On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:15:28 -0700 (PDT), phil > wrote:

>On Jun 12, 11:10 am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:28:41 -0400, Laurie > wrote:
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:30:16 GMT, "higher elvisarchy"
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >>> but no one gives a ****.
>>
>> >> People who give a **** give a ****, but vegans aren't
>> >> among them. So it would be better to say something like:
>> >> But none of the supposedly ethical vegans give a ****
>> >> enough about animals to give a **** about their own
>> >> influence on any of them.
>>
>> > Hey, dh@, could you stop posting unscientific nonsense to
>> >alt.food.vegan.SCIENCE. We discuss SCIENCE
>>
>> The vegan attempt to deliberately avoid contributing to
>> anything that would help livestock with their lifestyle, is
>> certainly a significant part of human influence on animals.
>>
>> >there, not your
>> >mindless propaganda.
>>
>> > Laurie
>
>I can appreciate the idea that there are different instances of the
>levels of abuse received by animals, It comes down to the idea of what
>is or should be property. If you believe as i do that animals are not
>for our entertainment or use even in the instance of diet than the
>variant levels of acceptance to an adverse environment take on another
>meaning. You mention fairness to animals in the confines of
>labeling all animals used in food production as treated poorly, but i
>think it is unfair to accept substandard living conditions just to
>service the quantity of meat Americans deem necessary for their
>survival, again we come down to a question of your belief that animals
>can be personal property. To label my argument as false and yours as
>true when seems one sided.

You are opposed to raising animals for food even when they
are provided with decent lives of positive value. Since you
consider all of it to be unacceptable, you are obviously incapable
of making any distinction between what should be acceptable
and what should not. YOU make that clear. All I do is point it out.

>Conscious consumerism by nature is the
>ability make decisions based on fact AND compassion. While this may
>not preclude a complete switch to Veganism this does however say that
>one must look at their choices before making them. A vegan does this
>in their daily intake of food. So while i can see your argument as a
>small aspect of the whole argument with its own valid if myopic view
>points you seem not to understand either what a vegan is or are
>unwilling to admit that an alternative lifestyle to the one you chose
>as valid.

Did that pop into your head because I pointed out the fact that
veganism does nothing to help any farm animals?

>I can understand the doctrine that vegans proclaim to all
>who will listen as jarring especially if you are not concerned with
>animal welfare

You don't appreciate the basics then. Providing decent
AW is the opposite of--and it works AGAINST!--the gross
mi$nomer "animal rights":
__________________________________________________ _______
.. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
achievement of animal rights.

.. . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.

.. . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition
ends. This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual
reasons.

.. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace
at which animal rights goals are achieved.
.. . .

"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
AVMA POLICY ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS

Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of
animal well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease
prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when
necessary, humane euthanasia.

Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized by
statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and animal rights
are not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly endorses and adopts
promotion of animal welfare as official policy; however, the AVMA cannot
endorse the philosophical views and personal values of animal rights advocates
when they are incompatible with the responsible use of animals for human
purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, and research conducted for the
benefit of both humans and animals.

http://www.avma.org/policies/animalwelfare.asp
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Being in favor of providing decent AW, and being able to appreciate
what it would mean for billions of animals, I must necessarily be opposed
to the misnomer since it would make providing decent lives for domestic
animals impossible.

>or animal rights, perhaps your ardent refusal to agree
>that vegans can affect a change for animals is more along the lines of
>a personal and emotional conviction than a factual one.

Vegans want to claim that veganism helps farm animals
when it does NOT. They don't deserve to make the claim
that it does, and they not only do NOT help any farm animals
with their lifestyle, but they also insult those animals horribly
by trying to create the dishonest impression that they do.