Dutch wrote:
dh@. wrote in message ...
On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:33:34 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

dh@. wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:27:27 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

People who appreciate mice or livestock, normally are appreciating
live
ones, not wanting there to be more of them so that can "experience
life",
that's the nonsense aspect with your position.

You need to explain why we should not consider the lives
of animals. Hey I know what...try doing it NOW:

Because there's no point to it.

There is if you're capable of having consideration for animals.

No, there isn't, no point at all.

There's certainly no point to giving the phony, philosophically empty
and unsound "consideration" that ****wit falsely says he gives and
cynically urges others to give. ****wit stupidly insists that giving
consideration to the lives livestock *might* lead, if they exist, must
automatically translate into thinking the livestock "ought" to exist.
It's bullshit, of course, and there's no point in making that absurd leap.

*Any* reasonable person might give consideration to the quality of live
that actual livestock lead, but *NO* reasonable person would warp that
consideration to reach a conclusion that livestock "ought" to exist, as
the stupid cracker ****wit David Harrison does.

Of course, ****wit doesn't give any consideration to animals' lives at
all. He only cares about the products derived from animals; that is
abundantly well established.



In fact it's probably the most pointless
idea I've ever heard. If animals exist we ought to consider the
conditions
we provide them, that's it.


Sure, they're
tasty, but do they appreciate life more than mice?

I believe even very young chickens do. That is
from personal experience around both.

So just being destined to be eaten makes an animal appreciate life,

Of course that's not it.

or what is it?

Try again.

I think mice are more intelligent than either chickens or cows,
but not pigs.

At least that explains why you oppose some livestock in favor
of mice, even though I still don't go along with you on it. I don't
have reason to believe mice enjoy life more than some chickens
or cattle either...it depends on what their particular life is like.
Then there's the ever present fact that humans can deliberately
provide decent lives for chickens and cattle better than they
can for any wild animals. Also, what is the average lifespan
of wild mice in comparison to chickens and cattle? I feel certain
that the average life span of even broiler chickens is longer than
the average life span of wild mice, and cattle much more than
that. So far we have no reason to favor your mice over livestock,
and most likely we never will have.

Yes we do. A mouse weighs a couple of ounces, a cow weighs a half a ton.
Favoring mice means that many thousand-fold more lives are supported on
the same resource. That at the very least makes it absurd to favor
livestock.

If ****wit *really* were concerned with the moral meaning of animals'
"getting to experience life", then he should, indeed, favor mice and
lots of other species of small animals over all the large livestock
animals humans raise, which is to say, over all livestock. But ****wit
doesn't really care about animals at all; his entire wasted nine-year
gag has been nothing but a ****witted cracker troll to try to justify
his own lust for "meat...gravy."