XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.animals.wildlife, rec.pets.cats.misc   
   XPost: rec.pets.birds   
      
   On 21 Jun 2006 15:54:38 -0700, "Dave"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >Jangchub wrote:   
   >> On 19 Jun 2006 18:41:12 -0700, "Dave"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >   
   >> >Jangchub wrote:   
   >> >> On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 15:53:48 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >> >>   
   >> >>   
   >> >> >    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.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> I see this as a growing trend in people.  They simply do not know the   
   >> >> unimaginable suffering animals go through in order to feed people with   
   >> >> their flesh.  I am not vegan, yet, but I only buy dairy and egg   
   >> >> products which are gathered ONLY free range, ONLY grass fed cows,   
   >> >> grazing and living free.  People who don't "get" this, are sadly one   
   >> >> day going to suffer at their own hands in the future.   
   >> >   
   >> >When David Harrison talks about "considering the animals" he   
   >> >doesn't merely mean ensuring decent AW for existing farm animals.   
   >> >It appears he believes eating meat is actively praiseworthy because   
   >> >it "contributes to decent lives for farm animals".   
   >>   
   >> He would have to explain that to me.  I live in Texas where they bash   
   >> cattle on the head till blood is pouring out, stuff them into   
   >> trailers, drive them long miles so they can pen up in a urine soaked   
   >> area while they await the winch to pull their legs out from under them   
   >> and upside down then get their throats cut.  They hang there upside   
   >> down till they bleed to death.  Wow, how decent.   
   >   
   >I don't know specifically about those cattle you describe   
      
       It's not the norm, if there's any truth to it at all. The hook goes between   
   the bone in their leg and the heavy tendon running along the back of it.   
   The skin is cut open so the hook can be stuck through. Are we really   
   to believe slaughterhouses regularly do this to fully conscious animals,   
   and THEN they hoist them, and THEN they kill them? Some of we will not   
   and in fact can not believe such an absurd claim.   
      
   >but based on   
   >my conversations with him I'm pretty sure he would argue that the   
   >abuses   
   >you mention are not sufficiently horrific that the cattle would have   
   >been better   
   >off never to have been born.   
      
       I don't know exactly how to think about a horrible slaughter gone   
   wrong, where the animal is forced to suffer for several minutes before   
   lossing consciousness. If the animal had a decent life for two years   
   before that, would a few minutes of horrible suffering make it better   
   to have never lived? I don't know, and you're not even capable of   
   giving it consideration.   
      
   >To his way of thinking that is sufficient   
   >to   
   >justify any abuses against the animals   
      
       No it's not. I've always said some of them benefit from farming   
   and some don't. But if you can't even get that much straight, then   
   how could there be any value for you to consider when they do   
   and when they don't? The fact is, you can't even consider the   
   difference.   
      
   >because they wouldn't have existed   
   >at all but for the people who eat them.   
      
       They would not have existed, so people need to consider when   
   their lives are of positive value and when they are not in order to   
   have a realistic idea about all of it. "aras" only want people to   
   consider when the lives are of negative value, because considering   
   when they are of positive value can encourage the idea that   
   decent Animal Welfare might be ethically equivalent or superior   
   to the "ar" objective to eliminate domestic animals.   
      
   >I think this is an absurd argument because he hasn't shown that our   
   >manipulation of evolution has benefited animals overall,   
      
       Either you are capable of understanding how some animals   
   benefit from being raised by humans, or you are not. You're not.   
   I am.   
      
   >cattle are not   
   >created for us and don't need our help to reproduce themselves.   
      
     · The meat industry includes habitats in which a small   
   variety of animals are raised. The animals in those   
   habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant   
   on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also   
   depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg   
   that begin their particular existence. Those animals will   
   only live if people continue to raise them for food.   
      
       Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild   
   animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely   
   different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few   
   animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals   
   which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers   
   for their existence. ·   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)