Which is more important: freedom, or lives?
Freedom.
51.4% (36)
51.4% (36)
Lives.
15.7% (11)
15.7% (11)
Neither; something else is more important.
4.3% (3)
4.3% (3)
Both are equally important.
25.7% (18)
25.7% (18)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Which is more important: freedom or lives?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

We in the US have a lot of liberties. We can own objects that can (and have been used to) kill others, like guns, knives, power tools, and cars. We can own (some) substances that can be used to harm others; stuff like alcohol and cigarettes.

My question is this: should it be okay for us to own these things, even if they can be, and have been, used to harm others? Is it okay for people to purchase alcohol even if they can kill others when they are under it's influence, or are the lives of those saved by the banning of such more important? Should I be allowed to own a knife, even if I can use to stab others in the street? Should I be allowed to operate a motor vehicle, even though it can cause horrific accidents that kill others? Basically, which is more important: the freedom and liberty of people in a country, or the lives that are saved by banning such things as private transportation and alcohol?

I'm pretty sure we've had this exact same discussion before, and it presents a false dichotomy. Freedom or lives is not an either/or choice. If we cannot have a minimum level of safety, then there is no freedom because there is no chance to make choices when you are dead or fighting for survival. If there is no minimum level of freedom, than to say you are living is rather pointless.

So people need to get past this notion that they're opposite ends of a spectrum. They aren't. They are both essential for good society.

Well they say live free or die trying, but 'freedom' becomes a rather academic concept if there's no one around to enjoy it. The thing is; they are both crucial, limits on freedom should only be put in place when they endanger lives by their own nature (I.E. freedom to have a knife is not inherently dangerous, but freedom to use that knife to commit murder is.)

Katatori-kun:
I'm pretty sure we've had this exact same discussion before, and it presents a false dichotomy. Freedom or lives is not an either/or choice. If we cannot have a minimum level of safety, then there is no freedom because there is no chance to make choices when you are dead or fighting for survival. If there is no minimum level of freedom, than to say you are living is rather pointless.

So people need to get past this notion that they're opposite ends of a spectrum. They aren't. They are both essential for good society.

Still, doesn't restricting or removing some freedoms to private ownership (like access to alcohol and private ownership of cars) save lives? And if it does, isn't there some merit in considering those restrictions? Are the freedoms more important, or the lives saved by removing said freedoms more important? :/

senordesol:
Well they say live free or die trying, but 'freedom' becomes a rather academic concept if there's no one around to enjoy it. The thing is; they are both crucial, limits on freedom should only be put in place when they endanger lives by their own nature (I.E. freedom to have a knife is not inherently dangerous, but freedom to use that knife to commit murder is.)

But still you can own a knife which can be used to kill someone else. Sure, you will get punished for it, but there is nothing really stopping someone from taking a knife and killing someone with it. If you did not have the freedom to own that knife, you could not use it to kill someone else, therefore saving a life, right?

BreakfastMan:
Still, doesn't restricting or removing some freedoms to private ownership (like access to alcohol and private ownership of cars) save lives? And if it does, isn't there some merit in considering those restrictions? Are the freedoms more important, or the lives saved by removing said freedoms more important? :/

Neither is more important. That's why the dichotomy is false.

It's all about being rational, and not an ideologue. If a minor restriction on freedom enhances everyone's safety, it is good. If a minor risk to safety increases everyone's freedom, then it's good. Neither is more important, because ultimately they aren't really in conflict.

We have this tendency to pretend that freedom is a finite commodity, like when a rule gets made against something then our freedom rating goes down. But this is nonsense. For example, yes, restricting the ability for Japanese people to own guns is a restriction on their freedom. However, that restriction allows Japanese people to wander the meanest streets of Tokyo drunk out of their minds at 4AM and know that they won't be murdered. So it's not a case of "we lost freedom for safety", it's a case of "we lost some freedoms in order to allow other freedoms."

BreakfastMan:

senordesol:
Well they say live free or die trying, but 'freedom' becomes a rather academic concept if there's no one around to enjoy it. The thing is; they are both crucial, limits on freedom should only be put in place when they endanger lives by their own nature (I.E. freedom to have a knife is not inherently dangerous, but freedom to use that knife to commit murder is.)

But still you can own a knife which can be used to kill someone else. Sure, you will get punished for it, but there is nothing really stopping someone from taking a knife and killing someone with it. If you did not have the freedom to own that knife, you could not use it to kill someone else, therefore saving a life, right?

And if we locked everyone up in a concrete box, they'd all be 'safe' too. Again, owning a knife is not inherently dangerous; it cannot be reasonably pre-supposed that you will take a life with a knife just as it cannot be reasonably pre-supposed that one will drive drunk because they own alcohol AND a car.

Once you have shown, however, that you are going to be irresponsible with the freedom afforded you (i.e. using the knife to take a life) you may have your freedom taken away based on the severity of your crime.

BreakfastMan:
We in the US have a lot of liberties. We can own objects that can (and have been used to) kill others, like guns, knives, power tools, and cars. We can own (some) substances that can be used to harm others; stuff like alcohol and cigarettes.

My question is this: should it be okay for us to own these things, even if they can be, and have been, used to harm others? Is it okay for people to purchase alcohol even if they can kill others when they are under it's influence, or are the lives of those saved by the banning of such more important? Should I be allowed to own a knife, even if I can use to stab others in the street? Should I be allowed to operate a motor vehicle, even though it can cause horrific accidents that kill others? Basically, which is more important: the freedom and liberty of people in a country, or the lives that are saved by banning such things as private transportation and alcohol?

Short answer:
Yes of course it should be ok to own these things.
Your question takes no account of consequences or responsibility.

My freedom to swing my arm stops at your nose. In other words, everyone should have freedom to do whatever so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Both freedom and peoples well-being are important; having one in absence of the other would lead to tyranny or anarchy.

Both. This isn't a one or the other issue - and when it is, an appropriate balance should be achieved. For example, cars can kill a lot of people, which is why before you are given the freedom to drive one you must learn quite a lot about road safety and how to handle it properly, which minimises risk.

Katatori-kun:

BreakfastMan:
Still, doesn't restricting or removing some freedoms to private ownership (like access to alcohol and private ownership of cars) save lives? And if it does, isn't there some merit in considering those restrictions? Are the freedoms more important, or the lives saved by removing said freedoms more important? :/

Neither is more important. That's why the dichotomy is false.

It's all about being rational, and not an ideologue. If a minor restriction on freedom enhances everyone's safety, it is good. If a minor risk to safety increases everyone's freedom, then it's good. Neither is more important, because ultimately they aren't really in conflict.

We have this tendency to pretend that freedom is a finite commodity, like when a rule gets made against something then our freedom rating goes down. But this is nonsense. For example, yes, restricting the ability for Japanese people to own guns is a restriction on their freedom. However, that restriction allows Japanese people to wander the meanest streets of Tokyo drunk out of their minds at 4AM and know that they won't be murdered. So it's not a case of "we lost freedom for safety", it's a case of "we lost some freedoms in order to allow other freedoms."

How long do you think it'll be before someone comes in and butchers Benjamin Franklin's quote?

Depends on how much of each we're talking about, and whose freedom or life.

The two are comparable, but neither is absolutely more important than the other.

Neither. Virtue is the most important. A life's only worth what you do with it.

Freedom should only come with responsibility.
I'd rank freedom below justice. El presidente's absolute freedom comes at the expense of everyone else.

BreakfastMan:

Still, doesn't restricting or removing some freedoms to private ownership (like access to alcohol and private ownership of cars) save lives? And if it does, isn't there some merit in considering those restrictions? Are the freedoms more important, or the lives saved by removing said freedoms more important? :/

Only if the removal of a "freedom" directly saves lives.

The removal of your freedom to drive over people directly saves lives.
The removal of your freedom to have a drink would not.

I.e. only if it is statistically significant is the removal of freedom warranted.

To quote a famous Historical Figure;
"Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death!" - Patrick Henry (Oddly Enough, he would be against the Constitution of America, and would be in favor of Articles of Confederation which, by this time, were useless)

Katatori-kun:

We have this tendency to pretend that freedom is a finite commodity, like when a rule gets made against something then our freedom rating goes down. But this is nonsense. For example, yes, restricting the ability for Japanese people to own guns is a restriction on their freedom. However, that restriction allows Japanese people to wander the meanest streets of Tokyo drunk out of their minds at 4AM and know that they won't be murdered. So it's not a case of "we lost freedom for safety", it's a case of "we lost some freedoms in order to allow other freedoms."

The main reason Japanese people can walk around safely at 4am is because they are a homogenous culture that values obedience to authority. OTOH, there are countries with draconian gun laws that have lots of violence. Also there are US states with high rates of gun ownership that are very safe.

Can you really name any valid examples of how giving up freedom gains you freedom in other ways? I'm talking about freedoms we have today. Please don't use examples like "laws against murder make us safer" Murdering or assaulting others doesn't count as a freedom.

JRslinger:

Katatori-kun:

We have this tendency to pretend that freedom is a finite commodity, like when a rule gets made against something then our freedom rating goes down. But this is nonsense. For example, yes, restricting the ability for Japanese people to own guns is a restriction on their freedom. However, that restriction allows Japanese people to wander the meanest streets of Tokyo drunk out of their minds at 4AM and know that they won't be murdered. So it's not a case of "we lost freedom for safety", it's a case of "we lost some freedoms in order to allow other freedoms."

The main reason Japanese people can walk around safely at 4am is because they are a homogenous culture that values obedience to authority. OTOH, there are countries with draconian gun laws that have lots of violence. Also there are US states with high rates of gun ownership that are very safe.

Can you really name any valid examples of how giving up freedom gains you freedom in other ways? I'm talking about freedoms we have today. Please don't use examples like "laws against murder make us safer" Murdering or assaulting others doesn't count as a freedom.

Please, I beg you: keep the gun debate in the gun threads. I stopped myself from addressing that statement because it has nothing to do with the question at hand.

The fact is: Assault and murder are 'freedoms', one is 'free' to do these things if there is no higher body to stop him. That said, I will contend that laws make us safer only to a point. Laws are influenced and informed by culture, they do not 'make' anyone safer just as guns do not 'make' anyone safer. The variable is: how they are enforced and by whom. The law is not a directly preventative measure, but more a social agreement in that if one partakes in actions agreed by the ruling body to be somehow detrimental to the growth and safety of that society, they can be 'removed' from or otherwise disincentivized by the same society (thus removing the threat to safety by further restricting an individual's freedom).

freedom, there are 7 billion people in the world and its ever growing, i think that number needs a bit of control.

We go to war to protect our freedom, that's a good indication of the answer

Negative freedom outweighs anything.

What right does "the collective" have to trample upon the rights of an individual for it's own benefit? To outlaw homosexuality to strengthen family values? To ban prostitutes from making money however they wish, often without providing any alternative? To ban people from drinking soda?

Paternalism is incompatible with the notion of the freedom of adults to act as such. Though it's certainly not everyone who have any kind of respect for people's own choices that affect only themselves.

Imperator_DK:
Negative freedom outweighs anything.

What right does "the collective" have to trample upon the rights of an individual for it's own benefit? To outlaw homosexuality to strengthen family values? To ban prostitutes from making money however they wish, often without providing any alternative? To ban people from drinking soda?

To force individuals to respect a speed limit or stop sign? To prevent people from manufacturing explosives in their backyard? I really don't think it's as neat as "negative freedom trumps all". Sure, you can say my first example is on public property and should only ever be applied on public property and therefore is exempt from such a concern. How about air traffic control, then? The regulation of high concentrations of kinetic and potential energy often infringes upon negative freedom. And reasonably, since unlimited trust is not something the representatives of society ought to be giving away.

Seanchaidh:
...
To force individuals to respect a speed limit or stop sign? To prevent people from manufacturing explosives in their backyard? I really don't think it's as neat as "negative freedom trumps all". Sure, you can say my first example is on public property and should only ever be applied on public property and therefore is exempt from such a concern. How about air traffic control, then? The regulation of high concentrations of kinetic and potential energy often infringes upon negative freedom. And reasonably, since unlimited trust is not something the representatives of society ought to be giving away.

I believe all air-space is considered public property as well.

Anyway, I recognize the limitation that your negative freedom ends where the negative freedom others begin. Outlawing the making of explosives in a private backyard can be outlawed due to the clear and present danger that they'll accidentally or intentionally be blown up and kill others than the maker himself. Drunk driving laws work on the same principle, clear and present danger of harm to other individuals.

What I oppose as illegitimate and oppressive is the collective trampling upon negative freedoms that aren't violating any of its member's own freedoms. A prostitute who's striking a deal with a customer isn't harming anyone, such laws rest on moral outrage, the perception that the prostitute needs to be "saved", that the customers shouldn't be allowed to take the risk of STD's etc. etc.

Imperator_DK:
What I oppose as illegitimate and oppressive is the collective trampling upon negative freedoms that aren't violating any of its member's own freedoms.

That's all veyr well and good, but it's usually not that hard to come up with a reasonable sounding reason why someone else's liberties are infringing on yours. Sometimes, it's not even untrue.

thaluikhain:
...
That's all veyr well and good, but it's usually not that hard to come up with a reasonable sounding reason why someone else's liberties are infringing on yours. Sometimes, it's not even untrue.

How's our prostitute violating your freedom? How is somebody ordering an extra-large soda violating your freedom?

Do tell.

Imperator_DK:

thaluikhain:
...
That's all veyr well and good, but it's usually not that hard to come up with a reasonable sounding reason why someone else's liberties are infringing on yours. Sometimes, it's not even untrue.

How's our prostitute violating your freedom? How is somebody ordering an extra-large soda violating your freedom?

Do tell.

Probably something to do with our tax dollars. Um, fat people/STDs taking up our healthcare?
That's always a good one. Or encouraging crime, you could come up with something about sugary drinks causing moral decline that'd convince the sort of people wanting to be convinced.

I do recall, though, I think it was evilthecat saying that legal prositution creates an increase in illegal prostitution and human trafficking.

Imperator_DK:

Seanchaidh:
...
To force individuals to respect a speed limit or stop sign? To prevent people from manufacturing explosives in their backyard? I really don't think it's as neat as "negative freedom trumps all". Sure, you can say my first example is on public property and should only ever be applied on public property and therefore is exempt from such a concern. How about air traffic control, then? The regulation of high concentrations of kinetic and potential energy often infringes upon negative freedom. And reasonably, since unlimited trust is not something the representatives of society ought to be giving away.

I believe all air-space is considered public property as well.

Was it considered public property before the invention of the balloon? It would be considered public property precisely because of the dangers of what might fly around in it-- it's certainly not because of Lockean labor mixing or anything, nor does the air require repaving.

Anyway, I recognize the limitation that your negative freedom ends where the negative freedom others begin. Outlawing the making of explosives in a private backyard can be outlawed due to the clear and present danger that they'll accidentally or intentionally be blown up and kill others than the maker himself. Drunk driving laws work on the same principle, clear and present danger of harm to other individuals.

That's an end that occurs before the beginning of the negative freedom of others. A risk is only a risk, it isn't an actual infringement upon a right or freedom. It is merely the potentiality of one after what may be an unfortunate or otherwise preventable series of events. Laws regarding such are necessarily justified by probability of harm, not mere possibility: clear and present danger, as you said. But that's a rather severe limitation on negative freedom! Where there is negative freedom on both sides of the equation, your position appears to be that there is a level of risk of infringement upon the freedom of one person to do as he will that justifies a certain infringement of the freedom of another person to do as he wills. In what sense is negative freedom trumping everything? As one's life appears able to be accounted for, though imprecisely, in terms of negative freedom itself, I don't think you've really answered the question.

What I oppose as illegitimate and oppressive is the collective trampling upon negative freedoms that aren't violating any of its member's own freedoms. A prostitute who's striking a deal with a customer isn't harming anyone, such laws rest on moral outrage, the perception that the prostitute needs to be "saved", that the customers shouldn't be allowed to take the risk of STD's etc. etc.

I tend to agree about such issues.

thaluikhain:
...
Probably something to do with our tax dollars. Um, fat people/STDs taking up our healthcare?
That's always a good one.

True.

Which goes to show that a welfare state is detrimental for individual freedom, since other people's actions, that before affected only themselves, now affect all tax payers.

Or encouraging crime, you could come up with something about sugary drinks causing moral decline that'd convince the sort of people wanting to be convinced.

And those people would be idiotic filth for believing such utterly unfounded and subjective claims, and take away rights based on them.

I do recall, though, I think it was evilthecat saying that legal prositution creates an increase in illegal prostitution and human trafficking.

That sounds rather vague and disputable. And even so, the acts of the prostitute him/herself doesn't cause any harm; The harm is caused by the people who import sex slaves, so they're the one's whose freedom should be taken away.

To oppress innocents to save other innocents isn't an option I find acceptable. Go for the guilty, and them alone.

Imperator_DK:

thaluikhain:
...
Probably something to do with our tax dollars. Um, fat people/STDs taking up our healthcare?
That's always a good one.

True.

Which goes to show that a welfare state is detrimental for individual freedom, since other people's actions, that before affected only themselves, now affect all tax payers.

Well, depends what you mean by welfare state. And, to some level, anyone living in a society affects everyone else. It's just a matter of drawing a line somewhere, which is something to be done with care.

Imperator_DK:
That sounds rather vague and disputable. And even so, the acts of the prostitute him/herself doesn't cause any harm; The harm is caused by the people who import sex slaves, so they're the one's whose freedom should be taken away.

To oppress innocents to save other innocents isn't an option I find acceptable. Go for the guilty, and them alone.

I mostly agree with that, I really don't like the idea of branding people as criminals because other people will harm other people if you do not.

But then again, if you can't actually stop the guilty by targeting them (and it appears we cannot), a legitimate argument can be made that punishing innocent people as criminals is preferable than seeing more innocent people suffer from something else.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with that, but I can respect the argument of people that do.

Seanchaidh:
...
Was it considered public property before the invention of the balloon? It would be considered public property precisely because of the dangers of what might fly around in it-- it's certainly not because of Lockean labor mixing or anything, nor does the air require repaving.

"What nobody own the state owns" pretty much goes as far back as states with borders do, so once the air-space became of any interest whatsoever, and nobody owned it, the state simply affirmed its right over it.

That's an end that occurs before the beginning of the negative freedom of others. A risk is only a risk, it isn't an actual infringement upon a right or freedom. It is merely the potentiality of one after what may be an unfortunate or otherwise preventable series of events. Laws regarding such are necessarily justified by probability of harm, not mere possibility: clear and present danger, as you said. But that's a rather severe limitation on negative freedom! Where there is negative freedom on both sides of the equation, your position appears to be that there is a level of risk of infringement upon the freedom of one person to do as he will that justifies a certain infringement of the freedom of another person to do as he wills. In what sense is negative freedom trumping everything? As one's life appears able to be accounted for, though imprecisely, in terms of negative freedom itself, I don't think you've really answered the question.

Negative freedom trumps all in that it is the only legitimate and relevant criteria for limitations in itself.

You're exactly right about it being a risk-oriented cost/benefit analysis. Each time a drunk driver gets behind the wheel, there's a statistically significant risk for a violation of the right to life at play. A risk that can be directly attributed to him being drunk. Hence, as the direct cause of a danger to negative freedom, he can be punished.

Otherwise if he was leaving his girlfriend, who had threatened suicide if he left her, and she went through with it. He wouldn't be the direct sapient cause here, her own sapient choice would be. And his negative freedom to not be her relationship/sex slave outweighs the value of her being alive anyway; That's how negative freedom trumps all.

JRslinger:

Katatori-kun:

We have this tendency to pretend that freedom is a finite commodity, like when a rule gets made against something then our freedom rating goes down. But this is nonsense. For example, yes, restricting the ability for Japanese people to own guns is a restriction on their freedom. However, that restriction allows Japanese people to wander the meanest streets of Tokyo drunk out of their minds at 4AM and know that they won't be murdered. So it's not a case of "we lost freedom for safety", it's a case of "we lost some freedoms in order to allow other freedoms."

The main reason Japanese people can walk around safely at 4am is because they are a homogenous culture that values obedience to authority. OTOH, there are countries with draconian gun laws that have lots of violence. Also there are US states with high rates of gun ownership that are very safe.

Can you really name any valid examples of how giving up freedom gains you freedom in other ways? I'm talking about freedoms we have today. Please don't use examples like "laws against murder make us safer" Murdering or assaulting others doesn't count as a freedom.

I knew someone was going to completely miss the point of my post and make a knee-jerk defense of gun rights rather than dealing with the real meat of the post, which is that denying people one freedom can grant people other freedoms. I guess since I mentioned Japan I should have expected the knee-jerk response to be full of empty (and incorrect) cultural stereotypes, but for some reason that surprised me. I must be slipping.

Katatori-kun:
I knew someone was going to completely miss the point of my post and make a knee-jerk defense of gun rights rather than dealing with the real meat of the post, which is that denying people one freedom can grant people other freedoms. I guess since I mentioned Japan I should have expected the knee-jerk response to be full of empty (and incorrect) cultural stereotypes, but for some reason that surprised me. I must be slipping.

Eh, Japan has been out of the headlines for a while, until you cam and reminded people, they probably forgot that nation existed.

BreakfastMan:

senordesol:
Well they say live free or die trying, but 'freedom' becomes a rather academic concept if there's no one around to enjoy it. The thing is; they are both crucial, limits on freedom should only be put in place when they endanger lives by their own nature (I.E. freedom to have a knife is not inherently dangerous, but freedom to use that knife to commit murder is.)

But still you can own a knife which can be used to kill someone else. Sure, you will get punished for it, but there is nothing really stopping someone from taking a knife and killing someone with it. If you did not have the freedom to own that knife, you could not use it to kill someone else, therefore saving a life, right?

If I REALLY wanted to do so, there's nothing really stopping me from using the pen in my pocket to kill someone, or the pillow on my bed, or even just my bare hands.

Hell, the pen might actually be a better choice than the knife in some cases. Easier to walk up with one without causing alarm, and it can cause similar amounts of damage given a well placed strike, its only disadvantage being that its very difficult to get in a second blow if the first doesn't do significant damage.

Killing is almost stupidly easy for someone determined to do so. If you attempt to take away all of the tools that can be used for that purpose, we would very quickly be reduced to almost nothing. You are far better off focusing on education in one form or another, allowing people to use all of the highly useful but potentially dangerous tools, while finding ways to effectively encourage them not to misuse them.

It is not, and has never been, a simple matter of freedom vs lives, but a question of whether or not society as a whole is better off allowing the use of the item in question. In the case of all of the items you mention, with the exception of guns, the answer is unequivocally yes. For just one example, we save more lives using vehicles on a daily basis than we lose to auto accidents.

(Guns present a more... complicated rating. Their exact effect and role within society is far too complicated to be answered using this train of thought. Let's leave that for another discussion though.)

Katatori-kun:

JRslinger:

Katatori-kun:

We have this tendency to pretend that freedom is a finite commodity, like when a rule gets made against something then our freedom rating goes down. But this is nonsense. For example, yes, restricting the ability for Japanese people to own guns is a restriction on their freedom. However, that restriction allows Japanese people to wander the meanest streets of Tokyo drunk out of their minds at 4AM and know that they won't be murdered. So it's not a case of "we lost freedom for safety", it's a case of "we lost some freedoms in order to allow other freedoms."

The main reason Japanese people can walk around safely at 4am is because they are a homogenous culture that values obedience to authority. OTOH, there are countries with draconian gun laws that have lots of violence. Also there are US states with high rates of gun ownership that are very safe.

Can you really name any valid examples of how giving up freedom gains you freedom in other ways? I'm talking about freedoms we have today. Please don't use examples like "laws against murder make us safer" Murdering or assaulting others doesn't count as a freedom.

I knew someone was going to completely miss the point of my post and make a knee-jerk defense of gun rights rather than dealing with the real meat of the post, which is that denying people one freedom can grant people other freedoms. I guess since I mentioned Japan I should have expected the knee-jerk response to be full of empty (and incorrect) cultural stereotypes, but for some reason that surprised me. I must be slipping.

He has a *No guns = Slaves* thing going on in his Avatar. So at least on that account you cannot have been suprised xD

I 'am' however suprised that the majority on the poll seemed to prefer anarchy over a mix between social-security and the essential freedom's of western soceity a lot of them most likely grew up with. (Or was a mix not added from the start?)

Edit: Nevermind, those peple are most likely just a certain kind of American.

You can take our lives but you will never take our FREEEEEEEDOM.

thaluikhain:

I do recall, though, I think it was evilthecat saying that legal prositution creates an increase in illegal prostitution and human trafficking.

That sounds silly on the face of it, but I've never known Evil to say things he can't back up. So now I'm really curious about this-- don't happen to have a link to that thread, do you?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked