Cognitive Dissonance

Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
 
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
 
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
Once again we disagree on definitions.
Compartmentalization is a subconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.


THIS is Psych 101.
 
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.

Interesting.
 
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.

Interesting.
I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments. As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
 
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
Once again we disagree on definitions.
Compartmentalization is a subconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.


THIS is Psych 101.
People who harm others don't need psychological defense mechanisms. People who are harmed by others need psychological defense mechanisms.
 
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.

Interesting.
I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments. As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
 
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
Once again we disagree on definitions.
Compartmentalization is a subconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.


THIS is Psych 101.
People who harm others don't need psychological defense mechanisms. People who are harmed by others need psychological defense mechanisms.

What does that have to do with cognitive dissonance?

Oh yeah nothing.
 
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.

Interesting.
I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments. As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
No. I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
 
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
Once again we disagree on definitions.
Compartmentalization is a subconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.


THIS is Psych 101.
People who harm others don't need psychological defense mechanisms. People who are harmed by others need psychological defense mechanisms.

What does that have to do with cognitive dissonance?

Oh yeah nothing.
Cognitive dissonance is a fancy word for denying reality. People will either block out all knowledge (compartmentalization) of something or they will alter its reality (rationalization). Both are coping mechanisms to deny reality. It seems to me that you have rationalized that there are no rationalizations but instead are only compartmentalizations which is an absurd position to defend and counter to the practice of Buddhism.
 
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.

Interesting.
I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments. As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
No. I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.


Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.

That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
 
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
Once again we disagree on definitions.
Compartmentalization is a subconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.


THIS is Psych 101.
People who harm others don't need psychological defense mechanisms. People who are harmed by others need psychological defense mechanisms.

What does that have to do with cognitive dissonance?

Oh yeah nothing.
Cognitive dissonance is a fancy word for denying reality. People will either block out all knowledge (compartmentalization) of something or they will alter its reality (rationalization). Both are coping mechanisms to deny reality. It seems to me that you have rationalized that there are no rationalizations but instead are only compartmentalizations which is an absurd position to defend and counter to the practice of Buddhism.

And people deny reality all the time.

It's what people do.

It's part of the duplicitousness of the human animal.

That is the reality of humans
 
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.

Interesting.
I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments. As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
No. I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.


Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.

That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
 
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
Once again we disagree on definitions.
Compartmentalization is a subconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.


THIS is Psych 101.
People who harm others don't need psychological defense mechanisms. People who are harmed by others need psychological defense mechanisms.

What does that have to do with cognitive dissonance?

Oh yeah nothing.
Cognitive dissonance is a fancy word for denying reality. People will either block out all knowledge (compartmentalization) of something or they will alter its reality (rationalization). Both are coping mechanisms to deny reality. It seems to me that you have rationalized that there are no rationalizations but instead are only compartmentalizations which is an absurd position to defend and counter to the practice of Buddhism.

And people deny reality all the time.

It's what people do.

It's part of the duplicitousness of the human animal.

That is the reality of humans
Like I said, the human mind cannot live in conflict so when behaviors don't match beliefs they change their beliefs and rationalize doing so.
 
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
So you don't think it's cruel to macerate newly hatched birds alive.

Interesting.
I think you are trying to define a rule through an exception and that it shows you don't have good arguments. As a rule, victims compartmentalize and aggressors rationalize.
You think compartmentalization only applies in cases of trauma and you are wrong, of course.
No. I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
I am applying it directly to cognitive dissonance.


Compartmentalization is a defense mechanism in which people mentally separate conflicting thoughts, emotions, or experiences to avoid the discomfort of contradiction.

That uncomfortable state is called cognitive dissonance, and it’s one that humans try to avoid, by modifying certain beliefs or behaviors or through strategies like compartmentalization.
Again... I think you are trying to apply it in exclusion to the main reason people deny reality which is rationalization.
And you think wrong again
 
Refusing to acknowledge the similarity of results of running over chicks with a lawn mower or the maceration of live chicks in the egg industry is not rationalization it is compartmentalization.
That's just silly. Of course eating animals is a rationalization. You keep trying to define the rule (eating animals) by the exception (animals getting killed by lawn mowers). How many animals die from slaughter for food (rule)? How many animals die from getting run over with a lawnmower (exception)?

So do people compartmentalize the death of animals that are eaten by humans? Or do people rationalize that there is nothing wrong with it? Keep in mind that over the course of a long human life they may eat parts of an animal 87,600 times. Are you telling me that over 80 years they hide the fact from themselves that they are eating an animal? Or does it make more sense that they have rationalized that eating parts of an animal 87,600 times that it wasn't wrong?
when you say that the killing of an animal in one instance is cruel but you refuse to acknowledge that the killing of an animal for food is cruel you are compartmentalizing so as to avoid cognitive dissonance.
But I don't do that. But if I did I would be rationalizing it. Not compartmentalizing it.
Once again we disagree on definitions.
Compartmentalization is a subconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.


THIS is Psych 101.
People who harm others don't need psychological defense mechanisms. People who are harmed by others need psychological defense mechanisms.

What does that have to do with cognitive dissonance?

Oh yeah nothing.
Cognitive dissonance is a fancy word for denying reality. People will either block out all knowledge (compartmentalization) of something or they will alter its reality (rationalization). Both are coping mechanisms to deny reality. It seems to me that you have rationalized that there are no rationalizations but instead are only compartmentalizations which is an absurd position to defend and counter to the practice of Buddhism.

And people deny reality all the time.

It's what people do.

It's part of the duplicitousness of the human animal.

That is the reality of humans
Like I said, the human mind cannot live in conflict so when behaviors don't match beliefs they change their beliefs and rationalize doing so.
Which is why people compartmentalize dissonant beliefs.

I gave you 2 links that explained compartmentalization as a defense mechanism
 
It all falls down to this...

We judge ourselves by intent; we judge others by results.
This is exactly how we consistently criticize others for doing the exact same thing we, ourselves do, on a regular basis.
It is also how we formulate "situation ethics". How we move the goal post of judgement for those we agree with, as opposed to those we do not.
This very thing is being played out, en masse, all across the nation.
 
And to mention, this human behavioral fallacy is being exacerbated by basing beliefs on idealism rather than realism.
At that point, facts become irrelevant. And replaced by group think.
 
It all falls down to this...

We judge ourselves by intent; we judge others by results.
This is exactly how we consistently criticize others for doing the exact same thing we, ourselves do, on a regular basis.
It is also how we formulate "situation ethics". How we move the goal post of judgement for those we agree with, as opposed to those we do not.
This very thing is being played out, en masse, all across the nation.
It's just one more example of how human concepts of ethics are relative.
 
People aren't any different here than they are anywhere
I don't concern myself with elsewhere- what they do is their business- when one tries to make my business his business then self-awareness is too late and that happens all too often, here- when one, here, refuses to acknowledge the simple premise that all men are created equal and have certain UNalienable rights and believes forcing his will on me is just- he is just about to learn self-awareness is free- I will exercise my right to defend myself-
Really? Even this topic is an invitation for a weak old man to play tough boy? :rolleyes:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top