Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Mentally retarded

    I am struck by the ease with which some posters classify the mentally "retarded" as less worthy of recognition as people. Their existence would appear to depend on the patronage/goodwill of the able-bodied and not on the inalienable right to existence that the able-bodied take as read. Does that mean that a person who has less than normal cognition is less than human? Less worthwhile? I'd be interested to learn why in recent threads the mentally reatrded come in for greater judgment about their worth as human beings than those who have normal mental faculties.
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mentally retarded

    If you are refering to my thread regarding science and morals, there is a good justification for what I did.

    A severely mentally retarded person, from a genetic/evolutionary standpoint is unfit for survival. They are unable to contribute positively to the species and in fact drain it in the sense that they must be cared for and take resources that could perhaps be better used elsewhere.

    From a purely scientific standpoint, especially an evolutionary or genetic standpoint there is no reason why it should be wrong to kill them. Naturally, it quite common for animals to kill members of their own species, its all part of survival of the fittest and one of the driving forces of evolution. Those that are unfit cannot compete with the fitter members of the species.

    I do not dismiss them with ease, but in the context of the debate I created, they presented one of the best scenarios for getting my point across.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mentally retarded

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737
    If you are refering to my thread regarding science and morals, there is a good justification for what I did.

    A severely mentally retarded person, from a genetic/evolutionary standpoint is unfit for survival. They are unable to contribute positively to the species and in fact drain it in the sense that they must be cared for and take resources that could perhaps be better used elsewhere.

    From a purely scientific standpoint, especially an evolutionary or genetic standpoint there is no reason why it should be wrong to kill them. Naturally, it quite common for animals to kill members of their own species, its all part of survival of the fittest and one of the driving forces of evolution. Those that are unfit cannot compete with the fitter members of the species.

    I do not dismiss them with ease, but in the context of the debate I created, they presented one of the best scenarios for getting my point across.
    Totally agree - we're on the same side.
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas.
    Posts
    3,681
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mentally retarded

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737
    If you are refering to my thread regarding science and morals, there is a good justification for what I did.

    A severely mentally retarded person, from a genetic/evolutionary standpoint is unfit for survival. They are unable to contribute positively to the species and in fact drain it in the sense that they must be cared for and take resources that could perhaps be better used elsewhere.

    From a purely scientific standpoint, especially an evolutionary or genetic standpoint there is no reason why it should be wrong to kill them. Naturally, it quite common for animals to kill members of their own species, its all part of survival of the fittest and one of the driving forces of evolution. Those that are unfit cannot compete with the fitter members of the species.

    I do not dismiss them with ease, but in the context of the debate I created, they presented one of the best scenarios for getting my point across.
    I reject your reality and insert my own. Hustle on over to that thread and check out my refutation.

    The below text has been automerged with this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested
    I am struck by the ease with which some posters classify the mentally "retarded" as less worthy of recognition as people. Their existence would appear to depend on the patronage/goodwill of the able-bodied and not on the inalienable right to existence that the able-bodied take as read. Does that mean that a person who has less than normal cognition is less than human? Less worthwhile? I'd be interested to learn why in recent threads the mentally reatrded come in for greater judgment about their worth as human beings than those who have normal mental faculties.
    I think it most interesting that you put the term "retarded" in quotes...

    Freud would have had a field day with that one. However, I am not him, so I'll just ask, why did you do that?

    Secondly, I work in the human services field. I have for 16 yrs. My degree is in psychology.

    So I have a question to ask you.

    If you think that people who have mental retardation should be accorded the same rights and priveledges as others, do you support the death penalty for them? If not, why not?
    Last edited by Slipnish; May 18th, 2006 at 08:39 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    But if you do not find an intelligent companion, a wise and well-behaved person going the same way as yourself, then go on your way alone, like a king abandoning a conquered kingdom, or like a great elephant in the deep forest. - Buddha

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mentally retarded

    Quote Originally Posted by Slipnish
    If you think that people who have mental retardation should be accorded the same rights and priveledges as others, do you support the death penalty for them? If not, why not?
    I had to think about that for a while. There are too many questions left unanswered to answer that:

    Did the mentally retarded person commit a crime?

    Was the mentally retarded person under supervision?

    You get the drift - we can't make a blanket without enough yarn.

    If the day ever comes where we kill people who aren't "perfect", we become imperfect ourselves.
    While laughing at others stupidity, you may want to contemplate your own comedic talents. (link)
    Disclaimer: This information is being provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas.
    Posts
    3,681
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mentally retarded

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoop
    I had to think about that for a while. There are too many questions left unanswered to answer that:

    Did the mentally retarded person commit a crime?

    Was the mentally retarded person under supervision?

    You get the drift - we can't make a blanket without enough yarn.

    If the day ever comes where we kill people who aren't "perfect", we become imperfect ourselves.
    In Texas, we have the Death Penalty. If you are insane, they can give you medication and if they find that you are capable of understanding what you did was wrong, they can then execute you...

    Strange, but true...

    So...

    Assuming that you have someone with a diagnosis of Mental Retardation, and they commit a crime for which the Death Penalty is possible, according to state law, they can NOT be executed...

    So...for the sake of argument let's say 3 people commit murder.

    1. Schizophrenic. Hears voices telling him to hurt or kill people, and finally attacked someone to make the voices stop.

    2. Mentally Retarded. Got mad because he couldn't turn up his TV as loud as he wanted to listen to a rock video, and so stabbed his roomie in the neck with a pair of scissors so he could "rock out".

    3. "Normal". Caught his wife in bed with another man and shot them both, but one ended up dying.

    Who gets the Death Penalty and why? As for supervision, that really doesn't matter to the state. It may matter in a civil case...
    But if you do not find an intelligent companion, a wise and well-behaved person going the same way as yourself, then go on your way alone, like a king abandoning a conquered kingdom, or like a great elephant in the deep forest. - Buddha

  7. #7
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mentally retarded

    Quote Originally Posted by Slipnish


    I think it most interesting that you put the term "retarded" in quotes...

    Freud would have had a field day with that one. However, I am not him, so I'll just ask, why did you do that?
    Because "mental retardation" is a generalisation and thus can be used inaccurately to describe many different types of brain condition.

    Secondly, I work in the human services field. I have for 16 yrs. My degree is in psychology.

    So I have a question to ask you.

    If you think that people who have mental retardation should be accorded the same rights and priveledges as others, do you support the death penalty for them? If not, why not?
    We have not had the death penalty in the UK for many years. However, I would probably support its re-introduction in some cases of murder. As I understand it, a plea of temporary insanity by a person with otherwise normal brain function, if proven, disallows the death penalty. In other words, allowances are made for "normal" people as far as the death penalty is concerned, so making allowances for mental conditions is established in principle with reference to everyone, and not just the mentally retarded. In terms of permanent low IQ/mental retardation, I would suggest it would be for the courts to prove that any particular individual has the mental capacity to be fully responsible for their actions.
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mentally retarded

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested
    Totally agree - we're on the same side.
    I think you will find that my stance on that thread went along much the same lines as well.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  9. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mentally retarded

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut
    I think you will find that my stance on that thread went along much the same lines as well.
    Yes, indeed. Both you and Chad were using the mentally retarded to make a point, and I have no quibble with that.

    What I find difficult to understand is any argument that gives a lesser right to life to the mentally impaired (or physically impaired, for that matter) than to the ostensibly unimpaired. I say "ostensibly" because we are probably all walking around with undiagnosed genetic predispositions to one disease or another, making everyone impaired to a greater or lesser degree. It's as though the impaired's right to exist is dependent on the good-will of the able-bodied and is not inalienable in the same way as is the right to life of the normal person. Such differentiation begins with the legal right to abort a child with disabilities beyond the 24 weeks that is the cut-off for legal abortion of the able-bodied unborn. What I want to know is why some people consider the disabled to have a lesser right to life than the able-bodied? Are we not all human beings? Is our worth to be measured solely on an ability to contribute to the GDP? Is this not just an example of the God v Mammon dichotomy being resolved firmly in the camp of Mammon?
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  10. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    411
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mentally retarded

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737
    From a purely scientific standpoint, especially an evolutionary or genetic standpoint there is no reason why it should be wrong to kill them. Naturally, it quite common for animals to kill members of their own species, its all part of survival of the fittest and one of the driving forces of evolution. Those that are unfit cannot compete with the fitter members of the species.
    You are not looking at this from a so-called "purely scientific" point of view. You're only looking at this from an evolutionary point of view. Science isn't just physical anthropology. It would be "wrong" to kill the mentaly retarded from a cognitive science, neurobiological, or a psychology point of view. From a statistical genetics point of view it might be unfavorable (and thus wrong) to wipe the mentally retarded from our genome - we need genetic variation, not genetic purity. Their extra 21 chromosome might have some benefit or evolutionary function we haven't understood yet. You've presented only one scientifically relevant scenario where killing a mentally retarded person is "acceptable." In order to have a complete argument, and thus an accurate one, you need to include all other scenarios.

    To view the mentally retarded as the "weakest link" in humanity and thus their death acceptable is a cannibalistic view. There will always be a weakest link. Once all the mentally retarded are out of our genome, whose next? Those with autism?

    It should also be clarified that there is a difference in the terminology of "insane" between psychologically "insane" and "legally insane". A mentally retarded person might be classified as legally insane, but psychologically speaking they aren't. Legally insane simply means two things: they were out of their "right mind" during the crime and/or they were unaware of the consequence of their actions.

    I'm somewhat relavtistic - I try not to value one person's life or opinions inherently over another's nor do I value a person's life inherently over that of some other organism. Since there does seem to be a lot of anthropocentrism still around (or maybe I'm just noticing more of it lately), I would argue that's one of the reasons people value the mentally retarded less than (or greater than) that of a cognitifively sufficient person's life. When people are thought to be sacred, those who support that sacredness become even more sacred. A retarded person, as disinterested put it doesn't contribute to the GDP, and therefore doesn't support that sacredness and thus... becomes a less sacred human.
    I rebel - therefore we exist.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    449
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mentally retarded

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested
    What I want to know is why some people consider the disabled to have a lesser right to life than the able-bodied?
    Would you suggest that there is no difference between a "mentally retarded" person and a supposedly "able bodied" person?

    There's obviously a vast range of differences between everyone. Maybe when you look at two people on a single scale, you're be able to place them somewhere in relation to each other, but there are innumerable such scales.
    As such, it's a fool's errand to try and say Mr. X is "better" or more "deserving" than Mr. Y.
    The only situation in which you can do that is when you're actually considering people for a specific task. Then you can judge them on the scale of "being able to do task X". Of course, it's still a vague and difficult comparison to make, but you can't really expect people to be treated perfectly equally in every situation. It'd make decisions easy if they were, but people simply aren't all the same.

  12. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mentally retarded

    disinterested - I suppose that if someone is 'freed up' from any sense of 'spiritual morality and values' then they can pretty much decide for themselves what is and isn't appropriate behaviour. 'Justification' becomes a much easier option to exercise.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    449
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mentally retarded

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut
    disinterested - I suppose that if someone is 'freed up' from any sense of 'spiritual morality and values' then they can pretty much decide for themselves what is and isn't appropriate behaviour. 'Justification' becomes a much easier option to exercise.
    Yeah, it's hard. I've been trying to cut down, but I still kill a couple people most weeks. But only when I'm stressed!
    I've managed to stay away from molesting children though, I chew Molesta-Gum instead.

    *ahem*

    Seriously though, your post suggests that "spiritual morality and values" are somehow better than non-spiritual morality and values.
    But "spiritual" morals and values are just as socially derived and "decided for ourselves" as any secular system. They've just been associated with some kind of supernatural explanation.
    The only way one could suggest that so called "spiritual" morals are more fundamental or even better is if one holds that the supernatural explanation behind them is true.
    But then you can only really claim that about one moral system, you couldn't believe that every spiritual system ever was true.

    So, maybe you could say that "I think people who don't subscribe to X System of Morality are missing an important grounding which means their morals are less stable or even dangerous."
    But you can't really say that anyone who is missing a "spiritual" moral system is going to be worse off by default.

  14. #14
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mentally retarded

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucidium
    Would you suggest that there is no difference between a "mentally retarded" person and a supposedly "able bodied" person?
    Exactly so. In terms of personhood, there is no difference. In terms of physical or mental abilities there IS a difference. But so is there a difference betweeen the person with an IQ of 85 and one with an IQ of 160. And there are physical differences between the athlete who can run a mile in under four minutes and the unexercised slob like myself who can barely walk a mile, never mind run it. So it's all a matter of degree. At what point of physical or mental incapacity or inability does a person become less of a person?

    There's obviously a vast range of differences between everyone. Maybe when you look at two people on a single scale, you're be able to place them somewhere in relation to each other, but there are innumerable such scales.
    As such, it's a fool's errand to try and say Mr. X is "better" or more "deserving" than Mr. Y.
    The only situation in which you can do that is when you're actually considering people for a specific task. Then you can judge them on the scale of "being able to do task X". Of course, it's still a vague and difficult comparison to make, but you can't really expect people to be treated perfectly equally in every situation. It'd make decisions easy if they were, but people simply aren't all the same.
    I don't expect equal treatment - that would be to ignore a person's individual potential. One doesn't treat the mathematical 7 yr old genius the same way as his classmates - not if you want to nurture his ability and not bore the pants off him. Equal treatment does not equate to equality of outcome. I do believe that we should strive for equality of outcome though, and that necessitates very unequal/different treatment, according to individual needs.
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  15. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mentally retarded

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested
    I am struck by the ease with which some posters classify the mentally "retarded" as less worthy of recognition as people. Their existence would appear to depend on the patronage/goodwill of the able-bodied and not on the inalienable right to existence that the able-bodied take as read. Does that mean that a person who has less than normal cognition is less than human? Less worthwhile? I'd be interested to learn why in recent threads the mentally reatrded come in for greater judgment about their worth as human beings than those who have normal mental faculties.
    Rampant political correctness, thine name is Disinterested.

  16. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas.
    Posts
    3,681
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mentally retarded

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested
    Because "mental retardation" is a generalisation and thus can be used inaccurately to describe many different types of brain condition.
    Well maybe in common usage. For me it equates to anyone who has been diagnosed to have an IQ of 70 or below, prior to the age of 18. (That's the standard for Texas in order to meet eligibility for treatment.)

    We have not had the death penalty in the UK for many years. However, I would probably support its re-introduction in some cases of murder. As I understand it, a plea of temporary insanity by a person with otherwise normal brain function, if proven, disallows the death penalty. In other words, allowances are made for "normal" people as far as the death penalty is concerned, so making allowances for mental conditions is established in principle with reference to everyone, and not just the mentally retarded. In terms of permanent low IQ/mental retardation, I would suggest it would be for the courts to prove that any particular individual has the mental capacity to be fully responsible for their actions.
    It's pretty to think so, but in Tx, an MR diagnosis means you can't ride the lightening.
    But if you do not find an intelligent companion, a wise and well-behaved person going the same way as yourself, then go on your way alone, like a king abandoning a conquered kingdom, or like a great elephant in the deep forest. - Buddha

  17. #17
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mentally retarded

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric
    Rampant political correctness, thine name is Disinterested.
    Perhaps you might like to explain why you think it is political correctness to expect that disabled people are accorded the same right to life, and treated as fully human as the able-bodied? I would have thought it was a matter of justice not PC-ness. Personhood is not dependent on mental or physical faculties, imo, it has to do with such things as consciousness and emotions and, even though you will probably deny the existance of same, spirit.

    The below text has been automerged with this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slipnish
    Well maybe in common usage. For me it equates to anyone who has been diagnosed to have an IQ of 70 or below, prior to the age of 18. (That's the standard for Texas in order to meet eligibility for treatment.)



    It's pretty to think so, but in Tx, an MR diagnosis means you can't ride the lightening.
    Maybe so, but as I pointed out, a plea of temporary insanity by an otherwise normal person has the same result - doesn't it? Mind you, I've never been quite sure how temporary insanity can be proved or disproved because if a person was temporarily out of their mind when they committed the murder and afterwards regained their full faculties, how is it possible to prove one way or another their state of mind at the time of the murder? However, my point is that temporary insanity IS a valid plea and DOES get otherwise normal people out of the chair, so to speak. So you cannot say that this is special treatment ONLY for the diagnosed mentally retarded.

    The below text has been automerged with this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucidium
    Would you suggest that there is no difference between a "mentally retarded" person and a supposedly "able bodied" person?

    There's obviously a vast range of differences between everyone. Maybe when you look at two people on a single scale, you're be able to place them somewhere in relation to each other, but there are innumerable such scales.
    As such, it's a fool's errand to try and say Mr. X is "better" or more "deserving" than Mr. Y.
    The only situation in which you can do that is when you're actually considering people for a specific task. Then you can judge them on the scale of "being able to do task X". Of course, it's still a vague and difficult comparison to make, but you can't really expect people to be treated perfectly equally in every situation. It'd make decisions easy if they were, but people simply aren't all the same.
    Of course there are differences! But as you observe, there are differences between, say, the athlete and the nerd; between the professor and the boxer.

    It is not equal treatment that I seek - equal treatment without regard for differences ends up in very unequal outcomes and is positively unfair and harmful whether it be equal treatment of men and women or equal treatment of normal and mentally retarded. We don't treat men and women equally, for instance, in athletics - it would be very unfair to women if we were to. No, it is equal recognition of personhood - the worth of an individual not because of what they can or cannot do but just because they are a human being. That is what I am looking for.
    Last edited by disinterested; May 21st, 2006 at 05:56 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  18. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mentally retarded

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested
    Perhaps you might like to explain why you think it is political correctness to expect that disabled people are accorded the same right to life, and treated as fully human as the able-bodied? I would have thought it was a matter of justice not PC-ness. Personhood is not dependent on mental or physical faculties, imo, it has to do with such things as consciousness and emotions and, even though you will probably deny the existance of same, spirit.
    Swing and a miss.

    I'm right there with you. What I'm more referring to is why you're getting bent out of shape when peoplre refer to one another as "retards" in a derogatory manner.

  19. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mentally retarded

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric
    Swing and a miss.

    I'm right there with you. What I'm more referring to is why you're getting bent out of shape when peoplre refer to one another as "retards" in a derogatory manner.
    That was never my complaint - that's a matter of bad manners or in the worst case, bullying, more than anything else. I am very un-PC and, for instance, couldn't understand the furore that was unleashed when Tiger Woods said his performance was "spaz" i.e. spastic. There was one hell of a hullabaloo here in the UK about whether he should or should not have dared to use the term. Personally, I don't take affront - spasticity DOES cause jerky movements and it is not a metaphor too far, imo, to describe a bad golf swing as "spaz". However, I do object when the term is used as a playground taunt against a truly spastic person (one with cerebral palsy) as an insult, but I would also object to racist playground taunts. One cannot help the colour of one's skin, or that one has a brain impairment, or that one is shorter or taller than average, therefore any taunts based solely on such conditions are a form of bullying - and I detest all forms of bullying.
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  20. #20
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Banville
    Posts
    4,160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mentally retarded

    I would agree with chad to an extent, we are a species of animals. As such the mentally defficient (unable to care properly for themselves) would (if allowed) die off.
    This is the way of life, the fittest will survive.

    However on the flip side, autism for instance is a rare but very interesting form of disease. Those with it are usually a savante in some form of field. It takes someone that is able to work with and is trusted by the autistic person to bring this out.

    Schizophrenia is another interesting disease, some very famous scientists, philosophers, and even politicians had it or symptoms of it.

    So is everyone that has a mental defficiancy destined for the death camps? Or do we continue doing what science is already doing and has been doing, research it catalogue it and figure out how to
    1. use it properly
    2. cure and or treat it properly.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Science the source of morals?
    By chadn737 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: May 19th, 2006, 10:59 AM
  2. There is no god
    By Blood Lull in forum Religion
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: May 12th, 2006, 08:02 AM
  3. And the March 2005 Debater of the Month is...
    By Meng Bomin in forum Announcements
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: April 16th, 2005, 12:06 PM
  4. Gay marriages, right or wrong
    By firesdeath in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 229
    Last Post: June 24th, 2004, 11:40 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •