On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:57:15 -0700 (PDT), Merlin <merlinator@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>feeding cattle for food is a rich man's s****t.
>
>learn to cook without meat for a while, then add meat back into your
>diet as a sidedish......
No thanks.
>grains, beans, rice and veggies will sustain us.
>some will still eat cheese and eggs and drink milk,
>yet meat eating is very expensive.
I eat mostly chicken and turkey.
>is it not 8 pounds of wheat for everyone pound of meat?
Not if they aren't fed wheat.
>that means alot of vegetarians could rule the world.
How do you figure that one?
>in love with the living gay jesus,
>
>merlin
There's no reason to believe Jesus was gay.
>On Jun 16, 8:45 am, dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> 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 <Philli...@[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.
|
