XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.animals.wildlife, rec.pets.cats.misc   
   XPost: rec.pets.birds   
      
   On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 01:12:46 GMT, 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.   
      
       Some of them have decent lives of positive value and some do not.   
   People need to consider both if they want to develop a realistic   
   impression of what's going on. "aras" only want us to consider when   
   the lives are of negative value, because providing decent lives for   
   livestock works *against* their objective to eliminate them.   
      
   >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.   
      
       Then you are contributing to decent lives for such animals with your   
   lifestyle, which you would NOT be doing if you were a vegan.   
      
   >People who don't "get" this, are sadly one   
   >day going to suffer at their own hands in the future.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)