XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.dogs.behavior, re   
   .pets.cats.misc   
   XPost: alt.pets.rabbits   
      
   On 16 Apr 2006 09:42:10 -0700, "Dave"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >False. The following position is entirely consistent: "The livestock   
   >that   
   >we raise for food should be raised and killed humanely. it doesn't   
   >matter   
   >if livestock are not raised for food."   
      
       You/"aras" can't understand, but it does matter to people in favor   
   of livestock being raised for food.   
      
   >> >> >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".   
   >   
   >I think many people who adopt the position described above would   
   >identify themselves as animal rights advocates.   
      
       They're not promoting "ar". People in favor of decent AW should   
   be opposed to the elimination of the animals they want to promote   
   decent lives for. For some reason you can't quite understand that,   
   but that's how it is regardless of your ability or inability to understand.   
      
   >> >> 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)