Jump to content

Very random musing.


Owenmoz

Recommended Posts

I think people worry too much about being a good person. They go great lenghts to have a neat image of themselves. But that leads them to forget about themselves and thats in simple words "bad". This all in the new episode of dramaland featuring some friends selling themselves short and me being somewhat bothered by it.

Ok but really. Its okay to be selfish now and then folks.

 

(I realise this might be an unusual post more fit in tumblr than here. Feel free to remove it if it seems spammy, offensive or against any rules.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to say what does and doesn't make a good person. People have debated for ages on the relative weights of thoughts vs. impulses vs. feelings vs. behaviors, in determining a person's "goodness".

 

Ultimately, I've found, with help of my counselors and friends, that there's no such thing as a good person or a bad person. There's only people. From Jesus and Buddha, to Hitler and Dahmer, we're people. I like to think of Terry Bisson's short story, "They're Made of Meat". We are shambling piles of meat, complete with all the floppy psychobehavioral tendencies one would expect a being with a meat-brain to possess.

 

Don't worry about being "good". Worry about whether you, yourself, are satisfied with what you're doing in life, and if you're not, feel free to change it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dunno...there are plenty of problems with what makes someone a good or bad person, but then trying to muddle through and be a good person as much as possible is still to be encouraged.

Yeah for the harmony of the world. Im really cool with it so long as folks don't put their lives and stability because of it. There is plenty of good you can do while still putting yourself first you know? I mostly posted this cause im tired of seeing a friend of mine not prioritising her life all for the sake of being good. She's not at all assertive when people cross lines or take advantage of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah for the harmony of the world. Im really cool with it so long as folks don't put their lives and stability because of it. There is plenty of good you can do while still putting yourself first you know? I mostly posted this cause im tired of seeing a friend of mine not prioritising her life all for the sake of being good. She's not at all assertive when people cross lines or take advantage of that.

 

Ah, in that sense, when "good" is equated to "don't make a fuss", I'd agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yeah for the harmony of the world. Im really cool with it so long as folks don't put their lives and stability because of it. There is plenty of good you can do while still putting yourself first you know? I mostly posted this cause im tired of seeing a friend of mine not prioritising her life all for the sake of being good. She's not at all assertive when people cross lines or take advantage of that.

I feel The Almighty Doer of Stuff is right in that one should worry about their own life and whether they're satisfied. As long as that satisfaction doesn't arise from causing harm to other people around you, of course. I can't imagine that your friend is very happy on the inside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Ah, in that sense, when "good" is equated to "don't make a fuss", I'd agree.

Yup thats it. But to be honest the whole good/bad person thing can be rather subjective and judgment fueling which is bad too. But maybe it(judgmentality?) is a fair price to pay if it makes the world a better place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I feel The Almighty Doer of Stuff is right in that one should worry about their own life and whether they're satisfied. As long as that satisfaction doesn't arise from causing harm to other people around you, of course. I can't imagine that your friend is very happy on the inside.

 

Aha! These were exactly the words i was looking for. So long as you dont harm anyone just do you. If you can help people on the way, great. If you cant. Hell the world will still be a better place simply because there is one more happy person. But i can agree with thanulikan(you'll forgive my spelling) that helping folks out or whatever brings good to the community(even if it brings about judgemental people). But i must stress that it shouldnt be at the cost of one's well being.

Megh... im horrible at words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opinions differ on what "harm" is. Even saying "don't harm anyone" is ambiguous.

 

Of course you can't just do whatever you want. "Oh, well it's MY definition of 'good' so it's OK." Well, that's fine, but if you feel bad doing a given thing to someone because you don't like making them suffer, then good, if not making them suffer is important to you, then don't do it.

 

If you DON'T care about others' suffering, you can do it anyway but you can probably expect some consequences (grounding, detention, jail, being brutally bludgeoned to death, depending on the behavior), and if you don't like the consequences, don't do it. But for most people, simple empathy and a bit of wisdom are enough of a consequence for harmful behavior toward others, that people will refuse to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well true... what harms me may not harm you and so on. But i guess there is a normalisation curve for it so the broad meaning of harm can be somewhat general. But as you said. We both have laws and society(i.e. wisdom empathy and lynching) to control that. Even so makes my point rather moot.

Arbitrary Ideas and Imprecise Words come from overabundance and underselection as slartibus said. Ever so applicable to most my posts :p

 

In other words. This is getting too abstract for me(not that I have anything against it but its like my brain is playing ping pong) My main point is that people should stop hanging on to the idea of goodness from the moment it starts interfering negativelly with their lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to the first post, I think it's very important to distinguish between being good and seeming good. You can work very hard at looking like a good person without particularly wanting to be or do good. Whether that can, in fact, make you good or not is a deep ethical question. But if you're more concerned with the facade than the reality of course the results can be bad; good isn't really the aim at all.

 

—Alorael, who believes all ethics come down to ethical intuitionism with window dressing. An ethical system is a means of objectively evaluating the goodness of people and actions, but there's no objective way to compare the goodness of different systems. Any choice among systems comes down to intuition in the end. Everyone's trying to be good, with rare exceptions. It's just that no one agrees on the criteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

(I realise this might be an unusual post more fit in tumblr than here. Feel free to remove it if it seems spammy, offensive or against any rules.)

 

I wouldn't know about that. I find it refreshing to see these kind of "deep" topics that, well, I personally don't see much elsewhere. Go to Facebook? There are people polishing their own lives and bragging about how big salary the have; or there's a sad, tragic picture which makes you feel guilty about you being you and not giving away all of your money to a charity. Go to Twitter? There's a bunch of celebs posting selfies and replying to fans. Go anywhere else? Get your face melted by the sheer amount of stupidity conducted by people hiding behind nametags.

 

Here? Sure, you may need to leave your sanity on the door as some people might say, but at least you'll be faced by a group of like-minded invididuals who have all equally left their sanity on the door, as opposed to trying convince you that they have their sanity left and you don't.

 

PS. Now, this was a random musing, even though I say it myself. And people are welcome to modify or delete it if it feels too ... edgy. I just get cynical like that sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to look good and trying to do good are very separate things. Feeding the homeless because it'll get you in with that hot chick from that one college course you both share isn't going to net you as much- nay, any karma as compared to actually doing it of your own volition. Even doing something despite not caring would be better than doing something for selfish reasons.

This all in the new episode of dramaland featuring some friends selling themselves short and me being somewhat bothered by it.

Ok but really. Its okay to be selfish now and then folks.

 

(I realise this might be an unusual post more fit in tumblr than here. Feel free to remove it if it seems spammy, offensive or against any rules.)

This is actually a bit ironic when you think about it. No need to apologize for making a thought provoking question. Nothing is going to get deleted off of Spidweb unless you break a rule, or it makes another member feel uncomfortable. This is the general board, where general not video game things go.

This too

 

PS. Now, this was a random musing, even though I say it myself. And people are welcome to modify or delete it if it feels too ... edgy. I just get cynical like that sometimes.

There is nearly never a reason to say that you think what you're saying might be stupid and it shouldn't be said, unless you're being a complete expletivewaffle. Saying "people are welcome to delete my post" is almost an apology in itself, and in most cases completely unwarranted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, in theory i'd agree woth you trenton, but i honestly dont know if this might make people uncomfortable or not. Turns out it didn't. Which is good.

Also zaego it depends on your facebook friends and who you follow on twiter but i gotta agree its generally what you said.

 

Back to the main argument. Imagine you're trying to seem good for yourself. But your good actions arent always to help people around you or ease their lives but to make some weird part of your ego feel better. Even that i dont have a problem until it starts interfering with your life and emotional help since i dont think a starving homeless person would care much if you feed him out for him or for you. Its complicated, i always say personality traits have both good sides and bad sides. So being overly attatched to one or overly ashamed of the other is rather foolish. And being selfish or selfless whatever your motivations and however you percieve it have good points and bad points reggardless. Which is why i strongly agree with galactic maiden and ADoS. Even if as explained above i agree with you, Thaluikhain and Alorael. When you say good actions are good for society and in general and most people can agree on that and try to make the world a better place. I guess "most" can vary but i figure its more than half. My point is dont let it take over yourlife and understand that doing things for yourself is good too. After all you are also a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who film themselves giving hundred dollar bills to random homeless people on the street... I hate them. It's not just perverting supposed charity as a means of stroking your own ego and getting lots of YouTube strangers to say, "Wow, what a nice thing that person did!", but it's also using other, disadvantaged people as toys to achieve that end. I'm not going to say I don't want them to do it; $100 helps a lot when you're homeless, providing you don't have a habit (I never give money to people on the street but I will readily offer food or clothing if I can spare some and they need it), but that doesn't mean I can't hate the self-absorbed creeps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether "good" is all about the outcome regardless of motive, the motive regardless of outcome, or somewhere in between is a fundamental question of normative ethics.

 

If by posing while giving away $100 the giver gets a PR boost but also inspires and/or shames more people into giving is the action better than anonymously giving $100 and having it end there?

 

—Alorael, who is on the consequentialism side. Why doesn't count for much in his books, and he's not balancing karma. There are reasons to avoid ostentatious do-gooding, but there are also reasons for it. And yes, the warm glow of knowing everyone else sees how good you are is a real benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That one looks like it got rather personal in a few cases, of course I am reading it without Synergy's posts, just everyone else's. Also, since I was not there at the time, I have no idea how accurate the personal attacks were. It was also interesting seeing how much higher the level of activity was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But would you rather feel used and have a hundred bucks?

 

Is it worth it for one recipient to feel degraded if it inspires a few dozen more people to donate less obnoxiously?

 

—Alorael, who notes that not treating others as means to an end is a very bad thing in Kantian ethics. Utilitarians are all for using people as means as long as the ends justify it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aiaiaiaiaiai. Jesus. How to put it. Alorael, ends justify the means. But one ibnoxious ostentateous person giving money to a homeless person and in that way shaming other people into doing the same does a lot of disservice to the community too. I agree a homeless person wont give a hoot. They'd rather not be used as a publicity stunt but honestly not enough to refuse it. Not even enough to be tempeted to refuse it. On the other side the people who are shamed into giving money to the homeless are affected in a bad way depending on how they cope with their self image. Some are confident. Most that are shamed into doing it are not, of those we have folks who will get over thinking they are a bad bad person quickly and then there are those who will stop their lives and ask God or whatever they believe in for forgiveness and dedicate some considerable ammount of their time to their percieved atonement.

Of course strugle for survival might seem more important than these kinds of strugles. Maybe they are, i am really not a judge of these things. But both are bad. And honestly ends justifying the means is a rather stunded way to view things(this case being maybe one of the many exceptions) as the ends also depend on the means. Technically destroying all human race is a means of achieving world peace. But thats not considered thinking clearly as the ends are always rather subjective. Some see world peace, others see extinction, others see oportunity. And the same goes everywhere. The means will shape the end if not for everyone it will be for the ones affected by the means. Of which the ammount varies from negligeble to significant but in the end that kind of thinking is a constant choice of the lesser of two evils when some simple improved selection of means would erradicate that choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again: utilitarianism and consequentialism more generally are the branches of ethics that are explicit and forceful about saying that being concerned about the results is wholly irrelevant. The actual results are all that matters. Whether you give to charity because you're believe it's the right thing to do, because it makes you feel good, or because you're getting something else out of it doesn't matter. In fact, utilitarianism would say it's better for the giver to get more out of giving as long as no one else is getting less.

 

Obviously mass extinction for world peace is something that'll give most people pause; generally utilitarianism defines good as most pleasure and least suffering, or something similar, and death is put in the suffering column. There are definitely eyebrows raised over how mechanical and transactional this kind of ethical reasoning gets. It's one of the charges frequently levied against utilitarianism. It can be used to justify some pretty horrific things done to a small number of people for the good of large numbers of people. Lots of philosophers have spilled a lot of ink on trying to either explain why utilitarianism doesn't allow that or why that's actually okay; whether any of it is convincing is an exercise for the reader.

 

 

You can construct situations in which giving money leads to worse outcomes. You can always construct hypotheticals. But in the real world I think that most of the time most people aren't affected by someone ostentatiously giving $100 to someone else. Momentary irritation at it, sure. Maybe a fleeting thought of wanting to be more charitable yourself. But the actual effect is one guy feeling smug and another guy being $100 richer.

 

 

"The ends justify the means" is by no means a universal ethical truth. Consequentialism is one of many systems of ethics. But it is a system; to say that it's wrong takes an argument, and probably throwing your support behind another system instead. No system is completely devoid of uncomfortable edge cases and constructed scenarios; it's a matter of which uncomfortable "good" and "bad" you accept.

 

—Alorael, who thinks this post turned into a disjointed ramble in the process of editing. He's okay with that. Further editing would clearly negatively affect his utiles with minimal benefit to others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Utilitarianism defines the value of any action entirely by consequences. One should act such that the outcome is good. Exactly how to act for the best consequences is difficult question that has lots of different answers. Part of the complexity is that it's easy to see outcomes after the fact and assign value to actions; this was the right thing to do because everything turned out well, and that wasn't because it resulted in disaster. But ethics should give direction prospectively, and that's harder. Never doing anything because it could go wrong seems pretty wrong.

 

One divide in utilitarianism is act vs. rule. Act utilitarians would evaluate each action and say it's right if and only if it leads to the best outcome of all possible actions that one could take. Rule utilitarians step back and say an action is right if and only if it conforms to the general rule that leads to the best outcome of all possible rules. So "I just wanted to help!" is wrong by definition for act utilitarianism, but could still be right by rule utilitarianism if following the impulse to help is for the best most of the time.

 

—Alorael, who thinks of it in medical terms because of personal biases. A medication can have terrible side effects, say, 0.1% of the time. If it does, act utilitarianism says prescribing it was wrong. Rule utilitarianism would say it's right to have prescribed it; there's no way to know in advance, and the only other option is to never use it, which would lead to terrible outcomes 99.9% of the time, so the right rule is to prescribe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for elaborating. I am a student paramedic so much of what you have said can be applied to my situation.

 

We are often faced with choices like that. Especially in regards to moving someone vs not moving them if there is a mechanism for spinal injury, etc. Not to mention the host of drugs that are by their very nature required to be given in uncontrolled situations with incomplete information. ie. 'Oh, you are allergic to medication x, that would have been good to know if you were conscious or if your partner had taken the time to let us know.' etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Utilitarianism, like (almost) every theory of ethics, doesn't really present choices. It provides the means to evaluate possible choices for which one is most ethically right. And like all theories of ethics, it really can't, by definition, tell you to do something that isn't right, at least by its own standards of right and wrong. Of course, if you're using different standards then you're just at philosophical loggerheads; utilitarianism and, say, virtue ethics or egoism or Kantianism are going to view one another as equally and mutually wrong. You can not like what utilitarianism says; that just means you don't like the theory and prefer a different ethical framework.

 

—Alorael, who knows that many people find that utilitarianism can lead to uncomfortable conclusions. There's no obvious truth to whether that's because instinctive moral reasoning isn't objective enough to be morally right or whether utilitarian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

There's a problem with utilitarianism.

 

Suppose that there's a railcar charging down a street, and you're standing on a bridge with a lever. Down the street, you have five people standing, unaware of the impending doom. If you choose not to do anything, the railcar will crush the five people, but you have done nothing wrong. Then again, if you pull the lever and derail the railcar, you'll get one person killed because the railcar will flail uncontrollably on the street.

 

Ethically it isn't right to touch the lever and cause the death of a person but bearing witness to deaths of five others while you could do something isn't exactly ethical either. According to utilitarianism, one should always maximize the good things with an action, but is it a "good" choice to pull the lever and cause the death of an individual, even if you save five others?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Utilitarianism provides the answer to that question. Outcome is all that matters. It is a good for there to be one death, not five deaths, so the good thing to do is pull the lever.

 

—Alorael, who thinks this is one of the most basic textbook examples of utilitarian ethical decision-making. The critique is that it feels wrong to put no value on actually intervening and causing death (or not), but utilitarianism doesn't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think that it sometimes lesser of two evils as well as outcome reggardless of means is a subjective call in such a way even utilitarian arguments erase the view. Same in case of the world peace through human extinction argument as well as if the one person is a doctor or the person to find the cure for cancer. Utilitarian arguments are all nice and dandy but i strongly believe they can only be used if you fully understand the consequences of your actions, which you rarelly to never do. Not that i am for kantianism(kant speak for oposite of utilitarianism right?) I just thing no matter what you choose its really up to chance if it was a good choice or not.

Edit: Also that which is the lesser of two evils might also be a subjective call

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that i am for kantianism(kant speak for oposite of utilitarianism right?)

 

well, "opposite" sort of implies that they exist on opposing ends of a spectrum encompassing the entirety of moral thought, when in fact there are other systems that are more or less orthogonal to both. for example there's virtue ethics, which argues that by focusing on how to decide what to do in specific moral dilemmas you're already on the wrong track and you're better off focusing on developing positive character traits in yourself so that making good decisions will come naturally to you. that still raises the question of how to decide what counts as a virtue but it does seem to be a distinctly different approach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a world of gray it gives me some sense of security to paint things black and white. Not that i can't leave without them but its hard to reach conclusions otherwise due to too many variations and tributaries and stuff like that. But i should have said contrasting not opposing. What i mean to say is i don't follow one or another or really any ethical system at least not consistently.

 

Also i know little of virtue ethics but that example irks me a bit, if you're trying to make the best choice in a moral dilema are you not automatically trying to be a better person? I understand the rationale behind, "if you dont know which to choose you are not virtuous, if you were you would know what to choose" what i dont get is the part where it says "you're better off focusing on developing positive character traits in yourself so that making good decisions will come naturally to you." By trying to make the right choice you seem to be doing that automatically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(...) If you're trying to make the best choice in a moral dilema are you not automatically trying to be a better person? (...)

 

Hmm. I'd argue that becoming a better person requires a conscious effort, recognizing old flawed thought-patterns and altering them. If you're thrown into a situation with a moral dilemma, you would automatically and instinctually try to come up with the best choice according to the morals, ethics and values you follow. On the contrary, if you decide to seek out a dilemma and try to solve it, then you're consciously trying to hone yourself into becoming a better person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think that it sometimes lesser of two evils as well as outcome reggardless of means is a subjective call in such a way even utilitarian arguments erase the view. Same in case of the world peace through human extinction argument as well as if the one person is a doctor or the person to find the cure for cancer. Utilitarian arguments are all nice and dandy but i strongly believe they can only be used if you fully understand the consequences of your actions, which you rarelly to never do. Not that i am for kantianism(kant speak for oposite of utilitarianism right?) I just thing no matter what you choose its really up to chance if it was a good choice or not.

Edit: Also that which is the lesser of two evils might also be a subjective call

The point of ethics is to come up with objective systems for evaluating these decisions. It's all about removing subjectivity. All ethical systems are fraught with edge cases that make us uncomfortable. The ethicists can double down and say that it's because our intuitions are imperfect, or try to better fine-tune the systems, but there is the inherent problem that there isn't any real objective right or wrong besides what we declare to be so. And what basis do we have for those declarations besides intuitions? So I do think there's a real issue of all ethics being only so many steps removed from someone's intuitive and subjective ethics.

 

I'm no expert, but virtue ethics isn't really about becoming the kind of person who does the right thing. The goal is to become a person of virtue and live a good life. Such a person probably should be refraining from evil actions and undertaking good ones, but that's not the point of virtue ethics. The point is "eudaimonia" or living a good life (at least in the classical Aristotelian form of virtue ethics), and that's good in terms of prosperous and happy, not just somehow moral. So a life of virtue ethics is about cultivating excellence in yourself, which leads to a better life for yourself; incidentally it should probably also lead to better things for those around you, but only as a happy accident. One common criticism against virtue ethics over the two millennia that they've been floating around is that the whole thing is extremely self-centered. And that you can go on murder sprees as long as you do it with excellence.

 

—Alorael, who apologizes if he's a bit lacking in clarity at the moment. He's slightly drugged and has undergone some recent less than excellent experiences. Naturally the next step was for him to march onto the internet and argue ethics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Hmm. I'd argue that becoming a better person requires a conscious effort, recognizing old flawed thought-patterns and altering them. If you're thrown into a situation with a moral dilemma, you would automatically and instinctually try to come up with the best choice according to the morals, ethics and values you follow. On the contrary, if you decide to seek out a dilemma and try to solve it, then you're consciously trying to hone yourself into becoming a better person.

Exactly why i think moral dilemas make it automatic. As any kind of dilemas require soms effort to choose between two options otherwise not a dilema.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The point of ethics is to come up with objective systems for evaluating these decisions. It's all about removing subjectivity. All ethical systems are fraught with edge cases that make us uncomfortable. The ethicists can double down and say that it's because our intuitions are imperfect, or try to better fine-tune the systems, but there is the inherent problem that there isn't any real objective right or wrong besides what we declare to be so. And what basis do we have for those declarations besides intuitions? So I do think there's a real issue of all ethics being only so many steps removed from someone's intuitive and subjective ethics.

 

I'm no expert, but virtue ethics isn't really about becoming the kind of person who does the right thing. The goal is to become a person of virtue and live a good life. Such a person probably should be refraining from evil actions and undertaking good ones, but that's not the point of virtue ethics. The point is "eudaimonia" or living a good life (at least in the classical Aristotelian form of virtue ethics), and that's good in terms of prosperous and happy, not just somehow moral. So a life of virtue ethics is about cultivating excellence in yourself, which leads to a better life for yourself; incidentally it should probably also lead to better things for those around you, but only as a happy accident. One common criticism against virtue ethics over the two millennia that they've been floating around is that the whole thing is extremely self-centered. And that you can go on murder sprees as long as you do it with excellence.

 

—Alorael, who apologizes if he's a bit lacking in clarity at the moment. He's slightly drugged and has undergone some recent less than excellent experiences. Naturally the next step was for him to march onto the internet and argue ethics.

 

We are what our culture makes us and our culture is what we make it. So our society dictates for us what is right and what is wrong but individuals with overlapping and convergent opinions created those notions and the system in itself. We can find the gauss curve of normal distribution for qualitative data right? That would probably help creating a relativelly objective system. But then it goes to what seneca said. Mobocracy and such. It is quite possible in some countries to see that what the majority find ethical trully isn't. But then again that in itself isn't objective. Which is why i think its the most difficult subject to discuss since you are mostly armed with just your opinion arguing for opinions is notoriously more difficult than for facts or theories or the likes. So in truth the only true way to evolve is to shed ourselves of opinions and further metamorphosise into a jellyfish like blob of facts, because in truth the fact that we have limbs and a skeleton are the main reason we have opinions.

 

So what exactly is a virtuous person? Because libertinism epicurism and stocism among others are strikingly different systems all with the same objective: living a good life. Thats a part that strongly baffles. Unless it accepts all which then it makes sense. Along with the moral dilema part.

But all in all i slightly disagree with the cricticism to virtue ethics on the basis of if you gain any satisfaction out of helping people or such, your selflessness ultimatelly is selfish. If you gain anything at all from helping people its selfish. So arguing that virtue ethics is bad for that reason its a bit short. Since if you promote excelence and selfishness that will include charitable people too. So long as its all consenting adults i suppose. Murder sprees are bad, but i suppose also unless it involved informed consent in which case they are not bad. Cept it rarelly happens. Or ever. But adding informed consent to virtue ethics and i will think it is the best system.

 

Also; worry not, clarity is always asked when needed and i don't think lack of it is ever judged. But you were more clear than i am when sober. Also sorry for the less than excelent experiences i hope they get remedied

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...