On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 07:13:03 +0100, "Jim Webster" > wrote:

>
>"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Jim Webster" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> <dh@.> asked
>> >> > Why do you think we get more browny points for
>> >> > applying the Logic of the Talking Pig than the Logic
>> >> > of the Larder?
>> >>
>> >> "The Logic of the Talking Pig" instructs us to use animals as we see
>fit,
>> >> breed them, pen them up, kill them and make them into patties, if
>that's
>> >> what we want to do, but don't add insult to injury by proclaiming that
>by
>> >> doing so we are doing them a favor, as "The Logic of the Larder" says
>we
>> >> ought to do. That only diminishes us as human beings. This raises the
>> >> question once again, why do you find it necessary to spread this
>gospel?
>> >> What deep-rooted guilt you must feel.
>> >>
>> >
>> > but who actually cares one way or another whether he feels guilt or not?
>>
>> Like most things, it has relevance in this context.
>
>but it isn't worth wasting however many years bickering about.

You should be able to tell by now it's an aspect of the situation that
"aras" are desperate not to lose control of.

>Wander about the real world and no one cares

That's how they want it. The last thing "aras" would want--and they
make it quite obvious--would be for people to understand and appreciate
that some animals raised for food have lives of positive value. Even being
a farmer you may still not be able to appreciate it youself, or you may have
understood it your entire life and just don't think it's worth discussing, but
you should at least see some significance in the "ar" desperation to
prevent the idea from being widely appreciated.

>given the situation in the world with probable global warming, a nice war
>brewing in the middle east and society struggling to cope with energy
>distribution this discussion verges on escapism, especially when it has been
>going round and round for so long

It's an aspect of the situation that I believe everyone should take into
consideration, and "aras" are desperate that they do not.

>> > eat meat if you like it
>>
>> Right, just don't try to claim you did the animal a favour.
>
>now you are back on ideology again,
>The animal is there
>it is being looked after
>its life expectancy is higher than it would be in the wild because the wild
>is pretty rough

Dutch has pretended to understand such things in the past:

"Every consumer choice promotes animals to experience life."

"The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal."

"Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals, I think
that's obvious."

but after what were most likely some amusing email reprimands
from Goo, Dutch now appears to be trying to disagree with himself
about the significance of life for livestock.