So perhaps what Jamie means is that it’s hard to persuade people to make sacrifices for others, especially others with whom they feel no particular kinship. After all, despite the rhetoric of “protecting” marriage, according fully equal rights to members of the LGBT community doesn’t really cost straight people anything. By contrast, getting people to give up steak and even pizza? Now that’s a sacrifice!
Well, yes and no. If we assume that people only act out of self-interest, then veganism or something like it can be sold based on its health benefits. And I certainly agree, indeed I’ve said on this blog, that organizations like Farm Sanctuary ought to be devoting much of their budget to marketing attractive vegan alternatives to meat and dairy products.
But Jamie apparently goes further to suggest that one will encounter moral opposition to pleas about suffering, and here he simply errs. To wit:
1) Jamie wonders whether demand for soy as food might accelerate the conversion of Brazilian rain forest to agriculture. He cannot be serious. To produce feed for beef or dairy cattle requires orders of magnitude more land for cultivation than is required to produce vegetable products for direct human consumption. And that is simply a matter of calories per acre under cultivation. Raising beef and dairy cattle also produces vast quantities of methane gas, which, pound for pound, is much worse for global warming than CO2. Other animal-based food industries (such as pig farming and the raising of chickens for eggs or meat) produce their own environmental problems, to say nothing of the potential for breeding lethal strains of influenza. Even if one had no regard whatsoever for the welfare of non-human animals, the environmental case for a plant-based human diet would be compelling.
2) Jamie asks how we measure the suffering of calves against the suffering of the families of dairy farmers who would lose their livelihood if everyone went vegan. I’ll answer this question momentarily but first let me point out that he has improperly framed it. Am I morally responsible for the suffering of the families of laid off GM auto workers if I decide that instead of buying a new Buick I’m going to ride the bus? If one is a thoroughgoing utilitarian, sure, because thoroughgoing utilitarians do not respect the act/omission distinction. But this is no way to lead your life. It makes you morally complicit in all suffering that you could alleviate by reducing your standard of living to subsistence levels and donating every other penny you have to benefit others. A much more common and sensible way to understand the moral consequences of one’s actions is to ask what are the direct effects of the small number of things you choose to do, not the infinite number of things you choose not to do. By choosing to consume dairy products, you participate in the veal industry.
3) Perhaps I have misread Jamie and what he means to say is only that I’ll have a hard time persuading the marginal dairy farmer that he should become a vegan or that my veganism is, all things considered, morally appropriate. But then we are simply back to the claim that it is hard to persuade people of things that are not in their interest. I don’t doubt that dairy farmers would like there to be a dairy industry, just as I don’t doubt that corn farmers like government subsidies for growing corn. The vast majority of my fellow citizens are not farmers, however, and I thought the point Jamie was making had to do with the effectiveness of moral arguments.
4) Now back to the philosophical question. Jamie says that “Donald Griffin never argued that animal suffering is just like human suffering.” Well, why not? Is there any evidence that the animals with whom we share the same basic biology and neurochemistry have qualitatively different experiences of physical pain and (at least in the case of most vertebrates) emotional distress that we do? Is Jamie appealing to Creationism? Undoubtedly, we humans think we have reason to prefer our own wellbeing, just as parents have actor-relative reasons to prefer the wellbeing of their children to those of other children. I would even concede that this should count for quite a bit on the positive side. Thus, I don’t think we have a moral obligation to provide the sort of education for gorillas and chimps that would enable them to obtain gainful employment; but that hardly means we can prefer our welfare to theirs to the point of affirmatively harming them by, for example, injecting them with H.I.V. I learned yesterday that it may be possible to create a mammoth from preserved DNA. Suppose that 2 million years from now our super-advanced descendants use such a technology to re-create 21st Century humans: Would our suffering count for less than the future beings because they are so much smarter than we are/were?
5) Jamie also asserts: “Every ounce of effort you put into veganism is effort you can’t put into ending the bushmeat trade—unless you’ve somehow found a way to eliminate the opportunity costs that every meaningful action entails.” This is absurd. Veganism is simply eating, an activity we all do every day. Yes, I probably spend a few more minutes in the supermarket than most omnivores because I need to read ingredients lists, and true, I have to buy my belts and shoes online to get good looking synthetic leather. But are these added minutes per month going to interfere in any way with my ability to make an annual donation to the International Primate Protection League? In fact, the sort of person who thinks about the moral consequences of her diet and clothing is likely to be more, not less, concerned with such practices as the hideous bushmeat trade.
One final point about persuasion: With the exception of Jains, very few current vegans were raised that way. I came to this view because I was persuaded by appeals to reason and emotion, which is pretty much how all human decisions are made. (The emotional centers of the brain are essential to decision making.) I do not consider myself an especially moral person. In fact, I can be sort of a jerk. So if persuasion worked on me, it can work on others.
Posted by Mike Dorf
10 comments:
Checkmate.
I disagree with nearly everything Jamie said in yesterday's post on persuasion. Let's begin with the main point: That it’s hard to persuade people to change their behavior because they have different perspectives and different life experiences. Hard, yes, but hardly impossible. Persuading people is what successful movements for social justice accomplish. We are in the midst of a pretty dramatic one in the way people think about sexual orientation, which is markedly different from how people thought just 20 years ago and certainly 50 years ago.
Well, your point basically proves my actual point: the closer you get to practical certainty on suffering, the more likely people are to hear you out and decide afresh. LGBT community suffering is, I hope, much easier to understand, primitively quantify, and care about than that of lives not-yet-in-being or, believe it or not, non-human animals.
So perhaps what Jamie means is that it’s hard to persuade people to make sacrifices for others, especially others with whom they feel no particular kinship. After all, despite the rhetoric of “protecting” marriage, according fully equal rights to members of the LGBT community doesn’t really cost straight people anything. By contrast, getting people to give up steak and even pizza? Now that’s a sacrifice!
This is the kind of sarcasm (and the answer below is the kind of answer) that so often fails to persuade non-vegans of anything except that their interlocutor is (a) self-absorbed to the point of not appreciating how much people like their [you fill in the blank; but, fwiw, I’ve been avoiding animal suffering through a primarily vegetarian diet for 15+ years]; (b) unaware that “sacrifice” is a unitary category in most people’s moral universes and that if they were confronted with the choice of sacrificing by paying more at the checkout to eliminate sweatshops or sacrifice by eliminating every product derived from animals from their lives, they’d have to go with the former; (c) willing to sacrifice their faith’s insistence that marriage is sacred and sacredly bound by a kind of “numerous clausus” by saying things like it is “no” sacrifice—when it is a real sacrifice at least in cognitive dissonance for a lot of religious people; or (d) all of the above. I have a sinking suspicion that this all comes down to the behavioral and cognitive psychology on endogeneity of preferences. Neil?
Well, yes and no. If we assume that people only act out of self-interest, then veganism or something like it can be sold based on its health benefits. And I certainly agree, indeed I’ve said on this blog, that organizations like Farm Sanctuary ought to be devoting much of their budget to marketing attractive vegan alternatives to meat and dairy products.
Veganism can’t be sold exclusively on health benefits unless you’re relatively rich. Try eating a vegan diet or feeding young children a vegan diet when you’re poor—which is a much larger proportion of the American populace (and most others) than many vegans seem comfortable with. Besides the risks that substitutes like soy formula represent (and there are real risks, like hormonal disruption, which is still an issue despite what PETA says, speaking from familial experience), there are the dietary traps that are all too easy to fall into when eating habits are being formed. And, incidentally, if you think vitamin supplements are a paean, I suggest you take extreme care in their sourcing. California is one of a very few jurisdictions that require mfrs to notify you of metals and other toxics that happen to be present—in highly concentrated form—in your supplements as a result of the modes of production. Calcium, for example, is usually produced either with bonemeal (from cows) or crustacean shells, both of which are terrific bioaccumulators of lead, mercury, zinc, and arsenic. Omegas, iron and others have similar issues. And you might buy the good supplements, btw, but that doesn’t mean everyone can.
But Jamie apparently goes further to suggest that one will encounter moral opposition to pleas about suffering, and here he simply errs. To wit:
1) Jamie wonders whether demand for soy as food might accelerate the conversion of Brazilian rain forest to agriculture. He cannot be serious. To produce feed for beef or dairy cattle requires orders of magnitude more land for cultivation than is required to produce vegetable products for direct human consumption. And that is simply a matter of calories per acre under cultivation. Raising beef and dairy cattle also produces vast quantities of methane gas, which, pound for pound, is much worse for global warming than CO2. Other animal-based food industries (such as pig farming and the raising of chickens for eggs or meat) produce their own environmental problems, to say nothing of the potential for breeding lethal strains of influenza. Even if one had no regard whatsoever for the welfare of non-human animals, the environmental case for a plant-based human diet would be compelling.
As I said in my email to you, I couldn’t agree more. But here you press the point too far. I said “rich” consumers because I don’t think you’re being realistic. What are all these people going to do with their disposable income now that they’re not spending it on flesh? Eat lentils and entertain themselves by volunteering for the Sierra Club? Massive, rapid shifts in consumption have second-order significance. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news. I don’t have the time to ferret out what might be a plausible scenario of switching, say, all of California to veganism. But switching people’s consumption habits tends never to just be an erasure of the offending behavior without any other consequences emerging. Raising chickens or fish with the env. costs properly internalized to the producer actually makes your question much harder, doesn’t it? I used to think there was no way to re-engineer these businesses, but it turns out that that was probably overly pessimistic . . . assuming people will pay the prices such re-engineering entails.
2) Jamie asks how we measure the suffering of calves against the suffering of the families of dairy farmers who would lose their livelihood if everyone went vegan. I’ll answer this question momentarily but first let me point out that he has improperly framed it. Am I morally responsible for the suffering of the families of laid off GM auto workers if I decide that instead of buying a new Buick I’m going to ride the bus? If one is a thoroughgoing utilitarian, sure, because thoroughgoing utilitarians do not respect the act/omission distinction. But this is no way to lead your life. It makes you morally complicit in all suffering that you could alleviate by reducing your standard of living to subsistence levels and donating every other penny you have to benefit others. A much more common and sensible way to understand the moral consequences of one’s actions is to ask what are the direct effects of the small number of things you choose to do, not the infinite number of things you choose not to do. By choosing to consume dairy products, you participate in the veal industry.
I’m not sure why “this is no way to lead your life.” Most people don’t live their lives according to the logician’s pristine omission/commission dichotomy. The Catholic Church—just for example—preaches that you are complicit in starvation around the world if you don’t donate every penny you can afford. A lot of people see moral reasoning in just this way. The issue in persuasion I was pointing out was simply that veganism resembles that logic to many people, at least people I know. By choosing not to rescue a child who’s wandered into the street right in front of her, a mother who witnessed that child’s death would feel awful for not having acted. By choosing to feed her child milk but not veal, I doubt the same mother would feel awful, probably because the ‘degree of separation’ between the milk and the veal on cruelty averted and the “costs” to the mother is significant to her.
3) Perhaps I have misread Jamie and what he means to say is only that I’ll have a hard time persuading the marginal dairy farmer that he should become a vegan or that my veganism is, all things considered, morally appropriate. But then we are simply back to the claim that it is hard to persuade people of things that are not in their interest. I don’t doubt that dairy farmers would like there to be a dairy industry, just as I don’t doubt that corn farmers like government subsidies for growing corn. The vast majority of my fellow citizens are not farmers, however, and I thought the point Jamie was making had to do with the effectiveness of moral arguments.
Last time I checked, a lot of members of Congress had farmers—and, yes, dairy farmers, given how decentralized the industry is—in their districts. Make an “effective moral” argument to them that doesn’t take seriously the elimination of so many animal-dependent industries and the human costs it will entail. I’m an interested spectator in that one—but not because I think it’s impossible. I just think it’s hard, it would be a lot more about persuading people with whom you share very little in common, and it would, very likely, entail high “settlement costs” probably to be paid by the people advocating less animal cruelty.
4) Now back to the philosophical question. Jamie says that “Donald Griffin never argued that animal suffering is just like human suffering.” Well, why not? Is there any evidence that the animals with whom we share the same basic biology and neurochemistry have qualitatively different experiences of physical pain and (at least in the case of most vertebrates) emotional distress that we do? Is Jamie appealing to Creationism?
I’ve been called a lot of things. “Absurd” (below) I can take. This kind of debaters’ use of “Creationism” is beneath both of us, though. But since you asked, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that humans don’t share many of their most important biochemical and other physiological properties with birds, fish, and, yes, even some mammals. Keep making arguments that trout or pigeons or voles experience emotional distress and see who you persuade.
Undoubtedly, we humans think we have reason to prefer our own wellbeing, just as parents have actor-relative reasons to prefer the wellbeing of their children to those of other children. I would even concede that this should count for quite a bit on the positive side. Thus, I don’t think we have a moral obligation to provide the sort of education for gorillas and chimps that would enable them to obtain gainful employment; but that hardly means we can prefer our welfare to theirs to the point of affirmatively harming them by, for example, injecting them with H.I.V.
Again, a disappointing debating tactic, not a response to what I was actually suggesting. Beside the fact that injecting HIV in a defenseless animal (susceptible to it) would only enhance someone’s welfare if they were deranged, and beside the fact that your other absurdity hints at exactly what I was suggesting in the previous point (why stop with apes? if we share our cognitive heritage with parrots, we should school them, too), what we owe to animals doesn’t track “positive” versus “negative” sides as you seem to think. In the real world, at the last instant before you run over a squirrel with your car and not a (random) toddler, you are either (a) less pained about it than if it had been the other way around, or (b) weird.
I learned yesterday that it may be possible to create a mammoth from preserved DNA. Suppose that 2 million years from now our super-advanced descendants use such a technology to re-create 21st Century humans: Would our suffering count for less than the future beings because they are so much smarter than we are/were?
Having never seen Wall-e, I doubt I could answer the question in there adequately.
5) Jamie also asserts: “Every ounce of effort you put into veganism is effort you can’t put into ending the bushmeat trade—unless you’ve somehow found a way to eliminate the opportunity costs that every meaningful action entails.” This is absurd. Veganism is simply eating, an activity we all do every day. Yes, I probably spend a few more minutes in the supermarket than most omnivores because I need to read ingredients lists, and true, I have to buy my belts and shoes online to get good looking synthetic leather. But are these added minutes per month going to interfere in any way with my ability to make an annual donation to the International Primate Protection League? In fact, the sort of person who thinks about the moral consequences of her diet and clothing is likely to be more, not less, concerned with such practices as the hideous bushmeat trade.
This is not being honest about veganism, pure and simple. A few minutes? Come on. I spend more than a few minutes and my diet is way simpler than yours. I avoid any form of flesh except fish and only eat fish occasionally and when I have good reason to believe it was responsibly harvested. Just finding those good reasons is actually pretty labor intensive (and, incidentally, hasn’t been eased much by the market. For example, the “Marine Stewardship Council” which supposedly serves a third-party certification role is actually a scam erected by Unilever, the biggest seafood conglomerate there is). And, again, if you don’t miss steak or pizza or other foods you’ve given up—or the restaurants you can frequent with non-veg friends and all of the other related inconveniences it entails—that just shows how different you are from most of America. I have an instant where I miss eating “meat” maybe once or twice a year, to be honest. But that’s also why I don’t prosthelytize much on this subject.
One final point about persuasion: With the exception of Jains, very few current vegans were raised that way. I came to this view because I was persuaded by appeals to reason and emotion, which is pretty much how all human decisions are made. (The emotional centers of the brain are essential to decision making.) I do not consider myself an especially moral person. In fact, I can be sort of a jerk. So if persuasion worked on me, it can work on others.
As the actual subject of my post suggested (not the bad choice of examples that has led to this kerfuffle), I could care less about a couple hundred thousand(?) practicing vegans worldwide. It is progress of a sort that the care for animals underlying veganism is more common today than when it was just religious sects. Less cruelty to animals is better. I believe that very deeply.
But there seem to be a limited number of clock ticks where our climate problems can even possibly be addressed. Progress at the pace of Jainism-into-veganism-into no “ism” because it has become the dominant social norm isn’t sufficient in my admittedly-cynical opinion. Persuasion of this kind is working on a particular, and particularly narrow, demographic (I hesitate to say out loud to my former professor). Now I would hope the logic of veganism works in our demographic and that vegans are disproportionately concerned with the bushmeat trade. But I think people like Mike, Sherry, Neil, and the many readers of this blog all share a tremendous amount in common (and would go even further to say that they all care much more about “reason” and reason-driven morality than the median voter).
Lastly, by coincidence I was watching “Morning Joe” on MSNBC today and Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan had this fascinating moment where Matt Scully’s book Dominion came up. They both raved about it—and both mentioned the fact that Scully is a real “conservative” several times—both said he made powerful arguments. If you know the book, you’ll know that it has more to do with emotion, analogy, and other forms of practical persuasion than it does formal reasoning. Both of these two twits (who I share almost nothing in common with) raved about how good the book is but that, even though Scully was a conservative, they weren’t going to down the (scary!) vegetarian road. I was struck by how much Scully’s conservatism meant to them—part of their tribe—and also how unpersuaded they still were. To the reader: Aren’t you? Or do you prefer to be morally righteous in your own conduct over finding practical solutions that actually move billions of people to shift their preferences and behavior to what it looks like it will take for us to do anything meaningful on climate change? I hasten to add that I abhor animal cruelty and that I go out of my way to reduce it, much like Mike. I think a lot of animals are every bit as cognitively sensitive as people. But it’s a crowded world, action is, by definition, about prioritization, and nowhere near a majority of even rich Americans believe about animals what we believe. Talk to a scientist sometime who does animal bioassays for pharmaceutical research.
I won't resort to answering all of Jamie's further provocations. Instead, let me step back. Most of Jamie's sur-reply is simply faux outrage. Having used the forum of my blog to patronize my views as merely moralizing, he is somehow surprised--shocked!--that I would call him on it, and hard.
But let me go after the central point. Jamie repeatedly accuses me of playing the debater, by which he presumably means that I am substituting clever-sounding rhetoric for argument. Yet it is Jamie who, on the central point of disagreement, resorts to the most discreditable debater's tactic: He goes after a straw man. To show that people care more about people than animals, he asks: "In the real world, at the last instant before you run over a squirrel with your car and not a (random) toddler, you are either (a) less pained about it than if it had been the other way around, or (b) weird?" I fully acknowledged that we human beings care more for other human beings than other animals, and that we even have good agent-relative reasons for doing so. Does it follow from Jamie's example that there's nothing wrong with eating squirrels? Here's a more apt analogy: If it's okay to turn the trolley to hit the one rather than the five (as some people think it is), does it follow that it's okay to eat the one? And if it's preferable to hit the five, does that mean one can eat the five? The rights sought by animal rights activists for animals are so utterly minimal that granting them in full would be entirely consistent with the view that humans have much greater rights.
In his oops-sorry-to-have-stepped-into-that-one mode, Jamie claims that all he was really doing was obliquely suggesting that veganism is impractical and elitist. I'll grant that under current conditions--which include massive subsidies for growing feed grains--it's cheaper to be an omnivore in America than a healthy vegan. But that's simply the way markets work. Specialty items are more expensive. Were vegans to become a much more substantial portion of the population, that would change. Would that, by itself, be enough to reverse global warming? No, but I stand by my claim that the habits of mind that one develops by thinking about food and clothing as moral choices would lead to more people working on other pressing issues, and that effect would overwhelm any concern about the diversion of mental and moral energy.
There is simply too much here and I'll stand in simple agreement with Mike on all of these issues. With that said I wanted to respond to two (of many) factual failures of Jamie's both original post and reply.
Both surround the issue of the cost of veganism and they are :
1. Being vegan diverts too much effort; and
2. veganism is only for the rich.
These are both very wrong and mostly for the same reason - Jamie's failure to account for anything other than the direct costs to the consumer. I'll start with my second point.
1. Eating Vegan is far less costly than eating omnivore. It is simply not deniable that producing a supply of meat is more expensive than producing that same nutritional value quantity in plant material. There is nothing special about a cow, pig or chicken that allows it to produce more than it consumes. In a study done at, of all places, Cornell almost a decade ago (perhaps older), the energy (from grains) used to produce protein in meats varied from 4:1 to as much as 50:1, depending on the animal (presumably with chicken or fish at the low end and cows at the high end, but I don't remember the details).
The only reason that even a plausible claim of "veganism is for the rich" can hold up is by excluding the distributed and massive costs of farm subsidies, which, overwhelmingly go to feed grain production. If consumers were actually required to directly pay for meets reflecting their true costs, the vegan would pay far far less for food than would the omnivore. Jamie's argument on this only works if one ignores the direct-to-consumer discounts that are the result of government subsidies.
On top of that cost is the cost of the externalities that Jamie chooses to ignore - principally pollution. Like most pollution, the cost of waste disposal of the massive quantities of biological waste created during the life of each farm animal is largely unpaid for by the farmer. Further, the total direct environmental impact costs paid by farmers is effectively $0. These costs, therefor, are again unjustly avoided by the meet consumer.
Government policy needs to change so as not to actively encourage consumption of meat. If the subsidies ended and if the externalities were properly accounted for and charged, then veganism would a clear choice for people other than "the rich."
The first point goes to Jamie's assertion that the time spent in being vegan is quite significant. Mike's account is by far the more accurate and here, again, Jamie's failure is principally refusal to account for external costs. The truth is, because of years of training (starting from my earliest memories) on how to eat as an omnivore, there was an initial information hurdle to overcome. My experience (and I just returned from a Chinese market) today, however, is exactly like Mike's. I have to read ingredient lists - as I did today - to make appropriate selections. Today I had to read three white miso labels to find one with no bonito and we ended up not purchasing some bread items we were intending on getting because we could not find one we wanted without eggs. So I wasted a few minutes in the store, plus an additional 10 minutes using the bread maker at home to make vegan bread.
It is really not a significant part of my life and simply comes second nature at this point. The same thing happens in any non-vegan restaurant. I have to spend some time questioning the server and sometimes I don;t get exactly what I wanted because of the lack of alternatives.
This, however, is not a fair relation of costs. My children (and Micheal's children) will all be raised vegan from the start. They will know exactly what they need to know from day one and, like me, eating vegan will just be second nature to them. That same "education" for omnivores, however, is also required. Jamie is just not accounting for it. you learn (initially through habit and then later by design and with thought) how to eat. If you are going to eat healthily, omnivore or vegan, it is going to take some effort.
Could someone survive by mindlessly eating a McDonalds or home cooking "steak and potatoes" and the like every day? Sure. But there is nothing at all healthy about it. Eating exclusively out of habit in America and not taking the time to think about your food choices is going to make you unhealthy.
You don;t get to count as "zero" time spent on food choices by omnivores. When discussing the cost of food choices, you also don't get to count as "zero" the time spent by parents of omnivores teaching their children how to eat. That is the equivalent of the government subsidies.
免費A片, ut聊天室, AV女優, 美女視訊, 免費成人影片, 成人論壇, 情色交友, 免費AV, 線上a片, 日本美女寫真集, 同志聊天室, 聊天室交友, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 色情網站, 辣妹視訊, 美女交友, 微風成人區, 色美媚部落格, 色情影片, 成人影片, 成人網站, 免費A片, 上班族聊天室, A片,H漫, 18成人, a漫, av dvd, 一夜情聊天室, 微風成人, 成人圖片, 成人漫畫, 情色網, 日本A片, 免費A片下載, 性愛, 成人交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人貼圖, 成人電影, 成人, 中部人聊天室, 080中部人聊天室, 成人貼圖, 成人小說, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人遊戲, 微風成人, 愛情公寓, 成人電影, A片, 情色, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 做愛, 成人遊戲, 成人影城, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 寄情築園小遊戲, 色情遊戲, 成人網站, 麗的色遊戲, 色情網站, 成人論壇, 情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 言情小說, 愛情小說, 色情A片, 情色論壇, 自拍, 癡漢, , 俱樂部, 豆豆聊天室, 聊天室, 色情影片, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊交友90739 情人視訊網影音視訊聊天室 免費視訊聊天室 視訊聊天 視訊交友 美女視訊 視訊美女 視訊 免費視訊 免費視訊聊天 視訊聊天室 辣妹視訊 一夜情 色情a片 aio交友愛情館 情色電影 情色視訊 色情遊戲 色情 情色小說 一葉情貼圖片區 色情小說 色情聊天室 情色交友 成人論壇 成人網站 色情網站 情色論壇 小高聊天室 女同志聊天室 6K聊天室 080苗栗人聊天室 080聊天室 聊天室尋夢園 UT男同志聊天室 男同志聊天室 尋夢園聊天室 UT聊天室 聊天室 豆豆聊天室 A片 成人電影 成人貼圖 嘟嘟成人網 美女交友 本土自拍 成人交友 成人影片http://ssff01.3b8mm.com/
It is the knight noah which makes me very happy these days, my brother says knight gold is his favorite games gold he likes, he usually knight online gold to start his game and most of the time he will win the knight online noah back and give me some cheap knight gold to play the game.
塑料托盘,塑料栈板 四川塑料托盘,塑料栈板 成都塑料托盘,塑料栈板 自贡塑料托盘,塑料栈板 攀枝花塑料托盘,塑料栈板 泸州塑料托盘,塑料栈板 德阳塑料托盘,塑料栈板 绵阳塑料托盘,塑料栈板 广元塑料托盘,塑料栈板 遂宁塑料托盘,塑料栈板 内江塑料托盘,塑料栈板 乐山塑料托盘,塑料栈板 南充塑料托盘,塑料栈板 宜宾塑料托盘,塑料栈板 广安塑料托盘,塑料栈板 达州塑料托盘,塑料栈板 仓储货架|仓库货架|托盘|仓储笼 仓储货架|仓库货架|托盘|仓储笼 仓储货架|仓库货架|托盘|仓储笼 仓储货架|仓库货架|托盘|仓储笼 轻型仓储货架|轻量型仓库货架|库房货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 中量型仓储货架|中量A型仓库货架|库房货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 中量型仓储货架|中量B型仓库货架|库房货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 横梁式仓库货架|重型仓储货架|货位式库房货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 模具货架|抽屉式仓库货架|仓储货架|库房货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 贯通式仓储货架|通廊式仓库货架|驶入式库房货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 悬臂式仓储货架|仓库货架|库房货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 阁楼式仓储货架|仓库货架|库房货架|钢平台 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 流利式仓储货架|仓库货架|库房货架|辊轮式货架|自滑式货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架 工作台|工作桌 工具柜|工具车 托盘|塑料托盘|钢托盘|铁托盘|钢制托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼|蝴蝶笼 周转箱|塑料周转箱 静音手推车|铁板手推车|购物手推车|登高车 手动液压托盘搬运车|不锈钢搬运车|电子秤搬运车 高起升搬运车|电动搬运车|平台车 手动液压堆高车|手动液压堆垛车|半电动堆垛车 全电动堆垛车|油桶搬运车|圆桶搬运车|油桶装卸车| 柴油内燃平衡重式叉车|电动平衡重式叉车 液压升降机|剪叉式高空作业平台|固定式蹬车桥 文件柜 不锈钢制品 零件盒|零件柜 折叠式仓储笼|仓库笼 钢托盘 钢制料箱 堆垛架 物流台车 手推车 钢托盘 折叠式仓储笼|仓库笼 折叠式仓储笼|仓库笼 钢托盘|钢制托盘|铁托盘|金属托盘|镀锌托盘 堆垛架|巧固架 钢制料箱 物流台车|载物台车 手推车|静音手推车 手推车|静音手推车 仓储笼|钢托盘|钢制料箱|堆垛架|物流台车|手推车 仓储笼|钢托盘 仓储笼 仓库货架|中量A型货架 仓储货架|中量B型货架 库房货架|横梁式货架 塑料托盘|栈板 钢托盘|钢制托盘 折叠式仓储笼|仓库笼 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼 托盘|钢托盘 托盘|塑料托盘 周转箱|塑料周转箱 托盘|纸托盘 料箱|钢制料箱 工具柜|工具车|抽屉柜 工作台|工作桌 刀具柜|刀具车|刀具架 手动液压托盘搬运车|电动托盘搬运车 手动液压堆高车|手动叉车 仓储笼 仓库笼 南京仓储笼 常州仓储笼 无锡仓储笼 苏州仓储笼 徐州仓储笼 南通仓储笼 镇江仓储笼 连云港仓储笼 泰州仓储笼 扬州仓储笼 盐城仓储笼 淮安仓储笼 宿迁仓储笼 轻量型货架|角钢货架 中量A型货架 中量B型货架 货位式货架 横梁式货架 阁楼式货架|钢平台 悬臂式货架 贯通式货架|通廊式货架|驶入式货架 辊轮式货架|流利条货架 压入式货架 移动式货架|密集架 模具货架 抽屉式货架 汽车4S店货架 汽配库货架 自动化立体仓库货架 托盘|钢托盘|钢制托盘 托盘|塑料托盘 托盘|塑料托盘 托盘|塑料托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼 手推车|铁板手推车 手推车|静音手推车 置物架|工业置物架|家用置物架 堆垛架|巧固架 挂板架|物料整理架 登高车 物流台车|载物台车 料箱|钢制料箱 搬运车|手动液压托盘搬运车|电动托盘搬运车 堆高机|堆垛机|手动堆高机|电动堆高机 叉车|电动叉车|内燃叉车|叉车厂 货架 货架 仓储货架 仓储货架 仓库货架 仓库货架 货架厂 货架厂 货架公司 货架公司 托盘 钢托盘 铁托盘 钢制托盘 塑料托盘 仓储笼 仓库笼 折叠式仓储笼 折叠仓储笼 仓储货架|仓库货架|库房货架 南京货架|横梁式货架|中型货架 钢托盘|塑料托盘|纸托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼 钢制料箱|工具柜|工作台 手动液压托盘搬运车|手动液压堆高车 仓库货架|中量A型货架> 仓储货架|横梁式货架|货位式货架 托盘|塑料托盘|钢制托盘|纸托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼|蝴蝶笼|储物笼 手动液压托盘搬运车|手动液压堆高车 仓库货架|中量A型货架 仓储货架|横梁式货架|货位式货架 托盘|塑料托盘|钢制托盘|纸托盘 仓储笼|折叠式仓储笼|仓库笼|蝴蝶笼|储物笼 手动液压托盘搬运车|手动液压堆高车 仓储货架|仓库货架|库房货架 南京货架|中型货架|横梁式货架 钢托盘|钢制托盘|塑料托盘|纸托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼 钢制料箱|工具柜|工作台 手动液压托盘搬运车|手动液压堆高车 仓库货架|中量A型货架 仓储货架|中量B型货架 库房货架|横梁式货架|货位式货架 钢托盘|钢制托盘|铁托盘|栈板 托盘|塑料托盘|栈板 纸托盘|栈板 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼|蝴蝶笼|储物笼 钢制料箱|钢制周转箱|网格式料箱 搬运车|手动液压托盘搬运车|电动托盘搬运车 仓库货架|中量A型货架 仓储货架|中量B型货架 库房货架|横梁式货架|货位式货架 钢托盘|钢制托盘|铁托盘|栈板 塑料托盘|塑料栈板 纸托盘|栈板 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼|蝴蝶笼|储物笼 钢制料箱|钢质周转箱|网格式料箱 手动液压托盘搬运车|液压搬运车 仓储货架|>仓库货架|库房货架 南京货架|中型货架|横梁式货架 钢托盘|钢制托盘|塑料托盘|纸托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼 钢制料箱|工具柜|工作台 手动液压托盘搬运车|手动液压堆高车 仓库货架|中量A型货架 仓储货架|中量B型货架 库房货架|横梁式货架|货位式货架 钢托盘|钢制托盘|铁托盘|栈板 塑料托盘|塑料栈板 纸托盘|栈板 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼|蝴蝶笼|储物笼 钢制料箱|钢质周转箱|网格式料箱 手动液压托盘搬运车|托盘搬运车 货架|仓储货架|仓库货架|库房货架 南京货架|上海货架|北京货架 轻型货架|中型货架|搁板式货架 重型货架|横梁式货架|托盘式货架 托盘|木托盘|纸托盘|木塑托盘 托盘|钢托盘|塑料托盘|钢制托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼 手推车|静音手推车|铁板手推车 物料架|整理架|挂板架 料箱|钢制料箱|钢制周转箱|网格式料箱 手动液压托盘搬运车|电动托盘搬运车 手动液压堆高车|半电动堆高车|手动叉车 塑料周转箱|物流箱|塑料化工桶|塑料卡板箱 工具柜|上海工具柜|南京工具柜|抽屉柜 工作台|工作桌|南京工作台|上海工作台 刀具车|刀具柜|刀具架|刀具座 货架 货架厂 货架公司 仓储货架 仓库货架 库房货架 南京货架 上海货架 托盘 钢托盘 钢制托盘 货架|轻量型货架|角钢货架 货架|中量型货架|次重型货架 货位式货架|横梁式货架|重量型货架 仓储货架|阁楼式货架|钢平台 仓储货架|悬臂式货架 仓储货架|贯通式货架|通廊式货架|驶入式货架 仓库货架|库房货架|抽屉式货架|模具货架 仓库货架|库房货架|汽车4S店货架|汽配库货架 货架厂|货架公司|南京货架|上海货架|无锡货架|苏州货架 货架厂|货架公司|北京货架|天津货架|沈阳货架|大连货架 货架厂|货架公司|广州货架|深圳货架|杭州货架 托盘|钢托盘|钢制托盘 托盘|塑料托盘 仓储笼|仓库笼|折叠式仓储笼 置物架|多功能置物架|卫浴置物架 料箱|钢制料箱|钢制周转箱 手动液压托盘搬运车|不锈钢托盘搬运车|电动托盘搬运车 手动液压堆高车|半电动堆高车|电动堆高车|堆垛车 货架 仓储货架 仓库货架 货架厂 货架公司 托盘 钢托盘 铁托盘 钢制托盘 塑料托盘 仓储笼 仓库笼 折叠式仓储笼 折叠仓储笼 货架 货架 货架 仓储货架 仓储货架 仓储货架 仓库货架 仓库货架 货架厂 货架厂 货架公司 货架公司 托盘 钢托盘 铁托盘 钢制托盘 塑料托盘 仓储笼 仓库笼 折叠式仓储笼 货架 货架 货架 仓储货架 仓储货架 仓储货架 仓库货架 仓库货架 仓库货架 货架厂 货架厂 货架厂 货架公司 货架公司 货架公司 托盘 钢托盘 铁托盘 钢制托盘 塑料托盘 仓储笼 仓库笼 折叠式仓储笼 折叠仓储笼 托盘 塑料托盘 钢托盘 钢制托盘 铁托盘 货架厂 仓储笼 仓库笼 折叠式仓储笼 折叠仓储笼 南京货架 货架公司 货架厂 仓库货架 仓储货架 货架 货架
www.eshooes.com .
www.pumafr.com.
www.myshoess.com.
[url=http://www.pumafr.com]puma shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.eshooes.com]chaussures puma[/url]
[url=http://www.myshoess.com]nike air max ltd[/url]
酒店兼職,上班的酒店經紀人,制服酒店領檯小姐.去,禮服酒店兼職便服店,合法酒店經紀生意一定很好酒店,暑假打工菲梵
酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店工作, 專業酒店經紀, 合法酒店經紀, 酒店暑假打工, 酒店寒假打工, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店工作, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店經紀, 專業酒店經紀, 合法酒店經紀, 酒店暑假打工, 酒店寒假打工, 酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店工作, 酒店打工經紀, 制服酒店經紀,菲梵,
Post a Comment