XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.dogs.behavior, re   
   .pets.cats.misc   
   XPost: alt.pets.rabbits   
      
   On 12 Apr 2006 18:23:22 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:   
      
   >   
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> On 10 Apr 2006 17:57:40 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >   
   >> >dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> On 9 Apr 2006 00:37:00 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:   
   >> >>   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> >dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> >> On 7 Apr 2006 17:56:45 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:   
   >> >> >>   
   >> >> >> >   
   >> >> >> >dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> >> >> On 5 Apr 2006 20:21:59 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:   
   >> >> >>   
   >> >> >> >> >Their objective is not to eliminate domestic animals, it is   
   >> >> >> >> >to eliminate exploitation of domenstic animals.   
   >> >> >> >>   
   >> >> >> >>     They want to eliminate animals raised for food.   
   >> >> >> >   
   >> >> >> >They want to eliminate exploitation of animals raised for food. If a   
   >> >> >> >side-effect of that is that no more animals are bred, so be it.   
   >> >> >>   
   >> >> >>     That's not a side effect. That's the intended goal, which is the   
   complete   
   >> >> >> opposite of decent Animal Welfare. People in favor of AW need to be   
   >> >> >> very opposed to "ar"!   
   >> >> >   
   >> >> >No, it's a side-effect. Animal rights people would have no problem if   
   >> >> >for some reason people wanted to keep breeding livestock, as long as   
   >> >> >they stopped exploiting and killing them.   
   >> >>   
   >> >>     People in favor of AW need to be very opposed to "aras"!   
   >> >>   
   >> >   
   >> >So you said. Why? What's so bad about wanting to end the exploitation   
   >> >and killing of animals?   
   >>   
   >>     People in favor of decent lives and humane deaths for livestock for any   
   >> reasons, certainly should be opposed to the elimination of livestock. If you   
   >> can't understand something as obvious as that, then you just can't   
   >> understand it regardless of what anyone does to try to help you understand.   
   >>   
   >   
   >People who, for some bizarre reason, think it's terribly important that   
   >livestock be brought into existence to have decent lives, can work to   
   >pursue this goal. This is all perfectly consistent with the AR cause.   
      
       No it's not. You want people to think it is so they'll keep sending money   
   even when they're not in favor of the elimination "cause", but that's just   
   another example of "ar" dishonesty.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)