FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

wrote:
> 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,

Not from "getting to live", ****wit. They "benefit"
only in comparison to animals who aren't treated well.

> 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.

But you want the animals to live, period. You don't
care one bit about their quality of life. That's why
you buy any meat or poultry that Piggly Wiggly has for
sale.

> 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,

No animals "benefit from farming", ****wit. Life
itself is never a benefit.