ANIMAL FORUM

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 27 Jun 2006 10:47:55 -0700, Dave wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 26 Jun 2006 17:32:54 -0700, Dave wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On 24 Jun 2006 18:11:17 -0700, Dave wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> >you dont even seem to
>> >> >> >care or know whether yours means more animals or fewer.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, because thats not whats being investigated. Were really
>> >> >> considering whether or not its cruel to animals to raise them for
>> >> >> food, so thats what I try to stick to.
>> >> >
>> >> >The AR position that it is cruel to raise animals for food takes
>> >> >account of what happens during the lifetime of the animal.
>> >>
>> >> You dishonestly give it way too much credit. The ar position
>> >> ONLY considers bad things that happen to livestock, and NEVER
>> >> considers that their lives are sometimes/often of positive value.
>> >> That is a gross distortion of reality.
>> >
>> >It is true that AR focuses entirely on the negatives as far as
>> >utilitarian considerations are concerned.
>>
>> A gross distortion of reality.
>>
>> >> >If you wish to consider
>> >> >the interests of potential animals to become actual animals then it
>> >> >is irrational not to consider that animals who are denied the
>> >> >opportunity
>> >> >to experience life, because the resources they need are used to feed
>> >> >livestock instead, are harmed.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Did you for some reason think
>> >> >> the only consideration here is how to provide life for the highest
>> >> >> number of animals?
>> >> >
>> >> >If you could demonstrate that AR would cause fewer animals to exist
>> >> >or that farmed animals lead better lives than wild ones then the
>> >> >position that AR does not serve the interest of animals as a whole
>> >> >would be valid.
>> >>
>> >> Many farmed animals live better lives than many livestock.
>> >
>> >Perhaps true but still ipse dixit.
>>
>> It is very significant to anyone capable of considering the animals.
>
>I do find it morally significant. Your statement is still ipse dixit
>though.
>>
>> >> There are a number of reasons for this, even though you aras
>> >> are not capable of appreciating them.
>> >
>> >Ad hominem.
>>
>> LOL! Then try to explain how you appreciate them.
>
>I recognize animals as sentient beings with emotional minds
>deserving of our compassion.
>
>> >> Many times on cold stormy nights
>> >> Ive thought about how much better it is for animals sheltered in
>> >> barns than it is for the poor wildlife freezing in the elements for
>> >> example.
>> >
>> >Sure. That is one significant benefit farmed animals can have
>> >compared with their wild counterparts.
>> >
>> >> I dont believe its possible for me to understand how
>> >> some people are unable to appreciate such things...especially
>> >> people who pretend to have some interest in human influence
>> >> on animals.
>> >
>> >More ad hominem.
>>
>> Its just another fact that you apparently dont like.
>
>How did you conclude that I dont like the fact I just acknowledged?
>
>> >> >You have not demonstrated either of the above
>> >> >but more significantly you have not even attempted to. Therefore
>> >> >your accusations that ARAs are doing animals a disservice is
>> >> >absurd.
>> >>
>> >> How do you explain your belief that preventing wildlife from
>> >> living somehow does the non-existent wildlife a disservice,
>> >
>> >Lets call this proposition, [A]
>> >
>> >> but
>> >> preventing livestock from living doesnt do the same for the
>> >> non-existent livestock?
>> >
>> >Lets call this proposition, [B]
>> >
>> >Your position relies on an acceptance of [B] but rejection of [A]
>>
>> No. Obviously you dont know what my position is.
>
>It is quite clear from your postings to this newsgroup what your
>position is. You keep banging on about how buying animal
>products benefits animals if their lives are of positive value
>because it enables them to exist. Furthermore you accuse
>vegans of being inconsiderate for failing to take this into account.

>Yet when it is suggested that by converting some of the extra
>land used to support our wish to include meat in our diet into
>wildlife sanctuaries you retort that we have not provided any
>good reason to do so.

>Just what am I supposed to conclude other than that you
>agree with [A] but reject [B]

>> >Because I oppose this absurdity you falsely believe that I must
>> >reject [B] and accept [A[ but this is a straw man. My actual
>> >position is that [A] and [B] are either both true or they are both
>> >false.
>>
>> So? Do you think theyre both true or both false?
>
>What does it matter?

>The point is that [A] = true, [B] = true is
>consistent, [A] = false, [B] = false is consistent, [A]= true, [B] =
>false is
>a ridiculous double standard.
>
>> >> >> Its not. If it were, wed need to raise something
>> >> >> small like mice or hamsters, and wed need a reason why which
>> >> >> you would have to provide, etc...
>> >> >
>> >> >Nature provides if we allow it to.
>> >>
>> >> You have no argument in regards to number of animals.
>> >
>> >Huh?
>>
>> If you have one present it. Since you cant, we can conclude
>> that you have none.
>
>My argument is that you are employing a self-evident and ridiculous
>double standard.

>> >> >> >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.
>> >> >
>> >> >Neither myself, Leif or Dutch are insisting that we should provide
>> >> >life
>> >> >to wildlife instead of livestock. We are merely pointing out the
>> >> >absurdity
>> >> >of using the fact that we control animals breeding and environment,
>> >> >for our own benefit, as a justification for killing.
>> >>
>> >> And exactly what is the absurdity itself? One of you really needs to
>> >> explain exactly what is the wrongness in killing livestock.
>> >
>> >We dont claim that it is wrong.
>> . . .
>>
>> Good. Then youre saying its okay to kill livestock, and I agree.
>> Done.
>
>What we agree on is that it is sometimes OK to raise and kill
>livestock.
>We disagree on the criteria. That they lead lives of overall positive
>value
>is not sufficient.

> On 29 Jun 2006 07:49:18 -0700, prplbn@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 27 Jun 2006 10:47:55 -0700, Dave wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 26 Jun 2006 17:32:54 -0700, Dave wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On 24 Jun 2006 18:11:17 -0700, Dave wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >you dont even seem to
> >> >> >> >care or know whether yours means more animals or fewer.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No, because thats not whats being investigated. Were really
> >> >> >> considering whether or not its cruel to animals to raise them for
> >> >> >> food, so thats what I try to stick to.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The AR position that it is cruel to raise animals for food takes
> >> >> >account of what happens during the lifetime of the animal.
> >> >>
> >> >> You dishonestly give it way too much credit. The ar position
> >> >> ONLY considers bad things that happen to livestock, and NEVER
> >> >> considers that their lives are sometimes/often of positive value.
> >> >> That is a gross distortion of reality.
> >> >
> >> >It is true that AR focuses entirely on the negatives as far as
> >> >utilitarian considerations are concerned.
> >>
> >> A gross distortion of reality.
> >>
> >> >> >If you wish to consider
> >> >> >the interests of potential animals to become actual animals then it
> >> >> >is irrational not to consider that animals who are denied the
> >> >> >opportunity
> >> >> >to experience life, because the resources they need are used to feed
> >> >> >livestock instead, are harmed.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Did you for some reason think
> >> >> >> the only consideration here is how to provide life for the highest
> >> >> >> number of animals?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >If you could demonstrate that AR would cause fewer animals to exist
> >> >> >or that farmed animals lead better lives than wild ones then the
> >> >> >position that AR does not serve the interest of animals as a whole
> >> >> >would be valid.
> >> >>
> >> >> Many farmed animals live better lives than many livestock.
> >> >
> >> >Perhaps true but still ipse dixit.
> >>
> >> It is very significant to anyone capable of considering the animals.
> >
> >I do find it morally significant. Your statement is still ipse dixit
> >though.
> >>
> >> >> There are a number of reasons for this, even though you aras
> >> >> are not capable of appreciating them.
> >> >
> >> >Ad hominem.
> >>
> >> LOL! Then try to explain how you appreciate them.
> >
> >I recognize animals as sentient beings with emotional minds
> >deserving of our compassion.
> >
> >> >> Many times on cold stormy nights
> >> >> Ive thought about how much better it is for animals sheltered in
> >> >> barns than it is for the poor wildlife freezing in the elements for
> >> >> example.
> >> >
> >> >Sure. That is one significant benefit farmed animals can have
> >> >compared with their wild counterparts.
> >> >
> >> >> I dont believe its possible for me to understand how
> >> >> some people are unable to appreciate such things...especially
> >> >> people who pretend to have some interest in human influence
> >> >> on animals.
> >> >
> >> >More ad hominem.
> >>
> >> Its just another fact that you apparently dont like.
> >
> >How did you conclude that I dont like the fact I just acknowledged?
> >
> >> >> >You have not demonstrated either of the above
> >> >> >but more significantly you have not even attempted to. Therefore
> >> >> >your accusations that ARAs are doing animals a disservice is
> >> >> >absurd.
> >> >>
> >> >> How do you explain your belief that preventing wildlife from
> >> >> living somehow does the non-existent wildlife a disservice,
> >> >
> >> >Lets call this proposition, [A]
> >> >
> >> >> but
> >> >> preventing livestock from living doesnt do the same for the
> >> >> non-existent livestock?
> >> >
> >> >Lets call this proposition, [B]
> >> >
> >> >Your position relies on an acceptance of [B] but rejection of [A]
> >>
> >> No. Obviously you dont know what my position is.
> >
> >It is quite clear from your postings to this newsgroup what your
> >position is. You keep banging on about how buying animal
> >products benefits animals if their lives are of positive value
> >because it enables them to exist. Furthermore you accuse
> >vegans of being inconsiderate for failing to take this into account.
>
> Then necessarily are.

> >Yet when it is suggested that by converting some of the extra
> >land used to support our wish to include meat in our diet into
> >wildlife sanctuaries you retort that we have not provided any
> >good reason to do so.
>
> Thats right. No one has done so yet.

> >Just what am I supposed to conclude other than that you
> >agree with [A] but reject [B]
>
> That so far Ive been given no reason to agree with [B].

> >> >Because I oppose this absurdity you falsely believe that I must
> >> >reject [B] and accept [A[ but this is a straw man. My actual
> >> >position is that [A] and [B] are either both true or they are both
> >> >false.
> >>
> >> So? Do you think theyre both true or both false?
> >
> >What does it matter?
>
> You brought it up, so I was hoping you might provide that info
> along with what you think. Apparently you can do neither.

> >The point is that [A] = true, [B] = true is
> >consistent, [A] = false, [B] = false is consistent, [A]= true, [B] =
> >false is
> >a ridiculous double standard.
> >
> >> >> >> Its not. If it were, wed need to raise something
> >> >> >> small like mice or hamsters, and wed need a reason why which
> >> >> >> you would have to provide, etc...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Nature provides if we allow it to.
> >> >>
> >> >> You have no argument in regards to number of animals.
> >> >
> >> >Huh?
> >>
> >> If you have one present it. Since you cant, we can conclude
> >> that you have none.
> >
> >My argument is that you are employing a self-evident and ridiculous
> >double standard.
>
> Its not my fault that STILL none of you have given any reason why
> we should provide life for wildlife instead of livestock.

>
> >> >> >> >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.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Neither myself, Leif or Dutch are insisting that we should provide
> >> >> >life
> >> >> >to wildlife instead of livestock. We are merely pointing out the
> >> >> >absurdity
> >> >> >of using the fact that we control animals breeding and environment,
> >> >> >for our own benefit, as a justification for killing.
> >> >>
> >> >> And exactly what is the absurdity itself? One of you really needs
to
> >> >> explain exactly what is the wrongness in killing livestock.
> >> >
> >> >We dont claim that it is wrong.
> >> . . .
> >>
> >> Good. Then youre saying its okay to kill livestock, and I agree.
> >> Done.
> >
> >What we agree on is that it is sometimes OK to raise and kill
> >livestock.
> >We disagree on the criteria. That they lead lives of overall positive
> >value
> >is not sufficient.
>
> What is?

> On 29 Jun 2006 07:49:18 -0700, prplbn@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied:

> >> No. Obviously you dont know what my position is.
> >
> >It is quite clear from your postings to this newsgroup what your
> >position is. You keep banging on about how buying animal
> >products benefits animals if their lives are of positive value
> >because it enables them to exist. Furthermore you accuse
> >vegans of being inconsiderate for failing to take this into account.
>
> Then necessarily are.

> dh@. wrote:
> > On 29 Jun 2006 07:49:18 -0700, prplbn@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >dh@. wrote:
> > >> On 27 Jun 2006 10:47:55 -0700, Dave wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >dh@. wrote:
> > >> >> On 26 Jun 2006 17:32:54 -0700, Dave wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> > >> >> >> On 24 Jun 2006 18:11:17 -0700, Dave wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >> >you dont even seem to
> > >> >> >> >care or know whether yours means more animals or fewer.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> No, because thats not whats being investigated. Were really
> > >> >> >> considering whether or not its cruel to animals to raise them for
> > >> >> >> food, so thats what I try to stick to.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >The AR position that it is cruel to raise animals for food takes
> > >> >> >account of what happens during the lifetime of the animal.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> You dishonestly give it way too much credit. The ar position
> > >> >> ONLY considers bad things that happen to livestock, and NEVER
> > >> >> considers that their lives are sometimes/often of positive value.
> > >> >> That is a gross distortion of reality.
> > >> >
> > >> >It is true that AR focuses entirely on the negatives as far as
> > >> >utilitarian considerations are concerned.
> > >>
> > >> A gross distortion of reality.
> > >>
> > >> >> >If you wish to consider
> > >> >> >the interests of potential animals to become actual animals then
it
> > >> >> >is irrational not to consider that animals who are denied the
> > >> >> >opportunity
> > >> >> >to experience life, because the resources they need are used to feed
> > >> >> >livestock instead, are harmed.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> Did you for some reason think
> > >> >> >> the only consideration here is how to provide life for the highest
> > >> >> >> number of animals?
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >If you could demonstrate that AR would cause fewer animals to exist
> > >> >> >or that farmed animals lead better lives than wild ones then the
> > >> >> >position that AR does not serve the interest of animals as a whole
> > >> >> >would be valid.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Many farmed animals live better lives than many livestock.
> > >> >
> > >> >Perhaps true but still ipse dixit.
> > >>
> > >> It is very significant to anyone capable of considering the animals.
> > >
> > >I do find it morally significant. Your statement is still ipse dixit
> > >though.
> > >>
> > >> >> There are a number of reasons for this, even though you aras
> > >> >> are not capable of appreciating them.
> > >> >
> > >> >Ad hominem.
> > >>
> > >> LOL! Then try to explain how you appreciate them.
> > >
> > >I recognize animals as sentient beings with emotional minds
> > >deserving of our compassion.
> > >
> > >> >> Many times on cold stormy nights
> > >> >> Ive thought about how much better it is for animals sheltered in
> > >> >> barns than it is for the poor wildlife freezing in the elements for
> > >> >> example.
> > >> >
> > >> >Sure. That is one significant benefit farmed animals can have
> > >> >compared with their wild counterparts.
> > >> >
> > >> >> I dont believe its possible for me to understand how
> > >> >> some people are unable to appreciate such things...especially
> > >> >> people who pretend to have some interest in human influence
> > >> >> on animals.
> > >> >
> > >> >More ad hominem.
> > >>
> > >> Its just another fact that you apparently dont like.
> > >
> > >How did you conclude that I dont like the fact I just acknowledged?
> > >
> > >> >> >You have not demonstrated either of the above
> > >> >> >but more significantly you have not even attempted to. Therefore
> > >> >> >your accusations that ARAs are doing animals a disservice is
> > >> >> >absurd.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> How do you explain your belief that preventing wildlife from
> > >> >> living somehow does the non-existent wildlife a disservice,
> > >> >
> > >> >Lets call this proposition, [A]
> > >> >
> > >> >> but
> > >> >> preventing livestock from living doesnt do the same for the
> > >> >> non-existent livestock?
> > >> >
> > >> >Lets call this proposition, [B]
> > >> >
> > >> >Your position relies on an acceptance of [B] but rejection of [A]
> > >>
> > >> No. Obviously you dont know what my position is.
> > >
> > >It is quite clear from your postings to this newsgroup what your
> > >position is. You keep banging on about how buying animal
> > >products benefits animals if their lives are of positive value
> > >because it enables them to exist. Furthermore you accuse
> > >vegans of being inconsiderate for failing to take this into account.
> >
> > Then necessarily are.
>
> They are being no more inconsiderate for failing to fund animal
> agriculture then you are for [presumably] failing to fund wildlife
> sanctuaries.
>
> > >Yet when it is suggested that by converting some of the extra
> > >land used to support our wish to include meat in our diet into
> > >wildlife sanctuaries you retort that we have not provided any
> > >good reason to do so.
> >
> > Thats right. No one has done so yet.
>
> If providing life for animals [sic] is a good reason for funding
> animal agriculture then how come it is not an equally good
> reason for funding wildlife sanctuaries?

> > >Just what am I supposed to conclude other than that you
> > >agree with [A] but reject [B]
> >
> > That so far Ive been given no reason to agree with [B].
>
> So are you saying that the proposition preventing animals from
> being born somehow does the non-existent animals a disservice
> depends on whether the animals in question are wildlife or livestock?
>
> > >> >Because I oppose this absurdity you falsely believe that I must
> > >> >reject [B] and accept [A[ but this is a straw man. My actual
> > >> >position is that [A] and [B] are either both true or they are both
> > >> >false.
> > >>
> > >> So? Do you think theyre both true or both false?
> > >
> > >What does it matter?
> >
> > You brought it up, so I was hoping you might provide that info
> > along with what you think. Apparently you can do neither.
>
> I can see arguments for either verdict but whichever you chose
> youd better be consistent.
>
> > >The point is that [A] = true, [B] = true is
> > >consistent, [A] = false, [B] = false is consistent, [A]= true, [B] =
> > >false is
> > >a ridiculous double standard.
> > >
> > >> >> >> Its not. If it were, wed need to raise something
> > >> >> >> small like mice or hamsters, and wed need a reason why which
> > >> >> >> you would have to provide, etc...
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Nature provides if we allow it to.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> You have no argument in regards to number of animals.
> > >> >
> > >> >Huh?
> > >>
> > >> If you have one present it. Since you cant, we can conclude
> > >> that you have none.
> > >
> > >My argument is that you are employing a self-evident and ridiculous
> > >double standard.
> >
> > Its not my fault that STILL none of you have given any reason why
> > we should provide life for wildlife instead of livestock.
>
> Whereas you have presented meat and gravy as reasons to support
> livestock over wildlife. The thing is those reasons are entirely
> centered
> on human self interest and therefore do not provide the basis for the
> special pride you wish to claim over vegans for providing life for
> farm animals [sic].
> >
> > >> >> >> >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.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Neither myself, Leif or Dutch are insisting that we should provide
> > >> >> >life
> > >> >> >to wildlife instead of livestock. We are merely pointing out the
> > >> >> >absurdity
> > >> >> >of using the fact that we control animals breeding and environment,
> > >> >> >for our own benefit, as a justification for killing.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> And exactly what is the absurdity itself? One of you really needs
to
> > >> >> explain exactly what is the wrongness in killing livestock.
> > >> >
> > >> >We dont claim that it is wrong.
> > >> . . .
> > >>
> > >> Good. Then youre saying its okay to kill livestock, and I agree.
> > >> Done.
> > >
> > >What we agree on is that it is sometimes OK to raise and kill
> > >livestock.
> > >We disagree on the criteria. That they lead lives of overall positive
> > >value
> > >is not sufficient.
> >
> > What is?
>
> See our other current discussion.

>There are some use off animals that is good for animals too. Family and
>sport animals is ethical right and dogs generally enjoys being with humans.
>
>The main argument against farm animal is that you can feed more humans
>by giving humans grain direct rather than through an animal.

> I believe
>bacterial culture and cell culture should replace animal food
>production. In the mean time the used off animal based food should be
>reduced as much as possible and these animal should be feed food humans
>can not eat like grass not grain.

> There are some use off animals that is good for animals too. Family and
> sport animals is ethical right and dogs generally enjoys being with
> humans.
>
> The main argument against farm animal is that you can feed more humans
> by giving humans grain direct rather than through an animal.

> bacterial culture and cell culture should replace animal food
> production. In the mean time the used off animal based food should be
> reduced as much as possible and these animal should be feed food humans
> can not eat like grass not grain.

> There are some use off animals that is good for animals too.
> Family and
> sport animals is ethical right and dogs generally enjoys being
> with humans.
>
> The main argument against farm animal is that you can feed more
> humans
> by giving humans grain direct rather than through an animal.

> bacterial culture and cell culture should replace animal food
> production. In the mean time the used off animal based food
> should be
> reduced as much as possible and these animal should be feed
> food humans
> can not eat like grass not grain.