Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is antithetical to racism
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 134 of 238 (424357)
09-26-2007 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by CTD
09-26-2007 3:49 PM


Just what is meant by "those who use the doctrine of evolution to justify totalitarian brutality and aggression"? Of whom could they be thinking?
Um, racists? You still have not shown that "those who use the doctrine of evolution to justify totalitarian brutality and aggression" have an argument the shows how racism is a necessary result of the theory of evolution. You're still quoting other people's insinuations instead.
From your article:
quote:
Since Darwin's time violence has sometimes been justified by aggressors and even accepted by their victims as biologically natural, i.e., just and not answerable to unscientific moral scruples. A climax in the misuse of Darwinian ideology was reached by the totalitarians who declared that it justified 1) deliberate brutality, 2) adoption of violence as the final arbiter in the relations among men, classes, states.
That sounds like what everyone else here has been saying.
quote:
"Competition plays a tremendously important part in evolution but the survival of the fittest does not always mean the survival of the strong, the predators, the parasites or even the adequately defended organisms." Sheer struggle tends to be supplanted by cooperation, Emerson observed, in each evolutionary step upward from the single cell to the many-celled organism to the family to societies.
Note there is nothing here about evolution theory necessarily resulting in "inferior" subpopulations and the behavior of racism.
Now it seems to me that you have three options:
  1. Acknowledge that the theory of evolution does not in fact result in racism,
  2. Continue to assert that it does result in racism, while providing absolutely no evidence that it does (and in denial of all the evidence that it doesn't), or
  3. Actually demonstrating that the theory of evolution necessarily results in racism.
In my opinion, an honest person. especially one that is honest to themselves, will choose option (1) or option (3) but not option (2).
It is also my opinion that option (3) cannot honestly be done, which imh(ysa)o leaves only option (1) as the honest, truthful answer.
You may disagree, and feel free to do so, however there is no basis - can be no basis - for disagreeing if you cannot show that the theory of evolution necessarily results in racism, because option (2) is morally and intellectually bankrupt.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by CTD, posted 09-26-2007 3:49 PM CTD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 140 of 238 (425007)
09-29-2007 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Hyroglyphx
09-29-2007 9:05 PM


Re: References and Quote-Miners
He actually said "closed system" and you didn't twig that this makes him ... how do I put it kindly ... wrong?
No.
He was speaking about logical entropy, which was the entire purpose of his thesis.
How is logic a closed system? Anyone claiming a closed system needs to demonstrate it is so rather than declare it.
Now do you want to attempt dealing with the topic and demonstrate how the theory of evolution necessarily results in racism?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : topic question

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-29-2007 9:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 148 of 238 (425283)
10-01-2007 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by CTD
10-01-2007 8:43 AM


Hi CTD.
So eugenics is separate from racism?
I'm having a little trouble reconciling this with your recent posts on The Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution, such as Message 221
From what I've seen, evolutionists don't believe in fixity of language any more than they believe in fixity of species. I think this case demonstrates what I mean.
For I don't understand your confusion between eugenics and racism if you are well versed in the definitions of words. One is about selecting individual organisms for desirable characteristics and the other is about rejecting whole populations as unworthy regardless of characteristics.
The alternative to practising eugenics is not to practise eugenics.
So would the paraphrase apply: "the alternative to practicing evolutionism is not to practice evolutionism"?
If "evolutionism" was practiced. Evolution happens whether we practice selection or not. This is like the difference between practicing rocketry and gravity: one is dependent on our practicing it the other isn't.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 8:43 AM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 7:43 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 152 of 238 (425307)
10-01-2007 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by CTD
10-01-2007 5:09 PM


Cutting to the chase ...
What
Huxley says ...
... is irrelevant.
The issue is whether evolution necessarily results in racism.
Racism says that one (or more) whole subpopulation(s) of people are inferior to one (or more) whole subpopulation(s)
Evolution says that unfit individuals are selected against such that unfit hereditary traits are gradually removed from the (sub)population(s) gene pool.
In other words evolution tends to select for fit subpopulations and populations of people in every ecosystem they inhabit.
How then can any subpopulation be inferior?
Genetics shows us that any trait we happen to choose has a wide variation in all populations such that the differences within any population are greater than the differences between populations.
How then can any subpopulation be inferior?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : sub

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 5:09 PM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 9:17 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 154 of 238 (425312)
10-01-2007 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by CTD
10-01-2007 6:15 PM


topic please?
He says if you don't apply eugenics that evolution takes over. Big whap. Still doesn't end up in racism.
Still irrelevant to the issue: how does the theory of evolution necessarily result in racism (not eugenics, racism)?

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 6:15 PM CTD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 7:04 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 161 of 238 (425331)
10-01-2007 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by CTD
10-01-2007 7:04 PM


Re: topic please?
The original premise was that evolutionism doesn't support racism, and now you've changed it to necessarily resulting in racism.
The original premise was that the theory of evolution was antithetical to racism (see title), ie that it could not result in racism.
It's not a matter of "support" but a matter of logically getting from one to the other. Quoting people doesn't do that. Diverting into eugenics doesn't do that. Demonstrating how you can derive racism directly from evolution via logic does do that, and when you do that then it must, necessarily, be true.
People can find "support" in modern physics for the earth being at the center of the universe. But that doesn't mean that you can derive a geocentric universe from modern physics.
With no trace of civilization, there's nothing to restrain racism. So how do we end up with anything other than chaos and racism? What naturalistic mechanism would you invoke to select only non-racists for survival? If there is such a mechanism, why has it not been effective?
Correction, there is nothing to restrain violence between individuals. If civilization breaks down there are no nations, no rational groups. Some people may revert to their racist beliefs in implementing that violence, but that doesn't make the violence per se racist, just the implementation of it by a racist being a racist.
The violence in the middle east is not racism, nor was that between the irish factions. Bigotry will beget violence faster than reason, sure, but the bigotry is not derived from evolution but from culture, tradition and xenophobia (fear of outsiders, whoever they are).
And this violence is what happens in evolution -- the struggle for existence, and when a species is successful enough that it overruns it's food source there is heavy competition between individuals for survival. There are many examples in the natural world. Look at predator-prey relationships in restricted areas (wolves and moose on Isle Royale) and you see both populations go up and down with one following the other.
This is basic evolution. Yes, it will take over unless we really are intelligent enough to agree to voluntary population control. Otherwise it won't matter that we are the most egotistical species on the planet. Evolution was not "kind" to the dinosaurs, why should it be "kind" to humans? Because we think we are great? It may impact your life more than you would like, but as far as evolution is concerned, "big whap" is about it: most species are extinct you know. What's one more?
Many people you likely call evolutionists (although many may not even think of evolution in relation to the issue) have been talking about the population explosion for over 50 years with some educated few going back to Malthus 150 years ago. The principal of a species over-running it's food supply has not changed in that 50 or 150 years. It is based on observations of what happens in wild populations with evolution.
Thomas Robert Malthus - Wikipedia
quote:
In An Essay on the Principle of Population, first published in 1798, Malthus made the famous prediction that population would outrun food supply, leading to a decrease in food per person. (Case & Fair, 1999: 790). He even went so far as to specifically predict that this must occur by the middle of the 19th century[1], a prediction which failed for several reasons, including his use of static analysis, taking recent trends and projecting them indefinitely into the future, which often fails for complex systems.
Many otherwise intelligent and civilized people think we will out-think the problem. I am not so deluded.
But this still won't result in racism because of the theory of evolution, the "forces" of evolution will affect every living breathing individual, but mostly it will affect the unfit more than the fit individuals, and it will do so in every (sub)population category you choose to describe, irrespective of race, intelligence or culture.
For clarity here is a common definition of racism:
rac·ism -noun 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
(American Heritage Dictionary)
And the thesaurus says
quote:
Main Entry: racism
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: prejudice
Synonyms: Jim Crow, apartheid, bias, bigotry, discrimination, illiberality, one-sidedness, partiality, racialism, sectarianism, segregation, unfairness
(Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus)
No mention of eugenics. Or evolution. Or biology.
So can you logically get from evolution to racism?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : inferior spelling

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 7:04 PM CTD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 162 of 238 (425334)
10-01-2007 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by CTD
10-01-2007 7:43 PM


Re: This was better
As I have already confessed, I am unable to define 'race'.
Then how can you argue that racism occurs if you don't understand it?
I'm not aware of any definition that fits the modern sense of the term without being overly subjective and/or ignorant.
That would be because (1) there is more variation within each subpopulation than between them, and because (2) there are wide hybrid zones between all known races, with a lot of intrusion of genes from all races into other subpopulations. There are probably no pure races. This does not stop racists from being racist based on the perceived race of others, for it is prejudice more than reality.
Eugenics is also in effect when selection is made against "undesirable" characteristics, not merely when it selects for "desirable" characteristics.
The selection in eugenics is on the basis of the hereditary characteristics of the individual. The selection in racism is on the basis of race (or perceived race) regardless of the hereditary characteristics of the individual.
Can you give an hypothetical eugenics scenario which would clearly not be racist?
Selection of individuals based on health: general fitness, resistance to disease.
But this doesn't get us to eugenics from the theory of evolution, and this certainly does not get us to racism from the theory of evolution.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 7:43 PM CTD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 175 of 238 (425401)
10-02-2007 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by CTD
10-01-2007 9:17 PM


I can see why you'd want this to be so. I cannot see any reason to think it might be so.
He continues to be a highly-esteemed authority among evolutionists, and more importantly, he makes a sound argument (if you accept his a priori's) which demonstrates the 'need' for eugenics/racism.
But he is not talking about either evolution or racism here, but eugenics (which is not the same as racism, no matter how hard you try to change the definition to make it so). You are the one trying to shoe-horn eugenics into evolution as racism, and it just doesn't fit.
Evolutionism says that countless entire populations of species have proven themselves to be inferior by going extinct. The individual vs. group game won't work, since evolutionism isn't shy and has had much to say about both individuals and groups.
Those species went extinct individual by individual, they did not all drop dead at once. The group can not be selected, because there is no mechanism to do so.
How then can any subpopulation be inferior?
It can go extinct, and that's a pretty good indicator.
How then can that subpopulation be subject to discrimination by other subpopulations if it doesn't exist? If your only measure of inferior is dead there is no living beings that can meet that criteria.
But as we well know, evolutionism says humans are a special case. The consensus among evolutionists has long been that other factors supercede/impede 'natural selection' among humans. We've gone over this before. If your sect disagrees with the mainstream, that's not really my department.
In other words you have convinced yourself this is a fact, and don't need to look at the data.
No, I don't think there's any argument at all that 'superior' and 'inferior' life exists within the evolutionary paradigm.
Again, it appears that you have convinced yourself this is fact in spite of the fact there is no evidence for it.
I think you're talking about animals and not people. There are plenty of traits which occur predominantly among certain groups, and some of them are obvious to the naked eye. How else do you think groups are defined?
And I thought you couldn't distinguish races. The facts still say otherwise: there is more variation within any subpopulation than there is between populations. None of these visible traits have anything to do with being inferior or superior, or even much to do with being fit for their respective ecologies, so you still have not connected race with inferior or superior abilities.
All traits had to start somewhere, and younger traits can therefore not be present in groups they haven't reached. This is a very good thing, too. I don't expect any creature would live too very long if it were otherwise.
And all of this mumbling, while very interesting, has nothing to do with whole subpopulations being inferior to others.
The more I look at this, the more certain I am that you misworded it. I hope this was not what you intended to say. The first part of the sentence has "trait" singular, and the last part has "differences" plural. The result is akin to "apples & oranges", except with numbers. I'm giving up on it, at any rate.
The trait is the yardstick to measure by (say 20-20 vision), the differences are those between all the individuals with different degrees of the trait in question. It's quite simple really.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 9:17 PM CTD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 191 of 238 (425662)
10-03-2007 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by CTD
10-03-2007 8:25 AM


demonstration ... or the lack thereof?
So pointing out that my "accusations" are anything but false should be alright.
Yep. When you going to do that?
Marx' partner, Engels (1864):
You're quoting again instead of making an argument. You could start with such a quote, but then you need to show that it is true to point out that what you are posting isn't false: you have not done that.
These fellows are great fanatics and, ... They regard themselves as a physically and morally superior race to the Danes, and indeed they are.
Nor does this refer to the theory of evolution anywhere, you're just quoting racist writing that is racist -- that proves nothing: we already knew that there were racist people.
"Revolution and Counter-revolution in Germany" Marx himself: ... and ... Don't know why anyone should care to defend these racist evolutionist double-talkers, but I think this evidence will suffice to doom such efforts.
Why should anyone care to defend them: they were racists making racist remarks. They are NOT saying that it is based on evolution, you will notice, nor can that argument be made from these quotes.
So when are you going to start demonstrating that your claim(s) that these relate to evolution theory are in any way true?
Note that racists never have been and never will be restricted to the modern meta-race concepts. They can define any group they want as a 'race'. So can the gutter racists.
Your tirades against "gutter racists" and such are still totally irrelevant to:
(a) the issue of the thread - demonstrating racism is a logical result of the theory of evolution, or
(b) the new issue of your falsehoods - some attempt on your part to demonstrate that they are actually true.
You could start with a demonstration that your equating of eugenics with racism is true. Without misusing, misrepresenting or falsely portraying the meanings of those two words.
Message 188
I mention this earlier, and Oh it's a big deal that I don't demonstrate it. We get claim after claim that Marx wasn't racist.
No. The issue is that he said nothing about evolution.
Then you accuse me of making "false accusations". I haven't done this, so I have to guess what in the world you're talking about.
Maybe something like saying that Marx's writing was based on the theory of evolution? Such as your claim in Message 93:
So far you have totally failed to demonstrate that racism is a necessary outcome of evolution.
Marx and Nietzsche have already done so (very thoroughly if you count their followers). I don't intend to repeat their work.
Neither man quoted wrote about racism resulting from the theory of evolution. Thus your claim in Message 93 is de facto a false claim (with a QED).
And I don't see that it's very off topic to discuss the founders of evolutionist & racist philosophies. But that's fine. This is kinda beatin' a dead horse anyhow. I was a little concerned that some naive reader might stumble in and mistakenly believe the erroneous portion of your post. Not too much danger of that now.
Talking about what racists say does not show that racism is logically derived from the theory of evolution no matter how many quotes you use and no matter how you insinuate that because they are racist that they must have derived it from the theory of evolution. You need to demonstrate that as fact and you haven't: that is the issue that you consistently dodge and dodge and dodge.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : msg 188
Edited by RAZD, : example of a false claim

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by CTD, posted 10-03-2007 8:25 AM CTD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 192 of 238 (425667)
10-03-2007 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by CTD
10-01-2007 8:43 AM


Demonstration that eugenics &ne racism
People who go to abortion and fertility clinics or practice voluntary birth control are practicing eugenics. They are artificially modifying reproduction success and failure of individuals for a purpose, and the result is to artificially increase or decrease reproduction by certain individuals ... themselves.
They are not a different race from any offspring they may or may not have.
Ergo eugenics cannot be racism.
Racists can use eugenics, as they can also use water, daylight, money and any anything else, but that use does not make whatever they use racist. Nor does it in any way imply that such use supports racism.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : support
Edited by RAZD, : birth control added

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by CTD, posted 10-01-2007 8:43 AM CTD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 200 of 238 (425843)
10-04-2007 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by CTD
10-04-2007 7:50 AM


Re: okay
I've already demonstrated some of his racism, so my great insult against him is calling him an "evolutionist"? That's funny.
Yeah, it's absolutely hilarious that you have not shown one iota of a link between his racism and the theory of evolution, I mean ... just because it is the topic of this thread, why should you?
Because that is the difference between making an actual point and just posting a lot of irrelevant blather.
And I have to wonder what kind of defense you guys were planning...
Possibly that the truth shows your claim in Message 93:
So far you have totally failed to demonstrate that racism is a necessary outcome of evolution.
Marx and Nietzsche have already done so (very thoroughly if you count their followers). I don't intend to repeat their work.
Is an absolute falsehood because you have not made the link to the theory of evolution. Heck you haven't even TRIED to make the link.
That's a documented definite falsehood from your post. Deal with it.
Then deal with the issue instead of creating a false blind of blather.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by CTD, posted 10-04-2007 7:50 AM CTD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 205 of 238 (426107)
10-05-2007 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by CTD
10-05-2007 7:34 AM


So, what's left?
Actually making an argument that the theory of evolution results in racism.
Not one thing you have said has done this. Most of your argument consists of falsehoods and misrepresentations (documented above thread). If you think that is a "finished job" then you have no clue how to actually do the job.
I'm not the one who said it's off topic to discuss the racist evolutionist founders ...
And I think you have created this little excuse to avoid dealing with the real issue -- showing that racism results from the theory of evolution -- for there is no evidence for this either.
Read all you can stomach.
All this shows is racism, as noted several times above thread, with no connection to evolution or the theory of evolution. Your inability to see the shortcoming of your argument shows you do not know how to actually make the case you need to make.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by CTD, posted 10-05-2007 7:34 AM CTD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024