View Single Post
  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default Challenge: can you do better than the Goos?


Leif's Smarter Brother wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > dh@. wrote:
> > > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:18:20 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > ><dh@.> wrote
> > > >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 07:20:18 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>><dh@.> wrote
> > > >>>> I challenge any/all of you to explain why we should not give
> > > >>>> livestock lives as much consideration as their deaths
> > > >>>
> > > >>>We do give their lives consideration [it's called animal welfare]
> > > >>
> > > >> Then I'm free to encourage people to do so, even though
> > > >> you have been maniacally opposing the suggestion for years.
> > > >
> > > >I've never opposed you advocating animal welfare,
> > >
> > > You do it every time you oppose me,

> >
> > He doesn't and you know it.
> >
> > > and you do it ESPECIALLY
> > > when you lie about it having no consideration for quality of life.
> > >
> > > >I oppose your
> > > >"considering" that because some livestock animals you eat may have lived
> > > >acceptable lives that you are entitled to feel pride that
> > >
> > > *IF!* (retard)
> > >
> > > >they
> > >
> > > Had a life which was a positive experience.

> >
> > The ground nesting birds that were destroyed harvesting your grain
> > probably had lives that were a positive experience. Should they
> > also thank you for eating the grain?

>
> Could we have some photographic evidence of this?


I don't have any photos but I can give you a citation.
http://www.okrangelandswest.okstate....ubs/F-5006.pdf


> > >
> > > >"experienced
> > > >life", and that thusly you have a valid argument against veganism. This
> > > >so-called argument, aptly dubbed "The Logic of the Larder"
> > >
> > > How is it aptly dubbed that? That, like the gross misnomer "ar", just
> > > appear to be extremely obvious in their dishonesty to me, and I feel quite
> > > certain you can never explain how either is a valid name for what it
> > > pretends to represent.
> > >
> > > >is two-bit
> > > >sophistry.
> > >
> > > That's a lie.
> > >
> > > >Decent lives is something we *owe* to animals we use as livestock, anything
> > > >less than that is arguably immoral. If you pay a debt you owe, you are only
> > > >even, you have not done better than the person who did not borrow anything.
> > > >Likewise by treating livestock properly we only pay them a debt we owe them,
> > > >we are not doing anything better than vegans who do not take and use those
> > > >animals' lives in the first place. That is the crux of why your "argument"
> > > >fails.
> > >
> > > You just continue to prove that you can't understand how life could
> > > have positive value to animals regardless of quality, much MUCH less
> > > can you understand what it has to do with human influence on animals
> > > or why it should be taken into consideration.