home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   rec.pets.dogs.misc      All other topics, chat, humor, etc      8,070 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 7,291 of 8,070   
   dh@. to Dave   
   Re: Animal Welfare or "animal rights"?   
   27 Apr 06 10:32:28   
   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.pets.dogs.behavior, re   
   .pets.cats.misc   
   XPost: alt.pets.rabbits   
      
   On 25 Apr 2006 14:22:48 -0700, "Dave"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> On 24 Apr 2006 11:07:58 -0700, "Dave"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >   
   >> >dh@. wrote:   
   >> >> >> >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.   
   >> >   
   >> >Please stop lying about me.   
   >>   
   >>     I sure know that feeling. So what are you saying I'm lying about?   
   >   
   >I don't pretend to be in favour of decent AW.   
      
       Oh? Are you just pretending to pretend?   
      
   >I am in favour of decent AW.   
      
       LOL. How could we provide decent AW for livestock, if we take   
   your suggestion to eliminate them so that supposedly more   
   wildlife could live where they had been?   
      
   >I don't oppose giving consideration to the lives of livestock while   
   >encourgaing consideration of potential widlife.   
      
       That is ALL I've known you to do in regards to that aspect. I   
   have not known you to support livestock of wildlife in any way,   
   ever.   
      
   >I oppose giving consideration to one and not the other.   
      
       You oppose giving consideration to both, when it leads to the   
   conclusion that it's okay to continue raising livestock.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca