Veganism

k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe · Feb 22, 2011

HighwayMan said:
Meat eaters have to deal with many risk factors associated with eating large quantities of meat, and every single statistic out there will tell you that Americans especially eat way, way too much meat, that is not only unhealthy for them, but creates huge problems for the environment, and contributes to inexplicable amounts of slaughterhouse cruelty.

I highlighted the important parts. You are absolutely right. Americans eat too much meat and fat compared to vegetables and fruit. Now, nutritionally speaking, the solution isn't to get rid of fats and meat--it's to eat a balanced, healthy diet.

An ideal, human diet consists of plenty of fruit and vegetables, a moderate amount of meat and fat, and a low to zero amount of sugars and simple carbohydrates.

Depending on the environment one lives in, the meat and fat proportions can be significantly increased. For instance, if one lives in the arctic and is highly active, 80 percent of their calories should come from fat--they need the fat to survive and keep themselves warm. In arctic expeditions, the men pulling their sleds eat around 10,000 calories a day in the form of pemmican, which is dried, shredded meat mixed with dried fruit and nuts all soaked in liquid animal fat then cooled to a solid. Pemmican like this has around 80% of its calories from fat.

Eskimos and other northern tribes of humans would NOT have survived without animal fats and proteins. It just wouldn't have been possible.

Now days, being a vegetarian/vegan is completely doable because of a global food marketplace, less strenuous and work laden lives, and modern agriculture. It's really a modern convenience that we have! More choice is good!

CrusaderKing · Feb 22, 2011

Howard Cneal said:
The fact is, though, if I had to watch an animal be slaughtered before eating it, I would surely not eat meat...

I have no problem slaughtering or watching people slaughter animals. It's not really a big deal.

To address the OP: no one dietary choice is effective for everyone. I've maintained an omnivorous diet, but I've also managed to lose weight.

ImperialPhantom · Feb 22, 2011

SneakerPimp53 said:
To avoid taking over an unrelated thread, I thought I'd just start a new one. It always fascinates me to no end when vegetarians/vegans insist on implying that these diets are healthy for you.

There's a reason why Trader Joe's, and every other store that caters to vegans, have huge sections devoted to dietary supplements. Vegans have to work around the lack of complete proteins in non-animal sources through supplements because you're not eating something your body needs. The other solution revolves around eating large amounts of soy products. Soy has been linked to high levels of estrogen and negative impacts on the immune system. It should not be eaten in the quantities that many vegans consume them. There are also a few essential amino acids that the human body cannot process from non-animal sources, as well as B vitamin deficiencies that are a common problem for vegans.

Humans are omnivores and like all such animals depend on both plant and animal sources for our nutritional requirements. If you oppose eating meat for cruelty reasons that's a personal conviction that can't really be argued. On a nutritional level vegan diets are balanced and healthy diets for human beings.

One can easily be a vegan, get enough protein, and do it without supplements, even without soy. It's as simple as combining proteins - IE combine a grain and a bean, or a bean and a nut/seed. Doing this, it's actually easier to get MORE protein, for cheaper, than on a meat-eating diet.

The reason health food stores carry a ton of supplements is simple - because the people who shop in health food stores often come in looking for supplements, and/or are the kind of people who are more likely to buy supplements.

SneakerPimp53 · Feb 22, 2011

Stravinsk said:
No, the Hebrew word means "that which is sown" - NOT vegetables as is commonly translated in modern English versions. You don't plant vegetables in the ground - the life to create trees and plants and more vegetables is found in the SEEDS. Under this definition, things such as nuts and beans are included - together with sun, soil and water - they have the life to sustain all of us.

And no, it's not just 10 days. The steward(guard) in charge of what everyone got (not just Daniel and his men) put ALL the King's men on the same diet after Daniel's test (vrs 15-16).

As for vegan lifters/athletes etc - have you ever heard of:

Robert Cheek?

Or how about this guy?

YouTube - 72 Year-Old Man Body Building Every Day

Not bad for a 72 year old eh?

I can't find anything that would suggest vegetarianism become common in the Babylonian empire. Obviously the Jews were not vegans. Most OT restrictions fall into cultural beliefs about animals and practical food safety for the period. Undercooked pork is dangerous, but when cooked properly it's better for you than beef. But beef is kosher and pork isn't because at that time cooking methods available often left portions of meat undercooked. Shellfish are often like sponges and become hosts for things they encounter, if you can't ensure a clean source they can be dangerous. Optimal nutrition really isn't at the heart of any of it.

Most nutritionists would tell you to steer clear of these kinds of programs. I'm not going to accuse anyone specifically of dishonesty, but there's room for legitimate discussion of how strict people are in their vegan/veg diets. It's not uncommon for people that claim to be veg to eat chicken or fish. Claim to be might not be the right expression, eating those things may well fit with their understanding of a veg diet. Just as it's not uncommon for vegans to continue to consume some animal products. I have no idea if either of these guys are strict in their application of those diets. I can see that Mr. Cheeke's website has links to supplement sites you'd expect to be associated with veganism. Why supplement when you can just give your body the omnivorous diet nature intended it to utilize?

SneakerPimp53 · Feb 22, 2011

HighwayMan said:
There are alternatives to soy products, and the fact that vegans need supplements does not in any way shape or form mean that the diets are unhealthy. Meat eaters have to deal with many risk factors associated with eating large quantities of meat, and every single statistic out there will tell you that Americans especially eat way, way too much meat, that is not only unhealthy for them, but creates huge problems for the environment, and contributes to inexplicable amounts of slaughterhouse cruelty.

Americans do eat too much meat, but that would only be a problem if someone were advocating people embrace a purely carnivorous diet. Humans are omnivores, and as omnivores should eat a diet that is a balance between animal and plant nutrition.

K9_Trainer · Feb 22, 2011

People do not NEED meat. What they NEED are the nutrients IN meat, which you can easily find in plants. Anything in excess is bad for you, moderation is key no matter what you eat. Yes, there are problems if you eat a lot of soy, but there are also issues if you eat a lot of meat. If you supplement with a ton of soy, you turn it into a drug rather than a food. But soy isn't the only kind of plant protein. Nuts have a lot of protein, seeds have a lot of protein, beans have a lot of protein, lentils have a lot of protein. Even common ordinary veggies like broccoli and lettuce have protein. Its not hard to get protein eating vegan.

What about fatty acids? Again, seeds, nuts, flax, algae, whole grain. In fact, the fatty acid you obtain from plants are a lot easier for your body to use than fatty acids obtained from fish.

Iron is another one. But guess what? Even meat eaters get the majority of their iron from plants, not meat.

A vegan who chomps on mostly junkfood is no less healthy than a meat eater who also chomps on junk food. If you eat an unhealthy junkfood based diet, it doesn't matter whether you eat meat or not. If you eat primarily junk, you aren't healthier just because you eat meat. And to be quite honest, thats the vibe I get from a lot of meat eaters who knock vegans. They eat their chips, their salsa, their candy, their bacon....But by golly they're healthier than a vegan because of that bacon!

Basically, I think people need to mind their own business when it comes to what other people choose to eat. You can't categorize all vegans into the unhealthy category. While there are some that are careless, there are twice as many who eat a more balanced, healthy diet than the meat eaters that criticize them.

LOVEthroughINTELLECT · Feb 22, 2011

SneakerPimp53 said:
Part of the problem is there isn't much research on vegan/veg diets and the long term implications. Yet vegans/veggies have been selling these diets to the general public for a long time as being healthy. It's in the face of the fact that humans are obviously omnivores, just as are primates in the wild. Completely taking out meat products from a diet of a creature that naturally evolved to require it and calling it healthy seems irresponsible to me.

I know what you are saying.

But at the same time we must not put so much stock in scientific research. Yesterday I was reading an article in The Atlantic Monthly about a doctor who has made a career out of exposing how an alarming amount of the published findings of medical science--findings that medical professionals then incorporate into treating patients--is the result of flawed, biased research.

In what I believe was an episode of the TV program Forensic Files public health officials--with all of their scientific training--were stumped in trying to find the source of a killer virus or bacteria on an American Indian reservation while the residents of that rerservation, with no scientific training, already knew what the source was. What I will call, for lack of a better word, folk knowledge already provided the answers that science was scrambling to find.

Here's some folk knowledge: a healthy diet is balanced and includes a variety of foods.

CrusaderKing · Feb 22, 2011

K9_Trainer said:
But by golly they're healthier than a vegan because of that bacon!

Bacon is its own food group. It doesn't necessarily make me healthier that someone who doesn't consume bacon (whether vegan, vegetarian, or omnivorous), but there's something special about it. Oh right. It's awesome. Now excuse me while I get some pecans.

k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe · Feb 22, 2011

K9_Trainer said:
People do not NEED meat. What they NEED are the nutrients IN meat, which you can easily find in plants. Anything in excess is bad for you, moderation is key no matter what you eat. Yes, there are problems if you eat a lot of soy, but there are also issues if you eat a lot of meat. If you supplement with a ton of soy, you turn it into a drug rather than a food. But soy isn't the only kind of plant protein. Nuts have a lot of protein, seeds have a lot of protein, beans have a lot of protein, lentils have a lot of protein. Even common ordinary veggies like broccoli and lettuce have protein. Its not hard to get protein eating vegan.

What about fatty acids? Again, seeds, nuts, flax, algae, whole grain. In fact, the fatty acid you obtain from plants are a lot easier for your body to use than fatty acids obtained from fish.

Iron is another one. But guess what? Even meat eaters get the majority of their iron from plants, not meat.

A vegan who chomps on mostly junkfood is no less healthy than a meat eater who also chomps on junk food. If you eat an unhealthy junkfood based diet, it doesn't matter whether you eat meat or not. If you eat primarily junk, you aren't healthier just because you eat meat. And to be quite honest, thats the vibe I get from a lot of meat eaters who knock vegans. They eat their chips, their salsa, their candy, their bacon....But by golly they're healthier than a vegan because of that bacon!

Basically, I think people need to mind their own business when it comes to what other people choose to eat. You can't categorize all vegans into the unhealthy category. While there are some that are careless, there are twice as many who eat a more balanced, healthy diet than the meat eaters that criticize them.

Best post here!

K9_Trainer · Feb 22, 2011

CrusaderKing said:
Bacon is its own food group. It doesn't necessarily make me healthier that someone who doesn't consume bacon (whether vegan, vegetarian, or omnivorous), but there's something special about it. Oh right. It's awesome. Now excuse me while I get some pecans.

Oh people and their bacon. I will never understand it. I like the flavor of bacon, but can't stand the texture or the thought that I'm basically eating pure fat :sick:

Stravinsk · Feb 22, 2011

dsrohe said:
I have not assumed it. It is the backdrop of the story which all Biblical commentaries state. Just because the passage doesn't state the reasons forthright it doesn't mean that their aren't logical reasons.

It's the very first chapter of Daniel. There is no other "backdrop". Nothing, absolutely nothing, is said about food offered to idols.

I also do not care about an interpolation given by a commentator who also cannot site biblical evidence to back up his assertions - so I won't comment on the quoted and underlined bit in your post.

dsrohe said:
The vegetables which were given to Daniel were NOT from the king's table, so they hadn't been offered to idols. Daniel and friends specifically ate food that was not from the king's table. So the vegetables from the king's table--nope, they didn't eat them. I bolded and underlined relevant section above.

It's "pulse" not just "vegetables". The Hebrew word means "that which is sown" - seeds,nuts,beans,wholegrains - all high in protein. Presumeably - that included that which grows from them as well.

You are again assuming they would otherwise have been offered to idols. Sorry, it's not in the text and quoting a commentators interpolation neither does nothing to convince me.

dsrohe said:
Yes, that was one of the reasons that I didn't include because it wasn't as relevant to your claims about the story. See above.

Not eating pork and shellfish as relevant according to who? You? Since we are working in the OT here, lets hear what God Almighty says:

Isaiah 66:17: They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

It would have been very important for a Jew, and not only that, a prophet - to abstain from foods like Pork and Shellfish. Since there is NOTHING in the passage about food offered to idols - this remains the only thing left - the "king's meats" (or food if you like) - included things that Daniel and his men were simply not allowed to eat.

dsrohe said:
Yes, what you state here was the miracle of the story! Because of their obedience to God, Daniel and his friends, despite a less than ideal diet, excelled.

Another assumption. I'm going to answer it by answering your next quote.

dsrohe said:
Are you reading the same verses? They DID NOT put ALL the king's men on the same diet. Here are the verses:

They, they, and them are referring to Daniel and his friends, not EVERYONE. The steward let Daniel and friends do a test period of 10 days, after the ten days, he saw that they were healthier, so he let them go on the new diet permanently. The steward did NOT put ALL the king's men on the same diet.......

Daniel 1:15At the end of the ten days they looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal food. 16So the guard took away their choice food and the wine they were to drink and gave them vegetables instead.

This is simple deduction and reading comprehension, friend. Daniel and his men were not eating the King's "choice food and wine" during the 10 days. Therefore, there was nothing for the guard to take away from them. The second "they" refers to "the young men who ate the royal food".

Keri · Feb 22, 2011

HighwayMan said:
There are alternatives to soy products, and the fact that vegans need supplements does not in any way shape or form mean that the diets are unhealthy. Meat eaters have to deal with many risk factors associated with eating large quantities of meat, and every single statistic out there will tell you that Americans especially eat way, way too much meat, that is not only unhealthy for them, but creates huge problems for the environment, and contributes to inexplicable amounts of slaughterhouse cruelty.

CrusaderKing · Feb 22, 2011

K9_Trainer said:
Oh people and their bacon. I will never understand it. I like the flavor of bacon, but can't stand the texture or the thought that I'm basically eating pure fat

To quote Emeril Lagasse:

Pork fat rules.

Getting serious, I prefer a balanced diet simply because it makes me feel better than if I consume too much junk. I saw a picture of myself in August and I wasn't pleased with what I saw. So that's why I decided to take matters into my own hands by changing my diet and being more active.

SneakerPimp53 · Feb 22, 2011

K9_Trainer said:
People do not NEED meat. What they NEED are the nutrients IN meat, which you can easily find in plants. Anything in excess is bad for you, moderation is key no matter what you eat. Yes, there are problems if you eat a lot of soy, but there are also issues if you eat a lot of meat. If you supplement with a ton of soy, you turn it into a drug rather than a food. But soy isn't the only kind of plant protein. Nuts have a lot of protein, seeds have a lot of protein, beans have a lot of protein, lentils have a lot of protein. Even common ordinary veggies like broccoli and lettuce have protein. Its not hard to get protein eating vegan.

What about fatty acids? Again, seeds, nuts, flax, algae, whole grain. In fact, the fatty acid you obtain from plants are a lot easier for your body to use than fatty acids obtained from fish.

Iron is another one. But guess what? Even meat eaters get the majority of their iron from plants, not meat.

A vegan who chomps on mostly junkfood is no less healthy than a meat eater who also chomps on junk food. If you eat an unhealthy junkfood based diet, it doesn't matter whether you eat meat or not. If you eat primarily junk, you aren't healthier just because you eat meat. And to be quite honest, thats the vibe I get from a lot of meat eaters who knock vegans. They eat their chips, their salsa, their candy, their bacon....But by golly they're healthier than a vegan because of that bacon!

Basically, I think people need to mind their own business when it comes to what other people choose to eat. You can't categorize all vegans into the unhealthy category. While there are some that are careless, there are twice as many who eat a more balanced, healthy diet than the meat eaters that criticize them.

That's not correct. There are no complete proteins in plant sources, none. Complete proteins come only from animal sources, as well as several amino acids that the human body cannot process when they come from plant sources. When dealing with incomplete proteins protein synthesis can only occur when the missing amino acids are available from another source. If a person is knowledgeable through supplements and/or mix and match diets it doesn't have to become a serious problem. It will always remain more optimal to eat complete proteins, but those who are most in danger are people that jump into vegan and veggie diets on trend band wagon. Improper veggie diets can lead to serious health issues because of protein deficiencies.

The topic is optimal nutrition, not a competition between unhealthy diets for which is the least unhealthy.

LOVEthroughINTELLECT · Feb 22, 2011

Recently I was reading an article about what is apparently a growing trend: the primal diet.

I am going by memory, so don't quote me on any of this. Anyway, a primal diet means eating the way that hunter-gatherers did. In other words, consuming only what can be found in the wild. In other words, avoiding foods that can only be produced through cultivation, animal agriculture, etc.

What stood out in the article was this claim that the author makes: we are not meant to eat grains. The author may also say the same thing about legumes (again, going by memory here). The reason? Grains are toxic and eat through the lining of our stomachs, he says.

Yet, Americans are being told that a healthy diet must include a generous amount of grains.

Further proof that nobody knows one right way to eat.

k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe · Feb 22, 2011

Stravinsk said:
It's the very first chapter of Daniel. There is no other "backdrop". Nothing, absolutely nothing, is said about food offered to idols.

"Backdrop" means everything that Daniel and his friends new about being Jewish. One cannot read the Bible without taking into consideration the cultural and biblical "backdrop" of the times. Daniel and his friends, being in a foreign, gentile land, would have had the law at the forefront of their minds. They would have been on high alert. Not eating food sacrificed to false gods would have been one of the ways they would have been on high alert. If you didn't take the time to research the passage and the biblical backdrop, I wouldn't expect you to know that.

I also do not care about an interpolation given by a commentator who also cannot site biblical evidence to back up his assertions - so I won't comment on the quoted and underlined bit in your post.

The commentators used biblical evidence throughout.... Read them instead of hiding under a rock.

It's "pulse" not just "vegetables". The Hebrew word means "that which is sown" - seeds,nuts,beans,wholegrains - all high in protein. Presumeably - that included that which grows from them as well.

Yeah I know, I used vegetables because it's shorter and simpler to use. You knew what I meant though. Instead of arguing stuff you already know I agree with please address the specifics I provided.

You are again assuming they would otherwise have been offered to idols. Sorry, it's not in the text and quoting a commentators interpolation neither does nothing to convince me.

Daniel and his friends WOULD have assumed the same things. If you read the commentators you would see why we can assume so.

Not eating pork and shellfish as relevant according to who? You? Since we are working in the OT here, lets hear what God Almighty says:

Isaiah 66:17: They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

It would have been very important for a Jew, and not only that, a prophet - to abstain from foods like Pork and Shellfish.

Yes, I agree with you on this as I've already said. The reason I didn't include it in my first post is for brevity. There were multiple reasons for Daniel not eating the king's food. You stated the reason as being nutritional and used the passage to advance your vegan/vegetarian agenda. My point is that the passage in Daniel cannot be used to advance your vegan/vegetarian agenda because it has nothing to do with being vegan/vegetarian. It was everything to do with obedience to God. For brevity, I didn't include every last reason in my original post. Because you brought it up as if it was some form of rebuttal to my argument, I included it in later posts.

Since there is NOTHING in the passage about food offered to idols - this remains the only thing left - the "king's meats" (or food if you like) - included things that Daniel and his men were simply not allowed to eat.

Cultural backdrop is just as relevant as the scripture itself. In fact, without cultural backdrop, a lot of the Bible's stories would be confusing and wouldn't make sense. Also, without cultural backdrop, people can use the Bible to attempt to prove any number of things which have nothing to do with what the story was originally about--which is exactly what you're trying to do...

Another assumption. I'm going to answer it by answering your next quote.

Daniel 1:15At the end of the ten days they looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal food. 16So the guard took away their choice food and the wine they were to drink and gave them vegetables instead.

This is simple deduction and reading comprehension, friend. Daniel and his men were not eating the King's "choice food and wine" during the 10 days. Therefore, there was nothing for the guard to take away from them. The second "they" refers to "the young men who ate the royal food".

I disagree with your reading comprehension. But I agree with you that my reading comprehension of this is my assumption. Everything else I've stated thus far has been well recorded, studied, doctrinal belief. So here's my assumption:

The ten days was a TEST, which means they still had the "choice" food available to them if they wanted to stop the test or if the steward saw that they were becoming sick from not eating the "choice" food. Only after the ten days did the steward see the positive outcome and make it official. Now Daniel and friends can have the food they've chosen. Daniel and friends were an exception to the rule. They didn't change the rule because of the exception. This isn't something I can prove, however, like my other points which you've failed to properly address. Remember, this paragraph is more my personal reading comprehension of the passage.

Keri · Feb 22, 2011

SneakerPimp53 said:
That's not correct. There are no complete proteins in plant sources, none.

You are incorrect sir.

There are not complete protein sources in a single plant. But ALL of the 8 amino acids that our body needs but does not produce on it's own (our body needs 22, 16 of which we can synthesize without outside help) ARE found in plants. One plant does not have all 8, but with combinations of plants you CAN ingest all of the amino acids that your body needs, therefore you can ingest complete protein sources.

I thought this was common knowledge. A popular example of this is beans and corn. Neither beans nor corn alone, of course, is such a complete food, chiefly because neither is a complete protein. Beans, however, contain all the essential amino acids but one (methionine), which just happens to be the amino acid that corn does have. Together, a mixture of two parts corn and one part beans is equal in protein quality to fresh milk.

Case closed.

Stravinsk · Feb 22, 2011

SneakerPimp53 said:
That's not correct. There are no complete proteins in plant sources, none. Complete proteins come only from animal sources, as well as several amino acids that the human body cannot process when they come from plant sources. When dealing with incomplete proteins protein synthesis can only occur when the missing amino acids are available from another source. If a person is knowledgeable through supplements and/or mix and match diets it doesn't have to become a serious problem. It will always remain more optimal to eat complete proteins, but those who are most in danger are people that jump into vegan and veggie diets on trend band wagon. Improper veggie diets can lead to serious health issues because of protein deficiencies.

The topic is optimal nutrition, not a competition between unhealthy diets for which is the least unhealthy.

You know one interesting fact everyone seems to be missing? The animal foods commonly consumed - beef, chicken and others - get their "complete proteins" from grass,grain,corn etc. Oh wait...but they aren't complete proteins! So how do they turn into them??? The same way a vegan gets his or hers - it's called the amino acid pool. For instance, you will only get the amino Taurine directly from eating meat - but the human body will manufacture it provided you get enough of the amino Cysteine and B6 in your diet.

Now don't anyone quote me suggesting they should eat only corn or grass....haha. Just saying.

How do grass or corn fed animals get their "complete proteins" SneakerPimp - for us to consume? Obviously they have some when they are born...but they have to grow right?

Stravinsk · Feb 22, 2011

Keri said:
I thought this was common knowledge. A popular example of this is beans and corn. Neither beans nor corn alone, of course, is such a complete food, chiefly because neither is a complete protein. Beans, however, contain all the essential amino acids but one (methionine), which just happens to be the amino acid that corn does have. Together, a mixture of two parts corn and one part beans is equal in protein quality to fresh milk.

Case closed.

Could depend on the bean:

Nutrition Facts and Analysis for Beans, pinto, mature seeds, cooked, boiled, without salt

Pinto beans - Under Protein and Amino Acids - click "More Details". Methionine = 200mg for a 1 cup serving.

LOVEthroughINTELLECT · Feb 22, 2011

Do we have it made or what? People have the luxury to come here and split hairs over amino acids and Biblical passages.

Maybe it is just the anthropology student in me, but I would bet that prehistorically and historically the overwhelming majority of people have not had the luxury of trying to win arguments about who has the "optimal diet" or the morally correct diet. The overwhelming majority of people, I'd bet, have had to take whatever sources of calories and nutrients they can get. As somebody else pointed out, never before have people had access to the variety of foods that the privileged peoples of our time do.

"Optimal diet" has not even been defined anyway. What is an optimal diet? One that makes the most people live the longest? One that enables one to get the most out of his/her years, never mind how many years he/she lives? One that overcomes the epidemic that the public is presently most conscious of? ?????????

And it's funny how people split hairs and analyze one or two details while leaving out so many variables that are right on the surface. Even if a creative vegitarian or vegan can get all of the nutrients he/she needs while avoiding meat or avoiding all animal products, does the average person have the time, patience, discipline, money, culinary skills, etc. to realize such a diet? Conversely, if we accept that animal products are a nutritional must aren't we conceding that the overwhelming majority of the human population--at its current numbers, at least--is going to have to go through life malnourished? Can we sustainably feed the entire human population at its current numbers such an omnivorous diet?

It seems like people need to stop splitting hairs and step back and see their arguments against that background known as the bigger picture.

Veganism

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

ImperialPhantom

Guest

Becoming X

Becoming X

Unusually unusual, absolutely unpredictable

The courage to be human

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Unusually unusual, absolutely unpredictable

Neo Baroque/Rococo Classical Artist

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Becoming X

The courage to be human

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Neo Baroque/Rococo Classical Artist

Neo Baroque/Rococo Classical Artist

The courage to be human

Similar threads