XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.dogs.behavior, re   
   .pets.cats.misc   
   XPost: alt.pets.rabbits   
      
   On 23 Apr 2006 16:42:31 -0700, "Dave"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> 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,   
   >   
   >And not the same as being in favour of livestock having decent lives.   
      
       For some of us they should go together, while others of you can't   
   undestand how they could.   
      
   >>  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.   
   >   
   >Again missing the point. We promote AW for livestock because livestock   
   >exist. We don't provide life for livestock so that AW for livestock can   
   >exist.   
      
       They do none the less, so it should be taken into consideration. It's   
   pitifully amusing that you pretend to be in favor of decent AW while   
   opposing giving consideration to the lives of livestock, and at the   
   same time you encourage consideration of non-existent supposedly   
   potential wildlife that you appear to feel suffer a loss from never   
   existing.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)