<dh@.> wrote
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 Goo wrote::
>
>>dh@. pointed out:
>
>>> They exploit AW
>>
>>They don't. They want humane treatment of animals if
>>the animals exist. Period.
>
> If as you insist quality of life can't give life a positive value, why
> would "ARAs" care about it?
>
>>>>They may not consider it as good as
>>>>elimination of livestock, but they DO wish us to consider the animals'
>>>>lives, that is for sure.
>>>
>>>
>>> People who are in favor of decent lives for livestock should be
>>> OPPOSED
>>> to the elimination objective
>>
>>No. That's an illogical conclusion. Once again:
>>support for "decent lives for livestock" is completely
>>*conditional* on the animals existing at all
>
> Then which livestock animals are you saying "ARAs" would allow us
> to continue raising for food, and why should anyone believe they would?

If they had their way, NONE, but that doesn't mean they are being meanies by
wanting to deny life to future livestock. Get past that idea, it's bullshit,
nobody buys it, just as you don't buy my argument that you are denying life
to mice in your bedroom by not raising them. The implications of AR/veganism
are that they want to do something to cause *you* harm, to deny *you* and
me, and Jonathan and rick, a fundamental freedom which we have and believe
we are entitled to. THAT'S what we all are objecting to here, and rightfully
so, not that they are "denying animals a chance to experience life". FFS Get
a friggin grip.