On 6 Feb 2006 15:56:11 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 2 Feb 2006 16:52:14 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 1 Feb 2006 19:00:39 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On 25 Jan 2006 19:51:41 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >d@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 23 Jan 2006 20:01:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On 18 Jan 2006 10:11:17 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On 17 Jan 2006 09:28:38 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >Why should it matter exactly which wildlife get to experience
>> >> >> >> >> >> >life
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Because it would be necessary in order to consider whether
>> >> >> >> >> >> or not it would be worth doing away with livestock so they can
>> >> >> >> >> >> exist.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Suppose we let nature decide which animals get to experience life.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> My question is: Why should we let ONLY nature decide?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >No reason why we should
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Agreed.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > but that is not the point.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It's a very significant point when we consider human influence on
>> >> >> >> animals.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >How is it significant?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Because we have to consider it in order to be sure that we should
>> >> >> try to eliminate human influence, which is what "ar" pretends to want.
>> >> >
>> >> >I am not defending AR. I am opposing your reasons for promoting
>> >> >livestock farming.
>> >>
>> >> Not yet. You have to suggest something better, but you haven't
>> >> done it. None of you have done it.
>> >
>> >But you aren't advocating livestock farming on the grounds that no one
>> >has suggested anything better. You are advocating livestock farming
>> >because it causes some of the animals that get to experience life
>> >to experience being farmed.
>>
>> No. I'm just saying that we need to take it into consideration if
>> we consider whether or not it's cruel to the animals to be raised
>> for food.
>
>Why is the fact that some of the animals who get to experience
>life in the future will also experience being farmed relevant
>to the question of whether livestock farming is cruel to the animals?

Because we're questioning whether or not it's cruel to animals when
we farm them.

>> Other people want to attach a lot of absurd ideas to it
>> in their attempts to prevent us from giving the animals' lives as
>> much or more consideration than their deaths.
>
>In as much as a sitaution where more happy animals are in
>existence is a good thing, I agree with the premise. You
>seem very concerned about how many animals experience being
>farmed but much less concerned about how many experience
>life.

As yet we have been given no reason to consider wildlife only, to
be superior to wildlife and livestock both.

>> >> >> >> >You are
>> >> >> >> >promoting animal products on the grounds that they allow certain
>> >> >> >> >animals to experience life. I am presenting a vegan alternative
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Why?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >For the sake of comparison. Can you show that your alternative to
>> >> >> >veganism is superior from the point of view of animals as a whole?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm not worried about whether or not it would be. I only consider
>> >> >> the animals that it has influence on, not those it doesn't.
>> >> >
>> >> >Compared with veganism, "compassionate" livestock farming has
>> >> >just as much influence on wild animal populations as it does on
>> >> >livestock. You are dodging.
>> >>
>> >> No. I'm trying to find out why we should promote wildlife only,
>> >> instead of wildlife and livestock, but no one can explain why. I'm
>> >> also trying to find out which particular wildlife we should promote
>> >> life for instead of livestock, but no one can explain which. So you
>> >> *should* be able to understand that you provide nothing to even
>> >> consider, much less have to dodge.
>> >
>> >I am not arguing for eliminating livestock and I am not attempting
>> >to determine precisely what sort of wild animals the planet should
>> >support in the future.
>>
>> Then there's no reason to consider wildlife unless you can come
>> up with some specific animals you want to promote life for. Some
>> people do deliberately do things to support wildlife,
>
>And do those people feel they need to know exactly which wildlife
>they are supporting in order to justify their actions?

If they don't perform the proper actions, their actions will not promote
life for the wildlife they want to promote life for. So the answer is yes.

>> and some of
>> those things are done by farmers to support particular wildlife,
>> and some of those farmers are even livestock farmers.
>>
>> >I am merely challenging you to justify your
>> >position that we should continue raising livestock for food just
>> >so that some of the animals who will get to experience life in
>> >the future will also get to experience being farmed.
>>
>> LOL! That's not my position. My position is that we don't need
>> to STOP doing it, unless you/"aras" can explain why no animals
>> should be farmed.
>
>Then I have no problem with the position you have now retreated to.

That's always been my position.

>> >> >> >> >that also allowes animals to experience life.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> My question is: Why would we let ONLY nature decide?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Since you are so insistent that we consider how animals can
>> >> >> >benefit from being farmed I thought you might like to explain
>> >> >> >why you consider your diet superior to vegansim from the point
>> >> >> >of view of animals as a whole.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I don't care about animals as a whole.
>> >> >
>> >> >Then why present your alternative to veganism as if it
>> >> >is superior from the point of view of animals?
>> >>
>> >> Because sometimes animal products are better for some animals
>> >> than veggie products.
>> >
>> >And sometimes veggie products are better for some animals than
>> >animal products so why present your alternative to veganism is
>> >if you are doing it to benefit animals?
>>
>> The better question is: why do you believe/insist we should avoid
>> considering some aspects, and please make a list of the aspects
>> you feel we should avoid taking into consideration.
>
>I believe we should only take into consideration aspects that are
>morally
>relevant.

Their lives are morally relevant imo.

>The fact that the animals who exist in a vegan utopia will
>be different animals

It remains a mystery which animals those would be, and why we
should promote life for them over them and livestock both.

>to the animals who exist in the real world is only
>relevant where selective breeding has gone too far and produced animals
>whose welfare is compromized as a consequence.
>>
>> >> >> Neither do you. I care
>> >> >> somewhat about the animals that are influenced by the things
>> >> >> that I buy, even though I know that my particular purchases
>> >> >> don't directly influence any animals.
>> >> >
>> >> >Good for you.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> "aras"
>> >> >> >> >> don't do it either of course, but it's your/"their" fantasy. I'm just trying
>> >> >> >> >> to get you/"them" to provide some details.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >and why does it make any difference to the arguments I
>> >> >> >> >> >> >am presenting?
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> Because since you can't explain it there's no reason at all to
>> >> >> >> >> >> consider your supposed "arguments". We have no reason at all.
>> >> >> >> >> >> It's entirely up to you to try to change that.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Essentially the argument is that the fact we have some control over
>> >> >> >> >> >which animals get to experience life does not give us the right to
>> >> >> >> >> >treat those animals that do any differently from if we left such
>> >> >> >> >> >decisions entirely in the hands of nature.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> We are much better able to ensure that livestock have decent
>> >> >> >> >> lives and humane deaths, ie decent AW, ie lives of positive value,
>> >> >> >> >> than we are for wildlife.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >In theory we have more control over the quality of life of farm
>> >> >> >> >animals than we do for wild animals. In practise I'm not sure
>> >> >> >> >how the animals you eat had benefited from being farmed.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Could you or anyone else possibly care if they did? If so, why don't
>> >> >> >> you try?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >If you wish to present the case that the animals you eat were better
>> >> >> >off
>> >> >> >than comparable unfarmed animals I am ready to consider your argument.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You need to provide more info. What unfarmed animal(s) would
>> >> >> you consider comparable to:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> cage free egg producers
>> >> >> battery cage egg producers
>> >> >> turkeys
>> >> >> broiler chickens
>> >> >
>> >> >wild chickens or turkeys.
>> >>
>> >> I will never consider them comparable.
>> >
>> >Why not? They are the same species.
>> >
>> >> >> beef cattle
>> >> >> dairy cattle
>> >> >
>> >> >wild cattle.
>> >>
>> >> I will never consider them comparable.
>> >
>> >Why not? They are the same species.
>>
>> Because their lives are nothing similar. You can't figure that out?
>
>How is the quality of life (quantity * quality) better for farmed
>chicken
>or cattle than it is for wild chicken

There are no wild chicken, because they can't survive in the
wild long enough to establish large populations.

>or cattle?

Farmed cattle eat better.

>If you wish to argue
>that animals benefit from being farmed then this is the question
>you need to answer.