It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

In Arizona, teaching creationism is supported by 4 of 5 Republicans who want to oversee education

page: 4
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2018 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: DexterRiley

I'm not going to argue with atheist denial
about the obvious negative results of their
secularism on the gov. school system.


Are you so intellectually stifled that you’re incapable of having an adult conversation any longer? Every reply you make to someone who disagrees with you creates its own false narrative where you magically determine that the other party is automatically an Atheist simply because they don’t agree with you. This self deprecating kind setnus what keads you to the conclusions in the following sentence here...


It doesn't even seem odd to atheists
that ZERO is the number of shootings
in Christian schools.


The problem is that your entire position is informed solely by confirmation bias. You decided the answer and then went and looked for questions to match the answer you had in mind. In this instance, your position is that the Christian gods absence from secular schools is the only reason for an increase in violent acts , particularly mass shootings at public schools. You ignore, literally, every single other factor that hasn’t contributed to this sad state of affairs and made it entirely about one specific god because you don’t say ‘Parochial Schools’ you specifically limit it to Christian schools.

Let’s turn the question back to you for a moment Randy. If it’s the absence of your interpretation of God, why then are there no mass shootings at private Hindu schools? For all of the violence attributed to Muslims, why do we not see any violence at their private schools? Why do we not see non Christians in christian schools acting in such a heinous fashion? The obviously aren’t emboldened by not believing in your views on theology so what stops them from shooing up schools?

Obviously, a persons faith isn’t at the core of whether or not they are predisposed towards mass violence but the conversation can’t move forward while you insist that the only possibility is that “god” was removed from the classroom over 30 years ago when you completely ignore everything else that has changed in society in the last 3 decades. 30 years ago I was still in high school. Nobody had cell phones, the internet was barely a blip on the radar and even then only if you were military or worked for a company like GE. The internet alone has completely transformed society in terms of how we obtain new information and how quickly we receive it. The other side of that is that lies, negativity and bullying also happen at lightening speed and your shame and embarrassment are in an equal trajectory as it can be spread far beyond the scope of how things transpired when I was still in school.

You can’t ignore the fundamental transformations of our society and the worldwide scope of it now compared to 30, 40 or 50 years ago and then lay the blame at the feet of secular atheists. In doing so you make it sound like the entire country was uniform in the past, every child had the same education and experiences at school, every region of the nation operated in exactly the same, uniform way. We both know that is not how things were.

Back to your attempt to claim that somehow private schools are a safe zone (and unless you can show that only Christian Parochial schools are free of violence while all other private schools are bastions of evil and mass casualties, that is the point you made whether you intended to or not) you again, ignore all other societal influences and impacts on the scenario. In a public school, you have s high degree of variance in the social and financial status of the families comprising the school districts residents and they come from a smaller area compared to a private school. Private schools are a little less open in regards to the social or financial standing in the communities the school draws its enrollees from. They also draw from a multitude of school districts. When I attended Catholic School there were over a dozen school districts represented and the majority of my classmates parents were comprised of a stereotypical 1950’s nuclear family- Stay at home mom and Dad was a Doctor, Dentist or Lawyer or the worked in high level positions at GE or one of the other local tech companies. When I went to public school, over half of my friends lived with their mother and rarely saw their dad. Those who had two parents in the home never saw either of them because they were both working 2 or more jobs to pay the mortgage and bills. The next school district over from ours had the same issues only compounded tenfold because for a little over 1/3 if students, one or both parents didn’t speak English, were on public assistance and came north from some of the more hostile neighborhoods of Brooklyn, Bronx and Harlem. None of which are nearly as gentrified as they are today in a post-Giuliani NYC. Before Giuliani NYC was a war zone and these kids cane up here with PTSD and gang affiliations.

That’s just the disparity between 3 school districts in a very small area. You honestly want people to believe that the only factor in regards to why things are the way they are today is a single SCOTUS decision 31 years ago? You’re living in s dream if you think there were no problems before the SCOTUS ruling and and even deeper dream if you think that promoting one specific version of god in the US ever happened. Do you think that in Georgia or Alabama, states populated with Southern Baptists, that they were using the same scripture and same lessons as Catholic Dominated Boston or NYC?


So why argue?


Is your position so precariously balanced that you know that it can’t stand up to any scrutiny? I can’t think of another reason for you to be so afraid of having an adult discussion.

Though perhaps people want to discuss it (just a note- people can have a civil dialogue when disagreeing. Only you appear to need to take it to the point where it’s argument and insult every single time) because everyone has a different perspective and only by understanding other people’s views and realities can we as a society move forward. By excluding all other views, you get Saudi Arabia. Is that the type of government you think would benefit us in America?




posted on May, 28 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
So are you saying murder, rape and theft happen

Uhm... yes? Sadly, they do happen.


That people are all nice and kind

No, I'm not say all people are nice and kind. I'm saying vast majority of people are.

What I was saying was, it didn't take imaginary divine intervention to instil morals or ethics into humans. We've always had them, albeit we have developed them over time, thanks to an ever evolving society. We argue and debate and logically extend our morals to our changing societies.

No god needed.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: peter vlar

Intelligent design is a theory that many believe, not to teach it is akin to brainwashing


No, teaching it is the brainwashing. Just my opinion though. However, it’s not a theory and not remotely scientific. Yet they want to teach it as science.


It doesn't have to be the Abrahamic narrative


Then you’re arguing entirely from ignorance because of your position on evolution. If you bothered to look at the history of ID you would know exactly what the charade is.


Like it or not, people believe in intelligent design


Good for them. Then their parents can teach them all about it or maybe they can learn about thin Sunday school where it belongs. It doesn’t belong side by side with any valid scientific theories regarding biology though.



I don't believe in evolution but I believe evolution should be taught to everyone
Because if you don't know what another person understands or thinks...
I just can't understand the concept, deny ignorance and here you want school children to not know what other people think


You love to tell me what it is that I believe despite my post being pretty clear. It’s not legal to teach ID in the US. It’s not up to other people to push their bastardized version of abrahamic creation on my children. It’s my responsibility to discuss matters of faith and god with them. I’m quite capable of discussing abrahamic creation and ID with them as well. I don’t need someone pushing their version of their faith on my kids, on my tax funded dime. It violates the separation of Church and State. It can’t get more simple than that. It violates the law. They can’t do it. Arguing that they don’t have to teach creation from the Abrahamic perspective is just dumb because that’s exactly what they are attempting to do.

But hey... if you’re comfortable allowing the state to indoctrinate your children into nonsense, I’m sure there are some churches inArizonathat would sponsor your Visa.


I don't believe in Islam but people need to understand Islam


It’s weird that you don’t believe in islan. I just drove by a mosque earlier so I can be pretty certain that Islam is really Jess you’re implying that Christians are masquerading as Muslims for some bizarre reason. And not wanting someone in a public school to push a very specific version of faith on my children isn’t denying them access to knowledge. I don’t close my children off to exploring the world and learning about it regardless of my beliefs.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

So why do we have police, laws, a legal system, punishment and people to enforce the laws constantly
I don't think you are thinking

We disagree, no issue



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
So why do we have police, laws, a legal system, punishment and people to enforce the laws constantly

I'm referring to the 'exceptional' - people who murder or want to commit acts of crime and have no sense of regret and compassion. The extreme. The fringe of society.

Of course we need laws and rules of law and a way of enforcing a means of behaviour that society has deemed acceptable.

In my previous post, I was saying the vast majority of people know that murder is morally wrong. But obviously in modern society, which has been reflected by its historical past, lines blur, reasons become acceptable then unacceptable. Laws help to clearly mark those lines


I don't think you are thinking

Only when you use religion -- religion requires no thinking or intelligence. It's for stupid people.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 04:11 AM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar




Are you so intellectually stifled that you’re incapable of having an adult conversation any longer? 


I've brought the truth to this table.
There's nothing to be discussed.
No conversarion needed.
I blame atheism for all the death
at our public schools.

Live with it. Lol



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 04:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: randyvs


It doesn't even seem odd to atheists that ZERO is the number of shootings in Christian schools.

I hadn't even considered that. However, if we look at the attendance of Christian schools in the scope of the whole educational system, it's minuscule. And statistically, the number of school shootings is rather small in the context of the all the schools in the US. So, from a mathematical standpoint, it hasn't happened in Christian schools because it's so statistically unlikely.

A few questions for you:
1. Do you see the secularism of the public school system to be a recent phenomena? If so, when did it start?

2. What about Christian schools makes them a better learning environment than secular schools?

3. Why do you believe that Christian schools are less likely to have student shooting incidents?

I would be interested in getting your perspective. If this debate is ever to be settled, we all have to start listening to one another.

-dex




Good response I will address your questions.


1. Yes I do 1962 the courts and federal
Gov. really began a campaign against
Spirituality of any kind in the school system.
But you have to go back around the turn
Of that century to consider the gov.
involvement /takeover of the christian
founded school system.

2. I don't know tough call. I do know that to
be very true tho.

3. I just know the facts

I really appreciate your rare attitude
edit on Ram52918v39201800000030 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 05:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: noonebutme

So are you saying murder, rape and theft happen
That people are all nice and kind
Really...

I want to live where you are


He might even think its because he lives there.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Evolution is impossible, as shown by science:

Earth's age: 4,550,000,000 years
Human DNA dipolar base pairs: 6,000,000,000
Now, evolve me a human being by reproducing without error every year or less a sequence of DNA that also reproduces itself. You can't even lay down 52 cards in a row without error....and they don't even need to survive a hostile planet or reproduce.

Get real, and forget about evolution. If you don't like having a Creator or living in a hologram, find something better that fits science. Evolution does not. Tell me we don't know, but don't try to feed me the lie of evolution.

The evolutionists (or should we call them evolutionismists) are so desperate. One of them went to the Paluxy River and took a pipe to destroy the dinosaur footprint that had a human footprint in it. Too bad, the "creationists" (the only honest truthseekers) already had the pictures and casts of it. Ever wonder why they fire professors for not believing in evolution? It's a faith-based religion.

Not sure if you are familiar with OOPARTS, but you might start there...trying to explain why we have man-made artifacts in the 100-500 million year old range. Or, you could explain how all the granite on Earth cooled in less than 5 minutes (halos.com) or how we are at the center of the Universe (quantized red shift). Or how E=MC^2 allows space-time to expand to reach the ends of the Universe in 20 hours or less before turning energy into matter.

Only a fool thinks there is no God.
edit on 5/29/2018 by Jim Scott because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/29/2018 by Jim Scott because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 05:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: peter vlar




Are you so intellectually stifled that you’re incapable of having an adult conversation any longer? 


I've brought the truth to this table.
There's nothing to be discussed.
No conversarion needed.
I blame atheism for all the death
at our public schools.

Live with it. Lol


You can blame whoever or whatever you want. It doesn’t justify where you place that blame however. Especially when you attempt to force your personal biases onto an issue to fit a square peg into a hole no pegs were ever meant to be inserted yet many people speak out of. It’s intellectually dishonest to refuse to look at all of the variables and then say atheism is at fault despite the fact that secularism and atheism are two completely separate things.

And then go on to admit in your next reply to DexterRiley, that you don’t actually have an answer to his questions that were along he same lines as my comments which you wisely chose to ignore. If you don’t know the root issues, I just can’t fathom how one can just throw their hands in the air and say “there you have it folks... the atheists have killed all of your children”.

I’m a (nearly) 45 year old cripple because I believed so strongly in our Constitution, especially the First Amendment that I was willing to sacrifice myself and watched my brothers drop like flies and others reduced to shells of humanity because they too believed in the tenets and principles upon which our country was founded. And whether it was enshrined in the Constitution or not, the correspondence of Founding Fathers like Jefferson, Adams and George Mason makes it perfectly clear how they felt about the issue and that a Separation of Church and state was necessary to keep us from becoming like Great Britain where the official state religion is the CoE and the (currently) Queen is the head of that Church and until officially, after the Parliament Act of 1911 but the monarchy had been losing power for 700 years at that point.

But I digress far too much here... the real crux of your issue isn’t actually the removal of spiritualism or faith from public education but at the diminishment of Protestant influence on educating children because if we’re being honest, you wouldn’t be any happier if there were a Catholic Chapel in place of auditoriums than you are about the mythical atheists lying in wait to sell your blood to the theistic satanists hanging out at the Dairy Queen. So of course in your mind there nothing to discuss and no conversation needed. Your confirmation biases are all you need to ignore the actual facts and prop up your Monopoly Money version of facts. When you get down to it, if you were actually confident in your position and could really support it with something besides fear and hate, you wouldn’t be afraid to discuss things. Maybe someday all of that faith will chip away that blackness from your heart.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

I *smirked* because you have ALL THE FACTS, but can't post them. Sure.

Are you sure that you can make any kind of points with this kind of discussion?



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 05:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jim Scott
Evolution is impossible, as shown by science:

Earth's age: 4,550,000,000 years
Human DNA dipolar base pairs: 6,000,000,000
Now, evolve me a human being by reproducing without error every year or less a sequence of DNA that also reproduces itself. You can't even lay down 52 cards in a row without error....and they don't even need to survive a hostile planet or reproduce.

Get real, and forget about evolution. If you don't like having a Creator or living in a hologram, find something better that fits science. Evolution does not. Tell me we don't know, but don't try to feed me the lie of evolution.

No, it does not work like this. You used a simplified version, cut out all parts which did not fit your non-explanation and came to the conclusion that a Verified theory of evolution is explaining the world worse than .. what?



The evolutionists (or should we call them evolutionismists) are so desperate. One of them went to the Paluxy River and took a pipe to destroy the dinosaur footprint that had a human footprint in it. Too bad, the "creationists" (the only honest truthseekers) already had the pictures and casts of it. Ever wonder why they fire professors for not believing in evolution? It's a faith-based religion.

No. You (and several other anti-evolutionists) mistook those traces of Acrocanthosaurus for human footsteps. Because that is the "better" solution than to go and find different locations with similar traces showing other details which were not viewable at the Paluxy River. BTW: Glen J. Kuban did not destroy those tracks but actively tried to have YECs to have a look at them with him explaining his findings. They did not want to hear about it.
Because science is hard work.
And easy explanations are easy.


Not sure if you are familiar with OOPARTS, but you might start there...trying to explain why we have man-made artifacts in the 100-500 million year old range. Or, you could explain how all the granite on Earth cooled in less than 5 minutes (halos.com) or how we are at the center of the Universe (quantized red shift). Or how E=MC^2 allows space-time to expand to reach the ends of the Universe in 20 hours or less before turning energy into matter.

Only a fool thinks there is no God.


I think there should be more info from you, because here is a problem I have understanding: "Or how E=MC^2 allows space-time to expand to reach the ends of the Universe in 20 hours or less before turning energy into matter." .. What does this sentence mean?
A formular allows space-time to expand. Until space-time reaches the ends of the universe (which it already contains, as it contains the universe). In 20 hours or less (why?). Before turning energy into matter. (Why? Why exactly then?)

Oh, and those polonium halos. Defuted

Oh, and that "center of the universe, bc redshift works in all directions AWAY from earth" - read about Hubble and his explanations which he made in the 1920s.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 06:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
3. I just know the facts

No, you don't. You make stuff up.

And when people do post the facts, like I did in this post, you ignore it because it completely contradicts your horesh*t statement that religion-promotion in schools by govts is less prone to have violence, and that secularism is the reason for more violence.

Randyvs, ladies and gents; he has his facts, he just doesn't like to share them or prove them or acknowledge they're made up
edit on 29-5-2018 by noonebutme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jim Scott
Evolution is impossible, as shown by science:

Earth's age: 4,550,000,000 years
Human DNA dipolar base pairs: 6,000,000,000
Now, evolve me a human being by reproducing without error every year or less a sequence of DNA that also reproduces itself. You can't even lay down 52 cards in a row without error....and they don't even need to survive a hostile planet or reproduce.



Do you often make headway by making up nonsensical arguments that in no way echo the facts? Do you really think that its a rational view point to attempt to sum up multiple scientific disciplines in a couple of sentences? Just an FYI... if the cells or DNA reproduced with no errors in replication then there would not be life as we see it today on Earth. How you seem to believe evolution works would actually falsify it. Our cells are all dying off and reproducing every second, every moment of every day. Transcription errors and SNP's for example are 2 prominent causes of mutations. Mutations give rise to selection pressures, they assist in increasing genetic diversity. They don't have anything to do with your odd math though


Get real, and forget about evolution. If you don't like having a Creator or living in a hologram, find something better that fits science. Evolution does not. Tell me we don't know, but don't try to feed me the lie of evolution.



The thing about science that's inconvenient for people like you is that it doesn't care about the desires or intentions of those attempting to interpret it. Facts are still facts regardless of their inconvenience. All your post demonstrates is that you don't understand the material enough to actually have a rational discussion.You're attempting to make it appear as if you have a PhD level understanding of Biology, Anthropology, Paleontology, Geology, Chemistry and Physics etc... It's also a particular issue with proponents of young earth creation who take recycled garbage from (and this is just one example of many) a guy who has a Bachelors degree in Chemistry who thinks he knows more about geology than professional geologists with extensive post graduate work listed on their CV. If I'm losing you, CV is Curriculum Vitae( essentially Latin for 'Life's Work') and post grad work means that they didn't stop learning when they completed and properly defended their Dissertation. What I'm getting at is that you can't pick a guy who isn't actually qualified to work in let alone publish or dispute a field they aren't educated in. It's like asking an Economist to diagnose your health problems instead of your regular doctor. And yes, the comparison is that dumb because taking the work of a guy with a 4 year degree in Chemistry over the Geologist is that dumb.


The evolutionists (or should we call them evolutionismists) are so desperate.


I don't know what an evolutionist is. I'm an Anthropologist. I know physicists and Biologists, geneticists and Economics professors who all understand the science behind the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. That doesn't however qualify the Economist to discuss or falsify science that has been reproduced independently by 1000's of professionals in the field pertaining to the topic in question.



One of them went to the Paluxy River and took a pipe to destroy the dinosaur footprint that had a human footprint in it.


That never happened


Too bad, the "creationists" (the only honest truthseekers)


AHHHH thanks... I needed a good laugh this morning!!!


already had the pictures and casts of it.



Ever wonder why they fire professors for not believing in evolution? It's a faith-based religion.



Ever wonder why people who loathe evolution because they somehow think that accepting it would invalidate their version of god seem to rely heavily on generalizations and almost never use specifics because deep down they know they would be eviscerated in an actual discussion or debate if they listed the actual details of their supposed allegations?


Not sure if you are familiar with OOPARTS, but you might start there...trying to explain why we have man-made artifacts in the 100-500 million year old range.



Or, you could explain how all the granite on Earth cooled in less than 5 minutes (halos.com)


You must be referring to one of those wunderkinds I mentioned earlier. In this case though, your vagueness is transparent because I know that you're referencing the illustrious Robert Gentry, Masters in Physics, fake PhD from Columbia Union College, a fundamentalist Christian school who doesn't actually offer a doctoral program in Physics. Gentry worked at Oak Ridge Atomic Lab so his work in physics is certainly credible (aside from his claim of a doctorate). And his work published in refereed/peer reviewed journals regarding the requisite levels of radiation necessary for the formation of Po Halos is up to standards. It's when he decides that he's also a geologist and how he reinterprets the evidence from physics as refutation of well documented Geology that he rightfully is called to task. You can't take someone seriously when they ignore the entirety of Precambrian formations which comprise a full 7/8 of Earth's geologic history in order to lend credence to his hypothesis. Sorry, his thesis. A hypothesis has to be testable. What he presents is less than that. Gentry doesn't follow accepted geologic reporting practice and consistently fails to provide the information that a third party would need to collect comparable samples for testing. For his research, Gentry utilized microscope thin sections of rocks from samples sent to him by others from various places around the world. Thus, he is unable to say how his samples fit in with the local or regional geological setting(s). He also does not provide descriptive information about the individual rock samples that make up his studies - i.e., the abundance and distribution of major, accessory, or trace minerals; the texture, crystal size and alteration features of the rocks; and the presence or absence of fractures. This is the exact opposite of what is expected of us when following the scientific method. I could continue, but I think my point, while likely to be ignored by you, has been made,


or how we are at the center of the Universe (quantized red shift).


We aren't. The 'Universe' is really only the Visible Universe. We don't know what lies beyond our limited ability to see. It appears to be the center because we can only see so far in light years. If we wereIf we were in the edges of the Andromeda Galaxy, we would also appear to be viewing things from the center of the universe. It's called perspective.


Or how E=MC^2 allows space-time to expand to reach the ends of the Universe in 20 hours or less before turning energy into matter.



To echo 'ManFromEurope', what the hell does this even mean?



Only a fool thinks there is no God.


Understanding evolution, biology and genetics doesn't mean that one throws the baby out with the bath water. Only the willfully ignorant fool thinks this way.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

And people wonder why our education standards keep slipping...



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Unfortunately Randy the church has a pretty disgusting past we should not ignore.
Non believers have a right to take us to task, history shouldn't repeat itself



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

The catholic church doesn't even apply
in my mind. When did they ever follow
what Jesus taught. Watered down with
Paganism christianity isn't even luke
warm.
edit on Rpm52918v28201800000049 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

What Jesus taught can be ope to interpretation as he did not write anything down, and its actually mostly second or third hand accounts people are basing it off. The bystander effect applies.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Ka reply to: randyvs

You are aware of how the Reformation after Luther worked right? All of the Protestant faiths used Catholicism as their template. They use all of the same holidays that the Church of Rome had coopted from Pagan holidays to make the new state mandated religion more palatable to the Roman citizenry. It made for an easy sell when the illiterate populace got to keep all of the same holidays but only had to worry about bribing one god. If Catholicism is watered down Coptic Christianity mixed with Paganism, Protestantism is just a watered down version of Catholicism making it even more watered down. And then from there it begs the question of what exactly do you consider a Christian School if it don’t count Catholic schools which make up the majority of religious education centers in the U.S.

It doesn’t appear as if you put much thought into your position beyond if they’re not Christians, they’re Atheists therefore Atgeuats are responsible for every school shooting. Why discuss socioeconomic factors when we can blame it all on Atheists amirite?



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: randyvs

What Jesus taught can be ope to interpretation as he did not write anything down, and its actually mostly second or third hand accounts people are basing it off. The bystander effect applies.


I think it’s closer to an analogue if the game we okayed in Elementary School called ‘Telephone’ where the teacher whispers a statement or phrase to one student who then whispers it into the ear of the student sitting to his immediate left and the game continues until you get to the last student who stands up and repeats the version of the statement or phrase they were told by the child preceding them and then the teacher reveals what she said to the first student.

I witnessed this first hand more times than i can count with my fathers 3rd and 4th grade classes (he was an elementary school science teacher before taking over an entire class of 3rd graders) when I would come in to discuss various applications of science with them and how it pertained to the real world and would impact their lives as adults and citizens of the world. This was before taking a bevy of sometimes odd and random open questions from them. Sometimes, I think that I ended up learning more from them than i taught, but it was always an interesting experience. And they either genuinely liked it or were very proficient liars at 8-9 years old.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join