XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.animals.wildlife, rec.pets.cats.misc   
   XPost: rec.pets.birds   
      
   On 24 Jun 2006 18:11:17 -0700, "Dave"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>     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.   
   >   
   >The ARAs suggestions also have the outcome: decent lives for   
   >billions of animals. There may be a difference in number of animal   
   >lives between your scenario and their's but you don't even seem to   
   >care or know whether your's means more animals or fewer.   
      
       No, because that's not what's being investigated. We're really   
   considering whether or not it's cruel to animals to raise them for   
   food, so that's what I try to stick to. Did you for some reason think   
   the only consideration here is how to provide life for the highest   
   number of animals? It's not. If it were, we'd need to raise something   
   small like mice or hamsters, and we'd need a reason why which   
   you would have to provide, etc...   
      
   >The other self evident difference lies in what types of animals get to   
   >experience what sort of lives.   
      
       Which brings us back to the need for "aras" to explain which   
   particular wildlife they are pretending to want to promote life for   
   instead of livestock, and why everyone else should agree with   
   them. But "aras" can NOT say which types of wildlife they feel   
   we should try to provide life for instead of livestock, much less   
   why we should do it...yet amusingly, they still insist that we should.   
      
   >I'm not saying that livestock farming is always wrong or that human   
   >considerations are irrelevant but as far as the collective interests of   
   >   
   >non-human animals are concerned, you are fixated upon the wrong   
   >variable; namely how many animals get to experience being farmed.   
      
       No it's not. In fact, I have no idea how many animals get to   
   experience being farmed, and have never even attempted to   
   find out.   
      
       Don't let that cause you to believe I have no appreciation for   
   the fact that billions of animals experience life only because we   
   raise them for food, because I certainly am capable of appreciating   
   things like that.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)