On 22 Sep 2005 09:25:40 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 11:09:00 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><dh@.> wrote
>> >> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:27:08 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>"larrylook" > wrote
>> >>>>>>How do you know I don't care?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> You can't, and you prove it. One example of the proof is your
>> >>>>> opposition to
>> >>>>> humans reducing cds by consuming grass raised--NOT GRAIN FED--animal
>> >>>>> products.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I could have saved animal lives (by your logic) by eating my grandmother
>> >>>> when she died. But I wasn't about to do it. I loved her and would find
>> >>>> the act repulsive. Just like eating a chimp, dog or dolphin would be
>> >>>> repugnant.
>> >>>
>> >>>So saving animal lives is not your main priority,
>> >>
>> >> You're not fooling me with this fake opposition Dutch. Veganism does
>> >> nothing to help, provide better lives for, or save any animals. If you
>> >> think
>> >> it does, then explain how. But it does not, even if you make something up.
>> >
>> >Veganism contributes (marginally) to decreasing the number of animals who
>> >are bred as livestock. It saves some animals from having to go through that
>> >process. It doesn't "provide better lives" for animals, it doesn't claim to,
>> >neither does the indiscriminate consumption of meat that you practice.
>> >
>> >>>it's aesthetics, so what
>> >>>else is new?
>> >>
>> >> It's the same old shit it always has been. People can NOT save food
>> >> animals by being vegan or by eating meat.
>> >
>> >Yes they can, I will use your own awkward imagery to explain. They can
>> >prevent future animals from being born,
>>
>> Then they need to just say that and not pretend they're doing something
>> to help animals. They help animals only as dead people help animals.
>>
>> >or as they see it, they *save* the
>> >animals from being born into an abbreviated life
>>
>> · Since the animals we raise would not be alive if we
>> didn't raise them, it's a distortion of reality not to take that
>> fact into consideration whenever we think about the fact
>> that the animals are going to be killed.
>
>None of the animals currently being commercially farmed were
>created by humans. The lives of these farm animals
>have an opportunity cost; the animals that would experience
>life if the land was not being used by humans (eg to graze livestock).

I have never seen grazing areas that were not home to wildlife.

>Your failure to take these facts into consideration
>is the real distortion of reality.

I most certainly take them into consideration. I've pointed out
more than once that in all the experiences I've had with it, and
have heard of, wildlife are more welcome in grazing areas than in
crop filds. I have also more than once asked: why should we only
contribute to life and death for wildlife in crop fields, and not also
life and death for wildlife and livestock in grazing areas?