On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:34:16 -0600, Glorfindel > wrote:

>Dutch wrote:
>
>> "Glorfindel" wrote:
>
>>>Dutch wrote:
>
>>>>I am content to be a friend to some animals and a predator
>>>>to others, without advocating cruelty.
>
>>>There is inevitably cruelty involved in eating meat produced by
>>>commercial means.
>
>> There is inevitably cruelty involved in eating any food produced by
>> commercial means.
>
>Indeed. So let's drop the claim you are not advocating cruelty
>and ARAs are. Whoosh -- there goes the whole long, ugly series
>of attacks on the ethics of ARAs for ignoring "collateral deaths".

No it does NOT! You people are contemptible for denying the
deaths you contribute to, just as anyone else would be. In fact
you're even more so because you your attempts to portray
yourselves as ethically superior.

>I find the treatment inflicted on animals in factory
>farms unacceptable, and, above all, UNJUST, morally indefensible,
>whether it qualifies as "cruelty" or not. In fact, I think in
>most cases it is not deliberate cruelty at all, but simply
>moral indifference, which is far more horrifying.

The "ar" opposition to considering the animals' lives, and
the fact that they often have lives of positive value, and most
especially the fact that all of them could and SHOULD, is more
contemptible than people who honestly just don't care one way
or the other. Just by calling yourselves "aras" you people insult
the animals themselves! And by opposing consideration of their
lives when they are of positive value you insult them that much
more!!!