Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Question About Animal Cruelty

Rate this topic


m0zart
 Share

Recommended Posts

This thread is very ironic, since I just watched Grizzly Man.
I'll admit that when I first heard about the Grizzly Man and his grilfriend being eaten by a bear, I had to laugh. How fitting.

I wonder what would have happened to the Grizzly Man if he had been released in downtown Detroit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But I would hardly say that there exists a fundamental hostility between ourselves and other forms of life. What would happen to us if all other forms of life besides ourselves were to suddenly cease to exist?

Hostility doesn’t have to mean that we should want them all gone; but we would be better off with them all enslaved, subjugated, and controlled to serve our ends. I.E. not permitted to survive as animal qua animal: on their terms and by their means.

Rather than saying that there exists hostility between ourselves and other forms of life, I think a better approach would be to say that, since the animal kingdom is ruled by brute force, the use of brute force is the only means at our disposal of dealing with it.

I think it prudent to be hostile toward that which I have no other means at my disposal to deal with than brute force. I think wild life can be many things: fascinating to study qua biological entity, to observe qua unique movements and behaviors. Or even to acknowledge qua “other thing trying to survive, as I am.” But my acknowledgement of this fact is that of the steely-eyed hunter, who respects his enemy from a distance. The best that creatures are going to get from me is that stone-faced nod: ever so slight, and never breaking eye contact.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

The point is that qua being that must survive, the other organisms have survival requirements that are incompatible with my own. No matter what other lens or perspective that wild animals can be viewed through, I will not forget that fact. Perhaps in this age of zoos and parks, some think it okay to forget what animals, fundamentally, are; to consider them only from those other angles.

I, personally, won’t do that. I don’t know what exactly your position is on this, Dismuke. Perhaps like myself, you will only consider those other aspects of animals in their proper place. In our civilized society, where people are not routinely attacked by animals, I suppose it is much safer to consider that aspect of animals second or third, rather than first.

Of course, those who consider it not at all, end up like grizzly man: eaten by bears. (or as vicious little witch-doctors, urging the rest of us to live out their suicidal environmentalist fantasies…)

Anyway, to sum up, I fully consider all those other aspects of animals, right down to aspects such as being cute or fuzzy, when the situation calls for it. I just try never to forget that one, very important, aspect.

Oh, one thing to add: I know it was meant as satire, but I really identified with what Troy Mcclure from the Simpsons had to say on this subject:

"Don't kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but we would be better off with them all enslaved, subjugated, and controlled to serve our ends. I.E. not permitted to survive as animal qua animal: on their terms and by their means.

Whoever "we" may be, this sounds much further than I'm willing to go until there is a specific need to do that with all animals (something I do not see at this point). I have no issue with animals living in the wild away from where I want to live. I have no problem with people who want to live in the woods with wild critters running around them, assuming they assume the full consequences and liability for their choice. There are times I like to go out into wild areas and I enjoy seeing critters running around doing critter stuff. I used to enjoy hunting deer for their meat, something you can't buy in stores where I live.

I see certain specific instances when subjugating and controlling them is purposeful and morally proper, but not in the case of ALL animals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoever "we" may be, this sounds much further than I'm willing to go until there is a specific need to do that with all animals (something I do not see at this point). I have no issue with animals living in the wild away from where I want to live.

I meant that far more generally than I think you're taking it. I don't mean that you, specifically, could or should care whether animals up in the Yukon are wild or controlled. I mean that humans benefit from controlling/subjugating animals and within our spaces this must be the case, or else they are a threat or hinderence to us. Yes, right now there are plenty of spaces that we simply aren't using, and thus have no need or benefit from having the animals in those spaces be one way or the other.

What I meant was that humans survive by reshaping our environment to suit our needs; by making the wild into the tamed. Eventually, we could and should tame all that is wild, even if that means fencing it off and charging admission to let people look at the "wild." (I consider that a form of control, since it is fenced off)

I mean unless we invent some new way to live, such as on self-sustaining space stations, that makes us much more rich and prosperous than filling the spaces of the earth. In that case, then there would be no need to subjugate the creatures of the earth, as we will have moved on to bigger and better things.

I did not mean to say that we need to drop the other things we are doing in order to go put leashes on all of the deer in Yosemite. Sorry if I made it sound like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hostility doesn’t have to mean that we should want them all gone; but we would be better off with them all enslaved, subjugated, and controlled to serve our ends. I.E. not permitted to survive as animal qua animal: on their terms and by their means.

Inspector, I think the biggest problem between us on this is not so much our overall positions so much as my objection to the terminology you are using.

I find "hostility" to be a strange mindset or emotion to display towards natural phenomenon. For example, if a tornado or lava from a volcanic eruption were heading towards you, would you feel "hostility" towards it? What would be the point? Wouldn't you instead just run like hell or find a way to seek cover?

True, animals are alive and possess consciousness which is not the case with things like volcanoes and the weather. Nevertheless, all are examples of natural phenomena. Animals, like thunderstorms, have a certain nature and, under certain circumstances, can inconvenience and/or endanger human life. Under other circumstances, animals, like thunderstorms, can also be very beneficial for human life. To the degree that thunderstorms inconvenience us or pose some sort of threat, there are certain steps we can take to minimize our exposure to them and the damage they can cause. The same is true with animals - only with animals, we are usually in a position to exercise a greater amount of control over the situation than we can the weather.

You say that we would be better off with all animals "enslaved" and "subjugated." I am afraid that such terminology is not applicable. An animal may be caged or held in captivity - but it cannot be "enslaved." Only human beings can be enslaved. Likewise, an animal may be tamed or domesticated - but it can never be "subjugated." Only human beings can be subjugated.

In an odd sort of way, your position is to proudly plead "guilty" to the accusations that the animal rights crowd throws at its opponents - accusations which are based on a false premise that anthropomorphizes animals into having the rights which would make it possible for us to enslave and subjugate them. If animals do not have rights, they cannot be enslaved or subjugated.

I think it prudent to be hostile toward that which I have no other means at my disposal to deal with than brute force.
Most people who engage in anthropomorphism do so to in order to make animals out to be very cute and adorable rational beings. By contrast, the implicit anthropomorphism in your terminology seems to equate animals with the very worst sort of human beings - criminals who, having abandoned reason, deal with others by force and which can only be dealt with by force. It almost seems that you are suggesting that, because animals do not possess a rational faculty, they should be regarded as belonging in the same category as human beings who have renounced their rational faculty and, are, as a result, evil.

The similarity, of course, between a criminal and an animal is that one's only means of dealing with either is by force. But that is where the similarity ends. The nature of our relationship with the animal kingdom is very different than that of civilized people with criminals.

I think wild life can be many things: fascinating to study qua biological entity, to observe qua unique movements and behaviors. Or even to acknowledge qua “other thing trying to survive, as I am.” But my acknowledgment of this fact is that of the steely-eyed hunter, who respects his enemy from a distance.

First off, the vast majority of animal species in this world have only limited interaction with humans in either a positive or a negative way. Most of the simply adapt and co-exist with our activities - for example, my neighborhood has been here since the 1920s and I have lots of squirrels in my back yard and sometimes I encounter a possum, raccoon or a snake. Since they cause me no harm, I don't give them much thought one way or another beyond the fact that they are kind of fun to observe. I certainly do not regard them as enemies or feel hostility towards them. Nor do I feel any need to exert any sort of control over them. So long as they do not pose any sort of nuisance or threat, why should I? I have enough other things going on to keep me busy as it is.

Furthermore, some animals are extremely beneficial. They provide us with sources of food, clothing, menial labor and even companionship. The last thing I would feel towards such animals is hostility. Their existence and the fact that we can use them to our benefit is a positive. The animals we hunt might properly regard us as their enemy - but I fail to see why the reverse should be always be true.

Other animals do represent a potential nuisance and/or danger. Even here I don't think the term "enemy" is appropriate - that term primarily applies towards other people. Such animals are properly regarded a pests and or threats to one's life and safety. In those cases, one simply does whatever is necessary to either repel or get rid of such animals. Perhaps one puts up a scarecrow. Perhaps one hunts down and kills the dangerous animal. But, even here, I don't think hostility is the correct feeling towards such animals. Unlike criminals who pose a similar threat of danger or nuisance, such animals are "innocent" in that it is simply not possible for them to behave otherwise. The reason we feel hostility, disgust and contempt towards criminals is because they are capable of behaving differently and choose not to. A dangerous animal is not. Therefore, the proper attitude for us to have towards it is exactly the same that we have towards any other potentially dangerous natural phenomena - it is moral, proper and necessary for us to do whatever we need to do to minimize and/or eliminate the danger so that we can remain alive and pursue the values which give our lives meaning.

As far as non-threatening animals are concerned, they too are natural phenomena and that is the proper way to regard them. Just as it is proper for us to use inanimate things in nature such as rocks, rivers, minerals etc. in ways which enhance our lives, it is also proper for us to use animals for the exact same purpose. And if an animal species neither represents a potential threat or a potential benefit to our lives - well, it just simply exists in the same way that the Rocky Mountains simply exist.

The best that creatures are going to get from me is that stone-faced nod: ever so slight, and never breaking eye contact.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Somehow, I don't think I would be getting much sleep if I accorded such treatment towards my cats! They would be scratching on my bedroom door all night and making lots of noise to remind me that I forgot to rub their heads and make a fuss over them.

The point is that qua being that must survive, the other organisms have survival requirements that are incompatible with my own.

Well, I spend quite a bit of money and some amount of hassle to ensure the survival requirements of three cats. And since I have never been one for sacrifice, I apparently regard their survival requirements as being compatible with my own. And I know that my survival requirements are certainly compatible with theirs: without me, who would make a fuss over them and give them high-priced premium cat food specifically designed for cats who have it so good that they are overweight?

I, personally, won’t do that. I don’t know what exactly your position is on this, Dismuke. Perhaps like myself, you will only consider those other aspects of animals in their proper place. In our civilized society, where people are not routinely attacked by animals, I suppose it is much safer to consider that aspect of animals second or third, rather than first.

My position is to regard animals the same way that I do other natural phenomena. In some contexts, animals represent a potential benefit to my life and, in those cases and to that degree, I am concerned about the requirements of their survival. Some animals have only an indirect benefit on my life. For example, bats. Bats serve no human purpose that I am aware of. However, they are completely harmless to humans (unless they become rabid, which is quite rare) and consume large quantities of mosquitoes which are potentially harmful to humans. For that reason, I am very happy that Fort Worth is home to a very large bat population. In other contexts, animals represent a nuisance or danger to my life in which case I seek to either neutralize or eliminate the animal. In the vast majority of instances, animals represent neither a benefit nor a threat to my life. They are simply there. If someone can figure out a way to exploit them to human benefit, wonderful. If not, then so long as they don't harm me, why should I give much thought to them at all?

Edited by Dismuke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used that terminology deliberately, as an answer and a contrast to the animal rights, or as is the case in this example, the animal sympathy mindset.

Absolutely, they were intended as the proud plea of "guilty," I'm glad you picked up on that. I agree that taken literally, the terms don't make sense and animals cannot be "enslaved," "subjugated," or "murdered" any more than rocks or dirt can be. You did very well to identify the weapon used by the animal rights crowd: anthropomorphization. It's a dirty and shabby form of context-switching; personally I hate the term "mother nature" the most.

The similarity, of course, between a criminal and an animal is that one's only means of dealing with either is by force. But that is where the similarity ends. The nature of our relationship with the animal kingdom is very different than that of civilized people with criminals.

I'd be curious to know why you think that the relationship is different. I did previously equate bears with terrorists, so I very much intended to draw that similarity.

While I know that animals do not have the option to choose to be otherwise, I do not see why that changes the way that we deal with them... or as a result, feel about them. If there is something out there that means to kill and eat you, what does it matter from your perspective whether it is a bear or a mad cannibal (aside from the caliber of bullet to use)? Either way, it is a threat to your values and since you (I feel safe to presume) take your values very seriously, it should call forth a certain emotional reaction.

Yes, I am morally disgusted by a criminal, and not by an animal. As you say, a moral outrage against them would be improper. But when something threatens my values, I hate it, on that basis and to that extent.

And, of course, only to that extent. As I have said before, I do not mean to imply that we go out and put leashes on all the deer in Yellowstone. When I speak in terms of all animals, I mean to comment on their essential nature and to speak of eventualities. I hope that much is clear now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be curious to know why you think that the relationship is different. I did previously equate bears with terrorists, so I very much intended to draw that similarity.

To borrow from the Objectivist vocabulary, I would say the difference is that of the metaphysical verses the man made.

A bear, or any other animal, merely acts according to its nature. If its nature is such that it becomes a pest or a danger to the requirements of human life then we simply deal with it accordingly. If we can exploit it to our advantage in some way, then we can and should do so. In that sense, our attitude towards the animal is no different than our attitude towards a river. If a river floods too often or exists in a spot which is inconvenient, then we dam the river or move its channel to a location which better serves our purpose.

A terrorist is much worse and far more dangerous than a bear or any other animal because he has at his disposal something the animals do not have: a rational faculty. Sure, terrorists are irrational. But it is entirely possible to direct one's rational faculty towards the achievement of highly irrational goals. For example, consider the 9-11 hijackers. Their actions were highly irrational and evil. But it also required a great deal of planning and logistics on the part of the people who dreamed it up and saw it through to completion.

A criminal is a person who evades the difference between human beings and animals and treats human beings as though they were animals - and in doing so, they behave as though they, too, are animals. People who choose to reduce themselves to this level do deserve our hatred, contempt and disgust.

While I know that animals do not have the option to choose to be otherwise, I do not see why that changes the way that we deal with them... or as a result, feel about them. If there is something out there that means to kill and eat you, what does it matter from your perspective whether it is a bear or a mad cannibal (aside from the caliber of bullet to use)? Either way, it is a threat to your values and since you (I feel safe to presume) take your values very seriously, it should call forth a certain emotional reaction.

But I would have a very different emotional reaction if my life was in danger by a wild animal than I would if it was endangered by a terrorist. I would certain feel fear and horror in both situations and, if necessary, I would kill in order to save myself. But I wouldn't feel contempt or anger at the animal. It doesn't know any better. The terrorist does.

Yes, I am morally disgusted by a criminal, and not by an animal. As you say, a moral outrage against them would be improper. But when something threatens my values, I hate it, on that basis and to that extent.

If you want to say that you "hate" a bear or some other animal in the same sense that you "hate" the thunderstorm that ruined the cool picnic party you had worked hard to plan or "hate" the tornado that blew your house away - well, I don't have a problem with that. But to equate your "hatred" of the tornado or of the termites that destroyed your beloved one-of-a-kind house with the same hatred you feel towards the government officials to confiscated it through eminent domain and demolished it to make way for a parking lot for a nearby government office building, that is what I take exception to.

Edited by Dismuke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A terrorist is much worse and far more dangerous than a bear or any other animal because he has at his disposal something the animals do not have: a rational faculty.

I can certainly appreciate that terrorists are more dangerous than bears.

But I would have a very different emotional reaction if my life was in danger by a wild animal than I would if it was endangered by a terrorist.
I’m not so sure about that. As I said, if something threatens my life, then it gets hated on that premise. I’d say my hatred on that basis would be so profound that any question of whether the outrage was moral or not would be kind of… well, an afterthought. I’m not saying that I disagree that terrorists deserve moral outrage and bears do not… I’m just saying that I’d already be just about as outraged as I could get.

If you want to say that you "hate" a bear or some other animal in the same sense that you "hate" the thunderstorm that ruined the cool picnic party you had worked hard to plan or "hate" the tornado that blew your house away - well, I don't have a problem with that.

Yes, although I can kill a bear and not a tornado. So I think there’s a different emotion involved for a tornado, since there is nothing at all to be done about it. The emotion would be more that of fear and despair.

But to equate your "hatred" of the …termites …with the same hatred you feel towards the government officials …, that is what I take exception to.

I understand the distinction, and the difference in kind of hatred for those two things, but the loss of value to me is the same in either case, so I doubt the intensity of the hatred would be that different. Does that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

[Merged with earlier thread - softwareNerd]

I've been mulling this over in my mind since I had a discussion on this subject earlier today. My understanding of this is that obligations of this matter (in morality) are conditional, in the sense that if you want to lead a succesful life, you should act in a rationally selfish way, for example.

The thing I am not sure about is where to properly draw the line between this type of obligation and the following: If I, for example, value the life of my fellow human beings a certain amount and I see someone beating up another person, am I obligated to act to keep that value by intervening? (assuming that the situation would not put your life in grave danger, I know that it would be obviously wrong to do it in a suicidal manner)

And in a more general sense, would you consider someone who did not act in those circumstances morally reprehensible in any way?

And a related question: Like most people in the discussion about animal cruelty, I would agree that it is immoral to torture animals for no reason. But should you step in when you see someone torturing an animal before your eyes, or is it something that is completely optional?

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I am not sure about is where to properly draw the line between this type of obligation and the following: If I, for example, value the life of my fellow human beings a certain amount and I see someone beating up another person, am I obligated to act to keep that value by intervening?
On the assumption that the beater is indeed violating the rights of the beatee, then yes.
And in a more general sense, would you consider someone who did not act in those circumstances morally reprehensible in any way?
Abstractly, yes, but I have to be assuming a lot (for example, I would need to be certain that the other person could successfully intervene, that this wasn't some kind of staged event, and so on.
But should you step in when you see someone torturing an animal before your eyes, or is it something that is completely optional?
Whose animal is it? If I saw someone torturing my neighbor's dog, I would intervene; if I saw my neighbor torturing his dog, I would be disgusted and would no longer have anything to do with my neighbor, but I would not initiate force against him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the animal cruelty thread, one would be obligated (so to speak) to not intervene when someone is torturing their animal.
If I saw someone torturing my neighbor's dog, I would intervene; if I saw my neighbor torturing his dog, I would be disgusted and would no longer have anything to do with my neighbor, but I would not initiate force against him.

Really? Where is that thread at, I did a search but either the search is not working or I'm am doing something wrong. If you saw someone take their cat and put it in a cage and set it on fire you'd do nothing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I am not sure about is where to properly draw the line between this type of obligation and the following: If I, for example, value the life of my fellow human beings a certain amount and I see someone beating up another person, am I obligated to act to keep that value by intervening?

Beating up how? Intervene how? Concrete questions like this are completely context-dependant. If I saw a woman whacking her husband about the head and shoulders with a newspaper, I would rightly conclude that it was none of my business. If I saw the man taking a baseball bat to his wife's unprotected head, that's another matter; I might call the cops.

There's no one-size-fits-all answer to a broad hypothetical that subsumes millions of extremely different concretes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't really know. I might shoot the bastard, knowing that it was wrong to do so. I try to live a morally principled life, but I don't claim to be infallible.

I was curious where the thread was, I had wanted to see where that conversation went.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, what a thread, it went all over the place. I'm glad to see that most agreed that unnecessary cruelty is immoral. If I saw someone setting their cat on fire or cutting up their dog, I'd haul off and hit em then take what lumps I had coming from the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think an important point that was discussed here earlier is that although many of us would greatly dislike someone hurting animals like that, it is a far greater monstrosity to equate the life of an (innocent) animal with that of an (innocent) human being, and treat them equally. (this is not directed towards the last few posts, as you have not said as much).

I cannot understand how someone can value the life on an animal they do not know over the life of a human being they do now know, and I don't think someone who thinks such can claim a love of (human) life.

Of course, the situation becomes wholly different when the person in question is enormously evil, and the animal in question is of great value to you, but that is a whole different ballpark :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot understand how someone can value the life on an animal they do not know over the life of a human being they do now know, and I don't think someone who thinks such can claim a love of (human) life.

Of course, the situation becomes wholly different when the person in question is enormously evil, and the animal in question is of great value to you, but that is a whole different ballpark :thumbsup:

This should have read:

I cannot understand how someone can value the life on an animal they do not know over the life of a human being they do not know, and I don't think someone who thinks such can claim a love of (human) life.

I did not say (in the first paragraph) that preventing an act of animal cruelty is equating an animal's life with a human's life. I only said that if one gave an animal's life the same value (in general) as a human's life that it would be wrong, in the sense that this would NOT be a good solution to animal cruelty. I think the sentence is clear enough as it stands...

Sorry for the type, though, in the later part :P

Edited by Maarten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as I see it, which I'm not sure was brought up, a person that tortures an animal for the sole purpose of their own personal pleasure is leading a hedonistic lifestyle and are immoral themselves. I'd love for someone to give a valid rational justification for torturing an animal other than they like to do it. I'd have no trouble hitting them. Who said we have to love or even like other people, just respect their rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have no trouble hitting them. Who said we have to love or even like other people, just respect their rights.

Um, they do have the right to not be hit, you know. Even if they are engaging in preversion of the first order, they are not violating any rights. Not that the cops who arrest you for it wouldn't buy you a drink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, they do have the right to not be hit, you know. Even if they are engaging in preversion of the first order, they are not violating any rights. Not that the cops who arrest you for it wouldn't buy you a drink.

That's why I said

then take what lumps I had coming from the law
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
If I saw someone torturing my neighbor's dog, I would intervene; if I saw my neighbor torturing his dog, I would be disgusted and would no longer have anything to do with my neighbor, but I would not initiate force against him.

So is it irrational to believe that animals have some basic rights, such as the right not to not be tortured solely for hedonistic pleasure, but that any animal's rights can get easily trumped by a person capable of exerting sophisticated moral judgement's rights if they conflict?

This premise, especially since it is a little vague, seems like it would lead to a contradiction.

Personally, I would encourage a law, even in an ideal capitalistic society, that prohibits someone from torturing domesticated animals with complex central nervous systems solely for sadistic pleasure. This includes individuals who legally acquire animals that would otherwise be put to sleep. Of course, unless if animals have some basic rights, such a law implies that governments have some authority to regulate immoral behavior. To my understanding, Objectivism states that governments have no such authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I would encourage a law, even in an ideal capitalistic society, that prohibits someone from torturing domesticated animals with complex central nervous systems solely for sadistic pleasure. This includes individuals who legally acquire animals that would otherwise be put to sleep. Of course, unless if animals have some basic rights, such a law implies that governments have some authority to regulate immoral behavior. To my understanding, Objectivism states that governments have no such authority.

You have to answer the question, what gives rise to a being having rights. Complex central nervous systems is not the answer. As was suggested earlier in this thread, read "Man's Rights" in The Virtue of Selfishness for information on what does give rise to rights. Also a seach for rights or man's rights should reveal numerous threads of discussion on this.

And yes, Objectivism states that legislating morality is not a proper function of government. For instance, the government should not be telling people that they can't engage in free trade on Sunday's ("blue laws"), the government shouldn't be telling two consenting adults that they can't have particular types of sex, etc. Protecting individual rights is the essential and proper function of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is it irrational to believe that animals have some basic rights, such as the right not to not be tortured solely for hedonistic pleasure, but that any animal's rights can get easily trumped by a person capable of exerting sophisticated moral judgement's rights if they conflict?
That's hard for me to say. It might just be ignorant, rather than irrational. I'd need to spend more time figuring out what you know about man vs. animal and what you understand about rights.

You can certainly encourage people not to torture kittens. I agree that torturing kittens is sick and perverted, and unquestionably immoral, but the extent of government involvement in issues of immorality is limited to the protection of man's rights. I don't have the right to torture my neighbor's kitten, because it is not my property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...