Public Address | Cafe | Southerly: If You Don't Hit Them, You Must Hate Them

Public Address

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:06:52 +1200

Discussion from blog post.

Zippy Gonzales

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:06:52 +1200

The Bible as a can of worms. I love it. What would a Deuteronomy worm look like I wonder? It neatly fits Richard Dawkins' Virus of Faith theme too. "Hey, you've got worms! Have some BZP."

Paul Campbell

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:48:51 +1200

Had a strange conversation with someone on the street the other day – a woman wanted me to sign her petition – I countered with something like "I raised my kids without hitting them, I don't see why others can't ..." what followed was a stream of disbelief, then invective?

simon g

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:08:37 +1200

Yeah, I'm sick and tired of being told how I should live my life by trouble-making do-gooders who didn't have kids themselves.

Jesus, I'm talking to you.

Rich of Observationz

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:31:27 +1200

If it was Muslims saying that they didn't have to obey secular laws because they only accepted God as their judge, you can bet the whole right-wing world would be jumping up and down in protest.

Riddley Walker

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:26:58 +1200

jebus, be careful with all that intelligent inspection of the bible and its meaning – there lies The Road To Satan.
isn't it perfectly obious that the best way to show you love someone is to give them a good bash? no wonder the same people were so upset when?

Stephen Glaister

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:41:58 +1200

Hang on.... Both David Haywood's article and Paul C.'s comment above (and possibly simon g.'s remark too) are quite misleading: there are fundamentalist anti-smackers getting ready to pass a bill, there's no loony fundamentalist bill presuming to tell everyone that they have to smack (or whatever it is).

There's an?

Riddley Walker

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:02:16 +1200

__PA consistently gets the basic dialectic wrong ... course the mischaracterizations and subtle and not so subtle prejudicings of the relevant issues are different every time (it's a moving target of distortion)... the shabby (and always just in one direction) standards of argument at PA are truly a little frightening__?

Don Christie

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:27:02 +1200

Here Russell almost gets the modality right for the religious but then presumes to characterize all non-religious opponents of the bill as people who think smacking is "bad practice",

Except in no way does Russell characterise all secular opponents to the bill as thinking smacking is bad practice. His point?

slarty

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:36:31 +1200

Stephen, I struggle with the concept that everyone should be a trained philosopher / logician!

However I do support your view that the standards of argument on PA are frightening (I'll explain why at the end).

Anyway, my problem with the law as it stands (and this is a view?

simon g

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:36:41 +1200

Stephen

There are clearly non-religious reasons to object to Bradford's bill, and many on Public Address have made those clear, in several debates (even if you don't seem to have read them).

But to characterise the religious right as simply a convenient – almost invented – target for lefties is?

Kadife Blue

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:49:46 +1200

slarty...ahhhh creating small space of worship for your post as we speak

Riddley Walker

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:53:44 +1200

yeah, nice one slarty

Riddley Walker

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:55:27 +1200

two heads really are better than one

Kadife Blue

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 15:56:02 +1200

want to join me by my alter to slarty's piece Riddley?

Riddley Walker

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:04:00 +1200

sure, as long as there's no mashed chicken bits and stuff. i'm over that, now i just do devil worshipping qua laws that prevent people from bashing their kids with impugnity

Deborah

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:18:56 +1200

(I cautioned Haywood about this specific error here.)

Oh goody.... Stephen's back to patronize us.

Lose the philosophical gobbledegook, Stephen. Back in the days when I was marking undergraduate Philosophy essays, I gave my students some advice about good philoosphical writing.

Keep it simple.
Always use the most straightforward sentence?

Rob Stowell

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:26:50 +1200

Stephen, see if you can parse the modality of:

There's an assumption common to all the fundamentalists here: that there's only one broadly legitimate way to raise a child

and somehow get to: "There's an assumption common to all those in favour of the Bradford Bill: that there's one broadly?

DeepRed

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:07:44 +1200

Just as I thought. The whole thing's not really about "discipline" or "reasonable force" at all. It's really jsut the latest front in the Kulturkampf. Of course, we've had Kulturkampf in the recent past – the 1981 Springbok Tour, and Homosexual Law Reform.

John H.I.G

Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:27:37 +1200

As a response to the argument: "I smack my kids so they won't end up as criminals" – it would be interesting to do a comparative study to see if the prison population (particularly violent offenders) were more or less likely to have been smacked [as children] than the average?

Figgie

Sat, 31 Mar 2007 06:35:02 +1200

Some people argue that certain types of children can only be disciplined by being hit.
I would rather risk a child who can only be disciplined by being hit NOT being hit and running wild than hitting a child who could have been disciplined by another means.

Hitting a child?

Jackie Clark

Sat, 31 Mar 2007 07:30:05 +1200

I find those put forward on PA of a frighteningly higher standard than most of the nonsense I encounter.

Wonderful, slarty. My feelings exactly. Most of the time, I don't post, just read on in great envy, really. As to the smacking thing, I don't have children, so I can?

tim kong

Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:43:13 +1200

Ditto Jackie. And can I add my thumbs up to slarty.

To me this is a simple thing – it's a statement about the society we want to have, the nation we want to have – one that says it's not OK to hit children.

Will it still happen? Sure.?

Stephen Glaister

Sat, 31 Mar 2007 14:24:53 +1200

Don C.: If you say
"there are relig. nuts, and of course there are some parents who...."_
then I claim you're saying there are just those two cases. Yes, in some sense you can always continue:
__"....oh and there are many other interesting cases too including those that cover fully?

Deborah

Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:27:59 +1200

Much more comprehensible, thanks, Stephen.

Riddley Walker

Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:32:48 +1200

yeah, that's much clearer.

Nat Torkington

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:32:21 +1200

Short shameful confession: during the learned scholar's discussion of Leviticus and homosexuality I snickered when he said, "in the end."

Signed,

Beavis in Leigh

Mark

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:59:08 +1200

It is good to see (so to balance the ledger) the sheer anti-intellectualism of the left after witnessing their collective and self-congratulating verbal gang-bang of Stephen's very well written post. It truly is scary to see some of the creepy pro-bill people being drawn out of the wood work. Now,?

Sethop

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:21:02 +1200

Uh Mark, most of them were "congratulating" Slarty, whose reply was marginally more intellectual than Stephen's, and had the additional virtue of being funny, so I think your claim that this display in some way "balances" right wing anti-intellectualism is uh, not to put a fine point on it, nonsense.?

Riddley Walker

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 21:36:03 +1200

boy they sure are clinging to that 85% figure for dear life.
irrespective of the numerous methodological difficulties with commercial phone polling, the poll i heard 85% agreed with was worded something like

"Is it acceptable to smack a child when they are naughty?"

Which was then mysteriously confabulated to?

Riddley Walker

Sun, 01 Apr 2007 21:37:23 +1200

and we do all understand by now that this bill has nothing to do with smacking, right?

Stephen Glaister

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 01:37:29 +1200

Riddley W: Your account of the current legal situation and of any post-s59 situation is absurd.

Smacking your own child to correct them etc. is legalized now by s 59 of the Crimes Act just the way getting an abortion before the 20th week is legalized now by s 187(a)(1)?

Russell Brown

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 07:08:33 +1200

Riddley W: Your account of the current legal situation and of any post-s59 situation is absurd.
Smacking your own child to correct them etc. is legalized now by s 59 of the Crimes Act just the way getting an abortion before the 20th week is legalized now by s 187(a)(1)?

Don Christie

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 09:56:50 +1200

Don C.: If you say
"there are relig. nuts, and of course there are some parents who...."_
then I claim you're saying there are just those two cases.

Then I repeat, for someone who claims to read so much subtlety into debate, you argue in a remarkably obtuse manner.

You?

Kyle Matthews

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:16:29 +1200

Smacking your own child to correct them etc. is legalized now by s 59 of the Crimes Act just the way getting an abortion before the 20th week is legalized now by s 187(a)(1) of the Crimes Act.

I'm not going to go anywhere near touching any comparisons with abortion.?

TroyHoward

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 15:19:56 +1200

I liken this to drink driving and seat belts.

In the not to distant past drink driving was the norm. Not wearing a seat belt was a national pastime – Everyone did it and noone seemed to worried. But cars got wrecked, people died, and lives and families were wrecked.?

Stephen Glaister

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 18:46:16 +1200

Russ B: Pay attention. That doesn't happen precisely because Crimes Act clauses legalize stuff they don't just create defences. But, yeah, technically that's how things can work if people wanted to be dicks about it. And, sure, if I drug my girlfriend causing her to miscarry then I can be?

Stephen Glaister

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:44:12 +1200

Whoops my post got cut off for some reason... restarting in the obvious place:

Note that my point is completely general.

Here's the Burrows-amendment-like clause from NSW's crimes act and here's an anti-smacking persopn there complaining about it. Money quote:

"The legislation may actually have the reverse effect than it?

Stephen Glaister

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:49:44 +1200

Cut off again!

Note that my point is completely general.

Here's the Burrows-amendment-like clause from NSW's crimes act and here's an anti-smacking persopn there complaining about it. Money quote:

"The legislation may actually have the reverse effect than it intended, it in effect reinforced parents' right to hit children," Ms?

Riddley Walker

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:55:57 +1200

Stephen Glaister

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 22:01:42 +1200

One more try (I'm getting the text in preview moder just fine!):

Note that my point is completely general.

Here's the Burrows-amendment-like clause from NSW's crimes act and here's an anti-smacking persopn there complaining about it. Money quote:

"The legislation may actually have the reverse effect than it intended, it?

Stephen Glaister

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 22:14:40 +1200

Kyle: The narrow understanding of the criminal law you're opportunistically embracing in this one case doesn't make any sense. s 59 legalizes use of reasonable force for correction of one's own child. The mechanism of that is about charging people and people potentially getting off, but to focus exclusively on?

Stephen Glaister

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 22:17:48 +1200

I can tell I'm right in this, because people can be, and ever so occasionally have been, convicted for smacking their children. If it was legal in New Zealand to do so, you could never be convicted for it.

But that's just not so Kyle. What you've seen is cases?

Riddley Walker

Mon, 02 Apr 2007 23:29:09 +1200

i see you also presume a God given right to flog dead horses Stevo

merc

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 08:46:00 +1200

It's the ghost in the horse that must be punished.

Riddley Walker

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 09:41:14 +1200

evil evil horse ghosts

Kyle Matthews

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 10:00:36 +1200

But that's just not so Kyle. What you've seen is cases in which there's a prima facie case that a parent used unreasonable force (a conclusion that would never be close to being drawn in cases of what I or most other people would class as smacking). It then went?

Hamboy

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 10:16:09 +1200

Ok, I'm being lazy here, but I'm at work and so don't really have the time to look myself.
I saw a bit of Campbell live last night and Christen Ranken was stating a 45% increase in child abuse cases in Sweden. (Think that was what she said).
Has anyone?

Riddley Walker

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 10:26:18 +1200

Rankin's earrings (you know the big flashy dangley circle things) are symbolic of the content of her arguments and quotes.

Don Christie

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 10:36:18 +1200

Has anyone check to see where this number come from?

Yes, some friends of Families First who popped over from Scandinavia recently making all sorts of claims. Most of which have been discredited by people back in Scandinavia.

That Rankin is willing to tout this rubbish is interesting, to say?

simon g

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 10:45:05 +1200

After watching that TV3 "debate" last night, I've worked out why the government didn't push the bill through before Easter after all. Their cunning plan is to give Christine Rankin more air time.

"childless Prime Minister ... spitting Sue Bradford" ... boy, does she have issues.

Hamboy

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:06:50 +1200

Thanks Don.
So it's actually worse than I thought. I just assumed it was a number reached through a few 'logic' leaps, not just one pulled out of someone's a**.

Russell Brown

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:24:35 +1200

Yes, some friends of Families First who popped over from Scandinavia recently making all sorts of claims. Most of which have been discredited by people back in Scandinavia.

I'm really tired of that number being quoted like it's authoritative, when everyone who says it knows it's extremely questionable. It's one?

merc

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:28:39 +1200

The Creepy Gang of Three reminded what could become of NZ if...

Russell Brown

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:30:35 +1200

Oh, and some more research, this time from Arizona State University:

Parents who smack their children may gain short-term relief, and even immediate obedience by their child, but both parents and children pay a heavy price for this indulgence. This is the thrust of a powerful and wide-ranging meta-analysis of?

Rob Stowell

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:32:24 +1200

Stephen: it seems your reference to

all the fundamentalists here

was to the fundamentalists from both sides in this debate while I took it here to refer to PA. To that extent your comment was more ambiguous than illogical. You do, however, seem to equate the whole tarnation-difficult and time-consuming?

Riddley Walker

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:42:29 +1200

smacking doesn't create citizens with pro-social values... [it] blinds them, through fear, from telling right from wrong

hang on a minute – if we stop doing that then where will the next batch of fundy Christian Soldiers come from?

merc

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:51:54 +1200

Exactly, seriously, this is exactly the point, smacking kids is training for those kids in the way to deal with dissenters further down the line.
God and my right! That's the way the west was won.

Emma Hart

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:12:52 +1200

After watching that TV3 "debate" last night, I've worked out why the government didn't push the bill through before Easter after all. Their cunning plan is to give Christine Rankin more air time.
"childless Prime Minister ... spitting Sue Bradford" ... boy, does she have issues.

My family had an?

merc

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 12:19:38 +1200

Hehhe, your family love you, I had the embolism!

Hamboy

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 13:46:26 +1200

if we stop doing that then where will the next batch of fundy Christian Soldiers come from

Exactly! Who would we laugh at and feel superior to?

S'pose we've still got morning show DJs.

Emma Hart

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 13:50:40 +1200

Hehhe, your family love you, I had the embolism!

I'm pretty sure they just wanted me to stop yelling 'but that's not even TRUE!' at the telly and looking for things to throw.

merc

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:32:22 +1200

I had an Old Drunk Priest from Father Ted moment, but then again I always do when that much BS comes from the telly from self-interested wankas who should really know better, see, high horse me and I'm on myself...head explodes.

Riddley Walker

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:37:51 +1200

why are the media continuing this way?

merc

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:40:32 +1200

Because they hate us more than they loathe themselves.

Riddley Walker

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:43:51 +1200

i thought they were there to like be a watchdog on power and facilitate democratic discussion and decision-making and stuff.
you mean there are other reasons too?

merc

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:51:09 +1200

Yes Master Riddley, once they have completed their Death Star...

Riddley Walker

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:22:03 +1200

...then the Rapture?

merc

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:26:01 +1200

First The Quickening, then The Big R, but not for all Master Riddley, not for all...

Riddley Walker

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:29:13 +1200

oh hoorah, we shall be saved, ever to cycle the lonely planet in our Hallensteins' polyesters. Praise Be!

Kyle Matthews

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:33:18 +1200

in Britain 75% of children are smacked before they are 1 year old

It's truly sad that 75% of parents anywhere think that kids, before they turn one, can associate being hit with any sort of positive parenting message or behavioural adjustment. At least there's an 'excuse' when they're older?

Riddley Walker

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:34:49 +1200

yeah that's nuts when you take a moment to think about it.

merc

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:36:30 +1200

If you have ever caught public transport in London and seen how the children are treated by presumably their parents, and this is a huge generalisation that I'm sticking to...they are all treated very shabbily.

Riddley Walker

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:39:07 +1200

but that would be 'lovingly shabbily' right, as in if you don't hit them, you must hate them?

merc

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:44:36 +1200

And so, beautifully, is the Circle Now Complete...
I have read the opinion that the main reason Britain painted the globe never sun setting red is because simply, the British are the most stroppy, pugilistic, malcontent lot to ever get press ganged and go for a wee scrap some place?

Riddley Walker

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:48:36 +1200

that and the meat the 3 veg, i mean they're kind of culinary refugees too

merc

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:50:55 +1200

Sadly, that is what got them back to Blighty, the smell of eels and chips. The next wave to be sent out secured all the chutney, between pukka's.

Riddley Walker

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 15:56:49 +1200

hmm, they are growing in strength then. nolonger thin, pale and whiney?

Stephen Glaister

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:52:19 +1200

Kyle: It's pointless playng the "it's only a defence" game. If you crimialize possession of a drug but throw in a clause later about "reasonable amounts for personal use" not resulting in anyone going to prison, rather than sticking it in the original clause, then you've decriminalized possession of reasonable?

natasha griffiths

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:17:40 +1200

My three year old knows not to run in front of cars or not put his hand into a fire, that is, most of the time – but I can't take it for granted. He could have an illogical moment and do the wrong thing – that's why it is?

Kyle Matthews

Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:17:34 +1200

Kyle: It's pointless playng the "it's only a defence" game. If you crimialize possession of a drug but throw in a clause later about "reasonable amounts for personal use" not resulting in anyone going to prison, rather than sticking it in the original clause, then you've decriminalized possession of reasonable?

Stephen Glaister

Wed, 04 Apr 2007 17:38:58 +1200

Kyle: The law can just be written in different ways. And the important thing, in my view, is just not to deceive to yourself about what it all adds up to.

What's merely a defence and what's positively coded up as a permission in law is not that important (controlling?

Ben Austin

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:40:04 +1200

So I was listening to the Panal yesterday afternoon and the principal of Shirly Boys High School was on, and after he said his piece on the topic of the moment he then launched into an impassioned plea for solid government family friendly policies. He went on to explain that?

Ben Austin

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:41:44 +1200

ugh, wish I'd previewed that before posting...oh well

stever@cs.waikato.ac.nz

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:55:06 +1200

Yes---and further perhaps we might get a list of current policies which are not FFPs, though from Ben's account it sounds as though this is not a problem, i.e. that there aren't, in this Principal's view, any non-FFPs, which is nice.

Hamboy

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:01:33 +1200

So this begs the question – exactly what are 'family friendly government policies'

I'm under the impression that it's code, like 'Family Valves'.
Basically the right wing Christian crap about being a married straight couple with children, that believes exactly the same as they do, get there moral guidiance and?

Ben Austin

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:04:01 +1200

I'd like such a list with reasons attached ideally.

Hamboy

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:17:57 +1200

I spend a while yesterday on the Family Ingeraty web site.
Was a slow day at work.
Even read their phamlet about the dangers of the amendment. Oddly enough the more I read, the more I thought the amendment was a good idea.
They do a reasonable good job of?

Hamboy

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:22:34 +1200

I'd like such a list with reasons attached ideally.

How about:
– making homosexuality illegal
– banning controception and abortions
– teaching creation and bible studies in school
– no social welfare

Just to start with.

Ben Austin

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 10:27:00 +1200

IIRC the latter two are interesting, especially if one reads about the Education Act debates of the 19th century – spefically the place of religious instruction in state schools. Based on that I'd should be safe in making the statement that at no point has bible studies in schools been?

Hamboy

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:02:24 +1200

Ben, I'm bored and being facetious.
Besides these types never let reality get in the way.

After re-reading my posts, I think should take more time and proof read. Or just wait until I've had my morning coffee.
I also misread your post and just listed some FFPs that they?

Ben Austin

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:06:31 +1200

Well beats being bored and thinking of pirate gold.

Hamboy

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:22:06 +1200

Well beats being bored and thinking of pirate gold

I don't know, does it include Keria Knightley in a corset?

Kyle Matthews

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:45:39 +1200

Kyle: The law can just be written in different ways. And the important thing, in my view, is just not to deceive to yourself about what it all adds up to.

Clearly this isn't going anywhere but restating points, so I'll wave it off and enjoy my Easter.

Riddley Walker

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:03:07 +1200

what are 'family friendly government policies' that these people keep asking for

This from Family Fist spells out pretty clearly what they mean by FFP, anything that promotes their conception of a family. Anything elsewise is of course satanic lesbianism and communist witchcraft.

__I'd like such a list?

Hamboy

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:39:03 +1200

I like number 9

We affirm that the world is abundant in resources. The breakdown of the natural family and
the consequential moral and political failure, not human ?overpopulation,? account for
poverty, starvation, and environmental decay.

lol

Steve Reeves

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 13:53:28 +1200

Hm!!! So I wonder what the word affirm means then? The Collins ED says:

(1) declare to be true; (2) to uphold, confirm or ratify

If they meant to say "We think this is true" why not say so?---it's much clearer. Sounds a bit equivocating, like they didn't want to?

Ben Austin

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:20:52 +1200

Number 9 definately is special. Kind of weirds me out to think that all of life's problems bar none can be solved by making the family follow a fundamentalist framework. Who would have thought that the search for cold fusion was so pointless?

merc

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:48:44 +1200

Charlie Manson liked Number 9...

merc

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:49:43 +1200

...and he had a Family.

Riddley Walker

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:51:55 +1200

he he... The Family. flirty fishing

merc

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:57:57 +1200

...and a swastika on his forehead, and a CD, but it was the devil's music played backwards, (Beatles White Album) that did it. Interesting that John Lennon coped it and Charlie didn't. America, here's a throwaway factoid, their civil (sic) war was the bloodiest per capita, ever.
I had a?

Riddley Walker

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:05:04 +1200

here's another, Auckland has the most radio stations in the world per capita – and who said competition doesn't produce quality?
filthy communists.
Someone pass the CoolAid.

Hamboy

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:28:09 +1200

Number 9 definately is special.

We had it explained to us one morning at the coffee stand in the square, by one of the council cleaners.
'When all the wifes leave the workforce and return to their homes, then the countries problems will be solved.'
(Said this to the wife?

Riddley Walker

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:31:41 +1200

blame it on Rosie the Riveter, she started it.

Ben Austin

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:35:23 +1200

Actually I'm begining to see the cleaner's POV. I've long advocated a society based on a slave army of robots/zombies. If we had such a slave army then not only could the women return to the house, so could the men. There would never be any need to leave home?

Riddley Walker

Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:30:27 +1200

i'm sure fear is precisely the response intended