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

/townhall/ - Townhall

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


File: 1646946007397.jpg (117.82 KB, 949x525, 949:525, U.S.-Health-Care-Explanati….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

An interesting news report from yesterday commented that state after state in the U.S. have tried specific health care efforts only for them to fail miserably in place after place: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-states-are-proposing-single-payer-health-care-why-arent-they-succeeding/

Broadly speaking, medicine is a mess in America given that different people are shuffled into highly different processes under the general system. Many individuals have privately purchased insurance plans. Many get private plans through their employer. Many are covered via Medicare, which is run such that the U.S. federal government functions as the insurer and sets policies. Still more options exist.

What are your thoughts in general? Specifically, are you surprised that health care reform keeps failing? Or no?
54 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>Just about everybody accepts
is an appeal to the majority, a logical fallacy (if we even accept it as true), and doesn't change the core concepts being discussed or their relationships in the real world.  Something doesn't become a "right" the moment 51% of people say it is, otherwise me and my buddies want our free Tesla roadsters, because 51% of us demand it.

>That's how human rights work. That's how it's worked for centuries. That's how it is."
You saying "that's just how it is bruh" doesn't make it so.  And you're conflating vastly different issues to make blanket statements don't help your case.  And here you make yet another logical fallacy, an appeal to (what is purportedly) tradition, even though it is just that - a claim.  Your arguments are built on sand here.

"Freedom of speech exists and is a right, therefore everything I claim is a right becomes an equally valid right for the same reasons."  No, that's not how it works.


I don't think Python even knows what a true "far right" argument would look like.  It might be something like "healthcare is a right for me and people who look like me, but not people who look like you."  Or if we're talking strictly economics, then "Healthcare is 100% for those who can pay for it."  (But let's be honest, this person thinks we're racists by default somehow so that rules out this version.)

My position on this issue is about as centrist as you can possibly be.  But by not drinking the Kool-Aid, instantly that makes one far right.


Pretty much. By 'far right' standards, I'm a communist for thinking state-provided heatlhcare is a good idea we can afford, that'll help significantly.
I don't think it's a 'right', sure, but that doesn't stop a whole lot of nice things.
But of course, they didn't even bother seeking that stance. Just figured on assuming it.


File: 1648082148101.png (5.3 MB, 2112x1331, 192:121, Disney-Protest-Picture.png) ImgOps Google

What's your opinion when it comes to bondholders, customers, employees, managers, and stockholders pressuring major corporations to take political stances when it comes to specific legislation and other such acts?

Today, in particular, Disney employees across the U.S. are walking out to press the company's administration to take a tougher line on anti-LGBT discrimination being pushed by the government of Florida.

Context: https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/disney-employees-us-are-walking-today-rcna20893

What are your thoughts? Do you generally believe in a separation between commerce and politics? Or is such a thing no longer possible, or even desirable, in the current environment inside the U.S.?
13 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>But not in the sense of treating unfairly, which is how I was using the word.
Yes, that's right.
Thus my usage earlier, of saying "If you feel you're being exploited unfairly". I feel unfairly is something to add to exploitation, not something inherent.

>Ford had massive political sway due to the wealth of his company.
To an extent. But much of that wealth is tied to the company itself, and its shareholders, rather than Ford's pocket itself.

The bulk of lobbyists are financed not by individual pockets, but rather, large organizations. Especially in the case of business. Ford himself would have less resources than that.

> I only want to address that at some level there exists an inequality that people in positions of power, like Ford, would have a direct interest in upholding.
Understandable. Though I would make the case, wealth is less a determining factor as class and culture are.
Politicians, at least in the US, seem to be quite an insular group. More or less the only ones they seem to listen to are the media types, who're more in that metropolitan class than your average businessman. The connections are ones of education and lifestyle, rather than raw wealth.
I think this rather shows its form when you look at what politicians tend to focus on. At least when it comes to the public face of things.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


Corporations, as far as I'm concerned, do not have the right to political opinions, for one very good reason. People have the right to political opinions. If a person is made to express a political opinion they don't personally hold on behalf of a corporation that's telling them to do that or they're fired, then that's infringing on that employee's first amendment rights. I'd rather people keep their rights than to give the right to a political opinion to some evil, greedy, self-serving hydra of a corporation.


Can be said that most of us agree that "corporate personhood" shouldn't exist?

A company shouldn't be legally considered the same as a private individual and thus be allowed to as a whole enforce certain speech, certain religious practices, and so on?


File: 1643079289324.jpg (545.26 KB, 1331x1881, 121:171, Russian-Bear-Image.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

U.S. troops are on high alert over the ongoing stand-off: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60118193

When I think about this, frankly, I wonder why exactly should Russia avoid rolling the tanks through Eastern Europe. Not just Ukraine. All over. Take over territories with puppet governments and exterminate all opposition.

What can the European militaries do? They're no match on the battlefield. Russia also controls Europe's energy resources to a significant extent. Their morale appears to be sky high as well.

What can the Americans do? The country is exhausted. Two decades of severe decline in both economic terms and foreign policy terms means that U.S. armed forces are an extremely weak shadow of themselves. Financially, the U.S. is also in a dicey situation, the treasury barely able to support domestic social programs let alone expansionary efforts abroad. The American people can't sacrifice any more, not that I can see, and won't support interventionism of any sort in the near future.

What are your thoughts?
18 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


In retrospect, the assumption behind the original comment appears to be weirdly identical to that in the head of Putin. That the gamble would be worth it. Declaring war.

Events in the recent past have made it clear, yeah, that gamble really wasn't worth it.

I continue to be immensely surprised at the comparative weakness of the Russian forces, day by day.


People are already fearing that the use of chemical / biological weapons may follow soon and one might wonder if we're gonna see another nuke go off in our lifetime.

I seriously wonder what would happen if Russia says F#CK it and drops a nuke on Ukraine.                


Use of chemical and biological weapons has happened in world conflict since WWII, and the response has been minimal. There doesn't appear to be any particular logical reason to avoid using such weapons given the lack of punishment. I believe.

Nuclear weapons... though... there's a huge taboo for a reason... we'll see...


Should a large-scale European international security force exist, perhaps organized specifically under the European Union's administrative umbrella?


File: 1646697342098.png (679.53 KB, 909x606, 3:2, Putin-With-Trump.png) ImgOps Google

What do you feel about the geo-political situation currently given that Donald Trump is no longer President, with Europe being mired in horrific war?

What do you think Trump would've done to both Americans and Europeans if he had remained in office, in terms of presiding over international conflict?

What do you make of Trump's recent comments about the chance of U.S. airpower directly bombing Russians, in particular?

Context: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/07/donald-trump-russia-ukraine-jets-chinese

Interestingly, a recent book by Trump former ally and former Attorney General Bill Barr says that Trump instructed his aides that he viewed a "good Tweet" as having "just the right amount of crazy" ( https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/mar/01/william-barr-memoir-donald-trump-tweets ). What do you think about that in terms of wartime? What Tweets would President Trump be putting out now, establishing international geo-political policy, were he still in office?
5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


On the other hand, we can say with absolute certainty, there are financial ties from Ukraine to Biden.


Then it has not provided sufficient motivation to stop the war.  Or special operation, as applicable.


Perhaps, but it has seemed to influence quite an extensive response, and a whole lot of support in both arms and material.


File: 1645403368774.png (951.71 KB, 1280x832, 20:13, large.png) ImgOps Google

I'm not deeply a sports fan, so correct me if wrong, but I gather viewing sports is most engaging when many outcomes are about equally probable.

I'm also not a doctor, but I'm vaguely aware exposure to testosterone during development enhances some kinds of sports performance, at least in a general sense.

I am also aware that many sports group by gender -- based on the need for the two genders to have different performance profiles.  Transgenderism (and perhaps some medical edge cases, or interventions) can violate this need.

Which will win -- the model of gender necessary for sports to be both sexist and competitive, or some new categorization system in sports?

I'm mostly posting this because I see people are angry on Facebook, but Facebook isn't really a place to discuss -- more just a place to express emotion.
6 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>untransitioned transgender people
What is this category of people, then?  Is it populated by any who wish to participate in sports?

>"whatever makes them happy."
I gather sports folks are unhappy.  Progressive politics has broken their activity, and I suppose they will need progressive folks to find a way to fix it.

You bring up several ideas.  I don't think you see God as an authority in this case, otherwise I could ask how God thinks sports should be done.


Sports participation has a whole lot of inequalities that I'm not sure we even bother acknowledging.  At some point we've acknowledged that all people are not created equal and separated men and women to make competition more fair.  Now that those lines are more blurred thanks to modern science and social progression we are worried that things will become unfair.

The truth is that was never sufficient for making compeition fair.  The vast physical differences between people are much more granular and individual than simply separating people by gender.  Some competitions go a bit further with it by separating people into weight classes, and I think that's a good step.  Could maybe break it up even more, depending on the sport.


>I gather sports folks are unhappy.  Progressive politics has broken their activity, and I suppose they will need progressive folks to find a way to fix it.

I've yet to see any evidence that regular people really have a problem with transgender individuals, other than a fringe of hardcore conservative traditionalists making things difficult.

I get the sense that almost everybody in the U.S. goes by "let people live their lives to do whatever the hell they want so long as nobody else gets hurt" and views nanny type personalities as annoying bullies.


I don't have any general direction for this thread, but I would like to discuss this and get everyone's thoughts and feelings on it.

Edit to Clarify: Please do watch the whole video before having a discussion in the thread, thank you.
5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>Why is it necessary to watch the entirety in order to discuss a portion?

It's not necessary. However, as the creator of the thread, I clarified that I would like the participants to watch the whole video before discussing it's contents.

>I am not obligated to follow your instructions. That's never been a requirement for participation in any thread

Actually, you are. *I* created the thread, therefore I have some basic say over how I want my own thread to go. You are free to participate or not, and I am free to tell you to leave *MY* thread and tell you to go create your own tread if you don't like how I am choosing to handle my own thread.

I am also free to tell you to *leave* my thread, which I am doing now. Leave, my thread.


>It's not necessary.
Then I have no need to.

>Actually, you are. *I* created the thread, therefore I have some basic say over how I want my own thread to go.
Contrary to your presumption, creating a thread does not mean you get to rule over others, making unreasonable demands of them that you yourself admit are not necessary to discuss the thread's topic.

This has never been true for any thread. Let alone one on townhall.

>I am also free to tell you to *leave* my thread, which I am doing now. Leave, my thread.
You're "free" to, sure. You can make whatever unreasonable demands you please.
But nobody has any obligation to acquiesce to your demands.


I disagree.

I can't see any particular historical lesson in which refugees are perceived as being treated better if they're of particular backgrounds.

Ethnically white refugees from countries such as Czechoslovakia, France, Hungary, and Poland had a terrible time after WWII, many of them suffering from extreme hunger and other issues such as persistent unemployment. This was especially bad for those of Jewish heritage. It took decades for Europe to really recover.

During the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s, ethnically white refugees from Bosnian backgrounds, Serbian backgrounds, and such also did horribly. The international community didn't do a particularly good job in helping them. To say the least.

African refugees in a similar situation failed to get what they needed around the same time in terms of the Rwandan conflict. Same as with different catastrophes across the continent, really. In the 2000s and 2010s, mass exodus from Arabic speaking areas involved peoples of highly varied ethnicities and skin colors occurred. This triggered a political crisis such that different countries felt overwhelmed, the refugees suffering yet again in this circumstance.

If anything, I think that this is clear: refugees get treated awfully with extremely few exceptions, now in Eastern Europe being an exception so far due to the relatively small number of individuals moving about plus the extremely united diplomatic push that's anti-Russia and pro-Ukraine.

R.e. the video, I watched until the 10:30 mark and then had to stop due to a computer issue.


File: 1646698186255.jpg (69.69 KB, 464x343, 464:343, Pro-Mask-Message-At-U.S.-B….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

In multiple states across the U.S., such as Texas, mask mandates are ending in location after location due to changing thought about the nature of the pandemic.

At least in Texas, reporting states that "the omicron surge is subsiding". "Hospitalizations are declining statewide after omicron drove them to near-record labels," it seems. Thus, mask policies have been altered all over.

Context: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/03/04/texas-schools-drop-mask-mandate/

The fundamental question of whether or not mask mandates for both children and adults were a good public choice is still debated. What do you think? Was it legally justified for state and local governments to force individuals to wear masks whether they wanted to or not? Was it practically a good idea? Should children have been subject to different rules in contrast to adults? What do you feel now that such policies are ending?

As an end-note, what do you personally do, in your own life... if you don't mind disclosing?
6 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



Well that makes sense, I suppose.  I guess I'm just frustrated that I don't see more of this energy channeled into other topics.


I think you do, the trouble is there's rarely light shown on it.

Unfortunately we only really tend to hear about what the media tells us of.
I think the vehement portion of anti maskers, for instance, is not much greater than any other subject.  Anti mask more generally, and civilly, sure, but the "aggressive angry" response was, at least as I see it, rather limited.
In truth, I find this somewhat regrettable, rather than reassuring, but, it suffices to show what I'm getting at, at least.

The narrative makes up the numbers, more than the numbers themselves do.


The highly inconsistent and, really, haphazard commentary about masking from the U.S. federal government on down makes me rather uncertain and kind of skeptical about how well mass masking really changed things, myself. Common sense says that certain types of masks would help in some particular situations. Extremes such as forcing children to be masked even when separated from each other for hours on end... I'm not sure.

I suppose we won't really know the full scientific picture of what happened during the pandemic for multiple years? Probably? I guess so.


File: 1645288735695.jpg (1.16 MB, 3000x2226, 500:371, San_Francisco_California._….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

On February 19, 1942, a full eighty years to the day ago, then President Franklin D. Roosevelt decreed that all peoples of Japanese heritage on the west coast must report to interment camps. Formally issued as Executive Order 9066, the action has been studied for a long time. Today's anniversary, naturally, has brought up many reflections.

Twitter of Note:

> https://twitter.com/URDailyHistory/status/1494948870526095361

> https://twitter.com/ADL/status/1494764759782199299

> https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/1495073593838944264

The last link is particularly interesting given the personal narrative.

What do you think about the historical legacy of what happened? Are you concerned that such things could return at some point in the distant future in the U.S., perhaps? Or the near future, even? Alternatively, have lessons been learned from the past?
5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


What totalitarianism?
He didn't seem to do anything of the sort.

If anything the backlash seems to be a greater overstep against liberty.
Holding people without bail for petty crimes like trespassing is exceptionally severe.
Especially when it seems rather evident the event was known,  and rather than act on it, law enforcement stood aside,   If and still to this day insists that footage of the event must be restricted refusing numerous FOIA requests for the footage, and locking out trials from transparency,  even going as far as to put gag orders on people during them.


My impression was although Snowden's revelations were met with widespread pushback, given the processes of state data collection were secret, it would not be appropriate for American citizens to be aware of any effect of that push-back, and just as it was appropriate for state officials to have lied in the past to protect government data collection methods, potentially lying to the public would continue to be appropriate.


>the event
I don't follow the news a lot -- an event having to do with the lockdowns?

>establishing totalitarianism in the U.S.
Former President Mr. Trump did seem to prefer a more autocratic style where the head of state is less confined by law and tradition.  Totalitarianism is a profusion of state involvement in everyday life.  I suppose it's hard to guess how Trump would have continued toward totalitarianism, if that was a mission of his.


File: 1643997841825.jpg (50.99 KB, 960x640, 3:2, e2nescqzwqf81.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

So, out of curiosity, what's going on there?
Texas has taken a very conservative stance against abortions.
There's been that entire discussion in schools about racism and what is labled as "CRT".
Now there appears to be a wave of banning of a lot of classical literature from schools.
And then I go on reddit and there's news of book burnings happening.

Is this a new disturbing trend? or has this been going on for a long time already and it's now only catching the eye of the internet?
Do you think this is also going to move northwards?
39 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I've given no hatred at any point in this thread. I've not even expressed a personal belief on such matters, not that you'd care to even know.

All you can do is lie.


I'm kind of bored with you, to be honest, but if there's any more conservative bile that you want to let loose, please do go ahead.

Seeing you conservatives behaving as you do helps a lot in terms of my own sense of trying to be pro-equality and pro-tolerance: it's helpful to know what I'm against.


I've literally only said your unproven claims provided without evidence are untrue.
That's hardly "conservative bile".
Hell, it's outright apolitical.

Sorry that I have the audacity to detest liars who make up things about me




So you may have heard of this, but I still feel like it is important to share. The Lacey Act is being passed in another bill, and what it basically does is ban the import, export, or across state lines, of almost all exotic animals and pets. And what I mean by that, is ANY animals that is not a cat, dog, or livestock.

My opinions aside on how I feel about this, I think it's important that everyone know about this because it is a gross overuse of power and not backed by, seemingly, any common sense or science. Even if you don't care about pets in general, this will DEVASTATE many peoples livelihoods and even a lot of conservation efforts.

Please take the time to watch the videos and share them, or look into it on your own. Thank you.


I'm concerned about the government making animal rescue efforts more difficult.

Context: https://www.wbay.com/2022/02/13/new-congressional-bill-potentially-restricting-exotic-pet-rescue-options/


File: 1643571555115.jpeg (46.9 KB, 600x314, 300:157, b5gPERRv.jpeg) ImgOps Google

A new poll found that 76% of Americans disapprove of Biden's plan to engage in racial discrimination in selecting a Supreme Court nominee.  What do you think Biden should do, and why?

3 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Racial discrimination is wrong, regardless of whether you consider it "positive" or not



The proclamation gets him voter points.  It's actually entirely possible he simply doesn't choose a black woman now that he's already elected, but at the time it increased his chances of being elected by some unknown number.


The best way to approach things would have been for the President to have said: "I'm going to take into account personal backgrounds in terms of individual ethical character and diverse life experiences in order to prevent the Supreme Court from being bogged down into groupthink and cognitive bias from arguments that're excessively beholden to tradition".

And then, after appointing somebody (perhaps, yes, an African-American woman), remarking: "Her character and experience will make her an invaluable asset to the Court."

At least, that's what I think.


File: 1643333787826.png (390.48 KB, 800x533, 800:533, medium.png) ImgOps Google

A good pony is a pony who values state violence.  Probably a pony who is helped by state violence.  Probably a pony who would not even think the first sentence -- a good pony feels no impulse to analyze their goodness, they need only condemn badness.

I don't think I'm a good pony. I don't think I can become one.  It's too late.

I'm sorta stuck.  Maybe the best I can do is to not bother anypony.
6 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1643934007841.png (67.33 KB, 250x250, 1:1, thumb.png) ImgOps Google

>You've assumed the state defines good and bad.
Right, I've not attempted an argument because I don't have one that's genuine.

I can give you four conventional arguments for state power, if you like.  See if any appeal:

1) State leadership is divine.  Or for a secular state, experts.

2) The state might not be perfect, but it protects you from the next worst thing that would fill the power vacuum if the state dissolved.

3) The state's morality is linked to the morality of the majority of individuals.  You have to trust the state accuracy carries out the will of the majority and that the majority have good sense, of course.  Applies to democratic states.

4) In making use of state services or occupying state territory, you have bound yourself in respect and obedience toward state power.  You consented.


Save for the first, none of these guarantee universal morality in the state.

A state can, for instance, become worse than the alternative. Thus the plethora of revolutions and rebellions throughout history, seeking alternative to exactly that.

Likewise, the 'majority of individuals' depends heavily on where you are, not to mention states have a nasty habbit of working hard to ensure unelected members of the government gain power and no longer have to answer to the people anyway.

And of course, consent can be revoked.


>Thus the plethora of revolutions and rebellions throughout history, seeking alternative to exactly that.
Good point.  Most believe the American Republic is/was better than the British Empire.  Maybe that's PR, I don't imagine the British are much more upset with their government today than Americans are with theirs.  But if revolution is valid, it calls into question any state.

>no longer have to answer to the people anyway
Right.  America isn't even suppose to be a democracy anyway.  It's democratic, which I gather means the citizens may provide some input by voting.  But the actual majority needn't decide things.  And this was by design -- few of the founders trusted majority rule, and explicitly not rule by the majority of subject humans.

>And of course, consent can be revoked.

Right.  Locke and Hobbes wrestle with this problem.  People might consent to government when no great sacrifice is involved, but how do you hook subjects into fighting a war or paying taxes?  You need a social contract that is hard to revoke.  Probably you need a bit of a threat to maintain leverage.


I suppose I can admit, while I can poke holes in other systems of ethics, I don't have a explicit ethical system for myself.  Maybe asking a state to justify the violence is unfair.  I do not attempt to justify my actions.

I know people don't want me to criticize the state.  States exist nearly everywhere because people like them and feel they are a source of authority.  But I don't feel good about violence and it's hard to know what to do with the unsettled feeling.  I try to be a good, respectful person/pony.


File: 1642963743943.jpg (105.79 KB, 1024x683, 1024:683, 20200830_191415.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I'm surprised none of all you alls with your politics and your opinions are talking about the Chinese dumping on the US for interfering in their domestic affairs by supporting Lithuania.

Per various party representatives and state media outlets, "Lithuania stands against universal principles and justice" and that Lithuania is "a mouse or even a flea" that “will pay a heavy price" and "shall be relegated to the garbage bin of history" as it had “gone its own way in defiance of the will of the 1.4 billion Chinese people.”



I suppose China doing awful things just doesn't feel like news.  There isn't really a discussion to be had about whether China's doing awful things.  It's been happening for about as long as I can remember and it'll probably keep happening forever and there's nothing anyone can do about it.  Probably not even the Chinese.


Now I'm curious, what's Russia's take on this?


File: 1641861922622.png (253.81 KB, 1156x1024, 289:256, large.png) ImgOps Google

Through pretty much my whole childhood and early life, I was considered smart.  Someone said I was probably the smartest person to graduate my school.  The implication, of course, is that I'd go on to some kind of greatness.

I feel like I've spent a good deal of energy trying to undo this expectation.  I don't think I'm *that* smart, and even if I am, looking back and nearly always seeing my productivity or progress as below par is not helping.

I'm writing here because I think this might be a shared concern and it's hard to write about this without feeling like I'm bragging somehow (this is one case where not having a name is kinda nice).

I need to stop being "smart."
7 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1641949278283.jpg (54.82 KB, 1249x1024, 1249:1024, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I think I agree with most everything you say.  It is good to get a sense that I'm not alone.

> I hope to continue with my higher education and achieve career goals that, I guess, would fit with the stereotype of being a "smart person".

Wish you the best of luck.  :)  What are you studying?

My experience with college was pretty mixed.  While this may not be acceptable to everyone, I've found college is not my route to a career.  My life has become more "who is going to stop me," rather than "who approves."  I think I'm happier that way, seeking the approval of others is a questionable project anyway.


I'd prefer not to talk about my plans in depth when it comes to studies and whatnot right now, honestly, since things are rather in flux.

Regardless, I'm glad that you're achieving real happiness now, and I hope that I and others here will be the same.


File: 1642631548628.jpg (261.83 KB, 1304x917, 1304:917, Screenshot_20210427-100954….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Success in life is much more a matter of luck than most are willing to accept.

Opportunity is not evenly distributed around the world, nor is it infinite, and many are explicitly barred from access to opportunities.

And even if exploiting opportunities would require effort and skill (once you have access to opportunities of course), the gains one makes from those opportunities does not necessarily depend on the skill or intellect required to take advantage of thise opportunities. Plenty of average or below average people can be (and have been) momentously successful without even really needing to be geniuses or gifted (or even understand how they are successful for that matter) and plenty of highly competent people flounder in life, because of that fundamental unequal distribution of gainful opportunities.

Competency doesn't really matter that much when the universe is fundamentally unfair and more chaotic than we are comfortable accepting.

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