FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

swamp wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:46:10 GMT, 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, 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?
>
>
> Nope, just wanted to know. You've tossed this "benefit of life"
> argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses
> (and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it.
>
> Go Sox!

Too late. They just lost on an 11th inning home run.