XPost: alt.slack, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.satanism   
   XPost: alt.atheism   
      
   On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:30:49 GMT, "Chain Smerker the Liberated"    
   michael@subgenious.com> wrote:   
      
   >Blah blah   
   >   
   >Im all for the ethical treatment of animals before we eat them. Which is why   
   >I only buy free range eggs and chickens.   
      
       You pay extra to contribute to lives of positive value for those   
   animals, in contrast to veg*ns who deliberately try to avoid ever   
   doing so.   
      
   >Cows and sheep are treated pretty well and get a pretty slackfull life   
   >before they are culled for my consumption.   
   >   
   >Everyone needs to like just be nice and stuff and stop getting so caught up   
   >in "human moraility" which is very anti-animal morality.   
      
       I believe it's very safe to say that advocates of the misnomer   
   are the most anti-animal people on this planet.   
      
   >People like PETA honestly believe that humans are the only rightfull moral   
   >agents in this world who are capable of making a "correct" decision   
      
       Not really. They want you to BELIEVE they are, but in reality   
   they are just the opposite. They want to eliminate domestic   
   animals, which would eliminate all human decision making in   
   that area of course. Well how about wildlife? Humans are the   
   only beings even capable of trying to kill humanely, but   
   misnomer advocates would leave wildlife population management   
   entirely up to non-human agents that are completely unable to   
   even attempt to be humane. So when we look at it in a little   
   bit of detail we see that's just another incorrect interpetation   
   these dishonest people have somehow managed to trick other   
   people into having.   
      
   >while   
   >refusing to respect how insignificant humans are in the universe and take   
   >heed of how the universe actually works.   
      
       Starvation, disease and non-human predators cause much   
   more suffering to their prey than human hunters do, and especially   
   to baby animals and pregnant mothers. Yet workings like that don't   
   matter in the least to eliminationists.   
      
   >PETA are like the old colonial powers of old who conqured to "liberate"   
      
       Their terrorist heros undoubtedly cause more suffering, not   
   less, by their attacks on fur farms and medical research. So   
   to sum it up: These misnomer advocates wouldn't provide any   
   rights or anything else for any animals, but they would and do   
   cause more suffering by things they do and things they would   
   like to do.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)