On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Goo cried out:
>On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:08:40 -0100, dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
pointed out:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:49:04 -0700 (PDT), phil <Phillipeb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>>
>>>What you are saying about how vegans cannot contribue anything to the
>>>quality of life nor the quantity of life slaughtered is nieve. While
>>>you are correct in your assertation that even vegans cannot live a
>>>life free of harm it is the purpose of veganism to minimize that
>>>suffering. To that end i am doing my part. The nation is run on a
>>>supply and demand concept the more people who become vegan or
>>>vegetarian the less production of meat will be needed. While again it
>>>is true that animals raised in factory farms are owed their life to
>>>that process it is the question as to the quality of life that is
>>>owed.
>>
>> · Because there are so many different situations
>>involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
>>unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
>>way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
>>cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
>>the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
>>and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
>>really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
>>cruelty or abuse at all.
>>
>> Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
>>grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are
>>confined to such a degree that they appear to have
>>terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both
>>groups of animals in the same way.
>> Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg
>>producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as
>>the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent
>>battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The
>>lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined
>>to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so
>>there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other
>>groups in the same way. ·
>
>Shut the **** up, Goo.
LOL! Goober, why are you opposed to people considering
the differences in quality of life, do you have any clue? If you
do, can you say what it is? LOL!!! That's a good one, huh Goo?
Of course you:
a) don't.
b) can't.
All is not entirely lost though Goob, because I do and can.
You have complete faith in the idea that the elimination of
domestic animals is the most ethical possible approach for
humans to take. That is a most extreme position though
Goober, and one which necessarily allows us to have no
consideration for the animals themselves:
"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
"Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo
"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo
"The op****tunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever" - Goo
"It is completely UNIM****TANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO im****tance to it." - Goo
So, Goo, since the fact that some livestock experience
decent lives of positive value suggests that providing
decent AW could be ethically equivalent or even
superior to your elimination objective:
"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
killing them." - Goo
"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it."
- Goo
"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not
to exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
it creates cognitive dissonance in your poor crusty little
crumb of brain, so you try to shut it out. The act of giving
consideration to the animals themselves works against
you Goob, so of course the act of giving consideration to
specific details regarding the quality/value of life for those
animals works against the tightly restrictive tiny sliver of
thought you want to allow yourself or anyone else to put
toward the animals we are discussing. You eliminationists
are terrified of the possibility that it could some day become
commonplace for consumers to deliberately contribute to
lives of possitive value for livestock with their lifestyle Goo,
as some of us already do by one of the few options easily
available to us at this time: buying cage free eggs. Even
if you don't eat them Goob it would be good for you to
buy some every once in a while in order to promote the
cage free method or raising laying hens, contributing to
a greater percentage of lives of sufficient quality to be
of positive value to the birds themselves.
|
