XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.animals.wildlife, rec.pets.cats.misc   
   XPost: rec.pets.birds   
      
   On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:42:10 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   > wrote   
   >> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:04:16 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >>>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.   
   >   
   >Animal Welfare, not "The Logic of the Larder".   
      
       Both terms apply.   
      
   >> 2. your/"aras" suggestion that we not raise any animals for food, but   
   >> simply   
   >>    kill wild animals.   
   >   
   >That's not my suggestion, please stop using  your/"aras".   
      
       That's up to you, not me. But if you ever stop defending them,   
   I guess we won't have anything to discuss. As for humoring you   
   with the /, I feel I'm being quite generous.   
      
   >> My suggestion would deliberately provide decent lives for billions of   
   >> animals.   
   >   
   >Animal Welfare provides decent lives for billions of animals, "The Logic of   
   >the Larder" provides them with nothing.   
   >   
   >> Your/"aras" suggestion would not.   
   >   
   >The only advantage of "The Logic of the Larder" is that it helps you to feel   
   >justified in raising animals for food. The problem is, it's circular logic.   
      
       There's no problem with it. In fact, it's going on out in reality all the   
   time, and has been for about ten thousand years.   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >Animal Welfare provides decent lives for billions of animals, "The Logic of   
   >the Larder" does not.   
      
       We both know decent AW is a necessary requirement for the LoL:   
      
   "when their life is a fairly happy one." - Henry "ar" Salt   
      
   >>>>>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.   
   >   
   >You're the liar. If you simply wished to see livestock provided with decent   
   >lives then you would not have been arguing with the rest of us for the past   
   >six years.   
      
       The part where that doesn't make sense is: I've been encouraging it   
   and you've been opposing the suggestion, with the alternative you've   
   been supporting being "ar". So of course I should be arguing with you   
   Goos in favor of decent AW, and the LoL, over the gross misnomer "ar".   
      
   >We would all be in agreement. No, you are promoting the idea that   
   >providing *life itself* is "a significant aspect of the situation"   
      
       It *IS!*. And ONLY someone opposed to the life--or in this case   
   billions of lives--would be dishonest or ignorant enough to deny it.   
      
   >which it is not,   
      
       It only is NOT to those of you who are incapable of considering the   
   animals. It's amusing that you don't seem able to understand this, but   
   their lives necessarily ARE significant to those of us who are capable   
   of appreciating lives of positive value, though they necessarily are   
   NOT to those of you/"aras" who are incapable. Duh Dutch. Duh.   
      
   >and that veganism fails in this regard,   
      
       LOL!!! It does, so why does it so offend you to see it pointed out?   
   You should explain why it bothers you for me to point out that veg*nism   
   will do nothing at all to help farm animals.   
      
   >which is also a non-issue.   
      
       Whether it's a "non-issue" or not it's an aspect that should be   
   taken into consideration, especially since there are people out   
   there who would have us believe veg*nism somehow helps   
   livestock. You in fact have tried harder to get me to believe   
   that lie than any other "ara" I've encountered in the ngs.   
      
       The animals' lives ARE an issue though, much as you/"aras"   
   insist they are insignificant. Them not living is not significant,   
   but when they do it is. You/"aras" could almost certainly never   
   understand how or why apparently, but when they do, it is...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)