XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, uk.business.agriculture, alt.agriculture   
   XPost: rec.pets.cats.community   
      
   On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 12:03:44 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   > wrote in message news:4mhqu61fmfmsdj4k9d03u2mo600b8paqsb@4ax.com...   
   >> On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 12:16:29 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> wrote   
   >>>   
   >>>>    You people refer to appreciating when AW is successful as the LoL,   
   >>>   
   >>>Nope, that's not what the LoL is   
   >>   
   >>    That's exactly what it is,   
   >   
   >That's NOT what it is.   
      
       That IS exactly what it is, and that is WHY you people find it so important   
   to attack it. That's why your hero Salt attacked it to begin with because he   
   knew that animal welfare was becoming an issue, and he didn't want people to   
   come to the conclusion that lives of positive value could be considered   
   ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, duh, as I've been letting you   
   people know for years. In his day it was just getting started and decent AW   
   wasn't resulting in the millions of lives of positive value yet that it is   
   resulting in now, but he was still afraid of it and opposed to seeing it happen   
   and be appreciated as you people still are today and necessarilly always must   
   be.   
      
   >> as I've been pointing out for years.   
   >   
   >Erroneously.   
      
       It was an attack against AW a century ago or whenever Salt and your other   
   brothers began attacking it, just as it still is today and always will be   
   whenever you people attack it.   
   _________________________________________________________   
   . . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare   
   separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the   
   practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with   
   those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the   
   enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the   
   achievement of animal rights.   
      
   . . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the   
   philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.   
      
   . . .  Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal   
   welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition   
   ends.   
   This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual   
   reasons.   
      
   . . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace   
   at which animal rights goals are achieved.   
   . . .   
      
   "A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"   
   By Tom Regan and Gary Francione   
   ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯   
   >> If you want   
   >> us to try pretending it's something else though, you need to try   
   >> explaining what   
   >> else you want us to try pretending it is.   
   >   
   >No pretending.   
      
       If we were to try pretending it was something else we WOULD have to   
   pretend,   
   and YOU would have to tell us WHAT to pretend. Duh.   
      
   >The Logic of the Larder is the belief that when we examine whether or not it   
   >is morally right to raise animals to kill and use as food and other products   
   >we are permitted to consider that those animals "get life out of the deal".   
   >And yes, it can also be contingent on their lives being decent, as Salt   
   >says.   
      
       It IS contingent on them having lives of positive value, though it's   
   amazing   
   that Salt was that honest about it. You have said in the past you wish he had   
   not been, but he was so too bad for you people.   
      
   >Normal people, when we examine whether or not it is morally right to raise   
   >animals to kill and use as food and other products   
      
       You can't claim to be normal:   
      
   "Life does not justify death" - "Dutch"   
      
   "I am an animal rights believer." - "Dutch"   
      
   "we must have at least the same right as every animal does,   
   which is to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves   
   and thrive." - "Dutch"   
      
   >we   
      
       You can NOT!!! claim to be normal:   
      
   "It's wrong to exploit animals by breeding, confining and   
   killing them." - "Dutch"   
      
   "you should become a vegan. I've been saying that to you   
   for years." - "Dutch"   
      
   >simply say that it is   
   >contingent on their lives being decent, period. The idea that "they get   
   >something out of it" is of no specific relevance.   
      
       ONLY to eliminationists. To those of us who actually can and do appreciate   
   when AW is successful it is VERY relevant!   
      
   >It matters that they are not harmed or caused to suffer,   
      
       That is a PART of it, but only to some extent. All animals are harmed and   
   suffer to some extent, but you are not and never have been in a position to   
   think realistically about how much suffering etc it takes to make the   
   difference   
   between lives of positive and negative value, much less have you ever been in a   
   position that it makes a difference in different ways you feel about different   
   animals and groups of animals. It can't matter to any of you people who can't   
   appreciate when millions of animals experience lives of positive value. Stupid   
   Rupert claims he doesn't believe the distinction means anything at all. You   
   people really are both stupid and ignorant, the ignorance almost certainly a   
   result of the stupidity. Well, I've been pointing it out to you for over a   
   decade and you're still just as ignorant and unappreciative as you were back   
   when you were still being honest about being a misnomer addict, and you're   
   still   
   as stupid as you were then and will still be as stupid even if some day you do   
   learn to have appreciation. It's the same as with the pet food cow thing...even   
   after you FINALLY learned the truth, you're still as stupid as you were even   
   though you're slightly less ignorant. IF you ever learn appreciation you will   
   also still be as stupid as you were, but again you would be less ignorant. In   
   that case you would be significantly less ignorant, but it would be EXTREMELY   
   hard on your poor little brain, as it would be for Rupert, and Goo, and   
   "Derek",   
   and Ron too. It would still be a step up for all of you though, and after you   
   got over the initial shock it would open up a VAST new "world" of understanding   
   and appreciation for you. But, no...   
      
   >THAT is "appreciating when AW is successful   
   >".  The LoL adds an invalid and unneeded element that only pollutes the   
   >discussion.   
      
       The aspect that consumers can feel satisfaction for contributing to lives   
   of   
   positive value for livestock is ONLY a problem for eliminationists who live in   
   shameful envy because they can not. You people can only feel "satisfaction" in   
   contributing to death for wildlife but NOT to life for livestock, thus your   
   shame and envy.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)