If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Which rights for which animals? (was: problem with this newsgroup)
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:34:46 -0500, "LarryLook" wrote:
The problem with this newsgroup is the following. The anti's here are under the assumptions: 1. That vegetarians don't think modern lifestyle kills anything. Some of us don't believe you're honestly too stupid to understand that you contribute to most of the same wildlife deaths that everyone else does. Some of us believe deep down you are actually aware of it, meaning that we think you lie to everyone else in your attempts to promote veg*nism, and possibly even lie to yourselves in order to reduce the discomfort of your cognitive dissonance which results from it. That's crazy. You are the ones who give the impression that you're too stupid to understand, so if anyone has that impression it is YOUR fault. As I pointed out above, some of us believe you are really more dishonest than you are stupid, though maybe not by much. I must kill and occassional ant driving to work. I admit it. So there. · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. What they try to avoid are products which provide life (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have to avoid the following items containing animal by-products in order to be successful: Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings 2. The anti's don't think we vegetarians care about numbers. But clearly the death of one animal is better than the death of 1000. It's not a hard concept. Here we see plowing: http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe and here harrowing: http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation, and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting kills in similar ways: http://tinyurl.com/k6sku and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be kept in mind: http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5 Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes them to predators: http://tinyurl.com/otp5l In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused by flooding: http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3 and later by draining and destroying the environment which developed as the result of the flooding: http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3 Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near as much suffering and death. · http://tinyurl.com/q7whm 3. They think we can not acknowledge that a clam's life is worth less than a horse. Well it is. Clearly a clam is less sentient and sapient. Let's get real here. You want me to value and ant over my dog??? "There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals." - Newkirk 4. They think a movement will start where former vegetarians and ethical eaters are going to start eating rare grass fed cows (as if they were ubiquitous) which produce loads of harmful methane, to cut down on the total numbers of deaths. They accept Stephen Davis' numbers blindly with no critical thinking. The meat industry provides life for the animals that it slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume animal products from animals they think are raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by being vegan. From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. · What kind of movement are they talking about? One that provides decent lives for billions of livestock animals. Vegetarian for McDonalds? Obviously not since veg*nism does nothing to help any livestock, much less to provide decent lives for them. They know full well the more workable system is for vegetarians to be vegetarians, not search out grass fed cows. People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock must do it by being more conscientious consumers of animal products. The can NOT do it by being veg*n. 5. Most of the anti's here aren't in favor of ethical eating and don't admit to finding ethical eating desirable or possible. So they are qualified for this discussion? Obviously people in favor of providing decent animal welfare for livestock are more qualified to discuss it than people who want to eliminate livestock instead. The gross misnomer "animal rights" would not provide better lives, longer lives, rights, or any life at all for domestic animals. The misnomer would ELIMINATE domestic animals which of course would make rights or even decent welfare for them impossible, since they would not exist. Since advocates of the misnomer contribute to almost all if not more wildlife deaths than other people do, we have no reason to believe they would provide rights for wildlife either. The biggest question associated with the misnomer is: Which rights for which animals??? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
this newsgroup is so gay | muratbey | Cat anecdotes | 21 | December 26th 06 05:47 AM |
Nox Vs A Newsgroup | Enfilade | Cat anecdotes | 17 | April 26th 05 03:08 AM |
New to the Newsgroup | MELISSA WHEELER | Cat anecdotes | 16 | March 7th 05 11:57 PM |
Is it a behavioral problem or a genetic problem. | Kuisse0002 | Cat health & behaviour | 18 | November 1st 03 12:40 AM |
Accessing this newsgroup | Mr. Nangla | Cat health & behaviour | 15 | September 12th 03 06:44 PM |