On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:43:49 -0800 (PST), Rupert
> wrote:

>(1) Morality requires that, whenever you have an opportunity to make
>an expected reduction in the extent to which the processes which
>produce the products you pay for cause pain and suffering to sentient
>beings, by a means which you have good reason to believe would involve
>exerting very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on
>yourself, and there is no other means incompatible with taking
>advantage of this opportunity by which you can accomplish any
>comparably morally important goal,

· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

>then you should take advantage of
>the opportunity.
>(2) For most people who live in agriculturally bountiful
>societies with many healthy, tasty plant foods easily available which
>can form the basis of a nutritionally adequate diet, boycotting almost
>all animal-derived food products is a step which makes an expected
>reduction in the extent to which the processes which produce the
>products they pay for causes pain and suffering to sentient beings,

· 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. ·

>by
>a means which they have good reason to believe would involve exerting
>very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on themselves,
>and there is no other means incompatible with taking advantage of this
>opportunity by which they could accomplish any comparably morally
>important goal.

· The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
that begins their particular existence. Those animals will
only live if people continue to raise them for food.

Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
for their existence. ·

>(3) So most such people are morally required to boycott almost all
>animal-derived food products.

Nah. Haven't I pointed that out to you before? Many livestock
animals experience decent lives of positive value already Rupert.
If you people put as much effort into encouraging people to CARE
ABOUT THEM as you do discouraging them from considering their
lives at all, there's no telling how much better it could get.
There is no good reason why animals should actually suffer
because of the ways in which they are raised, but the reason it
is that way is not giving a shit. You people are among the worst
as I continually point out, but you can't realize it. You can't
even begin to recognize the distinction between which livestock
have lives of positive value and which don't, because...you tell
me. How many reasons? Oh shit you can't answer so I'll toss out
some reasons:

1. you can't afford to acknowledge that ANY livestock have lives
of positive value.

2. it works against the misnomer.

3. you're so disturbed by the fact that humans eat meat that you
could never consider the animals or anything that works in favor
of eating meat.

If you want to add a few more, have at it.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:43:49 -0800 (PST), Rupert
> > wrote:
>
>>(1) Morality requires that, whenever you have an opportunity to make
>>an expected reduction in the extent to which the processes which
>>produce the products you pay for cause pain and suffering to sentient
>>beings, by a means which you have good reason to believe would involve
>>exerting very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on
>>yourself, and there is no other means incompatible with taking
>>advantage of this opportunity by which you can accomplish any
>>comparably morally important goal,
>
> · From

No boilerplate bullshit

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:20:11 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:20:50 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:43:49 -0800 (PST), Rupert
> wrote:
>>
>>>(1) Morality requires that, whenever you have an opportunity to make
>>>an expected reduction in the extent to which the processes which
>>>produce the products you pay for cause pain and suffering to sentient
>>>beings, by a means which you have good reason to believe would involve
>>>exerting very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on
>>>yourself, and there is no other means incompatible with taking
>>>advantage of this opportunity by which you can accomplish any
>>>comparably morally important goal,
>>
>> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>>steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>>get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>>over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>>get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>>machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>>draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
>>likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
>>derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
>>contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>>better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>>
>>>then you should take advantage of
>>>the opportunity.
>>>(2) For most people who live in agriculturally bountiful
>>>societies with many healthy, tasty plant foods easily available which
>>>can form the basis of a nutritionally adequate diet, boycotting almost
>>>all animal-derived food products is a step which makes an expected
>>>reduction in the extent to which the processes which produce the
>>>products they pay for causes pain and suffering to sentient beings,
>>
>> · 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. ·
>>
>>>by
>>>a means which they have good reason to believe would involve exerting
>>>very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on themselves,
>>>and there is no other means incompatible with taking advantage of this
>>>opportunity by which they could accomplish any comparably morally
>>>important goal.
>>
>> · The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
>>variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
>>habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
>>on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
>>depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
>>that begins their particular existence. Those animals will
>>only live if people continue to raise them for food.
>>
>> Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
>>animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
>>different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
>>animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
>>which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
>>for their existence. ·
>
>No boilerplate bullshit

The stock answers show that I've addressed and overcome you
people's complaints years ago. Unlike yourself I CAN provide the
examples. They were old shit to me within the first few months,
obviously since I made them stock answers. You people still can't
comprehend much less appreciate them, and almost certainly never
will in your entire lifetime.

>>>(3) So most such people are morally required to boycott almost all
>>>animal-derived food products.
>>
>> Nah. Haven't I pointed that out to you before? Many livestock
>>animals experience decent lives of positive value already Rupert.
>>If you people put as much effort into encouraging people to CARE
>>ABOUT THEM as you do discouraging them from considering their
>>lives at all, there's no telling how much better it could get.

I was ashamed that it took me as long as it did to realise
all that when I figured it out years ago, yet you misnomer
addicts will never be able to figure it out so long as you're
addicted to the misnomer. During your entire lifetime you will
never be able to comprehend much less appreciate things I was
ashamed took me so long to figure out when I was still a "kid".
You people just are not mentally capable of appreciating the big
picture, BECAUSE it works against the misnomer you've become
addicted to.

>>There is no good reason why animals should actually suffer
>>because of the ways in which they are raised, but the reason it
>>is that way is not giving a shit. You people are among the worst
>>as I continually point out, but you can't realize it. You can't
>>even begin to recognize the distinction between which livestock
>>have lives of positive value and which don't, because...you tell
>>me. How many reasons? Oh shit you can't answer so I'll toss out
>>some reasons:
>>
>>1. you can't afford to acknowledge that ANY livestock have lives
>>of positive value.
>>
>>2. it works against the misnomer.
>>
>>3. you're so disturbed by the fact that humans eat meat that you
>>could never consider the animals or anything that works in favor
>>of eating meat.
>>
>>If you want to add a few more, have at it.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:20:11 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>No boilerplate bullshit
>
> The stock answers show

They show that you stopped thinking years ago and have chosen to just keep
regurgitating the same crap. Most of the time it doesn't even apply.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:19:23 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:05:38 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:20:11 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 14:20:50 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:43:49 -0800 (PST), Rupert
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>(1) Morality requires that, whenever you have an opportunity to make
>>>>>an expected reduction in the extent to which the processes which
>>>>>produce the products you pay for cause pain and suffering to sentient
>>>>>beings, by a means which you have good reason to believe would involve
>>>>>exerting very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on
>>>>>yourself, and there is no other means incompatible with taking
>>>>>advantage of this opportunity by which you can accomplish any
>>>>>comparably morally important goal,
>>>>
>>>> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>>>>steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>>>>get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>>>>over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>>>>get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>>>>machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>>>>draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
>>>>likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
>>>>derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
>>>>contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>>>>better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>>>>
>>>>>then you should take advantage of
>>>>>the opportunity.
>>>>>(2) For most people who live in agriculturally bountiful
>>>>>societies with many healthy, tasty plant foods easily available which
>>>>>can form the basis of a nutritionally adequate diet, boycotting almost
>>>>>all animal-derived food products is a step which makes an expected
>>>>>reduction in the extent to which the processes which produce the
>>>>>products they pay for causes pain and suffering to sentient beings,
>>>>
>>>> · 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. ·
>>>>
>>>>>by
>>>>>a means which they have good reason to believe would involve exerting
>>>>>very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on themselves,
>>>>>and there is no other means incompatible with taking advantage of this
>>>>>opportunity by which they could accomplish any comparably morally
>>>>>important goal.
>>>>
>>>> · The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
>>>>variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
>>>>habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
>>>>on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
>>>>depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
>>>>that begins their particular existence. Those animals will
>>>>only live if people continue to raise them for food.
>>>>
>>>> Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
>>>>animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
>>>>different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
>>>>animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
>>>>which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
>>>>for their existence. ·
>>>
>>>No boilerplate bullshit
>>
>> The stock answers show that I've addressed and overcome you
>>people's complaints years ago. Unlike yourself I CAN provide the
>>examples. They were old shit to me within the first few months,
>>obviously since I made them stock answers. You people still can't
>>comprehend much less appreciate them, and almost certainly never
>>will in your entire lifetime.
>
>They show that you stopped thinking years ago

They show that I learned to appreciate and think about
aspects of the situation that misnomer addicts will never be able
to appreciate as long as they're addicted to the misnomer.

>and have chosen to just keep
>regurgitating the same crap.

The things I point out have been significant aspects of human
influence on animals for thousands of years. Did you think they
may have changed within the past decade for some reason? Could
you be even THAT clueless? Maybe you could be, since you're
bitching at me for continuing to point out things that will
always remain true.

>Most of the time it doesn't even apply.

Consideration for other beings' lives ALWAYS applies to
trying to determine whether or not life has positive value TO
THEM.

On Jan 11, 5:20*am, dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:43:49 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>
> > wrote:
> >(1) Morality requires that, whenever you have an opportunity to make
> >an expected reduction in the extent to which the processes which
> >produce the products you pay for cause pain and suffering to sentient
> >beings, by a means which you have good reason to believe would involve
> >exerting very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on
> >yourself, and there is no other means incompatible with taking
> >advantage of this opportunity by which you can accomplish any
> >comparably morally important goal,
>
> * · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>

Ok, where do you buy your grass-raised beef? Do you know the farm that
makes it?

> >then you should take advantage of
> >the opportunity.
> >(2) For most people who live in agriculturally bountiful
> >societies with many healthy, tasty plant foods easily available which
> >can form the basis of a nutritionally adequate diet, boycotting almost
> >all animal-derived food products is a step which makes an expected
> >reduction in the extent to which the processes which produce the
> >products they pay for causes pain and suffering to sentient beings,
>
> * · 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.
>

Animal Liberation NSW does a lot of investigations of farms and takes
a lot of calls from people reporting cruelty. I think I have a pretty
good feel for the kind of situations that usually come up.

> * * 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. ·
>

All right, you reject premise (2). Fine. More factual information is
needed.
> >by
> >a means which they have good reason to believe would involve exerting
> >very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on themselves,
> >and there is no other means incompatible with taking advantage of this
> >opportunity by which they could accomplish any comparably morally
> >important goal.
>
> * · The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
> variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
> habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
> on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
> depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
> that begins their particular existence. Those animals will
> only live if people continue to raise them for food.
>
> * * Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
> animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
> different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
> animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
> which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
> for their existence. ·
>
> >(3) So most such people are morally required to boycott almost all
> >animal-derived food products.
>
> * * Nah. Haven't I pointed that out to you before? Many livestock
> animals experience decent lives of positive value already Rupert.
> If you people put as much effort into encouraging people to CARE
> ABOUT THEM as you do discouraging them from considering their
> lives at all, there's no telling how much better it could get.
> There is no good reason why animals should actually suffer
> because of the ways in which they are raised, but the reason it
> is that way is not giving a shit. You people are among the worst
> as I continually point out, but you can't realize it. You can't
> even begin to recognize the distinction between which livestock
> have lives of positive value and which don't, because...you tell
> me. *How many reasons? Oh shit you can't answer so I'll toss out
> some reasons:
>
> 1. you can't afford to acknowledge that ANY livestock have lives
> of positive *value.
>
> 2. it works against the misnomer.
>
> 3. you're so disturbed by the fact that humans eat meat that you
> could never consider the animals or anything that works in favor
> of eating meat.
>
> If you want to add a few more, have at it.

<dh@.> wrote
> Consideration for other beings' lives ALWAYS applies to
> trying to determine whether or not life has positive value TO
> THEM.

I realize that sounds groovy to you but it has no meaning. The terms you use
within it are vague and undefined, and even if you defined them it would not
mean anything.

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:41:45 -0800 (PST), Rupert
> wrote:

>On Jan 11, 5:20*am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:43:49 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >(1) Morality requires that, whenever you have an opportunity to make
>> >an expected reduction in the extent to which the processes which
>> >produce the products you pay for cause pain and suffering to sentient
>> >beings, by a means which you have good reason to believe would involve
>> >exerting very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on
>> >yourself, and there is no other means incompatible with taking
>> >advantage of this opportunity by which you can accomplish any
>> >comparably morally important goal,
>>
>> * · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
>> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
>> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>>
>
>Ok, where do you buy your grass-raised beef? Do you know the farm that
>makes it?

I don't buy grass raised beef. I consider it to be the fault
of misnomer huggers that there isn't more interest in the lives
of livestock, making things like grass raised beef less popular
than veg*n items. You should be proud of that if you really
believe elimination is the most ethical possible solution, but
you probably want to deny it for some reason(s) neither of us may
truly understand.

>> >then you should take advantage of
>> >the opportunity.
>> >(2) For most people who live in agriculturally bountiful
>> >societies with many healthy, tasty plant foods easily available which
>> >can form the basis of a nutritionally adequate diet, boycotting almost
>> >all animal-derived food products is a step which makes an expected
>> >reduction in the extent to which the processes which produce the
>> >products they pay for causes pain and suffering to sentient beings,
>>
>> * · 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.
>>
>
>Animal Liberation NSW does a lot of investigations of farms and takes
>a lot of calls from people reporting cruelty. I think I have a pretty
>good feel for the kind of situations that usually come up.

Yet you can't appreciate when livestock have lives of
positive value. If you could, then you would be in favor of
decent AW instead of elimination. But you're not, so you can't.
You "can" to whatever extent you feel you are able to, but from
the position of most people and in reality, you can NOT.

Having established that you can not appreciate lives of
positive value for livestock, and considering that a significant
percentage of them appear to have lives of positive value, it
means that you are mentally unable to appreciate a very
significant aspect of the subject of humans raising animals for
food, and human influence on animals in general. Since the value
of life is associated with each and every individual animal, and
you appear unable to ever appreciate it, that means you literally
can not develop a "good feel" at all. You're missing far too much
to be able to form a realistic interpretation.

>> * * 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. ·
>>
>
>All right, you reject premise (2). Fine. More factual information is
>needed.

Really all that's needed is for you to learn to appreciate
lives of positive value for some livestock. You feel that it's
all wrong because you can't appreciate any of their lives
regardless of quality, meaning you can't even try to distinguish
between those which are of positive value and those which are
not. I provided links to lots of pics. Pick any individual
animals, and try to imagine as much as you can about what life is
like for them. Don't ruin it by injecting your own knowledge that
they (some of them) will be killed, because they have no idea
about that so it doesn't reduce the quality of their lives.
Here's a list of a number of them...at least try with a few:

http://www.agrabilityproject.org/ima...ge002_0015.jpg
http://www.karlschatz.com/yearoftheg...es/skyland.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2305/...b1a8025730.jpg
http://www.quailhunt.net/images/Quail%20Farm2.jpg
http://images.usatoday.com/news/_pho.../04/10/egg.jpg
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...s/duckpond.jpg
http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/Sheep.jpg
http://www.seldomseenfarm.co.uk/imag...se%20540-2.jpg
http://www.jamesranch.net/images/home_cow_red_cliff.jpg
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/.../mds_p7f11.JPG
http://www.drgobbler.com/images/turkeys.JPG
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/...0Q2LI/610x.jpg
http://www.cohabnet.org/images/img_issue3.2_lrg.jpg
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2008/01/389523.gif
http://www.colleenpatrick.com/blog/u...-13-782938.jpg
http://www.sprucedale.com/images/feedlot.jpg
http://www.saucierquail.com/farm4.jpg
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Assets/GetAsset...ItemID=3802569
http://www.banhdc.org/images/ch-hor-20060319.jpg
http://www.sheep101.info/Images/VAfeedlot.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...ss-fedCows.jpg
http://bentleycellars.com/db2/00200/...SheepRanch.JPG
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2...15_feedlot.jpg
http://www.agralarm.com/images/400_Texas_Broilers.jpg
http://www.circlekquailfarm.com/200%20x%20134.JPG
http://www.moonridgefarm.co.uk/USERI...re%20quail.jpg
http://www.therunningduckfarm.com/images/fieldtripw.jpg
http://www.agriproducts.com.au/verve...heep2_page.jpg
http://www.harveyquarterhorseranch.c.../allhorses.jpg
http://www.jphpk.gov.my/English/Asmawi%20M.%20Tahir.jpg
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Sheep.jpg
http://www.cps.gov.on.ca/french/ev10000/ev10703.jpg
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040212/wd6.jpg
http://www.mtexpress.com/2000/06-21-00/u21cov1.jpg
http://www.farm-energy.ca/IReF/uploa.../Lighting2.jpg
http://www.piercefarmwatch.org/image...lsurvivors.jpg
http://www.mountvernonfarm.net/images/cows1.jpg
http://www.biblicalresearchreports.c..._bare_dirt.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image..._bank416ap.jpg
http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/uima...MorrisBeef.jpg
http://www.alcockhorseranch.com/images/horse.gif
http://www.boerdurhamgoatfarm.com/im...oats-2-061.jpg
http://www.mountain-beef.com/images/sales.jpg
http://www.vivavegie.org/vvi/vva/vvi.../chickens.jpeg
http://www.kingbirdfarm.com/images/K...op%20house.jpg
http://www.prairiespringsranch.com/images/13.jpg
http://www.countryliving.com/cm/coun...DEN0805-de.jpg
http://www.specialtytravel.com/opera...ogos/18059.jpg

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:00:07 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:05:23 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:19:23 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:05:38 -0500, dh@. pointed out:
>>>
>>>> The stock answers show that I've addressed and overcome you
>>>>people's complaints years ago. Unlike yourself I CAN provide the
>>>>examples. They were old shit to me within the first few months,
>>>>obviously since I made them stock answers. You people still can't
>>>>comprehend much less appreciate them, and almost certainly never
>>>>will in your entire lifetime.
>>>
>>>They show that you stopped thinking years ago
>>
>> They show that I learned to appreciate and think about
>>aspects of the situation that misnomer addicts will never be able
>>to appreciate as long as they're addicted to the misnomer.
>>
>>>and have chosen to just keep
>>>regurgitating the same crap.
>>
>> The things I point out have been significant aspects of human
>>influence on animals for thousands of years. Did you think they
>>may have changed within the past decade for some reason? Could
>>you be even THAT clueless? Maybe you could be, since you're
>>bitching at me for continuing to point out things that will
>>always remain true.
>>
>>>Most of the time it doesn't even apply.
>>
>> Consideration for other beings' lives ALWAYS applies to
>>trying to determine whether or not life has positive value TO
>>THEM.
>
>I realize that sounds groovy to you but it has no meaning. The terms you use
>within it are vague and undefined, and even if you defined them it would not
>mean anything.

In total contrast to that, you used to claim that you
understood and could even to some extent appreciate some of the
meaning:

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

"I realize that you can see that quality of life is a factor
when assessing the morality related to food animals." - "Dutch"

"I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"

"we need to consider group 1, those animals who WILL
exist under present rules" - "Dutch"

"Because future animals who will inevitably be born are
as important as ones which exist now. " - Dutch

How do you think you disagree with yourself THIS time, do you
have any idea? When you can't explain how you think you do, are
we to believe that you have again UNlearned something that you at
one time used to be able to comprehend? If so, is it the result
of having had an extremely high fever, or a bad head injury, or
maybe a tumor? Have you had any of those happen, or been in a
coma, causing you to unlearn things you used to understand?

<dh@.> wrote

> I don't buy grass raised beef. I consider it to be the fault
> of misnomer huggers

YOU fail to support lives of positive value for livestock, then blame the
suffering you cause on someone else.

What a hypocrite.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:00:07 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>> Consideration for other beings' lives ALWAYS applies to
>>>trying to determine whether or not life has positive value TO
>>>THEM.
>>
>>I realize that sounds groovy to you but it has no meaning. The terms you
>>use
>>within it are vague and undefined, and even if you defined them it would
>>not
>>mean anything.
>
> In total contrast to that

In contrast to that you believe pure gibberish and support it by
equivocating and dodging.

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:02:42 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>
>> I don't buy grass raised beef. I consider it to be the fault
>> of misnomer huggers
>
>YOU fail to support lives of positive value for livestock,

I do whenever I feel like it, just like everybody else.

>then blame the
>suffering you cause on someone else.

LOL!!! What suffering are you trying to pretend I'm causing
by not going out of my way to find grass raised beef?

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:04:45 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 13:28:34 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:00:07 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:05:23 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:19:23 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:05:38 -0500, dh@. pointed out:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The stock answers show that I've addressed and overcome you
>>>>>>people's complaints years ago. Unlike yourself I CAN provide the
>>>>>>examples. They were old shit to me within the first few months,
>>>>>>obviously since I made them stock answers. You people still can't
>>>>>>comprehend much less appreciate them, and almost certainly never
>>>>>>will in your entire lifetime.
>>>>>
>>>>>They show that you stopped thinking years ago
>>>>
>>>> They show that I learned to appreciate and think about
>>>>aspects of the situation that misnomer addicts will never be able
>>>>to appreciate as long as they're addicted to the misnomer.
>>>>
>>>>>and have chosen to just keep
>>>>>regurgitating the same crap.
>>>>
>>>> The things I point out have been significant aspects of human
>>>>influence on animals for thousands of years. Did you think they
>>>>may have changed within the past decade for some reason? Could
>>>>you be even THAT clueless? Maybe you could be, since you're
>>>>bitching at me for continuing to point out things that will
>>>>always remain true.
>>>>
>>>>>Most of the time it doesn't even apply.
>>>>
>>>> Consideration for other beings' lives ALWAYS applies to
>>>>trying to determine whether or not life has positive value TO
>>>>THEM.
>>>
>>>I realize that sounds groovy to you but it has no meaning. The terms you use
>>>within it are vague and undefined, and even if you defined them it would not
>>>mean anything.
>>
>> In total contrast to that, you used to claim that you
>>understood and could even to some extent appreciate some of the
>>meaning:
>>
>>"The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>
>>"I realize that you can see that quality of life is a factor
>>when assessing the morality related to food animals." - "Dutch"
>>
>>"I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
>>animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"
>>
>>"we need to consider group 1, those animals who WILL
>>exist under present rules" - "Dutch"
>>
>>"Because future animals who will inevitably be born are
>>as important as ones which exist now. " - Dutch
>>
>> How do you think you disagree with yourself THIS time, do you
>>have any idea? When you can't explain how you think you do, are
>>we to believe that you have again UNlearned something that you at
>>one time used to be able to comprehend? If so, is it the result
>>of having had an extremely high fever, or a bad head injury, or
>>maybe a tumor? Have you had any of those happen, or been in a
>>coma, causing you to unlearn things you used to understand?
>
>In contrast to that you

LOL! No you poor fool. I'll try to make it clearer:

It appears that at one time you understood things you appear to
have unlearned, like many livestock having lives of positive
value. What caused you to unlearn the value of that aspect of
raising livestock, which in the past you appeared able to
understand?

<dh@.> wrote
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:02:42 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>>> I don't buy grass raised beef. I consider it to be the fault
>>> of misnomer huggers
>>
>>YOU fail to support lives of positive value for livestock,
>
> I do whenever I feel like it, just like everybody else.

Everybody else is not attacking other people for "not supporting lives of
positive value", you are, that makes you a hypocrite for the same reasons
vegans are hypocrites for attacking others for supporting the death and
suffering of animals.

You have allowed yourself to get sucked into their game of judging others
unjustly.

>>then blame the
>>suffering you cause on someone else.
>
> LOL!!! What suffering are you trying to pretend I'm causing
> by not going out of my way to find grass raised beef?

The suffering of cattle forced to live in dark smelly crowded barns, fed
antibiotics and corn, a foreign food to them, causing bloating and
intestinal distress instead of being allowed to live according to their
instincts, being outdoors grazing on grass.

It is the same principle as caged hens vs free range, except worse, because
even most free range hens never see any grass or daylight.

<dh@.> wrote

> It appears that at one time you understood things you appear to
> have unlearned, like many livestock having lives of positive
> value. What caused you to unlearn the value of that aspect of
> raising livestock, which in the past you appeared able to
> understand?

I can't say you ever understood in the slightest why The Logic of the Larder
is complete horsehit.

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:10:22 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:02:42 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>
>>>> I don't buy grass raised beef. I consider it to be the fault
>>>> of misnomer huggers
>>>
>>>YOU fail to support lives of positive value for livestock,
>>
>> I do whenever I feel like it, just like everybody else.
>
>Everybody else is not attacking other people for "not supporting lives of
>positive value", you are,

I'm pointing out that they don't, and it offends you that I
point it out. Now that you mention it I don't recall ever
attacking anyone for it, but in contrast to that it seems you get
offended by the fact every time I point it out. LOL...you get
offended every time I point out something they/you should be
PROUD of, not ashamed to the point that you take it as an
"attack". Something you should consider to be in your
favor--pointing out your/"their" objective--you consider to be a
personal "attack". That is likely to be because the objective
isn't necessarily the most ethically supreme choice, and you're
opposed to considering the lives of the animals we're discussing
BECAUSE doing so suggests that decent AW might be ethically
equivalent or superior TO THE ELIMINATION OBJECTIVE. DUH!!!!

>that makes you a hypocrite for the same reasons
>vegans are hypocrites for attacking others for supporting the death and
>suffering of animals.

Provide some example(s) of the "attacks" you're crying about.

>You have allowed yourself to get sucked into their game of judging others
>unjustly.

You've been judging me unjustly, and lying to and about me
extremely unjustly, for a decade because I encourage people to
consider the animals we're discussing.

>>>then blame the
>>>suffering you cause on someone else.
>>
>> LOL!!! What suffering are you trying to pretend I'm causing
>> by not going out of my way to find grass raised beef?
>
>The suffering of cattle forced to live in dark smelly crowded barns,

I'm not stupid or ignorant enough to believe beef cattle are
raised that way. Being familiar with you though, I do suspect
that you are lying blatantly AGAIN.

>fed
>antibiotics and corn, a foreign food to them, causing bloating and
>intestinal distress

Farmers are careful not to feed too much grain too fast
because cattle will founder themselves, which is more evidence of
your lie being a lie.

>instead of being allowed to live according to their
>instincts, being outdoors grazing on grass.
>
>It is the same principle as caged hens vs free range, except worse, because
>even most free range hens never see any grass or daylight.

They don't care either. As long as they're in an open house
they're usually in a position to have a decent life of positive
value imo. Mine is based on experience with things you're not
even aware of, even though I've explained them a number of times
in these ngs. Yours is based on misnomer propaganda.

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:21:06 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>
>> It appears that at one time you understood things you appear to
>> have unlearned, like many livestock having lives of positive
>> value. What caused you to unlearn the value of that aspect of
>> raising livestock, which in the past you appeared able to
>> understand?
>
>I can't say you ever understood in the slightest why The Logic of the Larder
>is complete horsehit.

None of you have been able to make consideration for the
lives of other beings into complete horsehit. You haven't been
able to make it into anything else either, much as you obviously
wish you could.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:10:22 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:02:42 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> I don't buy grass raised beef. I consider it to be the fault
>>>>> of misnomer huggers
>>>>
>>>>YOU fail to support lives of positive value for livestock,
>>>
>>> I do whenever I feel like it, just like everybody else.
>>
>>Everybody else is not attacking other people for "not supporting lives of
>>positive value", you are,
>
> I'm pointing out that they don't,

You're attacking them, just like ARAs attack you for not living up to THEIR
confused moral agenda.

You are just a reverse-ARA, and even more irrational and disohnest/

<dh@.> wrote

> None of you have been able to make consideration for the
> lives of other beings into complete horsehit.

You manage to do it, constantly

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:49:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:04:00 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:10:22 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:02:42 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't buy grass raised beef. I consider it to be the fault
>>>>>> of misnomer huggers
>>>>>
>>>>>YOU fail to support lives of positive value for livestock,
>>>>
>>>> I do whenever I feel like it, just like everybody else.
>>>
>>>Everybody else is not attacking other people for "not supporting lives of
>>>positive value", you are,
>>
>> I'm pointing out that they don't, and it offends you that I
>>point it out. Now that you mention it I don't recall ever
>>attacking anyone for it, but in contrast to that it seems you get
>>offended by the fact every time I point it out. LOL...you get
>>offended every time I point out something they/you should be
>>PROUD of, not ashamed to the point that you take it as an
>>"attack". Something you should consider to be in your
>>favor--pointing out your/"their" objective--you consider to be a
>>personal "attack".
>
>You're attacking them

Provide some examples of what you claim to be attacks.

>>That is likely to be because the objective
>>isn't necessarily the most ethically supreme choice, and you're
>>opposed to considering the lives of the animals we're discussing
>>BECAUSE doing so suggests that decent AW might be ethically
>>equivalent or superior TO THE ELIMINATION OBJECTIVE. DUH!!!!

<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:49:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>You're attacking them
>
> Provide some examples of what you claim to be attacks.

You're attacking them when you assert that they commit some moral
shortcoming by failing to support livestock "getting to experience life"
with their lifestyles, which is the core argument of your position. The
charge is infinitely stupider than their charge that we cause animals to
suffer by consuming animal products, which says a lot.

On Jan 14, 5:27*am, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:41:45 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Jan 11, 5:20*am, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:43:49 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >(1) Morality requires that, whenever you have an opportunity to make
> >> >an expected reduction in the extent to which the processes which
> >> >produce the products you pay for cause pain and suffering to sentient
> >> >beings, by a means which you have good reason to believe would involve
> >> >exerting very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on
> >> >yourself, and there is no other means incompatible with taking
> >> >advantage of this opportunity by which you can accomplish any
> >> >comparably morally important goal,
>
> >> * · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> >> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> >> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> >> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> >> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> >> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> >> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> >> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> >> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>
> >Ok, where do you buy your grass-raised beef? Do you know the farm that
> >makes it?
>
> * * I don't buy grass raised beef. I consider it to be the fault
> of misnomer huggers that there isn't more interest in the lives
> of livestock, making things like grass raised beef less popular
> than veg*n items.

You can't make such a comparison meaningfully.

"Grass raised beef" is a very specific category.
"Vegan food product" is an extremely broad category.

> You should be proud of that if you really
> believe elimination is the most ethical possible solution, but
> you probably want to deny it for some reason(s) neither of us may
> truly understand.
>

I hope to have made the reason clear above.

>
>
>
>
> >> >then you should take advantage of
> >> >the opportunity.
> >> >(2) For most people who live in agriculturally bountiful
> >> >societies with many healthy, tasty plant foods easily available which
> >> >can form the basis of a nutritionally adequate diet, boycotting almost
> >> >all animal-derived food products is a step which makes an expected
> >> >reduction in the extent to which the processes which produce the
> >> >products they pay for causes pain and suffering to sentient beings,
>
> >> * · 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.
>
> >Animal Liberation NSW does a lot of investigations of farms and takes
> >a lot of calls from people reporting cruelty. I think I have a pretty
> >good feel for the kind of situations that usually come up.
>
> * * Yet you can't appreciate when livestock have lives of
> positive value.

Why do you think that?

> If you could, then you would be in favor of
> decent AW instead of elimination.

What makes you think that, based on my experiences with how meat
production
works out in practice?

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:58:20 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:49:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>>You're attacking them
>>
>> Provide some examples of what you claim to be attacks.
>
>You're attacking them when you assert that they commit some moral
>shortcoming by failing to support livestock "getting to experience life"
>with their lifestyles,

I point out that they don't, because they don't. Since they
don't, there's nothing wrong with pointing out that they don't.
They should be proud that they don't, not consider it a "moral
shortcoming" for someone to point out exactly what they are
TRYING NOT TO DO.

>which is the core argument of your position. The
>charge is infinitely stupider

They don't do anything at all to help any livestock, and that
fact should certainly be kept foremost in mind whenever a person
considers becoming a veg*n rather something that will contribute
to decent lives for livestock.

>than their charge that we cause animals to
>suffer by consuming animal products

· 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. ·

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:01:57 -0800 (PST), Rupert
> wrote:

>On Jan 14, 5:27*am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:41:45 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Jan 11, 5:20*am, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:43:49 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >(1) Morality requires that, whenever you have an opportunity to make
>> >> >an expected reduction in the extent to which the processes which
>> >> >produce the products you pay for cause pain and suffering to sentient
>> >> >beings, by a means which you have good reason to believe would involve
>> >> >exerting very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on
>> >> >yourself, and there is no other means incompatible with taking
>> >> >advantage of this opportunity by which you can accomplish any
>> >> >comparably morally important goal,
>>
>> >> * · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>> >> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
>> >> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
>> >> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
>> >> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
>> >> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
>> >> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
>> >> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
>> >> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
>> >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>>
>> >Ok, where do you buy your grass-raised beef? Do you know the farm that
>> >makes it?
>>
>> * * I don't buy grass raised beef. I consider it to be the fault
>> of misnomer huggers that there isn't more interest in the lives
>> of livestock, making things like grass raised beef less popular
>> than veg*n items.
>
>You can't make such a comparison meaningfully.

For ten years you people have been trying to get me to
unlearn the significance of the lives of other creatures, so yes
I CAN say that meaningfully, and with excellent reason from a
decade of personal experience directly with the source, which is
people like yourself.

>"Grass raised beef" is a very specific category.
>"Vegan food product" is an extremely broad category.

It obviously never worked on me, but the veg*n
anti-consideration approach seems to have had considerable
influence and we both know it. This may be another part of the
equation that you very very very very very very very well may
want to deny or change, but I refuse to believe you're unaware of
it regardless of your denials or attempts to change reality
simply by insisting it's different than it is.

>> You should be proud of that if you really
>> believe elimination is the most ethical possible solution, but
>> you probably want to deny it for some reason(s) neither of us may
>> truly understand.
>
>I hope to have made the reason clear above.

No, that was nothing. You people are opposed to contributing
to lives of any quality and any value for any and all animals
raised for food, so you either want to try to change part of the
equation again and/or you want to deny it and leave it out. If
you really believe as you claim then you should be proud that
veg*nism works against providing lives of positive value for food
animals:
__________________________________________________ _______
.. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
welfare separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are
the practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds
with those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but
also the enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes
the achievement of animal rights.

.. . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.

.. . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of
animal welfare believe they can consistently support reformist
means to abolition ends. This view is mistaken, we believe, for
moral, practical, and conceptual reasons.

.. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to
retard the pace at which animal rights goals are achieved.
.. . .

"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
but instead you seem ashamed and like you want to deny it as I
predicted, and apparently for reasons neither of us may truly
understand as I also predicted. I don't know why you want to deny
a fact that you should be proud of. Do you?

>> >> >then you should take advantage of
>> >> >the opportunity.
>> >> >(2) For most people who live in agriculturally bountiful
>> >> >societies with many healthy, tasty plant foods easily available which
>> >> >can form the basis of a nutritionally adequate diet, boycotting almost
>> >> >all animal-derived food products is a step which makes an expected
>> >> >reduction in the extent to which the processes which produce the
>> >> >products they pay for causes pain and suffering to sentient beings,
>>
>> >> * · 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.
>>
>> >Animal Liberation NSW does a lot of investigations of farms and takes
>> >a lot of calls from people reporting cruelty. I think I have a pretty
>> >good feel for the kind of situations that usually come up.
>>
>> * * Yet you can't appreciate when livestock have lives of
>> positive value.
>
>Why do you think that?

Because I can so I know what it's like. You often--like now
for example--act as if you would like to be able to, but
apparently you won't allow yourself to do so even if you would.
If you would, your addiction to the misnomer is causing you to
fight against yourself. It's cognitive dissonance as I've pointed
out a number of times before.

>> If you could, then you would be in favor of
>> decent AW instead of elimination.
>
>What makes you think that, based on my experiences with how meat
>production works out in practice?

If you could then you would find some things ethically
acceptable and some not. For example I've heard of people
slaughtering cattle by hooking them behind the achilles tendon
and hoisting them up, then slitting their throats without ever
numbing them in any way. The idea supposedly is that the more
pain and terror the animal feels the better taste the meat will
have because of chemical reactions in the animals system brought
on by intense agony and fear. To me that's a horrible thing to do
and could be enough to give life a negative value even if up
until that point it had been of positive value. In contrast to
that the way most beef cattle are raised provides them with lives
of positive value regardless of whether or not they're finished
in feed lots, and when stunned and slaughtered properly their
death does not cancel out the value of their life imo. You keep
yourself from being in a position where you can make such
distinctions since you think it's all wrong regardless of quality
of life and/or death.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:58:20 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:49:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>>You're attacking them
>>>
>>> Provide some examples of what you claim to be attacks.
>>
>>You're attacking them when you assert that they commit some moral
>>shortcoming by failing to support livestock "getting to experience life"
>>with their lifestyles,
>
> I point out that they don't, because they don't. Since they
> don't, there's nothing wrong with pointing out that they don't.
> They should be proud that they don't, not consider it a "moral
> shortcoming" for someone to point out exactly what they are
> TRYING NOT TO DO.

If this "fact" had no moral relevance in your opinion there would be no
reason to mention it. You *do* think it constitutes a moral shortcoming,
that is unquestionable.

>>which is the core argument of your position. The
>>charge is infinitely stupider
>
> They don't do anything at all to help any livestock, and that
> fact should certainly be kept foremost in mind

That is clearly a lie. Vegans do a lot to help livestock, see PeTA's
pro-animal campaigns like the Burger King one. What do YOU do to help
cattle?

whenever a person
> considers becoming a veg*n rather something that will contribute
> to decent lives for livestock.

The very judgment you denied making above is implicit in that false
juxtaposition. You're transparent.

>>than their charge that we cause animals to
>>suffer by consuming animal products
>
> · Because

I don't do boilerplates and I don't read them either.

<dh@.> wrote
> You keep
> yourself from being in a position where you can make such
> distinctions since you think it's all wrong regardless of quality
> of life and/or death.

That's clearly false, a person can believe it is fundamentally immoral to
exploit animals in the way we do with livestock and still be able make the
distinction between treating livestock animals with care and abusing them.

Your position is a mess, it is full of irrational premises and lies.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:33:34 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:58:20 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:49:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>You're attacking them
>>>>
>>>> Provide some examples of what you claim to be attacks.
>>>
>>>You're attacking them when you assert that they commit some moral
>>>shortcoming by failing to support livestock "getting to experience life"
>>>with their lifestyles,
>>
>> I point out that they don't, because they don't. Since they
>> don't, there's nothing wrong with pointing out that they don't.
>> They should be proud that they don't, not consider it a "moral
>> shortcoming" for someone to point out exactly what they are
>> TRYING NOT TO DO.
>
>If this "fact" had no moral relevance in your opinion there would be no
>reason to mention it. You *do* think it constitutes a moral shortcoming,
>that is unquestionable.
>
>>>which is the core argument of your position. The
>>>charge is infinitely stupider
>>
>> They don't do anything at all to help any livestock, and that
>> fact should certainly be kept foremost in mind
>
>That is clearly a lie. Vegans do a lot

My mistake. Veg*nism does nothing to help livestock,
regardless of whether or not the veg*ns themselves manage to
contribute money to something that does help some livestock
somehow.

>to help livestock, see PeTA's
>pro-animal campaigns like the Burger King one. What do YOU do to help
>cattle?

What do you think PeTA did for them, and how and when do you
think they did it?

>> whenever a person
>> considers becoming a veg*n rather something that will contribute
>> to decent lives for livestock.
>
>The very judgment you denied making above is implicit in that false
>juxtaposition. You're transparent.

Obviously you hate me pointing that fact out, and since it's
an extremely significant one in regards to the supposed ethical
superiority of veg*nism it shows a form of dishonesty on your
part that you hate to see it pointed out. Your dishonest sort of
behavior brings a couple of questions you can't answer to mind:

1. Why don't you try countering what I point out with the
supposed ethical superiority of veg*nism?

2. Why are you upset to the point that you whine and bitch and
lie at me for pointing out some of the things veg*nism does NOT
do?

>>>than their charge that we cause animals to
>>>suffer by consuming animal products
>>
>> · 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. ·
>
>I don't do

That's a big part of why you really suck at this.

<dh@.> wrote

> My mistake. Veg*nism does nothing to help livestock,

Eating meat does nothing to help livestock.

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:11:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:54:35 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:33:34 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:58:20 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 17:49:08 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>You're attacking them
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Provide some examples of what you claim to be attacks.
>>>>>
>>>>>You're attacking them when you assert that they commit some moral
>>>>>shortcoming by failing to support livestock "getting to experience life"
>>>>>with their lifestyles,
>>>>
>>>> I point out that they don't, because they don't. Since they
>>>> don't, there's nothing wrong with pointing out that they don't.
>>>> They should be proud that they don't, not consider it a "moral
>>>> shortcoming" for someone to point out exactly what they are
>>>> TRYING NOT TO DO.
>>>
>>>If this "fact" had no moral relevance in your opinion there would be no
>>>reason to mention it. You *do* think it constitutes a moral shortcoming,
>>>that is unquestionable.
>>>
>>>>>which is the core argument of your position. The
>>>>>charge is infinitely stupider
>>>>
>>>> They don't do anything at all to help any livestock, and that
>>>> fact should certainly be kept foremost in mind
>>>
>>>That is clearly a lie. Vegans do a lot
>>
>> My mistake. Veg*nism does nothing to help livestock,
>>regardless of whether or not the veg*ns themselves manage to
>>contribute money to something that does help some livestock
>>somehow.
>
>Eating meat does nothing to help livestock.

It only seems that way to those of you who feel that none of
them have lives of positive value.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:11:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>Eating meat does nothing to help livestock.
>
> It only seems that way to those of you who feel that none of
> them have lives of positive value.

No, it *is* that way. Eating meat leads to livestock *existing*, it doesn't
help them.