Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards

Raptors Forum | Toronto Raptors Forums & Message Boards (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/)
-   The Podium (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/f23/)
-   -   haircuts, faith and yada yada yada (http://www.raptorsforum.com/f/f23/haircuts-faith-yada-yada-yada-24050.html)

'trane 11-15-2012 11:58 AM

haircuts, faith and yada yada yada
 
moved from the headlines thread

Woman denied haircut goes to Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

the haircut story is interesting. i think the barber's faith should have no impact on his right to deny service to a person in canada based on gender. in a world of competing rights, sure the make-believe ones should take a back seat to the real ones, no?

Bmats7returns 11-15-2012 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'trane (Post 703924)
the haircut story is interesting. i think the barber's faith should have no impact on his right to deny service to a person in canada based on gender. in a world of competing rights, sure the make-believe ones should take a back seat to the real ones, no?

What do you think about conscience clauses?

'trane 11-15-2012 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bmats7returns (Post 704092)
What do you think about conscience clauses?

by and large they are ridiculous. if you can provide a reasoned and evidence-based argument as to why you want to deny rights to someone, you should be able to argue it. but for that to be based on make-believe, which is exactly what faith is, is nonsense, and an affront to rights that actually matter.

Bmats7returns 11-15-2012 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'trane (Post 704097)
by and large they are ridiculous. if you can provide a reasoned and evidence-based argument as to why you want to deny rights to someone, you should be able to argue it. but for that to be based on make-believe, which is exactly what faith is, is nonsense, and an affront to rights that actually matter.

and a right to make me serve you is real? where exactly did that right come from?

Maybe it was someone else on this forum, but I thought you didn't mind libertarianism.

LX 11-15-2012 08:50 PM

New Atheists and Islamophobes unite! This woman needs a haircut! Got to make things right!

'trane 11-15-2012 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bmats7returns (Post 704102)
and a right to make me serve you is real? where exactly did that right come from?

Maybe it was someone else on this forum, but I thought you didn't mind libertarianism.

i am most definitely not a libertarian.

if you open a business in canada you do not have the right to discriminate against the people you serve. you can't choose not to serve someone because of something that is protected by the charter. to turn that around and say that anyone is making you serve someone is to completely misunderstand what our charter protections are about. you don't get the right to say no to people based on gender, sexual orientation, race, etc. if you do, you should face a charter challenge.

and to hide behind make-believe as your reason to do so takes away from the person you are discriminating against the right to challenge that discrimination.


in your first sentence in that previous post you are creating a right that does not exist and positing that i am trying to deny you that right. this is simply incorrect.

'trane 11-15-2012 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LX (Post 704107)
New Atheists and Islamophobes unite! This woman needs a haircut! Got to make things right!

wtf is this supposed to mean?

Bmats7returns 11-15-2012 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'trane (Post 704116)
i am most definitely not a libertarian.

if you open a business in canada you do not have the right to discriminate against the people you serve. you can't choose not to serve someone because of something that is protected by the charter. to turn that around and say that anyone is making you serve someone is to completely misunderstand what our charter protections are about. you don't get the right to say no to people based on gender, sexual orientation, race, etc. if you do, you should face a charter challenge.

and to hide behind make-believe as your reason to do so takes away from the person you are discriminating against the right to challenge that discrimination.


in your first sentence in that previous post you are creating a right that does not exist and positing that i am trying to deny you that right. this is simply incorrect.

seems like the rights in the charter are as make-believe as religion.

Bill Haverchuck 11-15-2012 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'trane (Post 704116)
i am most definitely not a libertarian.

if you open a business in canada you do not have the right to discriminate against the people you serve. you can't choose not to serve someone because of something that is protected by the charter. to turn that around and say that anyone is making you serve someone is to completely misunderstand what our charter protections are about. you don't get the right to say no to people based on gender, sexual orientation, race, etc. if you do, you should face a charter challenge.

and to hide behind make-believe as your reason to do so takes away from the person you are discriminating against the right to challenge that discrimination.


in your first sentence in that previous post you are creating a right that does not exist and positing that i am trying to deny you that right. this is simply incorrect.

This is a private business, so the Charter does not apply. There is no Charter challenge to be made.

Bmats, the "right" originates from the Ontario Human Rights Code, and that's why it is being handled by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Bill Haverchuck 11-15-2012 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bmats7returns (Post 704121)
seems like the rights in the charter are as make-believe as religion.

Can I ask you to elaborate? I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. I mean, I have my assumptions but I'd like to check first.

BTW, I think Ligeia was the one who had libertarian sympathies.

'trane 11-15-2012 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Haverchuck (Post 704124)
This is a private business, so the Charter does not apply. There is no Charter challenge to be made.

Bmats, the "right" originates from the Ontario Human Rights Code, and that's why it is being handled by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

you are, of course, right. i shouldn't do this after drinking this much. the ontario human rights code is most definitely what applies/

'trane 11-15-2012 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Haverchuck (Post 704125)
Can I ask you to elaborate? I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. I mean, I have my assumptions but I'd like to check first.

just go with your assumptions. you know exactly what he's saying, and it's nonsense.

LX 11-15-2012 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'trane (Post 704117)
wtf is this supposed to mean?

Just an observation. This is petty bullshit that Islamophobes are all over. And the new atheist need to proselytize fits right in alongside that. And still it is incredibly unimportant. The dude is a barber with a particular identity. There is nothing ominous or over zealous about him. And he isn't doing anything as simple as denying services based on gender, or hiding behind make-believe. He's living his life within a realty that includes multiple truths that need to be faced by all of us. But down with Islamic barbers!

Or maybe the guy is just an asshole. In which case make-believe has nothing to do with it, and he can be treated as an asshole. It probably won't make him any less of an asshole. But then he won't be the CEO of Monsanto either.

The older Hitchens would approve. Side with George Bush on bombing the shit out of Baghdad and stand firm with a woman's right to have her hair cut by a Muslim, but she better not cover that hair if she is a Muslim, because that would just be too unenlightened for his tastes. There we go. All our problems solved.

XiaominWu 11-15-2012 10:13 PM

so, if a woman who he wasn't related to was in serious medical jeopardy and needed CPR or needed to be carried out of a dangerous situation.... does he turn away and put his faith first?

i know that is a much more extreme example.... but at the core of this debate is the absurdity of the rules that are being imposed on this man by his muslim faith.... and they are most certainly absurd to me. where do you draw the line?

'trane 11-15-2012 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LX (Post 704132)
Just an observation. This is petty bullshit that Islamophobes are all over. And the new atheist need to proselytize fits right in alongside that. And still it is incredibly unimportant. The dude is a barber with a particular identity. There is nothing ominous or over zealous about him. And he isn't doing anything as simple as denying services based on gender, or hiding behind make-believe. He's living his life within a realty that includes multiple truths that need to be faced by all of us. But down with Islamic barbers!

Or maybe the guy is just an asshole. In which case make-believe has nothing to do with it, and he can be treated as an asshole. It probably won't make him any less of an asshole. But then he won't be the CEO of Monsanto either.

The older Hitchens would approve. Side with George Bush on bombing the shit out of Baghdad and stand firm with a woman's right to have her hair cut by a Muslim, but she better not cover that hair if she is a Muslim, because that would just be too unenlightened for his tastes. There we go. All our problems solved.

this is neither simple or petty. the reality of competing rights butting up against one another is an increasing problem in secular societies. i would be wholly and completely uncomfortable with the notion that people's make-believe trumps others reality. to call this prosthelytizing is to deny the reasonable point being made.

'living his life within a reality that includes multiple truths'... i have seen you reference this meaningless drivel too many times. it's about time you explained how this is real, and how this should impinge on a woman's right to get service in her own community. there is bit one truth, and the question is whether or not people can see it. most can't, so we reason through it. one way to make sure you won't see it is to invent your own, or, even worse, to believe in someone else's invention without questioning it.

muslim, catholic, zeus-worshipping, i don't give a flying fuck. none of it is my reality, and none of it has a shred of credibility to support it.

dfunkie1 11-15-2012 10:46 PM

i think augusta is more offensive than this, and i'm completely cool with men/women only organizations/clubs. people just need to let go of caring so much about stuff that really doesn't matter. there's a million barbers that she could get her hair cut from. if she was turned away because of religious faith, she should respectfully go on to the next one. it's not like they called her a dyke and scorned her because of her sexual preferences.

pzabby 11-15-2012 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XiaominWu (Post 704134)
so, if a woman who he wasn't related to was in serious medical jeopardy and needed CPR or needed to be carried out of a dangerous situation.... does he turn away and put his faith first?

i know that is a much more extreme example.... but at the core of this debate is the absurdity of the rules that are being imposed on this man by his muslim faith.... and they are most certainly absurd to me. where do you draw the line?

You're questioning Muslim faith there which is fine but you can't blame the dude for it. He was born into it and brainwashed into it (most likely). Yes there's a shitload wrong with the Muslim religion but that goes for all religions. In this case I think the barber has a point. He was exercising his religious belief not questioning gender equality. I think the woman is just milking it or is highly ignorant of the Muslim religion. Either way, I don't think this'll drag on to court

pzabby 11-15-2012 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfunkie1 (Post 704144)
i think augusta is more offensive than this, and i'm completely cool with men/women only organizations/clubs. people just need to let go of caring so much about stuff that really doesn't matter. there's a million barbers that she could get her hair cut from. if she was turned away because of religious faith, she should respectfully go on to the next one. it's not like they called her a dyke and scorned her because of her sexual preferences.

Well put.

I hate to do this but trane I disagree with you on this. Which is odd as I normally don't. He's not believing in some cult. This is the Muslim faith and if he were to go strictly by the interpretation of it which he believes then hr is in the right.

Bmats7returns 11-15-2012 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'trane (Post 704131)
just go with your assumptions. you know exactly what he's saying, and it's nonsense.

lulz.

the same reason H.L.A. Hart says there can be no international law.

He's right that it's probably nonsense to you though. I prefer to stay away from stipulative definitions in the 'rights' game though.

'trane 11-15-2012 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pzabby (Post 704149)
Well put.

I hate to do this but trane I disagree with you on this. Which is odd as I normally don't. He's not believing in some cult. This is the Muslim faith and if he were to go strictly by the interpretation of it which he believes then hr is in the right.

not well put at all. the muslim faith is no different from a cult, from the easter bunny, from the flying spaghetti monster, etc. it's all fairy tales, and fairy tales are fine and dandy for personal spirituality, but should have absolutely no influence on what happens in terms of public and social policy in a secular democracy. it's total bullshit.

XiaominWu 11-15-2012 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pzabby (Post 704145)
You're questioning Muslim faith there which is fine but you can't blame the dude for it. He was born into it and brainwashed into it (most likely). Yes there's a shitload wrong with the Muslim religion but that goes for all religions. In this case I think the barber has a point. He was exercising his religious belief not questioning gender equality. I think the woman is just milking it or is highly ignorant of the Muslim religion. Either way, I don't think this'll drag on to court

are there no muslim doctors? do they not treat women?

i mean, i know that we have to respect someone's right to practice their religion... but within that there has to be a modicum of common sense thrown in, right? there are a lot of seriously antiquated things written in those holy books.

from the standpoint of a barber.... a man's head and a woman's head are virtually identical.... the hair grows the same way. this woman is not asking for anything different from every other customer they serve.

'trane 11-15-2012 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bmats7returns (Post 704153)
lulz.

the same reason H.L.A. Hart says there can be no international law.

He's right that it's probably nonsense to you though. I prefer to stay away from stipulative definitions in the 'rights' game though.

lulz is not an argument, it's an escape.

and, quite obviously, you want to stay away from any definitions at all. it's a lot easier when you can just rely on a 'sacred text' and not bother with defining anything.

dfunkie1 11-15-2012 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'trane (Post 704154)
not well put at all. the muslim faith is no different from a cult, from the easter bunny, from the flying spaghetti monster, etc. it's all fairy tales, and fairy tales are fine and dandy for personal spirituality, but should have absolutely no influence on what happens in terms of public and social policy in a secular democracy. it's total bullshit.

religions aren't fairytales, they're rules for governing people. i'd hate to be you when you find out that you currently live by those rules that were thought out by religious leaders many years ago.

Bmats7returns 11-15-2012 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'trane (Post 704154)
not well put at all. the muslim faith is no different from a cult, from the easter bunny, from the flying spaghetti monster, etc. it's all fairy tales, and fairy tales are fine and dandy for personal spirituality, but should have absolutely no influence on what happens in terms of public and social policy in a secular democracy. it's total bullshit.

*yawn*Russel's teapot*yawn*God of the gaps*yawn*flying spaghetti monster*yawn*

I thought they finally put Dawkins into the children's section. I didn't come here to debate a dumbed-down atheism.

What is a human right and where do they come from (or how do we come to know/define them)?

Are you familiar with legal positivism, interpretivism, and realism? In case you are wondering who I'd put in those categories, I'd put Hart in the first, Dworkin in the second and Leiter/Hutcheson in the third.

'trane 11-15-2012 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfunkie1 (Post 704168)
religions aren't fairytales, they're rules for governing people. i'd hate to be you when you find out that you currently live by those rules that were thought out by religious leaders many years ago.

rules based on fiction and a denial of reason. rules that cannot be questioned and that are enforced by the threat of eternal suffering. rules that i never agreed to, nor that i continue to give assent to. make-believe justifications for servitude.

the values i currently hold as critical are the byproduct of humanism, and are by no means the property of faith. adding "god grants you" in front of "the right to freedom and happiness" does not make it any more valuable, nor any more the product of a particular tradition. these same faiths that stand for whatever humanist arguments you think i believe in also stand for other very objectionable things. and the fact that people pick and choose which parts to adhere to is further evidence that the 'rules' and their enforcement are not explicit.

it is absurd to insist that a secular in upbringing an a-religious (not anti-religious) household in a predominantly judeo-christian environment means that everything i believe in was created for me by religious leaders. that's not something i can take seriously.

'trane 11-15-2012 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bmats7returns (Post 704170)
*yawn*Russel's teapot*yawn*God of the gaps*yawn*flying spaghetti monster*yawn*

I thought they finally put Dawkins into the children's section. I didn't come here to debate a dumbed-down atheism.

What is a human right and where do they come from (or how do we come to know/define them)?

Are you familiar with legal positivism, interpretivism, and realism? In case you are wondering who I'd put in those categories, I'd put Hart in the first, Dworkin in the second and Leiter/Hutcheson in the third.

trying to paint me as a caricature is not going to work, especially because that post was not directed at you or at a point you made. i'm really not sure what you are getting at with this post.

the answer to your last questions are yes, and no i'm not.

are you actually asking me what i think a human right is and where i think they come from, or are you just putting that down to get a lead in to a discussion on the philosophy of law?

Bmats7returns 11-16-2012 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'trane (Post 704178)
trying to paint me as a caricature is not going to work, especially because that post was not directed at you or at a point you made. i'm really not sure what you are getting at with this post.

the answer to your last questions are yes, and no i'm not.

are you actually asking me what i think a human right is and where i think they come from, or are you just putting that down to get a lead in to a discussion on the philosophy of law?

A caricature? You actually said flying spaghetti monster, easter bunny and fairy tales in this discussion. But fine, maybe you meant them sarcastically and are not one of the sheeple of this new dumbed-down atheism that uses that language consistently. Also, not sure how this isn't directed at me when you told me I rely on 'sacred texts' and not definitions.

So I am asking you, what do you think a human right is and where do they come from (or how we come to know/define them). The definitions that I use are clear for the debate (the philosophy of law). I'm not sure what other definitions there are.

Ligeia 11-16-2012 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dfunkie1 (Post 704168)
religions aren't fairytales, they're rules for governing people. i'd hate to be you when you find out that you currently live by those rules that were thought out by religious leaders many years ago.

What grounds the rules? What makes them right?

What do we do when we have competing religions or rules?

Ligeia 11-16-2012 01:05 AM

What are the actual rights that are being defended or attacked? I have a few different formulations in mind:

On the side of the barber:
1) An individual has the right to offer or refuse service or exchange of goods with whomever they please in an agreement that does not violate established rights of the receiver.

On the side of the haircut:
1) An individual has a right to receive any service or any good they desire from any party who offers that service or good to any other party (w/out being contra established rights). As long as the individual receives the service from someone, their rights have been met.
2) An individual has a right to receive any service or any good they desire from any particular party who offers that service or good to any other party (usual caveat). The individual must receive the service/good from the party they desire, so long as that party also offers the service/good to others.

Whether the context is essential goods or services, the latter is harder to defend without denying that right of the barber. If the former collapses into the latter, which seems possible but not necessarily plausible in a sufficiently diverse market, then we're stuck in the same scenario. Since I take this to be where the conflict lies, the question, to me, is whether the barber should actually have the right to refuse service he offers to others, so long as it does not violate established rights.

The premise, I think, is that to refuse the barber this right would be refusing him essential autonomy and liberty. However, I take it for granted that we have the right to enforce upon individuals certain rules that are conducive to success in the market more broadly, in part because market activity, especially in a contemporary context, is not really that private. We don't let companies bait-and-switch, for example, because it undermines confidence in the market more generally. I think a similar argument can be extended to arbitrary refusal of service. It undermines confidence in the market and seems contrary to the very purpose of offering services and goods.

I'm not claiming that consumers are then permitted to do everything. Since every exchange involves two parties, consumers must also act in a way that does not undermine the confidence of sellers, and this includes, say, berating an employee, ignoring debts, etc.


What BMats has pointed towards is a challenge I'm somewhat sympathetic to but which requires a great deal of work. When you ask what ultimately grounds all rights, and when we start with individual liberty and autonomy as the fundamental principle, we start to run into chaos because individuals can have mutually exclusive views of their liberty and autonomy when interacting with each other. Out of that, I think there is a bit of a practical need to acknowledge that liberty and autonomy must be restricted in some sense, and that is when we start to ask about what sort of society you like. You then try to actualize the most practical rights to achieve that sort of society.

I think this is where I depart from libertarianism. I do not think that the best society can be actualized by libertarianism. I find socialist libertarianism extremely attractive, particularly on theoretical grounds, but I try not to be distracted by utopian ideas when the evidence on the ground seems to point in the other direction.

Yes, I do believe that politics, economics, and ethics are fundamentally pragmatic in nature.

Ligeia 11-16-2012 01:15 AM

Re-reading my post, I see a weakness is where I describe this as a case of "arbitrary refusal of service." The religiously inclined, or those who see primacy in individual conscience, would likely disagree that this is by any means arbitrary.

What makes it arbitrary, I believe, is the grounds for justification. We cannot justify it simply by making recourse to individual conscience; we must still be able to defend the claim itself. If a matter of fact can be established, then it should be observed as such. If it becomes a matter of value, then we should land on the side that has the smallest practical negative impact. For example, we shouldn't agree to a value that will undermine the co-operation of individuals in fundamentally co-operative contexts.

Now don't make me defend fact-value distinction or what a fact really is. I'm not ready for that.

Dario 11-16-2012 01:37 AM

wheres the article or video?

Bill Haverchuck 11-16-2012 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dario (Post 704199)
wheres the article or video?

Check the "headlines" thread, dude. It should be in there under a post from yesterday or the day before that.

Dario 11-16-2012 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Haverchuck (Post 704200)
Check the "headlines" thread, dude. It should be in there under a post from yesterday or the day before that.

got it thanks bro.

LX 11-16-2012 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XiaominWu (Post 704155)
are there no muslim doctors? do they not treat women?

i mean, i know that we have to respect someone's right to practice their religion... but within that there has to be a modicum of common sense thrown in, right? there are a lot of seriously antiquated things written in those holy books.

from the standpoint of a barber.... a man's head and a woman's head are virtually identical.... the hair grows the same way. this woman is not asking for anything different from every other customer they serve.

It's not solely about religion. From what I picked up from travelling through a few different Muslim countries, there is a pretty fair flexibility as to what people can decide to live by. A bigger aspect is culture. This dude is defined by a culture whereby he seeks to be honourable. He could just take a person's money and not worry about it, but the fact is that the culture he knows and was defined by will not allow him to do that. If he wanted to be a doctor he would of course need to accept a different culture. As a barber I'm not sure it's necessary to expect that much from him. I just don't see too many positives from technocrats drilling down this far all the time.

LX 11-16-2012 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'trane (Post 704142)
this is neither simple or petty. the reality of competing rights butting up against one another is an increasing problem in secular societies. i would be wholly and completely uncomfortable with the notion that people's make-believe trumps others reality. to call this prosthelytizing is to deny the reasonable point being made.

'living his life within a reality that includes multiple truths'... i have seen you reference this meaningless drivel too many times. it's about time you explained how this is real, and how this should impinge on a woman's right to get service in her own community. there is bit one truth, and the question is whether or not people can see it. most can't, so we reason through it. one way to make sure you won't see it is to invent your own, or, even worse, to believe in someone else's invention without questioning it.

muslim, catholic, zeus-worshipping, i don't give a flying fuck. none of it is my reality, and none of it has a shred of credibility to support it.

Preach on. I will stop my drivel and search out that one truth that you have found as one of the chosen few.

pzabby 11-16-2012 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'trane (Post 704154)
not well put at all. the muslim faith is no different from a cult, from the easter bunny, from the flying spaghetti monster, etc. it's all fairy tales, and fairy tales are fine and dandy for personal spirituality, but should have absolutely no influence on what happens in terms of public and social policy in a secular democracy. it's total bullshit.

Even though I agree with you on the reality of the Muslim or Any faith at all for that matter, it doesn't matter what we think. He believes in it and is living by it. That's a right for all Canadians. It just so happens the Muslim faith is very controlling and it affects his work. He denied service based on his faith not letting him touch a stranger of a woman's hair. Not because she wanted a "man's" haircut. He's not discriminating against her here and that's the key point.

bjjs 11-16-2012 07:49 AM

Nobody has to do business or provide a service to somebody if they don't want to.

Words or not - don't have to.

What this woman is doing - is wasting people's time, wasting people's money, wasting government resources.

It's a waste. Walk down the street and get a haircut somewhere else.

Ligeia 11-16-2012 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjjs (Post 704222)
Nobody has to do business or provide a service to somebody if they don't want to.

Words or not -

Bare assertion. Great.

I take it that you feel an ER surgeon is justified in arbitrarily refusing to treat a particular patient, even if that patient dies as a result?

bjjs 11-16-2012 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ligeia (Post 704256)
Bare assertion. Great.

I take it that you feel an ER surgeon is justified in arbitrarily refusing to treat a particular patient, even if that patient dies as a result?

No. And I think justice should come into play in such a matter.

A barbershop hair cut for a woman trying to take down a barbershop so she can sit proud and roar loud - no justification for you - go away annoying person - stop wasting everyones time.

Let me know when the Toronto barbershop industry has collectively given her the cold shoulder and she has been left with the option of paying a ridiculous price at a hair salon, or cutting her own hair in front of the mirror.

dfunkie1 11-16-2012 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ligeia (Post 704256)
Bare assertion. Great.

I take it that you feel an ER surgeon is justified in arbitrarily refusing to treat a particular patient, even if that patient dies as a result?

does an ER surgeon own the hospital?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24