2d467f53   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian   
      
   On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:43:49 -0800 (PST), Rupert   
    wrote:   
      
   >(1) Morality requires that, whenever you have an opportunity to make   
   >an expected reduction in the extent to which the processes which   
   >produce the products you pay for cause pain and suffering to sentient   
   >beings, by a means which you have good reason to believe would involve   
   >exerting very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on   
   >yourself, and there is no other means incompatible with taking   
   >advantage of this opportunity by which you can accomplish any   
   >comparably morally important goal,   
      
     · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised   
   steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people   
   get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well   
   over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people   
   get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm   
   machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and   
   draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is   
   likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings   
   derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products   
   contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and   
   better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·   
      
   >then you should take advantage of   
   >the opportunity.   
   >(2) For most people who live in agriculturally bountiful   
   >societies with many healthy, tasty plant foods easily available which   
   >can form the basis of a nutritionally adequate diet, boycotting almost   
   >all animal-derived food products is a step which makes an expected   
   >reduction in the extent to which the processes which produce the   
   >products they pay for causes pain and suffering to sentient beings,   
      
     · 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. ·   
      
   >by   
   >a means which they have good reason to believe would involve exerting   
   >very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on themselves,   
   >and there is no other means incompatible with taking advantage of this   
   >opportunity by which they could accomplish any comparably morally   
   >important goal.   
      
     · The meat industry includes habitats in which a small   
   variety of animals are raised. The animals in those   
   habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant   
   on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also   
   depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg   
   that begins their particular existence. Those animals will   
   only live if people continue to raise them for food.   
      
       Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild   
   animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely   
   different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few   
   animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals   
   which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers   
   for their existence. ·   
      
   >(3) So most such people are morally required to boycott almost all   
   >animal-derived food products.   
      
       Nah. Haven't I pointed that out to you before? Many livestock   
   animals experience decent lives of positive value already Rupert.   
   If you people put as much effort into encouraging people to CARE   
   ABOUT THEM as you do discouraging them from considering their   
   lives at all, there's no telling how much better it could get.   
   There is no good reason why animals should actually suffer   
   because of the ways in which they are raised, but the reason it   
   is that way is not giving a shit. You people are among the worst   
   as I continually point out, but you can't realize it. You can't   
   even begin to recognize the distinction between which livestock   
   have lives of positive value and which don't, because...you tell   
   me.  How many reasons? Oh shit you can't answer so I'll toss out   
   some reasons:   
      
   1. you can't afford to acknowledge that ANY livestock have lives   
   of positive  value.   
      
   2. it works against the misnomer.   
      
   3. you're so disturbed by the fact that humans eat meat that you   
   could never consider the animals or anything that works in favor   
   of eating meat.   
      
   If you want to add a few more, have at it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)