Home› A Moving Train

Are humans always morally equally valuable?

BinauralBinaural Posts: 1,046
edited April 2007 in A Moving Train
Catefrances' thread has inspired me :)

So, thoughts?
~*~*~*~*PROUD EVENFLOW PSYCHO #0026~*~*~*~*

*^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*

Dublin 08/06
Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134

Comments

  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    what do you mean by morally equal?

    morality if a social construct and is not universal. when we are born we are all equal. as we grow and mature we make choices that we must accept responsibilty for. do we harm other people by our actions.? do we feel guilt or remorse? do we act in our own self interest? are we deliberate in our actions? do we think we are above the law? are we arrogant enough to believe ourselves to be special at the expense of others? and what morals do we consider valuable and what values are dispensible? are our morals arbitrary because society deems them valuable or do we truly believe in what we preach and the actions we take? and if we truly believe does that make us exempt?
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • JeanieJeanie Posts: 9,446
    Think the problem is the word "always" in your original post Binaural.

    Nothing is always. :)

    Edit: Well except maybe death and taxes! ;)
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Jeanie wrote:
    Think the problem is the word "always" in your original post Binaural.

    Nothing is always. :)

    Edit: Well except maybe death and taxes! ;)

    I would pare it down even further:

    Are humans valuable?

    My perspective, of course, being of the Earth, in general.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • JeanieJeanie Posts: 9,446
    gue_barium wrote:
    I would pare it down even further:

    Are humans valuable?

    My perspective, of course, being of the Earth, in general.

    I think so, of course, but in terms of the Earth itself, perhaps not. :)
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • decides2dreamdecides2dream Posts: 14,977
    i have read the thread title Q a few times over, and i still don't really get it. :o even forgetting the 'always' in it....morally....equally......valuable......? i can see the Q "are humans always equally valuable"...but throw the 'morally' in there, and i just don't get it? how can we ever be 'morally equal'.....? aren't morals a choice, a belief system, perhaps set upon by society, and many enforced with laws....but overall. a subjective choice? so yea, i guess i don't get the 'equality' in it........and then thrown in 'valuable'...and yea, i am just confused. :p

    as jeanie said thou, 'always' just doesn't fly, b/c yea...there is no 'always'....especially in regards to human behavior, and moral choices, etc. each word in there, there ARE always exceptions. ;)
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Jeanie wrote:
    I think so, of course, but in terms of the Earth itself, perhaps not. :)

    You need to do more hiking, dammit.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • JeanieJeanie Posts: 9,446
    gue_barium wrote:
    You need to do more hiking, dammit.

    I do? :D
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    Binaural wrote:
    Catefrances' thread has inspired me :)

    So, thoughts?
    Sounds great in theory but in practice we know they're not. Just look at the abortion rate of Down's Syndrome babies, about 90%. That's a lot higher than the abortion rate in general, so in practice peopel have said that a person with Down's Syndrome is not morally equivalent to someone without Down's.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • decides2dreamdecides2dream Posts: 14,977
    surferdude wrote:
    Sounds great in theory but in practice we know they're not. Just look at the abortion rate of Down's Syndrome babies, about 90%. That's a lot higher than the abortion rate in general, so in practice peopel have said that a person with Down's Syndrome is not morally equivalent to someone without Down's.


    but why does one even need to preface that Q with the word 'morally' in it? that's the part i simply seem to fail to 'get' with this Q. the same question, and your answer, could be arrived at with simply asking 'are humans always equally valuble'...yes? so why throw morals in the Q...or IS that it? we just usually disregard the fact that we ARE making moral judgements in any given scenario? such as your, quite good btw, example?
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • surferdudesurferdude Posts: 2,057
    decides2dream wrote:
    but why does one even need to preface that Q with the word 'morally' in it? that's the part i simply seem to fail to 'get' with this Q. the same question, and your answer, could be arrived at with simply asking 'are humans always equally valuble'...yes? so why throw morals in the Q...or IS that it? we just usually disregard the fact that we ARE making moral judgements in any given scenario? such as your, quite good btw, example?
    You're right. I only threw in morally equal because the original poster did.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Jeanie wrote:
    I do? :D

    Well, now, all you need to do is get out there on the trail
    itself. If you find the right one you will come across a waterfall. This is a day hike, nothing major, so, I suggest when you get to the waterfall you make yourself comfortable, have a seat, enjoy your solitude, and perhaps munch on whatever goodies you may have brought along.
    After awhile you may hear a rustling in the bushes. Then, sure enough, you notice it is a Bear there, with you, next to the waterfall!
    You watch quietly but the bear finally notices you and rears up on its hind legs. You notice a ham shank firmly planted on his groin area. He drops a bottle of Jergens lotion.
    "what are you doing here?" he asks.
    You tell him that to be a better earth-human you chose this day to go out and experience being human, and, "would like like some cheese and crackers with that ham?"
    He obliges, says, "I am soulbearsinging, bear of the waterfall, my girlfriend isn't putting out."
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • decides2dreamdecides2dream Posts: 14,977
    surferdude wrote:
    You're right. I only threw in morally equal because the original poster did.



    yea, so i guess we'll have to wait for him to return, and thus clarify.....just exactly what he means, and wants, with his Q. i really would like to know just what his thought process is in regards to throwing in 'morally' in the equation there.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • JeanieJeanie Posts: 9,446
    gue_barium wrote:
    Well, now, all you need to do is get out there on the trail
    itself. If you find the right one you will come across a waterfall. This is a day hike, nothing major, so, I suggest when you get to the waterfall you make yourself comfortable, have a seat, enjoy your solitude, and perhaps munch on whatever goodies you may have brought along.
    After awhile you may hear a rustling in the bushes. Then, sure enough, you notice it is a Bear there, with you, next to the waterfall!
    You watch quietly but the bear finally notices you and rears up on its hind legs. You notice a ham shank firmly planted on his groin area. He drops a bottle of Jergens lotion.
    "what are you doing here?" he asks.
    You tell him that to be a better earth-human you chose this day to go out and experience being human, and, "would like like some cheese and crackers with that ham?"
    He obliges, says, "I am soulbearsinging, bear of the waterfall, my girlfriend isn't putting out."

    I wouldn't have thought it possible but yet another bloke on here has rendered me speechless from giggling!!! :D
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    if you mean should we treat each human's worth as the same, regardless of their actions or personality or choices in life, the answer is, in my opinion, hell no. I don't buy all this sanctity of life bull that we are fed by the majority of organised religions. you are what you make yourself and if you make yourself a worthless piece of shit, don't expect to be treated any other way. there is no way that some sick person like Ian Huntley or any other child killer is equal in value to an average person.

    It's something that bothers me about pro-lifers too. I am well aware that babies born before the 23 week cut-off point have been born premature and have gone on to have full, healthy lives but who is to say that before they are born, they have some inherently sacred value. when does a baby stop being an embryo and become a child? I am no advocate of abortion but when having a child will have a detrimental effect on the mother or other people, why should that unborn foetus' worth be deemed higher than that of the people who have actually existed independant of their mothers, making conscious decisions about their lives and creating themselves as an individual. As far as I'm concerned, we are what we make ourselves, not what we are born. If I was a killer or a rapist or something like that, I wouldn't expect people to treat me like I was worth as much as a person who hadn't acted like that.
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    if you mean should we treat each human's worth as the same, regardless of their actions or personality or choices in life, the answer is, in my opinion, hell no. I don't buy all this sanctity of life bull that we are fed by the majority of organised religions. you are what you make yourself and if you make yourself a worthless piece of shit, don't expect to be treated any other way. there is no way that some sick person like Ian Huntley or any other child killer is equal in value to an average person.

    It's something that bothers me about pro-lifers too. I am well aware that babies born before the 23 week cut-off point have been born premature and have gone on to have full, healthy lives but who is to say that before they are born, they have some inherently sacred value. when does a baby stop being an embryo and become a child? I am no advocate of abortion but when having a child will have a detrimental effect on the mother or other people, why should that unborn foetus' worth be deemed higher than that of the people who have actually existed independant of their mothers, making conscious decisions about their lives and creating themselves as an individual. As far as I'm concerned, we are what we make ourselves, not what we are born. If I was a killer or a rapist or something like that, I wouldn't expect people to treat me like I was worth as much as a person who hadn't acted like that.

    Nearly all of your argument relates to the criminal justice system. Interesting. As you know, our taxes pay for this system, and it's sort of ironic, in the face of your argument, the dollar value we actually do place on the scum you refer to.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • JeanieJeanie Posts: 9,446
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    if you mean should we treat each human's worth as the same, regardless of their actions or personality or choices in life, the answer is, in my opinion, hell no. I don't buy all this sanctity of life bull that we are fed by the majority of organised religions. you are what you make yourself and if you make yourself a worthless piece of shit, don't expect to be treated any other way. there is no way that some sick person like Ian Huntley or any other child killer is equal in value to an average person.

    It's something that bothers me about pro-lifers too. I am well aware that babies born before the 23 week cut-off point have been born premature and have gone on to have full, healthy lives but who is to say that before they are born, they have some inherently sacred value. when does a baby stop being an embryo and become a child? I am no advocate of abortion but when having a child will have a detrimental effect on the mother or other people, why should that unborn foetus' worth be deemed higher than that of the people who have actually existed independant of their mothers, making conscious decisions about their lives and creating themselves as an individual. As far as I'm concerned, we are what we make ourselves, not what we are born. If I was a killer or a rapist or something like that, I wouldn't expect people to treat me like I was worth as much as a person who hadn't acted like that.

    Not that I'm sure that I agree or disagree with you Jeremy, but I'm just wondering how this fits in terms of morality being a fluid thing?
    I mean people are not all bad all the time, just as they are not all good all of the time and back to my point about it all being subjective, who decides this anyway? Also as humans deciding to apply our morality and consequences to a situation doesn't always mean we are right. And now that I'm sounding like ahnimus :eek:, I'll just shut up and await your reply. :o
    I'm just really curious as to what you think. :)
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • barakabaraka Posts: 1,268
    Are morals relative or absolute?
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    gue_barium wrote:
    Nearly all of your argument relates to the criminal justice system. Interesting. As you know, our taxes pay for this system, and it's sort of ironic, in the face of your argument, the dollar value we actually do place on the scum you refer to.
    I thought we were talking moral value, as opposed to monetary value. Am I right?
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • JeanieJeanie Posts: 9,446
    baraka wrote:
    Are morals relative or absolute?

    Both? Maybe? :o
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • Jeremy1012Jeremy1012 Posts: 7,170
    Jeanie wrote:
    Not that I'm sure that I agree or disagree with you Jeremy, but I'm just wondering how this fits in terms of morality being a fluid thing?
    I mean people are not all bad all the time, just as they are not all good all of the time and back to my point about it all being subjective, who decides this anyway? Also as humans deciding to apply our morality and consequences to a situation doesn't always mean we are right. And now that I'm sounding like ahnimus :eek:, I'll just shut up and await your reply. :o
    I'm just really curious as to what you think. :)
    obviously there is a grey area when you start talking about being bad and good because like you say, people are neither of those all the time but I just can't accept that humans should all share some kind of innate value. I don't think I was born with any particular value. whether or not I have such a value now is not really for me to say, I'd link to think so, but I'm damn sure that if I do, its because of the person I am... the person that I have made myself. thats not to say that just because I might do a good deed once that I'm more valuable as a human than someone who hasn't and likewise, if I mess up, I don't think I should be considered worthless but there has to be some level where we stop pretending that everyone is so sacred. I know christians who have had members of their families brutally murdered for no reason and they have forgiven the killer. I can not comprehend that. that person has not yet done anything to deserve their forgiveness. they shouldn't be giving that person their forgiveness, other than for the obvious reason of being able to move on to stop from being consumed by hate. forgiving these people in order to accept that they are still humans with some worth is giving those people a carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want. if they want to have the same worth as other people they should earn it. they shouldn't be born with it.

    obviously just my opinions :)
    "I remember one night at Muzdalifa with nothing but the sky overhead, I lay awake amid sleeping Muslim brothers and I learned that pilgrims from every land — every colour, and class, and rank; high officials and the beggar alike — all snored in the same language"
  • JeanieJeanie Posts: 9,446
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    obviously there is a grey area when you start talking about being bad and god because like you say, people are neither of those all the time but I just can't accept that humans should all share some kind of innate value. I don't think I was born with any particular value. whether or not I have such a value now is not really for me to say, I'd link to think so, but I'm damn sure that if I do, its because of the person I am... the person that I have made myself. thats not to say that just because I might do a good deed once that I'm more valuable as a human than someone who hasn't and likewise, if I mess up, I don't think I should be considered worthless but there has to be some level where we stop pretending that everyone is so sacred. I know christians who have had members of their families brutally murdered for no reason and they have forgiven the killer. I can not comprehend that. that person has not yet done anything to deserve their forgiveness. they shouldn't be giving that person their forgiveness, other than for the obvious reason of being able to move on to stop from being consumed by hate. forgiving these people in order to accept that they are still humans with some worth is giving those people a carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want. if they want to have the same worth as other people they should earn it. they shouldn't be born with it.

    obviously just my opinions :)

    That's cool jeremy, I think they are interesting and valid opinions you hold.
    I guess I'm just a bit of a fence sitter! :D
    I agree that we aren't born with any particular value we just are, or come into existence as it were.
    And I agree that we are not sacred, or that life above all else is not sacred.
    We live, we die. That's just nature.
    I guess I'm just unsure about the "morality" of life. Or imposing a set structure as to what is moral or immoral behaviour.
    Obviously, I cannot condone the infliction of pain and suffering on another human being, or animal for that matter, but I'm not sure that by forgiving someone their heinous act we are giving them carte blanche to do what they want. At some level surely, a person who has committed an abhorent act that defies the morality of a majority, is deserving of redemption from society, if only for the very reason that by inflicting an endless punishment on them, we are allowing our own morality to be changed not necessarily for the better. I hope I'm making sense here. :o
    I suppose for example, your friends the Christians who have chosen to forgive their loved one's killer have made a concious choice not to be morally bankrupted by the selfish random act of another. It would change nothing about the event, I suppose is what I'm saying. It wouldn't return their loved one to them. So they only have 2 choices really, forgive or seek retribution.
    Neither choice would prove satisfactory I presume because the outcome they would really seek is that the event never took place in the first place. And no amount of retribution will return their loved one to them, but I suspect forgiveness might be as you say, easier to live with.
    Having said all that, I'm really not sure where I sit in terms of repeated bad acts. But then I guess as I mentioned before it's all relative because I can view the acts of current world governments as morally reprehensible but it would seem that they are able to continue along on their merry way perpertrating at will and seemingly will never be held accountable for their actions. I don't know really. Just thinking "out loud" I guess.
    But your opinions are certainly food for thought. Thank you. :)
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    gue_barium wrote:
    Well, now, all you need to do is get out there on the trail
    itself. If you find the right one you will come across a waterfall. This is a day hike, nothing major, so, I suggest when you get to the waterfall you make yourself comfortable, have a seat, enjoy your solitude, and perhaps munch on whatever goodies you may have brought along.
    After awhile you may hear a rustling in the bushes. Then, sure enough, you notice it is a Bear there, with you, next to the waterfall!
    You watch quietly but the bear finally notices you and rears up on its hind legs. You notice a ham shank firmly planted on his groin area. He drops a bottle of Jergens lotion.
    "what are you doing here?" he asks.
    You tell him that to be a better earth-human you chose this day to go out and experience being human, and, "would like like some cheese and crackers with that ham?"
    He obliges, says, "I am soulbearsinging, bear of the waterfall, my girlfriend isn't putting out."

    this is where you waterfall nonsense has come from? im slightly disappointed.

    to answer the question, no. im quite sure i am morally superior to many people.
  • BinauralBinaural Posts: 1,046
    decides2dream wrote:
    Q...or IS that it? we just usually disregard the fact that we ARE making moral judgements in any given scenario?
    Bingo.
    I added the word, to prompt posters to discuss not just whether or not humans are equally valuable but whether or not it is right to think of them as morally valuable. If we take a stranger and ask them if they would save a dogs life or a humans life in a situation where both could not be saved we would expect them to pick the humans because they believe it to be the 'right' choice. Why is that?
    ~*~*~*~*PROUD EVENFLOW PSYCHO #0026~*~*~*~*

    *^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*

    Dublin 08/06
    Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
  • JeanieJeanie Posts: 9,446
    Binaural wrote:
    Bingo.
    I added the word, to prompt posters to discuss not just whether or not humans are equally valuable but whether or not it is right to think of them as morally valuable. If we take a stranger and ask them if they would save a dogs life or a humans life in a situation where both could not be saved we would expect them to pick the humans because they believe it to be the 'right' choice. Why is that?

    Hmmm......wouldn't it depend on the circumstances Binaural?

    I mean if you could get to the dog to save it but were just unable to get to the human should you then leave the dog to perish?

    I doubt I would. I think I would save whomever I could. Man or animal.
    And I would be unconcerned about other people making a morality judgement about my effort. You do what you can in the given circumstances.
    NOPE!!!

    *~You're IT Bert!~*

    Hold on to the thread
    The currents will shift
  • BinauralBinaural Posts: 1,046
    Jeanie wrote:
    Hmmm......wouldn't it depend on the circumstances Binaural?

    I mean if you could get to the dog to save it but were just unable to get to the human should you then leave the dog to perish?

    I doubt I would. I think I would save whomever I could. Man or animal.
    And I would be unconcerned about other people making a morality judgement about my effort. You do what you can in the given circumstances.
    It would, I apologise. The example is a borrowed one. The idea is that each, the human and the dog, can be saved easily however, saving one makes it IMPOSSIBLE to save the other. I do apologise, I forget how the example was worded, but hopegully you get the idea.
    ~*~*~*~*PROUD EVENFLOW PSYCHO #0026~*~*~*~*

    *^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*

    Dublin 08/06
    Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    Binaural wrote:
    Bingo.
    I added the word, to prompt posters to discuss not just whether or not humans are equally valuable but whether or not it is right to think of them as morally valuable. If we take a stranger and ask them if they would save a dogs life or a humans life in a situation where both could not be saved we would expect them to pick the humans because they believe it to be the 'right' choice. Why is that?

    if it were in my power to save the human then i would do it. if it came down to an equal chance of saving the dog or the human, again i would pick the human. why? cause i am human. it's as simple as that. i place a higher value on a human life than i do any other animal.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • BinauralBinaural Posts: 1,046
    catefrances wrote:
    if it were in my power to save the human then i would do it. if it came down to an equal chance of saving the dog or the human, again i would pick the human. why? cause i am human. it's as simple as that. i place a higher value on a human life than i do any other animal.
    Exactly, you believe it is the right choice based on the justification that human life is higher than that of other creatures. But then there is the problem of why do you believe human life to be higher?
    ~*~*~*~*PROUD EVENFLOW PSYCHO #0026~*~*~*~*

    *^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*

    Dublin 08/06
    Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    Binaural wrote:
    Exactly, you believe it is the right choice based on the justification that human life is higher than that of other creatures. But then there is the problem of why do you believe human life to be higher?

    some sort of pseudo-self preservation perhaps? i am human. i can't explain it any other way or really with any more validity than that. i really see no problem.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • BinauralBinaural Posts: 1,046
    Jeremy1012 wrote:
    if you mean should we treat each human's worth as the same, regardless of their actions or personality or choices in life, the answer is, in my opinion, hell no. I don't buy all this sanctity of life bull that we are fed by the majority of organised religions. you are what you make yourself and if you make yourself a worthless piece of shit, don't expect to be treated any other way. there is no way that some sick person like Ian Huntley or any other child killer is equal in value to an average person.

    It's something that bothers me about pro-lifers too. I am well aware that babies born before the 23 week cut-off point have been born premature and have gone on to have full, healthy lives but who is to say that before they are born, they have some inherently sacred value. when does a baby stop being an embryo and become a child? I am no advocate of abortion but when having a child will have a detrimental effect on the mother or other people, why should that unborn foetus' worth be deemed higher than that of the people who have actually existed independant of their mothers, making conscious decisions about their lives and creating themselves as an individual. As far as I'm concerned, we are what we make ourselves, not what we are born. If I was a killer or a rapist or something like that, I wouldn't expect people to treat me like I was worth as much as a person who hadn't acted like that.
    Then what gives human life its value?
    ~*~*~*~*PROUD EVENFLOW PSYCHO #0026~*~*~*~*

    *^*^*^*^*^*^*^RED MOSQUITO #2^*^*^*^*^*^*^*

    Dublin 08/06
    Katowice 06/07 London 06/07 Dusseldorf 06/07 Nijgemen 06/07
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    Binaural wrote:
    Then what gives human life its value?

    the fact that we value our own life and we are human. therefore we value human life above all else. self preservation of the species. :)
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
Sign In or Register to comment.