XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.animals.wildlife, rec.pets.cats.misc   
   XPost: rec.pets.birds   
      
   On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:04:16 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   > wrote   
   >> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 12:01:01 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >   
   >[..]   
   >   
   >>>>>>>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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>That's contradictory, it's saying the same thing. We *owe them* decent   
   >>>>>care.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    How do we "owe" them anything? Who decides, and where is it   
   >>>> written?   
   >>>   
   >>>You just expressed it, "I do believe we're pathetic assholes when we   
   >>>don't."   
   >>>Why would we be pathetic assholes if we didn't owe it to them? In fact we   
   >>>do   
   >>>owe livestock decent treatment, almost everyone can see this intuitively,   
   >>   
   >>    So it is not a decided or discovered fact, but it's just something that   
   >> you   
   >> made up and claim as fact, and then hilariously expect everyone else to   
   >> agree with. LOL...that's what you have been doing repeatedly for years,   
   >> and still keep doing.   
   >>   
   >>>as you just expressed.   
   >>   
   >>    Showing consideration is not an obligation. It's a couresy that some of   
   >> us are capable of and others of you/"them" are not, as I keep pointing out   
   >> because you keep providing examples of it.   
   >   
   >Providing livestock with decent lives is much more than a courtesy, it's a   
   >moral obligation, if not always a legal one. You expressed it when you said   
   >"I do believe we're pathetic assholes when we don't". If we're assholes when   
   >we don't do something, that means it's a moral obligation, or "we owe them".   
   >Your confusion never ends.   
   >   
   >>>>>>>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.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Why don't you just answer the question,   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    I did.   
   >>>   
   >>>The question is right below, I did not see an answer.   
   >>>   
   >>>>>why should we get credit for   
   >>>>>providing what we owe, decent lives?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    I don't care if you give browny points for it or not. But! That   
   >>>> doesn't   
   >>>> mean that people should be incapable of considering the animals as   
   >>>> you/"aras" so desperately want them to.   
   >>>   
   >>>So, since, as you say, some animals are provided with decent lives, what   
   >>>concrete action exactly are we supposed to do with that information? Do we   
   >>>abstain from using products from animals that *don't* have decent lives?   
   >>   
   >>    Some of we abstain from some of them. Why not?   
   >   
   >If we just do whatever we want anyway then what force does your   
   >"consideration" have?   
      
       We're considering the difference between two different approaches to   
   the situation:   
      
   1. my suggestion that we consider the animals' lives and provide them with   
       decent lives and humane deaths attempting to make it a benefit for   
       both us and them.   
      
   2. your/"aras" suggestion that we not raise any animals for food, but simply   
       kill wild animals.   
      
   My suggestion would deliberately provide decent lives for billions of animals.   
   Your/"aras" suggestion would not. It's pretty easy and obvious what "force",   
   or type of result would be the outcome of my suggestion: decent lives for   
   billions of animals.   
      
   >>>Apparently you don't advocate that,   
   >>   
   >>    How would you know? Oh that's right, you don't care about what I really   
   >> advocate and what I don't, you just care about what you/"aras" want people   
   >> to believe I advocate.   
   >   
   >I know what you advocate because I have listened to you for years. You   
   >advocate making a moral issue out of "providing life" for animals. You   
   >insert "decent" to throw off your critics   
      
       You are a contemptible liar. You know just as I do that I consider quality   
   of life to be an EXTREMELY significant aspect of the situation. That being   
   the case, you should say so when other people lie about me and deny it.   
   Instead you lie to me about myself. If you had even the slightest shred of   
   decency you would be thouroughly ashamed of yourself, and rightly so.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)