2f4d1b8b   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.philosophy.zen, alt.bu   
   dha.short.fat.guy   
      
   On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:43:33 -0700 (PDT), Rupert   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Oct 1, 7:12 am, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>  wrote in messagenews:13o9a6h50moe04f2n72bom15pdnmk7v59t@4ax.com...   
      
   >>> consider that to be superior to   
   >>> complete elimination   
   >>   
   >> It's definitely superior for *us*, but not for animals who would never exist   
   >> in the first place.   
   >>   
   >> > even after all these years of your supposed   
   >> > arguments trying to change my mind about it.   
   >>   
   >> What I am trying to do is convince you that veg*ns cannot be attacked for   
   >> failure to "support" livestock raising based on animals who won't get to be   
   >> born, it (The LoL) is an illogical and circular argument . Veg*ns can be   
   >> attacked for being hypocritical and unrealistic and that is more than   
   >> sufficient grounds.   
   >   
   >Vegans who believe that there is a moral obligation never to buy any   
   >products whose production involved the infliction of suffering   
      
       They just deny what they feel like denying, which is not a   
   respectable thing to do from my pov but it probably is from   
   yours.   
      
   >and   
   >premature death,   
      
     · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive   
   if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of   
   reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever   
   we think about the fact that the animals are going to be   
   killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part   
   of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are   
   experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·   
      
   >and yet continue to support commercial plant-based   
   >agriculture,   
      
       Even when it involves more wildlife deaths than an animal   
   based alternative like between rice milk and grass raised cow   
   milk.   
      
   >are either ill-informed or hypocritical, yes. But not all   
   >vegans fit this description. And it's not very clear to me why vegans   
   >are "unrealistic".   
      
       For one thing they refuse to consider that millions of   
   animals experience lives of positive value because humans raise   
   them for food. That's one BIG way. In fact it may very well be   
   the biggest way, and all others stem from that one. And now that   
   you mention it I have pointed out that it could change your   
   entire life for the better if you could learn to appreciate lives   
   of positive value.   
      
       Oh and btw, however much you may want to put an end to it all   
   from time to time, if you can still get up and walk across the   
   floor, and can still drive and go where you want, and possibly   
   you can even hold a job for a little while now and then, YOU are   
   probably experiencing a life of positive value yourself. If it's   
   true that you are you should really try to learn to appreciate it   
   while you still are, because one thing is for sure that is that   
   it will eventually end. Maybe it will end instantly and you will   
   be dead, or maybe it will end and drag out and you will suffer   
   for a long while with a life of negative value, but either way on   
   that whatever life of positive value you get WILL end eventually.   
   Wouldn't it suck for it to end and THEN for the FIRST TIME you   
   learn to appreciate the difference?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)