Olvlzl joins many pundits in falling flat on his face when trying to attack Dawkins’ book. He invokes the usual equivocation of scientific knowledge with theology, failing to note that the two are entirely inequivalent. He also proves my point about religion in the media, which his post partly inspired, in factlessly suggesting memetics could lead to restrictions on free speech.
Not making any apologies here: non-scientific knowledge doesn’t have and shouldn’t have the same respectability as scientific knowledge. Why should it? The most advanced social sciences, psychology and economics, are at about the same point physics was in 1650. Less advanced ones have barely, or not even, gotten to the acceptance of Copernican astronomy. Theology and critical theory aren’t even up to Roger Bacon’s standards, and probably never will be.
In 2007, I say that the rational layperson must accept scientific authority on issues such as physics, climatology, evolutionary biology, medicine, and chemistry. In 1707 or even 1807, I wouldn’t; I’d instead say that a rational person must educate himself in natural philosophy and form his own opinions.
Likewise, disciplines that are as intricate as the natural sciences were in the 18th century aren’t subject to the same tyranny of peer review. There’s a wide body of knowledge about economics today, just as there was a wide body of knowledge about biology in 1820. Many people recognized the fact of evolution, though they couldn’t adequately explain it. Linnean taxonomy had been standard for decades. Malthus had already published his essays on population, although they still hadn’t gained wide acceptance.
Paul Krugman wrote, “Economics is harder than physics; luckily it is not quite as hard as sociology.” I’d put biology somewhere between physics and economics, since its first serious overarching theory was developed in the 1830s (economics has never had anything so rigorous as Darwinism; at best, it’s where biology was just before Darwin).
Not coincidentally, a reasonably educated layperson can be completely up to date about the main ideas of economics and the evidence for and against them. It wouldn’t be enough knowledge for setting interest rates, but it would be enough for evaluating major proposals in fiscal policy or development economics.
And that’s one of the two most advanced social sciences. Economists and psychologists keep looking up to physicists, but they already sit fairly close to the academic tower’s top. In contrast, theologians, who have yet to produce even one non-trivial truth, sit in its basement.
What the people who attack Dawkins for not knowing about theology miss is that theology isn’t even non-science; it’s non-knowledge. It’s so detached from reality and so useless that it’s as relevant even to a debate about religion as is Pokémon mythology. Dismissing it out of hand is one of the few things Dawkins gets right.
Ironically, the best criticism of the book is the one that goes the other way: why does Dawkins spend so much time attacking intellectual gnats, instead of writing something intelligent about the politics of religion? The most annoying thing about people like Dawkins and Harris is their inability to get beyond totalizing religion. Dismissing theology is good, but the entire point of such a dismissal is to avoid having to spend time on unproductive discussions about religion.
Abstract Nonsense 
While I would agree that endless meandering about religion is non-productive, I find the rationalizations of many atheistic scientists for the validity of religion to be even worse in that area. A problem that we have is that so many people, as Dennett often puts it, “believe in belief”. Religious belief is considered a good thing virtually by default, and scientists, many of whom spend their time attacking nonsense like astrology, homeopathy, ESP, or Austrian economics (which is often correctly labeled “economic theology”), engage in egregiously convoluted rationalizations for religion. In doing so they refuse to acknowledge the role that religion plays in issues surrounding stem cell research, abortion, contraception, etc., and attempt to claim that these things are just bastardizations of something that is in some pure, rarefied form a good thing. That’s another place where I wholeheartedly agree with Dawkins.
Without religion you will have no argument against torture, against the murderous war against civilization itself, for if it is in the interest of the powerful and unbound by any constraint, they will have no reason to stop at anything.
Religion is the study of the mechanics of social consciousness.
“It produces faulty intelligence” is a pretty good argument against torture, I’d say.
Alon, they don’t want good intelligence. Faulty intelligence is what they use to stovepipe the war machine. Faulty intelligence about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Faulty intelligence about yellowcake uranium. Faulty intelligence that they needed people to corroborate, and one way to get a corroborating witness is to torture someone into confessing it.
You are young, you’ve mentioned.
Well, exactly. But “Torture is necessary to produce intelligence we can’t otherwise get” is the primary argument used to justify the practice, so pointing out it has no basis in reality is always useful. Tellingly, the standard anti-torture piece will always start out by pointing out both the moral bankruptcy of torture and the total lack of intelligence value of torture. The argument that whenever the US commits torture it exposes its own troops to torture is sometimes used as a supplement, but the neoconservative right has been very capable of rebutting that argument, at least in the public’s mind.
If history shows us anything it is that religion doesn’t stop the powerful from pursuing their own selfish aims at the expense of others. Historically, you could only conclude the opposite, as there’s no shortage of examples of powerful institutions co-opting ecclesiastical institutions to maintain their hegemony.
Religion has caused more bloodshed throughout history than perhaps anything else.
Tyler, Alon and Bushbaptist make pretty much the same point, that religion is co-opted by the political elites for their own purposes. They are able to do this because the true nature of religion is concealed, and the words alone are revealed. Even those are only such words as did not reveal too much, or they were destroyed unless hidden like the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The way to combat this false religion is not to deny religion altogether, but to understand what it is in order to see how it has been perverted.
If you are going to object to torture purely on pragmatic grounds, or legalistic ones, you aren’t going to end the practice. You must appeal to the people on moral grounds.
On the contrary, Whig, the left has used appeals to morality forever. All it managed to do was make the words “bleeding heart” and “feel good” associated with the left. Then it switched to pragmatic arguments sometime in the 1990s, and suddenly all the educated science types who liked Reagan turned left, especially after but even before Bush caused the trains to not only run late but occasionally not run at all.
Alon, the left refused to invoke religion on behalf of morality.
And yet Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are considered as feel-good as any other leftist.
Whig, to be against torture, you need (moral) philosophy, of which religion is but one example.
Oh, and Bushbaptist: That’s completey untrue. You might argue that ORGANISED religion has caused more bloodshed than anything else in history, but even that would be misleading. Though I don’t blame you for making what is a fairly subtle mistake. After all, when church and state are not well-separated, it’s hard to work out how to apportion blame between church and state. And when church meddles in state, some of the blame for the actions of the state will rub off.
Blaming religion for most of the evils of the world is actually a subtle form of buying into the religious propaganda. Atrocities are being committed today in the name of “freedom” and “security”, but you wouldn’t blame freedom or security for the atrocities, would you?
Pseudonym, your point is well taken. Moral philosophy does not come from any one particular religion but is possible to derive from first principles of meta-rational reasoning. This is well and good but hard to explain in simple language, and easier to give examples which form parables or stories, hence describing a religion which may or may not be equivalent or best mapped by an existing tradition. I choose to use the Christian metaphor because it is the majority context for moral communication in America.
Logicians may prefer another language, which I’m willing to entertain if moral reasoning is to be laid on the table by some formal calculus, but we do need to reach more than the handful of people who can follow such argument if we want to actually put a stop to torture and like things.
Re Levy
Mr. Levy is quite correct that torture is not a good approach to obtaining accurate information. It is, however, effective in obtaining false confessions (e.g. John McCain)
For instance, it is hard to argue that Jesus was not considered an enemy who deserved torture and death, for he was tortured and killed by the Romans of his day. And do Americans want to do that to faithful Muslims?
For instance, it is hard to argue that Jesus was not considered an enemy who deserved torture and death, for he was tortured and killed by the Romans of his day. And do Americans want to do that to faithful Muslims?
What you’re describing is a primal lust for revenge people have toward those who wrong them (“we should be torturing them, they’re terrorists!”), which doesn’t justify anything morally. And I fail to see how any amount of moral suasion, whether religious or secular, has had much effect on it.
Religion tames primal lusts, Tyler. That’s the whole point. But for it to work it has to be chosen, not compelled. For instance, people are married, and then do not pursue sexual relations with every willing partner. You may find other reasons to justify marriage, or other arrangements than marriage may seem more pleasant to you, but it is a religious institution that serves a social purpose.
In 2007, I say that the rational layperson must accept scientific authority on issues such as physics, climatology, evolutionary biology, medicine, and chemistry.
Evolutionary biology??? Oh, hang on, you mean the idea that evolution takes place, right? Not that we necessarily have to believe theories like “men are better at spatial reasoning because back in the day when they were being evolved they probably did all the hunting”.
Religion tames primal lusts, Tyler. That’s the whole point.
I would say that this is at best an unsupported assertion.
Your debating style is interesting, Tyler. It’s like the argument clinic.
Are you saying that marriage has no redeeming social value? I want to know precisely how you would support your own contention if you deny that marriage tames behavior in socially desirable ways. Do you want surveys correlating marital fidelity with successful child raising, because that can be easily demonstrated.
Your debating style is interesting, Tyler. It’s like the argument clinic.
And you’d be John Cleese.
Are you saying that marriage has no redeeming social value?
That’s at best a bait and switch. The comment about “primal lusts” pertained to torture, and perhaps similar atrocities such as war, not sex.
Not that we necessarily have to believe theories like “men are better at spatial reasoning because back in the day when they were being evolved they probably did all the hunting”.
That’s evolutionary psychology, which is controversial. I’m going online in a few hours with an evisceration of Pinker’s The Blank Slate, if you’re interested.
Way to decontextualize a conversation, Alon. I brought up marriage as an instance of religion exerting a beneficial social purpose on primal behavior. Tyler denied, and now you raise the objection that I haven’t ended torture yet.
Well, goodness. Do you expect me to snap my fingers?
If you are going to argue that religion is useless, you cannot then require it first to solve all world problems before you accept that it has uses. Whether those uses outweigh the downsides of people who pervert it is another debate, but you can’t just magically wish away the deceivers, and there are many people who will be deceived until they discover the truth.
The thing is, you have to be willing to open your eyes.
End cannabis prohibition and we will have an end to war and torture.
Whig,
If you were any more full of shit, it’d be coming out of your ears. You made an unsupported assertion about religion inhibiting “primal lusts”, without providing any evidence. You then change the subject to whether marriage has any “redeeming social value” (something that is secular, by the way). Then you make an even more egregious unsupported assertion about how legalizing cannabis will end war and torture.
There is really no point in arguing with someone who’s being deliberately obscure, I have no idea why I continue to do it.
So anything valuable that you take from religion you term secular, and thence prove religion useless. Well done, sir. And now you have nothing but insults to offer. I think you are correct that we are at an end.
So anything valuable that you take from religion you term secular, and thence prove religion useless. Well done, sir.
Bullshit. A “redeeming social value” is something that benefits society, and such a thing doesn’t necessarily have to be religious. And you still backpedal from your previous assertions. I may have done well, but you take the cake here.
And now you have nothing but insults to offer.
Do you have any idea how long I’ve tried to argue with you while inhibiting the above outburst (oh wait, I couldn’t have done that because I’m not religious)? What you’re engaging in here is nothing but obscuritanism, and it frustrates me after a good while.
So anything valuable that you take from religion you term secular, and thence prove religion useless.
Why, does China take marriage from religion?
“That’s evolutionary psychology, which is controversial.”
Um, Alon, it’s really not all that controversial within the field of neurobiology (which is where it really belongs). What are controversial are individual adaptationist arguments, especially ones about differences between the sexes (e.g. women are better at social skills because…), and even then, there’s not a lot of contention among scientists that study them. It’s mostly practitioners of the liberal arts who derive their understanding of human nature from the supremely non-scientific Foucault and Russeau, that object on principle.
Alon, China is no less historically religious than anywhere else.
All I see from you is your head in the sand, Tyler. I’ve already given you a simple, non-obscure way that you can confirm by direct observation the existence of higher perception. That you decline to do so for reasons sufficient to you however bullshit they may be in reality, like claiming that cannabis is neurotoxic when it assuredly is benign, and then proclaim the argument stupid, is something most ostrich-like.
The scientists who study them, or evolutionary biologists in general?
Except for the minor fact that Confucianism is secular, you’re right.
Alon, from what I see on Wikipedia:
But I guess you should fix that entry and make sure that they know that Confucianism is secular.
Note the scare quotes around “state religion.” Confucianism was the state religion of Imperial China in the same manner communism was the state religion of the USSR.
Read the whole article, Alon. Confucianism has religious elements, whether you like it or not. Why do you ignore facts when they aren’t in your favor?
It has religious elements in the same manner communism has religious elements.
Denialist. I’m done.
Re Levy
“Note the scare quotes around “state religion.” Confucianism was the state religion of Imperial China in the same manner communism was the state religion of the USSR.”
Except that Communism, as described by Karl Marx was never practiced in the former Soviet Union. The economic system there was state capitalism, not communism. The ESOP enterprises in the US and the Kibbutzim in Israel are closer to communism then anything practiced in the former Soviet Union.
Well, in a way Confucianism as described by Confucius was never practiced in China. I don’t think any Chinese Emperor ever worried too much about being overthrown for losing the mandate of heaven.
All I see from you is your head in the sand, Tyler. I’ve already given you a simple, non-obscure way that you can confirm by direct observation the existence of higher perception. That you decline to do so for reasons sufficient to you however bullshit they may be in reality, like claiming that cannabis is neurotoxic when it assuredly is benign, and then proclaim the argument stupid, is something most ostrich-like.
You mean like your utterly unsubstantiated and frankly silly claim that marijuana somehow opens up a “higher perception”? And about the “neurotoxic” flapdoodle: take your pedantic drivel up with a chemist. Every piece of evidence I presented that cannabis can indeed have negative neurophysiological effects, particularly on those with primary psychotic disorders, was hand waved away by you with blanket dismissals. You haven’t substantiated a single claim you’ve made in this thread, and have similarly handwaved away every counterargument. In other words, you’re trolling.
If that’s what helps you sleep at night, Tyler, go on believing that.
If that’s what helps you sleep at night, Tyler, go on believing that.
In which Whig demonstrates to everyone who wasn’t already convinced that he is a presumptuous cock.
https://abstractnonsense.wordpress.com/files/2007/01/flamethrower-754684.JPG
My version.
Kenshiro will be out-badass-anime-heroed before someone outflames me.
I know less about anime than I do about the grammar of !Xu.
A visual primer for Alon on the utter ass-kickery that is Kenshiro
(Kenshiro of course being the guy who looks like a cross between Mad Max and Bruce Lee on steroids.)
The implication of course is that my uber-flaming skills are the equivalent of Hokuto Shin-Ken.
In 2007, I say that the rational layperson must accept scientific authority on issues such as physics, climatology, evolutionary biology, medicine, and chemistry.
You mean that there aren’t any disputes in these fields among scientists themselves? Gee, we used to have some real fun back in the old days, what with Wilson vs Lewontin. Hey, I even remember Dawkins vs. Gould. What? When Gould died there was suddenly AUTHORITY in the form of Richard Dawkins.
I’m very sorry that you are offended that I treated Dawkins with skepticism, sorry that you are offended not sorry that I did it. He produced a dishonest and sloppy book, I don’t think I have to accept the authority of anyone who does that. The contention that anyone does is exactly the reproduction of what you critisize in religion.
Thank you for letting me in on your party, Alon. Sorry to have come so late. For anyone who wants to really find out what I wrote, they can read it at Echidne of the Snakes or the piece I posted on my blog yesterday, it has links.
I find it intriguing that you are making an appeal to the peer-review process in defending Dawkins’ work. This would make perfect sense if The God Delusion was a peer-reviewed paper appearing in an established journal such as Science or Nature, but it is no such thing. His book is just that, a book, and I for one don’t believe for a second that cover blurbs are tantamount to rigorous peer review.
If a layperson has no deep knowledge of, say, molecular biology, it is understandable to suggest that they at least tentatively accept the general consensus about that discipline as it is expressed by the community of researchers presenting peer-reviewed data. But if one of those same researchers writes a book containing a metaphysical interpretation of the meaning of DNA’s double-helix structure, our layperson should not merely accept the book’s premise as true because it comes from somebody with a scientific background. That to me is the issue with Dawkins’ latest tome; he may or may not be a good scientist and that can well be left to the debate between his fans and detractors — what’s important to remember is that his skills as a scientist give him no added ‘authority’ over a debate about God.
It has nothing to do with Gould’s death. It’s not about what a single person thinks; it’s about what the scientific community at large accepts. There are individual scientists who don’t believe that climate change is anthropogenic or that obesity causes diabetes or that second-hand smoking causes lung cancer. But the scientific community at large accepts them, and this is what counts.
It’s not, which is why I’m not defending Dawkins on the grounds that The God Delusion is peer-reviewed. I’m defending him on completely different grounds, namely that since he’s attacking a vehemently non-scientific view, he doesn’t have to have the same level of familiarity with it that critics of science are expected to have with the sciences they criticize.
Before you get the impression I think Dawkins is unassailable, let me just point out most of my tirades about radicals apply to him, too. It’s just that there are good arguments against him and Harris, such as that they totalize religion and ignore politics, and bad arguments, such as that they don’t take theology seriously.
You’re damn right they don’t. But recall that the argument against Dawkins, which Olvlzl largely repeats, is,
1. Dawkins demands that Christians not criticize evolution without knowing about evolutionary biology;
2. Dawkins criticizes religion without knowing much about theology;
3. Therefore, Dawkins is inconsistent.
The distinction isn’t between Dawkins’ writings on religion and religious pronouncements, but between evolutionary biology and religious pronouncements.
But the scientific community at large accepts them, and this is what counts.
So you assert that there is unanimous acceptance of Dawkins work, in toto. I don’t believe this for a second.
You are guilty of distorting what I wrote over a period of several days, of writing about it here without informing me while we were having a dialog about what I wrote and you expect me to think you have any standards, professional or otherwise? I gave you a heads up before mentioning you by name on my blog and this is the best you can do?
Your last section has nothing to do with anything I wrote. Since I told you at lest three times at Echidne’s what my objections to Dawkins are and you still misrepresent it I don’t know why I should trust you again.
There are many, many Christians and other religious believers who believe in evolution, and who have since the 19th century. There are evolutionary biologists who are practicing Christians, for the love of Mike. Your practice here is the same kind of straw man building that your hero engages in, the same practice that I’ve experienced in all but one or two of his supporters. Do you ever ask yourself why you seem to depend on this childish tactic?
I am deeply disappointed in you, Alon. I thought better of you before this.
So you assert that there is unanimous acceptance of Dawkins work, in toto. I don’t believe this for a second.
If he had actually claimed this, this would be a relevant question. But he didn’t, and therefore it is not.
Tyler DiPietro,
I invite you to read what I actually wrote instead of what Alon Levy and many others have said I wrote, then we can talk about what is relevant and what isn’t. In light of his assertion about the necessity of “laymen” needing to accept the authority of scientists, without unanimous acceptance, which authoities are we to accept.
Interesting use of the term “layman”, here, by the way. Gives it a quasi-religious cast, if we are the laymen then I suppose Alon proposes that the scientists are the clergy.
You can read more of what I actually wrote at my blog. Yesterday’s post links to the three pieces I posted at Echidne’s blog this weekend.
I invite you to read what I actually wrote instead of what Alon Levy and many others have said I wrote, then we can talk about what is relevant and what isn’t.
I’m perfectly read in what your wrote. What you are doing is distorting what Alon said in that passage I quoted. Alon never made any claim to Dawkins’ being uncontroversial, thus making your question irrelevant.
In light of his assertion about the necessity of “laymen” needing to accept the authority of scientists, without unanimous acceptance, which authoities are we to accept.
Unanimity is not what we’re talking about. You can find a PhD. in astronomy who still claims the earth revolves around the sun. Consensus is what we are talking about, and in every case Alon mentioned there is a clear scientific consensus.
Interesting use of the term “layman”, here, by the way. Gives it a quasi-religious cast, if we are the laymen then I suppose Alon proposes that the scientists are the clergy.
And it appears here that you’ve glossed over the entire point of the thread, which is that science is not religion and vice versa. Your post is nothing but the typical anti-intellectual psycho-babble about whether we should “trust” scientists and meandering about “personal experience”. The point Alon makes is that you can have any opinion that you want to hold, but it doesn’t carry equal weight to someone who has actually spent the time assimilating the literature and methodology involved in the field. If you don’t know the difference between allopatric and sympatric speciation, you’re opinion on evolution is probably worthless. If you don’t know the difference between KCS and Shannon-Wiener formulations of information, your opinions on MDL theory are in all likelihood useless. The list goes on.
Example of the geocentrist astronomy PhD.
Should be “sun revolves around the earth”. Ah, the joys of going on zero sleep.
Tyler, I see that Alon isn’t the only dishonest one here. You clearly have not read what I wrote, since I make a more detailed argument that clearly demonstrates that not only do I believe that science and religion are separate but that science is much more rigorous than Dawkins and Harris think it is. Like Alon you want to admit that he lied about it, not only at Echidne’s blog, several times after I corrected him, with passages of what I wrote to prove it but here, while we were having that discussion while not informing me of it.
Wonderful way to run an intellect, if you don’t care about honesty. I’m not going to ask you any more questions or make any more suggestions, you clearly don’t mind lying.
If abusiveness were oil, you’d be able to make the US energy independent.
Alon, you are a liar and a back stabber and if you don’t like people pointing that out you should stop doing both.
yo props for all you thinkers, and props to whig cause i like his ideas
but this science vs theology thing makes me laugh because i beleive soon the wolrd will realie science, theology, and philosophy are all different ways of seeking and soon they will find a single answer, they are all really going to the same place. Look at neuroscience cognitive sciences. look at which parts of our brain function when we meditate spiritually. do we really beleive that a higher state of perception isnt possible? i think religion isnt that far from science. scientifically, what made jesus and buddha know so much?
“scientifically, what made jesus and buddha know so much?”
Cannabis helps.
yeah if theres one thing ive learned about weed, its that it makes the words of buddha and jesus (especially the gospel of thomas) make a lot more sense, and to live like them as leaders is the ultimate goal, look within urself
Whoever seeks shall find, and whoever knocks it shall be opened for him.
yeah when i saw ur site that said “seek and u shall find” i was so glad
start a new blog about eveything anyones found be seeking in anyway and see if we start to come up with the same shit… i bet we do
or just really solid truths anyones found while smoking weed, thad be way more interesting and enlightening
Why don’t you comment on my blog and we can chat more there, this isn’t my space to talk on.
[…] supernatural site now check upon this talk https://abstractnonsense.wordpress.com/2007/01/27/science-versus-non-science and give comments […]
Hello All,
I was reading around some of the posts here and I found interesting things that you guys talk about, I just made a blog about quitting smoking resources and ideas that you might want to check out.
If someone is interested in this topic just go to; http://endthehabitnow.blogspot.com and let me know what you think.
Thanks in advance.
The Son Of Heaven…
…a good post over at . . ….
You can definitely see your expertise in the paintings you write. The world hopes for more passionate writers such as you who are not afraid to mention how they believe. All the time follow your heart.
This site is known as a stroll-through for all of the info you wanted about this and didn’t know who to ask. Glimpse here, and also you’ll definitely uncover it.
Hi Mate , some really interesting details you have posted. Authentic tech articles are difficult to find . We wish to use some of the information from your site with a link. Reply me if you don’t issue. Thank you !
week end romantico…
[…]Science Versus Non-Science « Abstract Nonsense[…]…
Seeds of Ajwain are little in size yet its taste is hot, bitter and penchant.
Therefore, it is important to be well informed on what is happening in the research world and the kind of results that
come out. It is an organic antibacterial and antiseptic agent,
helpful in sterilizing burns and cuts.
Hi there, You have done a great job. I will certainly digg it and personally suggest to my friends.
I’m sure they’ll be benefited from this website.
Thanks for every other informative website. The place else could
I am getting that kind of information written in such an ideal
method? I’ve a undertaking that I am just now operating on, and I have been on the look out for such information.
We are a group of volunteers and starting a new scheme in our community.
Your website provided us with valuable information to work
on. You have done an impressive job and our whole community will
be thankful to you.
I feel this is among the so much important information for me.
And i’m glad studying your article. But should remark on some normal issues, The web site taste is great, the articles is truly great : D. Just right activity, cheers
In fact when someone doesn’t know then its up to other users that they will assist, so here it happens.
Widely used on the 1800s for their high-quality saddles plus halters,
Hermes is currently an important known designer family home.
Born in 1949, Miuccia Prada is a fashion designer who inherited Prada from her mother.
En sex partner er det samme som en knullevenn eller en venn med fordeler.
Her kan dere arrangere sextreff og utveksle preferanser før dere møtes, på denne måten
er dere mer eller mindre garantere å ikke bli skuffet over det kåte paret dere
møter. Hvis du ønsker deg et eventyr med en sexpartner, så ta turen til knull kontakt.
My friend,please keep writing more good blog.
Please continue to write more good blog.i will keep reading. Thank you.
Hello, i think that i saw you visited my web
site so i came to “return the favor”.I’m trying to find things to improve my web site!I suppose its ok to use some of your ideas!!
Sei gespannt auf attraktive Jungs und Mädels, die nicht länger allein sein wollen.
Spannender Fessel Sex wird dich um den Verstand bringen und unsere heißen Singles
können dich schon bald als Sexsklave nehmen.
me ganz schnell die Liebe online finden und glücklich werden.
ディファインディファイン言ってる人って業者さんですよね？ 製造業なら普通にカラコン禁止じゃね
清楚系をアピールする時点で清楚系じゃない
全力で行ったるかと思ったが、食いついてるのが探偵ファイルという時点で萎えた
Opus FX
Science Versus Non-Science | Abstract Nonsense
ホーム
Science Versus Non-Science | Abstract Nonsense
the basics of losing weight
Have you ever thought about including a little bit more than just your articles?
I mean, what you say is important and all. But think of if
you added some great graphics or video clips to give your posts more, “pop”!
Your content is excellent but with pics and video clips, this site could undeniably be one
of the best in its field. Great blog!
texting symbols
bed sharing safety