XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 15:49:42 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
>
>
> wrote in message news:e98if79pq9qp1tijs95ooiq1lr52jemkuo@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011 14:51:52 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:
>>
>>>"Jahbulon" wrote
>>>> "Dutch" wrote in news:1vMJq.2356$zj4.908@newsfe03.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> Abstaining from the use of leather is largely symbolic,
>>>>> the alternatives are not necessarily any better.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you. What do you recommend?
>>>
>>>Leather works better and lasts longer than anything else, is a natural
>>>product, so from environmental and utilitarian points of view it is hard
>>>to
>>>beat.
>>
>> It's a byproduct so you should reassure him that no additional
>> livestock
>> animals live and die because of leather, or pet food.
>
>Feel free to do that yourself.
Hey Jahbulon, if you're reading this you can quit worrying about the
cruelty
of leather because it's just a byproduct of beef and dairy...and probably rodeo
:-) So no animals live and die specifically to produce leather...you're not
contributing to life and death for future beef and dairy cattle--or "leather
cattle"--by buying or wearing leather. And if you get it from the Goodwill you
really REALLY! won't be contributing to them. So leather up if you like the
stuff, and try to be thankful that some of us like beef and dairy too.
>> Unless you want to now try
>> to pretend there are...LOL...livestock raised only to become leather
>
>I haven't researched that so I would not make that claim,
You tried to support the Goober's dishonest idea that:
"But with 120 million cats and dogs who eat lots of beef, Fuckwit, it is
obvious that plenty of additional cattle are raised that would not be
raised if the 120 million cats and dogs all disappeared." - Goo
>however I know
>some animals are raised strictly for their pelts.
And you might even be honest about the fact you're opposed to that.
>> like you
>> want people to believe there are for pet food.
>
>There are some of those, I provided a link a long time ago,
To one small situation that does nothing at all to support what Goo and you
were trying to get people to believe. In fact it really works against Goo's
idea
since the ones you referred to were getting AWAY FROM commercial pet food, NOT
supporting it and it's supposed pet food livestock.
>only because
>someone else raised the issue, I see no value in the argument either way.
You tried to support Goo's lies, for whatever reason(s). What reason(s) did
you have btw, can you say?
>>>> Suicide is the end point of Jainism,
>>>> isn't it?
>>>
>>>I don't know, life is about compromises. In any case I would not base my
>>>decisions on simplistic notions like "veganism".
>>
>> You used to and of course my guess is you still do to whatever extent,
>> since
>> you do so much that ONLY eliminationists have any decent reason to do.
>
>That is a mistaken conclusion on your part. I oppose some of your arguments
>because they're bad arguments, not because I support AR.
I sure doubt that of course, since you reveal yourself as an eliminationist
frequently. As I've pointed out many times, referring to appreciation for lives
of positive value as the LoL is an attempt at insult that ONLY an
eliminationist
would have any reason to attempt. Opposing consideration of those same lives is
again something that ONLY an eliminationist would have reason to do. Certainly
NO ONE who truly favors decent AW over elimination has any reason to do those
things, and as we've seen from Etter and Ward Clark even people who don't care
much if anything about AW don't have any reason to oppose the consideration I
suggest. They said they didn't agree, but they made no attempt at all to oppose
the idea.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
