2
   

Should ethics apply to other conscious animals?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 10:15 am
I was responding to watchmaker's post, "Just curious, perhaps this has already been covered. Why should we treat animals "ethically" human or otherwise? Is there a reason?

If morality is an individual factor which varies from person to person then shouldn't the decision as to eating meat or using factory farming be a personal decision, much as it is now?"
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 10:19 am
djbt responded with, "It's not impossible at all. It's been done lots of times, when it works we call them 'laws'.

Quote, "It's not impossible at all."

Even with laws, it's impossible to control the masses. Didn't say anything about "not needing laws." That's a strawman argument.
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 11:11 am
Okay, sorry. Smile
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 02:30 pm
watchmakers guidedog wrote:

P.S. You mentioned slavery and apartheid. Case in point, in both cases ending them caused what effectively ammounts to civil wars, chaos, destruction and death. (actual civil war in the case of slavery, just lots of chaos and anarchy over in africa).


this is a common misconception about the US Civil War. the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in 1862, whereas the civil war commenced in 1861. all Lincoln opposed originally was the expansion of slavery into new territories. in a sense, some northerners regarded slaves the way some americans now regard undocumented aliens, as taking away their jobs.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 07:49 pm
Undocumented aliens take away very few jobs. They work jobs that most Americans would never touch and get paid chicken feed for it. Prices would go way up if we had to pay Americans $20.00 per hour for the same work.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Apr, 2005 08:15 pm
NickFun wrote:
Undocumented aliens take away very few jobs. They work jobs that most Americans would never touch and get paid chicken feed for it. Prices would go way up if we had to pay Americans $20.00 per hour for the same work.


i agree with you that undocumented workers don't take away many jobs. as to prices going up, that's the rationale given by businesses. if a business raises prices too much, it could hurt sales and lower profits, so there's a limit to how much prices can go up, but it's academic because i think undocumented workers are here to stay.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 10:29 am
Not if we shoot them.

They are a horrific burden on our health care and social service sectors. There are billions of $$$ associated with "cheap labor".
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 10:34 am
I think I read some time ago about WalMart employees who are not covered by company health insurance, so they end up going to the community hospitals. That's an extra burden for the tax payers.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Apr, 2005 10:47 am
Reminds me of a George Thorogood song. "Get a haircut, and get real job".
0 Replies
 
djbt
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 07:22 am
watchmakers guidedog wrote:
You just want to make three posts in a row to beat my two posts in a row, admit it :wink:

OK, you got me...

watchmakers guidedog wrote:
See, to me, everyone has their own point of view. You might like violence, you might not. Everyone bases their actions on their own point of view. That's going to happen like it or not.

Also society is made up out of each of us. It's all of us working together to make it what it is. The government can make whatever laws it wants, but without the police enforcing them, the courts trying them, the jails locking them up, construction workers building the jails, etc. Without all of those nothing is going to happen. Society depends on a lot of people all acting upon their own point of view.

Again, this is how the world is. You can like it or not, but that's how it works.

So, here's what I think we should do about it. If society depends on all these people acting on their moral code and we issue a law that everyone will agree on, then it will work well. If we issue a law that half the population doesn't agree with it will be chaos. Half the police will enforce it, half of them won't. Half the courts will be harsh on it, half of them won't. You see this with marijuana. Why do you think manditory sentencing exists.

So if there's something which the population is widely disagreed on then trying to restrict people based on it won't work (well) and will cause chaos. So we should focus on those things which are universal points of morality (or almost so) because those laws will work and keep society running smoothly.

This isn't a moral point of view, it's what I believe would be most efficient.

See what I mean?


I think it is a moral point of view, which you're trying to slip under the radar, guidedog you sneaky sneak!

First of all, you say 'here's what I think we should do about it...", which, I would think, makes the following statement a moral one.

Then (please correct me if I'm misinterpreting you), you base your comments on a number of moral assumptions;

Statement: "Without all of those nothing is going to happen".
Moral assumption: That nothing happening would be bad.

Statement: So if there's something which the population is widely disagreed on then trying to restrict people based on it won't work (well) and will cause chaos:
Moral assumption: Chaos is bad.

Statement: "So we should focus on those things which are universal points of morality (or almost so) because those laws will work and keep society running smoothly".
Moral assumption: Society running smoothly would be good.

Statement: "This isn't a moral point of view, it's what I believe would be most efficient."
Moral assumption: That efficiency is good, or that there is a good thing (which you don't state, presumably a stable society) which you think should be efficiently achieved.

So I think this is a moral point of view. I badger you on this because, having had (and continuing in another thread) a discussion of a moral position I am swayed by, I'd like to look at a moral position that doesn't lead to ethics applying to non-human animals, and look closely at the assumptions that underpin that position and the repercussions of them. If you're game, I'd be interested in looking at your moral position (though you deny having one...), to see what holes might be picked in it!

watchmakers guidedog wrote:
P.S. You mentioned slavery and apartheid. Case in point, in both cases ending them caused what effectively amounts to civil wars, chaos, destruction and death. (actual civil war in the case of slavery, just lots of chaos and anarchy over in africa).


The end of slavery didn't cause civil war in Britain... nevertheless, for the moment I'll concede the general point that legislating against popular things doesn't tend to work. But that answers the question: "Why shouldn't we legislated against the meat industry", not "should ethics apply to other conscious animals".
0 Replies
 
watchmakers guidedog
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 12:34 pm
Quote:
So I think this is a moral point of view. I badger you on this because, having had (and continuing in another thread) a discussion of a moral position I am swayed by, I'd like to look at a moral position that doesn't lead to ethics applying to non-human animals, and look closely at the assumptions that underpin that position and the repercussions of them. If you're game, I'd be interested in looking at your moral position (though you deny having one...), to see what holes might be picked in it!


You're assuming that my morals are consistent. They're not. That's why I was leaving it out of the discussion. I don't see my morality as being "the one right way". I see them as a confusing and stupid process of mixed up cultural imprinting bonding itself to a few genetic imperitives.

My "morality" is quite mixed up in amongst my emotions, so I end up acting on them to make myself happy. Hurting people (sometimes) causes me pain so most of the time I avoid hurting people. Some people out there aren't bound to the same rules and I don't expect them to be. I can violate my morality when I have a logical reason to do so, but it inflicts pain upon me in the form of guilt.

You're trying to point at me and say "You're morals aren't being logical", to which I can only respond, "Yes, I know. Neither are yours but at least I realise it." Yes I have a moral code. I find it quite an annoying impediment at times, but there's little I can do about it.

Quote:
First of all, you say 'here's what I think we should do about it...", which, I would think, makes the following statement a moral one.


You're quite correct that the word "should" tends to indicate that an ideal is operating. However an ideal of efficiency applies equally to its usage, not just an ideal of morality. Efficiency is good because by acting efficiently you increase your results whilst decreasing your costs.

Statement: "Without all of those nothing is going to happen".
Moral assumption: That nothing happening would be bad.
Logical assumption: With none of the processes of society happening I wouldn't have electricity or easy access to food. Since most people have the same logic applying to them, we should work together to make sure we can all achieve our desires. If necessary we will have to overcome those who act on a different logical premise.

Statement: So if there's something which the population is widely disagreed on then trying to restrict people based on it won't work (well) and will cause chaos:
Moral assumption: Chaos is bad.
Logical assumption: Chaos is bad for me, it makes events unpredictable which decreases my ability to control them to my own benefit. As above, those who operate on the same logic should logically assist me to prevent chaos.

Statement: "So we should focus on those things which are universal points of morality (or almost so) because those laws will work and keep society running smoothly".
Moral assumption: Society running smoothly would be good.
Logical assumption: Society running smoothly would be good for me.

Statement: "This isn't a moral point of view, it's what I believe would be most efficient."
Moral assumption: That efficiency is good, or that there is a good thing (which you don't state, presumably a stable society) which you think should be efficiently achieved.
Logical assumption: Efficiency is definitionally the "best" way of achieving a task with minimal resources. An efficiently operating society benefits those within it including myself.

However you're correct, I do experience an illogical emotional burst of satisfaction from order and efficiency. Thus making achieving it an added benefit of emotional satisfaction.

Quote:
The end of slavery didn't cause civil war in Britain...


I didn't even know they had slavery in Britain... Embarrassed

Quote:
nevertheless, for the moment I'll concede the general point that legislating against popular things doesn't tend to work. But that answers the question: "Why shouldn't we legislated against the meat industry", not "should ethics apply to other conscious animals".


My answer to the question "should ethics apply to other conscious animals".

Individual codes of ethics bind the actions of individuals. As a group however we are best served by minding our own code of ethics and working together whenever it is in our own best interests to do so.
0 Replies
 
Reyn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 03:16 pm
cavfancier wrote:
I'm still firmly in the 'it's the method of treatment and use of animals, not the fact that we eat them' camp. I have no problem eating animals, just problems with the way they are often raised.

I have to agree as to what 'cav' said here. I believe animals and fish were made available to us for this reason, albeit responsibly and humanely.

Yes, one can become a vegetarian for what some believe are "moral" or, more importantly, health reasons. I don't believe everybody is physically capable of being a vegetarian though. It depends on their system.
0 Replies
 
Reyn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 03:19 pm
watchmakers guidedog wrote:
Individual codes of ethics bind the actions of individuals. As a group however we are best served by minding our own code of ethics and working together whenever it is in our own best interests to do so.

Very well put! I like and agree with that.....
0 Replies
 
Slappy Doo Hoo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 03:25 pm
You know, it's cool some people choose not to eat meat because they feel bad about people slaughtering helpless animals.

Because I'll just eat three times as much meat at each meal, to make up for those tree hugging, soy sipping bastard's lack of animal consumption.
0 Replies
 
djbt
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 10:42 am
Watchmakers guidedog, I think you do yourself a disservice! I think your system of morals seems fairly consistent and logical. However...

watchmakers guidedog wrote:
You're trying to point at me and say "You're morals aren't being logical", to which I can only respond, "Yes, I know. Neither are yours but at least I realise it."

I would hope that there is no-one on a philosophy forum who doesn't realise that their morals aren't totally logical! Careful about jumping to conclusions about what others may or may not realise...

Anyway (to jump to a conclusion about you...) your position seems to me to be pretty logical after all. It says, I think: I should behave as is best for me. Sometimes, because of annoying evolutionary adaptations such as guilt, this means acting in a way that appears to be benevolent, but in reality, I am acting in my own interest, in this case, my interest being to avoid guilt.

This seems fairly consistent to me. In fact, it ranks in the top three (closest to being) consistent positions, in my opinion, which are (in no particular order):
(a) I shouldn't care about anything but me in this very moment.
(b) I should care about myself.
(c) I should care about all things that care about themselves.

I genuinely think your position is well thought through. It makes sense, and it takes into account what morals really are: "a confusing and stupid process of mixed up cultural imprinting bonding itself to a few genetic imperatives".

It is based, however, on one dangerous assumption: that the 'me' whose benefit you are acting in is the same 'me' who will benefit from the act. When you sacrifice a moment's pleasure to avoid future pain/guilt/whatever, are you sure that it will be the same 'you' who benefits? If you click you fingers now, are you sure that, in a second's time, it will be you who remembers the finger clicking? Likewise, are you sure, as you remember clicking your fingers, that it was you who clicked your fingers? You know you are experiencing now, but you don't know whether or not you have ever experienced before, or will again. The only evidence you have is memory, and that only proves that you remember experiencing before now, not that you did experience before now.

You, I presume, work on the assumption that is it likely that apart from the experience you are experiencing at the moment, there were or will be other experience, in the past and future. You assume that the you that is experiencing in your body now is the same you that experienced in the past and will experience the future. So, you assume that two experiences separated by time are really part of the same experience.

Another assumption you might make is that other things you see are also experiencing. As you see them (ignoring the finite speed of light...) their experience is separated from you by space. Remembering them, their experience is separated from you by time and space.

Choosing between positions (a), (b) and (c) is a question of where we place the benefit of the doubt. Putting words into your mouth (sorry), you choice (b) rather than (a) because were you to choose (b) and be wrong it would likely be less bad than if you choose (a) and were wrong. You give the benefit of the doubt to the 'yous' separate by time being the same 'you'. I choose (c) rather than (b) or (a) because I give the benefit of the doubt to the 'yous' and 'mes' divided by time and space being the same 'me'.

Of course, I have no more evidence that they are all really me than you have that the you who started reading this post is the you reading this now. We have both just made a benefit of the doubt decision. So I, like you, am acting in my own interest. When I read that: "one person being vegetarian means that 250 less animals spend their 20 week life in a factory farm", I think: "me being vegetarian will mean I will spend about 100 years less time in a factory farm", which seems like a good tradeoff to me.
0 Replies
 
watchmakers guidedog
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 09:50 pm
djbt wrote:
Watchmakers guidedog, I think you do yourself a disservice! I think your system of morals seems fairly consistent and logical. However...


I'd say that the way I deal with morals may be consistent and/or logical however that doesn't mean that the morals themselves are logical.

Quote:
Anyway (to jump to a conclusion about you...)


Very Happy

Quote:
your position seems to me to be pretty logical after all. It says, I think: I should behave as is best for me. Sometimes, because of annoying evolutionary adaptations such as guilt, this means acting in a way that appears to be benevolent, but in reality, I am acting in my own interest, in this case, my interest being to avoid guilt.


Yep, you've summed it up quite clearly there. I would prefer not to have to avoid guilt perhaps, but it's rather firmly entrenched in my brain so the only logical thing to do is accept it.

Quote:
It is based, however, on one dangerous assumption: that the 'me' whose benefit you are acting in is the same 'me' who will benefit from the act. When you sacrifice a moment's pleasure to avoid future pain/guilt/whatever, are you sure that it will be the same 'you' who benefits?


Actually it's not... believe it or not I've already considered that possibility and think that it's the most likely explanation for consciousness. However by the time my heart beats once I must have experienced googols of shifts of "me", making it impossible to act inside a single one (for the theory to make any sense whatsoever it would require a switch of consciousness ever quantum instant).

Given that it is impossible to act meaningfully upon the belief of instantaneous consciousness I decide that while I intellectually accept the possibility, for the sake of sanity I will accept the illusions and act in the interests of that future "me". Much like I have to act on morals for the most benefit to me, (whatever my intellectual feelings), acting as though future mes are the same person is a part of the basic programming of my body.

Quote:
Another assumption you might make is that other things you see are also experiencing. As you see them (ignoring the finite speed of light...) their experience is separated from you by space. Remembering them, their experience is separated from you by time and space.


I've considered the possibility that I am the only thing that perceives, however this would require a vastly different metaphysical cosmology than we accept as standard. Without any evidence for that possibility I just act as though the universe is as it appears on the surface.

Quote:
Of course, I have no more evidence that they are all really me than you have that the you who started reading this post is the you reading this now. We have both just made a benefit of the doubt decision. So I, like you, am acting in my own interest. When I read that: "one person being vegetarian means that 250 less animals spend their 20 week life in a factory farm", I think: "me being vegetarian will mean I will spend about 100 years less time in a factory farm", which seems like a good tradeoff to me.


A logical assumption if you believe that you are a permanent existance of consciousness which switches between bodies. Based upon that belief your actions are very logical. I however personally suspect that I am a consciousness coming into existance for a quantum instant and at the end of that instant being obliterated.
0 Replies
 
djbt
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 02:14 am
watchmakers guidedog wrote:
I'd say that the way I deal with morals may be consistent and/or logical however that doesn't mean that the morals themselves are logical.


Fair enough distinction. I'd called 'the way you deal with morals' your 'system of morality', and say this system is (or aspires to be, since I'm hardly qualified to say) logical.

Quote:
Quote:
It is based, however, on one dangerous assumption: that the 'me' whose benefit you are acting in is the same 'me' who will benefit from the act. When you sacrifice a moment's pleasure to avoid future pain/guilt/whatever, are you sure that it will be the same 'you' who benefits?


Actually it's not... believe it or not I've already considered that possibility and think that it's the most likely explanation for consciousness. However by the time my heart beats once I must have experienced googols of shifts of "me", making it impossible to act inside a single one (for the theory to make any sense whatsoever it would require a switch of consciousness ever quantum instant).

Given that it is impossible to act meaningfully upon the belief of instantaneous consciousness I decide that while I intellectually accept the possibility, for the sake of sanity I will accept the illusions and act in the interests of that future "me". Much like I have to act on morals for the most benefit to me, (whatever my intellectual feelings), acting as though future mes are the same person is a part of the basic programming of my body.


You say 'actually it's not' (based on that assumption), but clearly it is, by your own admission. It's just that you are aware that you are working on that assumption, and have considered not doing so.

Quote:
I've considered the possibility that I am the only thing that perceives, however this would require a vastly different metaphysical cosmology than we accept as standard. Without any evidence for that possibility I just act as though the universe is as it appears on the surface.

A reasonable position.

Quote:
Quote:
Of course, I have no more evidence that they are all really me than you have that the you who started reading this post is the you reading this now. We have both just made a benefit of the doubt decision. So I, like you, am acting in my own interest. When I read that: "one person being vegetarian means that 250 less animals spend their 20 week life in a factory farm", I think: "me being vegetarian will mean I will spend about 100 years less time in a factory farm", which seems like a good tradeoff to me.


A logical assumption if you believe that you are a permanent existence of consciousness which switches between bodies. Based upon that belief your actions are very logical. I however personally suspect that I am a consciousness coming into existence for a quantum instant and at the end of that instant being obliterated.


I suspect you may be right. However, I am afraid (bloody evolutionary-emotional traits again...) you may be wrong, and since neither of us can make a call on the subject, it seems fair to me to treat all three possibilities as equally likely.

So... your in a casino, and a guy in a sharp suit comes overs. He says he has a game for you. You have three choices - intense pleasure for an instant and pain for the rest of your life, moderate pleasure for the rest of your life, but pain for all others for the rest of theirs, or as little pain and as much pleasure for everything, for ever. But before you make you choice, he says, know this: once you have made it you will reach into this bag, and pull out one of three tokens. You pull out the white one, you only experience for that one moment. You pull out the red one, you experience being you for the rest of your life. You pull out the black one, and you experience the life of everything, for ever.

Before you put your hand in that bag, which option do you choice?

Quote:
I however personally suspect that I am a consciousness coming into existance for a quantum instant and at the end of that instant being obliterated.

We're hurtling towards metaphysics here, but if this were the case, how could these consciousnesses 'come into existence'? Perhaps they always existed, but only the moment of time we say they exist in.

Perhaps we are drifting off thread here, but this seems to me to be fairly important, both generally and specifically.

Can I say, by the way, how enjoyable it is to have a discussion of animals and ethics without resorting to the standard:

Animals are natural, and, er, good, and cute and stuff, and, er, meat is murder! (A position, gladly, no-one seems to have taken on this thread)
VS
Animals are weak and stupid and anyone who sympathises with them must be weak and stupid.(A position Slappy Doo Hoo seems to have felt needed adding to the discussion).

I like to refer to arguments between these positions as the Jedi vs Sith debate...
0 Replies
 
djbt
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 02:24 am
Reyn wrote:
I believe animals and fish were made available to us for this reason, albeit responsibly and humanely.


Does this mean you believe the theory of evolution is wrong, then?

Quote:
Yes, one can become a vegetarian for what some believe are "moral" or, more importantly, health reasons. I don't believe everybody is physically capable of being a vegetarian though. It depends on their system.


Why have you put the word 'moral' in speech marks? Are you suggesting that they are not really morals at all? Do you generally hold that health reasons are more important than moral reasons when making decisions?

And what do you mean by 'physically capable'? Surely everyone is physically capable of being vegetarian, you could argue it is less healthy for some, but hardly that they are physically incapable. (Unless, of course, you mean that we have no free will, and we are physically incapable of deciding any of our actions).
0 Replies
 
watchmakers guidedog
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 02:40 am
djbt wrote:
You say 'actually it's not' (based on that assumption), but clearly it is, by your own admission. It's just that you are aware that you are working on that assumption, and have considered not doing so.


And it's not. Merely because the end result is the same either way does not mean that the process is identical.

Quote:
I suspect you may be right.


It's a habbit I have. :wink:

Quote:
---Analogy---


I get the analogy. However it's unfortunately reminiscent of pascal's wager. The infintesimal chance of instantaneous reincarnation existing is not worth the effort of becoming vegetarian.

Consider the infrastructure required for organising such a massive and continual movement of these "consciousnesses". On Earth alone it would require a googol number of consciousnesses to be moved every quantum instant.

Now given that this philosophy assumes the existance of permanent consciousnesses it no longer requires them to be moved this frequently. That permanent consciousness can exist until the time of death within a creature. That would still be an unwieldy level of management.

The possibility does not seem feasible enough to be taken as a likely outcome.

Quote:
Perhaps they always existed, but only the moment of time we say they exist in.


Hmmm... you don't need me here, you just gave the same answer I was about to write as soon as I read your question.

Consciousness disturbs me, it presents far too many strange and bizarre questions.

Quote:
Perhaps we are drifting off thread here, but this seems to me to be fairly important, both generally and specifically.


The thread was dying anyway.
0 Replies
 
djbt
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 03:35 am
watchmakers guidedog wrote:
And it's not. Merely because the end result is the same either way does not mean that the process is identical.


If you do not work on this assumption, then it seems to me that you must be working on the assumption that there is no free will, so the question of how we should make decisions is irrelevant, since we don't make decisions. Is that right?

Quote:
Quote:
---Analogy---


I get the analogy. However it's unfortunately reminiscent of pascal's wager.

Yes, it is a little, isn't it? That doesn't mean, however, that we can assume that all the arguments against pascal's wager also apply here.

Quote:
The infintesimal chance of instantaneous reincarnation existing is not worth the effort of becoming vegetarian.

Consider the infrastructure required for organising such a massive and continual movement of these "consciousnesses". On Earth alone it would require a googol number of consciousnesses to be moved every quantum instant.


I cannot see how you reach this conclusion. It sounds to me rather like saying: It is extremely unlikely that bodies maintain their velocity in a vacuum, since that would remove massive infrastructure to keep pushing the bodies around after the initial force. Or: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is very unlikely because it would require massive infrastructure to constantly check all particles to see whether their position or momentum were being assessed, and ensure that the other couldn't be known.

To my knowledge, everything moves every quantum instant. Do you see the laws of physics as 'infrastructure required for organising such a massive and continual movement' of particles? If so, then surely the laws of physics are extremely unlikely.

I could say: it seems to me extremely unlikely that an infrastructure exists to stop the consciousness (note it is not plural in this case) from moving from body to body every quantum instant.

Also, your argument seems to make unnecessary assumptions about time. Surely time is a construct of our brains? Why should the consciousness have to move every quantum instant to be in all conscious beings? Are you familiar with John Wheeler's theory suggesting all electrons are really one electron, and all positrons are the same electron moving backwards through time? Even if wrong, this theory shows a way that, if we think less rigidly about time as a 'constant', we can have something existing in many places simultaneously without it jumping around each instant.

Quote:
Consciousness disturbs me, it presents far too many strange and bizarre questions.


I agree, which is why, I guess, discussion on so many topics flows towards discussion of consciousness.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/01/2020 at 07:58:06