First of all, pigs and cows are not my brothers.

Second of all, omnivore means eating both.. noone ever argued that humans are straight carnivores but he used the fact that humans have some herbivore traits and lack some traits held by pure carnivores that humans arent omnivores.

Thirdly, I see no justification for abandoning human interest for animal interest where the two collide. Because, pigs are in fact not our brothers. This guy talks like self interest is a bad thing. Its really just a faux moralism. Perhaps he does not have the moral courage to address real problems plaguing humans, or maybe he just hates his fellow man and so spends his life advocating nonhuman interests.

Now, dont get me wrong. If someone wants to not eat meat or etc, then by all means. Its your choice what you do, and I have no quarrel with people who live the way they see fit. I have some RL vegan friends.

But people like this, who are willing to perform violence on their fellow man and use force to further his philosophy of anti-humanism just make me sick to me stomach. I have no sympathy for people like this, who would crush the livliehoods of fellow men to satisfy his own desire for self righteousness, especially for such incomprehensible reasons.

I could go on at length, but basically I consider people like this and PETA types in general to simply be self-rationalizing tin-can faux moralist positions for their own self-aggrandizement.

This guy harms humans to "help" animals. This guy argues for pure altruism, treating animals as greater than humans. He uses force to do it. I consider this completely immoral. Sure, causing pain for the sake of causing pain is contemptible - but using animals to better your life and the life of your family, not so much.

See, he has never said outside of "animals are our brothers" why it should be immoral. I totally get what he is saying, and I get that he is trying to attach an "ism" to it - the problem is he has supplied no justification for doing so. Speciesism should be put on the level of Nazism why? Because he said so?

His arguments are terrible. For example, put a kid in a crib with an rabbit and an apple? Kids that age will try to put anything in their mouth. Also, the rabbit will bite the kid - so its not advisable to actually try the experiment.Or "dont use tools, dont use fire". And " Humans learn behavior". Well of course we do in both cases - our faculty of reason is what sets us apart. This guy is basically saying " throw away what makes you human, and then you will find humans eat plants". This is so absurd for making a moral argument regarding animals on so many levels it would take 15 pages minimum to begin to explore all the angles of absurdity.

Its not even about being inferior necessarily, theres also the sentience aspect. If a pig wrote me a letter asking not to be eaten, I would consider it.

Again, another fail argument - where he was talking about how the diseases borne by plants come from shit. Well, many do. But he was absolutely lying when he implied that the shit in question came exclusively from industrialized farming. This guy knows dick all about agriculture. Of course if he was educated on how the world actually works, he wouldnt hold these extremist views and expect other humans to follow him on pain of incurring his "righteous wrath".

Whats next for this guy, kill all the humans so animals have their "territory" back? Thats how a lot of PETA people think anyway. These types of people who advocate force to implement their agendas are not good people, and they are not moral people, and they have no case to make that they are standing up for a good cause.

This guy even bashed Descartes, who is considered one of the greatest thinkers of all time - by using irrational arguments, unfounded assertions, straw men and red herring comments.

Also, the argument about how much animals eat and it is supposedly inefficient is a simplistic argument, that does not cover a great many cases - and in any case is completely irrelevant to the morality issue of eating animals and using animals. "Global Warming" and the danger it does or does not pose, and causes thereof are a different topic altogether and should be treated separately or the thread will go hopelessly off topic.

Lastly, he fails to make a case for why the well being of animals should be more important than the well being of humans. To put it in context, think of the well being of your own children or family. Would you seriously deny your children a better life due to the feelings of a cow or pig?

Being a vegan and living your life how you see fit is all good and well but this crap is just plain nuts.

I wonder if he smells his own farts?

Here is what I say to people when they say "Meat is murder, and you are a heathen for killing something that was a living animal." Hey dumbie, so what is your definition of "living"? Is not a plant that has cellular structure, and has a life cycle of birth, substance, growth, reproduction, and death, not a living thing as well? Does not a plant eat using the suns energy and convert that energy via photosynthesis into life giving "food" which allows it to continue through it's life cycle. How do you know that the piece of lettuce or radish you are eating right now didn't scream in agony as it was pulled from the ground and had its life cycle ended, mush like the cow that goes to the slaughter house...

“How Do You Vegans Justify Killing Plants When They’re Living Things, Too?”

As I’ve always stated around here, I’m up for spirited debate, and I don’t mind anyone challenging my life philosophies. This is how we all continue to evolve. Occasionally, however, these “challenges” can get pretty ridiculous… almost as if the “challenger” is grasping for ANY kind of clever, unassailable theory that will somehow render an entire way of living as invalid.

In the world of Witty But Asinine Retorts to Veganism, there are a few that, unfortunately, will not go away. Heading this list would have to be the truly pathetic, “But Hitler was a vegetarian, so what does that say about your movement?” (By the way, Hitler was a far fucking cry from being veggie, as his diet included steady rations of Bavarian sausage, liver dumplings, ham, and squab. The vegetarian myth was just another calculated part of his manufactured public image as a “revolutionary ascetic.”)

A close second would probably be the the good ol’ plants-are-living-things-too retort, which usually unfolds something like this: “You talk about having a diet and lifestyle where you avoid killing any living thing. But what about plants? Plants are living things and you kill them.”

I hadn’t actually heard this one in a while… until its bell was sounded in a New York Times article from last week entitled, “Sorry, Vegans: Brussels Sprouts Like to Live, Too.” Predictably, the author seemed to be making a case about the futility of being vegan, since we were doomed to eat plants, and plants want to live as much as any animal does. In other words, if we’re all destined to be murderers anyway, what difference does it make who or what we’re murdering, be it plant or animal?

Of course, in the article’s first paragraph, the author also admits to her own ethical quandaries and resultant dietary inconsistencies (omitting pork and “mammalian” meat, but not birds, fish or dairy). Whatever. I only bring up this point because these kind of lame-ass arguments are usually presented as much for the benefit of the questioner (in rationalizing their choices), as they are for those being asked the question.

Are Plants Living Things?

Okay, to be fair, let me draw a line in the sand on the subject. I think the concept of plants as living things is legitimate and fascinating. Yes, of course they’re living things. In fact, from the perspective of quantum physics, there is nothing in our three-dimensional world of matter that is not “living” on some level, including water, stones and computer screens. Everything is energy, as they say, vibrating at various rates of speed. And for those growing, expanding, self-propagating things – like fruit, veggies, algae and bacteria – there are varying degrees of intelligence involved so they may live, develop and evolve within their respective environs. Having built-in defense mechanisms to this end is obviously part of Mother Nature’s master plan.

This makes sense for all of us because, remember, if it weren’t for all of these plants and trees swapping out carbon dioxide for oxygen, humans and animals wouldn’t even be around. So, yes, Brussels sprouts and all other forms of veggies, fruits, grains and various plant-life are designed to thrive and survive… apparently for both their benefit and ours. (Also, is it any coincidence that the same antioxidants in plant-foods that help them survive in the wild, are also of immeasurable benefit to our survival when we ingest them?)

However, it’s quite a leap to automatically surmise that a plant’s survival mechanism is parallel to that of an animal’s. This is why you will often hear the word “sentient” used to describe the kind of living beings who we vegans wish to safeguard with our food, clothing and lifestyle choices. Simply put, a sentient being – like a chicken, cow or cockroach – is one whose cognitive faculties are such that they can clearly feel pain, discern survival conditions, have specific preferences, express some degree of emotion, etc. For these reasons, sentient beings operate from a more evolved level of consciousness than plant life. And, to me, the ultimate built-in criteria to define this really starts with that all-important question:

Do Plants Feel Pain?

The answer is no, and I’ll give you three good reasons why they do not:

* Scientifically speaking, a plant-based food is not a sentient being, does not have an innate, emotional inclination to avoid bodily harm or death (in the same way that animals do), does not have a nervous system, and, therefore, is not even designed to process the sensation of pain.

* Philosophically speaking, it’s safe to say that Mother Nature, in her infinite wisdom, would never bestow upon a living creature the capacity to feel pain without also giving him or her the ability to engage in a fight or flight response to the imminent threat or actual experience of pain.

* Practically speaking, I’ve yet to see any irate celery stalks or bell peppers jump up from the cutting board and run out of my kitchen lately. Such is clearly not the case with the 50-plus billion farm animals around the world who meet their fate in the slaughterhouse every year.

So, please… to all intelligent folks out there wishing to challenge the merits of veganism, let’s at least put this one to rest, shall we?

My Job

I understand that veganism often appears to be the ultimate “inconvenient truth” to those considering its comparatively rigid parameters. And I understand that it’s human nature to find that loophole – that flawed piece of an otherwise logical puzzle – that enables us to dismiss the whole of something as quackery, so we can throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. I get that. So my job, in part, is to illuminate the flaws in some of these whacked-out perceptions so that people can make more informed decisions. What someone chooses to do from there is, as usual, their choice.

Finally…

Now, after all of this plants-are-living-things stuff, if you’re still on a mission to save as many plants as possible from the ravages of the dinner table and feel that eating dead animals is somehow serving that end, remember: we are currently feeding about 80-plus% of many of the crops we grow in the world to farm animals. So by eating animal products, you are actually causing the “death” of even more plants (to say nothing of animals), since we feed a disproportionate amount of plant foods to animals, relative to what they yield to humans in the form of food.

The irony here is that, by trying to use this killing plants argument as a case against veganism, it’s actually making more of a case for it.

Just a little more food for thought…

I am calling bullshit on the science rebuttal. Whomever was quoted as giving the rebuttal refers to "We Vegans". The use of "we" self identifies the speaker as a Vegan and is justifying rebuttal to the position that a plant is not "Sentient" therefor it is not considered "Living" as part of this discussion.

I would argue that with domestication and the continued breeding of livestock to be passive would qualify as the same reasoning for "Sentient". The goes on to further say that "Sentient" as well refers to "Self sustaining survival" as part of "Sentient" and since lettuce and carrots don't try and run away or grow spikes to defend themselves from being killed, they are not living.

Domesticated Livestock fall into that same category then. Cows are bout the stupidest livestock on the freaking planet. They know how to eat, crap, sleep, procreate, and nurture their young. They don't have the common animal instincts anymore for pure survival of there native species because it has been breed out of them. They are kept in fields with simple cattle crossings because most livestock isn't smart enough to figure out how to beat simple gaps in grate in order to just walk out of the pasture.

I dont understanding what are you saying, where/when hes causing pain to humans? If I understand in the beggining of his activism he caused financial damage to producers, other than this nothing was caused or is caused by him, in fact to not consume animal products is better economically is healther to your familiy, because is less resource intensive to produce grains, that the same amount of meat.


Yes, I consider causing financial damage to producers evil. I dont think their kids should starve or go poor because this guy wants to get his self-rightious jollies off.



One thing because humans have been eating animals for thousand of years. The fact that we have been doing something for a long times does not make it morally right, Humans have been racist and sexist for centuries and we now recognize that racism and sexism are morally wrong.

You are technically correct, but neither yourself nor CrazyGuy have MADE A CASE for why it IS immoral. You are just making some assumption that it is.



His argument is only to try to illustrate that we are not naturally eat meaters, like monkey ancestors that were mostly vegetarians. We do not have the natural tools, like mandibules and claws and etcs.. so to sum up is not our natural “nature” to eat milk after been baby e do not need cow milk to survive or to be health. We are brain washed since child to behave according to the majority.
Our faculty of reason,intellect, and our opposable thumbs ARE our natural tools. This guy has utterly failed in his analysis of our natural tools, thats my point. Not having the same digestive tract as a coyote does NOT mean we dont eat meat.



I do not see a logic, it's a moral question, I do not see damage on people eating meat when they have no other option for their survival, we have the choice and the knowlodge to feed healthier and again cheaper, but we for convenience, taste, tradition and etc.. we choose to eat from animals, to cause pain and suffering, do say me that the cow , day by day milk is sucked from their tits is a pleasure to them, we are causing animal pain for our pleasure, and just ignoring this fact.
Morality springs from logic, and his attempt to separate logic and reason from morality is why I find him so utterly repulsive and evil. You ought to read Descartes before you buy this guys crap. And Kant and Hume and etc http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/

Trying to separate morality from reason never goes anywhere good. This guy is arguing that morality is based on emotion. Emotion is not a basis for morality, and trying to use it as such is in fact something a base animal would do. Its a dark side of human nature, not the enlightened side.



You are again failling to the arguments, usually you will not hear that a guy had a heart attack or other desease from being a vegetarian, like he said others factors include like alchool,stress, drugs. But you see a lot of health problems caused by meat and fat->dairy diet. Why he's an extremist I don't get it. Hes teaching people another reasonable view of our habits towards the use of animals.

Usually? You and he are confusing proper production of meat, with the state of our current industry. Some aspects of our current meat industry are inarguably imperfect and less than optimally healthy. However, that says nothing about the concept of eating meat in of itself. Some facts for you:
On my moms side of the family, which comes from a rural area which in fact has raised its own meat for hundreds of years- the average lifespan ( yes average) is about 95 years. My grandparents generation of people in the area and extended family live/lived to be between 87 and 102 years old. And they eat/ate home raised milk products and pork and beef EVERY SINGLE DAY.

They also didnt eat it as a luxury. This guys arguments about the inherent health benefits and economics of meat as blanket statements are utter bullshit, and completely unfounded assertions. I can guarantee that from personal experience.



You are been irrational for those arguments, your health will be not decreased, your human enviroment will be be not depleted, in fact it will be inverse.

I have not been irrational in the slightest, rather the PETA side has yet to concoct one single sound argument. Yet the PETA people will harm other humans and be general nuisances despite not having any sound arguments. The core of PETA belief is based on emotion.



We can feed people well and healther, without resort to billions of animal killing every year
Irrational is what are we doing to the planet, we are consuming too much milk and meat for detrimental of our health and planet resources, the amount of deforastion that is taking place in Brazil to plant soy to feed cattle is imense.

See, this is a different issue. Perhaps what is happening in Brazil is coloring your perception. Maybe what is happening in Brazil is not good. I dont know, I dont live in Brazil or follow it too closely. Perhaps the people who are growing meat in Brazil are in fact locally detrimental. If so, by all means oppose them and what they are doing. But do it on the basis of the harm they are actually doing.... no need to use emotion as faux basis for logic. You will get a lot further with that.





It's not a assumption, is fact that to produce 1kg of meat is more resource intensive that produce 1kg of vegetables(Around 15 times more intensive). And countries like Brazil are deforesting all forest to produce more grains to feed for cattle. While you can believe that this not affect you in USA it does, we are in the same planet, if we take out amazon forest to plant soy to feed cattle it will have a global impact. While you cannot think like that meat is a luxury, again, if the east countries(india,china and etcs) begin to eat like eurpeans and americans we will need 3 another planet earths.

Like I said, lets keep the global warning crap to a different thread. But on the meat topic, it is not inherently necessary to raise grain to eat meat. In fact some farmers naturally graze animals. You are talking about the individual techniques for raising meat, which is DIFFERENT than poor ranching tactics being INHERENT in eating of meat.

This is yet another example of why people who discard logic and argue on the basis of emotion are so frustrating.

Anyone with a simple grounding in logic inherently understands that just because one method or type of cattle ranching may arguably be overall detrimental, DOES NOT IN ANY WAY create a case that ALL MEAT detrimental.

People raised and lived off of animals for thousands of years because when done properly, they in fact add quite a bit of economic efficiency. Pigs for example are one of the best examples of natural recycling.





Again, not eating meat is less expensive and more healthier, you still blinded by what you want to see. Honestly I always had eat meat and dairy products/eggs, I always had a common sense that I knew about vegetables products and fruits being healther than meat/milk, After I grow up, I always had the moral awareness that delicious beef steak was with the pain of an animal that was slaved to that I had that delicous pleasure of taste. After many years of just ignoring the true, and inventing excuses like you are inventing, I realize that was not morally right what I was doing.
It's more health and economical advantagous to me do not eat meat and dairy products, I will be saving money in the future, and morally, I do not help to kill animals for my sake of taste. Because there are plenty of alternatives to meat/milk/eggs products.

Yes, I consider causing financial damage to producers evil. I dont think their kids should starve or go poor because this guy wants to get his self-rightious jollies off

You are technically correct, but neither yourself nor CrazyGuy have MADE A CASE for why it IS immoral. You are just making some assumption that it is.

Our faculty of reason,intellect, and our opposable thumbs ARE our natural tools. This guy has utterly failed in his analysis of our natural tools, thats my point. Not having the same digestive tract as a coyote does NOT mean we dont eat meat.

Morality springs from logic, and his attempt to separate logic and reason from morality is why I find him so utterly repulsive and evil. You ought to read Descartes before you buy this guys crap. And Kant and Hume and etc http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/
Trying to separate morality from reason never goes anywhere good. This guy is arguing that morality is based on emotion. Emotion is not a basis for morality, and trying to use it as such is in fact something a base animal would do. Its a dark side of human nature, not the enlightened side.

Usually? You and he are confusing proper production of meat, with the state of our current industry. Some aspects of our current meat industry are inarguably imperfect and less than optimally healthy. However, that says nothing about the concept of eating meat in of itself. Some facts for you:
On my moms side of the family, which comes from a rural area which in fact has raised its own meat for hundreds of years- the average lifespan ( yes average) is about 95 years. My grandparents generation of people in the area and extended family live/lived to be between 87 and 102 years old. And they eat/ate home raised milk products and pork and beef EVERY SINGLE DAY.
They also didnt eat it as a luxury. This guys arguments about the inherent health benefits and economics of meat as blanket statements are utter bullshit, and completely unfounded assertions. I can guarantee that from personal experience.

I have not been irrational in the slightest, rather the PETA side has yet to concoct one single sound argument. Yet the PETA people will harm other humans and be general nuisances despite not having any sound arguments. The core of PETA belief is based on emotion.

See, this is a different issue. Perhaps what is happening in Brazil is coloring your perception. Maybe what is happening in Brazil is not good. I dont know, I dont live in Brazil or follow it too closely. Perhaps the people who are growing meat in Brazil are in fact locally detrimental. If so, by all means oppose them and what they are doing. But do it on the basis of the harm they are actually doing.... no need to use emotion as faux basis for logic. You will get a lot further with that.

Like I said, lets keep the global warning crap to a different thread. But on the meat topic, it is not inherently necessary to raise grain to eat meat. In fact some farmers naturally graze animals. You are talking about the individual techniques for raising meat, which is DIFFERENT than poor ranching tactics being INHERENT in eating of meat.
This is yet another example of why people who discard logic and argue on the basis of emotion are so frustrating.
Anyone with a simple grounding in logic inherently understands that just because one method or type of cattle ranching may arguably be overall detrimental, DOES NOT IN ANY WAY create a case that ALL MEAT detrimental.
People raised and lived off of animals for thousands of years because when done properly, they in fact add quite a bit of economic efficiency. Pigs for example are one of the best examples of natural recycling.

You have yet to produce a single argument based on rationality or reason, and dare to accuse me of seeing only what I want to see? That sir, takes a lot of chutzpah.

You have not even tried to argue why, logically, using animals is immoral. When that is pointed out, you avoid addressing it and swerve off into some unfounded assumptions about the health of eating animal products. Then in the same breath accuse me of seeing only what I want to see.

I honestly hope you decide to allow yourself to engage is some reflection, and see what is wrong with that.

Because your further arguments presuppose that animals are human, but they are not.

what this sentence means, please enlight me man!

to cause pain and suffering, do say me that the cow , day by day milk is sucked from their tits is a pleasure to them, we are causing animal pain for our pleasure, and just ignoring this fact.

Scientifically speaking, a plant-based food is not a sentient being, does not have an innate, emotional inclination to avoid bodily harm or death (in the same way that animals do)

Actually, milk cows suffer pain from distended bag and utters if not milked regularly. Clearly you've never witnessed a cow that has had a calf die, eagerly jump into the milking stall after not being milked for a couple of days.

Actually plants can be seen in time lapse video moving away from environments that they find unpleasant or harmful and towards healthy environs, just like animals only slower.

There are myriad resources available that show studies that suggest that humans are actually not equipt to digest grains. I'm just sayin.

Dude, that's not a bear. That's a wolf, and I was just posting what Donk tried to link. His point, I think, is that wolves aren't supposed to be that large and that they are growing to that size because they are protected by humans and allowed to evolve into some sort of super predator.

Dude, that's not a bear. That's a wolf, and I was just posting what Donk tried to link. His point, I think, is that wolves aren't supposed to be that large and that they are growing to that size because they are protected by humans and allowed to evolve into some sort of super predator.

The arguments of authority were and are quite common, unfortunately. Aristotle said that the planets are perfect spheres, and this was true for the next 1800 years. When Galileo showed that the Moon's surface was irregular (the moon is a "planet" in classical astronomy) there were many who said he was wrong because it was contrary to Aristotle. It was no use to show images in your telescope, make drawings, bringing the moon pulling with a rope and rub it on the nose of the citizen: Aristotle had not said that its surface was flat? Well then it is flat, what the hell! This reminds me of the famous phrase "if the facts do not fit the theory, so much the worse for the facts ..."

So when you kill a pig or a dog, even if he cries, bud, try desperately to escape, if squirm in pain as you scream and stabs him horribly until the last breath of life was fading, that does not mean that he feels pain, suffering or has any other emotion ... Why? However, because Descartes said so, that nonhuman animals (a group clearly paraphyletic!) Are just automatons, devoid of any internal mental state. And that's it!

This nonsense did not come Cartesian join the Catholic and Jewish view that nonhuman animals are only movable property, public or private property, devoid of "soul" and subject to any treatment that humans want to dismiss them. In fact, this nonsense is born into this Cartesian view Catholic and Jewish, as is easy to see.

Exploring the internal mental states of bees cows, cognitive ethology is becoming increasingly robust.

And so for the next four centuries, the authority Cartesian hung (would have stopped hovering?) On all scientific research on all of biology, zoology over all, on the whole ethology. I've heard several times, my students, that "man is the only rational animal." Well, I attribute this kind of opinion over the Christian tradition that Descartes. However, I've heard my colleagues in academia, and no fewer than a dozen times, saying "animals (nonhuman) have no emotion", "animals have no rationality", "animals do not feel pain", explicitly using the name Descartes as an argument of authority. I guess these guys are able to do vivissecções without anesthesia, because, since animals do not feel pain?

The cognitive ethology, a branch of ethology, in short, seeks to study the internal mental states of animals, is not exactly a new science, though only about 30 or 40 years (for those who do not know, I recommend the books of disclosure scientific Mark Bekoff and Colin Allen, especially "Species of mind"). However, I have the impression that cognitive ethology is gaining traction, producing more papers and being taken increasingly seriously in the academic world. I may be wrong, but I bet some chips that I'm not.

This therefore is the reason for this brief note: draw attention to the recent progress in an area of biology extremely interesting and complex. Bees with emotional states, cows that demonstrate understanding of their social structure, demonstrations of affection in chickens, whales that give names to each other ... The last few years have been quite prolific for cognitive ethology, and the trend is that it becomes increasingly robust and increasingly important. That, just as Galileo and his telescope, the cognitive ethology show that an argument from authority can not override the facts and scientific analysis.

When Darwin published "Origin," began the slow but inevitable death of this concept is detrimental to the scala naturae. Likewise, I hope that the maturation of cognitive ethology begin the slow death of this nonsense Cartesian, primarily in academia, and then in society as a whole.

In the end, there is no escaping this uncomfortable truth: the only reason we cut up defenseless animals and not intellectually-similar human beings (small children, senile seniors, mentally-enfeebled) in the pursuit of scientific progress is that they do not belong to our species. And speciesism is as irrational as racism and sexism. Rene Descartes’ philosophy is an anachronism that should be buried in an unenlightened past.

Derid, I find your position of human exceptionism based on possession of morality to be deeply flawed. I have no choice but to 'pluck a chicken' and point out that this line of thinking would also suggest that amoral acts would undermine one's humanity.

Negative on that, its capacity for - not demonstration of.

Some adult primates show more capacity for morality than children below age of 3. Are they more human?

I don't think you fully conceptualized what morality is and why we have it. Morality is a social organism evolutionary trait that enables and promotes cooperation within species. It is generally is not applied outside of the species, unless in some cases of anthropomorphism seen in primates and humans.

All social animals have some capacity for morality, that includes bees, ants, all primates, rats. Are they partially human?

If anything, your view of morality and humanity supports Mithus' position, because if it is capacity for morality that makes us human, as oppose to abstract thinking, self-awareness of varying degrees or something entirely different, then certain animals are at least somewhat human.

While I respect that discourse and discussion is part of what KGB does, we also have several Beta efforts going on for multiple AAA titles.

I find it very disheartening that individuals log into the Oracle and of all the GAME ACTIVITY we have going on, threads like this are the only ones that get there response.

Get Active in actual game activity, be it beta process, or actual in-game action.

For the love of Beer & Glory, this is a GAMING CLAN!!

I look at animal rights extremists in more or less the same light as I view religious extremists. For either group, it comes down to faith in their beliefs and a sense of well-being imparted by holding and proselytizing those beliefs.

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages.
Thomas A. Edison

To see http://www.mmolive.com or http://www.mmohome.com world in a granda of stand.And a heaven in a wild flower.Hold infinity in the palm your hand and eternity in an hour.