XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.philosophy.zen, alt.bu
dha.short.fat.guy
On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 15:13:45 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
> wrote in message news:76esa6tir15btu2hoqejrctotlrqe7omo2@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 23:11:46 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
>
>>>> 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.
>
>That statement does not "work against the misnomer" it benefits AR
>because it discredits you, and it's not the reason I hate it.
>
>
>>>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?
>
>Are you this stupid? Animals' lives are not "positive" because they're
>raised for food, they're positive because of AW measures, many of which have
>been advocated and pushed by AR groups like PeTA.
My guess is that regulations are determined by AW people
associated with the government and groups like PeTA try to grab
as much credit for them as they can. For example if they heard
that some practice was being investigated or about to be revised
they would begin making noise about the issue to pretend that it
was their influence that made the difference, when in fact they
just exploited something that was going to be changed with or
without them. Have you ever heard of the US agriculture
department consulting eliminationists about anything regarding
any sort of animals? Neither have I.
>>>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.
>
>No it doesn't,
Yes it does, in millions of cases that you people don't want
other people to take into consideration or even acknowledge the
existence of.
>not in a causative sense.
>
>Getting a driver's license in many cases leads to drunk driving and having a
>car accident and killing someone, that doesn't make it the cause.
>
>Lives of "positive value" *follow* the animals being raised for food, the
>cause however is attention to AW.
>
>>>and in reality in
>>>most cases these days it does not.
>>
>> What examples do you have in mind?
>
>High volume factory farms of all kinds, chicken farms where the chickens
>never see the light of day,
Chickens don't CARE whether or not they ever see the light of
day, so your "objection" is completely meaningless.
>crowded hog barns,
Overcrowding is a form of cruelty.
>beef production where the
>steers spend 90% of their lives in crowded feedlots,
When they spend less than 50% it's ok though. I've never
heard of a situation where any cattle spend that much time in
feedlots, or even 50% now that you mention it.
>battery egg production.
I agree that in most cases it would probably be better to
have no life than that of the average battery hen. Broilers are
ok though, and cage free layers, and also the partents of both
groups are kept in cage free houses. So you have a valid point
about the battery cages and about overcrowding in general. But
you have nothing worthy of consideration in reagards to chickens
seeing the sun and cattle.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
