On Wed, 28 May 2008, Goo wrote:
>Goo - ****wit David Harrison, admittedly stupid cracker - lied and
>presented no challenge:
>
>> On Mon, 26 May 2008 22:27:10 -0700 (PDT), crisology <crisology@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>>
>>> On May 26, 10:04 am, Goo - ****wit David Harrison, admittedly stupid
cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
>>>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 03:05:11 -0700 (PDT), crisology
<crisol...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> On May 18, 1:01 am, dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 18:01:30 GMT, "sumbeotch at s***bum dot ***"
<youwantmya...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>> The meat industry
>>>>> Is largely government subsidized.
>>>> Good for all of us.
>>> all of us = those who would rather be fed than feed themselves.
>>>
>>> all of them = the ones feeding all of you.
>>
>> All of us.
>
>*NONE* of us. Subsidies are bad. They distort prices and in effect are
>making a choice for people that people ought to be making for themselves.
Try explaining it Goo.
>>>>>> provides life for the animals that it
>>>>>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
>>>>>> as animals do in other habitats.
>>>>> Well, it's a little different process in the wild..
>>>> Yes. In the wild the animals never have food provided
>>> Wild animals live much longer/naturally.
>>
>> Since most wild animals die as infants or very young,
>> the average lifespan would be much less.
>
>You don't know what you're talking about. He's comparing wild animals
>with domestic livestock that are mostly slaughtered at less than a year
>old, ****wit. You're deliberately making a false comparison, ****wit.
Goo, the majority of wild animals don't live long at all but are
killed usually as prey while very young. Even in larger supposedly
more successful animals like lions and grizzly bears 50% or more
never reach maturity. Of the many mallard's I've seen with ducklings
they managed to hatch off, I haven't seen a single one make it to
maturity. In fact I've only seen two live long enough to grow any
visible feathers. That doesn't mean no mallards manage to raise
any young Goob, but it does show that the vast majority of them
don't live as long as broiler chickens do.
>>>> so they often have to struggle and suffer over food.
>>> So they adapt to feed themselves
>>
>> They suffer more than domestic animals.
>
>Irrelevant,
May be Goober, but only to the insanely inconsiderat if so.
>and not something you could prove anyway. It is not
>"better" for the universe if we prevent wild animals from suffering by
>forcing them into extinction.
Why do you think it is better in the case of livestock, but not
better in the case of wildlife, Goo?
>>> & the species evolves thusly & enjoy
>>> natural pleasure of suckling, mating, longer life, etc
>>> .
>>>> They also have to do so over territory"
>>> And earn mating priveleges.
>>
>> They suffer more.
>
>Irrelevant. You aren't "helping" wild animals by promoting livestock
>over them.
There's no good reason to try ignoring the lives of
livestock Goob, and as you eliminationsts consistently
demonstrate you can't even come up with much in the
way of poor reasons, much much less can you come up
with a good one.
.. . .
>>> And I already told you I'm happy to see the raccoon (like last night)
>>> in my backyard stealing fruit/veg. The difference is I didn't have to
>>> go out and carve out more of his habitat and kill additional animals.
>>
>> If you don't, someone else will have to do it instead.
>
>No.
Someone, or their dog, or their car...will end up
killing it, Goo. Maybe you should go try to save it.
>>> Are you really looking for solutions to preserving wildlife or are you
>>> trying to sup****t a meat industry despite nutritional/environmental
>>> issues?
>>
>> I'm pointing out aspects of the situation
>
>You are not. You do not "point out" anything. You bull****.
>
>
>>>>> a fraction
>>>>> of the natural predators (coyote/native cats, etc) surviving today
are
>>>>> already being out competed/extinguished without much protection for
>>>>> this reason.
>>>> Good.
>>> Good that you kill wildlife?
>>
>> Some of them.
>>
>>> What's your aim,
>>
>> To get people to consider
>
>No.
In order to get a more realistic interpretation, people
should think beyond the restrictions you advocates of
the misnomer want to place on their thinking. They need
to think beyond your claim that elimination is the most
ethical possible choice, and consider that decent animal
welfare, providing lives of positive value for billions of
animals, might be ethically equivalent or superior to the
elimination objective
|
