XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:33:34 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
>
> wrote in message news:nprpl59ur1m91m37n9r7b4qmgk0fmtasdo@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:58:20 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
>>
>>> wrote
>>>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:49:08 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
>>>
>>>>>You're attacking them
>>>>
>>>> Provide some examples of what you claim to be attacks.
>>>
>>>You're attacking them when you assert that they commit some moral
>>>shortcoming by failing to support livestock "getting to experience life"
>>>with their lifestyles,
>>
>> I point out that they don't, because they don't. Since they
>> don't, there's nothing wrong with pointing out that they don't.
>> They should be proud that they don't, not consider it a "moral
>> shortcoming" for someone to point out exactly what they are
>> TRYING NOT TO DO.
>
>If this "fact" had no moral relevance in your opinion there would be no
>reason to mention it. You *do* think it constitutes a moral shortcoming,
>that is unquestionable.
>
>>>which is the core argument of your position. The
>>>charge is infinitely stupider
>>
>> They don't do anything at all to help any livestock, and that
>> fact should certainly be kept foremost in mind
>
>That is clearly a lie. Vegans do a lot
My mistake. Veg*nism does nothing to help livestock,
regardless of whether or not the veg*ns themselves manage to
contribute money to something that does help some livestock
somehow.
>to help livestock, see PeTA's
>pro-animal campaigns like the Burger King one. What do YOU do to help
>cattle?
What do you think PeTA did for them, and how and when do you
think they did it?
>> whenever a person
>> considers becoming a veg*n rather something that will contribute
>> to decent lives for livestock.
>
>The very judgment you denied making above is implicit in that false
>juxtaposition. You're transparent.
Obviously you hate me pointing that fact out, and since it's
an extremely significant one in regards to the supposed ethical
superiority of veg*nism it shows a form of dishonesty on your
part that you hate to see it pointed out. Your dishonest sort of
behavior brings a couple of questions you can't answer to mind:
1. Why don't you try countering what I point out with the
supposed ethical superiority of veg*nism?
2. Why are you upset to the point that you whine and bitch and
lie at me for pointing out some of the things veg*nism does NOT
do?
>>>than their charge that we cause animals to
>>>suffer by consuming animal products
>>
>> · 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. ·
>
>I don't do
That's a big part of why you really suck at this.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
