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
|
|||
|
|||
"animal rights" vs Animal Welfare
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 19:07:02 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
dh@. wrote On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 18:43:48 -0700, "Dutch" wrote: dh@. wrote On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 01:20:34 -0700, "Dutch" wrote: the fewer livestock that are born the more animals that would be born. If so, so what? That's what we're trying to find out. WHY would it be better? I'm not an ecologist, but let's agree for the sake of discussion that it wouldn't be better, or at least that we don't care if there is more wildlife. Good. Now that that is settled, why would it be better for there to be more livestock? You're the one claiming that it would be better, why? Better for what? Better for the animals. Since future animals don't exist it couldn't be "better" for "them", but it could be of positive value to them. I can appreciate that. You can not. Your inability to understand or appreciate the fact limits your thinking to the extent that you can't consider the animals themselves, but when/if you have ever tried to all you can consider is your own imaginary browny points. While you are forever stuck at your impasse, I have gone on to even consider specific ways that people could provide longer better lives for the animals, which is beyond what you/"aras" could ever give a second's thought. You're the one making the restrictions, so what would you restrict us to consider? Why would it better *for animals* for there to be more livestock and thereby less wildlife? So far you won't allow us to consider the livestock themselves, You haven't given anyone a reason to consider livestock, aside from the obvious ones, welfare How could you possibly consider their welfare but not their lives? and utility. and you probably find fault with considering human interest, so what would you allow consideration of? Human interests, the interest of the environment, the welfare interests of living animals. How could you possibly consider their welfare but not their lives? And do NOT even hint or say anything to do with your browny points, but stick to the animals. Why shouldn't we have no preference? There's all this plant material out there, we can harvest it and feed it to livestock, or we can let it grow and let wild animal populations feed off it. Apart from the fact that we want livestock to produce products, why should we care which animals eat it? "aras" say that we should leave it only to wildlife, Right, they do, and think the LoL is a coherent argument against it, it isn't. LOL! Since you are unable to understand or appreciate the fact that some livestock have lives of positive value, your opinion about that--and probably everything else now that we think about it--is necessarily distorted by your own ignorance and confusion. That distortion is GREATLY amplified by your obsession with your own imaginary browny points...an obsession so great that it prevents you from considering anything else. and if you're going to defend that against the LoL YOU!!! need to do it. Leaving the resources to wildlife and the LoL are not the alternatives, they are two extremist AR views. One says that there is a moral imperative that livestock should never be bred, the other, your LoL, says there is a moral imperative that livestock should be bred. They're both nonsense, there is no moral imperative either way, Immediately your obsession with your browny points takes complete control of your thinking, totally removing the animals you sometimes pretend to care about. How could any browny points associated with some imagined moral imperative, do something that's "Better for the animals" in question...and don't forget that the animals in question right now are livestock. but between the two, the LoL is bigger load of crap. That's what you/"aras" keep insisting. But what you consistently fail to be able to do is to explain WHY????? As I have pointed out many many times, and you continue to prove. So quit maundering like the goo you've proven yourself to be, and try to do what you're pretending to try to do. You need to explain why we should only consider the lives of wildlife but not those of livestock. Go: We should consider the welfare of living animals, and of important animal populations. Livestock are not important animal populations aside from their utility. At last you have acknowledged that you give no consideration to decent AW for livestock, as I have also been pointing out over and over... So through this you of course have been unable to explain the big mystery WHY???, though you have still insisted we should favor wildlife over livestock at least twice in your last post. To sum it up, you have: 1. proven without question that you're unable to understand or appreciate the fact that some livestock have lives of positive value, meaning that you are necessarily incapable of considering a difference between when they are and when they are not. 2. insisted that there is a greater "moral imperative"--ie, you think you get more browny points--for "leaving the resources to wildlife" than for promoting decent lives for livestock, without being able to explain WHY???. 2. insisted that we should only consider the welfare of animal populations which YOU/"aras" consider to be "important". 3. insisted that livestock are not important enough for YOU/"aras" to consider their lives or their welfare. You have shown that you're just not capable of realistic thinking about this issue, because you're not capable of considering all animals involved. People interested in promoting decent AW are capable, but you/"aras" are not. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"animal rights" vs Animal Welfare
****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing
goober cracker, lied: On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 19:07:02 -0700, "Dutch" wrote: ****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied: On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 18:43:48 -0700, "Dutch" wrote: ****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying pig-sodomizing goober cracker, lied: On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 01:20:34 -0700, "Dutch" wrote: the fewer livestock that are born the more animals that would be born. If so, so what? That's what we're trying to find out. WHY would it be better? I'm not an ecologist, but let's agree for the sake of discussion that it wouldn't be better, or at least that we don't care if there is more wildlife. Good. Now that that is settled, why would it be better for there to be more livestock? You're the one claiming that it would be better, why? Better for what? Better for the animals. Since future animals don't exist it couldn't be "better" for "them", but it could be of positive value to them. No, ****wit, you STUPID cracker. "Better for", "of positive value to" - these are more or less synonyms, you STUPID ****ING GOOBER CRACKER. If you admit that it isn't "better for" the "future animals", then it can't be "of positive value" to them either, you ****ING CRACKER. I can appreciate that. You can't - it's a contradictory absurdity, you ****ING ILLITERATE. Something can only be "of positive value" to entities that *exist*, you stupid ****wit. You're the one making the restrictions, so what would you restrict us to consider? Why would it better *for animals* for there to be more livestock and thereby less wildlife? Naturally, ****wit the cracker cannot answer. So far you won't allow us to consider the livestock themselves, You haven't given anyone a reason to consider livestock, aside from the obvious ones, welfare How could you possibly consider their welfare but not their lives? They only have either if they exist. If they don't yet exist, and there's no morally important reason *to them* for them to exist, then you need consider neither. and utility. and you probably find fault with considering human interest, so what would you allow consideration of? Human interests, the interest of the environment, the welfare interests of living animals. How could you possibly consider their welfare but not their lives? There is no moral reason for their lives to occur. You consider their welfare - that *is* their lives - if the animals exist. There is no moral reason for them to exist. Why shouldn't we have no preference? There's all this plant material out there, we can harvest it and feed it to livestock, or we can let it grow and let wild animal populations feed off it. Apart from the fact that we want livestock to produce products, why should we care which animals eat it? "aras" say that we should leave it only to wildlife, Right, they do, and think the LoL is a coherent argument against it, it isn't. LOL! Since you are unable to understand or appreciate the fact that some livestock have lives of positive value, If they exist. There is no moral reason for the livestock to exist. You want to think there is one, but you can't say what it is. There's a good reason you can't say what it is, ****wit: there isn't any. and if you're going to defend that against the LoL YOU!!! need to do it. Leaving the resources to wildlife and the LoL are not the alternatives, they are two extremist AR views. One says that there is a moral imperative that livestock should never be bred, the other, your LoL, says there is a moral imperative that livestock should be bred. They're both nonsense, there is no moral imperative either way, Immediately your obsession with your browny points YOUR brownie points, ****wit. YOU are the one who thinks you earn brownie points for causing animals to exist. You wish to believe you're providing them a "benefit", an "advantage", merely by causing them to exist. You are not. but between the two, the LoL is bigger load of crap. That's what you/"aras" ****wit's ****ty writing, again. ****wit, you have been told it is **** WRITING to write that way, and it is. Why do you persist in **** WRITING, ****wit? Why CAN'T YOU LEARN??!! keep insisting. Because it is so. The Logic of the Larder IS a bigger steaming load of **** than is the "ar" position. Theirs is based on bad values but is logical; yours is based on **** values, *and* it is entirely illogical. So quit maundering like the goo you've proven yourself to be, and try to do what you're pretending to try to do. You need to explain why we should only consider the lives of wildlife but not those of livestock. Go: We should consider the welfare of living animals, and of important animal populations. Livestock are not important animal populations aside from their utility. At last you have acknowledged that you give no consideration to decent AW for livestock, YOU are the one who gives no consideration to [gag; retch; hurl] "decent AW", ****wit: It's not out of consideration for porcupines that we don't raise them for food. It's because they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We don't raise cattle out of consideration for them either, but because they're fairly easy to raise. ****wit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005 --- I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought that all of the animals I eat had terrible lives, I would still eat meat. That is not because I don't care about them at all, but I would just ignore their suffering. ****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999 --- Dutch: Don't you think we owe animals we raise for food decent lives? ****wit: Not really. ****wit David Harrison - Jun 19, 2006 You have NEVER cared about quality of life for livestock, ****wit. That's just a smokescreen. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Animals do not "anticipate" | [email protected] | Cat community | 108 | May 29th 06 05:40 PM |
Animal Rights Activists Gone BESERK!!! | SuperZee via CatKB.com | Cat health & behaviour | 3 | May 19th 05 03:26 AM |
URGENT: Small NO KILL Animal Shelter in need of support to fix up donated building!!! | The Last Resort Animal Sanctuary | Cat community | 0 | October 26th 04 04:18 AM |
Listing Of Animal Rescue Groups In CA Fire Zones | Cat Protector | Cat health & behaviour | 4 | October 31st 03 09:03 AM |