XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.animals.wildlife, rec.pets.cats.misc
XPost: uk.business.agriculture
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 19:07:02 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
>
> wrote
>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 18:43:48 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> wrote
>>>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 01:20:34 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>the fewer livestock that are born the more
>>>>>animals that would be born.
>>>>
>>>> If so, so what? That's what we're trying to find out. WHY would it
>>>> be better?
>>>
>>>I'm not an ecologist, but let's agree for the sake of discussion that it
>>>wouldn't be better, or at least that we don't care if there is more
>>>wildlife.
>>
>> Good.
>>
>>>Now that that is settled, why would it be better for there to be
>>>more livestock? You're the one claiming that it would be better, why?
>>
>> Better for what?
>
>Better for the animals.
Since future animals don't exist it couldn't be "better" for "them",
but it could be of positive value to them. I can appreciate that. You
can not. Your inability to understand or appreciate the fact limits your
thinking to the extent that you can't consider the animals themselves,
but when/if you have ever tried to all you can consider is your own
imaginary browny points. While you are forever stuck at your impasse,
I have gone on to even consider specific ways that people could
provide longer better lives for the animals, which is beyond what
you/"aras" could ever give a second's thought.
>> You're the one making the restrictions, so what
>> would you restrict us to consider?
>
>Why would it better *for animals* for there to be more livestock and thereby
>less wildlife?
>
>>So far you won't allow us to consider
>> the livestock themselves,
>
>You haven't given anyone a reason to consider livestock, aside from the
>obvious ones, welfare
How could you possibly consider their welfare but not their lives?
>and utility.
>
>> and you probably find fault with considering
>> human interest, so what would you allow consideration of?
>
>Human interests, the interest of the environment, the welfare interests of
>living animals.
How could you possibly consider their welfare but not their lives? And
do NOT even hint or say anything to do with your browny points, but stick
to the animals.
>>>Why shouldn't we have no preference? There's all this plant material out
>>>there, we can harvest it and feed it to livestock, or we can let it grow
>>>and
>>>let wild animal populations feed off it. Apart from the fact that we want
>>>livestock to produce products, why should we care which animals eat it?
>>
>> "aras" say that we should leave it only to wildlife,
>
>Right, they do, and think the LoL is a coherent argument against it, it
>isn't.
LOL! Since you are unable to understand or appreciate the fact that
some livestock have lives of positive value, your opinion about that--and
probably everything else now that we think about it--is necessarily distorted
by your own ignorance and confusion. That distortion is GREATLY amplified
by your obsession with your own imaginary browny points...an obsession so
great that it prevents you from considering anything else.
>> and if you're going to
>> defend that against the LoL YOU!!! need to do it.
>
>Leaving the resources to wildlife and the LoL are not the alternatives, they
>are two extremist AR views. One says that there is a moral imperative that
>livestock should never be bred, the other, your LoL, says there is a moral
>imperative that livestock should be bred. They're both nonsense, there is no
>moral imperative either way,
Immediately your obsession with your browny points takes complete control
of your thinking, totally removing the animals you sometimes pretend to care
about. How could any browny points associated with some imagined moral
imperative, do something that's "Better for the animals" in question...and
don't
forget that the animals in question right now are livestock.
>but between the two, the LoL is bigger load of crap.
That's what you/"aras" keep insisting. But what you consistently fail to be
able to do is to explain WHY????? As I have pointed out many many times,
and you continue to prove.
>> So quit maundering like
>> the goo you've proven yourself to be, and try to do what you're pretending
>> to try to do. You need to explain why we should only consider the lives of
>> wildlife but not those of livestock. Go:
>
>We should consider the welfare of living animals, and of important animal
>populations. Livestock are not important animal populations aside from their
>utility.
At last you have acknowledged that you give no consideration to decent
AW for livestock, as I have also been pointing out over and over... So through
this you of course have been unable to explain the big mystery WHY???,
though you have still insisted we should favor wildlife over livestock at least
twice in your last post. To sum it up, you have:
1. proven without question that you're unable to understand or appreciate the
fact that some livestock have lives of positive value, meaning that you are
necessarily incapable of considering a difference between when they are
and when they are not.
2. insisted that there is a greater "moral imperative"--ie, you think you get
more
browny points--for "leaving the resources to wildlife" than for promoting
decent lives for livestock, without being able to explain WHY???.
2. insisted that we should only consider the welfare of animal populations
which
YOU/"aras" consider to be "important".
3. insisted that livestock are not important enough for YOU/"aras" to consider
their lives or their welfare.
You have shown that you're just not capable of realistic thinking about this
issue, because you're not capable of considering all animals involved. People
interested in promoting decent AW are capable, but you/"aras" are not.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
