XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.dogs.behavior, re   
   .pets.cats.misc   
   XPost: alt.pets.rabbits   
      
   On 18 Apr 2006 06:28:40 -0700, "Dave"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >Missing the point. Being in favour of livestock leading decent lives.   
   >is not the same as being in favour of animals being raised for food.   
      
       Regardless of that, being in favor of animals being raised for food   
   IS the same as  being in favor of animals being raised for food, regardless   
   of what the many reasons are for being in favor of it.   
      
   >> >> >> >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.   
   >   
   >AW doesn't require livestock animals to exist.   
      
       AW for livestock does.   
      
   >Wild animals can also   
   >enjoy decent AW.   
   >   
   >> 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)