XPost: alt.creative+cooking, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.   
   port.football.college   
   XPost: rec.food.cooking   
      
   On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:36:35 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
      
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:16:55 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> dh@. wrote:   
   >>>>    The male calves are used in the veal industry. I'm sure some females   
   are for   
   >>>> some reasons sometimes, but it's mainly what they do to get the most out   
   of   
   >>>> basically useless male dairy cattle. As long as they're treated decently   
   there   
   >>>> should be nothing wrong with them experiencing life as a veal calf, afaWk.   
   >>>   
   >>> I agree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But their lives are   
   >>> NOT a *gift* to them in the sense that humans get to consider themselves   
   >>> to be their benefactors. That argument, called "The Logic of the Larder"   
   >>> is circular and illegitimate.   
   >>   
   >>      Taking the lives of livestock into consideration is ONLY called that by   
   >> eliminationists.   
   >   
   >That is a falsehood. You know the list of antis who have challenged the   
   >Larder argument.   
      
       No true antis have challenged it. Two said they didn't agree but gave no   
   reaon at all. One person claiming to be an anti presented mostly if not   
   entirely   
   eliminationist arguments against it. In contrast to that, ALL of the people who   
   honestly supported AW like didderot, the girl from the ag college, and the   
   woman   
   from an AW organization up north have all agreed that the lives should be taken   
   into consideration.   
      
   >> People who actually favor decent AW over elimination think of   
   >> taking the lives of livestock into consideration as taking the lives of   
   >> livestock into consideration.   
   >   
   >x=x that is true, but not worth mentioning.   
   >   
   >> Try to explain how you want us to think the vegan   
   >> larder is ethically superior to those of  people who contribute to the   
   lives of   
   >> livestock with their lifestyle, since you want us to think about the larder   
   >> aspect. Go:   
   >   
   >I don't think that, and livestock's "lives" contribute nothing to that   
   >decision. You think the "Larder" argument strengthens your moral   
   >position as a consumer of animal products. You're wrong, it doesn't, it   
   >makes it weaker.   
      
       Only to people who favor elimination over AW. You just can't get over it   
   even IF!!!!!!! you honestly feel that you have.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)