2129ce9c   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian   
      
   On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:01:57 -0800 (PST), Rupert   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Jan 14, 5:27 am, dh@. wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:41:45 -0800 (PST), Rupert   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>  wrote:   
   >> >On Jan 11, 5:20 am, 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. ·   
   >>   
   >> >Ok, where do you buy your grass-raised beef? Do you know the farm that   
   >> >makes it?   
   >>   
   >>     I don't buy grass raised beef. I consider it to be the fault   
   >> of misnomer huggers that there isn't more interest in the lives   
   >> of livestock, making things like grass raised beef less popular   
   >> than veg*n items.   
   >   
   >You can't make such a comparison meaningfully.   
      
       For ten years you people have been trying to get me to   
   unlearn the significance of the lives of other creatures, so yes   
   I CAN say that meaningfully, and with excellent reason from a   
   decade of personal experience directly with the source, which is   
   people like yourself.   
      
   >"Grass raised beef" is a very specific category.   
   >"Vegan food product" is an extremely broad category.   
      
       It obviously never worked on me, but the veg*n   
   anti-consideration approach seems to have had considerable   
   influence and we both know it. This may be another part of the   
   equation that you very very very very very very very well may   
   want to deny or change, but I refuse to believe you're unaware of   
   it regardless of your denials or attempts to change reality   
   simply by insisting it's different than it is.   
      
   >> You should be proud of that if you really   
   >> believe elimination is the most ethical possible solution, but   
   >> you probably want to deny it for some reason(s) neither of us may   
   >> truly understand.   
   >   
   >I hope to have made the reason clear above.   
      
       No, that was nothing. You people are opposed to contributing   
   to lives of any quality and any value for any and all animals   
   raised for food, so you either want to try to change part of the   
   equation again and/or you want to deny it and leave it out. If   
   you really believe as you claim then you should be proud that   
   veg*nism works against providing lives of positive value for food   
   animals:   
   _________________________________________________________   
   . . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal   
   welfare separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are   
   the practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds   
   with those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but   
   also the enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes   
   the achievement of animal rights.   
      
   . . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the   
   philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.   
      
   . . .  Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of   
   animal welfare believe they can consistently support reformist   
   means to abolition ends. This view is mistaken, we believe, for   
   moral, practical, and conceptual reasons.   
      
   . . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to   
   retard the pace at which animal rights goals are achieved.   
   . . .   
      
   "A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"   
   By Tom Regan and Gary Francione   
   ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯   
   but instead you seem ashamed and like you want to deny it as I   
   predicted, and apparently for reasons neither of us may truly   
   understand as I also predicted. I don't know why you want to deny   
   a fact that you should be proud of. Do you?   
      
   >> >> >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.   
   >>   
   >> >Animal Liberation NSW does a lot of investigations of farms and takes   
   >> >a lot of calls from people reporting cruelty. I think I have a pretty   
   >> >good feel for the kind of situations that usually come up.   
   >>   
   >>     Yet you can't appreciate when livestock have lives of   
   >> positive value.   
   >   
   >Why do you think that?   
      
       Because I can so I know what it's like. You often--like now   
   for example--act as if you would like to be able to, but   
   apparently you won't allow yourself to do so even if you would.   
   If you would, your addiction to the misnomer is causing you to   
   fight against yourself. It's cognitive dissonance as I've pointed   
   out a number of times before.   
      
   >> If you could, then you would be in favor of   
   >> decent AW instead of elimination.   
   >   
   >What makes you think that, based on my experiences with how meat   
   >production works out in practice?   
      
       If you could then you would find some things ethically   
   acceptable and some not. For example I've heard of people   
   slaughtering cattle by hooking them behind the achilles tendon   
   and hoisting them up, then slitting their throats without ever   
   numbing them in any way. The idea supposedly is that the more   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)