Defending killing and eating animals is morally wrong

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

EmperorNero
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 04:46 pm
@zicogja421,
zicogja421;62042 wrote:
Similarly, we may draw another analogy. If I go to buy fried chicken and you hand my a live chicken, I will say that I want a dead chicken (not necessarily that one, mind you). Similarly, if I go to get oil and instead you give me unprocessed material, I will say that I want processed oil. In both cases, what I want is a product of a process that, in the case of chickens, necessarily causes harm, and, in the case of oil, happens to cause harm. The discinction between necessity and coincidence doesn't matter, however, as long as the person knows that harm is involved.


I like to add that supporting harm is not a coincidence in the case of using oil products. It has been calculated that the amount of food that average North America citizen consumes in year requires the equivalent of 400 gallons of petroleum to produce and ship.
All you eat, have, are, can and do depends on oil. If oil were distributed equally on earth, you could not drive a car, you could not have the leisure time to post this and you would have a very limited diet. Supporting immorality is a necessary component for almost everything you do. It is a 100% certainty that without harm to others, you could not have it. The same as with killing the chicken.

Crash Course Chapter 17a: Peak Oil - Economy | Crash Course Videos at Chris Martenson - Economy, Energy, export land model, fuel shortages, oil production, Peak Oil, supply and demand, three Es
 
New Mysterianism
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 04:55 pm
@EmperorNero,
Okay, let's regroup our thoughts. We all acknowledge that there are moral complexities and unintended consequences deeply rooted in oil consumption and the like. We know this to be the case, but we do not intend for this to be the case. This distinction zicogja made is important.

The point I am trying to make is that, in addition to knowing what is involved in meat production--the harming of animals--we also intend for the animal to be harmed. Why? As I stated earlier, your dietary preference for meat is nothing less than the desire for dead bodily tissue. Bodily tissue comes from living things. You would not go to the market, order fried chicken, and accept being handed a living chicken. You'd want that chicken dead, because you want to eat its bodily tissue, plain and simple.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 05:04 pm
@New Mysterianism,
New Mysterianism wrote:
Okay, let's regroup our thoughts. We all acknowledge that there are moral complexities and unintended consequences deeply rooted in oil consumption and the like. We know this to be the case, but we do not intend for this to be the case. This distinction zicogja made is important.

The point I am trying to make is that, in addition to knowing what is involved in meat production--the harming of animals--we also intend for the animal to be harmed. Why? As I stated earlier, your dietary preference for meat is nothing less than the desire for dead bodily tissue. Bodily tissue comes from living things. You would not go to the market, order fried chicken, and accept being handed a living chicken. You'd want that chicken dead, because you want to eat its bodily tissue, plain and simple.


And why exactly is that "wrong" to you, again?
 
EmperorNero
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 05:12 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;62047 wrote:
And why exactly is that "wrong" to you, again?


Doing a quick Ctrl+F, he never used that term in that post. And the assumption is that causing harm to others is wrong. (And we should not do it.)
 
New Mysterianism
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 05:12 pm
@Zetherin,
Quote:
And why exactly is that "wrong" to you, again?


You might browse this thread for multiple examples where I already explain why harming animals is wrong, including the OP.
 
EmperorNero
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 05:30 pm
@New Mysterianism,
Okay, back to topic.

New Mysterianism;62046 wrote:
Okay, let's regroup our thoughts. We all acknowledge that there are moral complexities and unintended consequences deeply rooted in oil consumption and the like. We know this to be the case, but we do not intend for this to be the case. This distinction zicogja made is important.

The point I am trying to make is that, in addition to knowing what is involved in meat production--the harming of animals--we also intend for the animal to be harmed. Why? As I stated earlier, your dietary preference for meat is nothing less than the desire for dead bodily tissue. Bodily tissue comes from living things. You would not go to the market, order fried chicken, and accept being handed a living chicken. You'd want that chicken dead, because you want to eat its bodily tissue, plain and simple.


We know that the animals are harmed, and we desire dead bodily tissue. But we do not intend for the animal to be harmed. The same with using oil products, we know that it will harm others and we desire a product that implies causing harm, but we do not intend this harm. Maybe if your criteria is, that the "product" itself must be harmed, that might be a way to differentiate from oil products. (Actually that might be a point, if you want to explore that possibility, tell me.)

By wanting transportation, you know you have to keep others in poverty. You know that it is inevitable. The desire for transportation is nothing else than, to put it frankly, the desire for the oppression of a large part of the world population.

Maybe this clears it up, I wrote it before I saw this response of yours:

I agree, this is the same for using oil products. Which is your entire lifestyle.

In order to understand why oil is so important to our economy and our daily lives, we have to understand something about what it does for us. We value any source of energy because we can harness it to do work for us. For example, every time you turn on a 100-watt light bulb, it is the same as if you had a fit human being in the basement, pedaling as hard as they could to keep that bulb lit. That is how much energy a single light bulb uses. In the background, while you run water, take hot showers, and vacuum the floor, it is as if your house is employing the services of 50 such extremely fit bike riders. This "slave count," if you will, exceeds that of kings in times past. It can truly be said that we are all living like kings. Although we may not appreciate that, because it all seems so ordinary that we take it for granted.

And how much 'work' is embodied in a gallon of gasoline, our most favorite substance of them all? Well, if you put a single gallon in a car, drove it until it ran out, and then turned around and pushed the car home, you'd find out. It turns out that a gallon of gas has the equivalent energy of 500 hours of hard human labor, or 12-1/2 forty-hour work weeks.

So how much is a gallon of gas worth? $4? $10? If you wanted to pay this poor man $15 an hour to push your car home, then we might value a gallon of gas at $7,500.

Here's another example. It has been calculated that the amount of food that average North America citizen consumes in year requires the equivalent of 400 gallons of petroleum to produce and ship.

At $4/gallon, that works out to $1600 of your yearly food bill spent on fuel, which doesn't sound too extreme. However, when we consider that those 400 gallons represent the energy equivalent of 100 humans working year round at 40 hours a week, then it takes on an entirely different meaning. This puts your diet well out of the reach of most kings of times past.

Added: When we first came to this country, we were finding some pretty spectacular things just lying around, like this copper nugget. Soon those were all gone, and then we were onto smaller nuggets, and then onto copper ores that had the highest concentrations. Now?

Now we have things like the Bingham canyon mine in Utah. It is two and a half miles across and three-fourths of a mile deep, and it started out as a mountain. It sports a final ore concentration of 0.2%. Do you think we'd have gone to this effort if there were still massive copper nuggets lying around in stream beds? No way.

Let's take a closer look. See that truckway down there? It's fueled by petroleum; diesel, specifically. If we couldn't spare the fuel to run that truck, what do you suppose we'd carry the ore out with? Donkeys? These trucks carry 255 tons/ per load. Suppose a donkey could carry 150 lbs. This means this truck carries the same in a single load as 3,400 donkeys. That's quite a lot of donkeys.


Copper. What is the computer you are typing on right now made of? The wiring in the walls to bring you electricity, the wiring of the factory that produced the clothes you have on?
All you eat, have, are, can and do depends on oil. If oil were distributed equally on earth, you could not drive a car, you could not have the leisure time to post this and you would have a very limited diet. Supporting immorality is a necessary component for almost everything you do. It is a 100% certainty that without harm to others, you could not have it.

And since roughly 80% of the world population are excluded from having those "oil slaves", you are in a way stealing their slaves, or someone else is to sell the slaves to you, hence you are causing it in the same way you are causing the animal to be slaughtered.
You can only have the life you have, because someone or something (a political system etc.) is restricting others from having it. So you have to support immorality for everything you do. Eating a sandwich is immoral, driving your kids to soccer practice is immoral, studying is immoral, and spending leisure time debating ethics on your computer is the height of immoral behavior. I don't even want to get into the moral implications of producing that computer.

I am suggesting adjust that moral deduction from the OP somewhat. I am not telling you that eating meat is moral, just that your reasons for not doing so are too broad.
In an analogy, if we were debating whether a Jewish murderer should receive death penalty, the argument, that all Jews should be killed would not be very strong. I think you know why. Because you could not stand up for what this argument also implies, the implications of that argument. And saying that, it would be utterly pointless to carry out the full implication of your argument does not really save it.
 
zicogja421
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 05:34 pm
@New Mysterianism,
New Mysterianism wrote:
Okay, let's regroup our thoughts. We all acknowledge that there are moral complexities and unintended consequences deeply rooted in oil consumption and the like. We know this to be the case, but we do not intend for this to be the case. This distinction zicogja made is important.

The point I am trying to make is that, in addition to knowing what is involved in meat production--the harming of animals--we also intend for the animal to be harmed. Why? As I stated earlier, your dietary preference for meat is nothing less than the desire for dead bodily tissue. Bodily tissue comes from living things. You would not go to the market, order fried chicken, and accept being handed a living chicken. You'd want that chicken dead, because you want to eat its bodily tissue, plain and simple.


We don't necessarily intend to harm an animal when we purchase and/or eat meat. This is the point I've been trying to stress in my last two posts. My dietary preference for meat is, as you say, a desire for dead body tissue. But it does not follow that when I purchase the meat of an animal that has already been killed, I intend to harm that or any other animal, as you seem to imply in the first sentence of the second paragraph above quoted. As I already noted, we cannot harm something that is already dead, so it hardly makes sense to say that someone can intend to harm the animal he is eating. He does intend to eat a dead animal, but that doesn't necessarily mean he intends to harm an animal himself or even that he intends to eat something that was harmed; he could intend to eat killed animals without ever intending to harm an animal himself and he could restrict himself only to eat animals that died by natural causes.

If I go to the market and you hand me a live chicken when I ask for fried chicken, that doesn't mean that I will then intend for you to kill the chicken so that I can eat it. I may not ask you to do so. I may ask if you have any chickens that are already dead. I may leave and come back when you have dead chickens available. In other words, I may do nothing to motivate you to kill the chicken, because I may wish that that chicken does not die, even though I do want to eat a chicken that has been killed.
 
New Mysterianism
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 05:46 pm
@EmperorNero,
Quote:

Maybe if your criteria is, that the "product" itself must be harmed, that might be a way to differentiate from oil products. (Actually that might be a point, if you want to explore that possibility, tell me.)


Animals are not products anymore than humans are products. Human slavery is an example where humans are treated like resources, just as meat-production is an example where animals are treated like resources. But as I've argued previously, all sentient beings, human and nonhuman, have basic welfare interests which override their being treated as property, or as products, or as resources manufactured for our use.

I think that by weighing the morality of meat-production in ways analogous to resources like oil, we've already presupposed the legitimacy of treating animals as products before deciding whether putting them into such a category violates their interests. This is something I think we should pursue.
 
EmperorNero
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 06:02 pm
@New Mysterianism,
New Mysterianism;62056 wrote:
Animals are not products anymore than humans are products. Human slavery is an example where humans are treated like resources, just as meat-production is an example where animals are treated like resources. But as I've argued previously, all sentient beings, human and nonhuman, have basic welfare interests which override their being treated as property, or as products, or as resources manufactured for our use.


That would imply that you may not use oil products, as explained in post 87.

New Mysterianism;62056 wrote:
I think that by weighing the morality of meat-production in ways analogous to resources like oil, we've already presupposed the legitimacy of treating animals as products before deciding whether putting them into such a category violates their interests. This is something I think we should pursue.


The reason I ask is that I reject consequentialism. An actions morality should be judges by itself, hence the immorality that is a consequence of using oil products might not count. But you would have to establish that the action of eating or buying meat is immoral on itself, and not due to it's consequences.
 
zicogja421
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 06:19 pm
@New Mysterianism,
New Mysterianism wrote:
Animals are not products anymore than humans are products. Human slavery is an example where humans are treated like resources, just as meat-production is an example where animals are treated like resources. But as I've argued previously, all sentient beings, human and nonhuman, have basic welfare interests which override their being treated as property, or as products, or as resources manufactured for our use.

I think that by weighing the morality of meat-production in ways analogous to resources like oil, we've already presupposed the legitimacy of treating animals as products before deciding whether putting them into such a category violates their interests. This is something I think we should pursue.


The dead animals that most people buy to eat, however, are products.

Let's try to make things clear. Let us grant that causing harm is bad. Thus, let us grant that harming animals is bad (I don't believe this is true, but let's assume that it is for the sake of argument). Therefore, since humans are animals, harming humans is bad. So far I think that the OP would agree. So let us suppose that human X is killing other humans. Let us suppose that the only reason he is killing them is so that he can sell human meat for his own personal benefit. Now, let's say I buy human meat from him. Is my buying the human meat from him morally wrong? If so, why? Is my eating that human meat, which is the consequence of somebody's killing the human for the sole purpose of selling, wrong? If so, why?

I think most people would quickly answer that both are wrong, but then they may vary as to what reasons they give to explain why either action is wrong. I don't think it's obvious that either action is wrong. Further, I imagine that whatever reasons we give, we would have to apply those exact reasons to non-human animals, according to your view. So, please, if you can, provide your best answers to the above questions and let's see (i) if they are plausible and (ii) if we can apply them exactly to the case of non-human animals.
 
New Mysterianism
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 06:24 pm
@EmperorNero,
Quote:

The reason I ask is that I reject consequentialism. An actions morality should be judges by itself, hence the immorality that is a consequence of using oil products might not count. But you would have to establish that the action of eating or buying meat is immoral on itself, and not due to it's consequences.


I argued that the moral wrongness of meat-eating is overidden only if the animals died due to accidents, or natural causes, or other sources which did not stem from the deliberate actions of other moral agents.

Now, I understand there's some contention over whether purchasing meat is really complicit in the moral wrongness of harming animals. However, this point of contention is not really crucial to my argument because if the action of harming animals is wrong, the main thrust of the argument succeeds.

That said, I'm not sure how I could argue the wrongness of causing harm to sentient beings without reference to the notion that doing so violates their basic welfare interests. You reject this line of reasoning because it is consequentialist?
 
EmperorNero
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 06:35 pm
@New Mysterianism,
New Mysterianism;62063 wrote:
I argued that the moral wrongness of meat-eating is overidden only if the animals died due to accidents, or natural causes, or other sources which did not stem from the deliberate actions of other moral agents.

Now, I understand there's some contention over whether purchasing meat is really complicit in the moral wrongness of harming animals. However, this point of contention is not really crucial to my argument because if the action of harming animals is wrong, the main thrust of the argument succeeds.


That is correct, but it would also mean that you can't live a comfortable life, using oil products. You would have to explain that implication, or I would not accept your reasoning.

New Mysterianism;62063 wrote:
That said, I'm not sure how I could argue the wrongness of causing harm to sentient beings without reference to the notion that doing so violates their basic welfare interests. You reject this line of reasoning because it is consequentialist?


I agree that causing harm is wrong in itself, not because it violates basic welfare interests. But I wouldn't say that the action of buying meat includes it's killing, that is a consequence.
 
New Mysterianism
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 06:36 pm
@New Mysterianism,
Quote:

Let's try to make things clear. Let us grant that causing harm is bad. Thus, let us grant that harming animals is bad (I don't believe this is true, but let's assume that it is for the sake of argument). Therefore, since humans are animals, harming humans is bad. So far I think that the OP would agree. So let us suppose that human X is killing other humans. Let us suppose that the only reason he is killing them is so that he can sell human meat for his own personal benefit. Now, let's say I buy human meat from him. Is my buying the human meat from him morally wrong? If so, why? Is my eating that human meat, which is the consequence of somebody's killing the human for the sole purpose of selling, wrong? If so, why?


I'm conceding the point that purchasing and eating meat from the store is complicit in the wrongdoing that takes place at the slaughterhouse. I'd like to redirect focus to the slaughterhouse itself, where the deliberate actions of moral agents harm animals.

---------- Post added at 08:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:36 PM ----------

Quote:

I agree that causing harm is wrong in itself, not because it violates basic welfare interests. But I wouldn't say that the action of buying meat includes it's killing, that is a consequence


I'm conceding the point that purchasing and eating meat from the store is complicit in the wrongdoing that takes place at the slaughterhouse. I'd like to redirect focus to the slaughterhouse itself, where the deliberate actions of moral agents harm animals.

It seems you accept premise (1) then, but for different reasons. What is there left to argue between us?
 
zicogja421
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 06:41 pm
@New Mysterianism,
New Mysterianism wrote:
I argued that the moral wrongness of meat-eating is overidden only if the animals died due to accidents, or natural causes, or other sources which did not stem from the deliberate actions of other moral agents.

Now, I understand there's some contention over whether purchasing meat is really complicit in the moral wrongness of harming animals. However, this point of contention is not really crucial to my argument because if the action of harming animals is wrong, the main thrust of the argument succeeds.


Let's look at your original argument. In (4), you said that eating animals requires the killing of animals, and then in (5), you concluded that therefore, eating animals is prima-facie morally wrong (except in cases where the animal died naturally or via some unintended action), since causing harm is morally wrong. But this does not clearly follow, if it follows at all. It is not necessary for me to kill an animal in order to eat an animal that has been killed. In other words, it is not necessary for me to cause harm to an animal in order to eat an animal that has been harmed. In other words, (4) is right, but only in some cases. If I am eating an animal that I have killed, then yes, my eating of the animal requires my killing of the animal. But in the case of most people who eat meat, their eating animals does not require them to kill any animal. Your first premise is that causing harm is morally wrong and from this you eventually end up with the conclusion that being a vegetarian is morally obligatory. But, as I noted, (4) is not necessarily true. Therefore, 5 does not follow, 6 is irrelevant, and 7 does not follow. Finally, since 7 does not follow, nor does 8.

The only real thing you have going to save your argument is to say exactly why purchasing meat is wrong because it is somehow complicit or in support of or a motivating force for the killing of animals. In other words, this point of contention is extremely crucial to (saving) your argument. As I've showed, even if we grant that the action of harming animals is wrong, we do not end up with the conclusion that vegeterianism is morally wrong (unless, as I'm here suggesting, you save by your argument by adding some additional notes or premises explaining why we should accept that purchasing and/or eating meat is morally wrong entirely on the grounds that it somehow is complicit in the causing of harm to animals), and thus the main thrust of your argument does not succeed.
 
EmperorNero
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 06:46 pm
@New Mysterianism,
New Mysterianism;62065 wrote:

It seems you accept premise (1) then, but for different reasons. What is there left to argue between us?


Your reasoning is a slippery slope.
In an example:

1. Causing harm is prima facie morally wrong (assumed).
2. Oppressing humans causes them harm.
3. Oppressing humans is prima facie morally wrong.
4. Using oil-products requires oppressing humans.
5. Therefore, using oil-products is prima facie morally wrong.
6. The wrongness of using oil-products is not overriden. (?)
7. Therefore, using oil-products is ultima facie morally wrong.
7b. Using modern commodities requires oil-products.
8. Living without modern commodities is morally obligatory (see post 87).
 
New Mysterianism
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 06:46 pm
@zicogja421,
Quote:

Let's look at your original argument. In (4), you said that eating animals requires the killing of animals, and then in (5), you concluded that therefore, eating animals is prima-facie morally wrong (except in cases where the animal died naturally or via some unintended action), since causing harm is morally wrong. But this does not clearly follow, if it follows at all. It is not necessary for me to kill an animal in order to eat an animal that has been killed. In other words, it is not necessary for me to cause harm to an animal in order to eat an animal that has been harmed. In other words, (4) is right, but only in some cases. If I am eating an animal that I have killed, then yes, my eating of the animal requires my killing of the animal. But in the case of most people who eat meat, their eating animals does not require them to kill any animal. Your first premise is that causing harm is morally wrong and from this you eventually end up with the conclusion that being a vegetarian is morally obligatory. But, as I noted, (4) is not necessarily true. Therefore, 5 does not follow, 6 is irrelevant, and 7 does not follow. Finally, since 7 does not follow, nor does 8.

The only real thing you have going to save your argument is to say exactly why purchasing meat is wrong because it is somehow complicit or in support of or a motivating force for the killing of animals. In other words, this point of contention is extremely crucial to (saving) your argument. As I've showed, even if we grant that the action of harming animals is wrong, we do not end up with the conclusion that vegeterianism is morally wrong (unless, as I'm here suggesting, you save by your argument by adding some additional notes or premises explaining why we should accept that purchasing and/or eating meat is morally wrong entirely on the grounds that it somehow is complicit in the causing of harm to animals), and thus the main thrust of your argument does not succeed.


Right, premises (4-8) are compromised given my earlier concession, but premises (1-3) are crucial to whether harming (killing) animals is morally permissible.

---------- Post added at 08:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:46 PM ----------

Quote:

Your reasoning is a slippery slope.
In an example:

1. Causing harm is prima facie morally wrong (assumed).
2. Oppressing humans causes them harm.
3. Oppressing humans is prima facie morally wrong.
4. Using oil-products requires oppressing humans.
5. Therefore, using oil-products is prima facie morally wrong.
6. The wrongness of using oil-products is not overriden. (?)
7. Therefore, using oil-products is ultima facie morally wrong.
8. Living without modern commodities is morally obligatory (see post 87).


I acknowledge this and am conceding premises (4-8), redirecting focus to premises (1-3) in the OP.
 
zicogja421
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 06:48 pm
@New Mysterianism,
New Mysterianism wrote:
I'm conceding the point that purchasing and eating meat from the store is complicit in the wrongdoing that takes place at the slaughterhouse. I'd like to redirect focus to the slaughterhouse itself, where the deliberate actions of moral agents harm animals.


I was asking you to defend that point, not to concede it. I don't accept that point and nor does EmperorNero, I assume, or many other people, so you need to defend it.

I concede the point that the actions of the people who kill animals in slaughterhouses are wrong (although I don't believe it). The point is, even if we grant this, how do we end up with your conclusion that we should be vegetarian? That was your main argument after all and the reason why many people bothered to reply to your post, since it is a controversial conclusion, and your argument doesn't seem to support it clearly; it is not clearly valid, as I suggested in my last post. You seemed to be arguing that since the actions of the people who kill animals in slaughterhouses is wrong, eating meat is therefore wrong since it is somehow complicit in those actions. Therefore, you need to defend how it is complicit in those actions and why that complicity is wrong. We get nowhere by returning to the point about the actions of the people in the slaughterhouse being wrong.
 
EmperorNero
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 06:54 pm
@New Mysterianism,
New Mysterianism;62070 wrote:
I acknowledge this and am conceding premises (4-8), redirecting focus to premises (1-3) in the OP.


I agree with (1-3).
 
New Mysterianism
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 06:55 pm
@zicogja421,
I'm quite alright with people not being vegetarian if causing harm to animals is morally wrong and the meat-industry is abolished (consequence of premises 1-3), since then humans would only continue to eat meat if the animal died due to natural causes, or if they continued to purchase meat from illicit meat-providers. The major thrust of the argument was to get across that harming animals is wrong, so even if we concede that simple meat-eating is okay, the real problem lies with killing animals for meat, which provides the meat to meat-eaters in the first place.
 
EmperorNero
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 06:57 pm
@zicogja421,
zicogja421;62073 wrote:
I was asking you to defend that point, not to concede it. I don't accept that point and nor does EmperorNero, I assume, or many other people, so you need to defend it.


Yup.

zicogja421;62073 wrote:
I concede the point that the actions of the people who kill animals in slaughterhouses are wrong (although I don't believe it). The point is, even if we grant this, how do we end up with your conclusion that we should be vegetarian?


Operating with consequentialist moral rules would make the killing of animals by someone else a consequence of me buying meat. But then the conclusion would only be valid to those, who accept that assumption.
Also there could be some objections to the not overriding part.

---------- Post added at 03:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 AM ----------

New Mysterianism;62076 wrote:
I'm quite alright with people not being vegetarian if causing harm to animals is morally wrong and the meat-industry is abolished (consequence of premises 1-3), since then humans would only continue to eat meat if the animal died due to natural causes, or if they continued to purchase meat from illicit meat-providers.


Yeah, but you would also have to live like Diogenes of Sinope. Or be a hypocrite.
Quote:

Living a life which was natural and not dependent upon the luxuries of civilization.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 01/28/2022 at 05:04:38