View Single Post
  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.cooking-chat,uk.business.agriculture
Dutch Dutch is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default Desperate to support "ar"


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 22:20:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"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.
>>
>>> eat meat if you like it

>>
>>Right, just don't try to claim you did the animal a favour.

>
> As yet you still haven't been able to explain why their lives shouldn't
> be
> given as much or more consideration than their deaths.


Does "give their lives consideration" equal "believe that we are doing them
a favour by wanting to eat their flesh"?

>You've also proven
> to have no clue how the method of husbandry determines whether or not
> the life has positive or negative value to the animal.


How did I prove that? By refusing to think that we are doing animals a
favour by wanting to eat them? Explain.