FAQ Memberlist Usergroups Register Log in
Profile Log in to check your private messages Search

Animal rights
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> General Discussion
Author Message
Lani



Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 37
Location: In the Library

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I eat meat mostly because of food allergies. I have oral allergy syndrome [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_allergy_syndrome ], and because of where I live and the things I'm allergic to, I cannot eat any form of fruit and most nuts. So... going vegetarian is not nutritionally a good idea for me.

I also do not, practically, agree that the slaughtering of animals for my benefit is morally wrong. I believe that there is a way to be ethical (keeping them clean, comfortable, feed them well, don't shove hormones down their throat, etc), but I find nothing morally objectionable with eating meat. Animal abuse is one thing-- but like I mentioned, not necessarily because of the animal itself, but because of the depraved individual who would behave that way. It's the abusive behavior of the individual I object to.
_________________
Wherever you go, there you are.

I now posses a Bachelor of Science in secondary education. I am excited.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Tinu.



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 3690
Location: The land of dreams

PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2009 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tam, you won't see me going vegan because most of my meat is locally grown - just like most of my veggies - and because my dad works for the USDA. Well, chicken and pork is, anyways (and I think we've a few fish farms hidden away somewhere). There's not a beef processing plant nearby, so I don't know about that, but then again, I don't eat beef much anyways - mostly just chicken (seeing as I don't eat pork). Chances are I passed the place where the chicken I eat came from everyday on the way to and from school. Boycotting the farms down here would do a lot more bad than good. The economy's shot, especially in my area, which is pretty rural and wasn't well off to begin with. We've had a bad couple of years with soybeans and corn (it's been too dry), and I'm not going to do something that will mess with people's livelihood and might have repercussions on my dad's job (though chances of that are slim as he's in soil and irrigation) or the jobs of people he knows.

I'm not saying that the farms down here are perfect, we've a friend who's in poultry science, but I at least know where what I'm eating is coming from. Small comfort, I guess, but have you ever tried to convince a redneck of something? They're GROWN stubborn (myself included).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nem



Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 2141
Location: England

PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tinalles wrote:
So it doesn't make sense to claim, as you appear to be doing, that the existence of selfish people negates the utilitarian approach to morality. The whole essence of the utilitarian approach is to deal with the existence of selfishness. It's impossible to eliminate it, but it's entirely possible to discourage selfish behavior and encourage altruism. So I'm not buying your argument.

Have I misunderstood or misinterpreted something?


It’s not unreasonable to strive for the greatest good for the greatest number, if you want to. The problem is that the utilitarian argument says that you should want to. It goes from the realm of a could to the realm of an ought. For empirical claims it’s clear what ought and should mean; they’re predictions, or descriptions, about how things line up with the world. But in the case of the utilitarian argument it goes:

If X [you value happiness in yourself]
then [you should]
Y [value it wherever it is.]

And, since we have a world that contradicts that, we have examples of X with ~Y in selfish people, their argument for why people should agree with them doesn’t hold.

If they just wanted to claim that people can be altruistic then that’s fine; but equally I can claim that people can be non-altruistic. Those claims can be components of propositional arguments but of themselves they're simply trivia.

Wren wrote:
Yes, but that is true of any individual. Therefore, you are not getting special treatment, you are getting treatment that the rest of society is getting. Assuming we're using the word 'special' to mean 'out of the ordinary,' that's not special treatment. That's just you not being treated any worse than others for an arbitrary reason--which would be out of the ordinary.

Forgive me if I'm just misunderstanding.



Theoretically anyone who fulfills all the same qualities as another person will be treated in exactly the same way as that other person, down to the interpersonal relationships they have and their displayed behaviour. In a sense we're all treated the same, in that had we lived each others lives we'd be treated the way they are treated.

Special really depends on your frame of reference and how often the thing occurs within that. By reference to the majority of other people within my society I'm not treated that poorly by way of rights, I don't get special treatment in that regard; by reference to the entirety of humanity those of us with such a full set of rights are treated pretty specially. By reference to how I treat myself as compared to how I treat others I also show myself a lot of special treatment.

In this case the frame of reference was shown at the start of, (Tam's, I think?) question, 'All humans.'
_________________
Never forget,
We stroll along the roof of hell
Gazing at flowers.
- Issa
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Tinalles
Site Admin


Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 1630
Location: Grand Forks

PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 4:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nem wrote:
For empirical claims itís clear what ought and should mean; theyíre predictions, or descriptions, about how things line up with the world.


See, that's where we're diverging. You're treating the "should" in the utilitarian as an empirical description of reality, and it's not, nor is it supposed to be.

Your example frames it as a logical construct:

Nem wrote:
If X [you value happiness in yourself]
then [you should]
Y [value it wherever it is.]


In which the "should" has predictive force. But that's not how it's meant. Moral arguments are based on setting up ideals to strive for. Ideals by their very nature are contrary to observed fact in many cases. So the "should" is not meant to predict an outcome, but to formally approve a particular outcome as preferable to other possible outcomes. Thus:

Tinalles wrote:
If X [you value happiness in yourself]
then [it would be a really good idea]
Y [to value it wherever it is.]


That's how moral arguments work: by envisioning an ideal outcome and advocating for it. If you restrict a moral argument to the basis of empirical observations of human behavior, it's no longer an argument about morals.
_________________
Keeper of The Remnant Minuon (cognomen Lucy, the Eaten One) and the Emissary Caeli
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Squeeself



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 258

PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 6:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Squee hasn't read the argument here but would like to point out that the wrong questions are being asked here, as is usually the case when "animal rights" comes up. Technically, no thing has inherent rights; even people's rights are invested by the morals of society, not by an inherent trait of humankind. (You may argue for God-given rights, but even then a person can't truly have any rights without the consent of society.) The only "rights" are the Law of Nature, which is, to survive, to reproduce. As the top of the food chain, humans have every "right" to use the rest of nature as they see fit. After all, natural selection has left us the strongest species, and our biological imperatives are hard to ignore.

Now, that said, the question should be: "Should we treat animals closer to how we treat others of our own kind, because we are thinking, moral beings with the ability to make value choices? How closely should we treat them to humans? Should we ignore our inherent natures in the process? At what point do we make a distinction between "human-like" and "vermin?" These questions are far more relevant questions, and far harder to answer.

Animals do NOT think as humans do, so applying equal morals may not be the best idea. For instance, if you treat a dog like a human, the dog will become quite confused and likely act out inappropriately, because a dog is trying to make sense of what is going on in the only framework it can: that of a pack structure, not a human society. Whereas, treating a dog as more subservient will actually make the dog far more happier; you've become the alpha male/female of the pack, and it knows how to behave appropriately at that point. At the end of the day, NO animals has the same thoughts or emotions of a human. One nearly has to have a pet to know how alien they think sometimes for something that is so familiar to us.

Now, I believe that one's treatment of animals says a LOT about someone's character, independent of their treatment of other human beings. It's obvious to everyone that someone who is cruel to animals has some serious amoral tendencies in his character. Acting out inhumanely against animals is only a substitute for actual people, and the line can be very thin indeed.

But we certainly can't go overboard and say that eating animals is unethical or morally wrong. Why then is eating another living thing, plants, different? The answer is simple, and somewhat revealing: the more humanlike something gets, the more we treat something as human. Remember the experiment with babies and american footballs? The babies would try to find where the football was "looking" even though it has no eyes. The same is true of all of us: the more things start looking humanlike, the more we tend to treat them as such. Animals, they have eyes and ears and mouths, so naturally we start have human emotions towards them. Plants? Immobile, notta feeling. Bugs? Bleh, look at those legs and weird eyes! CREEPY! Bacteria? Can't even see them, might as well apply liberal anti-bacterials. The line is both simultaneously clear and blurry when looked at in that light. Taking a moral high ground based on denying a biological need (eating certain foods) based on another biological system (primitive recognition of "human-like" qualities) is standing on shaking ground at best. Not saying that vegatarians/vegans are wrong, just that moral superiority for such is...frankly laughable.

Laws can and should be in place to enforce ethical standards towards animals just as for humans, since the two are so intermingled, but at all times, you can't forget at the end of the day: they're still animals, and should not be valued more highly than the more meaningful life of us, humankind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tamir



Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 1629
Location: Israel

PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Squee, I agree that animals should not be valued more highly than humans. Moreso, I think that humans should be valued higher than animals.

Squee wrote:
Taking a moral high ground based on denying a biological need (eating certain foods) based on another biological system (primitive recognition of "human-like" qualities) is standing on shaking ground at best. Not saying that vegatarians/vegans are wrong, just that moral superiority for such is...frankly laughable.

Squee wrote:
Squee hasn't read the argument here

Could you read it before calling it laughable please? =/ Regardless of the topic, I think that's a little unfair. Especially as several of your points have already been addressed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thespaceinvader



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 650
Location: Cardiff, UK

PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tam: why shouldn't humans be valued higher than animals? Given the choice, when driving, between running over a small group of rabbits (say, 10 of them) and swerving into the path of a family hatchback and killing yourself and all the occupants of said hatchback (total, 6) which would you choose? I know which I'd pick... but according to your logic, you'd be morally obliged to kill yourself and 5 other people to save 10 rabbits. Or have I read your logic incorrectly?
_________________
Keeper of Tristram's rings, and Felucca's very expressive ears.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tamir



Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 1629
Location: Israel

PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Uhm.... reread the sentence? I said that I think humans should be valued higher than animals. Like, I'd much rather kill the rabbits. =S
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thespaceinvader



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 650
Location: Cardiff, UK

PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, I misread that o_O

Sorry.

But the question (or one related to it) still stands. At what point do a certain number of animals have greater value than a certain number of humans? The question is particularly important when you consider animal research for life-threatening conditions.
_________________
Keeper of Tristram's rings, and Felucca's very expressive ears.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tamir



Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 1629
Location: Israel

PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Animal research is, like I said, a whole 'nother story... from what I've learned, it's not nearly as reliable or helpful as we treat it. Animal biology and human biology are incredibly different, and oftentimes the things we learn from experimenting on animals turn out to be totally different with humans. There are other, better ways to experiment, not the least of which is on human cells. It's often done, and it's much more reliable than animals.

However, that's sort of avoiding the question you asked.
Space wrote:
At what point do a certain number of animals have greater value than a certain number of humans?

I don't know.

I mean, I think that almost no number of animal lives equals a human life (unless it's like millions, in which case you're endangering the ecology and other humans? I dunno). But I'm not sure if that validates experimenting on animals, if only because other types of research may be more useful.

What I do know is that we don't need to be eating meat. So I can argue against what I'm reasonably sure is wrong, and leave the scientists alone for now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thespaceinvader



Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Posts: 650
Location: Cardiff, UK

PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

We don't need to be using computers, flying, driving, sending rockets to space... all of these are harmful to the environment and damaging the world. Will you argue against them, too?

For the most part, I agree with you about animal experimentation. It's less useful than most people think, and less useful than many scientists think. There are emerging technologies which drastically reduce the necessity of it. But there are some experiments which require whole organism systems to perform. And they will always require animals, unless you do them on people...

And when they are necessary and unavoidable, I fully support doing them.
_________________
Keeper of Tristram's rings, and Felucca's very expressive ears.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tamir



Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Posts: 1629
Location: Israel

PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And I tentatively support doing them. =P

Spacey wrote:
We don't need to be using computers, flying, driving, sending rockets to space... all of these are harmful to the environment and damaging the world. Will you argue against them, too?

No, but I will argue against the things that are causing them to be harmful to the environment (fossil fuels anyone?). There are good and bad ways to do these things, and I feel we tend to choose the cheaper, more damaging to the environment way. Green energy, recycling, biodegradable materials and no end of other technological solutions are available to help us keep our way of life without destroying the world too much.
Besides, these things are all helping to advance the human race. Eating meat doesn't really advance us any, as far as I can see. It's mostly just killing us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spellingmistax



Joined: 28 Jul 2009
Posts: 618
Location: Asa took this ^ I stole it ^_^

PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am enjoying reading every ones take on this particular topic, I hope that no one will mind if I give you my input.

First on the issue of eating meat. I try not to buy Ďmassí produced meat products. (battery farms for hens, pigs, all farmed fish for example) The reason for this is two fold. One is the health issues that have already been mentioned. I am wary of the various additives put into the feed, which are probably not doing us any favors. Farmed fish are probably best avoided. The second is that it is cruel to keep any living thing that is capable of a lot of mobility in such a small space that it can not even turn. I will however happily eat meat that is sourced from a free ranged farm. I see no problem eating meat from an animal that had a good life (for lack of a better term) I am aware Tamir, that this does not address your very good point that there is no longer any reason to eat meat except that we like the taste. I do not agree with animal cruelty but I (mostly) do not give them enough rights to avoid the dinner table. (For example: endangered animals you just donít eat.)

There is another angle that I do not think has been addressed yet and I would like to read your opinions on it. Animal rights and zoos/pets/captivity

I once read a pretty good argument by a zoo keeper about how it was not cruel to the animals in a zoo to keep them there. His argument was based around tigers but he brought up some very good points that can be applied almost universally. He said that an animal in a zoo gets regular meals, is safe from the predations of rivals, and, well other predators and is kept free from dieses that habitually affect there cousins in the wild. He mentions that those in the wild have large territories because they have to. Access to water, the necessity of a large hunting ground etc (he was more eloquent and detailed then I) At the end he demonstrates his point by comparing a tramp in a city having to endure the elements, roam across large areas of the city in search of food while suffering from numerous easily cured dieses to a man being kept in a warm house, being well fed and clothed, access to the internet and various other types of entertainment and having regular check ups by doctors. The only condition is that he can not leave the house. If offered a choice between the two what would be your choice?

However, there is in our local zoo a corner considered by me to be a very depressing one. This is because that corner is where they have their great eagle. The cage the bird is in is huge, but anyone can tell when they see it, it is too small. The bird was meant for wide, endless open spaces, for flying, all it does is sit on its perch. No matter how big the cage is it will always be too small, a cage cannot contain the sky. It is wrong for the bird to be there. (Never mind that it could no longer survive in the wild, it was never meant to be there in the first place)
*Sorry, while this example is not as articulate as the tiger one it is the best I can do for the other point of view.*

Is there a happy medium? Where an animal is looked after and fed, but also given plenty of freedom. Dogs for example. This just opens up more questions, when do we stop looking after them? Should they be kept alive for as long as possible? Constant visits to the vet, long drug treatments, surgery etc. Or should we just put them to sleep at the first sign, so as to avoid any pain? Where does the dogs rights lie? Should we judge it case by case? or give universal edicts? Is it ok to treat one animal very well because we know it and are emotionally attached to it, while ignoring the suffering of others because we are not?
I will never rate an animal above a human, never. But that does not mean that I will condone their mistreatment. I think that we should treat animals as animals. They are more then mere commodities but, they are after all, less then human.
_________________
"He gave you a life and you should cherish that treasure." - Benny

while Udina asked the usual inane civilian things that came about while under attack: "What's happening? Who is shooting at us? I'm squishy and not wearing armor and I'm a liability, get me to safety, etc.
dubbed Anthrax by Asa
Spellingmistax = mistax = ax = anthrax
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Wren



Joined: 22 Apr 2008
Posts: 797
Location: In my head, wondering how so many manage to step outside theirs.

PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2009 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Squeeself wrote:
The same is true of all of us: the more things start looking humanlike, the more we tend to treat them as such. Animals, they have eyes and ears and mouths, so naturally we start have human emotions towards them. Plants? Immobile, notta feeling. Bugs? Bleh, look at those legs and weird eyes! CREEPY! Bacteria? Can't even see them, might as well apply liberal anti-bacterials. The line is both simultaneously clear and blurry when looked at in that light. Taking a moral high ground based on denying a biological need (eating certain foods) based on another biological system (primitive recognition of "human-like" qualities) is standing on shaking ground at best.


I'm sorry if this comes off as a bit angry, this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine and I do not mean it to be mean.

Plants do not work the same way as animals. Cutting of a branch is just not the same as cutting off a finger or a hand. That fruit? It will fall off anyway. We are not killing the plant to eat it in all cases. I recognize there are times where the plant is killed, but this is not true for all. My favorite plant foods are apples, plums, oranges...to the best of my knowledge, picking those doesn't kill the plant.

For the same reason you don't treat a dog as a complete equal, you can't say eating a plant is the same as eating an animal, because they have different effects on the organism.

@spellingmistax
There is something to be said for the difference between domesticated and non-domesticated animals. You should be providing for a dog because you've taken on the mantle of Alpha. It is a job you have chosen.

And about the thing around the tiger...first off, I, personally, would choose tramp and try to work my way up (I am assuming I am alone for this choice, no family to care for or anything). THis would arguably be even easier in the wild, as you have to hunt and pass on your genes; you don't need a degree that costs money to make money, you need to go out and train. (If you're on your own or a runt from day one, that's another story.) Being inside all the time would drive me insane, and if I couldn't invite any friends over (as the tiger can't), I would probably get bored out of my skull. Second, the main thing in that choice is that it is a choice. If you just had someone stick you in that house, how would you feel?

Also: working my way up. There is a ceiling that I am constantly in contact with, in that house. What can I do? (I have a thing about feeling useless, though, so...*shrug*)

I dunno, that's just my take.

...Interestingly enough, I actually tend to support zoos that give ample space, food, water, so I guess I need to go think that over now...
_________________
Dubbed "Fish" by Asa. Wren->Fish
~Keeper of Willow's Jedi cloak and Tristram's smirk.~

GENERATION 19: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tenshi



Joined: 18 Apr 2008
Posts: 2594
Location: Star Stuff

PostPosted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would like to jump into this argument with a few thoughts. First of all, let me go on to agree with the notion that when we take on the mantle of caretaker (or Alpha, or whatnot) that we have assumed a role of companion and... well, caregiver for an animal. It is this role we have volunteered ourselves for that we should then use to bring the animal as much happiness, love, security, and joy as we can to their life. That is what a companion does.

Animal testing? Depends on the test. Valuing human life over animal life, I would rather see animals used in tests that are very likely to have high mortality rates. Would I want this done to my family pet? Of course not. Again, I have taken on role of companion and caregiver. Protector, if you will.

The eating meat argument: I prefer (though do not exclusively eat) meat that I have killed myself. Hunting and fishing constitute a little over 50% of the meat I eat, and I can guarantee a painless kill while hunting. The concussive force of the projectile is enough to knock the target unconscious, which I have seen dozens of times. Most importantly, they do not suffer unduly if I can avoid it. As for fishing... that's a bit trickier, admittedly, but I also quickly end their pain and refuse to throw back fish that are injured beyond continued life. I have made a choice, to value my life and needs over theirs. The least I can do with that choice is to respect that their lives existed, and they were living creatures. I can do them a service and grant them as painless and quick an end as I can, that's my opinion.

Finally, let me discuss plants and whether they feel "pain" or not. Perhaps due to a nervous system that has never worked quite right, or perhaps because I spend far more time internally than I do externally, my own nerves for "pain" seem to be a bit off. I feel pressure, tension, textile sensation, and temperature. All these things combine to produce a sense of urgent reflex (like taking my hand off a hot stove), or a sharp pressure combined with a surge of adrenaline (animal bites, knife stabs, so on). Neither of these things I would consider "pain", only reflexive responses to stimuli. Ignoring the constant headaches I get for now, let's continue about "pain" as a response to stimuli.

According to Merriam-Webster, "Pain" is..
2 a: usu. localized physical suffering associated with bodily disorder (as a disease or an injury) ; also : a basic bodily sensation induced by a noxious stimulus, received by naked nerve endings, characterized by physical discomfort (as pricking, throbbing, or aching), and typically leading to evasive action

By this same definition of pain, I conclude that many plants feel these same things when they are harvested. Those that we eat the fruits of, obviously, do not feel any more pain than they normally would when the fruits fall naturally. However, plants which are comprised mainly of the edible portions? Almost all vegetables fall into this category, for instance.

The plant DOES have a nervous system. Not in the same fashion as the CNR (Central Nervous System) of "higher organisms" like mammals, but a nervous system all the same. Link (Let me know if that's not very conclusive, I haven't actually read the ENTIRE thing and I don't want to fish out my textbooks before bed..)

Since "pain" is defined as the nervous system's response to external stimuli that damages nervous tissue, I can only assume that plants feel pain. There are many, many studies that seek to understand the plants' response to damage (I'll provide links below). The interesting things to read about? Plants don't respond to mechanical damage the same as natural herbivore damage[5]. Plants respond to different types of damage in different ways[1,3,4]. Finally, plants respond to deficits in water, though this is hardly news to anyone who's grown them in a garden[2].

What I'm aiming at here, is I dislike the notion that simply because it's far more difficult to observe a plant suffering that it does not suffer. It is a living object, incapable of communicating with humans in a manner that we perceive as such. In the same way that we believe animals are "lesser intelligences" because they do not communicate with us or have different instincts, we apply this prejudice to plants and deem them completely without intelligence. Living matter with no "life" to them, if you will. This notion is tenuous at best in my opinion, believing that ONLY a "soul" permits one to have the ability to register things like pain, fear, hope, desperation, and finally... resignation to the idea of death.

I apologize if I sound abrasive, but... it does bother me, it bothers me a great deal. I have looked into "lesser animals" and seen understanding, cunning intelligence. I have stared into the endless depths of a far older and wiser "animal" than I, and felt instantly humbled. I have watched the way a plant, year after year, behaves as it grows and populates around it. The touch of a gardener's hand here, the brush of a metal blade there...and the plant changes itself. It is alive, there is no question to me. As with all living things, it has a system for perceiving it's environment. That system, that understanding of things that happen to it, allow it to suffer. The problem is, plants have no central processing center. There's not an easy way to end it quickly, as such. Assuming that lack of response ever was a quick end to begin with..

[1]
Different responses to levels of damage

[2]
Plants respond to water deficit

[3](PDF)
More responses to different types of damage

[4]
Specific damage required for response

[5]
Mechanical damage does not replicate actual herbivore damage

Edit: I should clarify in summary, I think, my overall position. I believe that all organisms that are alive and contain some measurable way to perceive their environment are as capable of pain as I, myself, am. I do not know, nor will I ever truly know, to what extent this perception translates into fear, suffering, and so on. All that I can do, in all the things I do, is to provide as best I can for those things that I have domain over, and to cultivate or harvest that which I consume in as compassionate a manner as I can. To that end, I do a great deal of gardening and hunting when I can, to ensure the conditions of my meal.

[Modly Edit: Please take care when posting links, as if they are too long, they break forum tabling and make it hard to read]
_________________
. Dubbed "Usagi" by AsA .
Keeper of the Siderean Swords

"If by chance some day you're not feeling well, and you should remember some silly thing I've said or done, and it brings back a smile to your face or a chuckle to your heart, then my purpose as your clown has been fulfilled."
Red Skelton
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



Elveron phpBB theme/template by Ulf Frisk and Michael Schaeffer
Copyright © Ulf Frisk, Michael Schaeffer 2004


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group