What is anti-apologetics? People can often be anti-apologists for
certain answers they consider to be wrong. But normally, we don't do
anti-apologetics simply to get someone to stop getting a particular
wrong answer. Think of a Christian who does Mormon anti-apologetics.
They wouldn't say that all they were doing was getting people to stop
getting a particular wrong answer (Mormonism), but they don't care at
all what answer they accept in its place. They do care, and care very
much.
Someone persuaded to stop being a Christian might become a
secular humanist, might become an Objectivist, or might become a
nihilist or a communist revolutionary. Or they might come to think that
if there is no hope beyond this life, there is no reason to continue
living this one, and commit suicide. Nothing in the logic of atheism
requires any of these responses as opposed to others. But most atheists
who do anti-Christian apologetics do care which of those options are
embraced. They are not merely anti-apologists. They are apologists.
46 comments:
So, you don't accept the difference between arguing against something and arguing on behalf of something? You want to obliterate that distinction? When there are only two options then and only then this distinction doesn't exist. But since there are usually many options you are not only wrong, you're not even thinking right.
Caring about the what people believe after debunking a belief is not the same thing as producing an argument on behalf of something else, either.
I care, so you got that correct. After the debunking I would hope people learn how to apply reason and science to other paranormal beliefs, with the result that they reject them all for the same reasons they rejected their Christian faith. It follows naturally I would think. But I don't stress it that much even if there are other options.
My aim it to get former believers to think about faith for the first time afterward. So if you want to call me an apologist on behalf of thinking then go ahead if you wish. The nomenclature doesn't matter at that point.
Implicit in any debate/argument is that the person who is incorrect or biased or relying on a logical fallacy - that this person ought to change their ways.
Since there is no such thing as an objective obligation to live any particular way under atheism I always remember that the atheist's argument, if successful and true, means that I can keep doing whatever the hell I want.
Implicit in any debate/argument is that the person who is incorrect [is] biased or relying on a logical fallacy
I'm not so sure that the word "any" is appropriate here. For instance, liberals and conservatives may debate/argue passionately, but don't necessarily believe the other is being illogical - simply impractical (or not respecting private property, or mean-spirited, or too trusting of state power, or greedy, etc.)
Did you mean any philosophical debate/argument? Because then, you might have a point.
A dialectic discussion like a debate/argument involves persuasion and the establishing of truth, which implies that someone in the debate is incorrect.
SteveK: "Implicit in any debate/argument is that the person who is incorrect or biased or relying on a logical fallacy - that this person ought to change their ways.
Since there is no such thing as an objective obligation to live any particular way under atheism I always remember that the atheist's argument, if successful and true, means that I can keep doing whatever the hell I want."
Exactly.
If atheism were the truth about the nature of reality, then *IF* some 'atheist' were able to present a logical defense of atheism and/or logical demolition of "theism", and if he were to get some "theist" to admit that "theism" had been proven false and/or illogical, the "theist" perfectly justified in saying, "But, you know what? I don't care: I'm going to keep on loving God and trying to convince others to do likewise"
As I say from time to time, atheism is a worldview that matters only if it is false.
I gotta agree with you, Ilion. I will never understood the motivation of all the evangelical atheists out there. After all, in a billion years or so, after our gradually warming sun has boiled off the Earth's oceans and the human race is extinct, then nothing, absolutely nothing of anything we have thought, done, or failed to do, will matter in the slightest. It will be as though it had never happened.
In fact, it's worse - far worse. For in one millisecond after their own personal deaths, they might as well have never lived.
So who cares what people believe, who they pray to (or if they do at all), and what our vaunted "science" has learned? None of it will matter.
"If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. ... If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile ... Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied."
Jezu ufam tobie!
"So who cares what people believe, who they pray to (or if they do at all), and what our vaunted "science" has learned? None of it will matter."
How do you go from
1. If God does not exist, x will not matter in a foreseeable future
to
2. X does not matter now
i may ask.
Is eternal significance the only kind of significance you are willing to accept?
"Is eternal significance the only kind of significance you are willing to accept?"
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. This present moment is fleeting. Once it's gone, it's gone. if there Is no conscious, self-aware mind to remember it, then it might as well have never existed.
Sure things may matter in the now when they occur. But so what? In the the time it took me to write this sentence, the "now" which was present when I started it is already past, gone, over, done and dusted. The only reason it has any significance is because I still remember it.
Jezu ufam tobie!
Henry Veatch's comments on an Objectivist treatment of the argument from reason are available at thornwalker.com/kiefer/veatch.html
Ilion (paraphrasing): "If atheism were the truth about the nature of reality, then ... it wouldn't matter in the least that it was the truth about the nature of reality."
B.Prokop: "I will never understood the motivation of all the evangelical atheists out there. After all, in a billion years or so, after our gradually warming sun has boiled off the Earth's oceans and the human race is extinct, then nothing, absolutely nothing of anything we have thought, done, or failed to do, will matter in the slightest. It will be as though it had never happened. ...
So who cares what people believe, who they pray to (or if they do at all), and what our vaunted "science" has learned? None of it will matter."
John Mitchell: "How do you go from
1. If God does not exist, x will not matter in a foreseeable future
to
2. X does not matter now
Is eternal significance the only kind of significance you are willing to accept?"
B.Prokop: "Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. This present moment is fleeting. Once it's gone, it's gone. if there Is no conscious, self-aware mind to remember it, then it might as well have never existed."
What's rather funny about Mr Mitchell's question is how un-self-aware it is.
I'm sure we all have (and I know B.Prokop has) witnessed the God-deniers crowing -- as they have been doing for over two hundred years now -- that *any day now* the shiny, sexy, atheist future/utopia will arrive and from them on all persons (at least those who matter) will understant all the past "theism" of the human race to have been just a pitiful delusion.
When the God deniers engage in such crowing, what they are attempting to do is seat themselves on God's throne: they are attempting to arrogate to themselves, to their time-bound, finite, present selves, the power to make an eternal evaluation of what in history is and is not worthwhile.
To look at this another way: even when God-deniers admit-with-their-mouths that if atheism is indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then they and all their thoughts and cares and memories will utterly cease to exist in the very near future, their behavior shows that they don't really believe it to be so. Their behavior shows that they believe themselves to be immortal souls. You know, just as we "God-botherers" believe then to be.
Mr Mitchell is thinking in a similar manner. He's admitting-with-his-mouth that in the very near future he will cease to exist, and that any and all significance he has imputed to anything at all will cease to exist with him (for the imputation of significance lies not in the thing itself, but in the imputer). Yet, his behavior shows us that he doesn't really believe that -- his behavior shows us that what he really believes is that his imputation of significance survives his death ... which is to say, what he really believes is that *he* survives his death.
B.Prokop: "Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. This present moment is fleeting. Once it's gone, it's gone. if there Is no conscious, self-aware mind to remember it, then it might as well have never existed."
If God is, then even if we were not immortal souls, our existences still have some significance (however unsatisfying it may be to us, personally). But, if God is not, then our existences can have any significance only if we are immortal souls.
To offer an analogy and metaphor -- Frodo's life and hardships matter because he is remembered by minds who are "eternal" with respect to Middle Earth. Further, Frodo's life and hardships matter only in as far as he is remembered by minds who are "eternal" with respect to Middle Earth.
Oh, and by the way, once a person *really* grasps the above point, he will understand how wicked and perverted blanket opposition to capital punishment really is. For, in his insistence that the murderer may not be put to death for having unjustly deprived another person of his life, what the blanket opponent of capital punishment is *really* saying is that the injustice committed against the murder victim no longer matters, for the murder victim no longer exists.
I am not in favor of capital punishment on two practical grounds, one political reason, and one moral consideration.
Practical reason number one: Under our current system, it is far more expensive to execute a man than it is to incarcerate him for life. This is fact; the studies have been done.
Practical reason number two (essentially a subset of number one): Capital punishment requires us to maintain two parallel criminal justice systems, with all the associated bureaucracy, infrastructure, and personnel - all for very small return to the taxpayer.
Political reason: You ought to appreciate this one, Ilion. Capital punishment gives the state the ultimate power over the citizenry, with all of the inherent possibilities for misuse and abuse.*
Moral consideration: As long as the criminal remains alive, there is always the chance that he'll repent of his sin, and thereby escape perdition.
* Of course, there's always the (actual) case of a defendant sentenced to be shot (1921, in Moscow), just days after capital punishment had been (supposedly) abolished in the shiny, brand new Soviet Union. When the defense attorney (they still had such things for a few years) vigorously protested, the judge replied "I'm not sentencing him to death. I'm sentencing him to be shot. Whether or not he dies is his affair!"
Jezu ufam tobie!
JWL: So if you want to call me an apologist on behalf of thinking then go ahead if you wish.
VR: No, since we disagree on some fundamental issues that would make me an apologist for not thinking. No, there are some things which you think are the proper conclusions of sound thinking. I think otherwise. Your self-definition strikes me as a little self-serving.
You know, B.Prokop, you could save yourself some time and just go straight to, "I don't care about this, and I don't see why anyone else should, either!", which is, as nearly everyone is by now aware, your standard fall-back position when I'm right but you don't want to admit it.
Ya know wot yer problem is, Ilion? Ya gots no nuance. Ya gotta have nuance...!
(That's me trying to type in a "Godfather" accent. Just imagine Marlon Brando saying it.)
You're accusing me of not being a nuancey-boy, and I'm supposed to be offended?
"This present moment is fleeting. Once it's gone, it's gone. if there Is no conscious, self-aware mind to remember it, then it might as well have never existed."
You do realize that this presupposes a presentist nature of time ??
What if the atheist beliefs in a block universe ??
"He's admitting-with-his-mouth that in the very near future he will cease to exist"
Show me where i admit this or say anything of that sort
"What if the atheist belie[ve]s in a block universe ??"
Well, I would then ask the atheist why the heck isn't he at least a Buddhist, which is perfectly compatible with the block universe concept. I'd say, "Be a Man, and own up to the implications of your beliefs."
You do realize that atheism is even less defensible in a universe where all times are present, don't you?
Jezu ufam tobie!
"Well, I would then ask the atheist why the heck isn't he at least a Buddhist"
Fine but the question was if the atheist can coherently maintain his unbelief in God and his belief that things, nevertheless, have significance not if the atheist ought to become a Buddhist.
"You do realize that atheism is even less defensible in a universe where all times are present, don't you?"
How can all times be 'present' ? Is not 'present' an indexical term to the b-theorist like 'actual' is to the modal realist ?
If all times are equally "real" (I know, I know, the English language is failing us here), then they are all "present". Past and future are relational terms only, in reference to some other "present" moment.
I'm well aware of this conception of time. I first came across it in 1966, in the novel October the First is too Late by the British astronomer and cosmologist Fred Hoyle.
For the record, I think it's bonkers.
"If all times are equally "real" (I know, I know, the English language is failing us here), then they are all "present""
That seems to me to be equivalent to saying:
If all locations in space are equally real then they are all 'here'.
"That seems to me to be equivalent to saying..."
It would be, if time were the same thing as space. But it ain't.
You assert:
"If all times are equally "real" ..., then they are all "present".
What does this even mean ?
If 'present' is not an indexical term, what do you take 'present' to mean?
It means they are all equally "now". A point in time is only past or future in reference to some other point in time, but never to itself.
Keep in mind, I am only describing the concept. I myself do not believe it. As T.S. Eliot wrote (in Burnt Norton):
If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.
Jezu ufam tobie!
"It means they are all equally "now""
I sorry but the term 'now' is usually defined as "at the present time", so you haven't given any enlightening definition at all.
" A point in time is only past or future in reference to some other point in time, but never to itself"
What are you talking about?
How could a point in time be even thought to be past in reference to itself?
This is the kind of stuff to be "only heard in madhouses".
"I am only describing the concept"
I think you are making bizarre assertions.
John,
Keep in mind, I am describing what other people think. These are not my views.
"I'd say, "Be a Man, and own up to the implications of your beliefs.""
That may be the thing that most annoys me about 'atheists' (and the reason I put the word in quotes) -- they simply will not own up to the implications of their beiliefs; or, if they do (I should put that word in scare quotes), they then attempt a Dawkinsian dance around those implications: "Sure, this is what a world without Good looks like ... but we can rise above that", which is logically: "yes and no, in the same matter, simultaneously" Or, to put it another way, they attempt to set themselves up as God.
John Mitchell: "Is eternal significance the only kind of significance you are willing to accept?"
B.Prokop: "Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. This present moment is fleeting. Once it's gone, it's gone. if there Is no conscious, self-aware mind to remember it, then it might as well have never existed."
John Mitchell: "You do realize that this presupposes a presentist nature of time ??
What if the atheist beliefs in a block universe ??"
B.Prokop: "Well, I would then ask the atheist why the heck isn't he at least a Buddhist, which is perfectly compatible with the block universe concept. I'd say, "Be a Man, and own up to the implications of your beliefs.""
John Mitchell: "Fine but the question was if the atheist can coherently maintain his unbelief in God and his belief that things, nevertheless, have significance not if the atheist ought to become a Buddhist."
The reader may recall that I'm always mocking so-called atheists for their attempts to, as I put it, duct tape a superfluous concept onto the God-denial, imagining that they have thereby sidestepped the logical implications of their God-denial.
This is an example of that.
What evidence is there that we live in a "block universe"? What would such evidence even look like?
With respect to the nature of time, the evidence we actually have looks just like what everyone *actually* believes about time; to wit: B.Prokop: "This present moment is fleeting. Once it's gone, it's gone."
But, *even if* we lived in a "block universe", that doesn't really escape (as Mr Mitchell seems to have hoped) the second part of B.Prokop's statement: "if there Is no conscious, self-aware mind to remember it, then it might as well have never existed." -- the *problem* isn't whether this instant still exists when it is no longer *this* instant; the problem is whether this instant still matters when all the minds who have imputed significance to it do not exist in *this* instant.
This is *always* the problem with these atheistical duct tape jobs -- 'atheists' are like drowning men: in their vain attempts to banish God, they grasp at the first thing they see, but never look to see whether it's a plank or a straw ... or an anchor.
B.Prokop: "You do realize that atheism is even less defensible in a universe where all times are present, don't you?"
That was my seat-of-the-pants reaction to the "block universe" duct tape job, though I haven't worked it out to verify that my initial suspicion is correct. I don't think I presently have the knowledge that would enable me to work this out, so for me this remains a suspicion about which I am uncommitted either way.
HOWEVER, as I noted above, I have no evidence that we live in a "block universe", and I do have evidence (to wit: my own constant experience) that we do not So, I don't have a need to resolve this particular question, because it doen't really matter.
John Mitchell: "How can all times be 'present' ? Is not 'present' an indexical term to the b-theorist like 'actual' is to the modal realist ?"
B.Prokop: "If all times are equally "real" (I know, I know, the English language is failing us here), then they are all "present". Past and future are relational terms only, in reference to some other "present" moment.
For the record, I think it's bonkers."
John Mitchell: "What does this even mean ?"
What does this even mean -- despite that B.Prokop clearly stated what it means: "[Given a "block universe"] Past and future are relational terms only, in reference to some other "present" moment. "
John Mitchell: "If 'present' is not an indexical term, what do you take 'present' to mean?"
B.Prokop: "It means they are all equally "now". A point in time is only past or future in reference to some other point in time, but never to itself."
John Mitchell: "I sorry but the term 'now' is usually defined as "at the present time", so you haven't given any enlightening definition at all.
What are you talking about?
How could a point in time be even thought to be past in reference to itself?
This is the kind of stuff to be "only heard in madhouses"."
So, seemingly, Mr Mitchell attempted this duct tape job without even understanding (or caring?) about what it means and implies. Well, that is the pattern with 'atheists' attempting to avoid God, isn't it.
John Mitchell: "This is the kind of stuff to be "only heard in madhouses"."
One has to wonder, will Mr Mitchell ever admit that this duct tape job isn't going to work? One further wonders whether Mr Mitchell will ever admit to himself that since these duct tape jobs *always* fail, it behooves him to actually grapple with God, rather than trying to banish him by a wave of the hand.
B.Prokop: "Keep in mind, I am only describing the concept. I myself do not believe it."
John Mitchell: "I think you are making bizarre assertions."
One deeply doubts it.
And so he spoke, and so he spoke,
that Lord of Castamere...
"...the *problem* isn't whether this instant still exists when it is no longer *this* instant; the problem is whether this instant still matters when all the minds who have imputed significance to it do not exist in *this* instant"
Am i supposed to take this insane nonsense seriously?
An instant that still exists but is no longer *this* instant....
"What are you talking about?
How could a point in time be even thought to be past in reference to itself?
This is the kind of stuff to be "only heard in madhouses"."
So, seemingly, Mr Mitchell attempted this duct tape job without even understanding (or caring?) about what it means and implies. Well, that is the pattern with 'atheists' attempting to avoid God, isn't it."
Explain how a point in time can be thought to be past in reference to itself or shut up...
"John Mitchell: "What does this even mean ?"
What does this even mean -- despite that B.Prokop clearly stated what it means: "[Given a "block universe"] Past and future are relational terms only, in reference to some other "present" moment. "
What is this nonsense?
If past and future are relational terms THEN SO IS 'the present' and that's what the term i used - indexical - implies.
Even modal realists are not as crazy as you - they don't claim that all worlds are actual because that makes no sense.
"This is *always* the problem with these atheistical duct tape jobs -- 'atheists' are like drowning men: in their vain attempts to banish God, they grasp at the first thing they see, but never look to see whether it's a plank or a straw ... or an anchor."
Im starting to think the only atheistical duct tape jobs you are combating here are those existing in your own mind.
You're constant ridiculous rants against the evil 'god-deniers' seem to only be targeting the projections you create due to your own doubts and insecurities.
Take your medicine and stop yelling at clouds, idiot.
Re: Ilion's latest comments.
I stuck with the above conversation with John far longer than I wished, because (sinful person that I am) it was amusing to watch John throw out an objection to eternal significance, and then gradually come to the point where he labels his own objection as "bizarre assertions" which to all appearances he does not even understand.
John apparently did not like the idea that immortality is necessary for there to be meaning, purpose, and significance to this world, so he reached around for something, anything, to muddy the waters and confuse the issue. When confronted with the actual details of his objection (the "block universe"), he demonstrates that he doesn't even know the meaning of the term. And when it is explained to him, he's forced to call it bizarre. So why bring it up?
Now I have a healthy respect for anyone who recognizes the implications of his beliefs and lives up to them. Buddhists maintain that this world is basically illusion, and have erected a coherent philosophy based on that idea. Now, I do not of course agree with them - I maintain that reality is reality, and not some construct maintained in existence only in my mind. But the atheist who falls back on Buddhist cosmology as a dodge, whilst ignoring or even denying the necessary framework that such beliefs entail... well, the only label I can apply to such is (apologies to Ilion) intellectual dishonesty™.
"A point in time is only past or future in reference to some other point in time, but never to itself."
Explain how a "how a point in time" could even be thought to be "past" in "reference" to itself?
You never answered and i was well-meaning enough to let that point slide.
I asked you :
""If all times are equally "real" ..., then they are all "present".
What does this even mean ? " "
You replied "It means they are all equally "now"
To which i replied
"I sorry but the term 'now' is usually defined as "at the present time" so you haven't given any enlightening definition at all."
You did not reply but i was well-meaning enough to let that point slide
I pointed out that if something is significant to somebody at some time, then given eternalism, there is eternal significance.
You then talked about Buddhism, i told you that this was not the issue.
You did not reply to that yet i was well-meaning enough to let that point slide
"he demonstrates that he doesn't even know the meaning of the term"
I'm not the one claiming that all moments in time are present or who feels the necessity to point out that a 'point' in time cannot be past in reference to itself.
When i told you that i think you are "bizarre assertions" you just said:
'No, no, that's what other people think'
If you thought that i "to all appearances" did "not even understand" you would have replied instantly to each of these points instead of avoiding every issue and then waiting half a day until Ilion comes ranting to feel confident enough to make some sweeping statements.
Huh? I did reply instantly to them all. Check the record.
You're the one who brought up the idea of the block universe, as an objection to my assertion that immortality is necessary for there to be any meaning or significance to the present moment. But then you subsequently demonstrated that you had not the foggiest idea of what the term meant. So I obligingly defined it for you (pointing out, as you just mentioned, that I myself do not believe in the concept). You responded that the things I was describing were "bizarre assertions" - to which I heartily agree! But they are bizarre assertions which you introduced into the conversation. My part was merely to show you to where such assertions led. The fact that you do not like their implications shows me that you also do not believe in the block universe, else you'd be totally comfortable with them, and wouldn't have to say they are things "only heard in madhouses" (your words, not mine).
So there we have it. You object to the necessity of immortality to significance on the grounds of ideas you yourself find bizarre and mad.
Oh, and by the way. I didn't "wait half a day" to respond. Check the times - that "half a day" was nighttime. I was blissfully asleep. When I turned on my computer this morning, I saw that Ilion was evidently up earlier than me. No conspiracy or collusion there, except in your own mind.
And as for "feeling confident", long time readers of DI know that I cheerfully announce whenever I am not confident about something. This is not one of those times.
Jezu ufam tobie!
"Huh? I did reply instantly to them all."
You did respond to the posts not the points.
Explain how a "how a point in time" could even be thought to be "past" in "reference" to itself?
Define what you mean by present without using the term 'now' which is itself defined by the word 'present'.
"But they are bizarre assertions which you introduced into the conversation."
I never introduced the bizarre assertion that on a b-theory of time all points in time "are all equally now", as if an observer in the year 2016 could refer to a moment in 1800 as 'now'.
The b-theorists maintains that all moments in time are 'real', not that they are all 'now'.
It is you who does not understand the concept.
"The fact that you do not like their implications shows me that you also do not believe in the block universe"
I pointed out that your assertions are bizarre, which they are.
And show me where i did say anything about which theory of time i believe in.
" You object to the necessity of immortality to significance on the grounds of ideas you yourself find bizarre and mad."
The assertions you make on the basis of your misunderstanding of the concept of the block universe are bizarre and mad. I quoted them repeatedly.
"I was blissfully asleep"
Fine but you weren't asleep when you were "stuck with the above conversation with" me "far longer than" you "wished". You dodged every point.
As you wish. I cannot help you if you refuse to understand. So I'll let you have the last word, as from here on in I would likely be only repeating myself. (And who wants that?)
Meanwhile, on an infinitely more important note, I must take time to mourn the passing of one of my all-time favorite musicians, Paul Kantner.
Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine;
et lux perpetua luceat eis
Jezu ufam tobie!
"So I'll let you have the last word"
That's fine with me. I like having the last word.
I have repeatedly asked you to
1) explain how a "how a point in time" could even be thought to be "past" in "reference" to itself?
2) define what you mean by present without using the term 'now' which is itself defined by the word 'present'.
You never did and now you claim to be unwilling to repeat answers you never gave in the first place.
I pointed out that b-theorists think past and future exist, not that they are all 'equally now.
Again, no response. The only way of 'repeating yourself' is to do what you promised to do from now on, not to respond.
I pointed out that if something is significant to somebody at some time t then given the block universe, it is always the case that it is significant to him, whether at a time before his birth or when he is already dead for a million years. This way you can have eternal significance without immortality.
No response other than "Atheists should become Buddhists"
I think quitting the discussion is really the best thing you can do in this case.
But if you like you can return to once more claim that i 'just don't understand' or 'refuse to understand' while carefully avoiding to answer my questions and reply to my points
Oh, goodness! B.Prokop gets his "confidence" to make "sweeping statements" from my "rantings"!!1!
God-deniers will *always* react as Mr Mitchell is doing in his recent posts when one takes the unserious things they say seriously enough to explain why those things are not up to the task of supporting the desired outcome of rendering God superfluous and absent.
To Ilion:
"We're not worthy! We're not worthy!"
^^ True enough, but let's try to be a bit more ... what was that word, nuanced ... about it, shall wee?
OK then, how about this one?
Comment edited, because I found a funnier (is that a word?) clip.
^^ Ah, but it was seeing the one you deleted that made the second one funny.
I'm nothing if not nuanced!
"Oh, goodness! B.Prokop gets his "confidence" to make "sweeping statements" from my "rantings"!!1!"
Now we only need to know where you get your confidence from.
Haloperidol?
"To Ilion:"
At least this is funny.
I turned on the TV in my hotel room a few days ago, and I actually found something interesting ... or, at any rate, mildly amusing (*): 'Angie Tribeca'.
I mention that to mention this -- trying to have a discussion with 'atheists' about God (or merely about "religion") is like finding youself to be a character in Angie Tribeca's world.
(*) In small doses; I don't think I could become a fan of the show
Post a Comment