe they're gonna get an eternity of humping as a reward. And? So what? Remember Thich Quang Duc? No, no, not Thick Quack Duck, that was someone else. He was the Buddhist monk who self immolated in protest of the South Vietnamese's persecution of his fellow Buddhists. Does his suicide and that of the horny Muslims = Buddhism and Islam are correct? The answer is a resounding no. Hell, there have been loads of members of cults who have killed themselves en masse in the last century because of all sorts of crazy reasons. Aliens are going to resurrect me and fly me to planet Durp Durp Ding Ding? Let me sign the form and pass me the Pentobarbital. None of this has any bearing on whether a proposition is true or not. In the words of Oscar Wilde: "A thing isn't necessarily true because a man dies for it." And as I've repeatedly shown, you cannot have an all powerful, all loving god at the same time as the world in which we live. They are fundamentally opposed to one another. If there exists an ABSOLUTE being/energy/intelligence/whatever, that is purported to be omnibenevolent and omnipowerful then this world would not exist in its present form. Go look at the flowchart, as I've told you to many times now. It is beautifully simple. quote:
Of course, one must take a leap of faith in whether to believe in Jesus and his divinity or not. What does being a gnostic atheist get someone? Nothing, just a dark and bleak view of the world with no chance of a heavenly afterlife. - Quite apart from the prospect of living forever being the very definition of hell as far as I'm concerned, please Google 'Pascal's Wager' and why it fails as an argument. quote:
What does believing and following Jesus get a person? First, that person will try to live a morally excellent life - From the couple of back and forth interactions you and I have had here then at least superficially I will grant that you are a nicer person than I am. This doesn't apply across the board though and history shows that 'believers in Christ' have perpetuated the most horrendous crimes throughout the centuries. All of them justifying their actions by quoting from scripture. Of course I am sure you will retort that they weren't really believers after all. But this response falls under the banner of the no true Scotsman fallacy. quote:
If you have any doubt about the possibility of life after death, you could research medical studies of near death experiences. - Emphasis on 'near death'. Nearly being able to fly by flapping your arms is not the same as actually flying, is it? Jump off the Empire State Building roof and you'll find that flapping your arms is the equivalent to 'near death', whereas contact with the pavement at terminal velocity will give you a literal 'crash course' in actual death. Silliness aside, the brain is still active during NDEs and there are certainly other states of consciousness available than the ordinary ego-driven one that we are all experiencing at the moment. I would not deny that. DMT (Dimethyltryptamine) is released during NDEs and can also be brought about through smoking it, injection or, in the case of ayahuasca, ingested. Without wanting to write another book length post on the subject, it is one I am very interested in and I think that there exists a strong possibility that states of consciousness akin to those expressed by NDE-ers are likely the same (or similar) to those expressed by the so called mystics (including Jesus) throughout the millennia. Of course this is only a pet hypothesis of mine and has no bearing on my main contentions against theistic religion, some of which I've expressed in my comments to you thus far. Rick Strassman's 'DMT: The Spirit Molecule' is quite an interesting read on the topic, although he comes at it through his Buddhist conditioning in much the same way you are through your Christianity. Here's a link to the PDF version if anyone's interested: http://www.organiclab.narod.ru/books/DMT-The-spirit-molecule.pdf So while I do know where you are going with this line of argument it still doesn't prove anything related to your belief system. You'll find that most of the pyschological symbols and religious archetypes of the particular NDE correlate to that individual's prior bias during life, i.e. Hindus see visions of their multi-armed deities and Jews see dancing foreskins, etc. Lol. Ok, maybe that's not quite accurate, but accurate enough for you to get the point! All of these phenomena can still be lumped together under the banner of 'mental stuff' and require working brains. Brains require life for 'mental stuff' to occur, even if there is very little of that life left. They require hearts and veins and nervous systems for blood to circulate in order for these sensations to be sensed. Pain and pleasure are physical and require living bodies to be experienced. So at the end of the day an NDE is just that, a NEAR death experience and is not to be mixed up or conflated with death itself. Death is when you are not. Oh, and one last comment about the NDE issue. Please do realise that it is not a universally experienced phenomenon. Here's an oldie but a goodie which gives you a hearty antidote to thinking 'you' (which as I've repeatedly explained is an illusion of consciousness even now while you're still breathing) will still be present after your cold body is being interfered with and Instagrammed in humorous poses by drunken mortuary assistants: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18165363-as-in-adam-all-die This guy 'died' and saw nothing, experienced nothing and knew nothing.... until (drumroll please) he was brought back to life by doctors minutes later. Anyway, I know none of this will probably hit home. But as I neither of us have free will, you cannot help blocking out rationality that contradicts your comforting, arbitrary worldview, while I have no choice but to be an annoying pain in the ass who has wasted the greater part of my morning polluting a hot Ukranian person's website with a bunch of words very few people will ever see. Isn't life utterly retarded? You wait till I see Jesus, he'll be running away screaming to his daddy, I'll tell ya. |
|
26-04-2018 Thanks for your response! I'm taking vacation in Spain so I won't be able to respond to everything but I will say that many non-christians see Jesus in near-death experiences.ReadR the book "Imagine Heaven" by John Burke. Cheers. |
|
26-04-2018 Thanks for your response! I'm taking vacation in Spain so I won't be able to respond to everything but I will say that many non-christians see Jesus in near-death experiences.ReadR the book "Imagine Heaven" by John Burke. Cheers. |
Comments to Parents create targets for harm