XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.dogs.behavior, re
.pets.cats.misc
XPost: alt.pets.rabbits
On 14 Apr 2006 17:03:48 -0700, "Dave" wrote:
>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 13 Apr 2006 11:46:25 -0700, "Dave" wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >This is true for people who are in favour of livestock being raised to
>> >high welfare standards and killed humanely. It is not true for people
>> >who are in favour of livestock being well treated and humanely killed
>> >given that they are raised.
>>
>> WTF are you trying to talk about?
>
>I am correcting your claim that people in favour of livestock being
>raised
>and killed humanely should necessarily be opposed to them being
>eliminated althogether.
They necessarily should be.
>> >It is quite consistent to promote animal
>> >rights as ideal and animal welfare as the next best thing.
>>
>> They are completely different ideas,
>
>Hardly. AW can be interpreted as the idea that farmed animals have
>the right to good nutrition and healthcare, the right to express their
>natural behaviours, the right to a clean living environment, the right
>to socialize with other's of their kind, etc. Moderate forms of AR such
>as what Rupert practises would grant them these rights but also grant
>them an additional right; the right to life.
You're just talking about a sort of AW instead of "ar".
>> and the ONLY reason for trying
>> to confuse them is so that "aras" can exploit AW issues. DUH!!!
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
