Matthew Wright on Intelligent Aliens

One of my favorite blogs is Matthew Wright’s Matthew Wright. A post illustrating nicely why I enjoy what he writes is the “Are we so arrogant to suppose [intelligent] aliens will be like us?” appearing yesterday.

In the present post I respond (1) positively to what Wright says before answering the question his title poses and (2) negatively to his negative answer.

1. First, what Wright says before answering the question his title poses: He observes, then, that at the time, decades ago, when Winston Churchill, Arthur C. Clarke, and the British Interplanetary Society were thinking about the question of intelligent alien life,

[T]he question was whether there were actually extra-solar planets at all. And if there were, did they host life? But it had a twist – one we don’t often realise. The questions were also posed around the unspoken assumption of ‘one planet, one intelligent alien species’.

A bit further on we find him observing and then ruminating as follows.

[W]e have a sample size of precisely one [that of evolution on the earth], so it’s risky to generalise. Who says that a planet will produce just one intelligent species? Maybe every species on a planet emerges with human-scale intelligence. Or maybe none evolve.

We can see therein that Wright knows how to use logic to free us from the limits of our unspoken and unexamined assumptions and bring all of the available theoretical possibilities out into the open. He has, for example, set before us, as one logical possibility deserving consideration, the universal affirmative proposition (lightly revised) that:

All species emerging on a particular planet are species having human-scale intelligence.

Now, elementary logic teaches us, let us take note, and Wright is evidently aware that alongside any universal affirmative proposition there are to be found universal negative, particular affirmative, and particular negative propositions having the same subjects and predicates. Thus he also sets before us, as another logical possibility deserving consideration, the universal negative proposition (also revised, albeit not so lightly) that:

No species emerging on a particular planet are species having human-scale intelligence.

Granted, he did not spell out the particular negative proposition contradicting his universal affirmative proposition, but we can do that for him quite easily.

At least one species emerging on a particular planet is not a species having human-scale intelligence.

Nor did he spell out the particular affirmative proposition contradicting his negative affirmative proposition, but we can, once again, do that for him quite easily.

At least one species emerging on a particular planet is a species having human-scale intelligence.

We can further advance his cause by taking note of the conjunction, in reverse order, of the last two propositions:

At least one species emerging on a particular planet is a species having human-scale intelligence and at least one species emerging on a particular planet is not a species having human-scale intelligence.

In asking, however, who it is who says that a planet will produce just one intelligent species, he himself is the one who brings to light yet another possibility, the conjunction

At least one species emerging on a particular planet is a species having human-scale intelligence and at most one species emerging on a particular planet is a species having human-scale intelligence.

So far, so good.

2. But only so far, for I think that, when he goes further and answers his question negatively, he goes too far. I part ways with him when he tells us that

I figure that once we do find alien life, it’ll be like nothing we imagined. And that includes the nature of any intelligence. Just as we’ve often imagined ‘aliens’ as being, in effect, mirror images of ourselves, we usually also suppose that ‘their’ intelligence will express itself like ours – inquisitive, actively seeking to expand the boundaries of knowledge and exploration – but will it? Who says ‘their’ intelligence will be like ‘ours’ at all? It might be so different we don’t even recognise it as such, or view the products of their intellect as a ‘civilisation’.

for, in setting forth what he takes to be the possibility that alien intelligence will be unlike human intelligence at all, he has actually set forth an impossibility. To make that evident, I will first ask that you recall the following, necessarily true principles of the theory of identity:

The Principle of Reflexivity: For any existent, x, x is identical to x.

The Principle of Symmetry: For any existent, x, and any existent, y, if x is identical to y, then y is identical to x.

The Principle of Transitivity: For any existent, x, any existent, y, and any existent, z, if x is identical to y and y is identical to z, then x is identical to z.

To instantiate:

The Principle of Reflexivity: Matthew Wright is identical to Matthew Wright.

The Principle of Symmetry: If Matthew Wright is identical to the blogger blogging at the Matthew Wright blog, then the blogger blogging at the Matthew Wright blog is identical to Matthew Wright.

The Principle of Transitivity: If Matthew Wright is identical to the blogger blogging at the Matthew Wright blog and the blogger blogging at the Matthew Wright blog is identical to the author of the sci-fi novella, Missionary, then Matthew Wright is identical to the author of the sci-fi novella, Missionary.

Now, I will declare without hesitation, that if a purportedly intelligent being, alien or indeed non-alien, is incapable in principle of grasping the truth of those three principles and of their instantiations, then it is impossible for that purportedly intelligent being to be a genuine intelligent being. (I say, “in principle,” because life presents many de facto circumstances, such as variously caused cases of unconsciousness, that may prevent an intelligent being from grasping such truths.) Any and all intelligent beings will be beings that will be capable in principle of recognizing the truth of our three principles and of untold many others.

Until next time.

Richard

Posted in Alien Intelligence, Intelligence | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Some Basic Observations about Two True Propositions, Two False Propositions, and the President of the United States

There has been some talk lately about truth, more specifically truth in a time dubbed the “post-truth” era. The point of the present post is to set forth what I think can be taken to be some basic data, basic givens, about truth. Students of the history of philosophy will recognize what I say as reflective of the Aristotelian theory of true and false propositions. Others, not suffering from my unbearable pretentiousness, will recognize what I say as nothing but common sense, albeit unbearably drawn out. Still, I will illustrate the point I want to make using just two sets of propositions about the President of the United States of America.

1. The First Set. The belief which some have that Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America is true if and only if he is the President of the United States of America.

That is, if Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America, then the belief which some have that he is the President of the United States of America is true. And, if the belief which some have that Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America is true, then he is the President of the United States of America.

Moreover, the belief which some have that Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America is false if and only if he is not the President of the United States of America.

That is, if Donald Trump is not the President of the United States of America, then the belief which some have that he is the President of the United States of America is false. And, if the belief which some have that Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America is false, then he is not the President of the United States of America.

(I could, but need not, continue with corresponding comments about the belief, which someone somewhere might entertain, that, say, Hillary Rodham Clinton is the President of the United States of America and corresponding comments about the opposite belief; interest in impartiality alone leads me to direct the reader’s attention to them.)

But there is a fact of the matter: Either it is a fact that Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America or it is not a fact that he is the President of the United States of America. There are not two opposed facts, one fact which renders someone’s belief that he is the President true and another, “alternative fact,” which renders someone else’s belief that he is not the President true. And vice versa.

I’ll finish with this set of propositions with the observation that there is evidence that that Donald Trump is the President of the United States of America.

2. The Second Set. The belief which some have that Donald Trump has a relationship with Vladimir Putin is true if and only if he has a relationship with Vladimir Putin.

That is, if Donald Trump has a relationship with Vladimir Putin, then the belief which some have that he has a relationship with Vladimir Putin is true. And, if the belief which some have that Donald Trump has a relationship with Vladimir Putin is true, then he has a relationship with Vladimir Putin.

Moreover, the belief which some have that Donald Trump has a relationship with Vladimir Putin is false if and only if he does not have a relationship with Vladimir Putin.

That is, if Donald Trump does not have a relationship with Vladimir Putin, then the belief which some have that he has a relationship with Vladimir Putin is false. And, if the belief which some have that Donald Trump has a relationship with Vladimir Putin is false, then he does not have a relationship with Vladimir Putin.

(I could, but need not, continue with corresponding comments about the belief, which someone somewhere might entertain, that, say, Barak Hussein Obama has a relationship with Vladimir Putin and corresponding comments about the opposite belief; interest in impartiality alone leads me to direct the reader’s attention to them.)

But there is a fact of the matter: Either it is a fact that Donald Trump has a relationship with Vladimir Putin or it is not a fact that he has a relationship with Vladimir Putin. There are not two opposed facts, one fact which renders the belief which some have that Donald Trump has a relationship with Vladimir Putin true and another, “alternative fact,” which renders the belief which some have that he does not have a relationship with Vladimir Putin true. And vice versa.

I’ll finish with this second set of propositions with the observations that (1) there is evidence that that Donald Trump has a relationship with Vladimir Putin, if we can accept as evidence the fact that he himself has said he has, and (2) there is evidence that that he has no relationship with Vladimir Putin, if we can accept as evidence the fact that he himself has said he hasn’t.

Another observation: It cannot be the case that Donald Trump both has and does not have a relationship with Vladimir Putin.

I could go on.

An Addendum: An off-blog comment by a good friend leads me to believe me that I should I have cited the source for my claim that Donald Trump both has said he has a relationship with Vladimir Putin and has said that does not have one. See:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/01/donald-trump/donald-trump-gets-full-flop-whether-hes-had-relati/

Until next time.

Richard

Posted in Truth | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Two Questions Inspired by Edmund Burke’s Reflections on Whether One Should Recuse Himself

I have noticed, and you may have, too, that there has been some talk in Washington about investigating some possible improprieties in the behavior of some officials in the Trump administration. Inevitably, there has also been talk about who should conduct the investigations, and accompanying this talk there has been the suggestion that some should recuse themselves from any such investigations.

Now, my interest in better understanding ethical, social, and political conservatism has been stimulated by the coming into power of a new administration many, if not most, of the members of whom have been identified as conservatives. A previous post, the “Ayn Rand, Trump and the Conservatives, and Abortion”* of January 3, 2017, marked a first step in my efforts at attaining that better understanding, but I have also taken the more serious step of undertaking, not just a reading, but a systematic and sustained study, of one of the classics in the literature of American conservative thought, Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind from Burke to Eliot (7th edition; Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing Company, 1986 [1953]).

I am not yet ready to offer up any dramatically significant theoretical results, even in my own estimation, of my study of Kirk. But I would like to put forward two questions that I see as having immediate practical importance. They arise from the reading of a passage, quoted by Kirk (The Conservative Mind, p. 53) written by Edmund Burke, whom Kirk describes (Ibid., p. 1) as “the greatest of modern conservative thinkers.” The passage, taken from Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France, reads:

One of the first motives to civil society, and which becomes one of its fundamental rules, is that no man should be judge in his own cause. By this each person has at once divested himself of the first fundamental right of uncovenanted man, that is, to judge for himself, and to assert his own cause. He abdicates all right to be his own governor. [The emphasis is, I take it, Burke’s.]

The first question, then, is: Would those in the administration or in government who identify themselves as conservatives accept Burke’s “fundamental rule” that “no man should be judge in his own cause” as a fundamental rule or even just a rule?

The second question is: Would those in the administration who identify themselves as conservatives not just accept Burke’s “fundamental rule” as a rule, but apply it to themselves?

Until next time.

Richard

*https://afteraristotle.net/2017/01/03/ayn-rand-trump-and-the-conservatives-and-abortion/

Posted in Conservatism, Political Philosophy | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Christian Sword Verses. A Reminder

0. In Matthew 7:1-5*, we read

1“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

1. A case in point: In his January 11, 2017, Crisis Magazine article, “Christian, Muslim, or Secular Neighbors—Does It Matter?” Peter Maurice writes**:

Now I know many Christians of various “rooms,” armed and pacifist, but not one who threatens a “neighbor” with violence because of his beliefs. As Pope Francis warns, Christians, like Muslims, murder their wives. They also embezzle and lust and cheat on their taxes. In other words, they are sinners. But when they lie, cheat, and murder, they search the scriptures in vain for doctrines like “taqiyya” and “jihad” to sanction lying and violence against infidels.

2. In the interests of brevity, I’ll set aside for present purposes the question of whether Christian liars, when they lie, will search the scriptures in vain for texts which sanction lying. The point I wish to make in the present post is that it is just not the case that Christian sinners, when they murder, will search the scriptures in vain for texts which sanction violence against infidels.

The Christian sinners in question need hardly be Biblical scholars; the simplest of online searches for, say, “violence in the Old Testament” quickly reveals there to be a number of Biblical texts offering, not just divine sanction of engaging in violence, but divine commandments to engage in violence, in some instances violence specifically against infidels. Take, for example the statement in Exodus 22:20.

Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.

Or take the more extensive set of recommendations in Deuteronomy 13, the entirety of which rewards the reading but only the last third of which I will quote:

12If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely,a both its people and its livestock. 16You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt, 17and none of the condemned thingsb are to be found in your hands. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger, will show you mercy, and will have compassion on you. He will increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your ancestors— 18because you obey the LORD your God by keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes.

3. Nor will it do to simply dismiss that passage as but a part of the Old Testament, for there are the passages in the New Testament that claim Old Testament law as its own, one that of Matthew 5: 17-18:

17“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

and another that of Matthew 10:34-36:

34“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35“For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; 36and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.

4. I will close by suggesting to Mr. Maurice that Christians who criticize the “sword verses” of the scripture of Islam should remember and attend to the planks in their own eyes, for their scripture too has its sword verses.

Until next time,

Richard

*All Biblical texts quoted in this post are taken from http://biblehub.com/.

**http://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/christian-muslim-secular-neighbors-matter.

Posted in Scripture and Violence against Infidels | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

More on Ayn Rand on Abortion

In my immediately previous post, the “Ayn Rand, Trump and the Conservatives, and Abortion”* of January 2, 2017, I quoted a passage from Ayn Rand’s “Of Living Death,”** a reply to the papal encyclical, Humanae Vitae.*** The first of the passage’s two paragraph, the one occupying my attention in today’s post, reads as follows:

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not yet living (or the unborn).

One aim of today’s post is that of spelling out explicitly the argument on behalf of the thesis that, as the first sentence puts it, an embryo has no rights. The second aim is that of beginning the assessment of that argument.

The spelling out of that argument explicitly will be but the rendering of, first, its conclusion in a “regimented” form, i.e., in the logically explicit form called for by the logic of the categorical syllogism. That will be followed by an explicit spelling out of the premises needed to reach that conclusion.

The conclusion of the argument, as rendered into the precise “regimented” form called for, is the universal negative categorical proposition, that

No embryos are beings having rights.

This proposition is strictly equivalent to the paragraph’s first sentence in that, if and only it is true, the other is true, and if and only it is false, the other is false; in brief, they say the same thing.

Turning now to the explicit spelling out of the premises needed to reach that conclusion, one of them can be found in the paragraph’s second sentence, “Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being.” We can observe that it is condensed version of the more explicit conjunction of two propositions

Rights do not pertain to a potential being and rights pertain only to an actual being.

Let’s isolate the second of the two conjuncts.

Rights pertain only to an actual being.

This is logically equivalent to

Only actual beings are beings having rights.

This is in turn equivalent to

All beings having rights are actual beings.

We now have an incomplete version of the argument the explicit spelling out of which is being sought. It looks like this:

All beings having rights are actual beings.
Therefore, no embryos are beings having rights.

We are still missing a premise. Given the given premise and the given conclusion, the remaining premise has to be, or be equivalent to, the universal negative categorical proposition that has the subject of the conclusion as its subject and the predicate of the other premise as its predicate. That proposition has to be, then, the proposition that

No embryos are actual beings.

We have then the categorical syllogism

All beings having rights are actual beings.
No embryos are actual beings.
Therefore, no embryos are beings having rights.

The first aim of today’s post, that of spelling out explicitly the argument on behalf of the thesis that an embryo has no rights, has been achieved. On, then, we pass to the second aim, that of beginning the assessment of that argument.

The argument is one in the form known to traditional logicians as Camestres. Arguments having this form are absolutely valid. That is, if their premises are (or were) true, their conclusions must (or would have to) be true. That is, again, their conclusions follow necessarily from their premises. If, then, in the case at hand, it is true both that all beings having rights are actual beings and that no embryos are actual beings, then it also has to be true that no embryos are beings having rights. And, furthermore, if both we accept the two premises as true and we are rational and intellectually honest, we are then bound to accept that the conclusion that no embryos are beings having rights is itself also true. And not just we, but all; we all, even non-Randian conservatives, would have to accept it as true.

So, valid it is, unequivocally so. But it is not, or at least not yet, evident that the argument is sound, that, that is, its two premises are both in fact true, for an argument is sound only if both it is valid and its premise is or all of its premises are true. And if it is not yet evident that the argument is sound, then it is not yet evident that the conclusion, that no embryos are beings having rights, is true.

Our inner logicians, including the inner logicians of even the most devoted of Rand’s devotees, have to recognize, accordingly, that both of the argument’s two premises themselves stand in need of arguments offered on their behalf. Though this is, strictly speaking, the case for both premises, it is more obviously so for the premise that

No embryos are actual beings.

I’ll let the argument on behalf of this proposition, however, be the subject of a subsequent post.

Until next time,

Richard

*https://afteraristotle.net/2017/01/05/more-on-ayn-rand-on-abortion/

**(http://en.liberpedia.org/Of_Living_Death)

***(http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html).

Tags

Posted in Abortion | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ayn Rand, Trump and the Conservatives, and Abortion

In a December 13, 2016, Washington Post article, speaking of Donald Trump’s decision to nominate ExxonMobil chief executive Rex Tillerson to be secretary of state, writer James Hohman told us:

Tillerson and Trump had no previous relationship, but the Texas oilman and the New York developer hit it off when they met face to face. One of the things that they have in common is their shared affection for the works of Ayn Rand, the libertarian heroine who celebrated laissez-faire capitalism.

We learn further, on the one hand, that

The president-elect said this spring that he’s a fan of Rand and identifies with Howard Roark, the main character in “The Fountainhead.” Roark, played by Gary Cooper in the film adaptation, is an architect who dynamites a housing project he designed because the builders did not precisely follow his blueprints. “It relates to business, beauty, life and inner emotions. That book relates to … everything,” Trump told Kirsten Powers for a piece in USA Today.

and, on the other, that

Tillerson prefers “Atlas Shrugged,” Rand’s novel about John Galt secretly organizing a strike of the creative class to hasten the collapse of the bureaucratic society. The CEO listed it as his favorite book in a 2008 feature for Scouting Magazine, according to biographer Steve Coll.

Hohman continues, offering a list of others in the Trumpian inner-circle and thinking himself able to offer the summary judgment that:

Trump is turning not just to billionaires but Randians to fill the cabinet.

There is room, however, to think that the apparent devotion of members of the Trumpian inner-circle to the Randian philosophy will lead to conflict within Republican conservative circles. For one thing, there is the matter of Rand’s atheism. Hohman notes and opines that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan “also used to be an outspoken booster of Rand, but he distanced himself in order to advance his political ambitions.”

Hohman goes on to tell us, first, that

In a 2005 speech, Ryan said that Rand was required reading for his office staff and interns. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” he told a group called the Atlas Society, according to a New Yorker profile by Ryan Lizza.

and then that

By 2012, looking beyond his safely-red House district to the national stage, the Wisconsin congressman claimed that the idea he was inspired by Rand is “an urban legend.” “I reject her philosophy,” Ryan told National Review. “It’s an atheist philosophy. It reduces human interactions down to mere contracts and it is antithetical to my worldview. If somebody is going to try to paste a person’s view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas…Don’t give me Ayn Rand!”

I am not in any position to comment on Ryan’s understanding of the epistemology of Thomas Aquinas. But I do think it evident that Rand’s atheism has to give pause to the Christian conservatives so central to the Republican Party, like Ryan (and, no small by the way, Vice President to be Mike Pence).

There is a second matter about which the apparent devotion of members of the Trumpian inner-circle to the Randian philosophy may well find themselves to be in conflict with Republican conservative circles, that of Rand’s “pro-choice” stance. Hohman tells us that

In 2014, when no one anticipated that Trump would actually go through with running for president, John Oliver’s HBO [comedy] show [, Last Week Tonight,] produced a four-minute segment making fun of Rand’s enduring appeal to so many conservatives and rich people. After sound bites of Rand ripping into Ronald Reagan and explaining why she supports abortion rights, the narrator asks: “Why would conservatives hold up as their idol someone who says things like that? Especially when there are so many other advocates for selfishness they could choose, like Donald Trump…”

In that four-minute segment, after we hear the voice-over speaker saying (c. 2:15 ff.) that

However, Ayn Rand is an unlikely hero for conservatives, because she was also pro-choice.

we see and hear Rand herself saying that

A man who claims to defend rights and objects to the right to have abortions? That’s no defender of rights.

A more explicit statement of her pro-choice position can be found in her “Of Living Death” (http://en.liberpedia.org/Of_Living_Death), a reply to Pope Paul VI’s papal encyclical, Humanae Vitae (http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html).

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not yet living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body? The Catholic church is responsible for this country’s disgracefully barbarian anti-abortion laws, which should be repealed and abolished.

As the kids say, “Just sayin.”

Until next time.

Richard

Posted in Abortion | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Things Looking Up for Philosophy Majors

Things are looking up for philosophy majors, at least in the Burlington, Massachusetts, area, if the following “Indeed Job Alert” to which my attention was drawn this morning is any sign:

Philosophy Specialist – Burlington MA
Coty Inc. 12 reviews – Burlington, MA
$10 an hour
GENERAL PURPOSE OF JOB

To meet and exceed sales goals while following gold standard customer service with all customers.

PRIMARY DUTIES & RESPONSIBILITIES

Selling

• Responsible for achieving a Sales per Hour of $125, an Average Unit Sale of $65 and an Items Per Transaction of 3.
• Meet and exceed daily sales goals.
• Service the customers in accordance with philosophy concept and direction.
• Provide philosophy style service using client cards, skin typing, sampling, using print material and conducting product demonstrations.
• Attend philosophy education workshops.
• Create philosophy followers by exceeding the customers’ expectations of outstanding service.
• Keep track of daily sales.
• All Training Hours pay @ $10/hr

I was going to respond by asking, “Who knew?” But then I read in a box on the side:

Sarah Jessica Parker, Beyoncé, and Jennifer Lopez are just a few of the celebs to promote Coty.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment