| Re: Life can have positive value, but that's not the issue - CLICK HERE for the Cooking Forum Index |
| Dutch |
<dh@.> wrote
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 Goo wrote::
>
>>dh@. pointed out:
>
>>> They exploit AW
>>
>>They don't. They want humane treatment of animals if
>>the animals exist. Period.
>
> If as you insist quality of life can't give life a positive value, why
> would "ARAs" care about it?
>
>>>>They may not consider it as good as
>>>>elimination of livestock, but they DO wish us to consider the animals'
>>>>lives, that is for sure.
>>>
>>>
>>> People who are in favor of decent lives for livestock should be
>>> OPPOSED
>>> to the elimination objective
>>
>>No. That's an illogical conclusion. Once again:
>>support for "decent lives for livestock" is completely
>>*conditional* on the animals existing at all
>
> Then which livestock animals are you saying "ARAs" would allow us
> to continue raising for food, and why should anyone believe they would?
If they had their way, NONE, but that doesn't mean they are being meanies by
wanting to deny life to future livestock. Get past that idea, it's bull****,
nobody buys it, just as you don't buy my argument that you are denying life
to mice in your bedroom by not raising them. The implications of AR/veganism
are that they want to do something to cause *you* harm, to deny *you* and
me, and Jonathan and rick, a fundamental freedom which we have and believe
we are entitled to. THAT'S what we all are objecting to here, and rightfully
so, not that they are "denying animals a chance to experience life". FFS Get
a friggin grip.
|
|
|
| dh@. |
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:23:00 GMT, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:
>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 Goo wrote::
>>
>>>dh@. pointed out:
>>
>>>> They exploit AW
>>>
>>>They don't. They want humane treatment of animals if
>>>the animals exist. Period.
>>
>> If as you insist quality of life can't give life a positive value, why
>> would "ARAs" care about it?
>>
>>>>>They may not consider it as good as
>>>>>elimination of livestock, but they DO wish us to consider the animals'
>>>>>lives, that is for sure.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> People who are in favor of decent lives for livestock should be
>>>> OPPOSED
>>>> to the elimination objective
>>>
>>>No. That's an illogical conclusion. Once again:
>>>support for "decent lives for livestock" is completely
>>>*conditional* on the animals existing at all
>>
>> Then which livestock animals are you saying "ARAs" would allow us
>> to continue raising for food, and why should anyone believe they would?
>
>If they had their way, NONE
Then people who want to see them provided with decent lives should
be OPPOSED to the elimination objective, as I've been saying.
>, but that doesn't mean they are being meanies by
>wanting to deny life to future livestock.
It means they have a different objective which conflicts with providing
decent lives.
>Get past that idea, it's bull****,
>nobody buys it, just as you don't buy my argument that you are denying life
>to mice in your bedroom by not raising them.
I've explained why they are completely different, and if you don't understand
why then you never will...and it looks like you never will.
>The implications of AR/veganism
>are that they want to do something to cause *you* harm, to deny *you* and
>me, and Jonathan and rick, a fundamental freedom which we have and believe
>we are entitled to. THAT'S what we all are objecting to here, and rightfully
>so,
That **** is only about YOU, as I've pointed out. YOUR/MY personal benefits
are a completely different thing than those of the animals, and should be
considered as such. What you want, what you pretend to want, and what you
encourage other people to want all are a completely different subject than
whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise them for food.
>not that they are "denying animals a chance to experience life". FFS Get
>a friggin grip.
The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise them for
food, and much as YOU/"ARAs" have tried to pry me away from the subject,
I have maintained a solid grip on it pretty much the whole time. I've even
suggested that YOU/"ARAs" try to at least get a little tiny feel for it, which you
always resist, so suggesting that you "Get a friggin grip" would almost undoubtedly
be suggesting something that's way beyond what you will ever even attempt.
To let you know how far from your position I am on this here's an example:
When I decide whether or not to kill a bug that's in the house or take it out
and let it die some other way, I consider that. I consider first of course whether
I want to promote life for such a being or not...if not, it's dead. If so I will often
try to take it outside and give it a chance to live for a while, sometimes even
tiny little insects. When I compare the lives of animals raised for food as you
do with imaginary child sex slaves etc, I compare them to the lives of
insects, fish, birds, or whatever that actually does exist. Sometimes I compare
them to my own life, but not to imaginary grotesqueries like you do. So my
questions are more like: Isn't the 6 weeks that broiler chickens get a longer
and richer experience than two or three weeks as a mosquito or some other
lower form of life? So in that respect, can't we feel better about seeing a
plate of fried chicken than we can about seeing many types of insects...?
But after all the fantasising, and comparing different lives and potential lives
etc, it still remains tha: It's the life they get or no life, for everything, every time!
If you can never get a grip on that, you can never have a correct interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
