XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:19:23 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:05:38 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:20:11 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:20:50 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>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. ·
>>>
>>>No boilerplate bullshit
>>
>> The stock answers show that I've addressed and overcome you
>>people's complaints years ago. Unlike yourself I CAN provide the
>>examples. They were old shit to me within the first few months,
>>obviously since I made them stock answers. You people still can't
>>comprehend much less appreciate them, and almost certainly never
>>will in your entire lifetime.
>
>They show that you stopped thinking years ago
They show that I learned to appreciate and think about
aspects of the situation that misnomer addicts will never be able
to appreciate as long as they're addicted to the misnomer.
>and have chosen to just keep
>regurgitating the same crap.
The things I point out have been significant aspects of human
influence on animals for thousands of years. Did you think they
may have changed within the past decade for some reason? Could
you be even THAT clueless? Maybe you could be, since you're
bitching at me for continuing to point out things that will
always remain true.
>Most of the time it doesn't even apply.
Consideration for other beings' lives ALWAYS applies to
trying to determine whether or not life has positive value TO
THEM.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
