Wednesday, September 02, 2009

Animal Rights and Gay Rights

In my FindLaw column this week, I draw an analogy between the experiences of members of two groups, respectively: gay people and vegans. I argue that in a variety of ways, the struggles of gay men and lesbians for justice are distinct from those of minorities and women and resemble the struggles of vegans. Rather than rehash the argument here, I want to emphasize the claim that I am *not* making about gay people and vegans.

I am not suggesting that vegans have experienced a history of discrimination and persecution that in any way resembles what gay men and lesbians have confronted. To my knowledge, there are no laws that prohibit the practice of ethical veganism or that systematically exclude vegans from important institutional benefits, such as the ability to marry or join the military. Vegans, unlike gay men and lesbians, are not and never have been a major target of hateful invective or conduct. Though school lunches are almost entirely unaccommodating to ethical vegans, they are also (and for some of the same reasons) unaccommodating to children whose parents wish to avoid health crises in the future. There is, in other words, no concerted effort afoot to target ethical vegans for unfavorable treatment.

The reason that the analogy between gays and lesbians, on the one hand, and vegans, on the other, does not extend to law and victimization is simple: ethical vegans are committed to the rights of nonhuman animals, not the rights of ethical vegans. Thus, if we look to the history of how nonhuman animals have been treated and are now treated, we understand that no one is comparing serious persecution (against gay men and lesbians), on the one hand, with a lack of adequate accommodation (for vegans), on the other.

Nonhuman animals are, in most legal systems, considered to fall into the category of personal property, "pests," and "natural resources." To state this differently, the status of nonhuman animals -- creatures who can think, feel pain and pleasure, and experiences a wide range of emotions -- turns almost entirely on what human beings want from them. If people find a particular animal's flesh or bodily secretions to be tasty -- as they do in the case of chickens, turkeys, cows, pigs, and lambs -- then the animals are bred, separated from loved ones, subjected to procedures that would unambiguously qualify as "torture" among human beings, and then efficiently (and almost always painfully) slaughtered. Though we might find a baby calf adorable and sweet, this does not stop us from consuming the dairy products that come from the calf's mother being impregnated, the calf being taken away from the mother, the calf being killed as veal, and the mother being killed when her milk production is no longer profitable. Though we find baby chicks cute as well, we purchase eggs that come from hens whose male offspring are separated out and killed soon after birth -- by asphyxiation, gassing or dismemberment. Nor does it stop us from wearing shoes, gloves, and belts created from the skin ripped from animal corpses -- and sometimes from animals still writhing in pain as they are dismembered.

Other animals -- like deer or wolves -- register as natural resources. When we decide that we like looking at them and want accordingly to avoid their extinction, we restrict hunting (or limit hunting to particular times or places). Then, when the "natural resources" no longer please us -- because they eat our property (whether, in the case of wolves, so-called "livestock," the animals whom we aim to kill and eat, or, in the case of deer, pretty flowers or apples that we grow), we kill them with abandon and call this activity a "sport" or "population control." Other animals -- such as mice and rats -- are more consistently viewed as "pests" and thus killed, unless they are deliberately bred in large numbers for excruciating research in medical laboratories.

Then there are pets, who seem favored, but they too are property. We can decide we don't want them anymore (as most "pets" encounter during their lives) and either "euthanize" them (a term that seems inappropriate when the animal is still young, healthy, and friendly) or give them to a shelter, which will generally do the same. And the breeding practices that produce the beloved pet go on behind closed doors and can sometimes rival the cruelty of the farm.

This is what ethical vegans resist through their "lifestyle choice." They attempt, as part of a movement, to expose the reality of animal use and thereby withdraw the support that consumer demand gives to institutional users of animals. And this is why vegans, like gay men and lesbians, cannot -- and should not -- be content to follow their conscience in the privacy of their own homes. Both groups of people strive, though for different reasons, to compel transparency and truth about what we falsely view as purely private choices that have no impact beyond the dining room table and the bedroom.

24 comments:

heathu said...

Couldn’t we take this analogy full circle and conclude that, in some key respects, hunters are a lot like gay people? For instance, there are many people in this country that view gay sex as immoral and disgusting (I’m not such a person BTW, I view homosexuality as something on the spectrum of ordinary human behaviors that I happen have no interest in partaking in.) And as these people, usually social conservatives, point out, even if there such a thing as a natural propensity for such behaviors, one does not have to engage in gay sex to live. They even like to point out the health risks of engaging the behavior. They may even set up organizations designed to help people fight their propensities they deem immoral to get them to change their ways. Love the sinner, they say, but hate the sin.

Likewise, some liberals (many not even vegan view hunting as immoral and disgusting and they oppose it. Likewise, these liberals can say, even if there is a natural propensity to pursue and hunt animals for food (which many hunters will swear up and down there is) it is still immoral and wish hunters would suppress those urges and find fulfillment in their lives through what they believe are moral behaviors.

Perhaps this analogy, like Prof. Colb’s, isn’t perfect. Hunters, like vegans but unlike homosexuals, have not been an oppressed group of people, historically speaking. But there does seem to be parallels between people who support anti-hunting causes because they think it is immoral and can’t imagine why any one would want to do it with the social conservatives who fight gay rights causes for the same reasons.

Caleb said...

Prof. Colb,

Your mention of "culling" and hunting got me thinking, and I can't pass up an opportunity to display my own ignorance. :D

From my own point of view, one of the most compelling argument you and others have raised for ethical treatment of animals is their similarity to humans (from which we can infer that they suffer similarly). The second step in that argument (call it ethical reasoning or even empathy) seems to me to provide some sort of distinction, on which we could base different outcomes.

To take an example, I grew up in Central Africa. Where I grew up, there was a general rule that "if you see a snake, you should kill it, then find out what type it was". The sole exception to this rule was for the black mamba. In that case, the snake was considered so dangerous that (at least in the villages where I spent some of my time) the rule was that if a black mamba was spotted, everyone had to get a machete and stand in a circle around it until it attacked someone. At that point, it was the job of the person being attacked to make sure it either died, or stayed in the circle (until someone else killed it).

With the benefit of hindsight, I'm sure that this policy resulted in significant suffering for the snake population. I think the argument could be made (subject to historical "fact-checking") that villages were expanding into "snake-territory" rather than snakes expanding their territory. It might also be that the policy was over-inclusive, killing snakes that had little likelihood of hurting humans. While the point is debatable, for the purposes of my argument, I'd like to take both as true.

Even if this were the case, I still have a "gut-feeling" that the rule was ethical. Snakes were (and are) responsible for a huge number of deaths in sub-saharan Africa and a huge amount of human suffering. I would view the reduction of this suffering as a good, even if it was accomplished by greater suffering on the part of snakes.

I can offer two arguments to back up my "gut-feeling".

The first is that humans are "apex predators". Just like other apex predators, we kill other animals to fulfill our needs. If we do so more efficiently than other animals, it is a consequence of our success as predators and not an ethical issue. (I like to think of it as a "Melian dialogue" for animals -- or the line from the Simpsons about "If a cow had his way, he'd eat you and everyone you cared about").

However, I don't think that argument is satisfying, because it ignores the fact that we feel bad for causing unnecessary suffering to animals (or, at least, many or most people do when they are given the chance to empathize with them).

So the second argument I would offer is based on that empathy. Humans, unlike most (all?) animals are capable of empathizing with the suffering of others. I think that I'm even willing to make the argument that, despite the suffering we do inflict on animals, we could be much crueller if we wanted. We could also be much more efficient at exterminating animals than we are. While some of our "inefficiencies" are prompted by self-interest, I would argue that some of them are prompted by compassion/sympathy/empathy (whatever we want to call it).

Despite our neurological and evolutionary similarities, I am not sure that the same could be said of animals. In my experience, they are generally dedicated to their own self interest and to making things as easy as possible for themselves. If we speak of natural "balances", it is probably because X predator isn't as efficient at catching and killing its prey as it would like to be (rather than any restraint on the part of the predator).

Caleb said...

[This is the second half of my comment -- it appears I was too verbose for the comment section, sorry]

I think I would prefer to answer the snake dilemma I posed with this second justification. Given a choice between people and snakes, I would prefer to inflict suffering on the category that was not capable of recognizing and feeling bad about the suffering it was inflicting.

I think that this is based on a judgment that there is a distinction between suffering inflicted by someone (or something) with the potential to recognize what it is doing and empathize with the other side, than by suffering inflicted merely for selfish reasons.

I realize that the reasoning is a bit backward, since the first type of person (someone who inflicts suffering and is capable of recognizing what he is doing) is more likely to be judged morally culpable for his actions than the second type, BUT, I do think it can be a basis for a moral distinction between humans and animals.

This leads me back to the snakes. Given the choice, I'd prefer to save the "animals" that are capable of being moral, even if it results in disproportionate suffering for the other side.

Now, after all that set up, here's my main response to your post. If there is a basis for that distinction, and that basis would justify some disproportionate suffering by "non-moral" beings, where is the line between "ok" disproportionate suffering and morally wrong disproportionate suffering? I admit that choosing the snakes example was picking an "easy" argument for my side, and I think i'd be willing to say that the excesses of factory farming are easy examples of crossing my line. I'm not sure, however, that my proposed line would require me to be a vegetarian (or a vegan for that matter).

If you've made it this far in reading, I apologize for such a long, rambling post. I've appreciated reading your arguments and the opportunity to "think out loud" in the comments. Sorry if this is off the main topic.

Sherry F. Colb said...

Thanks for the thought-provoking comments. I have a few thoughts in response.

First, I see an important insight in what heathu says -- people sometimes have a strong negative reaction to hunting and hunters, yet the very same people consume the products of slaughter themselves. This hypocrisy/self-deception results from denial, whereby one can consume animal parts and products but tell oneself that one has not participated in violence (in a way that a hunter has).

This hypocrisy doesn't necessarily make hunters analogous to gay people, but it does suggest that there is substantial self-deception at work among people who choose to eat the products of cruelty and torture and then judge others who engage in the same sorts of cruelty and torture (but in a more visible manner).

The Michael Vick case provides an excellent illustration of such self-delusion/hypocrisy in the context of animal torture, because everything that Vick did to the dogs is routinely and often lawfully done to farmed animals.

Second, On Caleb's points, I'd note, first, that the ability to empathize is not unique to human beings, as he seems to imply. As a colleague once commented, at least as many dogs have rushed into burning buildings to save human beings as the other way around.

Indeed, there are many examples of altruism -- both intraspecies and interspecies -- in the animal kingdom and not simply among warm-blooded animals. I earlier discussed one particular example, in which others cows approach and nurture a cow who is grieving after her calf is taken away (she usually vocalizes and refuses to eat for days afterward). In experiments, in fact, monkeys will avoid taking a treat (such as a grape) if it results in another monkey receiving a shock. The same mirror neurons that enable us to empathize are found in other species.

A good antidote to this common but mistaken human exceptionalism is an upcoming book by Jonathan Balcomb, author of Pleasurable Kingdom, entitled "Second Nature."

Thus, to the extent that one wishes to justify consumption of animal products by reference to animals' inability to empathize, the justification fails on the facts.

As to the snake example (or other examples in which people feel they may be killed and act violently in response), I think it is categorically distinct from situations in which animals are made to suffer and die for transparently unnecessary (and unhealthy) food and fashion. I might, in other words, believe that the reaction to the snakes is disproportionate to the danger (just as I might believe that police use disproportionate force when they shoot a fleeing felon suspected of a violent crime -- a constitutionally approved use of force)), but it is at least arguable that one's survival is under assault, and we either justify or excuse behavior in such a context.

Deciding to inflict suffering and death on innocent animals -- which one does by purchasing animal products, whether flesh or dairy or eggs -- is not even arguably necessary for life or health (and, in fact, is itself threatening our health and the temperature of the planet). To frame this in terms of the "fleeing felon" example, the fact that I believe it is disproportionate to use deadly force against a fleeing felon does not mean that I cannot distinguish between the use of such force, on the one hand, and the killing of a random person to make a coat or a meal out of him.

Len said...

I like the analogy between gay people in vegans in this post. It is true that in both cases people in these groups have some reluctance to openly discuss their lifestyles. I like the findlaw article too because there you also include race and gender, and in that context I can tie all these groups together and see that christian theology is the common thread that seeks to oppress these groups. While it may be further than you want to go, you could include atheists in your analysis of groups to which people often do not openly admit they belong to. We've made the most progress in ending racial and gender discrimination because those are not characteristics that a person can hide. Sexual orientation, veganism, and religion can be hidden and thus people can avoid confrontation.

Proponents of slavery, racial discrimination and gender discrimination have long made biblical arguments to support their positions. heathu in the previous comment lays out the christian anti-gay argument and I think s/he is spot on with the observation that anti-gays dismiss gays as immoral and disgusting based on biblical arguments. To me there doesn't seem to be any argument against gay rights that is not bible-based.

The anti-vegan argument seems to be rooted in the biblical domination of humans over all other animals. Humans decide who lives and dies, who is eaten and who is a pet, because the bible says so. Animals do not go to heaven, so apparently we can eat them. It makes as much send to me that it is OK to eat a pig and not a dog as it does to rely on a 3000 year old text to tell me who to marry, which is none.

Caleb said...

Thanks for the reply -- I'll look out for the book.

Sherry F. Colb said...

The analogy to atheists is fascinating, and I think it does map on well (for precisely the reasons that Len suggests). One can hide one's atheism, just as one can hide that one is gay or a vegan. It therefore takes longer to fight prejudices against such groups, because not everyone wants to admit to belonging to them. Sam Harris has a related discussion of how destructive it is that one cannot criticize religion without being viewed as a bigot. There was apparently a survey in which people said they would prefer to have their child marry outside of their own religion or marry a gay person (the assumption appeared to be that the gay person was marrying someone of the opposite sex) than to have the child marry an atheist. And, needless to say, there is a long and ugly history of persecuting people who challenge the truths of either religion generally or one or another religion in particular.

heathu said...

In a response to my comment, Prof. Colb focuses on my point of the hypocrisy/self-deception present in non-vegans that are opposed to hunting. It certainly is puzzling, but my analogy that hunters and hunting are like gay people stems from the fact that anti-hunters (I’ll make it just vegan ones in this example) are intolerant of an activity they find morally repulsive, can’t comprehend why anyone would want to engage in it, and would like to see it banned. To me, this mirrors the intolerance that some social conservatives have toward gay people – they find the activity morally repulsive, they can’t comprehend why anyone would want to engage in it and they would like to see it banned (if they could – the supreme court has finally, and sensibly, prevented that, as most readers of this blog already know.)

Vegans, for instance, may not understand the primal urge a hunter feels to be a part of nature, study his quarry, use skills both learned and innate to circumvent an animal’s considerable natural defenses and place a shot on an animal he knows will quickly short out its vital organ functions – making the hunter, and the hunted, part of the cycle that has sustained humans and nature long before we ever started farming, built cities, or created legal blogs. Even if a vegan acknowledges that a percentage of the population does have an innate urge to hunt, kill and eat an animal, they still wish that hunters would refrain from an activity they find immoral, disgusting and never engage in themselves.

Similarly, people intolerant of homosexuals don’t understand why one man would want to take another man’s [insert whatever graphic description of a homosexual act you’d like here.] Like the vegan opposed to hunting, they find homosexuality immoral, disgusting, and can’t imagine why anyone would want to engage in it. Even if someone opposed to homosexuality acknowledges that a percentage of the population has a natural predisposition for gay sex, they still wish that homosexuals would refrain from the act. So much so, in fact, that some opposed to homosexuality try to be “helpful” and offer gay people counseling – try to convince them that a rich, fulfilling life is possible without homosexual acts.

I think then, the analogy to gay people and hunters not only holds, but is reinforced by Prof. Colb’s last comment that atheism is like being gay or a vegan in that an atheist can hide the fact that they are atheist, and may feel pressure to do so. Hunters can hide the fact they hunt, and in certain company, may feel pressure to do so. If anti-hunting sentiment grows large enough, or even succeeds in getting hunting banned outright, then hunters will be forced to live their lives as non-hunters. I submit here that would be as unfulfilling and unfair to them as it would be for homosexuals forced to live “straight.”

Rick said...

Gays fight for human rights; and vegans fight for animal rights. Even with certain sensory similarities we share with animals, it is a stretch to say that human rights are no different at all from animal rights. Moreover, some people who are not gay support gay rights; and some people who are not ethical vegans support animal rights. Therefore, I do not see a sufficient premise for Professor Colb’s interesting analogy.

Michael C. Dorf said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sherry F. Colb said...

There is an important distinction that I think heathu’s analogy to hunting misses: the distinction between victimizing innocent creatures and participating in consensual and harmless behavior.

Vegans do not find it difficult to understand why people hunt, anymore than opponents of rape find it difficult to understand why some people force unwilling partners to have sex. Vegans argue that it is wrong to hunt and to consume the products of animal slaughter and torture more generally because causing pain and/or death to a sentient creature is not justified by the thrill of the chase or the feeling of being part of nature that hunting may involve for a predator or the marginal pleasure of tasting flesh or milk or eggs.

Even people who consume animals and animal products often concede that we should not cause an animal “unnecessary” suffering (a position that is in tension with their consumption behavior but which may be better reflected in how they treat a pet dog, a creature they know (versus the pig, similar in many ways to a dog, whom they did not know).

Having consensual sex with someone of the same sex does not cause harm to an unwilling victim. Those who find it offensive are therefore forced to rely on their own disgust or on the Bible (or specious arguments about what is natural).

The better analogy to hunting is therefore rape rather than consensual, same-sex coupling. No matter how much a person feels drawn to rape, we still say it is wrong, even if the denial of the opportunity for rape deprives people of a pleasure that they strongly desire.

On the comment about animals versus human beings, it is true that nonhuman animals are not exactly the same as human animals. But this does not defeat the analogy between fighting for the right of nonhuman animals not to be tortured and slaughtered and fighting for the right of humans to select the people with whom to have consensual sexual relationships. In both cases, one runs into prejudices and flawed assumptions that have enjoyed (or previously enjoyed) widespread and self-serving majority approval. And in neither case is there a victim whose interests are categorically ignored by the claim of liberty.

heathu said...

We can’t characterize prey animals in nature as “innocent victims.” They are not innocent, or for that matter, “guilty” of anything - or even victims. They have evolved to be incredibly well-equipped to find food, avoid danger, and get their genes to the next generation. Other animals in their world have evolved the same way, and when these animal’s, the predators, quest for finding food becomes the other animal’s, the prey, danger to avoid, then it is a part of nature where there are no “victims,” only members.

Two months ago there was remarkable testimony in Congress in support of the Shark Conservation Act. Nine citizens showed up to express their disgust at the practice of “finning,” which is when commercial fisherman catch a live shark, cut off the dorsal and pectoral fins, and throw the dying shark back in the water where it slowly suffocates (because it can’t swim) or bleeds to death. The commercial fishermen do this to feed the demand for the popular dish in restaurants of shark fin soup. What is remarkable about the event, though, is that the nine people who showed up to testify weren’t Green Peace members or animal rights activists of any kind. They were all the “victims” (media’s word) of brutal shark attacks. All of them were missing at least one limb or badly scarred. One guy was missing both his legs. They all showed up to testify that these magnificent megafauna deserve protection from rampant commercial exploitation. Yet none of these people saw themselves as victims. “ I went into their environment” said one, Chuck Anderson, a guy who lost his arm when a bull shark pulled him 15feet to the bottom of the ocean, flipping him around "like a ragdoll," then snapped off and ate his arm.

I use human prey make the point because they are the ones that can describe it. But I feel the same way. If I were to be attacked by a bear, I have no doubt that I would be physically and mentally scarred by the experience. If I were lucky enough to survive, it would take all my mental and physical efforts, maybe for the rest of my life, to recover. But I would not blame the bear. I couldn’t. On the contrary, if I was raped, I also have no doubt that I would be physically and mentally scarred by the experience. I might never get over it, really, only find a way to cope with it, as some rape victims have described. But I would absolutley blame the rapist for the trauma, as I think any reasonable member of a polite society would. [Cont’ next comment.]

heathu said...

[Cont’ from previous comment.] If there are animals in this world that can fairly be compared to rape victims, it is the animals that fall into the property category Prof. Colb described. A spent egg hen, for example, that becomes so completely psychotic it plucks out its own feathers or repeatedly pecks at nothing because it has known nothing but being stuffed in a cage its whole life.

So hunters aren’t rapists, and the animals they pursue are not like rape victims. And certainly don’t lump us in with patrons of a steakhouse. We’re as different from them as we are from rapists.

I am a bowhunter, as some of you may have surmised at this point. I picked it up again after almost 20 years when I first dabbled in it as a teenager. (Please, no “bow-curious” jokes.) I have also always been an environmentalist (and politically liberal) and I’m seriously alarmed at the health and ecological consequences of an industrially produced, animal-based diet. Many of my concerns, in fact, came from reading vegan literature. Somehow, though, the ecological consequences of an animal-based diet escaped many environmentalists who are focused on coal and cars. We drag these animals into our world, breed them into the millions, and feed ourselves with their bodies with reckless disregard to the health of our planet or ourselves. This is not a reason for humans to avoid participating in nature. It is reason to get back to it, which hunters understand. But nature, like some have said of Catholicism, is not a salad bar. You can’t pick and choose only the parts you like. If one reveres the fact that animals nuzzle with their young, experience joy, comfort each other, and can be altruistic, then it is impossible to ignore that hunting prey is also a part of the natural experience that should not be oppressed.

This gets me back to my original point, and why I felt the need to respond to this blog post. My point was not, as Prof. Colb characterizes it, to compare the acts of hunting and consensual, same-sex coupling. My point was that Prof. Colb’s description of the feelings and challenges both vegans and homosexuals may face when deciding how much of this part of their lives they should share sounded familiar. Another commenter pointed out atheists face those challenges. To that list, I add hunters.

Alex said...

This comment is prompted by the poster "heathu" who posits that hunters also face the same levels of displaced hostility and misunderstanding that vegan and other lifestyles often face if they choose to reveal this about themselves. They may indeed, but sorry, Heathu, it's justified. The methods used by human hunters deprive the hunted animal of any means of saving him/herself. A deer has no defense against a high-powered rifle with a telescopic scope and silencer or a high-powered bow aimed at it from a blind built up in a tree. A raccoon or a fox has no defense against the hidden jaws and iron grip of multi-teeth metal traps. Yes, in nature, predators hide and lay in wait, but in nature, (a) it's instinctual, not by choice; and more notably (b) it's one-on-one. A lion has to chase and physically, body to body, bring down an antelope. A wolf has to locate and physically, body to body, capture a mouse (yes, wolves dine primarily on small rodents contrary to popular myth). Antelope can kick their attacker to try to get away. Mice, little as they are, pack a good and very quick bite and can skittle away after putting their predator off course. Animals have no defense against the tools that make hunters "more efficient" as commenter Heathu describes it. So, it does bear out that hunting does victimize the objects of its pursuit. And since hunters not only choose to engage in this very one-sided activity, but also enjoy the thrill of it, despite how one-sided and mismatched it is, it does put hunting more akin to a criminal act than to veganism. Rationalizing otherwise would be in the same realm of denial as those who are intolerant of hunting, yet themselves consume animals victimized by agribusiness. To take it one step further, since humans don't posses that body-to-body ability to catch other animals, as exists in nature, it stands to reason that humans very probably were not meant to be carnivores at all. Scientific studies certainly confirm the ill effects on humans of consuming other animals.

狗熊克星 said...

他利用seo的方法在網路上搜尋,他打了白蟻這個關鍵字於是的好東西seo547是這一台機器的代碼也是一項畫時代的研究一家叫seo的公司幫他們除蟲,他們的專長是在於是做網站排名的事情找到一家名為 seo找一家口卑較好的公司在第一頁可以找到的是 seo公司搬不動說要用自然排序的方式來慢慢看醫生的網站排名的意義在於讓網站的名次較前面找來專業的SEO公司診斷公司的網站以利做網路排名

網路新聞任意跟蹤他人的行蹤,也有妨害秘密的問題!新竹市42歲徵信業者雖然受陳姓被害人妻子委託調查陳行蹤徵信但因私自偷偷在陳的重型機車上裝GPS衛星追蹤器雖沒錄音錄影但一樣被認定有罪徵信新竹地院表示徵信業者受人妻之託調查必須要用合法的方式徵信辦檢察官也說一般人若非公眾人物走在隱私權不能被當作是公開活動而被人任意用GPS追蹤需要捉猴請找優良徵信社來幫你徵信喔。台北有一家徵信

旅遊資訊想要去宜蘭童玩節的人有福了現在可以住宜蘭民宿那裡有許多都是有很特色的有希臘風有巴黎風有的還會附送情趣用品讓情人在宜蘭休閒玩樂到了晚上要休息的時候更增添樂趣貸款買車房子是那就是你所希望想要的目標如白蟻可能是你喜歡的昆蟲他有翅膀在每年的梅雨季即來鄰前常在電線杆的路燈上飛舞十分的可愛也大家所喜愛

喜洋洋 said...

高雄縣徵信商業同業公會
南部徵信聯盟
外遇觀測站
大愛離婚諮詢網
離婚大剖析
大愛徵信有限公司
尋人專家徵信服務網
女人徵信公司
華陀徵信
離婚協助中心
跟蹤蒐證徵信器材網
抓姦觀測
大愛徵信
溫馨徵信
成功徵信社

喜洋洋 said...

高雄縣徵信商業同業公會
南部徵信聯盟
外遇觀測站
大愛離婚諮詢網
離婚大剖析
大愛徵信有限公司
尋人專家徵信服務網
女人徵信公司
華陀徵信
離婚協助中心
跟蹤蒐證徵信器材網
抓姦觀測
大愛徵信
溫馨徵信
成功徵信社

marly aaran said...

Dear, I am very like your website and all post. it is great and usefull for us. i will often come here,and support any post which your push. Tks.
http://www.autoenergy-gr.com |

abbi barclay said...

Thanks for the blog loaded with so many information. Stopping by your blog helped me to get what I was looking for.find it here: 
http://www.probusiness-cis.com |

nimi parker said...

I really loved reading your blog. It was very well authored and easy to understand.
http://www.software4airlines.com |

wasirdenature said...

penyakit sipilis penyakit sipilis bisa sembuh total penyakit sipilis dan pengobatannya penyakit sipilis raja singa

herbal medicine said...

penyakit sipilis penyakit sipilis bisa sembuh total penyakit sipilis dan pengobatannya penyakit sipilis raja singa

obat herbal said...

obat ambeien atau wasir racikan herbal penyakit wasir obat wasir racikan herbal pusat herbal denature obat wasir tradisional obat herbal wasir obat tradisional untuk mengobati cara mengobati penyakit ambeien atau

Nay Denature said...

Obat kencing Nanah De Nature Obat Herbal obat Kutil Kelaminobat kanker payudara stadium 3 kanker serviks obat kanker serviks obat herbal kanker