Random! Random! Random! Random! Purple Monkey Dishwasher!
Which makes more sense to you?
some philosophy guy wrote:
1. Introduction and Conditions for Free Will
What does it mean to have free will? To have free will at least two conditions must obtain.
1. We must have two or more possibilities 'genuinely open' to us when we face a choice; and
2. our choice must not be 'forced'.
The concept of free will plays a central role in our thinking about the world, particularly in our apportioning praise and blame, and in our finding persons morally responsible for things they have done.
All sorts of conditions serve to diminish moral responsibility (and blameworthiness). We do not hold persons morally responsible for their actions when they are
* under the influence of a powerful medication having unexpected psychological effects
* very young (since the young are unable to predict [foresee] the consequences of their actions and may themselves not have mature concepts of right and wrong)
* delirious
* coerced, e.g. by someone putting a knife to their throats or a gun to their heads.
(An aside: The French Existentialist philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre [1905-1980], who fought as a Partisan in the Second World War against the Nazis, refused to accept as an excuse for complicity, "But it was my life or theirs [i.e. the innocent victims of the Nazis]". Sartre argued that even under such dire circumstances, one is still morally responsible for one's actions and one is free to choose life or death, and that in some instances choosing life is an immoral choice.)
* physically forced by a person or thing of superior strength
The list of 'excusing conditions' has grown steadily over the years.
* For example, recently in a court case, a man was found not guilty of murder on the grounds that he was sleepwalking during the killing (including driving his car to the victim's house across town).
Many other 'factors' influencing behavior have been proposed:
* one's genetic makeup (over which one has no control)
* one's environment and upbringing (again over which one has little, if any, control)
* one's education which, at least in one's early years, is – again – beyond one's control
But when all these 'influencing' and 'controlling' factors are considered, is there any room left for the exercise of one's own freedom? Can one truly choose? Or is free choice, ultimately, a myth and/or an illusion?
What does it mean to have free will? To have free will at least two conditions must obtain.
1. We must have two or more possibilities 'genuinely open' to us when we face a choice; and
2. our choice must not be 'forced'.
The concept of free will plays a central role in our thinking about the world, particularly in our apportioning praise and blame, and in our finding persons morally responsible for things they have done.
All sorts of conditions serve to diminish moral responsibility (and blameworthiness). We do not hold persons morally responsible for their actions when they are
* under the influence of a powerful medication having unexpected psychological effects
* very young (since the young are unable to predict [foresee] the consequences of their actions and may themselves not have mature concepts of right and wrong)
* delirious
* coerced, e.g. by someone putting a knife to their throats or a gun to their heads.
(An aside: The French Existentialist philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre [1905-1980], who fought as a Partisan in the Second World War against the Nazis, refused to accept as an excuse for complicity, "But it was my life or theirs [i.e. the innocent victims of the Nazis]". Sartre argued that even under such dire circumstances, one is still morally responsible for one's actions and one is free to choose life or death, and that in some instances choosing life is an immoral choice.)
* physically forced by a person or thing of superior strength
The list of 'excusing conditions' has grown steadily over the years.
* For example, recently in a court case, a man was found not guilty of murder on the grounds that he was sleepwalking during the killing (including driving his car to the victim's house across town).
Many other 'factors' influencing behavior have been proposed:
* one's genetic makeup (over which one has no control)
* one's environment and upbringing (again over which one has little, if any, control)
* one's education which, at least in one's early years, is – again – beyond one's control
But when all these 'influencing' and 'controlling' factors are considered, is there any room left for the exercise of one's own freedom? Can one truly choose? Or is free choice, ultimately, a myth and/or an illusion?
that same philosophy guy as a 12-year-old AOLer wrote:
1!!!11 LOL INTRODUCTION AND CONDITIONS FOR FRE WUT DO3S IT M3AN 2 HAEV FRE WIL?! !?!?? WTF 2 HAEV FRE WIL AT LAAST TWO CONDITIONS MUST OBTANE
!111 OMG LOL 1!!!111!1 LOL WE MUST HAEV TWO OR MORE POSIBILITEIS GANUIENLY OPEN 2 US WH3N W3 FAEC A CHOIEC AND
2!!1!! ! OMG WTF OUR CHOIEC MUST NOT B FORCED!!!1! OMG WTF LOL DA CONCAPT OF FRE WIL PLAYS A C3NTRAL ROLE IN OUR THINKNG ABOUT TEH WORLD PARTICULARLY IN OUR APORTIONNG PRASEE AND BLM3 AND IN OUR FINDNG PERSONS MORALY RASPONSIBL3 FOR THNGS THEY HAEV DONA
AL!! !!1!1 OMG WTF SORTS OF CONDITIONS SERVE 2 DIMINISH MORAL RASPONSIBILITY (AND BLM3WORTHIENS)1!!1 LOL WA DO NOT HOLD PARSONS MORALY RASPONSIBLA FOR THERE ACTIONS WH3N TH3Y AER
* UNDER TEH INFLUENC3 OF A POW3RFUL MEDICATION HAVNG UN3XP3CTED PSYCHOLOGICAL EF3CTS
* V3RY U (SINCE DA U R UNABLE 2 PREDICT [FORASE] TEH CONSAQU3NCES OF THERE ACTIONS AND MAY THEMSALVES NOT HAEV MATUR3 CONCEPTS OF RIGHT AND WRONG)
* DELIRIOUS
* CO3RC3D EG1!1!!11 WTF LOL BY SOMAONE PUTNG A KNIEF 2 THEYRE THROATS OR A GUN 2 THEYRE H3ADS
!11! (AN ASIED DA FR3NCH EXIST3NTIALIST PHILOSOPHER JEAN PAUL SARTR3 [1905-1980] WHO FOUGHT AS A PARTISAN IN TEH SECOND WORLD WAR AGANEST DA NAZIS REFUSED 2 ACEPT AS AN 3XCUS3 FOR COMPLICITY BUT IT WAS MAH LIEF OR THERE [IE.1111! OMG WTF LOL DA INOCANT VICTIMS OF TEH NAZIS]1!!!1 WTF LOL SARTRE ARGU3D TAHT EVEN UND3R SUCH DIER CIRCUMSTANCES ON3 IS STIL MORALY RASPONSIBLA FOR ONES ACTIONS AND ONE IS FRE 2 CHOS3 LIEF OR DEATH AND TAHT IN SOME INSTANCES CHOSNG LIEF IS AN IMORAL CHOIEC)
1!!111 OMG * PHYSICALY FORCED BY A PERSON OR THNG OF SUPARIOR STR3NGTH TEH LIST OF EXCUSNG CONDITIONS HAS GROWN STAADILY OVER DA YAARS
!!111! * FOR 3XMPL3 RECENTLY IN A COURT CAES A MAN WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY OF MURDER ON TEH GROUNDS TAHT HE WAS SLEPWOKNG DURNG DA KILNG (INCLUDNG DRIVNG HIS CAR 2 TEH VICTIMS HOUSE ACROS 2WN)! !! ! LOL
MANY OTH3R FAC2RS INFLUENCNG BHAVIOR HAEV B3N PROPOSED
* ON3S GENETIC MAEKUP (OVER WHICH ONA HAS NO CONTROL)
* ONES ENVIRONM3NT AND UPBRNGNG (AGANE OVER WHICH ONA HAS LITL3 IF ANY CONTROL)
* ONES 3DUCATION WHICH AT LEAST IN ON3S EARLY Y3ARS IS – AGANE – BYOND ONES CONTROL
BUT WHEN AL THESE INFLUENCNG AND CONTROLNG FAC2RS R CONSIEDRAD IS THEIR ANY ROM L3FT FOR TEH EX3RCIES OF ON3S OWN FREDOM?!??? OMG CAN ONE TRULY CHOSA?!?! !!??! OMG WTF LOL OR IS FRE CHOIEC ULTIMAETLY A MYTH AND/OR AN ILUSION?!?! !? OMG WTF
[/quote]
!111 OMG LOL 1!!!111!1 LOL WE MUST HAEV TWO OR MORE POSIBILITEIS GANUIENLY OPEN 2 US WH3N W3 FAEC A CHOIEC AND
2!!1!! ! OMG WTF OUR CHOIEC MUST NOT B FORCED!!!1! OMG WTF LOL DA CONCAPT OF FRE WIL PLAYS A C3NTRAL ROLE IN OUR THINKNG ABOUT TEH WORLD PARTICULARLY IN OUR APORTIONNG PRASEE AND BLM3 AND IN OUR FINDNG PERSONS MORALY RASPONSIBL3 FOR THNGS THEY HAEV DONA
AL!! !!1!1 OMG WTF SORTS OF CONDITIONS SERVE 2 DIMINISH MORAL RASPONSIBILITY (AND BLM3WORTHIENS)1!!1 LOL WA DO NOT HOLD PARSONS MORALY RASPONSIBLA FOR THERE ACTIONS WH3N TH3Y AER
* UNDER TEH INFLUENC3 OF A POW3RFUL MEDICATION HAVNG UN3XP3CTED PSYCHOLOGICAL EF3CTS
* V3RY U (SINCE DA U R UNABLE 2 PREDICT [FORASE] TEH CONSAQU3NCES OF THERE ACTIONS AND MAY THEMSALVES NOT HAEV MATUR3 CONCEPTS OF RIGHT AND WRONG)
* DELIRIOUS
* CO3RC3D EG1!1!!11 WTF LOL BY SOMAONE PUTNG A KNIEF 2 THEYRE THROATS OR A GUN 2 THEYRE H3ADS
!11! (AN ASIED DA FR3NCH EXIST3NTIALIST PHILOSOPHER JEAN PAUL SARTR3 [1905-1980] WHO FOUGHT AS A PARTISAN IN TEH SECOND WORLD WAR AGANEST DA NAZIS REFUSED 2 ACEPT AS AN 3XCUS3 FOR COMPLICITY BUT IT WAS MAH LIEF OR THERE [IE.1111! OMG WTF LOL DA INOCANT VICTIMS OF TEH NAZIS]1!!!1 WTF LOL SARTRE ARGU3D TAHT EVEN UND3R SUCH DIER CIRCUMSTANCES ON3 IS STIL MORALY RASPONSIBLA FOR ONES ACTIONS AND ONE IS FRE 2 CHOS3 LIEF OR DEATH AND TAHT IN SOME INSTANCES CHOSNG LIEF IS AN IMORAL CHOIEC)
1!!111 OMG * PHYSICALY FORCED BY A PERSON OR THNG OF SUPARIOR STR3NGTH TEH LIST OF EXCUSNG CONDITIONS HAS GROWN STAADILY OVER DA YAARS
!!111! * FOR 3XMPL3 RECENTLY IN A COURT CAES A MAN WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY OF MURDER ON TEH GROUNDS TAHT HE WAS SLEPWOKNG DURNG DA KILNG (INCLUDNG DRIVNG HIS CAR 2 TEH VICTIMS HOUSE ACROS 2WN)! !! ! LOL
MANY OTH3R FAC2RS INFLUENCNG BHAVIOR HAEV B3N PROPOSED
* ON3S GENETIC MAEKUP (OVER WHICH ONA HAS NO CONTROL)
* ONES ENVIRONM3NT AND UPBRNGNG (AGANE OVER WHICH ONA HAS LITL3 IF ANY CONTROL)
* ONES 3DUCATION WHICH AT LEAST IN ON3S EARLY Y3ARS IS – AGANE – BYOND ONES CONTROL
BUT WHEN AL THESE INFLUENCNG AND CONTROLNG FAC2RS R CONSIEDRAD IS THEIR ANY ROM L3FT FOR TEH EX3RCIES OF ON3S OWN FREDOM?!??? OMG CAN ONE TRULY CHOSA?!?! !!??! OMG WTF LOL OR IS FRE CHOIEC ULTIMAETLY A MYTH AND/OR AN ILUSION?!?! !? OMG WTF
_________________
Join the ASAN social groups in NYC & NJ!
http://aspergers.meetup.com/309/
http://aspergers.meetup.com/318/
Hey I hear there's some fantastic information about Asperger's on http://www.gullible.com
_________________
Join the ASAN social groups in NYC & NJ!
http://aspergers.meetup.com/309/
http://aspergers.meetup.com/318/
run away to a parade
monkeys chiming
time for filing
ask for acceptance
and then refuse conditions
watch the time capsule explode
everybody's itchin
get thier backs scratched
on a lamppost
security in freedom
absence of intellect
hearts of stone
why? i don't ask the questions?
but i have some answers.
Prometheus wrote:
all your bass are belong to us
-applauds-
GalileoAce wrote:
Do we really wanna know?
GArgantuan
GArgantuan
mjs82 wrote:
Is that going in or coming out prometheus?
AbominableSnoCone wrote:
Which makes more sense to you?
some philosophy guy wrote:
1. Introduction and Conditions for Free Will
What does it mean to have free will? To have free will at least two conditions must obtain.
1. We must have two or more possibilities 'genuinely open' to us when we face a choice; and
2. our choice must not be 'forced'.
The concept of free will plays a central role in our thinking about the world, particularly in our apportioning praise and blame, and in our finding persons morally responsible for things they have done.
All sorts of conditions serve to diminish moral responsibility (and blameworthiness). We do not hold persons morally responsible for their actions when they are
* under the influence of a powerful medication having unexpected psychological effects
* very young (since the young are unable to predict [foresee] the consequences of their actions and may themselves not have mature concepts of right and wrong)
* delirious
* coerced, e.g. by someone putting a knife to their throats or a gun to their heads.
(An aside: The French Existentialist philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre [1905-1980], who fought as a Partisan in the Second World War against the Nazis, refused to accept as an excuse for complicity, "But it was my life or theirs [i.e. the innocent victims of the Nazis]". Sartre argued that even under such dire circumstances, one is still morally responsible for one's actions and one is free to choose life or death, and that in some instances choosing life is an immoral choice.)
* physically forced by a person or thing of superior strength
The list of 'excusing conditions' has grown steadily over the years.
* For example, recently in a court case, a man was found not guilty of murder on the grounds that he was sleepwalking during the killing (including driving his car to the victim's house across town).
Many other 'factors' influencing behavior have been proposed:
* one's genetic makeup (over which one has no control)
* one's environment and upbringing (again over which one has little, if any, control)
* one's education which, at least in one's early years, is – again – beyond one's control
But when all these 'influencing' and 'controlling' factors are considered, is there any room left for the exercise of one's own freedom? Can one truly choose? Or is free choice, ultimately, a myth and/or an illusion?
What does it mean to have free will? To have free will at least two conditions must obtain.
1. We must have two or more possibilities 'genuinely open' to us when we face a choice; and
2. our choice must not be 'forced'.
The concept of free will plays a central role in our thinking about the world, particularly in our apportioning praise and blame, and in our finding persons morally responsible for things they have done.
All sorts of conditions serve to diminish moral responsibility (and blameworthiness). We do not hold persons morally responsible for their actions when they are
* under the influence of a powerful medication having unexpected psychological effects
* very young (since the young are unable to predict [foresee] the consequences of their actions and may themselves not have mature concepts of right and wrong)
* delirious
* coerced, e.g. by someone putting a knife to their throats or a gun to their heads.
(An aside: The French Existentialist philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre [1905-1980], who fought as a Partisan in the Second World War against the Nazis, refused to accept as an excuse for complicity, "But it was my life or theirs [i.e. the innocent victims of the Nazis]". Sartre argued that even under such dire circumstances, one is still morally responsible for one's actions and one is free to choose life or death, and that in some instances choosing life is an immoral choice.)
* physically forced by a person or thing of superior strength
The list of 'excusing conditions' has grown steadily over the years.
* For example, recently in a court case, a man was found not guilty of murder on the grounds that he was sleepwalking during the killing (including driving his car to the victim's house across town).
Many other 'factors' influencing behavior have been proposed:
* one's genetic makeup (over which one has no control)
* one's environment and upbringing (again over which one has little, if any, control)
* one's education which, at least in one's early years, is – again – beyond one's control
But when all these 'influencing' and 'controlling' factors are considered, is there any room left for the exercise of one's own freedom? Can one truly choose? Or is free choice, ultimately, a myth and/or an illusion?
that same philosophy guy as a 12-year-old AOLer wrote:
1!!!11 LOL INTRODUCTION AND CONDITIONS FOR FRE WUT DO3S IT M3AN 2 HAEV FRE WIL?! !?!?? WTF 2 HAEV FRE WIL AT LAAST TWO CONDITIONS MUST OBTANE
!111 OMG LOL 1!!!111!1 LOL WE MUST HAEV TWO OR MORE POSIBILITEIS GANUIENLY OPEN 2 US WH3N W3 FAEC A CHOIEC AND
2!!1!! ! OMG WTF OUR CHOIEC MUST NOT B FORCED!!!1! OMG WTF LOL DA CONCAPT OF FRE WIL PLAYS A C3NTRAL ROLE IN OUR THINKNG ABOUT TEH WORLD PARTICULARLY IN OUR APORTIONNG PRASEE AND BLM3 AND IN OUR FINDNG PERSONS MORALY RASPONSIBL3 FOR THNGS THEY HAEV DONA
AL!! !!1!1 OMG WTF SORTS OF CONDITIONS SERVE 2 DIMINISH MORAL RASPONSIBILITY (AND BLM3WORTHIENS)1!!1 LOL WA DO NOT HOLD PARSONS MORALY RASPONSIBLA FOR THERE ACTIONS WH3N TH3Y AER
* UNDER TEH INFLUENC3 OF A POW3RFUL MEDICATION HAVNG UN3XP3CTED PSYCHOLOGICAL EF3CTS
* V3RY U (SINCE DA U R UNABLE 2 PREDICT [FORASE] TEH CONSAQU3NCES OF THERE ACTIONS AND MAY THEMSALVES NOT HAEV MATUR3 CONCEPTS OF RIGHT AND WRONG)
* DELIRIOUS
* CO3RC3D EG1!1!!11 WTF LOL BY SOMAONE PUTNG A KNIEF 2 THEYRE THROATS OR A GUN 2 THEYRE H3ADS
!11! (AN ASIED DA FR3NCH EXIST3NTIALIST PHILOSOPHER JEAN PAUL SARTR3 [1905-1980] WHO FOUGHT AS A PARTISAN IN TEH SECOND WORLD WAR AGANEST DA NAZIS REFUSED 2 ACEPT AS AN 3XCUS3 FOR COMPLICITY BUT IT WAS MAH LIEF OR THERE [IE.1111! OMG WTF LOL DA INOCANT VICTIMS OF TEH NAZIS]1!!!1 WTF LOL SARTRE ARGU3D TAHT EVEN UND3R SUCH DIER CIRCUMSTANCES ON3 IS STIL MORALY RASPONSIBLA FOR ONES ACTIONS AND ONE IS FRE 2 CHOS3 LIEF OR DEATH AND TAHT IN SOME INSTANCES CHOSNG LIEF IS AN IMORAL CHOIEC)
1!!111 OMG * PHYSICALY FORCED BY A PERSON OR THNG OF SUPARIOR STR3NGTH TEH LIST OF EXCUSNG CONDITIONS HAS GROWN STAADILY OVER DA YAARS
!!111! * FOR 3XMPL3 RECENTLY IN A COURT CAES A MAN WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY OF MURDER ON TEH GROUNDS TAHT HE WAS SLEPWOKNG DURNG DA KILNG (INCLUDNG DRIVNG HIS CAR 2 TEH VICTIMS HOUSE ACROS 2WN)! !! ! LOL
MANY OTH3R FAC2RS INFLUENCNG BHAVIOR HAEV B3N PROPOSED
* ON3S GENETIC MAEKUP (OVER WHICH ONA HAS NO CONTROL)
* ONES ENVIRONM3NT AND UPBRNGNG (AGANE OVER WHICH ONA HAS LITL3 IF ANY CONTROL)
* ONES 3DUCATION WHICH AT LEAST IN ON3S EARLY Y3ARS IS – AGANE – BYOND ONES CONTROL
BUT WHEN AL THESE INFLUENCNG AND CONTROLNG FAC2RS R CONSIEDRAD IS THEIR ANY ROM L3FT FOR TEH EX3RCIES OF ON3S OWN FREDOM?!??? OMG CAN ONE TRULY CHOSA?!?! !!??! OMG WTF LOL OR IS FRE CHOIEC ULTIMAETLY A MYTH AND/OR AN ILUSION?!?! !? OMG WTF
!111 OMG LOL 1!!!111!1 LOL WE MUST HAEV TWO OR MORE POSIBILITEIS GANUIENLY OPEN 2 US WH3N W3 FAEC A CHOIEC AND
2!!1!! ! OMG WTF OUR CHOIEC MUST NOT B FORCED!!!1! OMG WTF LOL DA CONCAPT OF FRE WIL PLAYS A C3NTRAL ROLE IN OUR THINKNG ABOUT TEH WORLD PARTICULARLY IN OUR APORTIONNG PRASEE AND BLM3 AND IN OUR FINDNG PERSONS MORALY RASPONSIBL3 FOR THNGS THEY HAEV DONA
AL!! !!1!1 OMG WTF SORTS OF CONDITIONS SERVE 2 DIMINISH MORAL RASPONSIBILITY (AND BLM3WORTHIENS)1!!1 LOL WA DO NOT HOLD PARSONS MORALY RASPONSIBLA FOR THERE ACTIONS WH3N TH3Y AER
* UNDER TEH INFLUENC3 OF A POW3RFUL MEDICATION HAVNG UN3XP3CTED PSYCHOLOGICAL EF3CTS
* V3RY U (SINCE DA U R UNABLE 2 PREDICT [FORASE] TEH CONSAQU3NCES OF THERE ACTIONS AND MAY THEMSALVES NOT HAEV MATUR3 CONCEPTS OF RIGHT AND WRONG)
* DELIRIOUS
* CO3RC3D EG1!1!!11 WTF LOL BY SOMAONE PUTNG A KNIEF 2 THEYRE THROATS OR A GUN 2 THEYRE H3ADS
!11! (AN ASIED DA FR3NCH EXIST3NTIALIST PHILOSOPHER JEAN PAUL SARTR3 [1905-1980] WHO FOUGHT AS A PARTISAN IN TEH SECOND WORLD WAR AGANEST DA NAZIS REFUSED 2 ACEPT AS AN 3XCUS3 FOR COMPLICITY BUT IT WAS MAH LIEF OR THERE [IE.1111! OMG WTF LOL DA INOCANT VICTIMS OF TEH NAZIS]1!!!1 WTF LOL SARTRE ARGU3D TAHT EVEN UND3R SUCH DIER CIRCUMSTANCES ON3 IS STIL MORALY RASPONSIBLA FOR ONES ACTIONS AND ONE IS FRE 2 CHOS3 LIEF OR DEATH AND TAHT IN SOME INSTANCES CHOSNG LIEF IS AN IMORAL CHOIEC)
1!!111 OMG * PHYSICALY FORCED BY A PERSON OR THNG OF SUPARIOR STR3NGTH TEH LIST OF EXCUSNG CONDITIONS HAS GROWN STAADILY OVER DA YAARS
!!111! * FOR 3XMPL3 RECENTLY IN A COURT CAES A MAN WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY OF MURDER ON TEH GROUNDS TAHT HE WAS SLEPWOKNG DURNG DA KILNG (INCLUDNG DRIVNG HIS CAR 2 TEH VICTIMS HOUSE ACROS 2WN)! !! ! LOL
MANY OTH3R FAC2RS INFLUENCNG BHAVIOR HAEV B3N PROPOSED
* ON3S GENETIC MAEKUP (OVER WHICH ONA HAS NO CONTROL)
* ONES ENVIRONM3NT AND UPBRNGNG (AGANE OVER WHICH ONA HAS LITL3 IF ANY CONTROL)
* ONES 3DUCATION WHICH AT LEAST IN ON3S EARLY Y3ARS IS – AGANE – BYOND ONES CONTROL
BUT WHEN AL THESE INFLUENCNG AND CONTROLNG FAC2RS R CONSIEDRAD IS THEIR ANY ROM L3FT FOR TEH EX3RCIES OF ON3S OWN FREDOM?!??? OMG CAN ONE TRULY CHOSA?!?! !!??! OMG WTF LOL OR IS FRE CHOIEC ULTIMAETLY A MYTH AND/OR AN ILUSION?!?! !? OMG WTF
I want to email the latter to my professor in this class where we're studying humanism but I think I'd flunk.
Here's to Bill Brasky!!!1
_________________
Join the ASAN social groups in NYC & NJ!
http://aspergers.meetup.com/309/
http://aspergers.meetup.com/318/
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Do you see random images in your mind’s eye?
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
21 Nov 2024, 6:40 pm |
Does anyone find random things funny/laugh randomly? |
11 Oct 2024, 11:44 pm |