Let's change the topic to abortion. All reasonable people agree that a contraception method that prevents an egg from being fertilized does not amount to murder, whereas suffocating a full-term infant who was born just moments ago does. If you consider abortion to be murder (which is a reasonable position if you believe that human life begins at conception), do you also believe that it is so transparently obvious that it belongs in that category (much like suffocating a newborn baby) that reasonable people cannot disagree about it? If so, I can see why you'd want abortion doctors to be prosecuted for performing even early term abortions. But, again, it's creepy to think that people like you exist.
On the tough questions, reasonable people can disagree. That's precisely what makes them tough questions, and that's an idea that seems lost on the progressive liberal mob seeking to criminalize the actions of government officials with whom they disagree. This idea also seems lost on Barack Obama who does not just disagree with George Bush about where to draw the line when it comes to the interrogation of a few high-level al Qaeda detainees in a time of crisis; in addition, he accuses Bush and others of having "lost their moral bearings." Can you imagine Bush ever characterizing his liberal opponents of, for example, having lost sight of their moral duty to protect the American people? Of having lost their moral bearings because they support embryonic stem cell research? I can't, and in that respect George Bush was vastly more impressive than Barack Obama is today. Bush understood that people who disagree with him are not necessarily morally corrupted even if he also believes that their preferred policies will make America less safe (leading to the unnecessary deaths of many innocents) or that they result directly in the destruction of innocent human life (in the case of embryonic stem cell research). Barack Obama should consider elevating himself to that level.
It's not entirely clear where to draw the line defining when harsh interrogation becomes torture, just as it is not entirely clear where to draw the line defining when an embryo (or a fetus) becomes a human life. With regard to the former, I'd say that torture begins with interrogation techniques that are harsher than waterboarding. With regard to the latter, I'd say that murder begins with abortions performed after the onset of some criterion level of brain activity (not at conception). On both questions, my mind is sufficiently flexible to appreciate that reasonable people can disagree with me, and I never feel any desire to see my political opponents prosecuted for the crime of not seeing things my way. I'd like to think that I wouldn't experience prosecutorial fury even if a president's well-meaning stance against "torture" resulted directly in another tragedy like the one we experienced on 9/11.
If you believe that (a) waterboarding is torture (a defensible position that nevertheless seems quite wrong to me), (b) that reasonable people cannot disagree about this (i.e., that the correctness of your position is so transparently obvious that the details need not even be debated), and (c) that those responsible for the harsh interrogation tactics used by the CIA against 3 high-level al Qaeda detainees in the aftermath of 9/11 should be prosecuted, then I submit that your position is as intellectually primitive and as mentally inflexible as those who want to prosecute doctors for performing abortions. That's not where you want to be, but that's where you are.
UPDATE: Sensible lefty Kevin Drum weighs in on torture in the way that many on the left are doing these days:
I don't care about the Geneva Conventions or U.S. law. I don't care about the difference between torture and "harsh treatment." I don't care about the difference between uniformed combatants and terrorists. I don't care whether it "works." I oppose torture regardless of the current state of the law; I oppose even moderate abuse of helpless detainees; I oppose abuse of criminal suspects and religious heretics as much as I oppose it during wartime; and I oppose it even if it produces useful information.
Got it. I agree. Most people do, so the impassioned stance seems unnecessary. Nobody is talking about gouging out eyes or burning skin to get detainees to talk. Everybody is passionately opposed to using such methods (even on a few high-level al Qaeda detainees during a time of crisis and uncertainty).
But the relevant question is this: can reasonable people disagree about what constitutes torture? The question is not "should we torture detainees?" Drum (like many others) addresses the second question. No one in the Bush administration ever argued that detainees should be tortured. Instead, they argued that, in a time of crisis, harsh interrogation techniques that fall short of torture should be used on a limited number of high-level al Qaeda detainees to protect the American people from another attack like 9/11. The fact that you (or Drum) thinks that the approved techniques amount to torture does not mean that Bush agrees with that characterization or that he authorized anyone to use torture. He did not. Instead, he disagrees that the techniques amount to torture. That's why no bones were broken, no skin was burned and no eyes were gouged out. Torture was disallowed; harsh interrogation was not.
It seems to me that implicit in Drum's moral argument is the claim that no reasonable person could disagree with him about whether or not waterboarding (for example) constitutes torture -- much like no reasonable person could disagree that gouging out an eye is torture. Is that what Drum really believes? Is that what everyone on the left believes? If so, it would be helpful for them to say so explicitly. That is, not only do they believe that waterboarding is torture but they also believe (apparently) that no reasonable person could possibly disagree. As things stand, I think that's what Drum is saying, but it would be clarifying to know that I have that right.
[a further note: I somehow initially missed the following statement in the passage I quoted from Drum: I don't care about the difference between torture and "harsh treatment." But how can you not care about that distinction and then say that you are opposed to torture? Are you also opposed to harsh treatment even though you don't care about the distinction? Does the distinction not exist (as if yelling in one's ear is also torture)? I believe that is what Drum is saying. That is, there is no distinction, it's all torture, and no reasonable person could disagree. I wonder if I have that right?]
23 comments:
Yes.
I just finished reading a piece by Jacob Weisberg at Slate about "Bush's torture policy".
That's how the msm has labeled and defined it -- as if there is no doubt whatsover the issue.
Framing at its most insidious: a kind of a definitional "when did you stop beating your wife" technique.
I don't imagine that I'll ever see Slate talk about Obama's "baby-murdering policies".
gpc31
Dear Professor
Your post is vague and difficult to answer because you never define torture other than "worse than waterboarding." If you take the UN Convention Against Torture definition (of which the USA is a signatory) then torture is defined as:
1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
So, yes, waterboarding is torture under this defintion. If you still don't agree with me, why don't you try waterboarding and see how it feels.
Chad
Chad,
If I had asked "Do you believe that waterboarding amounts to torture," then your comment would have been the perfect reply. But I asked "Can reasonable people disagree with you about what constitutes torture?" That's the question. Care to answer it? You don't need to have my own personal definition of "severe pain and suffering" to say whether or not reasonable people can disagree about when that line is crossed.
There you go again Engram, being perfectly reasonable. AS far as the definition goes. Cliff May's approach saying that if we do it to our own people, it can't be torture, is also true because we are not doing it to gain information etc. But maybe if it is part of a lawful sanction....
I do believe the Geneva definition is quite lacking and dangerous to follow blindly. I think we should be rethinking it. That document is not divine law, but the compromise of one small group of men at one time in history. It seems that the Geneva Convention is currently used much like the bible in arguments. Use the parts that make your case and ignore the rest. Furthermore, Geneva, while a laudable effort has an effect like gun laws in that it does little to restrict the most heinous, thus making the rest easy victims. For instance those seeking to murder innocents through deceitful and illegal combat methods like using children or the infirm strapped with bombs cannot be given the same protections as uniformed soldiers following a chain of command exercising restraint toward civilians. Why would anyone who wants win and save innocent lives accept that playing field?
No one is accusing you of being unreasonable, Engram.
Are we calling you dishonest for using slippery, Orwellian language to downplay the harshness of the interrogation techniques you advocate? Yes.
Are we accusing you of being lazy in not researching the facts about the extensive trail of deaths that lead straight from the Oval Office under Bush? Yes.
Click the link at the bottom and note the similarity between the Gestapo document and Bush's interrogation policies.
I'm not calling you a Nazi. I'm not calling you unreasonable. I am calling you an intellectual coward who won't take on the strongest arguments against your own position.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/
the_daily_dish/2007/05/
verschfte_verne.html
In case any readers would rather not click the link, here is Andrew Sullivan's takeaway, which the link proves with documented evidence:
"Critics will no doubt say I am accusing the Bush administration of being Hitler. I'm not. There is no comparison between the political system in Germany in 1937 and the U.S. in 2007. What I am reporting is a simple empirical fact: the interrogation methods approved and defended by this president are not new. Many have been used in the past. The very phrase used by the president to describe torture-that-isn't-somehow-torture - "enhanced interrogation techniques" - is a term originally coined by the Nazis. The techniques are indistinguishable. The methods were clearly understood in 1948 as war-crimes. The punishment for them was death."
This "the Nazis did it meme is getting old". If all the Nazi did was what the Bush administration did there would have been no prosecution in Nuremberg, let alone executions. The Nazis also made strudel, that doesn't make strudel a capital offense. But this still misses Engram's point which is the way discourse on what is obviously a controversy is not serious, but rather an attempt to attack those who disagree.
Additionally, Sullivan, who pushed the "Bristol Palin is not he mother of her child" B.S., is hardly a reliable source to help us get serious.
If people have arguments, then make them. Don't link to someone as a fallacy of authority attempt. These are basic human questions (what is torture?, what is accptable to us?) Surely we have reasons for our positions other than "Some guy agrees with me."
To Nate, responding to your accusation against Engram:
"Are we calling you dishonest for using slippery, Orwellian language to downplay the harshness of the interrogation techniques you advocate? Yes."
You have it exactly backwards, Nate. Your analysis is lacking and nobody here is impressed with
your moral preening.
First, the act and definition of torture is itself a slippery slope -- a sorites problem, in the jargon of philosophy. How many drops does it take before you call it Chinese water torture? 3,347 or 3,348? It's debatable, isn't it?
Second, recognizing the nature of the problem, Engram has repeatedly called for partisan to specify *in advance* where they draw the line between harsh interrogation and torture. That's intellectual honesty instead of using 20/20 hindsight for cheap political point scoring, ex post facto rationalization, or moral aggrandizement. How do you plead?
Third, the definition of "torture" is not obvious, universal, or self-evident. Would that it were, we would all avoid it. Reasonable people can disagree on this, Nate (which I believe was the original point of Engram's post).
And if it were somehow the case that torture is verbally indefinable but, like Judge Potter and pornography, you know it when you see it, well then, you must still TRUST the good faith and decency of the jailer. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Aren't we a nation of laws rather than men? So wouldn't you rather attempt to spell out in advance the difference between interrogation and torture, to protect all concerned? (the prisoners' rights, the interrogators' liability, and the constitutional soul of the nation) That doesn't sound Orwellian to me.
Lastly, Nate, the very fact that you feel compelled to debate Engram on this issue shows that it is in fact a debatable topic, does it not? Or are you the only reasonable one here? Couldn't exactly tell that from the high percentage of emotive adjectives and adverbs in your response.
Look -- I take it that the point of Engram's argument is to preserve civilized discourse in order to pre-empt partisan displays of self-righteousness. People don't make good or moral decisions when so inflamed. Nor do people engage in honest debate when demonized. (hint, hint)
You do make yourself admirably clear: You disagree not only with Engram's proposed set of criteria for what constitutes torture, but also with his way of discussing it: you find his treatment "lazy" and "cowardly" in failing to "take on the strongest arguments against [Engram's] position."
I must say that your own post is virtually self-refuting -- you don't make very strong arguments, just an appeal to dubious authorities, and a lot of name-calling. But at least you do provide a link to a secondary or tertiary source of evidence, which is a not a bad start.
Who knows? I lack your certainty and could be wrong myself, so I'll look into your evidence.
gpc31
My whole objection to the original post, and to my comments here, is this idea that the topic of torture is some new issue that sprang up on 9-11, and that we are still sorting out what is acceptable and what is not when interrogating prisoners. And that folks like Engram can claim the mantle of being reasonable and nuanced is ridiculous, since there is a wealth of established American precedent on this topic that is not discussed on this blog at all.
The torture issue, including waterboarding, has been an issue during national emergencies in the time of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, even Ronald Reagan. For you to have this debate without recourse to American policy during these past conflicts, as well as what we considered torture by our enemies like the Nazis and the Japanese when they did things to our soldiers, is the opposite of reasonable and sober.
Engram's emphasis on abstract discussions of what a person considers to be torture is frankly curious coming from someone who, as those who read this blog know, is a formidable analyst and adept researcher.
And I will extend this assessment to my most recent commenters. Perhaps comparing Bush's interrogation policies to the Nazis is "getting old", as bagoH20 says. I notice you don't say the comparison is false.
As for Mr. Anonymous: the idea that torture is a slippery slope emerges if you operate beyond the law, as the Bush administration did. If you operate according to the law, and the wealth of established military and judicial precedent developed in our country's history, then we are on much more level ground.
Nate,
But it's a simple yes or no question. Can reasonable people disagree about what constitutes torture? I cannot glean your answer from your responses thus far. Perhaps a one word reply will get the point across.
What are you afraid of, Nate? I'm not afraid to discuss the pros and cons. Maybe one of us will change our minds.
Your assertion of precedents are way off and not honest arguments. They just seem to be deflection from discussing what YOU personally think and why, unless you just blindly accept precedent. If we all do that then I'm gonna go club me a female and drag her home. That's the way it used to be, and who am I to change it.
Seriously, under what situation would you approve water boarding? To save one life for certain, 100, 1000 lives. How about a 50% chance of saving 100 lives or losing them. 20% Chance? Or is it never water board, no matter what the cost?
I would allow water board on me to get YOUR taxes reduced by 1%. That's my position and I'm serious.
Yes, but in the same vein that reasonable people can believe 9-11 was an inside job.
It's not the "creepy" factor that appalls me the 9-11 conspiracy people, or about the pro-water boarding crowd. It's the willful avoidance of a reasoned debate about the full issue.
Nate:
Even though you haven't directly answered Engram's question, thanks for responding with some historical references.
You wrote:
"As for Mr. Anonymous: the idea that torture is a slippery slope emerges if you operate beyond the law, as the Bush administration did. If you operate according to the law, and the wealth of established military and judicial precedent developed in our country's history, then we are on much more level ground."
We interrogated a few captives according to SERE methods, tested on thousands of our own armed service members, on which we do indeed have a wealth of data.
More importantly, I dispute the central claim of your argument, as explained below.
I just stumbled across a recent paper from the Yale Law School (No, not from John Yoo). It purports to refute your thesis, namely, that the Bush administration did not operate outside the law, and contrariwise, that the "wealth of military and judicial precedent" concerning what is permissible interrogation is much less clear-cut than you claim.
Viz. from the paper, "every interrogation method allegedly authorized since 9/11, with the possible exception of waterboarding, "was authorized at times before 9/11 and was considered to be consistent with the reigning legal framework."
Numerous historical examples are supplied.
Furthermore:
"all former and present laws on interrogation. . .are vague and contestable, and thus, when context demands, manipulable." If this is problematic, he concludes, "then a rethinking of interrogation law and policy is necessary."
I don't yet know whether the author of the paper is correct in his claims -- I will have to judge it for myself -- but the paper does show that the issue is not settled. It should prompt you to acknowledge the possibility (probability?) that your own historical claims might be mistaken or incomplete. (Not that your are "lazy", or "cowardly" in refusing to consider strong arguments -- that would be unworthy of a person such as yourself.)
Regardless, I think that this paper demonstrates once again that reasonable people can disagree on this issue.
Why is that so hard to admit? Just because I happen to disagree with you and do not automatically concede your moral superiority, doesn't mean that I don't grant you good faith in this argument.
You should, I think, answer Engram's simple yes or no question about whether or not reasonable people can disagree about what constitutes torture. It would be a good start amidst so much squid's ink.
Secondly, please consider a simple thought experiment: what would it take to change your mind? What kind of evidence or reasoning would you need?
Or if are you 100% certain, why can't you convey your position more clearly, succinctly, or persuasively?
This isn't a case of Dr. Johnson kicking the stone and saying, "I refute it thus."
gpc 31
P.S. Here is an excerpt from the paper, via the website powerline.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023498.php
***********
Last night, I discussed a Yale Law Journal Note by WIlliam Ranney Levi which demonstrates that, contrary to the shrill claims of folks like Jane Mayer, Philippe Sands, Sen. Durbin, and PBS (per the program Frontline), Bush administration interrogation policies do not represent a dramatic repudiation of and stark departure from American traditions. Indeed, Levi shows that, "every interrogation method allegedly authorized since 9/11, with the possible exception of waterboarding, "was authorized at times before 9/11 and was considered to be consistent with the reigning legal framework." Tonight, I will describe some of Levi's specific findings regarding the post World War II interrogation policy and practices of the United States.
Levi shows that during the period from 1949 to 1973, the CIA authorized the use of, and used, such special interrogation techniques as truth drugs, LSD, heat and cold, "electric methods," and narco-hypnosis. Towards the end of this period, it begin to rely less on severe measures to lower the source's physiological resistance and more on ways to reduce their psychological capacity to resist. This meant increased reliance on isolation, threats, disruption of sleep patterns, and use of stress positions.
The armed forces also relied on narcotics and used LSD from 1958-1962. Even prisoners of war could be made to stand at attention when being interrogated and no time limit was placed on this technique. Sleep deprivation without limitation was also permitted. So was isolation. It should be noted that when these techniques were authorized for use by military interrogators in 2002, they were sanctioned only on a more limited basis and only for use on unlawful combatants, not prisoners of war.
After 1973, interrogation by proxy came to characterize U.S. policy on obtaining information from those who did not wish to give it up. The CIA continued to interpret the law as allowing the use of stress positions, disrupted sleep, solitary confinement, sensory deprivation, threats of violence, temperature manipulation, and examination of body cavities. However, with the agency under intense scrutiny at home and with the law being uncertain (international law on interrogation has been, and remains, short on specific definitions of that which it prohibits), the simplest solution was to farm out interrogations to others. Both the CIA and the U.S. military provided training in coercive interrogation techniques to its proxies.
By the early 1990s, with the end of the Cold War, both the CIA and the military had discontinued such training. But soon the challenges posed by terrorism caused the U.S. to develop a new proxy interrogation regime -- extraordinary rendition. According to Levi, starting in 1995 the rendition of terrorists from one state to another became routine. The CIA would assist with logistical support in the detention and transfer and then, in the words of its former inspector general, "use the fruits" of interrogations conducted by foreign intelligence services, such as the Egyptians and Saudis, employing whatever coercive techniques they chose to.
Thus, when Phillppe Sands (to take one particularly dishonest commentator on the subject) declares that "the U.S. military's long-established constraints on cruelty and torture dating back to President Lincoln in 1863, were. . .circumvented" and "discarded" and that the newly authorized interrogation program "turned its back on this tradition," he is not telling the truth.
But Levi also insists that what he calls "the Bush administration's flawed and careless legal work" also has contributed to the perception that something unprecedented was afoot. He argues, for example, that the "torture memo," with its dubious legal definition of torture and its argument that, as Commander-in-Chief, the president has complete discretion to authorize interrogation by torture despite a federal criminal statute to the contrary, "made it appear that for coercive interrogation to be considered lawful, the existing legal regimes had to be eviscerated. . ."
This too is false. The reality, Levi argues persuasively, is that "all former and present laws on interrogation. . .are vague and contestable, and thus, when context demands, manipulable." If this is problematic, he concludes, "then a rethinking of interrogation law and policy is necessary."
*************
I find it creepy to think that there our society is filled with people who honestly believe that there are human beings and then there are sort of, kind of human beings...that we all exist on the kind of sliding scale that torture exists on.
Yes, of course I think that anyone who takes human life should--in the abstract--be prosecuted.
That doesn't mean that I think that since we should prosecute people who abandon their aged parents in the woods to die we should also immediately prosecute Eskimos who leave their aged parents on ice floes.
Prosecutions are a tool that help to advance morality and there are various reasons for criminalizing and prosecuting murder.
Including societal madness. Like the kind you evince on this issue.
But yes: Human beings are human beings. In essential moral terms, that's all there is to it.
Old ones that bore us and slobber are just as human as charitable, productive geniuses. Severely retarded people are just as human as those with wit and wisdom and scintillating talent.
And tiny, tiny creatures just beginning to from in the womb--whom we might understandable MISTAKE -- note the verb carefully -- MISTAKE for microscopic animals are, we find, just as human as Einstein or Lincoln.
Isn't science wonderful? We find stuff out.
"You should, I think, answer Engram's simple yes or no question about whether or not reasonable people can disagree about what constitutes torture."
I've seen Sean Hannity use the technique on guests, asking a loaded question and demanding a yes or no answer. I'm fed up with this debate, as are you in all likelihood.
Reasonable people make arguments that are not reasonable all the time. I'm guessing I would find everyone who posts here as reasonable if I met them and talked with them. This doesn't mean everything they say is reasonable, and that they (or I) can't be spectacularly wrong on certain issues.
That said, reasonable people can disagree about what constitutes torture. Reasonable people can also disagree about whether WWII was worth fighting, whether the Civil War was a war of Northern Aggression, and that homosexuality should be a crime. So there you have it.....
喝花酒
酒店喝酒
暑假打工
寒假打工
酒店小姐
酒店兼職
禮服店
酒店經紀
酒店兼差
酒店
酒店經紀人
酒店現領
酒店經紀爆米花
酒店經紀
酒店打工
酒店上班
假日打工
台北酒店經紀
酒店pt
酒店pt
酒店應酬
粉味
酒店經紀PRETTY GIRL
酒店經濟
酒店經濟
打工兼差
喝花酒
酒店喝酒
暑假打工
寒假打工
酒店小姐
酒店兼職
禮服店
酒店經紀
酒店兼差
酒店
酒店經紀人
酒店現領
酒店經紀爆米花
酒店經紀
酒店打工
酒店上班
假日打工
台北酒店經紀
酒店pt
酒店pt
酒店應酬
粉味
酒店經紀PRETTY GIRL
酒店經濟
酒店經濟
打工兼差
‧租辦公室‧租店面‧買辦公室‧店面租賃‧店面出租‧店面出售‧花茶‧花草茶‧養生茶‧招牌‧led招牌‧招牌製作‧美國月子中心‧保養‧美國月子中心‧OBU‧投審會‧會計師事務所‧會計師‧工商登記‧公司登記‧包子‧肉粽‧宅配美食‧四神湯‧搬家公司‧訂房‧訂房網‧花東旅遊‧桃園土地‧桃園房屋仲介‧桃園房屋‧桃園房屋網‧桃園房屋買賣‧漆彈‧搬家公司‧會場設計‧展場設計‧會場設計‧展場設計‧展覽設計‧消防設備‧消防設備‧機電‧崴立機電‧消防公司‧地板施工‧超耐磨地板‧店面出租‧乳癌‧全身健康檢查‧肝癌‧健康檢查‧身體檢查‧飛梭雷射‧雷射溶脂‧直航機票‧自由行‧三久‧太陽能‧三久太陽能‧太陽能熱水器‧別墅外觀設計‧環保袋‧別墅外觀設計‧室內裝修‧電波拉皮‧hand dryer‧電波拉皮‧雷射溶脂‧肉毒桿菌‧系統家具‧台中漆彈場‧漆彈‧團體服‧美國月子中心‧團體服
‧團體服‧團體服‧T恤‧圍裙‧POLO衫‧班服‧團體服創意‧熱轉印‧團體服訂做‧宜蘭民宿‧關鍵字廣告‧seo‧網路廣告‧網路行銷‧seo‧網站設計‧seo‧線上客服‧seo‧網頁設計‧seo‧網頁設計公司‧網路行銷 ‧網路行銷‧桃園室內設計‧室內設計作品‧室內裝潢‧裝潢‧室內設計‧室內設計公司‧裝潢設計‧豪宅空間設計‧店面設計‧豪宅設計 ‧桃園室內設計公司‧別墅外觀設計‧室內裝潢設計‧台北室內設計‧新竹室內設計‧法拍屋‧中古車‧二手車‧環保袋‧環保袋‧肉毒桿菌‧健檢‧醫學美容‧淨膚雷射‧汽車美容‧法拍屋‧水餃‧清潔公司‧實驗動物‧到府坐月子‧坐月子‧坐月子中心‧坐月子餐‧孕婦‧月子餐‧到府坐月子‧坐月子‧坐月子中心‧坐月子中心台中‧坐月子中心台北‧月子餐‧月子中心‧坐月子餐‧月子餐外送
‧月子餐食譜‧找工作‧統一發票7 8月‧求職‧1111求職人力銀行‧104求職人力銀行‧104人力銀行‧統一發票5 6月‧104人力銀行‧104求職人力銀行塑膠袋‧統一發票1 2月‧塑膠袋批發‧塑膠袋工廠‧金價‧黃金價格‧統一發票3 4月‧1111人力銀行‧1111人力銀行求職‧黃金價格查詢‧中古車買賣塑膠袋 ‧統一發票3 4月 ‧塑膠袋批發 ‧中古車 ‧中古車買賣‧台北人力銀行‧金價查詢‧sum中古車‧中古車‧貸款‧信用貸款‧房屋貸款剖腹生產 命理網 姓名學 姓名配對 星座 星座運勢 算命 開運印章 風水 外遇 徵信 徵信社 外遇 徵信 徵信社 外遇 徵信 徵信社 外遇 徵信 徵信社 外遇 徵信 徵信社 外遇 徵信 徵信社 搬家公司 搬家公司 台北搬家公司 新竹搬家公司
情趣按摩棒,自慰套,角色扮演,按摩棒,跳蛋,情趣跳蛋,
.,
情趣,G點,性感丁字褲,情趣,角色扮演服,吊帶襪,丁字褲,情趣用品,無線跳蛋,男女,
按摩棒,電動按摩棒,飛機杯,視訊,自慰套,自慰套,情趣用品,情趣內衣,
潤滑液,SM,內衣,性感內衣,自慰器,充氣娃娃,AV,
G點,按摩棒,
轉珠按摩棒,變頻跳蛋,
跳蛋,無線跳蛋,
飛機杯,男用強精長軟質套,
男用強精短軟質套,充氣娃娃,
男性性感內褲,性感內褲,
自慰套,自慰套,
情趣娃娃,自慰器,
電動自慰器,充氣娃娃器,
角色扮演,角色扮演服,
性感睡衣,情趣睡衣,
性感內衣褲,性感內衣,
內衣,性感內褲,
C字褲,內褲,
性感貓裝,性感睡衣,
貓裝,吊帶襪,
情趣內褲,丁字褲,
SM道具,SM,
震動環,潤滑液,
情趣禮物,情趣玩具,
威而柔,精油,
逼真按摩棒,數位按摩棒,
加盟,免費加盟,
網路賺錢,情趣加盟,
情趣,情趣用品,巴黎,
Post a Comment