On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 04:39:00 GMT, Gem > wrote:

>"The thinking [person] must oppose all cruel customs no matter
>how deeply rooted in tradition and surrounded by a halo.

· Because there are so many different situations
involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
cruelty or abuse at all.

Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are
confined to such a degree that they appear to have
terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both
groups of animals in the same way.
Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg
producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as
the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent
battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The
lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined
to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so
there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other
groups in the same way. ·

>When
>we have a choice, we must avoid bringing torment and injury into
>the life of another... " - Albert Schweitzer

· Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·

>"The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them,
>but to be indifferent to them, that's the essence of inhumanity."
>- George Bernard Shaw

"What am I denying that animal by refusing to give it this
"consideration" that I am failing to give?" - Dutch

"It is illogical and inadmissible to "consider" the lives
(existence) of livestock, or of any other creature" - Dutch

"WIldlife, like livestock, happen to be living creatures,
their lives per se are not relevant to this issue." - Dutch

""Considering what they get out of it" does not factor into
it." - Dutch

You forgot A. Whitney Brown's famous quote:
I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I am a vegetarian because I
hate plants.

Ed
Vegetarian

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 22:59:56 GMT, "Ed" > wrote:

>You forgot A. Whitney Brown's famous quote:
>I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I am a vegetarian because I
>hate plants.
>
>Ed
>Vegetarian

LOL!!! Now that is classic backwards "ar" thinking. A person might
eat animals because he likes them, but certainly shouldn't eat plants
that he hates for any reason if he has a choice. If you contribute to
something you encourage it.

dh@. wrote:
> · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive

and would neither know it, nor care...

> if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
> reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
> we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
> killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
> of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
> experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·

Say, how's that extra brother of yours, "Luke", that was never born? I
imagine he'll be impatiently waiting, forever, that's just awful.

You distort reality by looking at future existence as the starting point,
then coming back in time to the present and claiming that those
non-existent farm animals deserve whatever pathetic life may be coming
their way, and that they should thank you for it as they're being butchered.

And your parents were horrible people for treating Luke that way.

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 07:20:50 GMT, Gem > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
>
>and would neither know it, nor care...
>
>> if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
>> reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
>> we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
>> killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
>> of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
>> experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·
>
>Say, how's that extra brother of yours, "Luke", that was never born? I
>imagine he'll be impatiently waiting, forever, that's just awful.

I doubt you're being honest of course, but if you do, how many
potential brothers and sisters would you guess I have? How do
you figure it? Can you figure out all of their names? What do you
think they're waiting for?

>You distort reality by looking at future existence as the starting point,

It is the starting point. For example: You are saying that regardless
of how good their lives would be, and how humane their deaths, for
what you consider to be some ethical reason(s) animals raised for
food should not exist. That's a starting point just as it is to say that
they should exist, regardless of the reason(s). So that "argument"
or whatever holds just as true for you pro-vegans as it does for
pro-consumers, so it's not a distortion of reality as you wish that
it was.

>then coming back in time to the present and claiming that those
>non-existent farm animals deserve whatever pathetic life may be coming
>their way,

I don't believe that either. How could they possibly "deserve" to
have a bad life? How could they "deserve" to have a good one?
For a set of beliefs you want to complain about, you sure don't
have any idea what they are.

>and that they should thank you for it as they're being butchered.

Wow, how UNsurprising that you're wrong about that, since you've
been wrong about all the rest of it. You people have no idea what
I encourage, yet you make up stupid ideas, accuse me of believing
them, and then act like it bothers you that I do when I don't. You
veg*ns AND!!! your wannabees are a dishonest and extremely goofy
bunch, that is for *sure*!

>And your parents were horrible people for treating Luke that way.

What about your parents who did the same exact thing? Tell us
a little about that if you can...at least *try!*!!!