On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 18:45:05 GMT, and/or www.mantra.com/jai
(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:

>On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 11:56:36 -0800, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:23:23 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:33:17 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 13:27:28 -0800, dh@. pointed out:
>>>>>
>>>>>> All I did was to point out a fact. Apparently it's another one of
>>>>>> those
>>>>>>facts that you people hate. So it's not me that disgusts you, but the
>>>>>>fact is
>>>>>>what disgusts you. Why does it "disgust" you that what I've been pointing
>>>>>>out
>>>>>>for ten years, has been true for ten thousand years?
>>>>>
>>>>>A meaningless one.
>>>>
>>>> For one thing it's not meaningless and for another even if it was that
>>>> would
>>>> be no reason for you to hate it.
>>>>
>>>>>Vegans don't promote life for livestock animals, you
>>>>>don't promote life for porcupines, who cares?
>>>>
>>>> People who want to promote decent AW over elimination. Doiiieee.
>>>
>>>That is an invalid dichotomy. Doiiieee.
>>>
>>>"Decent AW" <retch> is promoted over "poor AW"
>>
>> It's also promoted over eliminations.
>>
>>>"Elimination" is promoted over "continuation" (of livestock farming).
>>>
>>>Continuation is necessary before AW of any kind can be a consideration.
>>
>> That's one of the reasons why people who are truly in favor of decent AW
>>over elimination must necessarily be opposed to elimination, as I've been
>>pointing out to you and you've been trying futiley to oppose for years. Are you
>>all of a sudden beginning to finally realise the significance of the fact? If
>>so, do you think you'll be able to remember it or do you think you'll unlearn it
>>again? Do you think you had learned to appreciate that fact before your last
>>unlearning?
>
>Om

Oh yes it seems remarkably stupid even for him, but he does feel that he has
unlearned how to appreciate when livestock have lives of positive value. How he
unlearned it he doesn't seem to know, but he did IF he ever really learned it at
all. One other very likely possibility is that he lied when he acted like he had
learned, and another is he simply parroted something that he couldn't
comprehend...it just "seemed good" to him at the time even though he didn't
understand why. He either learned and later unlearned, or never did learn to
begin with. It has to be one or the other.

People who favor decent AW over elimination must necessarily be opposed to
elimination, of course because the two objectives work directly against each
other:

". . . 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

"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
selective breeding."
(Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for Animals, Animal People,
May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University

"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)

"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."

"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione

"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant