Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
123 Posts
Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Marines too wimpy to take a crap in front of a woman rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
"Captain, although your abilities intrigue me, you are quite honestly inferior"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jythier wrote:
It seems that where ever there were only men before, women are treated badly when they get in there.

Though true, we can't let it stop us from progressing to the point where there are no more arbitrary places with only men. If we let that information control our decisions, there would be no women in the workplace, sports or government. We need to change the men who treat them badly, not limit women's choices because of them. The badly behaving men are the problem and "tradition" isn't a valid defense.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Agent J
United States
Coldwater
Michigan
flag msg tools
He's looking real sharp in his 1940's fedora. He's got nerves of steel, an iron will, and several other metal-themed attributes. His fur is water tight and he's always up for a fight.
badge
He's a semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action. He's a furry little flat-foot who'll never flinch from a fray. He's got more than just mad skills, he's got a beaver tail and a bill.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
Jythier wrote:
It seems that where ever there were only men before, women are treated badly when they get in there.

Though true, we can't let it stop us from progressing to the point where there are no more arbitrary places with only men. If we let that information control our decisions, there would be no women in the workplace, sports or government. We need to change the men who treat them badly, not limit women's choices because of them. The badly behaving men are the problem and "tradition" isn't a valid defense.

That's the point I was making.

Despite that, I still am against women in combat. But if they're going to be in there, this behavior towards them is counterproductive, despicable, and reprehensible.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Shipley
United States
Baltimore
Maryland
flag msg tools
badge
the liberal unsavory type
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jythier wrote:
It seems that where ever there were only men before, women are treated badly when they get in there.

Same with racial integration. We often honor the first through the door because they had to put up with a lot of crap while pushing things forward.

On the main point, I hope they review the standards for each specialty and then allow any women (and men) that meet them to apply.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Women often consider things harassment that men would shrug off as sophomoric humor. So it won't surprise me if there are some harassment lawsuits arising from mixed sex bathroom facilities.

I have zero problem with letting women do anything in the military for which they meet the existing requirements (or requirements that exist after re-evaluating for everyone). I do not favor modifying the requirements which often happens when admitting women to institutions. I do think that not many women can lug a 200 pound inert man very far so we shouldn't see a dramatic increase in the number of women on the front lines.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
Women often consider things harassment that men would shrug off as sophomoric humor. So it won't surprise me if there are some harassment lawsuits arising from mixed sex bathroom facilities.

Good. Less harassment in the military would be an added benefit.

Quote:
I do think that not many women can lug a 200 pound inert man very far so we shouldn't see a dramatic increase in the number of women on the front lines.

If men are harder to lug, doesn't that mean we should bar them from the front lines?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Agent J
United States
Coldwater
Michigan
flag msg tools
He's looking real sharp in his 1940's fedora. He's got nerves of steel, an iron will, and several other metal-themed attributes. His fur is water tight and he's always up for a fight.
badge
He's a semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action. He's a furry little flat-foot who'll never flinch from a fray. He's got more than just mad skills, he's got a beaver tail and a bill.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I really think that men being in the military is the real problem here.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
Women often consider things harassment that men would shrug off as sophomoric humor. So it won't surprise me if there are some harassment lawsuits arising from mixed sex bathroom facilities.

I have zero problem with letting women do anything in the military for which they meet the existing requirements (or requirements that exist after re-evaluating for everyone). I do not favor modifying the requirements which often happens when admitting women to institutions. I do think that not many women can lug a 200 pound inert man very far so we shouldn't see a dramatic increase in the number of women on the front lines.

Everything I've heard suggests maintaining minimum physical standards for anyone to serve in jobs that have strict physical requirements. I think that makes perfect sense. Much like firefighters--I think women should have an equal opportunity to be firefighters, but I don't want anyone, male or female, to be serving as a firefighter if they're not strong enough to do the crucial parts of the job like carrying people out of buildings.

I've seen many people make the same argument, Scott. I do think there's a double standard in place now, though, where there might be men serving in combat who are also incapable of hauling their 200 lb squadmate out of the line of fire. If that's the case, there's no reason to keep women out of that job either. If it's not, if the physical standards are stringently applied, then we should just apply those standards to everyone who wants to serve regardless of whether or not they happen to have a testicle or two knocking around in their shorts.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Agent J
United States
Coldwater
Michigan
flag msg tools
He's looking real sharp in his 1940's fedora. He's got nerves of steel, an iron will, and several other metal-themed attributes. His fur is water tight and he's always up for a fight.
badge
He's a semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action. He's a furry little flat-foot who'll never flinch from a fray. He's got more than just mad skills, he's got a beaver tail and a bill.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
qzhdad wrote:
Women often consider things harassment that men would shrug off as sophomoric humor. So it won't surprise me if there are some harassment lawsuits arising from mixed sex bathroom facilities.

I have zero problem with letting women do anything in the military for which they meet the existing requirements (or requirements that exist after re-evaluating for everyone). I do not favor modifying the requirements which often happens when admitting women to institutions. I do think that not many women can lug a 200 pound inert man very far so we shouldn't see a dramatic increase in the number of women on the front lines.

Everything I've heard suggests maintaining minimum physical standards for anyone to serve in jobs that have strict physical requirements. I think that makes perfect sense. Much like firefighters--I think women should have an equal opportunity to be firefighters, but I don't want anyone, male or female, to be serving as a firefighter if they're not strong enough to do the crucial parts of the job like carrying people out of buildings.

I've seen many people make the same argument, Scott. I do think there's a double standard in place now, though, where there might be men serving in combat who are also incapable of hauling their 200 lb squadmate out of the line of fire. If that's the case, there's no reason to keep women out of that job either. If it's not, if the physical standards are stringently applied, then we should just apply those standards to everyone who wants to serve regardless of whether or not they happen to have a testicle or two knocking around in their shorts.

In the movie G.I. Jane, she got pissed because of the double standard. I wish we would listen to people like that, who are having to meet the standard, and want to make sure they can do the job before having to do it in the face of gunfire.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
qzhdad wrote:
Women often consider things harassment that men would shrug off as sophomoric humor. So it won't surprise me if there are some harassment lawsuits arising from mixed sex bathroom facilities.

Good. Less harassment in the military would be an added benefit.

Quote:
I do think that not many women can lug a 200 pound inert man very far so we shouldn't see a dramatic increase in the number of women on the front lines.

If men are harder to lug, doesn't that mean we should bar them from the front lines?

Large men. Limit men to 175 pounds in general combat units. Big men just cost more fuel to move around, food to feed, and require larger, more expensive vehicles.

And do the same for american football while you are at it. Might be fun to watch a game with normal people playing it again (instead of vaguely mutated monsters).
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
qzhdad wrote:
Women often consider things harassment that men would shrug off as sophomoric humor. So it won't surprise me if there are some harassment lawsuits arising from mixed sex bathroom facilities.

I have zero problem with letting women do anything in the military for which they meet the existing requirements (or requirements that exist after re-evaluating for everyone). I do not favor modifying the requirements which often happens when admitting women to institutions. I do think that not many women can lug a 200 pound inert man very far so we shouldn't see a dramatic increase in the number of women on the front lines.

Everything I've heard suggests maintaining minimum physical standards for anyone to serve in jobs that have strict physical requirements. I think that makes perfect sense. Much like firefighters--I think women should have an equal opportunity to be firefighters, but I don't want anyone, male or female, to be serving as a firefighter if they're not strong enough to do the crucial parts of the job like carrying people out of buildings.

I've seen many people make the same argument, Scott. I do think there's a double standard in place now, though, where there might be men serving in combat who are also incapable of hauling their 200 lb squadmate out of the line of fire. If that's the case, there's no reason to keep women out of that job either. If it's not, if the physical standards are stringently applied, then we should just apply those standards to everyone who wants to serve regardless of whether or not they happen to have a testicle or two knocking around in their shorts.

Well the other question you have to ask is if those standards are reasonable for the job in the first place.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
qzhdad wrote:
Women often consider things harassment that men would shrug off as sophomoric humor. So it won't surprise me if there are some harassment lawsuits arising from mixed sex bathroom facilities.

Good. Less harassment in the military would be an added benefit.

Somehow, I don't think that will be the result, but hang on to those rose-colored glasses.

Men (and women) in stressful situations (like combat and, more importantly intense training programs) are going to do and say stupid things. Do you disagree that men in general shrug off comments and practical jokes more readily than women? I've been really surprised by exactly how small a thing or an innocuous comment can really get women that I've known incensed. Now I kind of expect it. I am not saying all men ignore stuff (or gain revenge in kind) nor that all women take offense, but it certainly seems to be a common tendency.

Quote:
I do think that not many women can lug a 200 pound inert man very far so we shouldn't see a dramatic increase in the number of women on the front lines.

If men are harder to lug, doesn't that mean we should bar them from the front lines?[/q]

Yes, that's exactly what we should do. Because throughout history smaller people unfailingly prevail in physical altercations, right? No doubt, you can supply countless examples when armies of women conquered countries that were foolish enough to use men in their armies.

If we have an army to fight, then we should select those best able to do so from the applicants. Do you disagree? Do you agree that all else being equal, more strength is a desirable characteristic?

Or are you willing to compromise the quality of our fighting forces in the interest of "fairness?"
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:
qzhdad wrote:
Women often consider things harassment that men would shrug off as sophomoric humor. So it won't surprise me if there are some harassment lawsuits arising from mixed sex bathroom facilities.

I have zero problem with letting women do anything in the military for which they meet the existing requirements (or requirements that exist after re-evaluating for everyone). I do not favor modifying the requirements which often happens when admitting women to institutions. I do think that not many women can lug a 200 pound inert man very far so we shouldn't see a dramatic increase in the number of women on the front lines.

Everything I've heard suggests maintaining minimum physical standards for anyone to serve in jobs that have strict physical requirements. I think that makes perfect sense. Much like firefighters--I think women should have an equal opportunity to be firefighters, but I don't want anyone, male or female, to be serving as a firefighter if they're not strong enough to do the crucial parts of the job like carrying people out of buildings.

I've seen many people make the same argument, Scott. I do think there's a double standard in place now, though, where there might be men serving in combat who are also incapable of hauling their 200 lb squadmate out of the line of fire. If that's the case, there's no reason to keep women out of that job either. If it's not, if the physical standards are stringently applied, then we should just apply those standards to everyone who wants to serve regardless of whether or not they happen to have a testicle or two knocking around in their shorts.

Well the other question you have to ask is if those standards are reasonable for the job in the first place.

Of course. That's a given. But if there's a necessary physical standard that's stringently applied, allowing women who can meet that standard should have no negative effects. I don't think Force Recon or the SEALS or Green Berets should have to lower their standards just to let women in, but I also don't think that someone who can meet those standards should be kept out simply because of their gender.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
Do you disagree that men in general shrug off comments and practical jokes more readily than women?

I don't really tend to agree with statements about "people in general", because people are all different. There may be some kinds of conduct that some men find offensive, and even more women find offensive. The benefit from getting rid of that is still pretty large.

Quote:
Or are you willing to compromise the quality of our fighting forces in the interest of "fairness?"

I think it's more important that our military reflect what our society looks like, than almost anything else. I think when we send a military off to war made up of people that don't represent the whole population, that has all sorts of bad consequences for our society itself. Whereas I'm highly confident in our ability to build an effective military with a diverse pool of recruits. How we equip our troops and how they fight will undoubtedly be influenced by the actual troops that we've got. Just as we deploy more sophisticated equipment to our troops than a third-world army with less educated recruits would. Everyone says, there could be some roles that many more men will qualify for than women. Nothing wrong with that. But it's about the roles, not about the overall force.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
Because throughout history smaller people unfailingly prevail in physical altercations, right?

I don't think modern warfare is much informed by what happened in 3000 BC. I don't think the US armed forces are the dominant military power in the world today because our guys are bigger than their guys.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Agent J
United States
Coldwater
Michigan
flag msg tools
He's looking real sharp in his 1940's fedora. He's got nerves of steel, an iron will, and several other metal-themed attributes. His fur is water tight and he's always up for a fight.
badge
He's a semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action. He's a furry little flat-foot who'll never flinch from a fray. He's got more than just mad skills, he's got a beaver tail and a bill.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
qzhdad wrote:
Do you disagree that men in general shrug off comments and practical jokes more readily than women?

I don't really tend to agree with statements about "people in general", because people are all different. There may be some kinds of conduct that some men find offensive, and even more women find offensive. The benefit from getting rid of that is still pretty large.

Quote:
Or are you willing to compromise the quality of our fighting forces in the interest of "fairness?"

I think it's more important that our military reflect what our society looks like, than almost anything else. I think when we send a military off to war made up of people that don't represent the whole population, that has all sorts of bad consequences for our society itself. Whereas I'm highly confident in our ability to build an effective military with a diverse pool of recruits. How we equip our troops and how they fight will undoubtedly be influenced by the actual troops that we've got. Just as we deploy more sophisticated equipment to our troops than a third-world army with less educated recruits would. Everyone says, there could be some roles that many more men will qualify for than women. Nothing wrong with that. But it's about the roles, not about the overall force.

Everyone says that?

In the same post as you not liking to agree about people in general statements?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jythier wrote:
Everyone says that?

In the same post as you not liking to agree about people in general statements?


That's what every one of the people involved in making and implementing the policies we're talking about, has said about what those actual policies will be.

Not every living human being. I don't think it matters what Vladimir Putin thinks about which roles women should fill in the US armed forces. Since it's not going to be up to him.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:


Everything I've heard suggests maintaining minimum physical standards for anyone to serve in jobs that have strict physical requirements. I think that makes perfect sense. Much like firefighters--I think women should have an equal opportunity to be firefighters, but I don't want anyone, male or female, to be serving as a firefighter if they're not strong enough to do the crucial parts of the job like carrying people out of buildings.

I've seen many people make the same argument, Scott. I do think there's a double standard in place now, though, where there might be men serving in combat who are also incapable of hauling their 200 lb squadmate out of the line of fire. If that's the case, there's no reason to keep women out of that job either. If it's not, if the physical standards are stringently applied, then we should just apply those standards to everyone who wants to serve regardless of whether or not they happen to have a testicle or two knocking around in their shorts.

I agree completely. The standards should apply to anyone that wants that position.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
[q="djgutierrez77"][q="qzhdad"] (or requirements that exist after re-evaluating for everyone).

Well the other question you have to ask is if those standards are reasonable for the job in the first place.


I agree, that's what my parenthetical phrase was trying to say.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dave G
United States
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
El Chupacabratwurst
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
djgutierrez77 wrote:


Everything I've heard suggests maintaining minimum physical standards for anyone to serve in jobs that have strict physical requirements. I think that makes perfect sense. Much like firefighters--I think women should have an equal opportunity to be firefighters, but I don't want anyone, male or female, to be serving as a firefighter if they're not strong enough to do the crucial parts of the job like carrying people out of buildings.

I've seen many people make the same argument, Scott. I do think there's a double standard in place now, though, where there might be men serving in combat who are also incapable of hauling their 200 lb squadmate out of the line of fire. If that's the case, there's no reason to keep women out of that job either. If it's not, if the physical standards are stringently applied, then we should just apply those standards to everyone who wants to serve regardless of whether or not they happen to have a testicle or two knocking around in their shorts.

I agree completely. The standards should apply to anyone that wants that position.

And it should be noted that in every report I've heard on this topic that has been one of the first things mentioned. So if this is your biggest concern about the issue, you can rest easy, it's already been covered.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:

I think it's more important that our military reflect what our society looks like, than almost anything else. I think when we send a military off to war made up of people that don't represent the whole population, that has all sorts of bad consequences for our society itself. Whereas I'm highly confident in our ability to build an effective military with a diverse pool of recruits. How we equip our troops and how they fight will undoubtedly be influenced by the actual troops that we've got. Just as we deploy more sophisticated equipment to our troops than a third-world army with less educated recruits would. Everyone says, there could be some roles that many more men will qualify for than women. Nothing wrong with that. But it's about the roles, not about the overall force.

I don't completely disagree with the idea that the military should represent society, but think it can be carried to a silly extreme. (I suspect that you'd be ok without any paraplegics on the front lines, for example.) But everyone having a stake in the military could certainly lead to a more prudent use of our forces.

However, the idea that we should create a position within our armed forces for every part of our population seems silly. I seem to recall on another thread that you thought it was a bad idea to have firearms around troubled individuals, for example.

And, this new policy is entirely about the roles, isn't it? Specifically combat positions. Women throughout history have been used as an auxiliary to armies and in many cases as combat troops.

However, I don't think that we should compromise effectiveness at all to meet diversity goals.

I'd love to hear from anyone that has actually been in combat on this topic, anyone out there?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
And, this new policy is entirely about the roles, isn't it? Specifically combat positions.

No, being "in combat" is not a "role". The policy explicitly says that it remains to be determined (and the branches will determine over several years) which roles should have women in them and which not. The policy just says that whether the role could be "in combat" isn't the basis for deciding whether or not to have women in that role.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
qzhdad wrote:
Because throughout history smaller people unfailingly prevail in physical altercations, right?

I don't think modern warfare is much informed by what happened in 3000 BC. I don't think the US armed forces are the dominant military power in the world today because our guys are bigger than their guys.

I don't think that you appreciate the advantages that strength conveys in combat and preparation situations. The elite forces throughout the world don't tend to have any weaklings and are generally above average in size.

This is another topic on which I'd love to hear from someone that has been there. My limited exposure to veterans has reinforced my views that bigger is generally better, but I don't mind stretching my horizons.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
qzhdad wrote:
And, this new policy is entirely about the roles, isn't it? Specifically combat positions.

No, being "in combat" is not a "role". The policy explicitly says that it remains to be determined (and the branches will determine over several years) which roles should have women in them and which not. The policy just says that whether the role could be "in combat" isn't the basis for deciding whether or not to have women in that role.

Then I am back to my original post that as long as they don't compromise necessary qualifications, I am all for including women in any role.

I do stand by my statement that there will be more harassment charges filed for the same behavior. (This isn't to say that some behavior will undoubtedly get worse for a while, that's also standard reaction for people who feel threatened by change.) I don't share your absolute opinion that getting rid of sophomoric behavior is a good thing. People that are willing to go into the military should be allowed much more leeway in how they blow off steam.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
People that are willing to go into the military should be allowed much more leeway in how they blow off steam.

Why? It's ok if only 10% of the people are offended? What did you think of the Owen Honors videos? If he and everyone involved had paid more attention sooner to the actual policies of the US Navy that he was sworn to uphold, wouldn't that have been better for everyone?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Hawaii
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
djgutierrez77 wrote:
qzhdad wrote:

I have zero problem with letting women do anything in the military for which they meet the existing requirements (or requirements that exist after re-evaluating for everyone). I do not favor modifying the requirements which often happens when admitting women to institutions. I do think that not many women can lug a 200 pound inert man very far so we shouldn't see a dramatic increase in the number of women on the front lines.

Everything I've heard suggests maintaining minimum physical standards for anyone to serve in jobs that have strict physical requirements. I think that makes perfect sense. Much like firefighters--I think women should have an equal opportunity to be firefighters, but I don't want anyone, male or female, to be serving as a firefighter if they're not strong enough to do the crucial parts of the job like carrying people out of buildings.

I've seen many people make the same argument, Scott. I do think there's a double standard in place now, though, where there might be men serving in combat who are also incapable of hauling their 200 lb squadmate out of the line of fire. If that's the case, there's no reason to keep women out of that job either. If it's not, if the physical standards are stringently applied, then we should just apply those standards to everyone who wants to serve regardless of whether or not they happen to have a testicle or two knocking around in their shorts.
All of this.

Step 1: Make sure the physical standards are accurate for what is required to do the job. They shouldn't be arbitrarily more difficult than necessary.

Step 2: Enforce the standard across genders. Any woman who qualifies is in.

I've been told that some fire departments do not require their females to meet the same physical standards. I'm not sure whether this is common, but I oppose it in principle.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Prev «  1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   |