View Single Post
  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.cooking-chat,uk.business.agriculture
dh@. dh@. is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Desperate to support "ar"

On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 10:41:38 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><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"?


No, by providing them with lives of positive value, though you appear
unable to understand how that could be.

>>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?


You referred to it as: "some mystical "value to the animals"", proving
that you don't understand.

>By refusing to think that we are doing animals a
>favour by wanting to eat them?


No.

>Explain.


You simply can't comprehend how life could have positive value
to the animals. If you think you can, then explain a situation or more
which you think would or does provide it, and then follow that by
explaining why we should *not* take it into consideration when thinking
about human influence on animals (don't include browny points).