<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 Goo continues to wonder:
>
>>Why should the continued existence of livestock get
>>*any* of your "consideration", ****wit, apart from your
>>wish to consume them?
>
> Because you/"aras" suggest an influence:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: Goo
> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:23:05 -0700
>
> "vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
> mean no animals raised for food and other products.
> That's an influence, whether you like it or not.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> that as yet I've been given no reason to believe would be superior
> to providing decent AW instead.

We're not saying that it is, we're saying that raising livestock is not
morally superior as you are attempting to argue.

>>Why are you still evading the question, ****wit: why
>>is it so important to you that livestock, as opposed to
>>wild animals, continue to exist?
>
> You would have to tell me which wild animals you're going
> on about Goo. Do you have a clue about which of "them"
> you do? Could you share that clue, Goo?

We're talking about every wild animal that is killed or displaced by pasture
lands and feed crops. There is no doubt that eliminating large ruminants
like cattle would result in enough land, food and water resources being
freed up to support *at least* as many indivdual animals of wild species,
undoubtedly more. So the argument that we ought to consider animals "getting
to experience life" actually works against you. If you want animals to
"experience life" you would probably do better as a vegan.

> (prediction: the answer is: no clue)
> (note: Goo's boy "Dutch" had a clue which consists only
> of potential future wild mice, frogs and groundhogs who
> are supposedly being kept down by the cattle)