ANIMAL FORUM

>Fuckwit David Harrison, lying cracker, lied again:
>> On 24 Apr 2006 Goo wrote:
>>
>> >Fuckwit David Harrison, lying cracker, lied again:
>> >> On 21 Apr 2006 18:22:30 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Fuckwit David Harrison, lying cracker, lied again:
>> >> >> On 20 Apr 2006 17:41:40 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Fuckwit David Harrison, lying cracker, lied again:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> So you conclude that they would be better off having never
lived?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >No, not at all.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Its the same way for livestock who have decent lives. IMO a decent
>> >> >> life is better than none, so I take it into consideration when
considering
>> >> >> whether or not its cruel to them to be raised for food.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >The point is, the fact that the people in the movie The Island who
>> >> >were brought into existence by the company had good lives clearly
>> >> >doesnt alter the fact that what was done to them was wrong. So too
>> >> >with the animals, I believe.
>> >>
>> >> Its much different for the animals
>> >
>> >No. Its no different,
>>
>> Its no different to you?
>
>Its no different, Fuckwit.

> On 24 Apr 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >Fuckwit David Harrison, lying cracker, lied again:
> >> On 24 Apr 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>
> >> >Fuckwit David Harrison, lying cracker, lied again:
> >> >> On 21 Apr 2006 18:22:30 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Fuckwit David Harrison, lying cracker, lied again:
> >> >> >> On 20 Apr 2006 17:41:40 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Fuckwit David Harrison, lying cracker, lied again:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> So you conclude that they would be better off having never
lived?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >No, not at all.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Its the same way for livestock who have decent lives. IMO a
decent
> >> >> >> life is better than none, so I take it into consideration when
considering
> >> >> >> whether or not its cruel to them to be raised for food.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The point is, the fact that the people in the movie The Island who
> >> >> >were brought into existence by the company had good lives clearly
> >> >> >doesnt alter the fact that what was done to them was wrong. So too
> >> >> >with the animals, I believe.
> >> >>
> >> >> Its much different for the animals
> >> >
> >> >No. Its no different,
> >>
> >> Its no different to you?
> >
> >Its no different, Fuckwit.
>
> It is different

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 24 Apr 2006 16:16:17 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 21 Apr 2006 18:22:30 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On 20 Apr 2006 17:41:40 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> So you conclude that they would be better off having never
lived?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >No, not at all.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Its the same way for livestock who have decent lives. IMO a decent
>> >> >> life is better than none, so I take it into consideration when
considering
>> >> >> whether or not its cruel to them to be raised for food.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >The point is, the fact that the people in the movie The Island who
>> >> >were brought into existence by the company had good lives clearly
>> >> >doesnt alter the fact that what was done to them was wrong. So too
>> >> >with the animals, I believe.
>> >>
>> >> Its much different for the animals and much more acceptable for a
>> >> number of reasons imo,
>> >
>> >What reasons?
>>
>> Humans would be more difficult to raise. They are also more difficult to
>> provide with lives of positive value.
>
>So what? The company could afford to raise these people and provide
>them with good lives, and it did.

>So what difference does that make?

>> They would also be more likely to
>> learn of their situation and suffer from the knowledge.
>
>Well, in the movie two of them did,

>but if the deception had been
>completely successful that wouldnt have ethically redeemed the
>companys actions.

>> Those are some
>> reasons, none of which are you likely to care about, but all of which are
>> significant to me.
>>
>> [...]
>> >> >> How do you think they should be killed then? You can make up
>> >> >> whatever you like, including a more humane way of catching them,
>> >> >> and/or eliminating loading them and trucking them to a different
>> >> >> location while theyre still alive etc, if you want....
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Theres probably all sorts of room for improvement. Any time I can
>> >> >think of an improvement which I think has a reasonably good chance of
>> >> >being adopted, I would campaign for that improvement.
>> >>
>> >> So for the time being you consider the current method(s) okay?
>> >
>> >No.
>>
>> Then how do you think it should be done? Or are you beginning to
>> see my point that youre really not in any position to make suggestions
>> about it?
>>
>
>Of course Im in a position to make suggestions about it.

>I dont know much about this issue

>and I havent formulated a position about it. If
>you like I can have a chat with some of my friends at Animal Liberation
>about how chickens are actually slaughtered and then get back to you
>with some suggestions about how that could be improved.

>But they would get to experience life, Fuckwit.
>Thats *all* you care about.

> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>But they would get to experience life, Fuckwit.
>>Thats *all* you care about.
>
>
>

> On 25 Apr 2006 16:17:57 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 24 Apr 2006 16:16:17 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 21 Apr 2006 18:22:30 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On 20 Apr 2006 17:41:40 -0700, rupertmccallum@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> So you conclude that they would be better off having never
lived?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >No, not at all.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Its the same way for livestock who have decent lives. IMO a
decent
> >> >> >> life is better than none, so I take it into consideration when
considering
> >> >> >> whether or not its cruel to them to be raised for food.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The point is, the fact that the people in the movie The Island who
> >> >> >were brought into existence by the company had good lives clearly
> >> >> >doesnt alter the fact that what was done to them was wrong. So too
> >> >> >with the animals, I believe.
> >> >>
> >> >> Its much different for the animals and much more acceptable for a
> >> >> number of reasons imo,
> >> >
> >> >What reasons?
> >>
> >> Humans would be more difficult to raise. They are also more difficult
to
> >> provide with lives of positive value.
> >
> >So what? The company could afford to raise these people and provide
> >them with good lives, and it did.
>
> I dont believe the meat industry could afford to provide humans with
> what I would consider decent lives.
>

> >So what difference does that make?
>
> The difference between whether or not life has positive value for the
> beings involved.
>
> >> They would also be more likely to
> >> learn of their situation and suffer from the knowledge.
> >
> >Well, in the movie two of them did,
>
> Well in reality I believe a lot of them would.
>
> >but if the deception had been
> >completely successful that wouldnt have ethically redeemed the
> >companys actions.
>
> It would have made a huge difference in the lives of the individuals,
> which I keep pointing out that you are incapable of considering.
>

> >> Those are some
> >> reasons, none of which are you likely to care about, but all of which are
> >> significant to me.
> >>
> >> [...]
> >> >> >> How do you think they should be killed then? You can make up
> >> >> >> whatever you like, including a more humane way of catching them,
> >> >> >> and/or eliminating loading them and trucking them to a different
> >> >> >> location while theyre still alive etc, if you want....
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Theres probably all sorts of room for improvement. Any time I can
> >> >> >think of an improvement which I think has a reasonably good chance of
> >> >> >being adopted, I would campaign for that improvement.
> >> >>
> >> >> So for the time being you consider the current method(s) okay?
> >> >
> >> >No.
> >>
> >> Then how do you think it should be done? Or are you beginning to
> >> see my point that youre really not in any position to make suggestions
> >> about it?
> >>
> >
> >Of course Im in a position to make suggestions about it.
>
> How do you figure that?
>

> >I dont know much about this issue
>
> So a ten year old on a chicken farm would have more significant
> suggestions than you.
>

> >and I havent formulated a position about it. If
> >you like I can have a chat with some of my friends at Animal Liberation
> >about how chickens are actually slaughtered and then get back to you
> >with some suggestions about how that could be improved.
>
> How would they know?

> While youre asking them about that, see if they
> ever do anything to help the brothers of commercial laying hens who die
> within a day or two of their birth. Theres damn sure *plenty* of room to help
> animals there, and Im curious if anyone does anything for them. I seriously
> doubt it though, because that would be way too much like work. We see
> farmers doing a lot of work, not aras.