XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.animals.wildlife, rec.pets.cats.misc   
   XPost: rec.pets.birds   
      
   On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 11:49:15 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   > wrote   
   >> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:01:39 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> wrote   
   >>>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:57:16 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>You get no moral credit for causing animals to come into existence   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    That doesn't matter.   
   >>>   
   >>>It clearly matters to you.   
   >>   
   >>    Explain why you think people deserve more credit for abstaining   
   >> from animal products, than they would for deliberately contributing   
   >> to what they consider to be lives of positive value for livestock.   
   >   
   >I don't think that. That is an AR/vegan belief which I do not share. My view   
   >is that there is no measurable moral distinction to be made between   
   >abstaining from animal products and "deliberately contributing to what they   
   >consider to be lives of positive value for livestock"   
      
       That's because you're not capable of considering the animals, as I've   
   been pointing out for years. Not only are you incapable of doing it yourself,   
   but you are insanely and maniacally opposed to seeing anyone else do it.   
      
   >to use your term. It   
   >is a phantom issue raised by animal extremists. The rational response to   
   >that argument is to dispel it, not engage it.   
      
       ONLY if you are incapable of considering the animals, as is the case   
   with you/"aras".   
      
   >>>You have frequently attacked veganism for failing   
   >>>to support the bringing of livestock into the world, denying those animals   
   >>>life that they would have had. If that is a moral failing in vegans, then   
   >>>you must consider bringing those animals into the world (and "providing   
   >>>them   
   >>>with  decent lives") a moral credit.   
   >>   
   >>    You/"aras" can't understand when it is and when it's not, nor   
   >> can you/"they" understand how life could have positive value   
   >> to any domestic animals.   
   >   
   >Don't you think we owe animals we raise for food decent lives?   
      
       Not really. But I do believe we're pathetic assholes when we don't.   
      
   >If so, since when do we get credit for simply repaying what we owe?   
      
       You give your imaginary browny points when you want, and   
   withhold them when you want. I've asked you countless times   
   why you present your browny points for the elimination objective,   
   yet violently snatch them away from deliberately providing decent   
   lives for livestock, ie the LoL, ie decent AW, yet you consistently   
   fail to explain what's better about elimination instead. It's not my fault.   
   It IS your fault.   
      
   > >>> What matters is that some animals have lives   
   >>>> of positive value, though you admittedly have no clue how,   
   >>>   
   >>>Through animal welfare measures, some of it brought about by campaigns by   
   >>>groups like PeTA, who also happen to want to abolish the raising of   
   >>>livestock. There is NO contradiction in these facts.   
   >>   
   >> "The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes from people who   
   >> do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of animal use." - Dutch   
   >   
   >That doesn't contradict what I just said.   
      
       LOL! You admitted that they are completely different beliefs, yet even   
   now want to pretend you don't think so...LOL....   
      
   >>    Much as you/"aras" don't want people to become aware of it,   
   >> Animal Welfare and the gross mi$nomer "animal rights" are completely   
   >> *different!* objectives:   
   >   
   >I realize that. Stop muddying the waters.   
      
       The distinction needs to be ALWAYS kept in mind by anyone who has   
   even the slightest interest in animals, even though we know you/"aras"   
   don't want it to be:   
   _________________________________________________________   
   From: "Dutch"    
   Message-ID:    
      
   dh_ld@nomail.com> wrote   
      
   > AW means better lives for animals. "AR" means the elimination of   
   > farm animals, and as much as you obviously want to believe they're   
   > the same thing, they are completely different objectives.   
      
   Shut the fuck up you stupid fucking moron. Do the world a favour and go blow   
   your stupid fucking head off with the biggest fucking gun you can find.   
   ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯   
   >   
   >   
   >>>> showing that you're not capable of taking animals seriously.   
   >>>   
   >>>The Logic of the Larder is not taking animals seriously,   
   >>   
   >> "when their life is a fairly happy one." - Henry "ar" Salt   
   >>   
   >>    It is considering an aspect of human influence on animals that   
   >> you/"aras"   
   >> are maniacally opposed to seeing taken into consideration, because it   
   >> works   
   >> *against* the objective to eliminate domestic animals, i.e., "ar". Duh.   
   >   
   >It's irrelevant what you think it does, animals "getting to experience life"   
   >cannot be taken into consideration as a mitigation for raising them.   
      
       LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  It certainly can, you poor   
   moron.   
      
   >>>it's a moral abomination.   
   >>   
   >>    ONLY to you/"aras" who feel that providing "fairly happy" lives   
   >> and humane deaths for domestic animals--decent AW--is a moral   
   >> abomination.   
   >   
   >It's a moral abomination to claim a moral credit for meeting a basic moral   
   >obligation, to provide decent lives for animals we use.   
      
       You consider appreciation for lives of positive value for farm   
   animals to be a moral abomination. For that reason I must   
   consider YOU to be a moral abomination.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)