XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.dogs.behavior, re   
   .pets.cats.misc   
   XPost: alt.pets.rabbits   
      
   On 18 Apr 2006 01:50:29 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:   
      
   >Goo wrote:   
   >> rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:   
      
   >> > I don't kill animals unnecessarily.   
   >>   
   >> There's that weasel word again!  It means whatever you   
   >> want it to mean, in the moment.  It's worthless as a   
   >> moral guide.   
   >>   
   >   
   >False. A general principle "Don't kill animals" would be incorrect,   
   >just as a general princple "Don't kill humans" would be incorrect. It's   
   >necessary to add the qualifier "unnecessarily".   
      
   "We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing" - Goo   
      
   "ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any   
   moral consideration." - Goo   
      
   "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense   
   - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they   
   don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense. There's   
   your answer. " - Goo   
      
   "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to   
   experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration   
   whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the   
   breeding of livestock; but consideration of their   
   deaths does warrant some moral consideration." - Goo   
      
   "the "getting to experience   
   life" deserves NO moral consideration, and is given   
   none; the deliberate killing of animals for use by   
   humans DOES deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo   
      
   As we can see, you and Goo agree about this issue.   
   Goo sometimes claims to disagree with himself, but   
   regardless of what he says from one sentence to the   
   next the above quotes undoubtedly explain how he   
   wants people to feel about raising animals for food.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)