FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 20:26:39 GMT, swamp > wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:40:46 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Facts that meat consumers want to disregard:
>>>1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
>>> killed so we can eat them.
>>
>>Just out of curiosity, has anyone *ever* bought this argument, David?
>>
>>--swamp
>
>
> I have mentioned it to quite a few people in face to face conversations,
> and have *never* had anyone attach a bunch of extra junk to it about a
> right to life for unconceived hypothetical potential future animals, like the
> Gonad and some of his veg*n buddies do. They have always agreed that
> raising animals for food provides billions of them with life, since it would
> be absurd to disagree.

No more absurd than pointing it out. It is true, but
it's trivial; it is meaningless in the debate about
whether or not it's morally right to eat meat.

> As for whether or not providing them with life is
> an acceptable trade off for taking it later, no one has ever had a problem
> with it.

Thanks for the admission that you think "getting to
experience life" is some kind of moral good. I'm
adding this to the FAQ.

> There has certainly never been anyone who felt that we should
> *disregard* that aspect of the situation, and when I tell people about the
> responses I get in these ngs, they feel that people making them are the
> ones who don't think of things realistically.

You have a cherry-picked audience of brain-dead rednecks.

> No offence to you swamp,
> and no offence was intended when I mentioned it before, but the
> objections you presented to it were for the most part if not entirely
> arguments that veg*ns would use.

Some of what "vegans" say is correct.

> Some of them I suppose I would
> agree with to some extent, and others I wouldn't. I've been wondering
> ever since how many of them you agreed with and how many you
> didn't, but we never got down to details like that so I still don't know
> which are objections that you agree with and which are not. I might
> still have a list of them if you'd care to go through it and say which you
> go along with and which you don't.
>
> When I mention this aspect of the situation to people in person, it
> is met with a completely different reaction than it is in these ngs.

Dumb inbred southern rednecks. What did you expect?

> Why not try it yourself with a few people and see what their reaction is,
> just out of curiosity. Please let me know how it turns out if you give it
> a go. You could just tell them that some moron you've seen online is
> going around saying that billions of animals are not simply "killed" as
> "ARAs" want us to perceive the situation, but that those same billions
> of animals only get any life at all because people raise them for food,
> and see what their reaction is.