On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 22:08:52 GMT, "rick" > wrote:

>
><d@.> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 06:51:20 GMT, Leif Erikson
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Glorfindel wrote:
>>>> Dave wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Glorfindel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Dave wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Pet ownership is *not* morally equivalent to slavery.
>>>>>>> Raising animals
>>>>>>> for meat is *not* morally equivalent to genocide.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I would argue this, for I do believe pet ownership is
>>>>>> morally
>>>>>> equivalent to slavery,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I disagree because in there is a major difference in
>>>>> motivation and consequence. People generally buy pets
>>>>> for companionship and treat them well. People who
>>>>> buy slaves generally do so for selfish reasons so they
>>>>> can live off the work of others.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I understand your point, but I would respond with a "yes
>>>> and no." First, you have distinguish between people who
>>>> buy pets, and people who rescue or adopt companion animals
>>>> from shelters or rescue groups, or take in a stray from
>>>> the street.
>>>
>>>No. No distinction is necessary. It doesn't help to
>>>explain anything.
>>>
>>>
>>>> The mindset is very different.
>>>
>>>Not really.
>>>
>>>
>>>> While rescue
>>>> can go terribly wrong and turn into hoarding, in general
>>>> rescuers or adopters do it for companionship and to benefit
>>>> the animal.
>>>
>>>No different from people who own pets,
>>
>> Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. People who "own pets"
>> don't necessarily try to provide their animals with decent
>> lives.
>> They want to own them. Some do care about it, while others
>> like yourself never even give it any consideration at all. Some
>> even let the pets they own starve to death, and many many
>> are neglected and malnourished. Some people even think it's
>> funny to see animals neglected or even mistreated. You could
>> never understand, because you don't even think the issue is
>> worthy of consideration. However, even though you can't
>> understand I'll go ahead and point out anyway that some pet
>> owners care about their animals and some don't. Some people
>> who fight game fowl care about their birds and some don't.
>> Some farmers care about their livestock and some don't, but
>> even if they don't "care" about the animals farmers still must
>> take adaquate care of them to get what they want out of them.
>
>
>
>> But you're not going to see people who go through the efforts
>> of getting an animal through a rescue place, not care about
>> whether or not life is of positive value to the animal they
>> take
>> in. You can't understand, but it's true regardless of your lack
>> of ability to comprehend things like that.
>=================================
>PeTA rescues animals all the time.

PeTA doesn't go through the efforts of getting an animal through
a rescue place, and people who do go through them usually don't
kill the animals they went through the effort to get just because
they start to cost money. Your comparison is not one.

>Then they con the rubes for
>as much money as possible by plying on their sympathy. Then,
>when the animals start actually costing PeTA money, they kill
>them. They kill more than they place out.

Agreed. They're full of shit.

>Is that the kind of
>comprehension you think Lief is lacking?

No. I believe you knew that to begin with, so why did you
bother to ask?

>>>except the pet
>>>owners aren't patting themselves on the back for it.
>>
>> You can't understand how life can have positive value for
>> anything, much less for pets, much much less for livestock,
>> much much much less can you understand why a person
>> would consider it when they think about human influence on
>> animals. The big question is: Since you apparently can't even
>> understand it, why are you so opposed to seeing it given any
>> consideration by people who can? What are you afraid might
>> happen if more people deliberately tried to provide animals
>> with lives of positive value?
>======================
>Which people are those,

Any people who would do it.

>and which animals?

Any animals. Goo is opposed to giving the animals' lives as
much consideration as their deaths. So far it appears that
you agree with him. If not, which animals' lives do you think
should be given as much consideration as their deaths, and
which do you think should not?

>The same people that
>raise a fuss over cute little kitty-cats give no second thought
>to killing animals brutally and inhumanely for their usenet
>entertainment...

We all do, but that's not what we were talking about.