On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:00:28 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><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,

You're welcome.

>that took years...

I've been slamming my head for a while too. But in your case,
this is possibly the first time in years you've been right. We'll find
that it won't last I'm afraid.

>> 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".

Then don't if it bothers you so much.

>We don't NEED such a hollow, sham victory, it shames us
>to even claim it.

No it doesn't. It doesn't do anything. It's a stupid thing to worry about,
unless of course you are an "ARA". That keeps coming up.

>>>>>> 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,

No it's not. That's one form of abuse. Some forms involve too much
attention.

>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",

Ya' think?

>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.

LOL. But killing it isn't according to you. To me killing an animal
is rough treatment, meaning it's abuse.

>Killing an animal humanely for food is
>honorable, using vulgar sophism to excuse it just sullies it.

That could only be because you say so, and that is no reason
at all. Considering that animals live is basic consideration that you
obviously can't imagine. You can't think beyond your own self.
You're just not capable. The idea of you ever deliberately contributing
to life for cage free layers is absurd! You're most likely some sort of
veg*n, as you admitted to years ago:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:52:56 -080
Message-ID: >

I eat a vegetarian diet
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
A rare honest moment for you. I believe you're still some sort of veg*n,
and don't believe this garbage you included in that same post:

"I'm more comfortable with accepting my role in the dance of life and
death than I am with hypocrisy."

Such bullshit. You're only comfortable accepting your role in some
deaths, but in NO lives.