XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.philosophy.zen, alt.bu
dha.short.fat.guy
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 23:11:46 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Oct 2010 16:23:10 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>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 is a self-serving, dishonest and misleading statement,
Those are facts which you hate because they work against the
misnomer, but they are facts regardless of your denials.
>animals
>experience lives of positive value because humans take good care of them,
>not because humans raise them for food.
Why do humans raise the animals you're referring to if not
for food?
>Humans raising animals for food in
>and of itself does not lead to "lives of positive value"
In many cases it leads to lives of positive value.
>and in reality in
>most cases these days it does not.
What examples do you have in mind?
>>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)
|
