On 30 Jun 2006 11:38:42 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>
>> >It is unlikely that animals even have the concept of master and
>> >servant.
>> >They perceive that they want to be outside and having been locked
>> >in by humans they need humans to lock them out. They perceive
>> >that their udders are uncomfortable because they have too much
>> >milk in their udders. They need humans to milk them because
>> >humans have removed the natural milking machine aka calf.
>> >Similarly the fact that they need feeding by humans represents
>> >the fact that humans are trying to raise them in something other
>> >than their natural environment. Your argument is a farce.
>>
>> Have you spent over a hundred hours on any type of farm(s)?
>> If not, then I'll certainly maintain my own opinion over yours. If
>> you have, I'll still maintain my own opinion over yours plus consider
>> you to be an even bigger idiot than if you had not.
>
>I don't need 100+ hours working with animals to appreciate that your
>argument is a farce.

My point is that as ignorant as you are, it would take you more
than a hundred hours before you could ever begin to appreciate
the facts I point out. In fact, there's an excellent chance that you're
not capable of appreciating them at all.

>> >> >> >> I've certainly
>> >> >> >> seen horses and cattle getting pretty demanding for people to hurry up
>> >> >> >> and feed them, or milk them, or let them in or out of the barn...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >So having bought them up in an environment where they are unable to
>> >> >> >find food, us humble servants feed them, having seperated them from
>> >> >> >the calves, us humble servants milk them, having locked them up in
>> >> >> >a barn, us humble servants release them. Give me a break, Harrison.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You obviously haven't had the same experiences with animals that
>> >> >> I have, or haven't learned anything from them if you have.
>> >> >
>> >> >Evasive non-answer.
>> >>
>> >> I pointed out facts that you're just too ignorant to comprehend, as you
>> >> proved by being unable to understand the answer.
>> >
>> >I find it incredible that someone would try to take credit for looking
>> >after animals that are dependent on them, only because the humans
>> >made it so in the first place.
>>
>> Of course. That's because you're not capable of appreciating that
>> some animals benefit from the situation. If you could do that, then there
>> are a lot more aspects of human influence that you would be able to
>> understand.
>
>Blah, blah, blah.

LOL! Your confusion is rather amusing...in a pitiful sort of way.

>> >> >> >> So your objections have been pretty much whittled down to:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I don't object to keeping livestock under any circumstances. What
>> >> >> >I object to is your fallacious justifications for it. Exactly the same
>> >> >> >can
>> >> >> >be said of Leif and Dutch. Why can't you accept that
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The Goos agree with you. But even though you are all in agreement
>> >> >> that it's wrong to kill livestock,
>> >> >
>> >> >None of us believe that and you know it!
>> >>
>> >> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>> >> their deaths" - Goo
>> >
>> >An out of context quote you have dishonestly chosen to present
>> >as his opinion.
>>
>> I've asked the stupid Goober to explain how he thinks he disagrees
>> with himself about it, and he can't say.
>
>He doesn't disagree with himself

I agree that he's probably lying about this too, but the Goober has
claimed to disagree with himself.

>, you idiot.
>
>> We know that he doesn't
>> consider ANY animals to benefit from their lives, so of course the
>> Goober must agree with his original claim.
>
>AIUI he doesn't believe that there is any wrongness involved in their
>deaths.

He has certainly claimed to.

>He believes that if there was any wrongness then "giving
>them life" [sic] does nothing to mitigate it.
>
>> IF you really believe that
>> Goo somehow disagrees with himself about this, then explain how.
>> Otherwise it will just remain apparent that you are lying for and along
>> with Goo, since even Goo cannot explain how he thinks he disagrees
>> with himself about the issue.
>>
>> >> >> none of you have yet been able to
>> >> >> explain exactly what that "wrongness" is. You "aras" have nothing
>> >> >> if you can't explain that, which you can't, so you have no argument.
>> >> >> That's how that works.
>> >> >
>> >> >I only object to keeping livestock under some circumstances.
>> >> >Why do you keep pummeling a straw man even after I have
>> >> >explained to you that it is a straw man?
>> >>
>> >> Under what conditions would you allow animals to be raised and
>> >> killed for food?
>> >
>> >There are two considerations: 1) Are the animals treated as sentient
>> >beings as opposed to merely food-processing machines? 2) Are natural
>> >resources being used in an efficient, sustainable, ecologically
>> >responsible fashion?
>> >
>> >If the answer to both questions is yes then I have no problem with it.
>>
>> Then you have no problem with what I suggest, as much as you
>> apparently wish that you did.
>
>Nonsense! I have a problem with your implication that it is OK to treat
>farm animals cruelly as long as the cruelty is not so serious that
>their
>lives are of negative value.

Why?

>I also haven't seen you show any concern
>regarding the environmental impacts.
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
Davis has found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of field
animals are very high. One study documented that a single operation,
mowing alfalfa, caused a 50 percent reduction in the gray-tailed vole
population. Mortality rates increase with every pass of the tractor to
plow, plant, and harvest. Additions of herbicides and pesticides cause
additional harm to animals of the field.

In contrast, grazing ruminants such as cattle produce food and require
fewer entries into the fields with tractors and other equipment. In grazed
pastures, according to Davis, less wildlife is lost to the mower blades,
and more find stable habitat in untilled fields. And no-till agriculture also
helps stabilize soil and reduce run-off into streams.

"Pasture-forage production, with herbivores harvesting the forage,
would be the ultimate in 'no-till' agriculture," Davis said.

Davis proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production, which
would replace all poultry, pig and lamb production with beef and dairy
products. According to his calculations, such a model would result in
the deaths of 300 million fewer animals annually (counting both field
animals and cattle) than would a total vegan model. This difference,
according to Davis, is mainly the result of fewer field animals killed in
pasture and forage production than in the growing and harvest of grain,
beans, and corn.
[...]
http://osu.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...ar02/vegan.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯