|
This is where I make a suggestion to decrease or eliminate meat and dairy products in your diet (literally a position Arnold Schwarzenegger now holds) and animal products elsewhere in your life and get mocked because "LOL VEGANS R DUMB."
peter banana fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Jan 3, 2017 |
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
peter banana posted:This is where I make a suggestion to decrease or eliminate meat and dairy products in your diet (literally a position Arnold Schwarzenegger now holds) and animal products elsewhere in your life and get mocked because "LOL VEGANS R DUMB." The line between "reduce" and "totally eliminate" looks pretty broad, idk what kind of idiot would conflate the tw-- *peeks into MRA subreddits*
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:The line between "reduce" and "totally eliminate" looks pretty broad, idk what kind of idiot would conflate the tw-- fixed it
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
peter banana posted:fixed it D&D threads knock on you for talking about reducing animal product consumption / use? ^ Looks weird to me because it's basically bog-standard accepted in YLLS that we (Americans) often eat more meat, especially processed meats, than we need by default just from a nutrition standpoint. Environmental impact doesn't even really have to factor into it to start. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:D&D threads knock on you for talking about reducing animal product consumption / use? Yeah, it goes from "hey, if you're concerned about the environment, climate change, habitat destruction and water use, maybe consider vegetarianism or veganism?" to "gently caress YOU VAYGUN, FOR EVERY BACON YOU DON'T EAT I'LL EAT FIVE" within about, let's say, ten posts. I'll bet that it will happen in this thread too. Seen it happen in the CanPol thread and the Tech Industry thread. SA is actually worse than reddit, in my experience. At least the tired anti-vegan poo poo is starting to get downvoted there, here it pretty much turns into an anti-veg*n echo chamber. Anyway, here's a Best of the Left podcast episode about Animal Ag and the environmental and human rights abuses if anyone is interested. http://www.bestoftheleft.com/_1014_the_human_impact_of_animal_agriculture_food_choices
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
peter banana posted:Yeah, it goes from "hey, if you're concerned about the environment, climate change, habitat destruction and water use, maybe consider vegetarianism or veganism?" to "gently caress YOU VAYGUN, FOR EVERY BACON YOU DON'T EAT I'LL EAT FIVE" within about, let's say, ten posts. I'll bet that it will happen in this thread too. Seen it happen in the CanPol thread and the Tech Industry thread. Unfortunately, I don't think its as easy as its made out: Generally, things like veganism are pushed in placed where food abundance is common like the US and Europe, but for the most part food abundance is a large issue with the rest of the world. Arguing that we're going to save the world with veganism ignores that there is still an extreme need for the protein demand that only omnivorous diets will cover. Its easy to argue we should all be vegan when food security is still one of the top three issues with the rest of the world. And the arguments are most often made by people who live in very food secure nations, much like the Anti-GMO crowd who oppose crops that do solve major hunger/drought/agricultural issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Unfortunately, I don't think its as easy as its made out: Generally, things like veganism are pushed in placed where food abundance is common like the US and Europe, but for the most part food abundance is a large issue with the rest of the world. Arguing that we're going to save the world with veganism ignores that there is still an extreme need for the protein demand that only omnivorous diets will cover. In what parts of the world is meat more available than grains, starches and vegetables? And would that insecurity have anything to do with first world demand for meat putting stress on third world countries (like commercial feed farms which could grow plants directly for humans and overfishing)? Here's a takedown of that land use issue wth regards to plant based diets: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcTVklSZHA4
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
peter banana posted:In what parts of the world is meat more available than vegetables? And would that insecurity have anything to do with first world demand for meat putting stress on third world countries (like commercial feed farms which could grow plants directly for humans and overfishing)? Go to Africa: In many parts, a combined meat/vegetable diet is the only way to meet the nutritional requirements of children there. And even then, if barely, farming is largely broken in middle africa, and no amount of crop is going to make up the deficit that concentrated protein like an animal diet will provide. The video you are citing is almost entirely US oriented. Its hilarious to see his other videos, especially the one where he is 'Debunking' that veganism is privilege while ignoring his studies largely orient around a US population. That IS privilege. And it has risks: quote:No, we're not talking about the latest heavy metal band. Unfortunately, there are a few vegans who, insisting they can survive on only kale and sunlight, give the rest a bad name. There have been several court cases regarding vegan parents killing their children through their diets. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Go to Africa: In many parts, a combined meat/vegetable diet is the only way to meet the nutritional requirements of children there. And even then, if barely, farming is largely broken in middle africa, and no amount of crop is going to make up the deficit that concentrated protein like an animal diet will provide. Here's a study in the notes regarding worldwide land use on a plant based diet: http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms11382
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
This is already going off the rails. When you boil it down, anything you eat has some carbon cost based on the resources it needed to grow, how it was processed, and how it was transported. If you want to reduce your own implicit carbon cost, you can eat things that needed fewer resources to grow (veggies/chicken instead of beef) or needed fewer resources to transport (local produce/meat.) I don't really see the necessity for bringing in additional really difficult ethical questions into the mix - it's a basic math problem, and an easy one to boot. And sure, this is mostly aimed at first world people, who have the agency to decide 'should I have beef for the fourth time this week or not?'
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
You don't understand, we can't start solving one problem until we solve all the problems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Kenzie posted:It's gonna happen eventually. There was a NY Times article on this, from November. As dumb as that man appears to be I get the feeling he'll by hook or by crook be insured for that and bits of Scotland and some other things that may go missing. Whether it's possible to insure something as stupid as Florida will either be fought all the way up his supreme court or a tax write-off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
peter banana posted:Here's a study in the notes regarding worldwide land use on a plant based diet: http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms11382 And there are studies saying if we simply covered a portion of the Sinai in solar panels, we could power the whole world. Its very nice thought, but not realistic. peter banana posted:You don't understand, we can't start solving one problem until we solve all the problems. And its as fantastic as suggesting we all cut fossil fuels cold turkey right now. And oh goody, Mic the Vegan is Anti-GMO. Between that and his accusation that Protein is the most dangerous thing on Earth, I'm gonna laugh myself silly. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:The line between "reduce" and "totally eliminate" looks pretty broad, idk what kind of idiot would conflate the tw-- I feel like these discussion often do go bad, but its usually because people start talking past each other. The challenge is seguing successfully from empirical observations, to questions of policy, then morality, and finally to individual decision making. If a nation reduced its consumption of grain fed red meat, it would reduce carbon emissions. A nation looking to reduce carbon emissions ought therefore to adopt policy disincentivizing consumption of these products. Someone feeling they have a moral obligation to reduce there own carbon emissions might feel they should act themselves to reduce their own consumption, but most people acknowledging their limited culpability might feel justified in only taking moderate steps, we can't very stop climate change by ourselves after all. The same problems happen anytime the thread segues into questions of personal decision making, whether the issue is at hand relates to cars, meat, children, suburbs or travel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Eat kids
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
The issue is that until you actually do adopt the personal choice, though, you'll always be able to offload the responsibility elsewhere, "I don't have make a personal decision to eat less meat and dairy because the government should be disincetivizing animal products for me!" and if governments even attempt to think about wanting to try that, people say "Why is the government deciding what I can and can't eat? What about my personal choices! " To say nothing of the industry pressure on governments. Like, that's some Naomi Klein wishy-washy bullshit and it's just a way of staving off any progress. We're all really upset about climate change until we as individuals actually have to do something about it. Trump is going to do gently caress-all to curb America's emissions at a policy level (Trudeau isn't either, to be fair), particularly when it comes to disincentivizing animal ag (he probably won't even stop them from rolling back your 1st Amendment rights with Ag-Gag). You dollars are pretty much the only meaningful actors here, especially as the niche market around meat substitutes needs to grow right now. But, IDK, because some Africans need meat we can't even talk about reducing our consumption in North America even though the FAO acknowledges livestock puts a strain on local resource use.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
peter banana posted:Yeah, it goes from "hey, if you're concerned about the environment, climate change, habitat destruction and water use, maybe consider vegetarianism or veganism?" to "gently caress YOU VAYGUN, FOR EVERY BACON YOU DON'T EAT I'LL EAT FIVE" within about, let's say, ten posts. I'll bet that it will happen in this thread too. Seen it happen in the CanPol thread and the Tech Industry thread. You know if you actually want to convince anyone of anything maybe you shouldn't resort to ridiculous strawmen before anyone who disagrees with you even bothers showing up. You have already thrown up your hands and given up everyone who disagrees with you as irreconcilable before even beginning to talk, so why do you think anyone would give you the benefit of the doubt?Maybe you should just go back to reddit where you can find yourself some pleasant little vegan safe space where the mean ol' beefeaters won't scare you. Right now you're embodying everything that is wrong today with America's climate discourse. quote:The issue is that until you actually do adopt the personal choice, though, you'll always be able to offload the responsibility elsewhere, "I don't have make a personal decision to eat less meat and dairy because the government should be disincetivizing animal products for me!" and if governments even attempt to think about wanting to try that, people say "Why is the government deciding what I can and can't eat? What about my personal choices! " To say nothing of the industry pressure on governments. If you want to reduce your own emissions so bad why don't you go kill yourself already. Or you can accept we don't have unlimited culpability for all emissions, and accept that you aren't going to moralize your way out of systemic problems. I'm not even sure what you are arguing right now Squalid fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
In any case, obviously not enough people are doing this to make a meaningful enough impact. What's needed to make a real dent are the people with guns to enforce strict rationing of high-carbon cost items (meat, air travel, electricity, etc etc.) Which as far as I can tell is not in the Republican platform.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
peter banana posted:The issue is that until you actually do adopt the personal choice, though, you'll always be able to offload the responsibility elsewhere, "I don't have make a personal decision to eat less meat and dairy because the government should be disincetivizing animal products for me!" and if governments even attempt to think about wanting to try that, people say "Why is the government deciding what I can and can't eat? What about my personal choices! " To say nothing of the industry pressure on governments. Mic the Vegan is not a good source. He's an idealist with woo. That's about it. I mean, between his Anti-GMO Rant and his Rant on Protein, very much doubt that Mic the Vegan is going to be the one saving the world. Are you here to actually solve climate change or just promote veganism? Even IF the entire world converted to Veganism (won't happen), its not solving the massive industrial and human issues that contribute to climate change overall. Forcing Veganism overall requires so much force that it would make despotic dictatorships blush with envy. Its not happening voluntarily. He sounds like the sort of guy that would force his cat on a vegan diet. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Squalid posted:You know if you actually want to convince anyone of anything maybe you shouldn't resort to ridiculous strawmen before anyone who disagrees with you even bothers showing up. You have already thrown up your hands and given up everyone who disagrees with you as irreconcilable before even beginning to talk, so why do you think anyone would give you the benefit of the doubt?Maybe you should just go back to reddit where you can find yourself some pleasant little vegan safe space where the mean ol' beefeaters won't scare you. Right now you're embodying everything that is wrong today with America's climate discourse. I mean, someone asked for clarity about something I had actually experienced and I described it? Like, what I described literally happens to me? All the time? The fact that anyone is suggesting that I think veganism should be "enforced" in any way is already starting the "talking past each other." Moreover, leftists usually reappropriate the language of social justice to paint animal right activists and environmentalists as privileged and then ask us only to preach to those who are privileged like us? It's this weird suspension of internal logic and double standards that only seems to apply when talking about reducing animal product consumption. Also, if you can give me a way to ask people to stop eating meat and dairy exactly as nice and considerate as would convince you and stop people from telling me I want people in third world countries to starve, I'm all ears, because I'd love to find a way that works. I'm just saying, it's as valid to talk about cutting back on resource intense products like meat and dairy as it is to start saying we need to switch our grids over to nuclear. Fossil fuel divestment is by definition only for the most privileged amongst us, and yet it's seen as this amazing direct action. I know a lot of people feel really powerless in the face of climate change and many other of the horrors the animal ag industries wreak on our environment. I'm just offering a solution that lets people take action in alignment with their ethics and concerns ever day. peter banana fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
peter banana posted:I'm just saying, it's as valid to talk about cutting back on resource intense products like meat and dairy as it is to start saying we need to switch our grids over to nuclear. Fossil fuel divestment is by definition only for the most privileged amongst us, and yet it's seen as this amazing direct action. I know a lot of people feel really powerless in the face of climate change and many other of the horrors the animal ag industries wreak on our environment. I'm just offering a solution that lets people take action in alignment with their ethics and concerns ever day. So is asking the average poverty level American to switch to a vegan diet. It really is, I don't think you grasp how essential a protein source meat is to the average diet. Again, is your only goal here to promote veganism? You act like fossil fuel divestment is some unattainable goal for only the wealthy, but somehow changing the essential diet to the average family is totally achievable?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
peter banana posted:
Yeah, we know, and nobody is actually disagreeing with you so far. You're doing exactly what Squalid correctly identifies repeatedly happens in these discussions. It is possible that you are correct, and that, simultaneously, there can exist substantial barriers to adoption such as a grazeland-based cattle or poultry diet that essentially bridges the sustenance gap between inedible plant material and human consumption. in the short term grazing will actually make better use of marginal agricultural land anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
My goal is to say that realistically proposing a reduction in meat and dairy consumption, ideally to the point of essentially elimination, either through personal choice or removing the subsidies to the animal ag industry (and hey, maybe that money could be used to address food insecurity issues in low income communities, which I completely acknowledge is a real thing) is as valid a solution as many of the other climate change solutions proposed in this thread. That is what I am saying. To be honest, don't often see it talked about with the gravitas it deserves in environmental conversations, and I think it's important that it starts to be brought up more often.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
peter banana posted:My goal is to say that realistically proposing a reduction in meat and dairy consumption, ideally to the point of essentially elimination, either through personal choice or removing the subsidies to the animal ag industry (and hey, maybe that money could be used to address food insecurity issues in low income communities, which I completely acknowledge is a real thing) is as valid a solution as many of the other climate change solutions proposed in this thread. That is what I am saying. How is increasing the cost of essential food by reducing subsidies going to address food insecurity?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
While I fully support removing ridiculous subsidies and making the true costs of meat more apparent, given where we are in time versus climate change and the current political landscape, I don't think you could call that a valid plan if being valid means it has a meaningful chance of success. If we lived in a different universe and had another 50 or 100 years to handle this, then that would be a good long-term goal (though we can argue about being vegan versus simply eating less meat and mostly chicken, and so forth.) Unfortunately, we're stuck with this one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:How is increasing the cost of essential food by reducing subsidies going to address food insecurity? I would first propose that subsidies be diverted to aid the development and availability of meat alternatives and improve supply chains for plant-based foods in communities which may not have access to them. Or they could be used to subsidise the conversion of livestock feed crops to grains and plants directly for human consumption. I think your question implies a premise that meat and dairy be subsidized indefinitely as long as there are poor people, particularly at the cost of the environmental damage those industries do (which ironically affects marginalised people disproportionately.) Mozi posted:While I fully support removing ridiculous subsidies and making the true costs of meat more apparent, given where we are in time versus climate change and the current political landscape, I don't think you could call that a valid plan if being valid means it has a meaningful chance of success. Unfortunately I think you're right, which is why I do push the personal choice narrative more because really, if anyone cuts the funding from meat and dairy, it will have to be the consumer long before it's any government agency. I'd like to think that consumer demand could wane enough to harm their profits and make animal ag less politically powerful and obviously, since I don't hold political office, that's really all I can do, but even if it can't altogether, I still think it's a worthwhile cause. peter banana fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Banana Man posted:Eat kids Peter Thiel really misunderstood Nancy Cartwright's iconic line about eating shorts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Are you here to actually solve climate change or just promote [nuclear/electric vehicles/childfree/doing anything]? Even IF the entire world converted to [Nuclear/electric vehicles/childfree/doing anything](won't happen), its not solving the massive industrial and human issues that contribute to climate change overall. Forcing [Nuclear/electric vehicles/childfree/doing anything] overall requires so much force that it would make despotic dictatorships blush with envy. Its not happening. Now in easy to use format for any climate related topic!
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
peter banana posted:I would first propose that subsidies be diverted to aid the development and availability of meat alternatives and improve supply chains for plant-based foods in communities which may not have access to them. Or they could be used to subsidise the conversion of livestock feed crops to grains and plants directly for human consumption. I think your question implies a premise that meat and dairy be subsidized indefinitely as long as there are poor people, particularly at the cost of the environmental damage those industries do (which ironically affects marginalised people disproportionately.) And how are you going to sell this plan to the average American? Specifically, the Average American that worships the farm and enjoys bacon, chicken, and steak? Either you do this incredibly slowly, so slow that it would take decades of careful planning, or you'd probably face a nationwide riot. We need a 10 year goal. Not a 50-100 year mass transition program that will likely require intense cuts and careful management. And remember: You are the one that claimed that fossil fuels are just a divestment most people can't make. But a sudden change to their food they can stomach? C'mon now. This is fantasy. You are just as much an idealist as Mic the Vegan. Trabisnikof posted:Now in easy to use format for any climate related topic! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
e: this isn't the c-spam thread I wanted 
ugh its Troika fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Fat goons that never leave their mom's basement support using less gas but are against eating less meat, news at 11.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Unormal posted:Fat goons that never leave their mom's basement support using less gas but are against eating less meat, news at 11. I'm for both. But let's not pretend that his mass plan that he's pushing to make everyone vegan (and I'm assuming without GMOs and Protein considering the guy he is citing) is insane. Ironically, he acts like divesting from petroleum is unlikely, so he's the inverse of your claim.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And how are you going to sell this plan to the average American? Specifically, the Average American that worships the farm and enjoys bacon, chicken, and steak? Either you do this incredibly slowly, so slow that it would take decades of careful planning, or you'd probably face a nationwide riot. Well I think we could start by getting environmentalists on our side and not shutting us out of every conversation with unrealistic ideological purity tests and fully formed policy proposals. I would stick to the personal choice arguments, personally, and hope that people can feel empowered by making choice in alignment with their concerns. We could probably stop diverting from the issue with using third world people as a cudgel as well. CommieGIR posted:I'm for both. But let's not pretend that his mass plan that he's pushing to make everyone vegan (and I'm assuming without GMOs and Protein considering the guy he is citing) is insane. You know that you have literally shrugged off a Nature study in this thread right, by basically saying "well, you know studies"? Like I haven't ascribed any fictitious beliefs to you and I'd like you to stop doing the same. And, yes, like the people who would like our entire grid to run on nuclear or renewable energy, I would like everyone to reduce as much as possible. Are they unrealistic too? peter banana fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Taco Bell is already 10-30% TVP in their ground beef. Americans used to think garlic was inedibly spicy. Diets will and do change. Besides, this inane obsession with "100% or nothing" serves only to shut down all options. Why oppose reducing Ag emissions from meat by 50% just because it isn't perfect when more emisssions actively makes things worse?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
peter banana posted:Well I think we could start by getting environmentalists on our side and not shutting us out of every conversation with unrealistic ideological purity tests and fully formed policy proposals. peter banana posted:I would stick to the personal choice arguments, personally, and hope that people can feel empowered by making choice in alignment with their concerns. We could probably stop diverting from the issue with using third world people as a cudgel as well. And no, your plan would significantly impact third world populations Trabisnikof posted:Taco Bell is already 10-30% TVP in their ground beef. Americans used to think garlic was inedibly spicy. Diets will and do change. Besides, this inane obsession with "100% or nothing" serves only to shut down all options. Why oppose reducing Ag emissions from meat by 50% just because it isn't perfect when more emisssions actively makes things worse? Still a 50-100 year transition. Not short term. peter banana posted:You know that you have literally shrugged off a Nature study in this thread right, by basically saying "well, you know studies"? Like I haven't ascribed any fictitious beliefs to you and I'd like you to stop doing the same. Didn't shrug it off. I said enforcing that sort of switch in a short term plan would lead to food riots nationwide. Its a long term plan that could work, but would take decades if a century to fully implement. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Jan 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'm going to highlight this specifically: Because your policy proposals ARE ideological purity tests. Veganism is PART of a solution, possibly, but its not THE solution, nor is it single-handedly going to make a significant impact in the time period we need. Okay, seeing as I've actually never said it was THE solution, have since I first posted it was always PART OF a solution, and have never posted a study suggesting to completely divest from animal land use, I think it's time for you to stop now. You are actually just making things up and have been throughout this exchange.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
peter banana posted:Okay, seeing as I've actually never said it was THE solution, have since I first posted it was always PART OF a solution, and have never posted a study suggesting to completely divest from animal land use, I think it's time for you to stop now. You are actually just making things up and have been throughout this exchange. "Well, we can't really divest from fossil fuels unless you are rich, but let's quickly all go vegan. Don't worry though, you have a choice in the matter." How else am I supposed to read your train of thought?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
nvm: shockingly, the conversation about timidly suggesting reduction or elimination of animal product consumption as *A* possible climate change solution went to poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Let's name things that would: A. Reduce national/global/sector emissions by at least 10% B. Only take 10 years C. Be completely voluntary or at least political popular regulations My current list: 1. Build Renewables 2. Invest in effiency 3. Chinese-built nuclear 4. Any number of social trends including vegetarianism, end of car culture, etc. What else?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
peter banana posted:nvm: shockingly, the conversation about timidly suggesting reduction or elimination of animal product consumption as *A* possible climate change solution went to poo poo. You came in with an axe to grind and the predictable outcome happened.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 21:20
|
|
