<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 20:16:35 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 01:38:45 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Martin Willett" > wrote
>>>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> But not much respect for the pig?
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it
>>>>> there,
>>>>> so
>>>>> don't bother pointing it out.
>>>>
>>>>I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said
>>>>up
>>>>to
>>>>now, but
>>>
>>> Now he has suggested that something could be ethically equivalent
>>> or superior to the elimination of domestic animals,
>>
>>That's got nothing to do with it dipshit.
>
> Bullshit.

Yes, bullshit, we have never suggested that.

>>I don't dispute that *using animal
>>products* is "ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of
>>domestic animals" to use your awkward wording.
>
> Try to do better.

Better than directly respond to your point? How is that possible?

>>My argument is simply
>>examining the logic of the premise "If we didn't eat the pigs they would
>>never exist at all..."
>
> LOL! In what magical way do you think they might exist if we didn't
> raise them for food?

They wouldn't, and that would be no loss to them, because they would never
have existed.

> And don't tell me some stupid crap about wild pigs.
> You might just as well mention that ANY other animal might exist, because
> NO other animal has anything to do with the fact that if we didn't raise
> the
> animals we raise to eat they would never exist...not wild pigs, not wild
> goats,
> and not even your wild mice, frogs and groundhogs.

The amount of land we appropriate for animal feed and pasture is roughly
inversely proportional to the number of animals that can live undisturbed on
that same land and with those resources.

> In an earlier post, didn't you give us permission to consider the lives
> of
> animals when they are terrible, but not those that have positive value to
> the animals? Since you refuse to make a list, a person is forced to guess
> what you allow and what you don't. So far my guess is that you would
> allow us to consider the lives of wild animals, and the lives of livestock
> only if they are terrible. If there are other things you would allow or
> forbid,
> let's you set it straight right now or I'll know my guess was correct.

It's close. The lives of animals we raise per se are NOT a moral
consideration, but once we raise them, how we treat them *is* is a moral
consideration. That's the way it is, and it's not your prerogative to change
it.