XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.food.vegan, talk.politics.animals   
      
   On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 11:50:37 -0800, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   > wrote   
   >> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 09:55:06 -0800, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> >> >Why didn't you also realise that if our goal is to get   
   >> >> >animals to experience life by then eating them,   
   >> >>   
   >> >>     That's not our goal.   
   >> >   
   >> >You propose that it ought to be a consideration,   
   >>   
   >>     It should be of course.   
   >   
   >Of course it should not be. It is a consideration that has no impact on the   
   >moral/ethical process. If one believes that it's wrong to use animals for   
   >food then the fact that using them implies that "they get to experience   
   >life" changes nothing. If one believes that it's right and proper to use   
   >animals for food then considering that "they get to experience life" is   
   >unecessary and extraneous.   
   >   
   >> >which is the same thing.   
   >>   
   >>     That's a lie. If it were true, the same would be true of CDs,   
   >> which according to your retardation would mean that "our   
   >> goal" is to raise animals for food provide them with life cause   
   >> the deaths of wildlife in crop fields cause the deaths of livestock   
   >> plow fields plant fields treat fields with chemicals irrigate fields   
   >> harvest crops process crops and whatever else is a consideration.   
   >   
   >We don't raise crops so that animals can predate them and "get to experience   
   >life" either. The whole notion is nonsense.   
   >>   
   >> >[..]   
   >> >   
   >> >>     I prevented their lives, just as you want to prevent their lives.   
   >> >> Maybe you're envious because I have prevented more animal   
   >> >> lives than you have?   
   >> >   
   >> >A life cannot be prevented, that's a logical impossibility.   
   >>   
   >>     The lives of billions more livestock will occur if you "ARAs"   
   >> are not successful in preventing them.   
   >   
   >So what?   
      
       So you're wrong.   
      
   >No animal is harmed or loses anything in that event.   
      
       Why should we always choose wildlife in crop fields, over   
   wildlife and livestock in grazing areas? Do you think if we   
   did, there would always be fewer animals who experience   
   harm or loss?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)