<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:40:53 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:56:58 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:37:10 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
> wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>> > Really? so you'd lock a cat in jail for eating a mouse? man you
>>>>>>>> > are
>>>>>>>> > weird.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, that's not what I mean. I mean, for example, that a domestic
>>>>>>>> animal
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> a right to be fed and sheltered and protected from abuse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh really, so where do you draw the line? Surely *death* is the
>>>>>>> ultimate *abuse*!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No it isn't,
>>>>>
>>>>> You consider them to be purely exploited.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, raising an animal for food is exploitation of that animal, by
>>>>definition.
>>>
>>> Is it somehow exploitation with no abuse involved at all? Explain.
>>
>>Yes, it's exploitation regardless of abuse. It's the meaning of the word
>>exploitation, moron.
> __________________________________________________ _______
> Main Entry: 2ex·ploit
> Pronunciation: ik-'sploit, 'ek-"
> Function: transitive verb
> 1 : to make productive use of : UTILIZE <exploiting your talents> <exploit
> your opponent's weakness>
> 2 : to make use of meanly or unjustly for one's own advantage
>
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> I'll agree with 1, so by one definition they are exploited.

Thank you, that took years...

> Some of
> them still benefit though, no matter what you "ARAs" say about that.

I believe that most farm animals live tolerable lives most of the time,
contrary to what ARAs say. The fact remains, we raise and kill them for
food, therefore we can't claim a moral victory from the very fact that they
"experience life". We don't NEED such a hollow, sham victory, it shames us
to even claim it.

>>>>> What do you consider to be
>>>>> a greater abuse than their death?
>>>>
>>>>Killing an animal for food is not abuse at all,
>>>
>>> What do you consider to be a greater abuse than their death?
>>
>>Killing an animal for food is NOT abuse AT ALL.
> __________________________________________________ _______
> Main Entry: 1abuse
> Pronunciation: &-'byüs
> Function: noun
> [...]
> 5 : physical maltreatment
>
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> __________________________________________________ _______
> Main Entry: mal·treat
> Pronunciation: "mal-'trEt
> Function: transitive verb
> [...]
> : to treat cruelly or roughly
>
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> That depends on your interpretation I guess. To me killing something
> is treating it roughly, but if you think not then whatever. It's rough to
> me.

Killing an animal for food is justified by virtue of the necessity/nature of
the act. We have every right to provide for ourselves as any omnivorous
animal does. Therefore it's not "abuse" or cruelty, which is by definition
negligent, violent, unwarranted or gratuitous.

>
>>To say so is to cave into AR
>>thinking.
>
> No you moron. It's just a different interpretation of what rough
> treatment is.

It may be "rough", but it's not negligent, unwarranted or gratuitous,
therefore it's not abuse. Allowing an animal to starve, beating it in anger,
those are examples of abuse. Killing an animal humanely for food is
honorable, using vulgar sophism to excuse it just sullies it.