XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.dogs.behavior, re   
   .pets.cats.misc   
   XPost: alt.pets.rabbits   
      
   On 9 Apr 2006 09:03:06 -0700, "Dave"  wrote:   
      
   >> >All "primitive" breeds of chickens, cows, horses, sheep or any other   
   >> >"livestock" animal need is sufficient amounts of appropriate habitat   
   >> >and they can look after themselves.   
   >>   
   >>     I won't take your word for it,   
   >   
   >Name one factor that it is (a) necessary for their survival and (b)   
   >can be provided only by humans.   
      
       In the case of chickens, food and protection from predators in   
   most cases. I've never heard of long term populations of domestic   
   chickens surviving anywhere, and feel quite confident that you   
   can't provide examples of any. And even if you can--which is   
   very unlikely--you would need to explain *WHY?* we should try   
   to create the same sort of situation anywhere that people are   
   currently raising chickens, which is something else you're unable   
   to do.   
      
   >> and don't believe it would be ethically   
   >> superior to humans raising them.   
   >>   
   >> >> How would you/"they" justify maintaining   
   >> >> the livestock, when the land could supposedly be used to provide life for   
   >> >> wildlife instead?   
   >> >   
   >> >As soon as the "livestock" stop being farmed, they become "wildlife"   
   >> >by definition.   
   >>   
   >>     Not the ones who die.   
   >   
   >The point is there is no difference between the inherent properties of   
   >wildlife animals and livestock animals. The terms simply describe their   
   >   
   >relationship to humans.   
      
       As I point out: you're still not capable of considering whether or   
   not it's cruel to animals to raise them for food, and most likely you   
   never will be.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)