On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:53:43 GMT, swamp > wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:21:32 GMT, wrote:
>
>>No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended
>
>No apologies necessary. I never took any offense. I just disagree w/
>your "benefit of life" argument and was wondering if you had any
>takers.
>
>--swamp
I've had some people say something like: do you know how those
animals are raised? And I'll say that I know how some of them are
raised, and that some have decent lives and some don't. The ones
who have decent lives benefit from the arrangement, but some are
overly restricted, or beaten by aggressors, or get sick and suffer
until they die, etc..., and they don't benefit from the arrangement.
It's simple enough, and just like it is for wildlife, and pets, and humans.
Since that's the way it is, no one has disagreed with that view, though
a lot of people say they had not thought of it that way before. So yes,
everyone I've discussed it with in person has agreed that some
animals benefit from farming and some don't, and they have usually
had insulting things to say about people who can't understand that.
Have you mentioned it to anyone?