Cowardice: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Cowardice » Cowardice

Cowardice
Is it better to be a Live Coward, or a Dead Hero?

Page: 1 2

Cowardice

thamrong
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 05/11/08 - 06:49 AM:	#26
Errr...better be coward and live to fight for another day...even being dead an honorable burial worth nothing..I think.

Individual
Existentialist Buddhist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 41

Posted 05/11/08 - 08:13 AM:	#27
cangiz wrote: Hello everyone, I would like to ask this question upon you all. Is it better to be a Live Coward or a Dead Hero? I personally think, that cowardice, while not noble, is the right choice. We as humans are instinctively born to 1. survive, 2. to start a family line. While being a hero sounds glorious, you are dead, and nothing more can be done. Denying human nature does not work out as well in movies. I personally would rather survive and possibly be labeled a coward, then end my life saving someone. There is a false dichotomy here. Caution isn't cowardice and recklessness isn't bravery. If you are only bold and reckless, you will easily find yourself riskily rushing into dangerous situations. If you are only cautious, you will be too afraid to stand up and defend yourself or deal with various problems. A true hero is brave when he needs to be and cautious when he needs to be. True heroes don't die, while cowards and reckless idiots are already dead.

SIR2U
Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 790

Posted 05/11/08 - 05:55 PM:	#28
The greatest reward for courage is not extrinsic, it is intrinsic. A firefighter who runs into a burning building time and again isn't doing it for the money. Of course their not, even though they do help. How many heroes have you seen getting big valuable prizes? Not many I'll bet. I think that most people readily understand that the rewards are things like you stated. He can go home at the end of his shift knowing that he has done his duty. He can die, knowing that he has lived with Honor and done his duty. Fat lot of good it does his family though. But while all firemen have to be brave to a certain extent, none of those that I know are either reckless or stupid. They don't make a habit of putting their lives at risk. It would be counter productive to risk their mates lives when they have to try and save them if they get into serious trouble. I was trying to find an article I read years ago about heros but Have so far been unlucky. The article dealt with about a hundred cases of heroism in the battle field and on the steet. While I cannot remember the exact numbers, the military heroes were mostly postumas or permanently disabled. The were battlefield cases and most of them were trying to save their mates, and a military friend of mine says that the best way to stay alive in battle is to do just that. Would make it a case of self preservation? On the street the article said the things are a little bit different. Most cases were about people that happened to be in the right place at the right time and did something without thinking about the possible consequences. That might be counted as heroism, but would the same thing have happened if the hero had been given a few seconds to evaluate the situation? Of course we have the type of hero that is willing to be a hero for his people, Martin Luther for example. While he expected, as most of them do, I don't think that many of them start out expecting to die for their course. Unfortunately it is not possible to find out if they would have continued their paths if they really knew that they would die. Don't get me wrong or think that I am in any way putting heroes down, I'm not. They do exist and I guess that we should be thankful for that. But to expect everybody to be one, as some tend to think it should be, is unrealistic. And not being a hero in no way makes anybody a coward, it's possible to be both and niether at the same time. I also think that until one has been in a position where his heroism has been called upon and has saved the day, that one should refrain from judging others as cowards. Nobody really knows for sure how they will react in any dangerous situation.
Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 167

Posted 05/11/08 - 08:46 PM:	#29
I was responding to the choice offered at the beginning, hero or coward. I agree that heroism is being in the right place at the right time. I would add: With the right skills and making the right choice. If most people ran into a burning building, they'd only make the situation worse (wrong skills). If a firefighter is present and chooses not to act, that is the wrong choice (cowardice). All heroes are brave, but not all brave people are heroes. This is through no fault of their own, they simply have not had the opportunity to prove their heroic tendencies. I hope that most people are simply heroes in waiting. My experiences with people 'not wanting to get involved' when given the opportunity to do simple heroic actions dash that hope. Any person can give in to fear (cowardice) on occasions. If cowardice happens frequently, it becomes a habit (like any act). If a person practices habitual cowardice, that person is a coward. Cowards habitually give in to fear, it is their first reaction. They are rarely brave and never heroic. They can become heroic, but then they are no longer cowards.
It is what it is.

Cafe Rob
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2007
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 140

Posted 05/12/08 - 01:13 AM:	#30
"epiloqas" wrote: No, anything goes, but some things that goes are more noble then others. Yes, precisely and courage is one of them. I'm not sure whether you've seen the movie "The Departed" over there in Lithuania, but it illustrates just this very point, that despite the immoral circumstances that prevail, the courageous individual still still continues to "stick to his guns." I'll admit that at certain point this become rash and foolhardy and in the film Costigan loses his life but it acts as an example for us. The point is that one should establish values and live by them. We may live in a nihilistic world but we can still live moral lives, or try to at least, because this distinguishes us as individuals. Edited by Cafe Rob on 05/12/08 - 01:24 AM

SIR2U
Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 790

Posted 05/12/08 - 04:23 PM:	#31
If a firefighter is present and chooses not to act, that is the wrong choice (cowardice). If a firefighter doesn't run into a burning building it is usually because of his professional training, he knows he will be risking is life unecessarally. Any person can give in to fear (cowardice) on occasions You seen to be using fear and cowardice as synonyms, they are not though. Cowards habitually give in to fear, it is their first reaction. I habitually give into fear, every time I see a 6 inch hairy spider, does that make me a coward? Edited by SIR2U on 05/12/08 - 04:55 PM
Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 167

Posted 05/12/08 - 05:15 PM:	#32
SIR2U wrote: If a firefighter doesn't run into a burning building it is usually because of his professional training, he knows he will be risking is life unecessarally. I should have been more specific. Assuming there are people known to be in the building in need of saving, if his fear prevents him doing his job, that is cowardice. As a disclaimer- I have never seen nor heard of a firefighter behaving in a cowardly fashion. SIR2U wrote: You seen to be using fear and cowardice as synonyms, they are not though. You are half right, I am not using them as synonyms, cowardice is giving into those fears in a way that is harmful. SIR2U wrote: I habitually give into fear, every time I see a 6 inch hairy spider, does that make me a coward? Maybe, would fear of a 6-inch hairy spider keep you from saving someone's life?
It is what it is.

SIR2U
Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 790

Posted 05/13/08 - 07:10 PM:	#33
Maybe, would fear of a 6-inch hairy spider keep you from saving someone's life? It probable would if it was the cause of someone losing their life. The funny thing is that scorpians don't bother me at all, I've been stung quite a few times.
Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

Liquid421
A Fool

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 17, 2008
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 05/17/08 - 09:05 PM:	#34
Would it not be better to be an intermediate? Not being a coward yet not a hero? Someone that sometimes gives into fear and sometimes commit brave acts. Not all humans can be on one end of these two extremes.
So shines a good deed in a weary world. - William Shakespeare

Cafe Rob
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2007
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 140

Posted 05/19/08 - 08:56 PM:	#35
"liquid421" wrote: Would it not be better to be an intermediate? Not being a coward yet not a hero? Aristotle goes into great detail about the subject advocating the "Golden Mean" between courage and cowardice. Actually James Michener's book."Tales of the South Pacific" a true story of the U.S forces fighting the Japanese in the in WW2 provides a very real picture of courage.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 2502

Posted 05/19/08 - 09:11 PM:	#36
Courage is a mean with regard to fear and confidence. - Aristotle
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

Cafe Rob
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2007
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 140

Posted 05/21/08 - 09:51 PM:	#37
"Keda" wrote: A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant Yes, I think this is particularly true of life under capitalism. Marx speaks of the alienation that arises with the majority of people selling their labour and performing work tasks that they do not like in any way. War breaks the monotony of life as Kant points out.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 2502

Posted 05/21/08 - 11:17 PM:	#38
I think you are misinterpreting Kant here, as well as misrepresenting capitalism. Kant is not talking about workers being bored with their jobs, and going to war is not something you usually do to cure boredom. Marx is not a friend of the average worker, but a friend of the central bankers.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

hurtle
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 7

Posted 05/22/08 - 01:11 AM:	#39
Decision. Which way in the midst of action when the situation calls for the immediacy of choice in accord with intention--which way do we fall? We aways fall towards ourselves, which ever way it is--cowardliness or courage. The decision when it must be made---like a deep groove made in wood, and the mark is left--the mark is our character, the accumulated graphology of a life time of decisions to be read, decisions which can never be erased, which constitute us at the deepest level--constitute who we take ourselves to be and who we are taken to be. Yet true courage or cowardliness--not on the battlefield with the trumpets of destiny blazing--but in the dark when no one is watching. What decisions have you make in your life which have placed you in the position where you're most accountable to yourself--where the wrong action, or no action, have constituted a harm against who you feel you are? Most likely not the ones made when the congregation was watching or your friends looked on to see how 'good' or 'righteous' you were being, but the actions you made when the doors were shut on the supporting structures which confer legitimacy on your decisions--those times when our actions are most truly our own. For what courage does it take to act in accordance with the wishes and expectations of the majority? A better record for the ledger upon which we write our destiny that we acted in accord with our own deepest understanding of what is right--'To see what is right and not to do it is cowardice.' so says Confucius (K'ung-Fu-tzu) Finally, why, when we're placed in a situation where the onus is on us to act courageously or otherwise, why act at all--why not let it all slide and let someone else do it--let the 'other' take the risks? Because, as Camus wrote, 'It is better to die on one’s feet than to live on one’s knees.' Edited by hurtle on 05/22/08 - 03:28 AM

_claire
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

Posted 05/23/08 - 01:17 PM:	#40
First of all, and I need to say this, there are no right and wrong answers to such questions because not one answer would work all the time. And I agree with all those who said that there is a time to be a coward and a time to be a hero. If we were all heroes then that would mean that we would constantly be fighting in wars, and yes there would be some victories, but certainly not all, and that would not be a happy way to live anyhow. But if we were all cowards, then nothing would ever be accomplished in life and we would never be able to influence our community/world. There is a quote I once saw that said "Get involved: the world is run by those who show up". If we lived in a corrupted country, as many do today for example, we would have to make the decision ourself weather to actually speak or mind/ make a difference or to just try and get by. I believe that there is a time and place for everything and that there is no best answer to whether one should be a coward or hero. What we truly need is a variety of thinkers, so that not everyone will think the same way. No matter what option we choose, we will not save the world. Its just a matter of how much we are willing to try and our own interpretations.

SIR2U
Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 790

Posted 05/23/08 - 03:54 PM:	#41
Because, as Camus wrote, 'It is better to die on one’s feet than to live on one’s knees.' Actually according to the records he said Camus, Albert: “A rebel is someone who thinks it is better to die on one’s feet than to live on one’s knees.” There is quite a lot of difference in the meaning.
Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

Cafe Rob
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2007
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 140

Posted 05/23/08 - 06:15 PM:	#42
"Keda" wrote: Marx is not a friend of the average worker, but a friend of the central bankers I assume from what you’re saying that this is not what you mean or even believe to be true. I’ll agree that one could be forgiven for thinking that some of Marx’s theories were wrong given the fall of the Berlin Wall, but everything Schopenhauer, Darwin and Freud said was not always correct. Marx saw the way that the capitalist market comes to permeate society, putting a price on everything and crowding out non-economic forms of value. Businesses grow ever larger, becoming more ruthless and exploitive in the process. However, it is one thing to be able to identify the faults in capitalism but quite another to say what we should do instead. Marx was responsible for two discoveries which transformed our understanding of the social world. One was the theory of historical materialism and the second was the special law of motion governing present day capitalism which included the theory of surplus value. The dominant theme of Marx’s writings is that capitalism is not fit for human consumption. It crushes the human spirit, denying the vast majority of people any chance of developing their real potential. Marx remains the most profound and acute critic of capitalism even as it exists today and although we have lost some confidence in his solutions this does not make the problems go away.

Cafe Rob
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2007
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 140

Posted 05/23/08 - 06:44 PM:	#43
"Sir2U" wrote: There is quite a lot of difference in the meaning. No, I think not. Hurtle used the quote to make his point, and the point was made even though the quote was said slightly differently. The great Socrates himself is an example of what is referred to here. He could have walked away from death but chose not too. He had no intention of living the rest of his life on his knees. Also Giordano Bruno the Italian philosopher burnt at the stake for not backing down over his heliocentric theory.

hurtle
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 7

Posted 05/24/08 - 02:41 AM:	#44
My apologies for the incorrect annotation of the quote. Camus did write it--in 1951. However, the 'saying' is much older than that, with disputed origins. Some attribute it to Dolores Ibarruri in 1936, who also famously said-'it is better to be the widow of a hero than the wife of a coward" and "it is better to kill one hundred innocents than to let one guilty person go" (tough woman!) And it is also attributed before this to both Emiliano Zapata and the Cuban revolutionary José Martí. I suspect it was these 'rebels that Camus was talking about. The saying is a political slogan of course--a rallying cry--hence it's power and appeal to Camus in the first place I suppose. But I am interested in the difference in meaning which was so significant for you--and you do mention that it is quite a lot. My aim was to round out the tension I was exploring between the idea that courage has to do merely with how we conduct ourselves in the public sphere and the notion that most times the situations which require us to act, and in so doing, to demonstrate our courage or otherwise, occur in the private domain. Many of the previous posts have highlighted the very public side of these qualities, and I was thinking that it is really in the other direction where most of what counts for us takes place--where we make most of the really difficult decisions which give meaning to our lives. In an allusion to the origins of the words courage and character, I suggested that the notion of character is necessary if we are to understand the significance of courage--that acting in 'accord' (in agreement with) our deepest nature (to not be twofold leading to a conflict between 'intent and action')is what gives us the clue as to who we are--or more strongly put, it is who we are! It is not who we think we are that counts, but what our action or inaction says about the person we are that really counts--which leaves the deep 'grooves' and marks which tell the passage of our lives--a record which is firstly there to be seen by ourselves, and then by others. Now in line with the distinction I made between the 'other'--embodied by the "supporting structures which confer legitimacy on our decisions" and the individual--who might act in opposition to, or in a sphere of existence separated from, these structures--I attempted to point to why we must act at all by using the Camus quote--bastardized as you saw it. I think the full quote only adds to the case I was making that the conflicted nature of courage through action is sometimes a result of rebellion against the moral and ethical mores of the majority, or more disturbingly, against the very 'self' we take ourselves to be. I may be wrong of course, and would still like to hear why you see a 'lot of difference in the meaning' Edited by hurtle on 05/25/08 - 05:00 AM

SIR2U
Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 790

Posted 05/25/08 - 05:51 PM:	#45
No, I think not. Hurtle used the quote to make his point, and the point was made even though the quote was said slightly differently. But I am interested in the difference in meaning which was so significant for you--and you do mention that it is quite a lot. Camus used the phrase to describe the thoughts of others, to define a group of people. He does not say it, as it was quoted in the post, as though it was a princilpe of his by which he lived his own life. Brave words abound in novels. He also said "A single sentence can be said of modern man: he fornicated and read the papers" "Debauchery is liberating because it creates no obligations" How much do you believe in a guy with that attitude. I think the full quote only adds to the case I was making that the conflicted nature of courage through action is sometimes a result of rebellion against the moral and ethical mores of the majority, or more disturbingly, against the very 'self' we take ourselves to be. Doing something about a situation that is in your opinion wrong but society considers to be right would be called rebellion. It would make you a rebel, but not necessarily a hero, and therefore not doing anything would not result in you being branded a coward. If society were to be against the situation as well, then you wouldnot be a hero, because there would be no rebellion. I suggested that the notion of character is necessary if we are to understand the significance of courage--that acting in 'accord' (in agreement with) our deepest nature (to not be twofold leading to a conflict between 'intent and action')is what gives us the clue as to who we are--or more strongly put, it is who we are! If , as you say, it is what I do that makes me what I am, your probably correct. I don't think that any of us could deny the fact that our personality is affected by our acts. But how many of our acts are influenced by who we really are, and how many by what society says we should be. Mother nature saw fit to install little nobility in the rest of the animals, would it not therefore be something that humans have invented. Big strong brave machos make for better mates the girls say, because they can defend them. But what would the need be for defense if the heros (idiots) would stop acting like big strong brave machos.
Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

hurtle
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 7

Posted 05/26/08 - 03:31 PM:	#46
No where did I state that Camus either believed or disbelieved the statement! It would have sounded contrived and pedantic to have stated "Camus said, but in no way espoused..." That argument is your invention, not mine. I did not use the word hero once. And you're totally misunderstanding the importance of the allusion that I am making to the etymological origins of the word courage (Routledge Etymological Dictionary) which is traced to the Latin cor as in the word cordial which becomes cuer whence courage. In light of this I was suggesting that the significance of courage lies in the notion of 'accord' or 'discord' between; a) the individual and the 'other' (which I also called the majority) and b) the individual and themselves (as in 'to be at odds with ones self' ), or c) between the individuals society and a real or perceived enemy. You are also confused in your summary of rebellion and incorrect to conflate the word courage with the word hero. To rebel is to go against constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions) or to exhibit great independence of thought as embodied in ones actions. I associated it with no value, other than the value of a) acting on a decision which is in accord with societies' mores and your own but against a third party, b) against societies mores but in accord with your own deeper moral understanding of the situation, or c) in accord with a deeper understanding of your own intention as against a previously held understanding, belief, or set of behaviors--in which case, one may rebel against ones baser instincts for survival and self interest. No where did I make any connection to the word hero--which I was at pains to separate from the meaning I was attempting to draw out--that courage often takes place in private moments when the 'world' is not looking--where accolades and honors--such as the conferral of heroic distinctions have no meaning--or a meaning to be arrived at when the societies values evolve to encompass the new set of values which the individual rebel or rebels embody. Did you actually read what I wrote before you set upon your rebuttal? I also, for the reason of brevity, did not touch on arguments regarding 'nature V's nurture'. Edited by hurtle on 05/26/08 - 04:54 PM

SIR2U
Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 790

Posted 05/26/08 - 06:28 PM:	#47
hurtle wrote: Because, as Camus wrote, 'It is better to die on one’s feet than to live on one’s knees.' This certainly sounds as though he is stating his beliefs. hurtle wrote: I did not use the word hero once. I apologize, let me rephrase that. Doing something about a situation that is in your opinion wrong but society considers to be right would be called rebellion. It would make you a rebel, but not necessarily courageous(a hero), and therefore not doing anything would not result in you being branded a coward. If society were to be against the situation as well, then you wouldnot be a hero, because there would be no rebellion. hurtle wrote: And you're totally misunderstanding the importance of the allusion that I am making to the etymological origins of the word courage (Routledge Etymological Dictionary) which is traced to the Latin cor as in the word cordial which becomes cuer whence courage. No I am not, I gave it all the importance it deserved. I even said that I agree with the idea that what I do makes me what I am. hurtle wrote: You are also confused in your summary of rebellion and incorrect to conflate the word courage with the word hero. To rebel is to go against constituted authority How can I be confused when I said the same thing that you are saying? And don't heroes do courageous actions, I thought that they commingle naturaly. hurtle wrote: No where did I make any connection to the word hero I already acknowledge that. I made the connection to the original use of Camus's statement about rebels and your reference to Emiliano Zapata and the Cuban revolutionary José Martí. Both are counted as heroes, even if you did not mean to use them as examples of such. hurtle wrote: Did you actually read what I wrote before you set upon your rebuttal? Did you actually read the thread from the beginning? The question here is Is it better to be a Live Coward or a Dead Hero? hurtle wrote: that courage often takes place in private moments when the 'world' is not looking--where accolades and honors--such as the conferral of heroic distinctions have no meaning This would probably be better dealt with in another thread.
Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 836

Posted 05/27/08 - 07:41 AM: Subject: All Cowards	#48
We are all cowards. ESPECIALLY YOU!
Going to trial with a lawyer who considers your whole life-style a Crime in Progress is not a happy prospect. -Hunter S T The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

Cafe Rob
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2007
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 140

Posted 05/28/08 - 12:53 AM:	#49
Courage, also known as bravery, will and fortitude is the ability to confront fear, pain, risk/danger, uncertainty or intimidation. ‘Physical courage” is courage in the face of physical pain, hardship, or threat of death, while moral courage is the courage to act rightly in the face of popular opposition, shame or scandal. "canqiz" wrote: I personally would rather survive and possibly be labelled a coward, then end my life saving someone. Schopenhauer addresses this issue in his book “On the Basis of Morality.” He makes the point that to care or risk one’s life for someone else requires one to empathise with that other person. To lose ones sense of ego-ness. Schopenhauer argues that moral character is inborn and Nietzsche continues along the same line saying we are all a piece of fate. And hence the saying ”Judge not..

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.