[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1629315310008.jpg (5.67 KB, 204x204, 1:1, 18697964_10155357246269108….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

View-harm, I will define, is the psychological harm done to another when they view a body or a photograph of a body.  Some parts of the body are especially potent, therefore laws require covering those parts in public and standards forbid showing those parts on many websites.  But people may be offended by any part of any body (eyes, nose, teeth, hair), or offended by the fashion of bodily display (hair style, make-up).  I don't believe in objective beauty or ugliness, so there is no, I suppose, defense against view-harm there.  A good person must not use their power to hurt those around them.

I think, though, fursonas or pony-sonas help defend against view-harm.  Perhaps we can share other ideas for keeping those around us safe.
4 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1629892053004.png (359.8 KB, 800x450, 16:9, medium.png) ImgOps Google

Yes, when inferences are made from accidental patterns that don't do well at predicting what's being modeled.

That's bad, I guess, but I'm not sure it's psychologically damaging.

Interesting.  View-harm might be a class of information hazard.  I suppose you could say it's really information gained in a view that does the mental damage, although exactly what information is hard to say.


>Data hazards: A piece of data that can be used to harm others, such as the DNA sequence of a lethal pathogen.

Fun fact!


The individual genes of the virus that causes smallpox. It's full genome is at the bottom of the page.


File: 1629404467481.jpg (85.7 KB, 1120x630, 16:9, Two-Jobs-Cartoon.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

In a surprise move, the Biden administration's Department of Education seeks to forgive something like $6 billion dollars in student loan debt for individuals in a specific working situation.

Story: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/student-loan-forgiveness-disabled-borrowers-150036471.html

The U.S. student loan crisis is an interesting problem. While I've got more opinions on different issues than I can manage, really, I'm on the fence when it comes to this. Should the government keep going through situations piecemeal? Should all student debt just be ended? If so, what about the economic consequences... isn't there a kind of ethical dilemma when it comes to those who did pay things off?
17 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


They can make that argument if they want to but don't pretend it's for my sake.



College, in general, is worthless.  Yet every institution insists, if you do not go, you will be a failure.

It's not as hard to pay your debts as some make it out, but it's also not necessarily hard to pay a con artist.

Given the state itself is the one pushing you into this debt more often than not, it's on them as much as the colleges themselves.


>Yet every institution insists, if you do not go, you will be a failure.
Not every, but things nominally taught at state-accredited college or university will be skills, other abilities will not be.  [Possibly some trade schools may teach a few skills as well.]


File: 1690013044577.jpg (75.88 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, maxresdefault.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I don't really follow politics super closely although I am addicted to Facebook, but I feel I ought to generate threads at some frequency and this is trending on Facebook now.


Jason Aldean produced a song called "Try that in a small town" that talks about how violent action such as armed robbery or rioting, unpatriotic behavior such as flag burning, and disrespectful behavior such as using profane language toward a cop will not be tolerated in a small town.

According to CBS news, Alderan "performs in front of the Maury County Courthouse in Columbia, Tennessee. This is the site of the 1946 Columbia race riot and the 1927 mob lynching of an 18-year-old Black teenager named Henry Choate."  I gather, however, these are not major historical events.

The song's lyrics, which you might find at any site that has the appropriate permissions from the publisher to copy them, does not mention race.

My question: is this song political, problematic, or even dog-whistle support for lynching, as some say?  Or are people too quick to judge, or perhaps inappropriately associating rural American solidarity and or small-town culture with racism?
17 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>I mean it's not the least bit nebulous, in a white supremacist social order, white people are supreme, that is on the top of the social hierarchy. In that social order, all other races are expected to be subordinate to white people.
Right, if that's the framework we're operating from, I would say flatly that it is not the case here, and I've seen nothing whatsoever to suggest it is in my many, many years of living in the south.

I can't speak to your personal experiences, but I can tell you that the black folk I've worked with have gotten the same paycheck as any other white folk, they aren't obligated to stay on any particular "side" of town, and they most certainly are not expected to "act as subservient as possible", either.

To be quite frank, I find the claim extremely unlikely. But I grant it is possible you've come from a particularly uncommon and uniquely horrible location. Nonetheless, I would certainly say it does not represent any experience I've had with the south.

>Seriously this willful ignorance is seriously spineless.
Only if we presume your claims of what is occurring is accurate.

As I most certainly have no cause to believe such, doubly as it runs directly contrary to my observed reality in my daily life living in the region, I most certainly would not consider it "spineless".
I would however regard such accusations as exceptionally hostile, and doubly so when made on such faulty presumptions.

I would hope that wasn't your intent, but I am sure you can understand that such insulting rhetoric rather strikes so, nonetheless.


>I wish I didn't have to coexist in the same country as you since if my corpse was lying bleeding on the ground you'd just walk right past it because your politics would tell you to do so.
I, too, wish so many people who would make such hostile presumptions over disagreements weren't so common in this country.

Alas, the kind of folk as you who'd assume someone a monster because they disagree with them are a dime a dozen these days.
It gives me worry for the future, as it seems such disregard for their own fellow man is liable to only escalate political division.


File: 1690757055214.jpg (53.19 KB, 720x516, 60:43, IMG_20230729_162041.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>My question: is this song political, problematic, or even dog-whistle support for lynching, as some say?  Or are people too quick to judge, or perhaps inappropriately associating rural American solidarity and or small-town culture with racism?

The song is a statement and perhaps a message, but also it's largely grandstanding and posturing, delivering threats you can't back up to strawmen that don't exist.  An empty calories feel good song for the "good ol' boys".  If it actually gets people to stop carjacking, that would be great, but more likely is it makes people want to stop carjackings, only to never encounter one, and at worst they may go on some perverse patrol to find someone they declare dangerous after a night of heavy drinking.


File: 1687560617551.png (1.24 MB, 1280x853, 1280:853, large.png) ImgOps Google

Sometimes I wonder if the left, generally, could be more tolerant and kinder to the right.

I keep going back to LGBT+ issues, but they are a main issue right now in politics, I think.  Some Christians prefer to not be part of the LGBT+ agenda, and the left might say that's transphobic or homophobic, but perhaps we should just accept that excluding these kinds of gender or sexual expressions is what some need to practice their religion.

And in the same way some people have negative opinions about races and/or ethnicities, and rather than attacking, we should just let people have opinions.  Maybe we can respectfully disagree, but nobody should be called "racist" if they don't prefer.

I guess maybe much of the political anger is caused by left-leaning people getting upset and calling people names, and if things cool down maybe stuff will get better.
39 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>In what astonishing alternative reality are you living in which expressions of public bigotry are widely condemned or even "universally hated"?
I would ask the same to you.
Did you miss the many years now where such accusations would get you ousted from your employment?
Condemned by those around you, and functionally a leper as far as society is concerned?

>To pick just one example, former President Donald Trump publicly declared that the Prime Minister of Israel should go "f**k" himself and declared him and his fellow Israeli Jews as well as American Jews of immoral disloyalty to his administration, acting in the most antisemitic way possible in his accusations.
I would require the actual citation, then, because I find the claim suspect, especially given you start with a critique of an individual, a political figure, and leader of a nation.

It shouldn't need be said, but not supporting the Prime Minister of Israel is not antisemitism.
There's plenty of cause, after all, to do so. I can certainly understand the perspective, even assuming "should go fuck himself" was an actual quote.

> particularly him crusading against the evil campaign by LGBT people and other minorities to supposedly "groom" children
That would hold more water were it not for the mountain of evidence that unfortunately gives leeway to that perspective.
I can agree that the LGBT community as a whole is not to blame for the actions of a few particularly insane radicals, especially as they ultimately seem to just use LGBT as a shield without any actual concern for the real people it harms.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


Since you actually buy seriously into the notion of evil Jews and evil gay people among others hunting down children, well, I guess you'd probably be operating from such an insanely biased far right worldview that I suppose you've no connection to reality in the first place, and any attempt by me and everybody else get through the extremist brainwashing putting the ideological bubble around your head is futile.

My mistake for attempting to engage with you in the first place, then. See you later.


You've clearly not bothered to read a single thing I've said, have you?

I've said nothing to suggest I "buy" "f evil Jews and evil gay people among others hunting down children".
You've made that dishonest and hostile presumption off of, quite frankly, fuck all.

If you've not the decency nor the intellectual honesty to engage in the absolute bear minimum of responding to what others've actually said, instead of a complete fabricated fantasy in your own mind, I would implore you, hold your tongue.
You don't convince anyone by declaring them all to be evil monsters no matter what they say.
You only reveal your own demonstrable lack of personal character.


File: 1686869819894.png (393.74 KB, 739x1024, 739:1024, large.png) ImgOps Google

This is a peaceful thread for those without political opinions.

Perhaps for those who don't have opinions about the LGBT agenda and pedophiles or groomers.  Or climate change.  Or which drugs should be allowed.  Or about the Jewish ethnicity.  Or Christian freedom and family values.  For those who have nothing to say about the poor or systems of economy. For those with don't comment on feminism or whether someone's appearance is valid.  For ponies who are not woke, but also don't need to have wokeness banned.

When you don't have political opinions, you can think critically and evaluate with reason and rationality.  You can be respectful of all the various opinions that exist without offending others.  It is a very nice goal, I think.
14 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



Ah, yes. That is never fun when others want you to have a response that you don't really have at the moment.


Hm... maybe the institution just does the best that it can, like everyone else?

One way or another, people appear to attain what is perceived by at least some others as power. But I wonder about the perception of an insitution having power - maybe therein lies the apparent problem, if there is one. What is it about a person, organization, or institution that makes a person say about it that it has authority (and then form opinions about them/it based around that perception)?

Interesting discussion.


>What is it about a person, organization, or institution that makes a person say about it that it has authority (and then form opinions about them/it based around that perception)?

Authoritarianism is the necessary condition.  This is the knowledge that at least one institution should not be resisted in their use of force, and should have their orders obeyed.  With authoritarianism you can have a legitimate way to replace anarchy.

Although, much like some have said of God: I can have perfect faith in God but still, if I am not to experience God directly, question the mediation that allows me to know God.  I suppose that's part of your question.


I'd like to say that most opinions aren't political opinions. And most opinions are frequently things that don't involve thinking critically. It depends.

People can scream their lungs out about what band is their favorite musical group ever and what band they passionately hate to where they want to punch the nearby wall, after all.


File: 1688909172197.png (400.07 KB, 1030x1024, 515:512, large.png) ImgOps Google

Are Americans, who we might define as all living or having lived in the jurisdiction of the government called The United States of America, the most free people?  That is, does the range of freedom experienced and being experience by all humans meeting this definition exceed the range of freedom possible outside the jurisdiction of the United States of America?

Or would you say Americans are equally free or have at any time been equally free, to at least one other human living elsewhere?
9 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


I think it relates to mental frameworks.

If you have the expectation that roads should exist and should be reasonably maintained, then every pothole that you see and such will feel like an affront.

However, if you expect nothing, then you will be pleasantly surprised by there being any roads at all.

In a great many nations, including most countries of the world, it's naturally expected that you don't have the freedom to criticize the government. Lying, cheating, stealing, and worse is expected. If you, on the other hand, have the expectation that as a citizen you can condemn the state however you see fit, this makes you angry, feeling oppressed even.


File: 1690685700704.jpg (49.35 KB, 1280x686, 640:343, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

It's certainly true that how well a person's expectations are met will determine how satisfied they are, and this applies to one's sense of freedom as everything else, especially where there is no objective comparison.

If you're saying the American experience of freedom forms in American citizens an expectation of freedom that most other nations can not meet, you might be commenting on more than feelings or expectations of individuals.


Yes, in many matters of international life, comparisons are objective. What nations are the top ten in terms of military spending. What are the highest average lifespans. What are the highest population totals.

However, some things, while important, just are subjective. And hence it is as we've agreed.


File: 1688080240058.png (1.21 MB, 850x1209, 850:1209, 5ec2d1f7eaab6ac94982c341bc….png) ImgOps Google

Do you agree with today's Supreme Court ruling that it's illegal for federally-funded universities to racially discriminate in admissions?

9 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


It is unfortunate that places prefer to discriminate against people with a male gender identity.  I hope people can find or create more inclusive places for education.


I thought it was predominantly against Asians was the problem


My thought legally is that discrimination based on a general category is inherently wrong, and that shouldn't happen. However, discrimination based on a highly specific background status that's properly documented can make sense. And it often does.

For example, if somebody is descended from the enslaved and this is a clear-cut matter of family history as found in written documents, then I find it fairly logical to regard their personal story and family heritage as having a special meaning. Their inclusion in programs of higher education is a matter of accomplishing meaningful goals of social improvement, righting past wrongs, and expanding intellectual diversity. The same is true of bringing into the programs cancer survivors. And victims of child abuse who've rose above those circumstances. As well, those who've been formerly homeless and otherwise dealt with extreme poverty have unique character-based aspects to their lives. Same thing for war veterans. Especially veterans with citations of merit.

I wouldn't consider preferential treatment to a child of enslaved parents, of parents who've survived cancer, of veteran parents, and such to be that objectionable. It's not like an extremely broad category label such as 'a black person', especially when a gigantic number of black Americans have never had any of their relatives slash forefathers enslaved. Not to mention that, obviously, records of enslavement exist for people who aren't / weren't black. Scholarships for those people, their children, their grandchildren, and/or their great-grandchildren seems reasonable.

I'm in favor of the ruling to some extent, then, I suppose. I'm not familiar with the technical legal grounds argued, however.


File: 1685334478469.png (1.94 MB, 1079x1766, 1079:1766, Screenshot_20230521-203920.png) ImgOps Google

Why are Japanese cities so safe and low in crime?
12 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


It isn't the "politically correct" answer but there are no minorities or immigrants committing crimes and sucking up taxpayer money. Everybody in Japanese society is Japanese so they all know the rules and where they belong.


Yes, I think at least in America, black people are more criminal.  It may be so in other countries as well.  Note, this is not a moral judgement.  States determine who is criminal and will be respected, but states are amoral and crime is not itself a reason to have negative opinions about racial groups.  But people are free to have negative opinions about racial groups if they prefer.  I believe it's important to allow various opinions about things.


I don't have links to studies at the moment, but it seems pretty clear-cut that the primary reason is human capital investment. The Japanese government as well as the general culture and society puts an emphasis on universal health care that actually works, prestigious educational systems that actually work, employment training organizational programs that actually work, and so on. Japan is not a 'sink or swim' culture akin to the United States where everybody is basically out for themselves. Such as whether or not you have employable type skills is viewed as 100% on you rather than something that can be influenced by broader culture... those American principles are an anathema in that nation. Japan is an extremely capitalist place in the technical sense, particularly given the business practices financially, but the psychological ethos is almost completely socialist.

I need to highlight and then underline that this observation is not inherently an ethically benevolent thing (nor is it inherently an abominable thing). Objectively? It's complex. One can certainly have the opinion that relying on such a socialist mindset with an emphasis on human capital investment will in the long-run result in social stagnation and particularly economic problems. Cultural chaos can mean cultural growth. Japan has by now had several 'lost decades'. Many people who live there or have lived there find the ethos too 'conformist' and talk about the ability to express themselves more freely. It's all a matter with a lot of 'shades of grey'.


Don't you ever wonder why you would't go out and try to get rich pulling blatant scams on a lot of people with no risk on repercussions?

Are people idiots for working in call centers off shores pretending to be Microsoft engineers?
Or are we all the idiots for not seeing the lucrative business model in parting money from some gullible elder somewhere?

Overall, what do you think of scammers who keep getting away with it?


>Don't you ever wonder why you wouldn't go out and try to get rich pulling blatant scams on a lot of people with no risk of repercussions?

>Are people idiots for working in call centers off-shore pretending to be Microsoft engineers?

>Or are we all idiots for not seeing the lucrative business model in parting money from some gullible elder somewhere?

>Overall, what do you think of scammers who keep getting away with it?
That the system is set up in a way to allow it to happen. That the only means of stopping them is to address the systemic issues that cause people to take up scamming and to put into practice policies that will help people to avoid scams and empower them to prosecute scammers when they are found.


People aren't idiots for not wanting to scam folk from a call center.
They're just not scumbags.


File: 1689860512936.png (962.07 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, full.png) ImgOps Google

One of my projects involves finding the location in space of something like a cell phone.  Google has been playing with various ideas that might get the precision down to 10 cm, although that's best-case and widespread adoption will likely be slow for a lot of reasons.

While I deal in the technology, do you think a 10 cm precision milestone would mean anything politically, as in the power to gain deeper insight into people's patterns of life might have effects beyond giving individual users more precise information about themselves?


File: 1688217135699.jpg (592.1 KB, 2000x1333, 2000:1333, 1647814319331.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Let's say you spent your whole life being an atheist, or maybe at least a good chunk of your life, and then some events happen that make it very difficult to sit with that atheist mindset and be comfortable there. Or, to put it another way, you have seen or experienced too many things that you tried, and failed, to simply explain away with anything rationale. And let's add another layer to this.

Let's say that even if you get to this point, and one day someone or a few people come along, that have the answers to those experiences and can perfectly replicate them or explain them and make them rational for you. But because you had your belief system shook, you now, even with the evidence, still wish to believe in something other than atheism.

Do you believe that you have a moral obligation to still uphold science and modern medicine, psychiatry, and basically the 'best that we got at the moment' tools to deal with our struggles and problems first? Or do you believe it's okay to go full force into this new belief and suggest to other people to say, just for an example, pray instead of making a doctors appointment. Or pray before going to a doctor.

Do we have some kind of moral obligation, in essence, if we want to believe in something that science can't explain, or can't yet explain?

So that's the prompt. My own personal feeling that I'm willing to discuss if others want to, is that yes I do think we have a moral obligation to use science and the tools that we have either first, or equally as alongside, whatever spiritual beliefs we may have. I have formed this opinion based upon the countless years of history that have shown how much damage religion or spiritual beliefs CAN cause, when not handled carefully or used to fuel a fire. I also feel like there should be a similar checks and balance with science and modern medicine, but that could be a discussion for another thread. I would like to focus on this aspect for the thread first.
6 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.



>I don't really have a solid point with that, I just that it was an interesting correlation and felt like sharing.

Thanks for sharing.

>Up until a few months ago, I had a misunderstanding of what exactly it was that psychiatrists do.

I think of there being two main branches in terms of mental health: Psychiatrists deal primarily with medication management (figuring out which medications seem to work and which ones don't, checking for drug interactions, and writing prescriptions) with a little bit of counseling thrown in, if necessary.

The other branch is counseling. Within the counseling branch, there are psychologists, counselors, therapists, group counselors, etc. Everyone in this branch aims to treat their clients with counseling/therapy being the focus. But if you like, they can discuss medication and possibly make referrals.

Most health plans allow for you to see a psychiatrist and a counselor at the same time, if you wish.

A psychologist is a specific kind of counselor.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


Don't feed the pegions


>Do you believe that you have a moral obligation to still uphold science and modern medicine, psychiatry, and basically the 'best that we got at the moment' tools to deal with our struggles and problems first? Or do you believe it's okay to go full force into this new belief and suggest to other people to say, just for an example, pray instead of making a doctors appointment. Or pray before going to a doctor.

The number of denominations where this dilemma is relevant is fairly low and they generally make up a very small percentage of their religious category. Even Jehovah's Witnesses, who are famous for preferring uncomfortable deaths over challenging their faith, are fully permitted to go to the doctor and take modern medical advice as long as it does not violate specific non-medical regulation. Most religious objection to modern medicine is more socio-political in nature than theological, so I don't think the vague non-denominational deism described in the OP would oblige somebody to categorically reject treatment.



File: 1683931501468.png (735.77 KB, 755x1024, 755:1024, large.png) ImgOps Google

Nobody owes you anything.  You owe others respect for their human rights.

States don't owe you anything.  You owe states loyalty and obedience.

Politics is full of contrary ideas and best avoided.
25 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Well, I draw a line at saying something like the Holocaust was moral, which would have to follow since internal opposition was insufficient to keep it from happening.  Which is why I go with states are amoral.


>States don't owe you anything.  You owe states loyalty and obedience.
Other way around actually. The State absolutely owes their society that funds them for being public servants. If the state has ability to rob people of their earned money then they should at least do their respected jobs for their constituents who fund them. Simple as.


The state may prefer to serve the public, as judged by an individual subject, a group of subjects, or a majority of subjects.  Often opinions about what actions the state may do that serve the public good vary, and it's probably unlikely that at least some subjects feel any given state is serving the public good.

Sometimes states request feedback on how they are doing, and proving that feedback is obedient.

But in situations where an individual feels the state or state agents are not acting as public servants, and no legal and respectful option exists for feedback, we have a situation where nothing more can be done.  And I say "states owe you nothing" because this situation is possible for any individual.  

[Perhaps true, my phrase is an overstatement.  "States owe you what states believe they owe you and nothing more." might be better.  Or maybe "states owe you what you happen to get" avoids anthropomorphizing states as entities with beliefs.]


File: 1685710175613.jpg (326.9 KB, 1080x1080, 1:1, 350130128_217214194405590_….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Perhaps this can be a month to focus on modesty, and tolerance of diverse perspectives on various topics, especially topics that seem to divide ponies and humans.  Perhaps we can focus on how everypony can feel safe and accepted this month.

Hasbro Posted on FB: "Today and every day we celebrate everypony’s unique sparkle  Be true to who you are – hoof to heart!"

That sounds like a good message.  Let's debate how to best let everypony be true to themselves!
11 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


What is your meaning of "societal karma"?  When I see Karma, it's usually in the context of "instant Karma" where a rude person is punished by an independent event.  The actual Karma is a religious idea I probably don't fully understand.

Which parties need to communicate and what do they need to tell each other?



My thoughts are that I think my meaning is that when you do something, it has effects. It's not what you do that matters, necessarily, but your reason for doing it. If you do something in the name of God (or some other moral cause) (not for God, which I think is a subtle difference), then that will have consequences down the line related to the fact that you did it in the name of God. If you do something out love, there wil be consequences tied to that related to the fact that you did the thing out of love. If you do something out of anger, fear, or delusion - whatever your underlying motive - that will have a specific set of consequences down the line associated with that. You might not be able to guess how they will arise, specifically, but... just that what happens in the future, etc. will be a result of your (and others') underlying motives.

By societal karma, I mean what happens when a lot of poeple have similar underlying motives for doing something and how it affects the society as a whole, such as what laws are made, social norms, etc.

I think everyone could stop fighting so much and listen to each other, but it can be quite hard, and some people might not be ready, so we should just do what we can (and take care of ourselves), I suppose.


I think I see.  When I think of a particular act, say banning drag shows viewable by children, you could say the motivation was protecting children, obeying God's will, hate or fear for LGBT+ associated things, or some combination or difference motivations for different people.  So things in societal Karma seem pretty fuzzy in practice.

>everyone could stop fighting so much and listen to each other

I can't tell others what to do, but I think I agree with that general sentiment.  Although in my view there are windows when others are actually ready to listen, and it's important to be sensitive to those opportunities.  (However, that also means accepting marginalization when those windows are rare.  And it's quite possible in some cases windows are made rare on purpose.)


File: 1683103825547.png (1.19 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, large.png) ImgOps Google

Ponies can have nice friends.  And if there are no nice friends around, you can have imaginary friends and be friends with yourself, and that's just as good.
1 post and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


I think so.  But some might be food.  I don't know if someone can be both.


File: 1684405844536.png (411.65 KB, 800x500, 8:5, medium (14).png) ImgOps Google


I've been trying to become friends with myself, but that dude is a total asshole!


Sometimes it is best to consider the consequences of what we might post, and whether the words we use are helpful or harmful.


File: 1684300830667.png (509.84 KB, 700x449, 700:449, FGde1qdVQAA1R_6.png) ImgOps Google

Are you worried about deceptively aligned mesa-optimizers?




[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]