XPost: alt.slack, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.satanism
XPost: alt.atheism
On Sun, 3 May 2009 16:54:07 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
> wrote
>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:30:49 GMT, "Chain Smerker the Liberated"
>> 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.
>
>That's not a valid criticism of vegans, idiot.
It must be, since you perceive it as being one even though I didn't
make any comments about whether it is good or bad. From the way
I worded it the criticism could be towards people who DO deliberately
contribute to decent lives of positive value for livestock. Since you
think it's wrong for me to encourage people to think about doing that,
you certainly should be opposed to seeing anyone actually DO it!
Since you insist that it's in some mysterious unimaginable and
unexplainable way ethically superior to oppose consideration of the
animals' lives, you certainly should feel that trying to avoid contributing
to them entirely is in some mysterious unimaginable and unexplainable
way ethically superior to deliberately contributing to them.
>>>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.
Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid
criticism of eliminationists too?
>>>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.
Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid
criticism of eliminationists too?
>>>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.
Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid
criticism of eliminationists too?
>>>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.
Do you think drawing attention to that fact is not a valid
criticism of eliminationists too?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
