As for the number's game... There is the matter of temporization - that is, the fact that such deaths will occur over a long span of time, instead of all at once. If your only concern is the total amount of Death (i.e.: The state when a formerly living entity ceases to be alive) that happens on Earth over an arbitrarily long period of time, the best possible thing for you to hope for is a nuclear holocaust. Or the extinguishing of the sun. Or anything else with a potential to sterilize all or most of the Earth.
To paraphrase:
"You don't want billions to die? So you better get those nukes flying, because obviously quadrillions dying is preferable to billions"
See? Makes no sense. What matters is not the amount of Death, it's the amount of Life.
Considering the fact that the lives of factory farmed animals are short and very unpleasant I think it's better for them simply to not be bred into existence to begin with. Most of them are bred so that it is completely impractical for them to exist except as enormous meat tumours. I don't think animals should be forced to live such lives. The animals that are alive right now will be slaughtered, that is without question. But should we keep bringing more and more animals into existence, only to make them suffer, then kill them? The plight of factory farmed animals is different to that of domestic and wild animals. They have no quality of life to speak of, so really it is the death, not the life that counts.
manic_depressive13 said:
Too much logic? Yeah, because you're so great at logic.
It was qualified. Don't feel bad. Different people are good at different things.
manic_depressive13 said:
I don't see why you would breed braindead animals when we are already capable of producing in vitro meat (albeit not on an industrial scale). But no, I have no qualms with eating flesh. I have issues with causing pain and distress, and cutting a sentient creature's life short for no valid reason.
So that pretty much settles the argument. Unless you are very old, chances are good that within your lifetime, you'll be a meat-eater. Assuming the "Moral Vegetarian" fad doesn't die off, of course, but it is unlikely that it will completely.
What? How does that settle anything? I ate meat when I was a child because I was raised like that. I stopped eating it because I didn't agree with farming practices. So yes, I have been a meat-eater within my lifetime. Your point?
The moral vegetarian "fad" has been around since the ancient Greeks.
Part of our Evolution? is that a joke?...Tell me if it is i'm terrible on picking up on this stuff
You can survive without meat there's no necessity for it. The human race wouldn't end if we all became allergic to the stuff. We're omnivores, and since we live in a society that allows you to choose what you want to eat and both meat and other types of food are always available whether you eat meat or not is optional.
That's kind of beside the point.
We have canines, we can digest meat. We are evolved to be able to eat animals. Just because it's physically possible to survive without it doesn't change the fact that we're suited to it.
Yes, it is optional, but the reason it's an option at all is evolution... and over-abundance of food.
If there was a famine and all your tofu was gone, you might suddenly find Rover much more appetizing.
As a vegetarian the evolution argument has always pissed me of. It's only been a few decades that daily meat intake became available to most members of western society. Before that people ate meat, but not nearly enough as they do now. It was just too hard to get meat. Eating meat was like a bonus, something that didn't happen really often, and our body was not addapted to it being normal to have meat in your daily diet. Also many people who use the evolution theorem understand jake shit about it. And even if the evolution argument wouldn't have been complete bullshit, it's not like we can't get passed our evolution. Humans weren't evolved to use smartphones either.
It's fine you don't want to be a vegetarian. It's fine not caring about the environment, public health, it's fine you don't care about animal rights. But don't be such a freaking pussy, and just flat out say so that you don't want to go through the effort to make a change in your diet.
Wow, Issues much?
Did I say we should all eat meat every single day? No.
Did I say you're a bad person if you don't? No.
Did I say I didn't care about the environment? No.
We have canines, we have enzymes that allow us to digest meat. We require proteins, and the best source (not the ONLY source) is meat.
Therefore, evolution. That was my entire argument.
Don't judge me for my dietary choices, you self-righteous blowhard.
...You know, I love deers. I would kill and eat one. Not every day, but if you're one person, and say, you only eat meat every second day, that's maybe a month's worth of deer if you preserve it well enough.
I'd kill a deer every month if it was my main source of meat. I would hunt, fish and possibly scavenge meat from any animal I find palatable. I would still enjoy the company of said possible food source.
It's not that complicated. Yes I love the deer. Yes I would kill it. Any given deer, I don't have any real emotional bond to. I like deer as a whole, and the individual that dies by my hand was not the whole. I would not eradicate the deer population for my meat (that would be silly).
At the very least, I'm certainly not hateful towards an animal that I kill. It simply is. I have killed it, and I will eat it. I will respect it, but other than that, a deer would have to become my close companion to earn my platonic love, and maybe then I wouldn't eat it, and I probably wouldn't intentionally kill it. All of them have my 'universal' love. That love you feel when you watch a sunrise kinda thing. Sorta like that. They all get that. And then one gets eaten.
Besides, I'm kinda all about all living things being equal. I do not favour the animals over the plants, and I will show them no such favour. The apple dies, the carrot dies, the deer dies. And I would eat them all if I felt so.
Deer meat is pretty freakin' awesome, if you didn't pick that up.
Wow, Issues much?
Did I say we should all eat meat every single day? No.
Did I say you're a bad person if you don't? No.
Did I say I didn't care about the environment? No.
We have canines, we have enzymes that allow us to digest meat. We require proteins, and the best source (not the ONLY source) is meat.
Therefore, evolution. That was my entire argument.
Don't judge me for my dietary choices, you self-righteous blowhard.
I can't stand the "we have canines and are designed to eat meat, thus killing animals for food is morally sound" argument. You know what the penis's shape is designed for? Displacing the semen of other men so yours can get in. Does this mean it is morally correct to go around finding women who've recently had sex and use your specially designed penis (EVOLUTION!) to extract the other guy's semen? In most places not really.
I'm not arguing against eating meat, I'm am just saying this is a very flawed argument
EDIT: I'm not talking about the requiring meat part, I don't agree that you need to kill animals for meat, but I'm just tired of seeing the evolution bit tied in
Wow, Issues much?
Did I say we should all eat meat every single day? No.
Did I say you're a bad person if you don't? No.
Did I say I didn't care about the environment? No.
We have canines, we have enzymes that allow us to digest meat. We require proteins, and the best source (not the ONLY source) is meat.
Therefore, evolution. That was my entire argument.
Don't judge me for my dietary choices, you self-righteous blowhard.
I can't stand the "we have canines and are designed to eat meat, thus killing animals for food is morally sound" argument. You know what the penis's shape is designed for? Displacing the semen of other men so yours can get in. Does this mean it is morally correct to go around finding women who've recently had sex and use your specially designed penis (EVOLUTION!) to extract the other guy's semen? In most places not really.
I'm not arguing against eating meat, I'm am just saying this is a very flawed argument
EDIT: I'm not talking about the requiring meat part, I don't agree with that you need to kill animals for meet, but I'm just tired of seeing the evolution bit tied in
Why doesn't anyone ever bother to READ the previous posts that they're responding to?
It says right there, in my previous post, Nobody is saying you have to eat meat. What the **** does morality have to do with evolution?! Did I ever say that it was a moral justification?
"Morally" sound? It doesn't have to be. It's scientifically sound... furthermore, it's ****ing COMMON SENSE! We CAN eat meat. Therefore it's part of our evolution!
And as for your ridiculous comparison, having sloppy seconds is also an option, if you're into that I guess. But again, The ABILITY to have sloppy seconds is not, in itself, a moral issue.
I think what annoys me the most about this is that usually quotes like " I love my cat and I love steaks" or "I love animals... in my belly" and such all make people who do eat meat sound like psychos. Sure, you can love your pets and enjoy eating meat, I just think there are better ways of saying it.
I think that eating meat makes you have a better sense of humour ;-) When people are all the time telling you that you shouldn't eat meat just because... That makes me think of those people as psychos.
Wow, Issues much?
Did I say we should all eat meat every single day? No.
Did I say you're a bad person if you don't? No.
Did I say I didn't care about the environment? No.
We have canines, we have enzymes that allow us to digest meat. We require proteins, and the best source (not the ONLY source) is meat.
Therefore, evolution. That was my entire argument.
Don't judge me for my dietary choices, you self-righteous blowhard.
I can't stand the "we have canines and are designed to eat meat, thus killing animals for food is morally sound" argument. You know what the penis's shape is designed for? Displacing the semen of other men so yours can get in. Does this mean it is morally correct to go around finding women who've recently had sex and use your specially designed penis (EVOLUTION!) to extract the other guy's semen? In most places not really.
I'm not arguing against eating meat, I'm am just saying this is a very flawed argument
EDIT: I'm not talking about the requiring meat part, I don't agree with that you need to kill animals for meet, but I'm just tired of seeing the evolution bit tied in
Why doesn't anyone ever bother to READ the previous posts that they're responding to?
It says right there, in my previous post, Nobody is saying you have to eat meat. What the **** does morality have to do with evolution?! Did I ever say that it was a moral justification?
"Morally" sound? It doesn't have to be. It's scientifically sound... furthermore, it's ****ing COMMON SENSE! We CAN eat meat. Therefore it's part of our evolution!
And as for your ridiculous comparison, having sloppy seconds is also an option, if you're into that I guess. But again, The ABILITY to have sloppy seconds is not, in itself, a moral issue.
Well call me crazy if I assume by the fact that you eat meat that you think there isn't anything morally wrong with eating it. Also, as I said before I didn't say anything about whether or not it was, just that using evolution as an argument for why eating meat isn't bad is not valid.
Love is not logical it is a feeling that happens outside our control which means it can be hypercritical.
I eat meat and consume the flesh of an animal yet can still feel fuzzy and love said animal species.
So yes you can eat meat and love animals might not make sense or be logical but that how it is at least for me maybe my feeling would change if i went to a slaughter house but i havent so this is currently how i feel.
I do not love all animals, nor do I eat all animals. The animals I enjoy hugging and the animals I enjoy eating are different species. Specifically, pet animals are universally carnivores, whereas food animals are universally herbivores. That's because of a great variety of disease that can be gained from eating the meat of animals that ate the meat of animals, and because carnivorous animals make better pets; they have an inbuilt concept of a den, and therefore can be house-trained, while animals like sheep cannot, and they are almost universally more intelligent, and therefore more likeable.
One of the main reasons people have pets like cats and dogs is because they can relate to them (we both need meat), and it is therefore arguable that if you are a vegetarian, you cant form the same bonds with pets as you would with other humans, and therefore cant like animals.
Well call me crazy if I assume by the fact that you eat meat that you think there isn't anything morally wrong with eating it. Also, as I said before I didn't say anything about whether or not it was, just that using evolution as an argument for why eating meat isn't bad is not valid.
Ok, let's just put it this way. As an omnivore, it strikes me that eating meat is amoral- it is neither good nor bad, it simply is. If someone chooses to eat meat, I have no logical reason to tell them not to.
Eating tree bark isn't "necessary" either. If someone does it I may point out that the human body wasn't designed to process tree bark, but not going to tell them that they're morally wrong.
Surely the burden of proof should be on those vegetarians who are accusing the rest of us of a crime.
All heterotrophic life survives on the remains of other life-forms. A plant is no more or less alive than an animal, so even vegetarians must end lives to sustain their own.
@ The Almighty Aardvark
What reasoning do you have that the consumption of flesh is morally wrong. I understand your objection to industrial farm practices but was wondering what your reason was for being opposed to eating meat in general. Would you say hunting is wrong?
What I'm trying to say is that it's all connected. Industry, agriculture etc. Gradual reductions in some things, improvement in others are absolutely fine. But to jump on people for not radically altering their lives to, again, suit one persons opinion of where that line between 'okay to eat' and 'not okay to eat'? Not really.
You say things like "these things don't actually work unless everyone accepts responsibility for their actions" but then "I would happily do more if others would do more with me, but it's pretty fucking absurd to expect me do go live in a cave while you yourself are scoffing bacon".
This to me represents exactly what is wrong with taking a stand like yours. Basically "I'm doing what is right. If you aren't doing exactly as much as me, in the same way as me, you are wrong. I'm perfectly entitled to expect everyone else to conform to my world view - but to expect *me* to do more is crazy".
To me, this is far more 'intellectually dishonest' than anything I've read so far.
Firstly, not eating meat isn't "radically life altering". Secondly, you are the one being dishonest. I am saying that I don't think people should slaughter animals. I am demonstrating my comitment to this ideal by not eating meat. I am suggesting that other people also adopt the practice I have adopted. You are saying "NO, I will not adopt your practice! In fact, until you go live in a cave to prove your resolve, I'm not acknowledging anything you say!" If YOU lived in a fucking cave, that would be a valid request. But you don't. I however don't eat meat. I'm not asking you to do anything that I am not willing to do. So yes, expecting me to abondon civilisation when you refuse to do so much as compromise is crazy. You are being dishonest and juvenile.
I consider myself to be, by and large, a decent human being. I take care of my family, I respect my friends. I don't litter. I recycle. I was a member of a volunteer organization that helped people after the 2011 Earthquake. However, I take pleasure in a good steak, some delicious yakitori or tonkotsu ramen and I think that I should be allowed to do so guilt free.
You know...there are a lot of *people* in the world who are in a crappy situation. Heck, a good chunk of the African continent is still starving. How about we fix all the problems for humans *first*. Then, when we have our awesome utopian society, we start making things better for the animals?
The line between human and animal is definitely not arbitrary. We are human. Animals are animals. We are self aware. I haven't ever seen proof that an animal has attained this.
There is proof, you are just ignoring it. The line between human and animal is arbitrary. Science has given us a pretty good idea of how conscious many animals really are. A farmyard animal has intelligence and awareness equivalent to that of a 3 year old child. Would I be justified in killing a child? What about a mentally handicapped individual whose brain is incapable of maturing? Hell, most people disagree with the idea of terminating a foetus in the third trimester, yet they are certainly not self aware.
Yes. For most of us 30 somethings, not eating meat would be radically life altering, especially if we are to count fish, poultry, eggs and dairy products into the bargain (which by your arguments we would). To force the whole world to do this would wipe out millions of jobs, bankrupt entire countries and cause a whole lot of other crap.
Look - as I've said before, and as you seem to ignore: I don't like slaughterhouses. I for the most part eat freerange meat and products. I have always been for better conditions for livestock and the avoidance of suffering.
I'm not saying "until you go live in a cave, I will ignore you". I'm saying "until you can tell me that you are following your own ideology 100% (avoid harming animals even when it causes humans discomfort), don't act Holier-than-thou and definately don't try to force it on anyone else", in a somewhat facetious way. I will listen to your arguments, I may even pay attention to them (when you refrain from adhom attacks and absurd attempts to reframe the issue). But the second you stop discussing and start moralizing/judging, I will tune you out.
I'm going to swat mosquitos. I'm going to poison the termites eating my house. I'm going to set traps for the rat that keeps me up at night. If a bear comes into my town, I'm going to call the Matagi. I'm going to eat steak. I'm going to drink milk. I'm going to melt cheese over my toast. I'm going to drive a car (since without one I may be unemployed). I'm going to fly home over Christmas to visit my family. And if this directly or indirectly hurts a few animals...well, I'm okay with it. I'd prefer that it wouldn't, but still. My life and my comfort outweighs the life and comfort of animals.
Regarding the 'proof of consciousness' I've never seen anything conclusive. Can animals feel pain? Sure. Can animals 'think'? Maybe. Are animals self aware? I definately don't think so. Perhaps the great apes? I don't know - personally, I doubt it (but that runs to my own beliefs). And to say "there is scientific proof that farmyard animals have the same self awareness as a 3year old child)"...well, this really cries out for a link
Wow. In this thread the vegetarians have drawn analogies to child abuse, child murder, rape, abortion, murder of the handicapped etc.
And people wonder why they get a negative image :|
Well call me crazy if I assume by the fact that you eat meat that you think there isn't anything morally wrong with eating it. Also, as I said before I didn't say anything about whether or not it was, just that using evolution as an argument for why eating meat isn't bad is not valid.
Ok, let's just put it this way. As an omnivore, it strikes me that eating meat is amoral- it is neither good nor bad, it simply is. If someone chooses to eat meat, I have no logical reason to tell them not to.
Eating tree bark isn't "necessary" either. If someone does it I may point out that the human body wasn't designed to process tree bark, but not going to tell them that they're morally wrong.
Surely the burden of proof should be on those vegetarians who are accusing the rest of us of a crime.
Yet I'm sure you'd say very adamantly that killing and eating people for food is morally wrong. There's much more similar between animals and people than animals and tree bark. For the record I'm not equating killing a person to killing animal, I think they're in entirely different leagues. I just don't think that the line is as clear cut as most people make it out to be. Most people will look down upon torturing an animal with no purpose, so obviously most people acknowledge that there is an extent to which the suffering of animals matters.
Jarsh82 said:
@ The Almighty Aardvark
What reasoning do you have that the consumption of flesh is morally wrong. I understand your objection to industrial farm practices but was wondering what your reason was for being opposed to eating meat in general. Would you say hunting is wrong?
Funny, I never said anything about the consumption of flesh being morally wrong or about me objecting to farm practices (unless you remember me from a previous thread on the last one). I do think that it is pretty immoral what goes on with industrial farming though.
I'm not against eating meat necessarily, at this point I'm more of the opinion that it's best if an alternative can be found that's both accessible and affordable enough for people to switch to, or a way to avoid factory farming. In certain farms animals are given a pretty good standard of living, better than they would normally. While I do not enjoy the idea of killing animals, it is necessary for farms to make profit for them to exist. As such using them as food is an unfortunate necessity.
Hunting? I'm kind of iffy about, leaning on against. You could argue that chances are they'll be killed in the wild as is, but if they were killed in the wild it'd at least be for some purpose other than sport.
EDIT: And I just realized that I've said nothing about the OP. Yeah, stupid argument hands down. I haven't looked through this thread, but has anyone actually supported it?
What have I argued that makes you think I have a problem with eggs? I'm not too thrilled with the dairy industry but I there's nothing inherently wrong with it- it just needs proper regulation. So no, ceasing meat intake would not be drastically life changing. In fact, for a 30-something it would probably be exceedingly healthy, unless you are an uncharacteristically active 30-something.
Yes, you are saying that until I completely compromise my quality of life, I don't have a right to complain. That's like someone giving 20% of their disposable income to charity, and urging others to do the same. Naturally people get defensive (as they tend to do when they know they are wrong) and say that for him to criticise them, he ought to be giving 100% of his disposable income, so everything that doesn't go to paying bills goes to charity. That's fucking bullshit, because even if he does give all of his disposable income, it won't make a difference. You would need a massive shift in general behaviour for a difference to be made. If everyone did the right thing, there would be no need for anyone to make massive sacrifices. However, you are saying until one sacrifices EVERYTHING, they have no right to ask you to make small sacrfices. Just concede that you are selfish and drop the pretention please. Lots of people are selfish. It's human nature. Just please, for the love of God, stop trying to frame your nonsense as a valid argument.
Not exactly a scholarly journal but let's face it, this is an internet argument, not a research paper.
Pigs-As Smart as the Primates
Intelligence research was done with pigs in the 1990s. One of the experiments was to train the pigs to move the cursor on a video screen with their snouts. When the pigs used the cursors again, they were able to distinguish between the scribbles they already knew, and the scribbles they were seeing for the first time. The pigs learned this skill as fast as the chimpanzees.
All species of pig are smarter than dogs, and capable of abstract representation. "They can hold an icon in their mind, and remember it at a later date," says Professor Stanley Curtis of Penn State University, who discovered that pigs dominate at video games with joy sticks. Curtis goes on to say, "Pigs are able to focus with an intensity I have never seen in a chimp."
Smarter Than a Three-Year-Old Child.
Other tests were done where the pigs were taught the meaning of simple words and phrases. Several years later, the instructions were repeated, and the pigs still remembered what to do. The same thing was done with different objects placed in front of them. They were taught to jump over, sit by, or retrieve the item. Three years later, they could distinguish between the items.
The studies also showed:
Pigs lead complex social lives that behaviorists once believed to be true only of primates.
Mother pigs sing to their piglets while they are nursing.
They excel at video games that would be hard for a young child, and sometimes better than the primates.
Pigs dream.
Pigs have a good sense of direction, and can find their way home from long distances.
They learn from watching one another.
Pigs outsmart each other. One will often follow another pig to food before grabbing it away from him, and the pig who was tricked will change behaviors to reduce how many times it is tricked.
I already explained to you why caring about insects is pointless, so please drop the nonsense about mosquitos and termites. You can kill as many as you like, it's still not relevant to this discussion.
I draw parallels between animals and very young children because if intelligence is the deciding factor in whether or not it's okay to kill something, surely killing an infant is no worse than killing an animal. If you don't like it perhaps you should stop acting like a child murdering rapist and take responsibility for what you stick down your throat.
Finally, to quote the brilliant and insightful Jimmy Pop: "I don't care if you don't like me, 'cause I don't like you 'cause you're not like me."
I love animals. Especially when their muscles are grilled into food for me.
Being vegan is a choice, don't tell me I can't enjoy the company of a pet because I eat animals. After all, I would happily feed other animals to my pet! Hmmm... so if I do that does that mean I've made a dog or cat hate itself?
Captcha: heartache. I think it's describing Frission's sad doctor in the rain gif back on the first page of this thread.
So no, ceasing meat intake would not be drastically life changing. In fact, for a 30-something it would probably be exceedingly healthy, unless you are an uncharacteristically active 30-something.
Finding all the nutrients you need, especially in a 3rd world country without meat? A pretty big life change, I'd say. Heck, back home (Zimbabwe) I still know farmers and the like that basically use livestock as currency because the grocery stores nearby are pretty much empty.
Plus, it's a pretty big life change to all the farmers/breeders/workers/butchers/steakhouse owners/waiters etc. who are now in the poorhouse too. Not to mention, as I've said before, some African economies rely immensely on livestock.
Yes, you are saying that until I completely compromise my quality of life, I don't have a right to complain. That's like someone giving 20% of their disposable income to charity, and urging others to do the same. Naturally people get defensive (as they tend to do when they know they are wrong) and say that for him to criticise them, he ought to be giving 100% of his disposable income, so everything that doesn't go to paying bills goes to charity.
No. For the...what? Fourth time now? Stop deliberately misstating me. I never said urging others to do the same is wrong. However if he went around telling people that not giving 20% of their salaries to his cause made them as awful as child murdering rapists (which, desite your claims in other posts, you go on to do yourself in this post!) then - yes, he is wrong and doing more damage to his cause than good. Arguing passionately for your viewpoint? Go for it. Being coercive or obnoxious to anyone who doesn't agree with you? Daft, and guarenteed to make people *want* to ignore you.
you are saying until one sacrifices EVERYTHING, they have no right to ask you to make small sacrfices. Just concede that you are selfish and drop the pretention please. Lots of people are selfish. It's human nature. Just please, for the love of God, stop trying to frame your nonsense as a valid argument.
No, this isn't what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that until someone has done absolutely everything possible to achieve their own ideology, they shouldn't try to force others to follow said ideology - and definately shouldn't accuse others of anything close to rape or murder.
You know - it's funny how it works. So many people make a terrible image for their own cause by trying to coerce others into agreeing with them rather than just staying calm, reasonable and doing what they can.
If you don't like it perhaps you should stop acting like a child murdering rapist and take responsibility for what you stick down your throat
Sigh. I don't think we are going to see eye to eye. And since you can't seem to refrain from making absurd claims/comparisons like this and deliberately being inflammatory or insulting, I'm not sure it's worth even trying.
Have fun. And just remember - if you want to have a civilized discussion with someone in any context, coming over as insulting, obnoxious and holier-than-thou is going to be more likely to push people away than convince them.
meat is delicious, delicious murder. I think that maybe eating meat in general is not the problem, like, instead of people pushing for not eating meat all together, how about we're just I dunno, nicer the animals that we'll use as food. Don't even get me started on how plants are living things too. Regardless of any of this nonsense, people shouldn't give a shit about what other people are eating or judge them in any way for it. As long as we're respectful to one another, that's all that really matters right?
It is faulty logic.
Human is animal too, so what meat-eaters can't love other human beings?
(Also- "love animals"? Is word "love" so devalued that we now use it in front of everything?
Or are we are talking about some sexual deviance here? Because for me term "love" is reserved to special few, not pets and food. Also "friend".)
I like dogs, I consider them our loyal brothers in arms, yet I realize that in case food is scarce these animals will start to hunt us. I like pigs- they are smart and cute animals, but I know that for them eating human isn't something unacceptable. Chicken also would be eating human without any moral dilemma in their mind. Even cows if given a chance, would be nomming on our tasty flesh (cows gladly eat processed meat in dog food). I'm not even talking about cats who are eating anything that moves (or used to move).
So maybe your friend is right- I don't "love" animals, but reason for this isn't the fact I eat meat, but rather that I am rational human being who knows that rule of this world is that strong will consume the weak (directly or indirectly).
P.S. On the other hand- If you can't kill it, you have no rights to eat it.
P.P.S. And before someone asks- answer is "yes".
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
