View Single Post
  #1107 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
Fred C. Dobbs[_2_] Fred C. Dobbs[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
> On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 19:33:37 GMT, > wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>> On Thu, 31 May 2007 18:42:15 GMT, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>>>> On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:33:16 GMT, > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, a cracker idiot - lied:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>>>>>>>> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
>>>>>>> the animals themselves should also always be given
>>>>>>> much consideration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, the welfare of the animals should be given consideration, not "the
>>>>>> lives".
>>>>>
>>>>> In order to consider whether or not it is cruel to *the animals*
>>>>> for them the be raised for food, their lives plus the quality of their
>>>>> lives necessarily MUST be given consideration.
>>>>
>>>> Why? If they are not made to suffer then it's not cruel to them. "Their
>>>> lives", apart from the quality of those lives, is of no moral consequence.
>>>
>>> So you selfishly continue to insist, without being able to explain
>>> why.

>>
>> Why do you keep calling it selfish when you are unable to explain why it's
>> selfish?

>
> I do explain why it's selfish


You don't. You can't.


>>> Why do you think it's ethically superior not to consider what
>>> the animals gain?

>>
>> Give me one reason to to consider what the animals gain.

>
> Because it's a necessary step in considering whether or not it's
> cruel to them to be raised for food.


No.

The animals "gain" nothing from any "deal", ****wit. There is no
"deal". Coming into existence is not a "deal" they enter into, Goo, and
existence is *not* a benefit to them.


>
>> Describe one benefit that would accrue to one animal if I began
>> doing that right now.

>
> Nothing you think about can benefit any animal.


You can't describe any benefit that animals get from this sham
"consideration" you blabber about.


--
Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it...if you
know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Fred C. Dobbs