captivity - a cruel creation by mankind

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

steffen phil
 
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 11:36 am
@steffen phil,
GoshisDead wrote:
Quote:

I'm all fine with limiting cruelty to animals but I also dislike the hypocrissy with which it is often times preached...
"ohhhhhh We are the unique stewards of nature and we must save it from itself."


GoshisDead, who are this people preaching so often: "ohhhhhh We are the unique stewards of nature and we must save it from itself"?

I am really interested as I actually have never heard such a nonsense. This people must be totaly confused. Nature never had any need to get saved from itself. And we are certainly not such unique stewards, but unique destroyers and the most brutal torturers this planet has ever seen.

_____________________
www.basicrule.info
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Wed 27 Jan, 2010 12:48 pm
@steffen phil,
steffen;123034 wrote:
GoshisDead wrote:


GoshisDead, who are this people preaching so often: "ohhhhhh We are the unique stewards of nature and we must save it from itself"?

I am really interested as I actually have never heard such a nonsense. This people must be totaly confused. Nature never had any need to get saved from itself. And we are certainly not such unique stewards, but unique destroyers and the most brutal torturers this planet has ever seen.

_____________________
www.basicrule.info


Thus is our nature.
 
steffen phil
 
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2010 01:47 pm
@GoshisDead,
fast wrote:

Quote:

Quote:
4. Everybody consuming products of the imprisoned creatures is a keeper and responsible.

That sounds odd. I play a very small role for the demand, so perhaps I am partly responsible in a narrow sense, but I'm certainly not responsible for the conditions in which they are kept.

Fast, you do not play a very small role and you are not only partly responsible in a narrow sense. Certainly you are fully responsible for the animals that you are consuming.

I would somehow understand your statements if you were a little child (closing the eyes-everything is gone), but you are a reflecting adult. I think it would be just if you would state, for example:

"Yes, I am fine with the chicken(cattle, pigs...) I got my eggs (meat etc) from to stay in a little plain cell for their entire life, in thick air and without ever seeing the sun or the moon, to have their beaks cut and to be thrown away when their output is getting low."

Anything else sounds like a fine excuse.

I'm not a vegetarian but what is done in the industrial mass production are very severe offences toward live and such is very wrong and very dangerous.

_________________________________
www.basicrule.info
 
hue-man
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 01:20 pm
@steffen phil,
steffen;121664 wrote:
I would like to hear some opinions about the issue "captive animals". I think this is a major of all ethical issues. Certainly it is also a very uncomfortable theme for many people, as most are indirect keepers themselves by consuming products from agricultures mass production such as eggs, meat and milk. Still, hopefully there is some will and readiness to even face such very difficult and important topic.

My standpoint:

1. The state of captivity is a creation of modern mankind and there has never been any kind of captivity in free nature.
2. Holding animals in captivity for their entire live, often in narrow cages just to produce cheap meals, is the spawn of arrogance.
3. There seem to be strong parallels to the Morlocks (H.G.Wells, 1885) when considering today's human society's behaviour toward the weaker creatures.
4. Everybody consuming products of the imprisoned creatures is a keeper and responsible.

Please do not widen the theme to the captivity of humans or killing of animals, as these two themes are discussed in other threads and/or the matter would get unmanageable.

I don't want to offend anybody, but I think that intelligent people like those here in this forum will have the courage to handle the issue without closing their eyes. I'm very curious about your opinions.

_______________________________
basicrule.info


I am a consumer of animal products such as meat, poultry and dairy. I am not offended or uncomfortable with your opinion. In fact, I greatly appreciate you bringing up this subject.

I am a believer in animal rights against torture and cruelty, but I am an advocate of consuming animal products from food to clothing. I don't consider humanity cruel for domesticating and keeping livestock, but maybe that's because I have a different measure of cruelty than you. I think that many farmers treat their livestock well in spite of the fact that they're holding them captive.

It may be true that captivity is only committed by humans (but spiders keep insects captive in their web until they eat them), but that's only because we are the only animals that have the capacity to do so. Every predatory animal seeks to dominate. If lions had the intelligence and were to procreate at our pace I am reasonably sure that they would keep their favorite prey captive. Humans keep other animals captive in order to support their lifestyles and nutritional needs. This is the way of nature and we didn't make it this way. If you want to consume yourself with the suffering of every living thing then be my guest, but I refuse to hold a pessimistic view of what nature has deemed necessary. Our lofty living conditions make it more viable to be vegans and weep when we see someone eat a steak. One quick reintroduction to a natural environment would give us the sufficient dose of reality that some of us need.

P.S. Some people believe plants are conscious and can feel pain. Who knows, maybe one day we'll have plant rights and cause our own extinction as a result.
 
steffen phil
 
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 01:17 pm
@hue-man,
hue - man wrote:

Quote:

It may be true that captivity is only committed by humans (but spiders keep insects captive in their web until they eat them), but that's only because we are the only animals that have the capacity to do so. Every predatory animal seeks to dominate. If lions had the intelligence and were to procreate at our pace I am reasonably sure that they would keep their favourite prey captive. Humans keep other animals captive in order to support their lifestyles and nutritional needs. This is the way of nature and we didn't make it this way. If you want to consume yourself with the suffering of every living thing then be my guest, but I refuse to hold a pessimistic view of what nature has deemed necessary.

1. Regarding spiders /definition of captivity I have answered this two times already
2. The rest I have answered also in this thread, so please read my explanation of 01 23 2010. Some further notes on that:
Concepts of captivity would have happened even between bacterium organisms.
The interactions between the different life-forms are very complex; certainly there would have been billions of captivity-like connections, if such a development could theoretically lead to a durable food-source and not toward a waste of energy. Our inability to understand these inevitabilities is based on the misconception as if our own developments are complex, and those in the free nature are relatively primitive. In reality the opposite is correct.

[QUOTE] I think that many farmers treat their livestock well in spite of the fact that they're holding them captive. [/QUOTE]
What do you mean with that? I don't understand this.


Quote:

I am a believer in animal rights against torture and cruelty, but I am an advocate of consuming animal products from food to clothing. I don't consider humanity cruel for domesticating and keeping livestock, but maybe that's because I have a different measure of cruelty than you.


This statement is an expression of the arrogance (not personal) toward the weaker living things that have clearly developed themselves to live a free life. Pretty sure, you would protest tempestuously even if somebody puts you in a little cell only for a week!
So, if you would be forced to live in a little cell for your whole live without ever seeing the sun or anything else accept your skin-to-skin neighbours (all of you have your beaks cut to avoid killing each others) and so on, would you think this is alright and not cruel? I would appreciate a clear answer from you on that.

The torture of the living things that produces your breakfast-eggs is a horror spectacle that is extremely cruel and arrogant. In the free nature there could never be something like this even on the approach.

We are clearly creators of hell. I know you think I do overdraw, so here is one more question to you: Have you ever visited some of the industrial egg-farmings and spend some time between the cages? Probably not, it might be better to do that before discussing such a matter.

Anyway, in the free nature all cruelties and torture (including injury and illness) are ended pretty fast. This is cleary happening under some kind of natural rules and therefore the hell we have created will be ended very soon as well. Spend some time in the real outdoors just by yourself and you will understand that arrogance is absolute fatal.

With our leaving of the frame of free nature we have not only been given huge power but obviously also a huge chance. It seems we have failed.

___________________
www.basicrule.info
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 01:33 pm
@steffen phil,
steffen wrote:
To control a species in captivity (which means to feed it or even breed it) is impossible in the free nature.


Now you're just redefining things. First you were speaking specifically about placing animals in captivity. Now you're speaking about the things humans do to animals after placing them in capitivity. As noted, captivity does exist in "free nature", but if you just wanted to note that lions don't breed gazelle for their eating pleasure, well, I can't help but think you're right.

Quote:
Free nature is a very just and merciful system


This makes me think you've never even been outside or have read any general articles on wildlife. What about when cubs are killed by male lions who take over a pride? What about parasitic worms which slowly but surely feed on the intestines of mammals, bringing about an immense amount of suffering in the process? What about viruses of all kinds? Do they employ mercy?
 
steffen phil
 
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 02:14 pm
@Zetherin,
Originally Posted by steffen
To control a species in captivity (which means to feed it or even breed it) is impossible in the free nature.

Zetherin wrote:
Quote:
Now you're just redefining things. First you were speaking specifically about placing animals in captivity. Now you're speaking about the things humans do to animals after placing them in capitivity. As noted, captivity does exist in "free nature", but if you just wanted to note that lions don't breed gazelle for their eating pleasure, well, I can't help but think you're right.


You can kill under the rules of free nature but you can not feed or even breed other living things. I think that's pretty easy to catch.


Quote:

This makes me think you've never even been outside or have read any general articles on wildlife

My first outdoor-period without any human contact was three weeks (NT Australia, 1989) the last one 12 weeks in 2009(without any human contact at all). Combined it has been about five years (several continents) That is my kind of hobby. According to NT locals my expieriences with the strongest predator on earth are unique. See my website for some infos and pictures.

Quote:

What about when cubs are killed by male lions who take over a pride? What about parasitic worms which slowly but surely feed on the intestines of mammals, bringing about an immense amount of suffering in the process? What about viruses of all kinds? Do they employ mercy?


Parasitic systems are one of the very important parts of the natural process /system. Every organism has various parasites inside or outside. (Even we both while hacking on our desktop). Certainly parasites can be unconfortable, but if you are healthy you will be mostly be fine and on the point where real torture and argony begins death is already very close at hand. This is a automatically process, because awarness not to fall a prey and to be able to collect or hunt is absolute vital in this system and you need all senses for that matter.

__________________
www.basicrule.info
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 02:37 pm
@steffen phil,
steffen wrote:

Certainly parasites can be unconfortable, but if you are healthy you will be mostly be fine and on the point where real torture and argony begins death is already very close at hand.


You keep saying this sort of thing, as if pain and suffering are not present in nature. They are, and death is not always very close. Animals suffer in nature all the time. I have no idea why you think humans are the only ones who make animals suffer.

Quote:

You can kill under the rules of free nature but you can not feed or even breed other living things. I think that's pretty easy to catch.


Do you have a pamphlet you could lend me covering the rules of free nature? I've never heard of such a thing, so, no, it's not easy for me to catch.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 02:46 pm
@steffen phil,
steffen;124716 wrote:
1. Regarding spiders /definition of captivity I have answered this two times already
2. The rest I have answered also in this thread, so please read my explanation of 01 23 2010. Some further notes on that:
Concepts of captivity would have happened even between bacterium organisms.
The interactions between the different life-forms are very complex; certainly there would have been billions of captivity-like connections, if such a development could theoretically lead to a durable food-source and not toward a waste of energy. Our inability to understand these inevitabilities is based on the misconception as if our own developments are complex, and those in the free nature are relatively primitive. In reality the opposite is correct.

I've read your response to the claim that spiders keep their prey captive, and I don't see how what you said refutes the fact that they do. It just shows me that you judge the behavior of the human animal differently from how you judge the behavior of non-human animals. I may be prejudiced when it comes to my valuation of non-human animals, but it seems that you have a prejudice as well.

steffen;124716 wrote:
This statement is an expression of the arrogance (not personal) toward the weaker living things that have clearly developed themselves to live a free life.
It may be an expression of arrogance, but if so it's a justified one in my eyes. Your notion of freedom sounds very abstract. They developed to roam, yes, but that doesn't mean that a predator wont catch them. Ah, the duality of nature.

steffen;124716 wrote:
Pretty sure, you would protest tempestuously even if somebody puts you in a little cell only for a week!
So, if you would be forced to live in a little cell for your whole live without ever seeing the sun or anything else accept your skin-to-skin neighbours (all of you have your beaks cut to avoid killing each others) and so on, would you think this is alright and not cruel? I would appreciate a clear answer from you on that.


Oh I would be pissed if someone locked me in my home for a week, nevertheless a little cell! Good thing I'm not a cow. The one advantage that these non-human animals have over us is that their emotion isn't compounded with abstract thought. Another advantage is that they don't feel guilt when they dominate their prey (and this guilt is usually caused by the cultural conditions that make it viable).

steffen;124716 wrote:
The torture of the living things that produces your breakfast-eggs is a horror spectacle that is extremely cruel and arrogant. In the free nature there could never be something like this even on the approach.


Your concept of free nature is very abstract when you think it through. Nature grants no creatures absolute freedom. In nature you are as free to graze and live as you are to be captured, suffer and die. The cruel spectacle you speak of is clearly granted by nature when a predator has it in their ability.

steffen;124716 wrote:
We are clearly creators of hell. I know you think I do overdraw, so here is one more question to you: Have you ever visited some of the industrial egg-farmings and spend some time between the cages? Probably not, it might be better to do that before discussing such a matter.


If anything we are masters of "hell", but we certainly didn't create it. I would prefer that they be able to graze, but if the demand calls for such living conditions I'm OK with that to. I've seen the egg farming horror spectacle on video before. It's an unfortunate circumstance, but I don't wallow in sorrow over it. If those conditions are necessary to supply the demand then so be it.

steffen;124716 wrote:
Anyway, in the free nature all cruelties and torture (including injury and illness) are ended pretty fast. This is cleary happening under some kind of natural rules and therefore the hell we have created will be ended very soon as well. Spend some time in the real outdoors just by yourself and you will understand that arrogance is absolute fatal.

With our leaving of the frame of free nature we have not only been given huge power but obviously also a huge chance. It seems we have failed.


So we moved away from "free" nature when we decided to domesticated livestock for food, clothing and transportation? Did the spider move away from free nature when it decided to hold its prey captive for utility? Oh yeah, that's a different type of captivity. I forgot. You keep saying free nature as if humans are not a reflection of nature. Your notion of free nature is very subjective and abstract. And what is this test you speak of. The only test that nature gives is that of survival, and it seems like we've passed that test so far. I'm afraid that your view of nature is incomplete.

At the end of the day this is about our separate valuations of the moral worth of non-human animals. I value humans/persons more than I value non-human/personal animals. Your opinions belong to you and those who agree with you, and I say that with all due respect.

P.S. Here's a good example of free nature
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 03:03 pm
@hue-man,
VideCorSpoon;121693 wrote:
But if animals deserve rights, don't plant's as well? They have no means of defending themselves (in many cases) from the predation of humans, who hold them captive in small gardens only to raise them to a level of maturity and then consume them. I wonder of Singer would agree that this is a form of Plantaeism?


Having not read any of Singer's works, I really do not know how he would respond, but there does seem to be an easy answer.

Plants do not have consciousness, or sentience.
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 03:08 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;124741 wrote:
Having not read any of Singer's works, I really do not know how he would respond, but there does seem to be an easy answer.

Plants do not have consciousness, or sentience.


But isn't the easy reply to the animal rights proponent, animals don't have language?

Just picking a feature that one group doesn't have and holding it up as the distinction doesn't work. Well, I know you know that. But the point of the plant/insect argument in the first place is to highlight that the animal rights proponents also make a cutoff, and that the cutoffs are what must be justified.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 03:17 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;124743 wrote:
But isn't the easy reply to the animal rights proponent, animals don't have language?


I don't see how their lack of human language negates their ability to experience pain and suffering.

Jebediah;124743 wrote:
Just picking a feature that one group doesn't have and holding it up as the distinction doesn't work.


Unless the feature we pick happens to be the feature that allows an entity to experience suffering. And that seems to be the heart of the matter: if animals experience pain, and it is wrong to unnecessarily inflict pain, then animals have a right to be free from this unnecessarily inflicted pain.

If an entity has sentience, then they can experience pain.

Jebediah;124743 wrote:
But the point of the plant/insect argument in the first place is to highlight that the animal rights proponents also make a cutoff, and that the cutoffs are what must be justified.


What is a person also believes that insects should not be unnecessarily harmed? That there is something wrong with school boys plucking off the legs of a caterpillar for jollies?
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 03:23 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;124747 wrote:
I don't see how their lack of human language negates their ability to experience pain and suffering.


Unless the feature we pick happens to be the feature that allows an entity to experience suffering. And that seems to be the heart of the matter: if animals experience pain, and it is wrong to unnecessarily inflict pain, then animals have a right to be free from this unnecessarily inflicted pain.

If an entity has sentience, then they can experience pain.


And if an entity is alive, it tries to remain alive. Why are you basing it on pain instead of life? If it is wrong to unnecessarily kill, then don't all living things have the right to life? Why should only beings who can feel pain have the right to life?

Quote:
What is a person also believes that insects should not be unnecessarily harmed? That there is something wrong with school boys plucking off the legs of a caterpillar for jollies?


And this is the point--what if someone thinks that ants should not be killed? How does the animal rights proponent answer them?
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 04:05 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;124752 wrote:
And if an entity is alive, it tries to remain alive. Why are you basing it on pain instead of life? If it is wrong to unnecessarily kill, then don't all living things have the right to life? Why should only beings who can feel pain have the right to life?


Because it does not make any sense to safeguard the life of a particular entity if said entity has no sense of it's own life.

Jebediah;124752 wrote:
And this is the point--what if someone thinks that ants should not be killed? How does the animal rights proponent answer them?


Okay, but what if that someone who believes that ants should be protected happens to be the animal rights proponent? You see?

It is possible for an animal rights proponent to believe that all sentient beings should be given moral consideration. Ants included.
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 04:14 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;124765 wrote:
Because it does not make any sense to safeguard the life of a particular entity if said entity has no sense of it's own life.


I agree. To talk about insects having the right to life is to project humanity onto them--despite the fact that they work very hard to avoid death, they have no real concept of life.

Now, do cows have a concept of freedom, or of their own life? I think not, certainly not in the human sense. They can feel pain, but what is there conception of pain like?

I'm reminded of a PETA video I saw where the announcer described how the animals were being forced to stand in their own feces. Animals eat their own feces...

I would guess that you can make strong arguments against factory farming, although I couldn't say for sure. But not against general captivity or killing. Which I think the extension to plants/insects helps demonstrate.


Quote:
Okay, but what if that someone who believes that ants should be protected happens to be the animal rights proponent? You see?

It is possible for an animal rights proponent to believe that all sentient beings should be given moral consideration. Ants included.
Well, I suppose they don't walk on grass then Smile

Ants aren't considered sentient though.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 04:26 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;124768 wrote:
I agree. To talk about insects having the right to life is to project humanity onto them--despite the fact that they work very hard to avoid death, they have no real concept of life.


Careful now, I did not say "concept", I said "sense of life". Big difference, right? As in sensation of life. A nervous system and a brain produce these things. Ants, for example, have both.

Jebediah;124768 wrote:
They can feel pain, but what is there conception of pain like?


We can ask the same question about other people, too. Sure, each of us feels pain, but the way we experience pain is clearly different for everyone, hence varying pain thresholds.

Jebediah;124768 wrote:
I'm reminded of a PETA video I saw where the announcer described how the animals were being forced to stand in their own feces. Animals eat their own feces...


At times animals do eat their own feces. But they do not live in their own feces in a natural setting. Huge difference, especially considering the fact the prevalence of diseased meat being fed to humans because of those living conditions (so, even if you don't give a damn for animals, this treatment negatively effects the human carnivore - talk about karma!).

Take the gorilla as an example. You know a gorilla is sick when it begins to defecate in its own nest.

Jebediah;124768 wrote:
Well, I suppose they don't walk on grass then Smile


Just because something is morally wrong, it does not mean that we can't do it, you know?

For example, I know driving my car around is morally wrong, but I do it anyway.

Jebediah;124768 wrote:
Ants aren't considered sentient though.


Some people do consider them sentient. And why wouldn't they be sentient?
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 04:40 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;124774 wrote:
Careful now, I did not say "concept", I said "sense of life". Big difference, right? As in sensation of life. A nervous system and a brain produce these things. Ants, for example, have both.


I'm not sure about that, but we can agree that it's very different from our own sense of life, yes?

Some ants spend their entire lives hanging from the ceiling in part of the hive, being used as food storage for the other ants.

Quote:
Honeypot ants, also called honey ants or repletes, are ants which are gorged with food by workers, to the point that their abdomens swell enormously, a condition called plerergate. Other ants then extract nourishment from them. They function essentially as living larders.

These ants can live anywhere in the nest, but in the wild, they are found deep underground, literally imprisoned by their huge abdomens, swollen to the size of grapes.
A nice example of cruel captivity in nature Very Happy




Quote:

We can ask the same question about other people, too. Sure, each of us feels pain, but the way we experience pain is clearly different for everyone, hence varying pain thresholds.
Yes, but I don't see where this leads...it seems to be in favor of my argument...



Quote:
At times animals do eat their own feces. But they do not live in their own feces in a natural setting. Huge difference, especially considering the fact the prevalence of diseased meat being fed to humans because of those living conditions (so, even if you don't give a damn for animals, this treatment negatively effects the human carnivore - talk about karma!).

Take the gorilla as an example. You know a gorilla is sick when it begins to defecate in its own nest.
The point remains I think, huge difference or not. To force a human to live in feces is a level of cruelty far above forcing an animal that does not mind eating it's own feces to live in them, yes?


Quote:
Some people do consider them sentient. And why wouldn't they be sentient?
Eh, I don't know really.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 04:49 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;124779 wrote:
I'm not sure about that, but we can agree that it's very different from our own sense of life, yes?


Sure, the life of an animal is different from the life of a human.

Jebediah;124779 wrote:
Yes, but I don't see where this leads...it seems to be in favor of my argument...


Even though our conscious experience of life may vary from person to person, from species to species, there is still a conscious experience of life.

If conscious experience of life is to be respected, then any being with conscious experience of life should be respected, not just humans.

Jebediah;124779 wrote:
The point remains I think, huge difference or not. To force a human to live in feces is a level of cruelty far above forcing an animal that does not mind eating it's own feces to live in them, yes?


I don't see why.
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 05:10 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;124780 wrote:
Sure, the life of an animal is different from the life of a human.



Even though our conscious experience of life may vary from person to person, from species to species, there is still a conscious experience of life.

If conscious experience of life is to be respected, then any being with conscious experience of life should be respected, not just humans.



I don't see why.


But the experiences vary. So one person hating something does not mean that it cannot be done to all beings with some conscious experience of life. If I hate being slapped on the back and you don't, surely someone who slaps me on the back is doing wrong and someone who slaps you on the back isn't.

A man kept in a stable and forced to work in the fields is a slave, a horse kept in a stable and forced to work in the fields is a horse living a decent life for a horse.

In studies of human happiness, they find a lot relates to expectation level. Let us imagine an alien society comes to earth. The notice that we have to walk to get around. They deem that to be suffering, because in their life of ease they never leave the bed. We are cold in the winter and hot in the summer. They deem that to be torture, because their living conditions are always breezy and cool.

Now, is it morally wrong that you have to walk around to get places, and live in the heat and cold? No, in the same way that it isn't wrong for a horse to live in a stable and pull a plow. Animals aren't sissies. We aren't disrespecting their conscious experience of life when we keep them in captivity. To do otherwise is to anthropomorphize them.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 3 Feb, 2010 05:22 pm
@Jebediah,
And I don't believe that captivity is necessarily wrong for an animal. I think the real issue is the quality of the captivity. A horse well fed and groomed, kept in a stable to do field work is probably just fine. The horse's conscious experience of life is being respected.

But a pig confined to a pin so small it cannot even lay down, with a floor covered ankle high in feces, and so on as is typical of industrial farming, is an animal who's conscious experience of life is being disregarded by the keeper. The keeper's practice is therefore morally wrong.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/04/2020 at 12:09:41