Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.
Options
Comments
-
Michael Nugent wrote: »I assume from this that you mean that at least some of these women told you about their experiences of sexual harassment.
Correct. And in some cases I was the one informed of some agressive unwanted advances as the women in question wanted my help dealing with it.And I assume that you did not respond to them with some variation of “I would need clarification as to what exactly you mean here but my immediate thought about this is that a sexual advance, unwanted or not, is not abuse.”
Indeed I did not because in each case they were my friends. I know them and know what they meant when they said what they did.
The reason I'm so careful in what language is used here is that some people have claimed what they term as abuse or harrassment for actions which I don't consider abuse or harrassment. The infamous t-shirt example for one.
These people on skepchick etc are also from a very different culture and background to me on top of the fact I don't know them. So its very far from clear what is meant when they use such terms as evidenced by their previous claims.I assume that you listened to them sympathetically, expressed empathy about what they had gone through and how it had affected them, and were generally supportive about helping them to get through the experience.
Because they were my friends yes.For me, that is what is missing in this conversation. Not just from you, but from some other posters here as well. You are discussing these harrowing experiences in a clinical way, devoid of empathy and compassion.
I don't understand for a second why you think that would be a good thing.
I was emotional to my friends because they were my friends. If any of my friends are hurt about someone or something then I automatically assume a protective position.
But this is a terrible way to judge any situation or anyone. Why do you think we don't allow victims of crimes to judge the accused in court?
I've seen so many people fall into this very trap. Someone accuses someone else of doing something wrong and because of prejudices the guilt is automatically assumed.Try to imagine that we are talking about some of your friends having experienced the harassment that we are talking about here, and see if you might approach the discussion differently.
That's the worst possible way to approach such a situation.
You have to judge these situations impartially, not get emotionally involved.0 -
Argument From Popularity Robin? Really?
Sorry to bump this so many days later.On a separate topic, it would be interesting to attempt to figure out who are the "top" 1, 20, 50, 100 atheists/skeptics out there on the internet. Not sure how you'd measure it, perhaps by followers times words times <likes> or somesuch, but whatever, let's assume that it's measurable in principle.
If the majority were guys -- as I suspect they probably are -- would that influence your beliefs concerning gender bias? ie, if, in a fully free environment like the internet where people do the choosing rather than some speaker-selection committee, what does "gender bias" mean in that case if the relative mass popularity of male bloggers versus women bloggers roughly matches the rates at which women (or men) are chosen for speaker slots at atheist/skeptics events?0 -
Unsubscribed... FTB is a laughing stock by now. I'm not going to waste any more energy thinking about the whole thing.
Shame to see Michael Nugent fall under their spell though.0 -
Please don’t filter what I am writing though one side or another of a dispute that you have taken sides on.FTB is a laughing stock by now....
Shame to see Michael Nugent fall under their spell though.
I am articulating values that I have promoted and lived by for decades before Freethought Blogs existed.
Please try to read what I am writing on its merits, and respond to what I have actually written.0 -
Michael Nugent wrote:Try to imagine that we are talking about some of your friends having experienced the harassment that we are talking about here, and see if you might approach the discussion differently.
Firstly, I am not making an appeal to emotion to override the need for evidence. I'll address that in more detail in a later post.I would approach the situation differently. I would not approach it objectively.
You are making an appeal to emotion to override the need for evidence.
This is not a rational or skeptical line of argument.
And emotive, subjective and irrational responses to a problem are not going to help anyone.
But based on your statement that subjective responses 'are not going to help anyone', why would you respond to your friend's plight in a way that you believe is not going to help her?
Surely the reason that you would respond (at least partly) subjectively is precisely because you believe that it would be helpful to her for you to respond subjectively?0 -
Advertisement
-
No, I am suggesting that, when you are faced with a situation in which somebody tells you that they have been subjected to a harrowing experience, your default position should be to start by empathizing with that person (as I assume you would do in real life if you were dealing with a friend) and then factor that empathy into the mix of aspects of the situation that you then apply reason to.So what you are saying is we should discuss it in an emotive, subjective and irrational way, but then somehow from that act scientifically, objectively and rationally?
We're having a conversation. You're not interrogating me. I'll answer as many points as I can get around to, as no doubt you will.Please remember that there are other points I've made that you've yet to address. Please do not start using the same tactics the religious people here do.
Please don't make irrelevant references to religious people. Just continue the discussion in a reasonable way.0 -
equivariant wrote: »Also, emotive and subjective do not imply irrational (although you seem to conflate these things).
I'm sorry but how do you come to that conclusion ? Emotion destroys rational thinking and it most certainly does imply, very strongly, irrationality.It is too easy to assume that an emotional response must be wrong.
No, it's not easy to assume it's wrong. It's easy to assume it's biased. The response itself could be right or wrong but that's coincidental.Having followed this debate for a while I am now much more convinced that there is nothing wrong with the request that organisations and conferences put in place a policy regarding harassment.
That's great because no one here is arguing against such a policy AFAIK.From a purely rational point of view, what is the problem with that? I don't particularly like the tone of skepchick or FTB, but whether or not one approves or dissapproves of skepchick/FTB has no real bearing on whether or not harassment policies are a good idea
I really don't think anyone here cares about having harrassment policies. I'm in favour of them.0 -
Michael Nugent wrote: »Please don’t filter what I am writing though one side or another of a dispute that you have taken sides on.
Michael, it's a little hard not to equate you with the FTB side. You say you don't agree with everything they've said or done and yet you have taken their side on every issue mentioned on this very thread. Your response to the t-shirt incident in particular points this out.0 -
Michael Nugent wrote: »No, I am suggesting that, when you are faced with a situation in which somebody tells you that they have been subjected to a harrowing experience, your default position should be to start by empathizing with that person (as I assume you would do in real life if you were dealing with a friend) and then factor that empathy into the mix of aspects of the situation that you then apply reason to.
Except when I think they are overreacting and being ridiculous. Empathy should also play no role in judging the situation from a fair and legal point of view.
I was sexually abused as a child = Empathy.
The politely phrased words on a t-shirt harrassed me = Your an idiot.
Some guy probably propositioned me in an elevator at 4am and took no for an answer = So what ?
I feel unsafe at location X = I need more information than that.
I was groped = Empathy.
I was hit on = So what ?
I was hit on and he wouldn't leave me alone = Empathy.0 -
The problem here appears to be the misunderstanding that's occuring over peoples relative positions.
Some people seem to be advocating that when a woman makes a claim of sexual harrassment or abuse or claims to feel unsafe or otherwise offended by the actions of others (men) that the default position should be one of acceptance of that claim. The offender is guilty until proven innocent.
Now as Michael previously asked and pointed out, in my experience, generally that happens to be true. That is, most women who have claimed such things are indeed telling the truth. Which is irrelevant to finding out the truthfulness of other claims.
I don't know the statistics in question well but I do know that women do make false claims for various reasons, however small that percentage is, is irrelevant. A not uncommon situation I'm familiar with is that Japanese, Chinese, or Korean ladies are known to make a false accusation (I'm not saying all or even most accusations are false, I'm talking specifically about false ones) of drug use, sexual abuse, or violence against a foreign boyfriend who dumps them. The truthfulness of this accusation is irrelevant because the foreigner's place of work will be notified, he will immediately be fired, possibly fined, and deported. No investigation or evidence is required. A simple accusation is enough to have their Visa revoked in most cases because these countries are still quite xenophobic. And from my experience, many of these cases are groundless.
I'm just trying to make the point that we cannot and should not accept anyones word about anything so serious. If you make an accusation against someone then you better be able to back it up. Anything less is a witch hunt.
Another point which many seem to be advocating is that people have the right to not be offended, feel unsafe, or feel unwelcome. Well I'm sorry but that's nonsense.
People can feel offended, unsafe, or unwelcome, for many reasons. The religious often claim offense for activities of Atheist organisations and they have every right to feel offended. But if the activities in question are legal and reasonable than it's their problem, not ours.
A woman may feel unsafe alone in an elevator with a man. I can empathise with her feelings but her feelings are irrelevant in deciding how we as a society act on such issues. What exactly could be done about such a situation ? Female-only elevators ? They have employed female only subway cars in Japan. I wonder what people think of this ? Do you think it's a good solution ?
A woman may feel uncomfortable if she is hit on by a man. I can empathise with her feelings but her feelings are irrelevant in deciding how we as a society act on such issues. What exactly could be done about such a situation ? I'm sure we're all equally aware that while people may find the advances of someone whom they are not attracted to to be annoying, they still want to be approached by someone who they are interested in.
Someone may feel offended by someone else's comments which were perfectly legal and non-threatening. Are we going to limit that persons free speech because someone else found it offensive ?0 -
Advertisement
-
FTB is a laughing stock by now...
Shame to see Michael Nugent fall under their spell though.
Seriously, have you any idea how immature and entrenched those assertions sound?Michael, it's a little hard not to equate you with the FTB side. You say you don't agree with everything they've said or done and yet you have taken their side on every issue mentioned on this very thread. Your response to the t-shirt incident in particular points this out.
I don’t base my ethics on taking sides.
I have already laid out in some detail my approach to these issues.
Why atheist and skeptic groups should be inclusive, caring and supportive, and 25 ways to discuss this reasonably
A draft Manifesto to promote Ethical Atheism
I have already said that my approach to these issues are based on values that I have lived by for decades before FTB even existed. Or are you skeptical of that statement as well?
.0 -
Of course empathy should play a role in judging a situation from a fair point of view. Empathy is one of the key reasons that we care about fairness.Empathy should also play no role in judging the situation from a fair and legal point of view.
I agree that empathy has less of a role (though I would not say no role), in the legal system. But we are not talking about legal cases here.
We are talking about whether or how we should try to make people feel welcome and safe, at events that we organize and in our general working together, in however you want to describe the atheist/skeptical groups/communities etc.
If somebody breaks the law of the land, then the police or a solicitor should be informed and the legal system should address the issue.
But as an advocacy group chairperson and a conference organizer, I set my ethical bar higher than merely ensuring that nobody breaks the law of the land without facing legal consequences.
I want to actively try to make people feel welcome at our events, and to encourage attendees to try to make other people feel welcome also.
That's where empathy is important.0 -
Michael Nugent wrote: »Seriously, have you any idea how immature and entrenched those assertions sound?
I don’t base my ethics on taking sides.
Michael I didn't say you did and I don't agree with the other posters comments about you, i said it's a little hard not to equate you with one side, not that you were on that side.
I'm sure there are issues which you disagree with that same side but in this thread and the issues it has discussed you do seem to have taken on one sides position. You haven't as yet, from what I've seen, opposed anything that FTB are saying so either your views perfectly coincide with theirs or you are avoiding taking any position in conflict with them for some reason.0 -
Michael Nugent wrote: »Of course empathy should play a role in judging a situation from a fair point of view. Empathy is one of the key reasons that we care about fairness.
No Michael it's not. Empathy is one of the key reasons we care about who we empathise with. It has nothing to do with fairness.
People empathise with certain people based on many factors. If a child (imagine a little girl, blonde hair for example) came to you and claimed that a man down the street that was known to you (imagine an old fat unshaven guy who you had previous problems with for example) had raped her who are you going to empathise with ?
Nobody cares about fairness in this situation. The man is guilty in most peoples minds without any substantiating evidence and the vast majority of people will empathise with the child to the point of viewing the man as 'evil' without any more information.We are talking about whether or how we should try to make people feel welcome and safe, at events that we organize and in our general working together, in however you want to describe the atheist/skeptical groups/communities etc.
Michael, could you please please explain what you mean by this ? Because I keep hearing that phrase and it means nothing to me. I don't understand what you mean by it, I don't understand what measures you think should be taken, I don't understand to what extent we should care about peoples feelings.
I gave you the example of my Japanese friend a few days ago. She feels unsafe in bathrooms alone with foreign women because she was assaulted before. What could be done about this ? Should society/conferences care about it or is it her problem for her to deal with ?
If she attended a conference organised by you what would you do to make her feel safe ?0 -
Well, firstly, FTB does not have a monolithic view on everything, but its posters do have a general disposition towards certain positions. And secondly, I'm not sure how what I have said on this thread matches with what FTB says, because I do not base my arguments on what they say.Michael I didn't say you did and I don't agree with the other posters comments about you, i said it's a little hard not to equate you with one side, not that you were on that side.
I'm sure there are issues which you disagree with that same side but in this thread and the issues it has discussed you do seem to have taken on one sides position. You haven't as yet, from what I've seen, opposed anything that FTB are saying so either your views perfectly coincide with theirs or you are avoiding taking any position in conflict with them for some reason.
But even if what you say here was correct, why would you not interpret that by saying that FTB haven't as yet, from what you've seen, opposed anything that Michael is saying, so either FTB's views perfectly coincide with Michael's or FTB is avoiding taking any position in conflict with Michael for some reason?
Or, more reasonably, why would you not assume that different people can share the same views on an issue independently of each other?
In other words, even if what you say here was correct, why are you filtering everything I say through a side you have taken on a dispute between different people, rather than accepting my word that I am coming to my own conclusions on these issues?0 -
Michael Nugent wrote: »Well, firstly, FTB does not have a monolithic view on everything, but its posters do have a general disposition towards certain positions.
A slight understatement but alright.And secondly, I'm not sure how what I have said on this thread matches with what FTB says, because I do not base my arguments on what they say.
I said you seem to have taken one sides position on the issues discussed here, not that you based your arguments on what they say.Or, more reasonably, why would you not assume that different people can share the same views on an issue independently of each other?
Why would I not assume it ? Because in my experience it's unlikely that a differing group would share the same views on a range of issues especially controversial ones.In other words, even if what you say here was correct, why are you filtering everything I say through a side you have taken on a dispute between different people, rather than accepting my word that I am coming to my own conclusions on these issues?
I haven't taken any side.0 -
I gave you the example of my Japanese friend a few days ago. She feels unsafe in bathrooms alone with foreign women because she was assaulted before. What could be done about this ? Should society/conferences care about it or is it her problem for her to deal with ?
If she attended a conference organised by you what would you do to make her feel safe ?
How about start with asking her? Not Michael Nugent.
Can you see the difference?0 -
sonicthebadger* wrote: »How about start with asking her? Not Michael Nugent.
Can you see the difference?
I don't think that is the point, no reasonable action the part of the people running the conference will make her feel safe. Thus they would have to enact unreasonable measures.
This is the point decimatio and Michael keep dancing around, the idea that some women can manipulate the organizers of these conferences into enacting unreasonable and patronizing measures simply by claiming they don't feel safe, even if by all accounts they are actually safe, because it is such a taboo in our society to respond to a complaint by a member of a minority or traditionally oppressed group (such as women who feel under threat) that they are acting unreasonably.
Agree or disagree, I just wish they would get to the point. Again it shouldn't be so taboo to simply state an idea, just come out and say it and then discuss whether it has any merit.0 -
sonicthebadger* wrote: »How about start with asking her? Not Michael Nugent.
Asking her what ? She doesn't attend these conferences nor has any plan to. I'm simply using it as an example of someone feeling unsafe in situation X.
People repeatedly talk about feeling safe and welcome yet they don't define what either entails. Just because someone feels unsafe does not mean there is anything a conference's policy makers can, or even should, do about it.
Someone telling me they feel unsafe tells me nothing about what the problem is nor what can be done about it if anything. It's meaningless in and of itself.Zombrex wrote:This is the point decimatio and Michael keep dancing around, the idea that some women can manipulate the organizers of these conferences into enacting unreasonable and patronizing measures simply by claiming they don't feel safe, even if by all accounts they are actually safe, because it is such a taboo in our society to respond to a complaint by a member of a minority or traditionally oppressed group (such as women who feel under threat) that they are acting unreasonably.
Well that's one issue yes. But it's not necessarily manipulation, it is also about genuine feelings like in the case of my friend. It's honestly something I can empathise with but there's simply nothing that can or should be done about it.
My point is that just because someone feels unsafe or unwelcome does not mean that anyone else is doing anything wrong nor does it mean that the organisers could or should take any action. Of course it depends on the specific circumstances, there are indeed many cases where someone has a legitimate grievance against another attendee and this should be dealt with but using these undefined wide sweeping terms like feeling unsafe muddies the entire issue and yes in terms of manipulation it does give a carte blanche to people to abuse as well.0 -
If your friend attended a conference organized by me, I would empathize with her, thank her for bringing the problem to our attention, and let her know that we want her to be able to enjoy the conference.I gave you the example of my Japanese friend a few days ago. She feels unsafe in bathrooms alone with foreign women because she was assaulted before. What could be done about this ? Should society/conferences care about it or is it her problem for her to deal with ?
If she attended a conference organised by you what would you do to make her feel safe ?
I would explain the situation to our contact person in the hotel, and ask if there is a private bathroom in the venue, possibly a staff bathroom, that your friend could use. In the vast majority of hotels that host conferences, this request would resolve the situation.
If there was no private bathroom in the venue, I would talk to your friend and see how she addresses going to the bathroom in other public venues, and see if we can help to replicate whatever solution she uses herself.
It wouldn't even remotely dawn on me to say that we shouldn't care about her problem, and that it is her problem to deal with.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't think that is the point, no reasonable action the part of the people running the conference will make her feel safe. Thus they would have to enact unreasonable measures.
This is the point decimatio and Michael keep dancing around, the idea that some women can manipulate the organizers of these conferences into enacting unreasonable and patronizing measures simply by claiming they don't feel safe, even if by all accounts they are actually safe, because it is such a taboo in our society to respond to a complaint by a member of a minority or traditionally oppressed group (such as women who feel under threat) that they are acting unreasonably.
Agree or disagree, I just wish they would get to the point. Again it shouldn't be so taboo to simply state an idea, just come out and say it and then discuss whether it has any merit.
I think the whole discussion is very confused, people seem to be hopping from one issue to another, and selectively misrepresenting eachother.
Any way in the past week I had a very uncomfortable experience which was certainly more extreme than most of the issues discussed in this thread. This was within a mile of my own house, all that can be done is for it to be reported to the gardai. This incident started off as someone simply looking for directions fortunately I was quick enough to get away, there is nothing reasonable that can be done to prevent people from behaving like this other than being reported.
The world is a cruel place and sadly is not bubble-wrapped. While ideally you should be protected from everything but it is just impossible to be 100% safe from any crime in any location.0 -
Michael Nugent wrote: »If your friend attended a conference organized by me, I would empathize with her, thank her for bringing the problem to our attention, and let her know that we want her to be able to enjoy the conference.
I would explain the situation to our contact person in the hotel, and ask if there is a private bathroom in the venue, possibly a staff bathroom, that your friend could use. In the vast majority of hotels that host conferences, this request would resolve the situation.
If there was no private bathroom in the venue, I would talk to your friend and see how she addresses going to the bathroom in other public venues, and see if we can help to replicate whatever solution she uses herself.
I just don't know what to say to that except you seem like a very caring person.
I personally think it's ridiculous and she needs to get over her phobia plainly and simply. I don't believe that entertaining her is in her best interests and that she should in fact be forced to confront her fears to function in society.
I also don't think it's up to the conference organisers to do anything about it.
But how far are you willing to go to entertain such phobias ?
How about Apotemnophobia- Fear of persons with amputations or Melanophobia- Fear of the color black ?
If a conference goer asked you to ban the colour black at a conference because she has the above phobia what would you do ? Or to be kept away from attendees who have had amputations ?
I realise these are extreme examples and rather unrealistic but there is a point I assure you.0 -
Michael Nugent wrote:We are talking about whether or how we should try to make people feel welcome and safe, at events that we organize and in our general working together, in however you want to describe the atheist/skeptical groups/communities etc.
That deserves a more comprehensive answer than I can give in a comment in this discussion.Michael, could you please please explain what you mean by this ? Because I keep hearing that phrase and it means nothing to me. I don't understand what you mean by it, I don't understand what measures you think should be taken, I don't understand to what extent we should care about peoples feelings.
I'll write an article for my website about it during the week and link to it here.0 -
Thank you for the compliment. But to be honest I don't see this an extraordinary example of caring. It would take maybe a couple of minutes to do, and it would make somebody feel better.I just don't know what to say to that except you seem like a very caring person.
I personally think it's ridiculous and she needs to get over her phobia plainly and simply. I don't believe that entertaining her is in her best interests and that she should in fact be forced to confront her fears to function in society.
I also don't think it's up to the conference organisers to do anything about it.
You may well be right about your friend needing to overcome her phobia in other ways. Or you may be mistaken. I don't know. That is for her to address in the long run.
But if she is interested in attending our conference, and she has not resolved her phobia in the short term, we can try to enable her to attend the conference while not having to be worried about going to the bathroom.
If a person had a diagnosed medical phobia, for example one that triggered panic attacks, and if they were interested in attending our conference, I would see if we can minimize their exposure to the trigger of their phobia, without disrupting the normal running of the conference.But how far are you willing to go to entertain such phobias ?
How about Apotemnophobia- Fear of persons with amputations or Melanophobia- Fear of the color black ?
If a conference goer asked you to ban the colour black at a conference because she has the above phobia what would you do ? Or to be kept away from attendees who have had amputations ?
I realise these are extreme examples and rather unrealistic but there is a point I assure you.
I'm sure somebody who attends conferences and who has been diagnosed with either of those phobias has already faced this problem before, and would be able to suggest ways of minimizing their discomfort without disrupting the enjoyment of other people attending the conference.
Again, it's not a major ethical conundrum. It's empathy and common sense.0 -
I'm sorry that you had to go through this. I'm glad that you got away, and I hope the police catch the people concerned.Any way in the past week I had a very uncomfortable experience which was certainly more extreme than most of the issues discussed in this thread. This was within a mile of my own house, all that can be done is for it to be reported to the gardai. This incident started off as someone simply looking for directions fortunately I was quick enough to get away, there is nothing reasonable that can be done to prevent people from behaving like this other than being reported.0 -
It's not taboo to say it, but don't just say it and then ask decimatio and me to address it. Support the assertion yourself, with examples of what you are talking about, and I will respond to it.This is the point decimatio and Michael keep dancing around, the idea that some women can manipulate the organizers of these conferences into enacting unreasonable and patronizing measures simply by claiming they don't feel safe, even if by all accounts they are actually safe, because it is such a taboo in our society to respond to a complaint by a member of a minority or traditionally oppressed group (such as women who feel under threat) that they are acting unreasonably.
Agree or disagree, I just wish they would get to the point. Again it shouldn't be so taboo to simply state an idea, just come out and say it and then discuss whether it has any merit.0 -
And I repeat, even if that was true, and I don't agree that it is, why would you frame it as me taking their position as opposed to them taking my position?I said you seem to have taken one sides position on the issues discussed here, not that you based your arguments on what they say.0 -
Michael Nugent wrote: »It's not taboo to say it, but don't just say it and then ask decimatio and me to address it. Support the assertion yourself, with examples of what you are talking about, and I will respond to it.
The "assertion" if one can call it that is that not all women are reasonable simply by virtue of being women. I'm not sure you really need me to support that :P0 -
Michael Nugent wrote: »And I repeat, even if that was true, and I don't agree that it is, why would you frame it as me taking their position as opposed to them taking my position?
But I haven't framed it as you taking their position. I said it's hard not to equate you with their position as you've argued for their position on every issue that has come up on this thread, unless I'm mistaken. I don't know what your position is on issues that haven't been brought up here.
Let's say that I did frame it as you said, that I am accusing you of taking their position as opposed to them taking your position.
For most of the issues discussed on this thread you have taken one sides position and you could very well have arrived at those conclusions yourself. And I should state that I have no problem with anyone arriving at those conclusions, I don't believe anyone is right or wrong on those issues, just that people have different views.
But take your response to my question about the t-shirt issue for one example. You didn't just take a side on the issue, you took a defending role for that side. You went out of your way to talk about Amy's contributions to the conference which were completely irrelevant to the question. You used such language as mocking to describe Harriets t-Shirt and I don't see how for a second how such a word applies.Michael Nugent wrote:Also, Harriet Hall wore a t-shirt mocking Skepchick generally but not specifically Amy.
To my knowledge you have made comments against one side but have not made any against the other.
To me it seems highly unlikely that you are arriving at all these conclusions by coincidence and taking such defensive positions on other issues all for the same side.
From your contributions so far on this thread and elsewhere it seems that in your opinion I and others here and other people including thunderf00t, Paula Kirby, Harriet Hall etc are completely in the wrong.0 -
Advertisement
-
Here you go...I don't know what your position is on issues that haven't been brought up here.
Why atheist and skeptic groups should be inclusive, caring and supportive, and 25 ways to discuss this reasonably
A draft Manifesto to promote Ethical Atheism
0
Advertisement