Debate 11 Discussion: Whether eating meat is moral: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » Debate 11 Discussion: Whether eating meat is moral » Debate 11 Discussion: Whether eating meat is moral

Debate 11 Discussion: Whether eating meat is moral

Debate 11 Discussion: Whether eating meat is moral

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: Skinners, CA
Total Topics: 455
Total Posts: 11725

Posted 07/19/07 - 07:13 AM: Subject: Debate 11 Discussion: Whether eating meat is moral	#1
The debate between Mr.Anonymous and pwrong is over here. This discussion subforum thread is for other posters to discuss that debate while it progresses and after it concludes.

Alekhine
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2007
Location: Over the Line
Total Topics: 25
Total Posts: 459

Posted 07/23/07 - 11:50 AM:	#2
Hmm...very interesting discussion here... It seems that neither of them are actually addressing the question of whether or not it is moral to eat meat. The debate seems to be mainly about the issue of animal cruelty in the meat industry, which is different. The issue of eating meat is probably not completely contained in the argument of the suffering that the animals live through during their life being bred for human food. However, I would like to raise an interesting point. If the whole world were vegetarians, the animals would then be forced to live mainly in the wild, where their habitat is being destroyed by the rapidly expanding human society. That particular life may even be harder and induce more suffering to the animals then living a short, restricted life in the meat industry. I live near a farm that raises bulls for meat, and it doesn't seem to me that the cows are discontent with their living. They have room to roam and stuff, they eat food, etc... I think that it is a possibility that it is better for animals to lead their lives on these farms than in the wild. Of course they should be treated better than they are, but that really isn't the purpose of the debate. Pwrong's argument that animals suffer like humans is difficult to accept on a level that is necessary to accept the rest of his argument founded on it. If that is the only reason there is not to eat meat, I find it one that is hard to swallow. Mr. Anonymous' point about cartoon characters is interesting. I think I agree more with him than with Pwrong's refutation. While cartoons may desensitize children toward hurting animals, it probably makes them more sensitive to killing them. After all, that is the real end of any animal raised for meat. Kids that watch cartoons see animals as living, sentient things that can be mourned for just like humans when they die.
Meh

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: Skinners, CA
Total Topics: 455
Total Posts: 11725

Posted 07/24/07 - 03:47 PM:	#3
Mr.Anonymous wrote: They mentioned a mental condition (alas, the name escapes my memory) in which the inflicted individual has an exteme concern about the environment (a person who went to see a therapist about this claimed to have wept uncontrollably about a story reporting the death of a few whales). Symptoms also include high levels of stress and a supposed buzzing noise. After hearing about this, I am sure that the accidental cartoon propaganda is one of several factors responsible. Yes, one should feel a little upset about the death of our furry little friends, but there is a point where we place more importance over lesser species then our own. This strikes me as a very tenuous, unlikely connection. It's a mental problem if you cry uncontrollably at the news that 200 people died in Nepal yesterday (presuming you don't know any of them), so the species of the dead seems irrelivant to the affliction. I don't buy the wider argument that kids can't tell cartoons from real life, either. If anything, pets have a much larger influence in perception of animals. Edited by Paul on 07/24/07 - 03:56 PM

calebhb
Christian Apologist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 25, 2007
Location: Southwest US
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 47

Posted 07/30/07 - 11:31 AM:	#4
Paul wrote: I don't buy the wider argument that kids can't tell cartoons from real life, either. If anything, pets have a much larger influence in perception of animals. I would respectfully challenge that assertion with many examples from experience. Young children fall in love with characters like Mickey Mouse and Daffy Duck. I have had much experience with children and find that their love of cartoon characters does in fact affect their feelings towards animals in general - especially in girls. I have even heard a teenage girl exclaim, "You can't eat that! That's Sebastian!" (referencing a character from The Little Mermaid). I do agree, however, that pets tend to have the same and sometimes more intense effect on our psyche. At bottom, naming and subsequently anthropomorphizing animals can cause us to form unreasonable affections for all animals in general. This is not to say society should wave its Draconian wand over cartoons and pets, but rather that children should be properly educated and allowed to discover the differences between reality and fiction. To address another (not totally unconnected, but profoundly relevant) apect of these arguments; it is disturbing to me that it is almost universally accepted that the highest evil is "pain" and the highest good is "pleasure." The assumption that the causation of pain makes something immoral is one which has lead to many strange philosophies including passivism and moral vegetarianism. Contrarily, pain or suffering has been the catalyst for creating some of the world's finest men and women. How else does one categorize boot camp? How many great men and women have risen through tough times and hardship? Conversely, how many men and women who have risen through easy wealth and priveledge do we respect as great folks? Certainly, the inhumane treatment of chickens by corporations does nothing to make ordinary chickens into better chickens (unless by "better" we mean bigger and more expensive). Inhumane treatment of these animals IS wrong. But the issue is whether or not they should be farmed and killed AT ALL for human consumption. But to argue that eating meat is wrong because of the pain it causes is the wrong approach and it invites utilitarian arguments to justify pain in cases where we believe pain is necessary or at least justifiable. The moment one asserts utilitarian justification for pain or suffering in one area, the same argument can be made justifying the pain of harvesting animals by weighing it against human sustenance. Also, the argument that eating animals is wrong because eating humans is wrong and humans evolved from animals is nonsensical. If we are to abstain from killing things that are the offspring of our evolutionary ancestors, we should stop eating altogether - or walking, for that matter. God knows how many single-celled organisms I have slaughtered upon the surface of the Dell keys in order to upload this jumbled mess of philosophical rantings - not to mention how many ancestral offspring I inadvertently devoured today at lunch as I throughly enjoyed my beautiful, medium-rare beef filet with steamed broccoli and wild rice. Woe, if only I knew how many individual yeast beings were drowned in the one bottle of Amberbock I so happily guzzled.

radienx000
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 09, 2007
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 14

Posted 08/05/07 - 04:47 AM:	#5
Eventually we all cant stop eating meat, wherever we like it or not. Nature has given us a great bounty, animals are lving things, but when they're dead we can't help but feel that when we eat them it turned out that we're actually eating them, "Nooooo Bambi". But it could save a few more lives, or it can make us feel less hungry, and it gives us the nutrition we need. Whatever happens, we can't interfere with the natural cycle of nature. We all must eat meat, for our own sake. On the other hand, we do not need meat at all and we can live out with just eating carrots all of life, but theres a catch, it doesn't taste nice. But who cares if it tastes nice or not, at least it makes us feel less hungry. So does that mean that we stop eating meat? The answer is No. We can't live without meat yet we love animals and we can't bear to imagine to kill and eat that animal, so why don't just let the hunter kill "Bambi" and we can eat it? Two sides of a very arguemented case over the centuries. I guess all I can say is, do what you feel is right.

PeeGee
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2003
Location: I am omnipresent
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 231

Posted 08/16/07 - 08:06 AM:	#6
I will have to curb my main (favorite) argument for this discussion, because the only reason I have for said argument is to show the absurdity of morality, in that it cannot be held as absolute -- it will become absurd and then be pointless. FYI the argument goes that we can't eat anything because virtually everything is in some way alive at some point, and eating it is killing life. We hold killing things to be immoral, and so eating is immoral. The argument is more complex than the two sentences above, but the general idea is there. I remind you that this isn't my argument for this post. Whether eating meat is moral or not depends on the position you hold. If you think it is okay to kill things (and we certainly do kill a lot of things in our day-to-day interaction with the planet), then we can justify eating meat because we're just not wasting the carcass. However if we start to take into consideration the suffering that happens when you kill something, then inhumane ways of killing animals comes into focus. However I cannot just morally allow life to be killed 'as long as it is humane', since it still doesn't address the wanton killing of animals (there's like 40 billion chickens on the planet due to it being such a common food source), which can be eliminated altogether by not eating meat. Then there's the suffering argument / harm principle -- killing anything causes it to suffer, and so to prevent suffering we should not eat animals altogether. This was addressed once in jest to a friend who replied that animals don't 'suffer' but only react mechanically to stimuli. I have a hard time accepting this syllogism, possibly because I have anthropomorphised animals, or I have attributed my concept and understanding of suffering and pain onto the animal, assuming that it suffers as I suffers, or feels pain as I feel pain. As for the debate itself, I am eagerly waiting to see how it will end. I don't accept the argument that earlier humans ate meat, thus making eating meat okay. I will bring up sa point, which I am doing only because it's too late to introduce them into the discussion: - eating only plants does work as a diet, but is woefully inefficient to a mixed diet. The reason is that you have to eat a variety of plants to get the same nutrition as say, a beef steak. This also addresses a Peter Singer argument that in a closed system (in this case a cow eating grass), you cannot get more energy out of it than you put in, so he argued that the energy used to feed livestock could be better used to feed humans. The counter for that of course is that 1) we don't eat grass and 2) as I stated, it takes much more energy to produce the plants to give the same nutritional value as a piece of meat. Something like 'a cow can feed a neighbourhood for a meal but to feed a neighbourhood of people with plants would take a lot more resources'. In conclusion, I do eat meat, and I will keep eating meat. I cannot rationalise why I shouldn't just starve to death to avoid killing life just so I can keep living. I also am not totally sure what being a vegan means. If it means eating plants that have naturally died, typically that food source is not very good (for example, eating naturally dying animals means eating a very old animal that's probably composed of not very good meat). If we waited for plants to die naturally I don't think the nutritional value would be very good. However one rebuttal I've heard is that of fruits -- fruits are evolved to be eaten. The purpose is that the seeds in the plants will be ingested by large animals whole, and then passed out later, after the animal walks away. This spreads the seeds about. However naturally, humans eat fruits in their homes and nothing gets fertilized into the ground any more. So I don't think that the above justification works any more. I've yet to justify eating morally. I honestly think we do it because if we applied morals to eating, it would lead to absurd conclusions. Edited by PeeGee on 08/16/07 - 08:15 AM
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.

notquitethere
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 13, 2005
Location: Freefolk- England
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 949

Posted 08/23/07 - 05:52 AM:	#7
calebhb wrote: At bottom, naming and subsequently anthropomorphizing animals can cause us to form unreasonable affections for all animals in general. On what basis do you assert that affection for all animals is unreasonable? Animals have individualising characteristics that set hem apart from one another, the extent to which these differentiating characteristics are present is the extent to which an animal is a person. All things have a degree of personhood- I am more of a person than a monkey, but a monkey is more of a person than a dog- a dog is more of a person than, say, a toad- which is more of a person than a bumble bee. In many instances it is not a case of anthropomorphising a non-human animal, but rather identifying it's indivual characteristic- characteristics that it might share with some humans. calebhb wrote: To address another (not totally unconnected, but profoundly relevant) apect of these arguments; it is disturbing to me that it is almost universally accepted that the highest evil is "pain" and the highest good is "pleasure." The assumption that the causation of pain makes something immoral is one which has lead to many strange philosophies including passivism and moral vegetarianism. Contrarily, pain or suffering has been the catalyst for creating some of the world's finest men and women. How else does one categorize boot camp? How many great men and women have risen through tough times and hardship? Conversely, how many men and women who have risen through easy wealth and priveledge do we respect as great folks? Pain and suffering is never good in-itself, they can sometime by good as a means towards an end- an end that generally causes greater happiness. I take it that the traits that you admire in great people who have gone through tough times are such traits as self-reliance, endurance and perseverance. Why do we think these traits are good? We think them good because they get us through tough times- ie. they help overcome pain and suffering. The pain is never good, what is good is the means by which we alleviate ourselves from pain. calebhb wrote: Certainly, the inhumane treatment of chickens by corporations does nothing to make ordinary chickens into better chickens (unless by "better" we mean bigger and more expensive). Inhumane treatment of these animals IS wrong. But the issue is whether or not they should be farmed and killed AT ALL for human consumption. But to argue that eating meat is wrong because of the pain it causes is the wrong approach and it invites utilitarian arguments to justify pain in cases where we believe pain is necessary or at least justifiable. The moment one asserts utilitarian justification for pain or suffering in one area, the same argument can be made justifying the pain of harvesting animals by weighing it against human sustenance. The ongoing pain of millions of animals clearly more than outweighs the satisfaction gained from eating them. Furthermore, eating meat is not necessary for human sustenance. It is quite easy to form a healthy diet without meat. In many cases meat provides more protien than can be absorbed in one meal and is much fattier than the vegetarian alternative. calebhb wrote: Also, the argument that eating animals is wrong because eating humans is wrong and humans evolved from animals is nonsensical. If we are to abstain from killing things that are the offspring of our evolutionary ancestors, we should stop eating altogether - or walking, for that matter. God knows how many single-celled organisms I have slaughtered upon the surface of the Dell keys in order to upload this jumbled mess of philosophical rantings - not to mention how many ancestral offspring I inadvertently devoured today at lunch as I throughly enjoyed my beautiful, medium-rare beef filet with steamed broccoli and wild rice. Woe, if only I knew how many individual yeast beings were drowned in the one bottle of Amberbock I so happily guzzled. There's a clear difference between eating cow- which has a degree of personhood and can feel pain, and injesting yeast which do not feel pain and do not have individuating characteristics.I agree that the argument against eating meat should not come from the notion that eating humans is wrong. More rather, we should not eat humans for the very same reasons that we should not eat non-human animals. radienx000 wrote: Eventually we all cant stop eating meat, wherever we like it or not. Nature has given us a great bounty, animals are lving things, but when they're dead we can't help but feel that when we eat them it turned out that we're actually eating them, "Nooooo Bambi". But it could save a few more lives, or it can make us feel less hungry, and it gives us the nutrition we need. Whatever happens, we can't interfere with the natural cycle of nature. We all must eat meat, for our own sake. On the other hand, we do not need meat at all and we can live out with just eating carrots all of life, but theres a catch, it doesn't taste nice. But who cares if it tastes nice or not, at least it makes us feel less hungry. So does that mean that we stop eating meat? The answer is No. We can't live without meat yet we love animals and we can't bear to imagine to kill and eat that animal, so why don't just let the hunter kill "Bambi" and we can eat it? Two sides of a very arguemented case over the centuries. I guess all I can say is, do what you feel is right. We don't have to eat meat and we can live perfectly fine without it. I think you're generalising from your own position here. There's no logical reason why we have to eat meat. What's this about eating meat for our own sakes? Nonsense. Also a vegetarian diet doens't just consist of carrots. Tasty food depends on how it is cooked, and many a fine meal can be made without meat. Doing what one feels is 'right' depends on where they gain their idea of 'right' from. If it is from a set of inherited beliefs about artificial differences between human and non-human animals then eating meat may seem more justifiable. That does not mean that their idea of 'right' really is right. PeeGee wrote: I will have to curb my main (favorite) argument for this discussion, because the only reason I have for said argument is to show the absurdity of morality, in that it cannot be held as absolute -- it will become absurd and then be pointless. FYI the argument goes that we can't eat anything because virtually everything is in some way alive at some point, and eating it is killing life. We hold killing things to be immoral, and so eating is immoral. The argument is more complex than the two sentences above, but the general idea is there. I remind you that this isn't my argument for this post. It's good that that isn't your argument, because that's a stupid argument. No one holds that killing 'things' is immoral. It is immoral to kill sentient, pain-feeling animals unnecessarily for human consumption. It's not immoral to kill carrot plants or yeast. No one is saying that. PeeGee wrote: Whether eating meat is moral or not depends on the position you hold. If you think it is okay to kill things (and we certainly do kill a lot of things in our day-to-day interaction with the planet), then we can justify eating meat because we're just not wasting the carcass. By eating meat you're funding the animal industry, which causes death and suffering to animals. Obviously when it comes to you the animal is already dead and you can't do anything about that, but in eating it (or more specifically, paying for it), you are funding the suffering of other animals. PeeGee wrote: However if we start to take into consideration the suffering that happens when you kill something, then inhumane ways of killing animals comes into focus. However I cannot just morally allow life to be killed 'as long as it is humane', since it still doesn't address the wanton killing of animals (there's like 40 billion chickens on the planet due to it being such a common food source), which can be eliminated altogether by not eating meat. Then there's the suffering argument / harm principle -- killing anything causes it to suffer, and so to prevent suffering we should not eat animals altogether. This was addressed once in jest to a friend who replied that animals don't 'suffer' but only react mechanically to stimuli. I have a hard time accepting this syllogism, possibly because I have anthropomorphised animals, or I have attributed my concept and understanding of suffering and pain onto the animal, assuming that it suffers as I suffers, or feels pain as I feel pain. I think it's pretty clear that other animals feel pain as we feel pain. The view that non-human animals react mechanically stems from the notion that there is a clear divide between human and non-human animals. A new born baby has less mental capacity than an adult chimp, yet we don't think a baby just responds mechanically. PeeGee wrote: As for the debate itself, I am eagerly waiting to see how it will end. I don't accept the argument that earlier humans ate meat, thus making eating meat okay. I will bring up sa point, which I am doing only because it's too late to introduce them into the discussion: - eating only plants does work as a diet, but is woefully inefficient to a mixed diet. The reason is that you have to eat a variety of plants to get the same nutrition as say, a beef steak. This also addresses a Peter Singer argument that in a closed system (in this case a cow eating grass), you cannot get more energy out of it than you put in, so he argued that the energy used to feed livestock could be better used to feed humans. The counter for that of course is that 1) we don't eat grass and 2) as I stated, it takes much more energy to produce the plants to give the same nutritional value as a piece of meat. Nonsense. For a start, who said that a vegetarian diet consists of just plants? More importantly, your argument that not eating meat is inefficient doesn't balance out against the closed-system argument. Firstly, cows don't just eat grass- they are fed grains and soya. Secondly, the fields in which the cows are kept could be used to grow crops, which is a more efficient use of the land. Thirdly, I contend your point that it takes much more energy to obtain the same nutrition from a cow. A cow expends most of the energy it intakes from crops and grass by walking around, defecating, mooing etc. What you get from the meat is only a small proportion of the total energy put in. When you eat bread, nuts, seeds and so on, what you're getting is a much larger proportion of the energy put into the crops than the equivelant energy spent on the cow. So whilst the beef steak may be more efficient in giving an individual nutritional benefit from that one meal, the land used to raise that cow could have given the same amount of nutrition many times over to many different people if it was used for crops instead. PeeGee wrote: Something like 'a cow can feed a neighbourhood for a meal but to feed a neighbourhood of people with plants would take a lot more resources'. More like: a cow can feed a neighbourhood for a meal, but a field full of wheat can feed a neighbourhood for a month. PeeGee wrote: In conclusion, I do eat meat, and I will keep eating meat. I cannot rationalise why I shouldn't just starve to death to avoid killing life just so I can keep living. I also am not totally sure what being a vegan means. If it means eating plants that have naturally died, typically that food source is not very good (for example, eating naturally dying animals means eating a very old animal that's probably composed of not very good meat). If we waited for plants to die naturally I don't think the nutritional value would be very good. However one rebuttal I've heard is that of fruits -- fruits are evolved to be eaten. The purpose is that the seeds in the plants will be ingested by large animals whole, and then passed out later, after the animal walks away. This spreads the seeds about. However naturally, humans eat fruits in their homes and nothing gets fertilized into the ground any more. So I don't think that the above justification works any more. I've yet to justify eating morally. I honestly think we do it because if we applied morals to eating, it would lead to absurd conclusions. You misunderstand what a vegan is. A vegan is someone who doesn't eat anything that comes from an animal, and does not wear fur or leather. It's more of a lifestyle than a diet per se. It stems from the wish to distance oneself entirely from the entire animal industry. Obviously, it doesn't mean eating plants that have naturally died, that's closer to fruitarianism- the practice of only eating fruit that has fallen naturally from the tree. If we apply morals to eating it doesn't lead to absurd conclusions, it leads -at the very least- to vegetarianism.
"Do not play tennis unless you can prance about daintily on the court"- Nina Farewell [1953] www.danglercomic.com -Doesn't everyone have a webcomic nowadays?

nathan_forst
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 28, 2007
Location: Chilliwack, British Columbia, Canada
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 08/28/07 - 07:31 PM: Subject: Personal decision	#8
For me, it is a personal philosophy and choice. I choose not to eat what I would not kill. In this case, I do not kill animals. Therefore, to live without hypocrisy, I have chosen not to eat meat.
...and tho' we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are,-- One equal temper of heroic hearts, made weak by time and fate, but strong in will. To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

nosos
skeptical

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 24, 2004
Location: Coventry, UK
Total Topics: 147
Total Posts: 2293

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 09/19/07 - 12:44 AM:	#9
1. "Eco-socialism" is an analytically deficient terms that obscures the green movement’s genesis in opposition to to the old socialist movements. 2. His psychological “critique” of the animal rights movement is a fairly obvious and unconvincing ad hominem fallacy. 3. There’s no necessary (or even common) link between vegetarianism and any sort of “natural order” theory. 4. Even if there was the poverty of the mere largely meaningless assertion that “the suffering is part of the natural order” saves the aforementioned beliefs from hypocrisy. 5. How many vegetarians seek to "force the world into a vegetarian ideology"? 6. Accusing animal rights activists of "marching along streets like Nazis" is bizarre and meaningless. That opening post is without a doubt one of the most poorly written things I’ve ever seen on this site and it comes from one of the most bombastic posters. For a self-proclaimed “philosopher” the entire sequence of posts is painfully ripe with logical fallacies Academic standards must be falling.
"The men of the future will yet fight their way to many a liberty that we do not even miss? - Max Stirner "The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - JS Mill "I'd rather be a crying little pussy than a faggy Goth kid." - Butters

_claire
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

Posted 05/27/08 - 11:12 AM:	#10
Too many people are looking at this issue from a human perspective. When it comes down to it, humans are just another animal. In the world food web you have your plants, herbivores, carnivores and omnivores. We of course are omnivores, and have the ability to eat plants and animals. We are like any other species in the fact that we need to consume to survive and we can survive completely by eating plants or animals, but it is much better to have a combination of the two. Even if you are solely consuming plants, you are disrupting the plant population, which will in turn also affect the animal population. What I'm getting at is that just because we are the most advanced species on the planet and are more aware of what we are doing than other animals doesn't mean we don't have the right to eat meat. Likewise, other animals have the right to eat us. We are part of the food web. The only time that I would consider killing another animal animal cruelty is if I did it just for the hell of it (Note: this is different from hunting, or wise hunting at least, where you are trying to control the populations.) If you were killing an animal even though you didn't need it for energy, that would be an unnecessary disruption of the natural food web. Even in China, for example, where there are limited resources and they eat cats and dogs, that is not unjust even though we see such creatures as domestic animals. They need those animals to survive - part of the circle of life. However, there are two main problems that relate to this topic: 1)The unethical treatment of animals (whether they are going to be consumed or not) 2)Balancing out the natural food web. This is specifically important to the U.S., a very meat heavy country, to try to balance out the environment.

Occam's Raison
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 13, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

Posted 09/17/08 - 04:36 AM:	#11
I would like to poser a question that I havent actually seen raised more than once in a meat-eating debate. If we were to stop farming animals, we would have no reason to keep them alive. If some domestic animals were not farmed they would not be able to fend for themselves. By this I mean, if we were to just shove a herd of cattle out into the street they most likely wouldn't survive very long unaided. I say the street because I can't see farmers allowing animals to graze on their valuable land without the farmers receiving any benefit. So, my question is: Given the knowledge of consequences of animal liberation is it more ethical to stop farming certain animals and allow them to be die out or to just make farming methods more humane and eat less meat (which would harm the animals less and maintain the existence of the species)? I hope I am making myself clear. I have a bad feeling I am not:P But let me know what you think.

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.