Killing Animals

Macavity.

meathstevie wrote: »

Ever considered the stress and agony that a dying dog experiences when being transported to the vet and than handled by a stranger that puts a needle into it.

Total conjecture to be fair. A trip to the vet may not be stressful at all to a particular dog.

Also, you'd really want to know what you're doing to kill a dog instantly by shooting it. Do it wrong and the animal could be put in a lot of pain. Dogs have been known to last for days after headshots.

Bog Standard User

Macavity. wrote: »

Actually, yes. They are part of the Kingdom of Animalia. Insects are animals, I don't understand why some people can't get that. Baffling.

humans are animals too... part of the ape family though there are many that act worse than apes

Yeah_Right

Nino Brown wrote: »

Well that depends on your definition of necessary. Flies carry disease, I don't want to eat them, but I don't want them near things I do want to eat either.

If my girlfriend see's a spider, she freaks out, and starts screaming. Either her or the spider has to go, because I can't be dealing with that, and the law is much more lenient towards the killing of spiders, so the spider's gotta go!:D

I am in exactly the same boat. In fact its not just spiders. Wasps, bees, mossies, mice. Its much easier disposing of their bodies than hers.

Donnielighto

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I am in exactly the same boat. In fact its not just spiders. Wasps, bees, mossies, mice. Its much easier disposing of their bodies than hers.

323

meathstevie wrote: »

Ever considered the stress and agony that a dying dog experiences when being transported to the vet and than handled by a stranger that puts a needle into it. Needles are not painless either and even the puniest .22lr shot through the brain will have the dog dead on the ground before it's even heard the shot.

If a dog needs putting down because of attacks on humans or livestock I'd definitely consider shooting it before I'd go down the road of trapping and transporting to the vet and all. Nothing cruel about it, instantaneous when done properly.

+1

Took a relations dog to the vet once to be put down, in reality months after the poor bugger should have been put down, they did'nt want to themselves. Awful how stressed the dog became going there, waiting then the actual injection. Will never do this again.

Next time I have to, dog will go for a drive, then a short walk and get a unexpected 22lr in the back of the head.

Instant lights out. Much more humane.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Hotfail.com wrote: »

I love the way on threads like this that the vegetarians/do-gooders always come out and attack the people who try their best not to kill animals themselves and complete ignore the people who say they pull apart flies/worms for fun... :rolleyes:

I think the point is that the weirdos pulling insects apart for fun at least have the attitude of "yeah, they're just animals, I eat them too, so what", whereas the other kind can seem like they're taking some kind of personal pride or sense of moral correctness for not deliberately killing insects while having no problem with eating the dead bodies of mammals and birds which are killed on an industrial level, which have far more complex brains and nervous systems, and which you do not need to eat to be healthy. There's at least consistency in the "lol, flies, let's burn them" mindset, but "aw, poor slugs, mmm, bacon" is a bit all over the place.

Obviously nobody can go through life without being directly or indirectly involved in the deaths of a shítload of animals, and obviously it'd be a disaster if we woke up tomorrow and everyone was a vegetarian, but on a individual level not eating meat is actually one of the least disruptive, simplest choices you can make to opt out of some of that death. It's not health or necessity that stops people doing it, it's selfish prioritization of their pleasure over an animal's pain and death.

Hotfail.com

Amani Nice Hatchet wrote: »

I think the point is that the weirdos pulling insects apart for fun at least have the attitude of "yeah, they're just animals, I eat them too, so what", whereas the other kind can seem like they're taking some kind of personal pride or sense of moral correctness for not deliberately killing insects while having no problem with eating the dead bodies of mammals and birds which are killed on an industrial level, which have far more complex brains and nervous systems, and which you do not need to eat to be healthy. There's at least consistency in the "lol, flies, let's burn them" mindset, but "aw, poor slugs, mmm, bacon" is a bit all over the place.

Obviously nobody can go through life without being directly or indirectly involved in the deaths of a shítload of animals, and obviously it'd be a disaster if we woke up tomorrow and everyone was a vegetarian, but on a individual level not eating meat is actually one of the least disruptive, simplest choices you can make to opt out of some of that death. It's not health or necessity that stops people doing it, it's selfish prioritization of their pleasure over an animal's pain and death.

I'm going to say this in the most ignorant-sounding way possible just because it's how I actually feel, so sorry in advance..

It doesn't make me feel guilty that animals have to die so I can eat a burger, so I'm not going to stop. Is it selfish? Yep, I agree completely, and I don't care either tbh.

I don't kill flies etc. btw, mainly because the effort of killing them/letting them out outweighs how much annoyance they cause me. I just leave them at it.

kneemos

Amani Nice Hatchet wrote: »

I think the point is that the weirdos pulling insects apart for fun at least have the attitude of "yeah, they're just animals, I eat them too, so what", whereas the other kind can seem like they're taking some kind of personal pride or sense of moral correctness for not deliberately killing insects while having no problem with eating the dead bodies of mammals and birds which are killed on an industrial level, which have far more complex brains and nervous systems, and which you do not need to eat to be healthy. There's at least consistency in the "lol, flies, let's burn them" mindset, but "aw, poor slugs, mmm, bacon" is a bit all over the place.

Obviously nobody can go through life without being directly or indirectly involved in the deaths of a shítload of animals, and obviously it'd be a disaster if we woke up tomorrow and everyone was a vegetarian, but on a individual level not eating meat is actually one of the least disruptive, simplest choices you can make to opt out of some of that death. It's not health or necessity that stops people doing it, it's selfish prioritization of their pleasure over an animal's pain and death.

So in your mind two wrongs are better than one wrong.

DeadHand

Amani Nice Hatchet wrote: »

It's not health or necessity that stops people doing it, it's selfish prioritization of their pleasure over an animal's pain and death

Farm animals owe their existence to the fact that they and their produce are eaten and otherwise utilised by humans.

If they were not consumed their breeding and rearing simply would not occur. They do not occur naturally. Great herds of fresians and charlois did not roam wild and free over the plains of Meath before the coming of the Gael.

This country operates to the the highest levels of animal welfare at all stages of an animals life and Irish farmers are in general a decent and knowledgeable lot not in the habit of mistreating animals deliberately or otherwise. These animals are in the vast majority of cases well fed, watered, housed with all necessary veterinary care. I'd argue that food animals enjoy more comfortable and less stressful lives than most wild animals.

At the point of slaughter all possible measures are taken to minimise the stress felt by the animal. To this end, staff are trained in animal handling and welfare. Facilities are especially designed to aid in the safe, stress free and humane handling of animals. The slaughter is carried out under the strictest veterinary and departmental supervision.

Death, when it comes, is entirely painless if done correctly (which is almost always).

The sole purpose of their existence is to be consumed. If non-existence is preferable to as good a life as possible, pain and eventual death then we've all been dealt a bad hand.

Eating meat is not selfish, as you suggest, or immoral, as you seem to suggest. And it isn't just for pleasure. We need protein and iron. Meat is an integral part of a balanced, healthy diet. Moreover, in this country at least, it is produced humanely and ethically.

If animals dying for our purposes is selfish to you then along with forgoing the meat you should also consider shunning less essential products made with animal ingredients. Things like cosmetics, leather, toothpaste, pet food, plastic, soap etc.

Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite now, would you?

Skullface McGubbin

Any insect or arachnid that finds it's way into my house is fair game. They're a nuisance. Especially during the humid days of summer when many of them are most interested in making their way in.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

DeadHand wrote: »

Farm animals owe their existence to the fact that they and their produce are eaten and otherwise utilised by humans.

If they were not consumed their breeding and rearing simply would not occur. They do not occur naturally. Great herds of fresians and charlois did not roam wild and free over the plains of Meath before the coming of the Gael.

I realise all that, hence why I said in the post you quoted "It'd be a disaster if we woke up tomorrow and everyone was a vegetarian"

This country operates to the the highest levels of animal welfare at all stages of an animals life and Irish farmers are in general a decent and knowledgeable lot not in the habit of mistreating animals deliberately or otherwise. These animals are in the vast majority of cases well fed, watered, housed with all necessary veterinary care. I'd argue that food animals enjoy more comfortable and less stressful lives than most wild animals.

At the point of slaughter all possible measures are taken to minimise the stress felt by the animal. To this end, staff are trained in animal handling and welfare. Facilities are especially designed to aid in the safe, stress free and humane handling of animals. The slaughter is carried out under the strictest veterinary and departmental supervision.

Death, when it comes, is entirely painless if done correctly (which is almost always).

Standards in this country are incredibly good, the end result though - a dead animal bred, raised and killed for the purpose of being eaten for pleasure - is the same

The sole purpose of their existence is to be consumed. If non-existence is preferable to as good a life as possible, pain and eventual death then we've all been dealt a bad hand.

we disagree on that point, I'm afraid, but it's a bit beside the point as well.

Eating meat is not selfish, as you suggest, or immoral, as you seem to suggest. And it isn't just for pleasure. We need protein and iron. Meat is an integral part of a balanced, healthy diet. Moreover, in this country at least, it is produced humanely and ethically.

Protein and iron are perfectly easily to obtain without meat or fish. It is produced as humanely and ethically as it is practical to do within a system which breeds animals for slaughter and consumption.

If animals dying for our purposes is selfish to you then along with forgoing the meat you should also consider shunning less essential products made with animal ingredients. Things like cosmetics, leather, toothpaste, pet food, plastic, soap etc.

Wouldn't want to be a hypocrite now, would you?

Like I said up above, I'm talking about things on an individual level. On an individual level, it is in no way necessary to eat meat and it's very, very easy not to. It's more hassle to be careful about soap etc. but many people do, of course then you're getting in to things like farming/factory practices, and most importantly the ethical treatment of human beings. Also you might be surprised but most vegetarians avoid things like leather.

I am a hypocrite, everyone is. It doesn't mean "I don't kill flies with my own bare hands because that's wrong but killing pigs as long as I don't have to do is fine" is not also a hypocritical position.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Hotfail.com wrote: »

I'm going to say this in the most ignorant-sounding way possible just because it's how I actually feel, so sorry in advance..

It doesn't make me feel guilty that animals have to die so I can eat a burger, so I'm not going to stop. Is it selfish? Yep, I agree completely, and I don't care either tbh.

I don't kill flies etc. btw, mainly because the effort of killing them/letting them out outweighs how much annoyance they cause me. I just leave them at it.

I actually am really not overly bothered about people eating meat, it's their life and their choice, it's just not something I want to do. I've been a vegetarian my whole life and the biggest thing it's taught me is to not be judgmental, but it does make a bit more obvious the slightly schizoid thinking that comes with being a meat eater in an industrial society - there's a real disconnect between what you're eating and what it actually is. There can be a tendency with vegetarians to make that into a whole big thing along the lines of "If everyone saw where their food was coming from, nobody would eat meat", which is bull, some people just don't really care about animals (and I'm not making a moral judgment on that, animals are not people, and there's far worse things in the world to not care about) and like eating meat.

But the position you laid out there "yep, I like eating animals, yep it's selfish, nope I don't care" is consistent, a lot of the stuff people come out with really isn't.

DeadHand

Amani Nice Hatchet wrote: »

I've been a vegetarian my whole life and the biggest thing it's taught me is to not be judgmental

Has it?

'Cos this seems like a judgmental attitude to me.

Amani Nice Hatchet wrote: »

It's not health or necessity that stops people doing it, it's selfish prioritization of their pleasure over an animal's pain and death

DeadHand

Amani Nice Hatchet wrote: »

there's a real disconnect between what you're eating and what it actually is.

I assume you're trying to say there is some disconnect between what you're eating and what you think it actually is. Irish meat is probably among the most traceable in the world. Buy Irish and no such disconnect exists. Obviously, if you're going to take junk options then the bit of horse will probably be the most wholesome part of your meal.

some people just don't really care about animals and like eating meat

Of course. Thankfully they are massively outnumbered by the majority who care about animals and like eating meat. One does not exclude the other.

But the position you laid out there "yep, I like eating animals, yep it's selfish, nope I don't care" is consistent, a lot of the stuff people come out with really isn't.

Eating meat is no more selfish than wearing shoes or sleeping indoors.

Da Shins Kelly

I don't kill anything. I have a couple of spiders living in my room with me and they don't bother me at all. If flies come in, I just leave the windows open for a while and they usually fly out themselves or if they don't, the spiders get them eventually. I don't really like moths and how flappy they are, I usually try all means necessary to get them out as fast as possible if they come in.

I've never killed anything big like a dog or a cat. Our neighbour likes to act the hard man and go on about how he'd shoot any dog that came on his property (seriously doubt the dude even has a gun). Can't really fathom that attitude, honestly, unless the dog was trying to attack you. Our other neighbour's dogs come into our garden sometimes and potter about the place. They don't give any bit of bother at all, just sniffing about and playing with our dogs, and yet this guy still complains. Unless the dog is actually causing trouble, I really don't see the problem or why you'd have to start threatening somebody's animal.

Shenshen

meathstevie wrote: »

Ever considered the stress and agony that a dying dog experiences when being transported to the vet and than handled by a stranger that puts a needle into it. Needles are not painless either and even the puniest .22lr shot through the brain will have the dog dead on the ground before it's even heard the shot.

If a dog needs putting down because of attacks on humans or livestock I'd definitely consider shooting it before I'd go down the road of trapping and transporting to the vet and all. Nothing cruel about it, instantaneous when done properly.

I don't know about your "vet", but when one of our cat was dying of cancer, the vet came to the house to give her the shot. She died in our arms, and it was absolutely incredibly fast, I'm talking split seconds.

b318isp

Well, to broaden the conversation a bit, what about whole scale killing (other than for food) such as:

- Culling over-populations (e.g. rabbits, and assuming a detrimental effect)
- Killing of vermin (e.g. rats)
- Killing due to infestation (e.g. ants, termites, wasps)
- Use of antibiotics and disinfectants to kill bacteria
- The body's natural defences which kill bacteria and viruses
- Cooking or pasteurisation to kill pathogens

In these cases there are usually clearer (human) benefits or natural processes at work, so morally it feels more acceptable.

If this is so, then it appears there may be some threshold in which people may accept killing an animal where they may otherwise not. So, it could be suggested that there is no universal answer on whether it is right or wrong - only a discussion on where the threshold lies.

kneemos

b318isp wrote: »

Well, to broaden the conversation a bit, what about whole scale killing (other than for food) such as:

- Culling over-populations (e.g. rabbits, and assuming a detrimental effect)
- Killing of vermin (e.g. rats)
- Killing due to infestation (e.g. ants, termites, wasps)
- Use of antibiotics and disinfectants to kill bacteria
- The body's natural defences which kill bacteria and viruses
- Cooking or pasteurisation to kill pathogens

In these cases there are usually clearer (human) benefits or natural processes at work, so morally it feels more acceptable.

If this is so, then it appears there may be some threshold in which people may accept killing an animal where they may otherwise not. So, it could be suggested that there is no universal answer on whether it is right or wrong - only a discussion on where the threshold lies.

The threshold is obvious,annoying,pest,or for food.
As I've said before killing animals is fine when it's necessary it's unnecessary killing that people have a problem with.

b318isp

kneemos wrote: »

The threshold is obvious,annoying,pest,or for food.
As I've said before killing animals is fine when it's necessary it's unnecessary killing that people have a problem with.

What is "annoying" or "pest" for other people though?

The barking dog next door?
The starlings keeping you awake at 5am?

Are spiders, beetles, ladybirds pests - and would everyone agree on this?

Would vegetarians and vegans clearly agree with the food justification?

Donnielighto

I care for animals, I look after them when sick. I kill them and I eat them.

Meat is a significant part of my diet and I don't see anything wrong with that.


I have more of an issue with someone who puts an animal through misery but doesn't kill it than someone who gives them a reasonable existence until they are sent to the abattoir etc.

kneemos

b318isp wrote: »

What is "annoying" or "pest" for other people though?

The barking dog next door?
The starlings keeping you awake at 5am?

Are spiders, beetles, ladybirds pests - and would everyone agree on this?

Would vegetarians and vegans clearly agree with the food justification?

Whatever's a problem for you.
A barking dog can be dealt with in other ways,though I have heard of dogs being poisoned.If your kept awake all night I'm sure there's many a dog lover who fantasised about pulling the trigger.

b318isp

kneemos wrote: »

Whatever's a problem for you.
A barking dog can be dealt with in other ways,though I have heard of dogs being poisoned.If your kept awake all night I'm sure there's many a dog lover who fantasised about pulling the trigger.

Yes, but they are being "annoying" or are being a "pest"; are you saying that killing them is not a reasonable option?

If so, our individual tolerances gives rise to personal judgements on whether killing is an acceptable solution, and so not obvious at all.

djflawless

I consider cats pests
I'd like to treat them the same as a spider
Swiftly dealt with using the sole of my shoe
Still at the same time, I wouldn't kill a mouse unless the fecker was eating something in the house, like skirting, presses, my food etc
People treat different animals different ways
Fact of life
Get over ot

comongethappy

djflawless wrote: »

I consider cats pests
I'd like to treat them the same as a spider
Swiftly dealt with using the sole of my shoe

Seek help.

djflawless

What animals annoy you?can I question your mental health for disagreeing with you??

Shenshen

kneemos wrote: »

The threshold is obvious,annoying,pest,or for food.
As I've said before killing animals is fine when it's necessary it's unnecessary killing that people have a problem with.

And I think it's the question of what is necessary that is the lynchpin in the conversation.

Personally, I don't think killing animals for food is necessary in the western world. But most people prefer eating meat to no eating meat, so would consider it a necessity of sorts.

So even necessity is a question of choice, really

Wabbit Ears

I kill wasps and Moths.

Moths are fcuking the spawn of Satan. The must be hunted down and eradicated. What sort of devil insect just disintegrates to dust when stomped on? Seriously, all moths fcuking DIE!!!

b318isp

djflawless wrote: »

What animals annoy you?can I question your mental health for disagreeing with you??

The point here, I think, is that what is obvious to one person, may not be obvious to another.

kneemos

b318isp wrote: »

Yes, but they are being "annoying" or are being a "pest"; are you saying that killing them is not a reasonable option?

If so, our individual tolerances gives rise to personal judgements on whether killing is an acceptable solution, and so not obvious at all.

Individual tolerances are acceptable as nobody cares if you kill a fly.For larger animals you have animal welfare laws.

The person that shoos the fly out the window is being generous.

Plek Trum

After 3 bites from horseflies this summer - ALL with massive reactions that required antibiotics (Not happy as I'm pregnant), I will happily make an exception and kill them. Dirty dirty vicious little feckers.

Sheeps

It depends on whether or not the animal is a pest or not.

comongethappy

djflawless wrote: »

What animals annoy you?can I question your mental health for disagreeing with you??

No animals annoy me...
They are just animals.

Also, feeling the urge to stamp on a cat (as you say) isn't exactly the attitude of one at ease with the world.

What or who else would you stamp to death?

b318isp

Yes, these tolerances are arbitrary (in the absence of stipulations such as laws).

It fascinates me that animals that trigger negative emotions (such as flies, slugs, earwigs) generally are fair game, yet animals that trigger positive emotions (such as ladybirds, butterflies and bumble bees) are far less so. I have even seen kids hating slugs but loving snails.

Then add in the list of things in post #168.

b318isp

Sheeps wrote: »

It depends on whether or not the animal is a pest or not.

Is it possible to define "pest" in such a way that is true for everyone; for example the owner and the neighbour of a barking dog?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

DeadHand wrote: »

I assume you're trying to say there is some disconnect between what you're eating and what you think it actually is. Irish meat is probably among the most traceable in the world. Buy Irish and no such disconnect exists. Obviously, if you're going to take junk options then the bit of horse will probably be the most wholesome part of your meal.

No I mean the disconnect between an animal and a package of meat from a supermarket or butcher. A lot of people balk at things like feet or eyes left on the meat or fish, or really dislike seeing pig's heads in a butcher because it's gross, or would never eat something with a more obviously biological name like kidneys or heart, but a package of meat is fine. That's the disconnect I mean.

Of course. Thankfully they are massively outnumbered by the majority who care about animals and like eating meat. One does not exclude the other.

One doesn't exclude the other at all, but you care about certain animals or certain things relating to those animals less than you like eating meat.

Eating meat is no more selfish than wearing shoes or sleeping indoors.

Except if you wear shoes or sleep outdoors it'll negatively impact your health, not eating meat won't. I'd say a more accurate comparison is that not eating meat is no more selfish than not donating some of your disposable income to charity - I don't like the thought of people suffering in poverty, but I prioritize
my own pleasure over that. It doesn't mean that I call people who do donate money to charity hypocrites because they're not living in shanty towns in Calcutta, nor does it mean I take their personal decision to donate money to charity as some kind of criticism of my own choices

Sheeps

b318isp wrote: »

Is it possible to define "pest" in such a way that is true for everyone; for example the owner and the neighbour of a barking dog?

A pest is "a plant or animal detrimental to humans or human concerns (as agriculture or livestock production)".

Unless the barking dog is ruining crops with his barking, then no you wouldn't kill the dog for barking.

Cienciano

comongethappy wrote: »

No animals annoy me...
They are just animals.

Also, feeling the urge to stamp on a cat (as you say) isn't exactly the attitude of one at ease with the world.

What or who else would you stamp to death?

What about flys? Ever been in a foreign country and been bitten by mosquitos? They don't annoy you? Or are the bites fun to scratch?
Swarm of midges in ireland aren't annoying?

BeerWolf

Cienciano wrote: »

What about flys? Ever been in a foreign country and been bitten by mosquitos? They don't annoy you? Or are the bites fun to scratch?
Swarm of midges in ireland aren't annoying?

He's like Ned Flanders, satisfying to scratch them bites! :pac:

b318isp

Sheeps wrote: »

A pest is "a plant or animal detrimental to humans or human concerns (as agriculture or livestock production)".

Interesting definition. I can sort of understand the detrimental bit, but I wonder how a human concern would be defined objectively.

DeadHand

Amani Nice Hatchet wrote: »

No I mean the disconnect between an animal and a package of meat from a supermarket or butcher. A lot of people balk at things like feet or eyes left on the meat or fish, or really dislike seeing pig's heads in a butcher because it's gross, or would never eat something with a more obviously biological name like kidneys or heart, but a package of meat is fine. That's the disconnect I mean.

True. That disconnect exists almost exclusively among urbanites and gives rise to some fairly ignorant, self-righteous attitudes towards the treatment of animals.

but you care about certain animals or certain things relating to those animals less than you like eating meat

That isn't true in my case, I doubt it's true in the majority of cases and it's a fairly sweeping judgement to make. For instance, I know dozens of country vets. Not one is a vegetarian. But any one of them, or I, would be sickened by any form of cruelty inflicted on a food animal and would do everything in our power to prevent it, stop it and/or bring those responsible to book. But we all happily eat meat. Not because we lack something (ie. care) but because we possess something (ie. understanding).

We care about food animals at least as much as you or anyone else we just realise and understand what they are for and what exactly goes into their rearing and slaughter

Except if you wear shoes or sleep outdoors it'll negatively impact your health, not eating meat won't. I'd say a more accurate comparison is that not eating meat is no more selfish than not donating some of your disposable income to charity - I don't like the thought of people suffering in poverty, but I prioritize
my own pleasure over that. It doesn't mean that I call people who do donate money to charity hypocrites because they're not living in shanty towns in Calcutta, nor does it mean I take their personal decision to donate money to charity as some kind of criticism of my own choices

Ok then, I'll give two other examples. Cosmetics and soap. Forgoing either will not negatively impact your health. Everyone who uses lipstick or likes to wash well is inherently selfish by choosing to do so?

Don't compare altruism to vegetarianism. I know you like to think that your vegetarianism puts you on a type of moral high ground that the correct form of altruism might, but it simply doesn't.

I don't take your vegetarianism as a criticism of my own choices, I take the criticism by you of meat eaters in this thread as a criticism of my choices. You've judged meat eaters as selfish and judged that we all care about animals less than we do about eating meat (and, therefore, we care about animals less than you do).

You've been judgmental. Which is ironic, because earlier in the thread you loftily declared that one of the things vegetarianism taught you was to be non-judgmental. A statement as nonsensical as me claiming that a gluten free diet cured my racism.

Resonator75

kneemos wrote: »

Worked in a meat plant for a while,normally don't kill things unless they get annoying.

Is that acceptable?

Done 2 slaughterhouses myself. about 6 months in total.

Humane slaughter is fine with me. I know that is the exception to the rule.

If you actually have done what you say you have done you'd know that.

Your post make fuk all sense as usual Kneemos. Just picking fights over semantics. Hows your buddy Czarcasam?

kneemos

Resonator75 wrote: »

Done 2 slaughterhouses myself. about 6 months in total.

Humane slaughter is fine with me. I know that is the exception to the rule.

If you actually have done what you say you have done you'd know that.

Your post make fuk all sense as usual Kneemos. Just picking fights over semantics. Hows your buddy Czarcasam?

I have never had relations with that man.

Hotfail.com

kneemos wrote: »

I have never had relations with that man.