On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 23:12:43 +0000, Martin Willett > wrote:

>If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as most
>of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and die
>than not to.

One "ARA" amusingly pasted the fact that:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Message-ID: >

The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
as if he were able to understand the fact, but later revealed that
he can not:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Message-ID: >

some mystical "value to the animals"
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Message-ID: >

Any "positive experiences" that livestock may have, whatever that means, may
not and should not be used as an argument for raising them.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I find that the truth is often both sad and hilarious at the same time
with these people. It's incredible really. This for example: why did
Dutch paste something that they don't understand much less agree
with? I've asked him many times, but he refuses to say why.

>Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there,
>so don't bother pointing it out.

The desperation of "ARAs" is made obvious by Dutch's hero Goo,
who proclaims to the world that:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Rudy Canoza" >
Message-ID: .com>

No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing benefits from
coming into existence. No farm animals benefit from farming.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza >
Message-ID: k.net>

Life is not a benefit for farm animals.
[...]
Life is not a benefit for farm
animals
[...]
Life is not a benefit for farm animals.
[...]
Life is not a benefit for farm animals.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Rudy Canoza >
Message-ID: . net>

An entity's life _per se_ is not a benefit to it.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
etc, etc... Again it's sadly amusing to find "ARAs" are so desperate
for people to feel that no livestock benefit from farming, that they
insist life could never be a benefit for anything including themselves.

>Death is unavoidable, humane slaughter is not the worst death a pig
>could face, very few wild pigs die in hospices surrounded by their
>loving families with large quantities of euphoria-inducing pain-killers.

The "ARAs" even have an "AR" pig fantasy which they believe
somehow refutes the fact that some farm animals benefit from farming.
I'll include what I believe they humorously consider to be the "refutation":
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Message-ID: >

Speak for yourself please ****wit. Here's your quote, Henry S. Salt speaks
for the pig here, you ought to listen.

[...]
"For mark, I pray
thee, that in my entry into the world my own predilection was in no wise
considered, nor did I purchase life on condition of my own butchery. If,
then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork I am: but though thou
hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy sophistry. It is not for
his sake, but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily housed and
fed, and at the end barbarously butchered."

Hear that ****wit? The pig says, if you are set on killing me for my flesh,
then so be it, just spare me the self-serving bullshit.

Spare all of us, ****wit. We don't need it, nobody needs it.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
A talking pig who knows he will be killed--and btw made into ham and
sausages, etc...there are about 20 or so odd subfantasies in their talking
pig fantasy--is certainly an anthropomorphic distortion of reality if not
sophistry. And it is *most!!!* certainly bullshit, making me wonder how it
could possibly be self-serving for anyone other than "ARAs". (Dutch and
Goo hilariously insist they are "AR" opponents, though neither are capable
of providing any example(s) of their opposition, nor can anyone else afaik.)

[...]
>Carnivores don't wear badges and t shirts proclaiming their status for
>the same reason that people don't wear "I didn't give money to charity"
>badges. It is totally disingenuous to make out that vegetarians and
>vegans do not want people to think they are morally superior because of
>their diet, in exactly the same way that Christians do. People who
>expect recognition for their moral probity make a point of not asking
>for it but that doesn't mean they do not expect to get it and are hurt
>when they don't get it.

Which is why there are people like Dutch and Goo who maniacally
oppose people considering that some farm animals benefit from farming,
because it suggests that some thing(s) could be ethically equivalent
or superior to veganism. Just the suggestion causes incredible cognitive
dissonance for them, so they desperately/amusingly try to make it go away.
Anyone interested in observing cognitive dissonance inspired reactions
can get fine examples by pointing out to "ARAs" that some farm animals
benefit from farming. I encourage you to give it a try. Dutch would be a
good subject, and so would Goo who recently is posting as--and probably
considers himself to be--Leif Erikson and S. Maizlich, along with however
many others I'm not aware of.