Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1081 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-08-2007, 04:25 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

On Aug 6, 6:19 am, Dutch wrote:
pearl wrote:
What "valid points" doesn't he address


He made no reference to the point the Mary Warnock makes that it makes
no sense to lump all animals together as Regan does.


He doesn't, and he made the reasonable point that if she'd read his
work (as she claimed to have done) then she really ought to know that.

Do we place the
same value on a virus as we do a chimpanzee?


Obviously it's absurd to suggest that any such thing follows from
Regan's work. It's borderline whether viruses even count as living
things.

Steven Rose also makes this
point, that the most intuitive and widely held view of animals is that
moral value is directly related to sentience/intelligence.


There's nothing wrong with that, and Regan's work can be seen as
within that approach too.

Wetlesen's
essay moralstat99 is built on this principle.


.... but doesn't adequately rebut the AMC.

Regan spends half his
rebuttal chirping ad hominems about the opponents of his ideas and very
little addressing their points.


He did address their points, and what he said was pretty fair comment.
He could have been more polite and respectful, but you're hardly in a
position to criticize him about that.

The people that uploaded the video, the
Christian Science Monitor folks, also weight the whole thing heavily
towards Regan by cutting out most of the opposing views.


Yes, it's a shame we couldn't hear more from his opponents' speeches.


  #1082 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-08-2007, 04:29 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

On Aug 7, 7:20 am, "Laurie" wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message
I see. It is now up on my webpage ...


URL?


http://rupertmccallum.com/debate.html

Does it have stuff like:http://www.ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt??


I did briefly put up a photo of him and a few links to some of his
greatest hits, but I took that down.

You really are a funny clown, Ball.


No; noBalls is a lonely, hateful, vulgar, self-destructive psychopath
who tries to get attention and waste sincere peoples' time by being vulgar
and insulting, for that is all he knows. He is just crying out for help.

"It's nothing but a bit of schoolyard namecalling." - noBalls

Laurie



  #1083 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-08-2007, 05:33 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

Rupert wrote:
On Aug 6, 6:19 am, Dutch wrote:
pearl wrote:
What "valid points" doesn't he address

He made no reference to the point the Mary Warnock makes that it makes
no sense to lump all animals together as Regan does.


He doesn't, and he made the reasonable point that if she'd read his
work (as she claimed to have done) then she really ought to know that.


She is responding to the rhetoric of his speech, which is based on the
simplistic premise that the world is divided into humans (the oppressor)
and non-humans (the oppressed) It's not her fault that he chooses to
make an impassioned speech which does not reflect his true beliefs.


Do we place the
same value on a virus as we do a chimpanzee?


Obviously it's absurd to suggest that any such thing follows from
Regan's work. It's borderline whether viruses even count as living
things.


But it follows from his speech which refers simply to humans and
non-human animals.


Steven Rose also makes this
point, that the most intuitive and widely held view of animals is that
moral value is directly related to sentience/intelligence.


There's nothing wrong with that, and Regan's work can be seen as
within that approach too.


Perhaps, but not his speech.


Wetlesen's
essay moralstat99 is built on this principle.


... but doesn't adequately rebut the AMC.

Regan spends half his
rebuttal chirping ad hominems about the opponents of his ideas and very
little addressing their points.


He did address their points,


He said almost nothing about any of their points except mocking a remark
made by one speaker.

and what he said was pretty fair comment.


It was rude and patronizing. It made him look weak.

He could have been more polite and respectful, but you're hardly in a
position to criticize him about that.


He was in a position where he ought to be polite and respectful, he
chose not to be, to his discredit. I'm not a renown philosopher, just a
guy with an opinion on usenet.


The people that uploaded the video, the
Christian Science Monitor folks, also weight the whole thing heavily
towards Regan by cutting out most of the opposing views.


Yes, it's a shame we couldn't hear more from his opponents' speeches.


Perhaps we could get hold of them.
  #1084 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-08-2007, 05:41 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

On Aug 7, 2:33 pm, Dutch wrote:
Rupert wrote:
On Aug 6, 6:19 am, Dutch wrote:
pearl wrote:
What "valid points" doesn't he address
He made no reference to the point the Mary Warnock makes that it makes
no sense to lump all animals together as Regan does.


He doesn't, and he made the reasonable point that if she'd read his
work (as she claimed to have done) then she really ought to know that.


She is responding to the rhetoric of his speech, which is based on the
simplistic premise that the world is divided into humans (the oppressor)
and non-humans (the oppressed) It's not her fault that he chooses to
make an impassioned speech which does not reflect his true beliefs.


He never implied that all non-human animals should be lumped together.



Do we place the
same value on a virus as we do a chimpanzee?


Obviously it's absurd to suggest that any such thing follows from
Regan's work. It's borderline whether viruses even count as living
things.


But it follows from his speech which refers simply to humans and
non-human animals.


No, it does not. Viruses do not belong to the animal kingdom, it's
borderline whether they are even organisms. They are certainly not
sentient, let alone "subjects-of-a-life". Obviously to ask "do we
place the same value on a virus as we do a chimpanzee" is absurd,
Regan's not committed to any such thing. He's quite right to refer her
to his work where he gives a detailed discussion of the issue of where
to draw the line.



Steven Rose also makes this
point, that the most intuitive and widely held view of animals is that
moral value is directly related to sentience/intelligence.


There's nothing wrong with that, and Regan's work can be seen as
within that approach too.


Perhaps, but not his speech.


In his speech he emphasized certain aspects of his work rather than
others.



Wetlesen's
essay moralstat99 is built on this principle.


... but doesn't adequately rebut the AMC.


Regan spends half his
rebuttal chirping ad hominems about the opponents of his ideas and very
little addressing their points.


He did address their points,


He said almost nothing about any of their points except mocking a remark
made by one speaker.


False.

and what he said was pretty fair comment.


It was rude and patronizing. It made him look weak.

He could have been more polite and respectful, but you're hardly in a
position to criticize him about that.


He was in a position where he ought to be polite and respectful, he
chose not to be, to his discredit. I'm not a renown philosopher, just a
guy with an opinion on usenet.


Well, for what it's worth, I lose respect for you when you're rude and
patronizing too.



The people that uploaded the video, the
Christian Science Monitor folks, also weight the whole thing heavily
towards Regan by cutting out most of the opposing views.


Yes, it's a shame we couldn't hear more from his opponents' speeches.


Perhaps we could get hold of them.


That would be great.

  #1085 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-08-2007, 07:59 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

On Aug 7, 7:24 am, "Laurie" wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
Take the name off your webpage, fruit. Now.



You *really* need to develop your negotiating skills, Ball. I wonder
how long it will be before you have the courage to show your face
round here again.



  #1086 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-08-2007, 10:00 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote
Watch the second video, the only con speaker he refers to specifically
is Germaine Greer, the rest he dismisses without comment in his rude,
condescending manner like a doddering schoolmaster.


Projection. Dr. Regan is a great speaker.


If you like rude, condescending blowhards.


Projection. And isn't ~ball~ your idol?

What colossal gall,
addressing those other speakers as if they were naughty students who
hadn't done their homework.


The boot fits. They wore it.

Every one a highly respected person with
more credibility in their little fingers than Regan can ever aspire to.


As if you'd know anything about credibility and respect.

He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
childish display.


He 'got' that their arguments reflected ignorance of the literature.

Regan gets so much adulation from the converted, like you, that he
believes his own press clippings. He's so typical of ARAs, he make me puke.


You're so full of hatred and jealousy, you're killing yourself.

'The Wannabe

Motivation: craves respect for being competent and
professional despite lacking in competence and professionalism
Mindset: deceptive
Malice: low to medium; when held accountable, medium to high

a.. similar to the attention-seeker
b.. is one of life's chronic underperformers and is best
described as ineffectual in everything
c.. craves undeserved respect and attention and will go to
considerable lengths to acquire them
d.. hangs around the fringes of a profession
e.. not professionally qualified but claims they are a
professional because they sit next to a professional or work
alongside or near or in the midst of professionals, or provide
services to professionals
f.. lacks the ability, competence and professionalism to be
a qualified professional
g.. wants so much to be seen as competent professional
person but is unable and unwilling to put in the work to
achieve this
h.. is unable and unwilling to apply knowledge gained
from experience but instead devotes time and effort to
improving skills of deception, manipulation, false claim,
denial and projection
i.. may have been rejected by their chosen profession
for lack of competence
j.. is spiteful towards and despises anyone who is qualified
in the profession from which the bully has been excluded by
virtue of lack of competence
k.. is likely to be vilifying the profession they want to
belong to or which they're claiming to be part of or which
they are claiming to represent
l.. displays a deep-seated envy and jealousy of the
professionals that he or she works alongside or claims to serve
m.. harbours a bitter resentment, grudge, distaste and
contempt for the professionals that he or she works alongside
or claims to serve
n.. is likely to be criticising, condemning, disadvantaging and
causing detriment to the professionals he or she works alongside
or claims to serve
o.. may seek positions of power over the professionals he
or she works alongside or claims to serve, perhaps to facilitate
a compulsion to criticise, condemn, disadvantage and cause
detriment
p.. is irresistibly drawn to organisations, roles and positions
which offer the wannabe power and control over the
professionals s/he despises (eg inspection regimes, approval
roles, regulatory bodies, ticksheet compliance schemes,
political correctness police, trade union official, etc) - and is
often described as a talentless jobsworth
q.. when in a position of power associates with and makes
alliances with or surrounds him or herself with clones, drones,
minions, fellow wannabes, sycophants and brown-nosers
r.. instinctively objects to any suggestion of change, reform,
improvement, progress or evolution, but has no viable or
positive alternatives of their own
s.. opposes every idea, suggestion, opinion, contribution or
reform on principle but has no original, positive, constructive
ideas or contributions of his or her own
t.. is likely to plagiarise and steal others' ideas which are
then put forward as their own
u.. may place undue emphasis or reliance on an old, minor
or irrelevant qualification to bolster their claim of belonging
to or deserving to belong to a profession
v.. may claim ambiguous or misleading or bogus or
fraudulent qualifications, associations and experience
w.. displays a superior sense of entitlement because they
associate with or serve higher performers
x.. emotionally immature
y.. controlling
z.. easily provoked
aa.. when challenged is adept at rewriting history to portray
themselves as competent, professional and successful, regardless
of multiple witnesses and overwhelming evidence to the contrary
ab.. quickly and loudly feigns victimhood when exposed and
held accountable, often repeatedly and loudly accusing the
person holding them accountable of being a bully
ac.. when held accountable makes conflicting and contradictory
threats and demands (eg demands apology but orders the other
person not to communicate with them)
ad.. when held accountable makes lots of loud but empty threats
(eg of legal action such as libel, slander, defamation etc)
ae.. only carries out threats of legal action when in the presence
of a superior serial bully, especially a sociopath type
af.. may indulge their jealousy and envy of professionals or those
they claim to serve by pursuing vindictive vendettas, sometimes
with the help of a superior serial bully, especially a sociopath type
ag.. is easily manipulated and controlled by a superior serial bully
ah.. may exploit some perceived vulnerability in self to ensure
drone loyalty
ai.. gives the appearance of loyalty to drones but will discard
them when they've served their purpose
....'
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm#Wannabe


  #1087 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-08-2007, 10:20 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]


He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
childish display.


He 'got' that their arguments reflected ignorance of the literature.


They aren't ignorant, they read "The literature", as you converts like
to refer to your blessed sacred scrolls, several of them remark on that
fact, and they *reject* the arguments. It's not the revealed truth of
God you know, they're the *opinions* of people that agree with Reagan,
and *his own books*. He's an arrogant toad addressing highly respected
authors and fellow philosophers in that manner, but typical of the ARA,
he feels superior to them and entitled to verbally abuse them.

snip usual verbal abuse



  #1088 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-08-2007, 12:04 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]


He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
childish display.


He 'got' that their arguments reflected ignorance of the literature.


They aren't ignorant, they read "The literature",


The showed "*no evidence*" of reading the philosophical literature.

snip usual verbal abuse



  #1089 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-08-2007, 08:18 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]
He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
childish display.
He 'got' that their arguments reflected ignorance of the literature.

They aren't ignorant, they read "The literature",


The showed "*no evidence*" of reading the philosophical literature.


Translation, they disagreed with the idea of "Animal Rights" therefore
they are to be treated like ignorant children.
  #1090 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2007, 01:22 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

On Aug 8, 5:18 am, Dutch wrote:
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in messagenews:[email protected]
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in messagenews:[email protected]
He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
childish display.
He 'got' that their arguments reflected ignorance of the literature.
They aren't ignorant, they read "The literature",


The showed "*no evidence*" of reading the philosophical literature.


Translation, they disagreed with the idea of "Animal Rights" therefore
they are to be treated like ignorant children.


No. They made arguments which appeared to show a lack of familiarity
with the literature, therefore Regan remarked on that fact.



  #1091 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-08-2007, 05:38 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,028
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

Rupert wrote:
On Aug 8, 5:18 am, Dutch wrote:
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in messagenews:[email protected]
pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in messagenews:[email protected]
He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
childish display.
He 'got' that their arguments reflected ignorance of the literature.
They aren't ignorant, they read "The literature",
The showed "*no evidence*" of reading the philosophical literature.

Translation, they disagreed with the idea of "Animal Rights" therefore
they are to be treated like ignorant children.


No. They made arguments which appeared to show a lack of familiarity
with the literature, therefore Regan remarked on that fact.


No, they made arguments which show that they don't subscribe to "the
literature" referring to books by "Animal Rights" authors like himself,
and he didn't simply "remark", he reacted in a completely inappropriate
supercilious manner. In doing so he harmed his own credibility more than
that of those towards whom he was directing his condescending attitude.
He would have left a much better impression if he had used that time to
inform rather than ridicule. The context was a formal debate in a
university forum, not a usenet slugfest.
  #1092 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-08-2007, 12:07 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:20:38 GMT, Dutch wrote:

pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message news:[email protected]


He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
childish display.


He 'got' that their arguments reflected ignorance of the literature.


They aren't ignorant, they read "The literature", as you converts like
to refer to your blessed sacred scrolls, several of them remark on that
fact, and they *reject* the arguments. It's not the revealed truth of
God you know, they're the *opinions* of people that agree with Reagan,
and *his own books*. He's an arrogant toad addressing highly respected
authors and fellow philosophers in that manner, but typical of the ARA,
he feels superior to them and entitled to verbally abuse them.

snip usual verbal abuse



  #1093 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-08-2007, 01:19 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

While I am all for treating animals humanely... Tom takes it to a level of
stupidity. Conveniently forgetting that carnivores do exist on all levels of
the animal kingdom.


"Dr L Oh" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 09:20:38 GMT, Dutch wrote:

pearl wrote:
"Dutch" wrote in message
news:[email protected]


He just doesn't get it, they *read* those books, they DON'T AGREE with
the arguments! They could have said, "Mr Regan, you fool, didn't you
read *my* book? but they all have too much class to put on such a
childish display.

He 'got' that their arguments reflected ignorance of the literature.


They aren't ignorant, they read "The literature", as you converts like
to refer to your blessed sacred scrolls, several of them remark on that
fact, and they *reject* the arguments. It's not the revealed truth of
God you know, they're the *opinions* of people that agree with Reagan,
and *his own books*. He's an arrogant toad addressing highly respected
authors and fellow philosophers in that manner, but typical of the ARA,
he feels superior to them and entitled to verbally abuse them.

snip usual verbal abuse





  #1094 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-08-2007, 06:39 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,uk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default ANIMAL RIGHTS BILL 1 - Tom Regan speaks.

"GoMavs" wrote in message news:[email protected]

While I am all for treating animals humanely... Tom takes it to a level of
stupidity. Conveniently forgetting that carnivores do exist on all levels of
the animal kingdom.


Oxymoron.

'in·hu·man
adj.
1. Lacking kindness, pity, or compassion; cruel.
2. Deficient in emotional warmth; cold.
3. Not suited for human needs: an inhuman environment.
4. Not of ordinary human form; monstrous.
...
inhuman
adj 1: without compunction or human feeling; "in cold
blood"; "cold-blooded killing"; "insensate destruction"
[syn: cold, cold-blooded, insensate] 2: belonging to or
resembling something nonhuman; "something dark and
inhuman in form"; "a babel of inhuman noises"
...'
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?qinhuman



  #1095 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2010, 02:12 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 68
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On 5/30/2007 12:24 PM, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:

The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product


And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
the animals themselves should also always be given
much consideration.


That doesn't mean anything. All you mean is that you want the animals
to exist.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Fried food heart risk 'a myth' (as long as you use olive oil or sunflower oil)" Christopher M.[_3_] General Cooking 34 07-02-2012 05:31 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Fred C. Dobbs[_2_] Vegan 47 24-05-2010 03:22 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Rudy Canoza[_4_] Vegan 448 23-03-2008 07:06 AM
+ Asian Food Experts: Source for "Silver Needle" or "Rat Tail" Noodles? + Chris General Cooking 1 29-12-2006 07:13 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Jonathan Ball Vegan 76 28-02-2004 10:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2020 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017