Dave wrote:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>Dave wrote:
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>>dummy "pesco-vegan" davie blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>dummy "pesco-vegan" davie blabbered:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>dummy "pesco-vegan" davie blabbered:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker, lied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>dummy "pesco-vegan" davie blabbered:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker, lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>In fact when all those type things are considered, I'm not even
>>>>>>convinced that we could make it as vegans, and don't believe
>>>>>>"ar" would work AT ALL
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In the developed economy where animal and plant production
>>>>>are seen largely as seperate enterprises then with the exception
>>>>>of pasture raised or game animals, cultivating crops for human
>>>>>consumption is a far more efficient utilization of resources.
>>>>
>>>>FALSE. This is a nonsensical use of the word
>>>>"efficiency". The resources used to produce livestock
>>>>are efficiently used, in the sense that they go to
>>>>their highest valued use, and that sense is the *only*
>>>>relevant sense.
>>>
>>>In your opinion.
>>
>>No, davie ****wit - as a matter of correct and meaningful analysis.
>
>
> In your opinion.

No, davie ****wit - as a matter of correct and
meaningful analysis.

Dave wrote:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>dummy "pesco-vegan" davie blabbered:
>>
>>
>>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker, lied:
>>>
>>>
>>>>dummy "pesco-vegan" davie blabbered:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>dummy "pesco-vegan" davie blabbered:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker, lied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>dummy "pesco-vegan" davie blabbered:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>****wit David Harrison, ignorant lying cracker, lied:
>>
>>
>>>>In fact when all those type things are considered, I'm not even
>>>>convinced that we could make it as vegans, and don't believe
>>>>"ar" would work AT ALL
>>>
>>>
>>>In the developed economy where animal and plant production
>>>are seen largely as seperate enterprises then with the exception
>>>of pasture raised or game animals, cultivating crops for human
>>>consumption is a far more efficient utilization of resources.
>>
>>FALSE. This is a nonsensical use of the word
>>"efficiency". The resources used to produce livestock
>>are efficiently used, in the sense that they go to
>>their highest valued use, and that sense is the *only*
>>relevant sense.
>
>
> In your opinion.

No, davie ****wit - as a matter of correct and
meaningful analysis.

On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 11 Feb 2006 16:55:19 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 10 Feb 2006 18:00:03 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> On 7 Feb 2006 19:41:04 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 6 Feb 2006 09:59:35 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:29:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> You proved once again that you had no idea what you were
>> >> >> >> >> >> pasting when you pasted the fact that life can have positive
>> >> >> >> >> >> value. You had no clue then, you have no clue now, so most
>> >> >> >> >> >> likely in another couple of years you still will have no clue. It's
>> >> >> >> >> >> one of the many pitifully amusing things about all this.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
>> >> >> >> >> >experience life when you consume animal products.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I can feel satisfaction in contributing to lives of postive value,
>> >> >> >> >> even for animals raised to be eaten.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Why? By consuming animal products you are not enabling animals
>> >> >> >> >to experience life,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I am contributing to them however insignificantly.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Animals will continue to experience life whether or not you consume
>> >> >> >animal products. Livestock farming effects which particular animals
>> >> >> >do
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm still and always left to wonder which type wildlife you/"aras" want
>> >> >> to promote life for instead of livestock, and why. Strange you can't
>> >> >> understand that until you do it, you haven't even suggested an alternative.
>> >> >
>> >> >An alternative would be looking after ourselves on the smallest
>> >> >amount of land possible/practical and leaving the rest wild on the
>> >> >assumption that nature is better at providing decent lives for animals
>> >> >than humans with commercial motives.
>> >>
>> >> I'm in favor of wildlife AND livestock.
>> >
>> >I'm in favour of more individual animals, not more groups of animals.
>> >
>> >> I also feel that many livestock
>> >> have better, longer lives than many wildlife.
>> >
>> >Yes but the vice versa of that statement is also true.
>>
>> · 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.
>
>Not really.

Yes really.

>We didn't create them. We just shaped habitats
>and controlled breeding (which can happen in nature without
>our interference)
>
>> 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.
>
>To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
>other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life

How do they?

>is transparantly selective and self serving.
>
>> >> You can't tell me why it
>> >> would be better to have a couple dozen quail hatch in an area, for
>> >> example, and be killed by foxes, hawks, etc within a month of when
>> >> they're born, than for 20 thousand chickens to live there for six weeks
>> >> without ever having to be afraid or hungry.
>> >
>> >If you're referring to the standard method of raising broiler chickens
>> >I would raise the following concerns. Do they have enough room?
>> >is the litter clean enough to prevent them getting hock burns?
>>
>> I believe so:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/3ss2m
>
>What stage of their life cycle are the chickens in that picture?
>They do look a bit crowded for me but I don't know how much
>space chickens need to be happy. As for hock burns, the
>evidence is still there when you buy a whole chicken from
>a supermarket. Not all chickens but an unacceptably high
>percentage.

It's not enough to make their lives of negative value imo.

>> I've been in several broiler houses, and always thought the houses
>> were a great place for chickens.
>
>AW organisations take the opposite PoV

You would have to show me more than one example before
I would believe you, and "ar" organisations do *not!* count.
Note that as yet you haven't even shown one example.

[...]
>The point is that LoL if applied consistently requires you to
>minimize land use so that more animals can experience life.

Not to me it doesn't.

>> >Where they are part of a mixed enterprise with the animals
>> >fertilizing the soil and supplementing their feed with forage,
>> >waste products and sometimes even weeds and pests then
>> >I'm not so confident.
>>
>> They always are. It's synergistic. Things supporting other
>> things. The more supported things replace the less supported
>> things. Which is why I always stress that we need to consider
>> what we want to support, as much or more than what we don't.
>>
>> >> >(b) Growing crops requires us to appropriate less land than grazing
>> >> >cattle.
>> >>
>> >> You read the differences. You don't care about wildlife, which
>> >> is what you just proved. You people ALWAYS prove it.
>> >
>> >No. I didn't. I pointed out relevant factors that you appear to have
>> >neglected when promoting the meat.
>>
>> I probably didn't neglect them. I probably considered them and
>> concluded that I'm okay with the hundreds of thousands of chickens
>> over a few quail, Dutch's mice frogs and groundhogs, and whatever
>> else you want to throw in.
>
>Take all the land used to grow crops for chickens minus the land
>that would be needed to grow crops directly for humans if we weren't
>eating those chickens. Now I want to throw in all the animals that
>could have lived on that land if it had been left wild. Ok?

Now throw in why anyone should support them instead of the
chickens.

>> And if you do throw them in I'll consider them,
>> but most likely still be okay with the chickens.
>
>Okay but don't claim you are doing it so that animals
>can experience life.

I don't. I also don't disregard the fact that they do, even though
"aras" desperately want us to.

>> >> Every
>> >> single time people prove that they care more about promoting
>> >> veganism than they do about human influence on animals,
>> >> when we get to the examples where veggies cause more deaths
>> >> than livestock farming.
>> >
>> >(A) I thought we agreed that the amount of animal life is more
>> >important than the number of animals we kill.
>>
>> In that regard we *should* agree that life always means death,
>> every single time, for every animal and human!
>
>Truism. What is its significance?

Animal life is equal to that of animals killed.

>> >(B) I am still not convinced that any animal lives are saved
>> >in grazing livestock instead of cultivating crops.
>>
>> See "The Least Harm Principle..." which I'll paste to the bottom
>> of this message.
>
>Davis made a serious error in that article, which has subsequently
>been corrected by Matheny. Davis compared the animal deaths
>per ha. He should have compared animal deaths per calorie.
>Matheny used Davis' guesses to calculate that growing crops
>causes fewer animal deaths per calorie.

Let's see it.

[...]
>> >that equates to considering the animals that could live in the
>> >future,
>> >but only those animals that you want to live because they are useful
>> >to you.
>>
>> It's true for any animals you contribute to--good or bad--like I've
>> been trying to get you to understand. It's truly amazing that anyone
>> can't understand that simple fact. I don't really believe you can't
>> understand it either, so I'm left to wonder why you pretend not to.
>
>At this stage all the farm animals who might exist in the future
>are potential animals who will exist if we continue as we are.
>All the wild animals who might be able to exist on the same
>land are also potential animals who might exist if we change
>our behaviour. Compared with a vegan you are not promoting
>life for extra animals, merely for different animals.

I've been asking why we should change, and no one can give a
decent reason. For example: you have never given a decent reason
why we should change, and you probably never will.

>You are right
>that you have not managed to make me understand why you
>deserve moral credit for this and you probably never will.

And you/"aras" have never explained why you deserve moral
credit for promoting wildlife instead of livestock, and by this time
it's almost certain that you never will.

<dh@.> wrote
> On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>>We didn't create them. We just shaped habitats
>>and controlled breeding (which can happen in nature without
>>our interference)
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
>>other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
>
> How do they?

You can't have it both ways ****wit. If you want credit because livestock
are "experiencing whatever life they get" then you must take responsibility
for whatever wildlife they displaced. It's a no-win argument for you.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:57:32 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>>>>We didn't create them. We just shaped habitats
>>>>and controlled breeding (which can happen in nature without
>>>>our interference)
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
>>>>other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
>>>
>>> How do they?
>>
>>You can't have it both ways ****wit. If you want credit because livestock
>>are "experiencing whatever life they get" then you must take
>>responsibility
>>for whatever wildlife they displaced. It's a no-win argument for you.
>
> Which wildlife were cheated because of livestock who were raised
> for food?

You can't have it both ways ****wit. If wildlife that is never born due to
lack of resources is not "cheated out of the life it would have had" then
livestock that is never born isn't either. Whichever way you look at it you
lose.

Dutch wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:57:32 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >><dh@.> wrote
> >>> On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>>We didn't create them. We just shaped habitats
> >>>>and controlled breeding (which can happen in nature without
> >>>>our interference)
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>>To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
> >>>>other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
> >>>
> >>> How do they?
> >>
> >>You can't have it both ways ****wit. If you want credit because livestock
> >>are "experiencing whatever life they get" then you must take
> >>responsibility
> >>for whatever wildlife they displaced. It's a no-win argument for you.
> >
> > Which wildlife were cheated because of livestock who were raised
> > for food?
>
> You can't have it both ways ****wit. If wildlife that is never born due to
> lack of resources is not "cheated out of the life it would have had" then
> livestock that is never born isn't either. Whichever way you look at it you
> lose.

Thanks for summing my argument up so succintly. My basic problem
with David Harrison's position is precisely that; he appears to think
he can have it both ways.

Dave wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
> > ****wit David Harrison, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
> > > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:57:32 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> > >
> > >>****wit David Harrison, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
> > >>> On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>>We didn't create them. We just shaped habitats
> > >>>>and controlled breeding (which can happen in nature without
> > >>>>our interference)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> 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.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
> > >>>>other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
> > >>>
> > >>> How do they?
> > >>
> > >>You can't have it both ways ****wit. If you want credit because livestock
> > >>are "experiencing whatever life they get" then you must take
> > >>responsibility
> > >>for whatever wildlife they displaced. It's a no-win argument for you.
> > >
> > > Which wildlife were cheated because of livestock who were raised
> > > for food?
> >
> > You can't have it both ways ****wit. If wildlife that is never born due to
> > lack of resources is not "cheated out of the life it would have had" then
> > livestock that is never born isn't either. Whichever way you look at it you
> > lose.
>
> Thanks for summing my argument up so succintly. My basic problem
> with David Harrison's position is precisely that; he appears to think
> he can have it both ways.

That's exactly right. In fact, ****wit can't have it *ANY* way: none
of his crap makes any sense at all.

dh@. wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 11 Feb 2006 16:55:19 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 10 Feb 2006 18:00:03 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> On 7 Feb 2006 19:41:04 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On 6 Feb 2006 09:59:35 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:29:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> You proved once again that you had no idea what you were
> >> >> >> >> >> >> pasting when you pasted the fact that life can have positive
> >> >> >> >> >> >> value. You had no clue then, you have no clue now, so most
> >> >> >> >> >> >> likely in another couple of years you still will have no clue. It's
> >> >> >> >> >> >> one of the many pitifully amusing things about all this.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> >You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> >> >> >> >> >> >experience life when you consume animal products.
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> I can feel satisfaction in contributing to lives of postive value,
> >> >> >> >> >> even for animals raised to be eaten.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Why? By consuming animal products you are not enabling animals
> >> >> >> >> >to experience life,
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I am contributing to them however insignificantly.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Animals will continue to experience life whether or not you consume
> >> >> >> >animal products. Livestock farming effects which particular animals
> >> >> >> >do
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'm still and always left to wonder which type wildlife you/"aras" want
> >> >> >> to promote life for instead of livestock, and why. Strange you can't
> >> >> >> understand that until you do it, you haven't even suggested an alternative.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >An alternative would be looking after ourselves on the smallest
> >> >> >amount of land possible/practical and leaving the rest wild on the
> >> >> >assumption that nature is better at providing decent lives for animals
> >> >> >than humans with commercial motives.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm in favor of wildlife AND livestock.
> >> >
> >> >I'm in favour of more individual animals, not more groups of animals.
> >> >
> >> >> I also feel that many livestock
> >> >> have better, longer lives than many wildlife.
> >> >
> >> >Yes but the vice versa of that statement is also true.
> >>
> >> · 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.
> >
> >Not really.
>
> Yes really.
>
> >We didn't create them. We just shaped habitats
> >and controlled breeding (which can happen in nature without
> >our interference)
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
> >other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
>
> How do they?

In exactly the same way farmed animals would get "cheated"
out of their lives if no one raised them for food.
>
> >is transparantly selective and self serving.
> >
> >> >> You can't tell me why it
> >> >> would be better to have a couple dozen quail hatch in an area, for
> >> >> example, and be killed by foxes, hawks, etc within a month of when
> >> >> they're born, than for 20 thousand chickens to live there for six weeks
> >> >> without ever having to be afraid or hungry.
> >> >
> >> >If you're referring to the standard method of raising broiler chickens
> >> >I would raise the following concerns. Do they have enough room?
> >> >is the litter clean enough to prevent them getting hock burns?
> >>
> >> I believe so:
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/3ss2m
> >
> >What stage of their life cycle are the chickens in that picture?
> >They do look a bit crowded for me but I don't know how much
> >space chickens need to be happy. As for hock burns, the
> >evidence is still there when you buy a whole chicken from
> >a supermarket. Not all chickens but an unacceptably high
> >percentage.
>
> It's not enough to make their lives of negative value imo.

Enough to make there lives of less positive value than the wild
animals they compete for resources with....
>
> >> I've been in several broiler houses, and always thought the houses
> >> were a great place for chickens.
> >
> >AW organisations take the opposite PoV
>
> You would have to show me more than one example before
> I would believe you, and "ar" organisations do *not!* count.
> Note that as yet you haven't even shown one example.

"We want to improve the lives of these chickens, the majority
of which are reared to standards that the RSPCA believes are
unacceptably low."
http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Sate...ckens/chickens

Please be aware when buying chicken - either at the supermarket,
the butchers or at fast foodoutlets - that the bird will probably
have
gone through great misery during its life. Yes, it's cheap- but its

knock-down price has been bought at the cost of great suffering
to the chicken.
http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/...cheap_2002.pdf

There's more than one. How many AR organisations can you
find that agree with you?

> >The point is that LoL if applied consistently requires you to
> >minimize land use so that more animals can experience life.
>
> Not to me it doesn't.
>
> >> >Where they are part of a mixed enterprise with the animals
> >> >fertilizing the soil and supplementing their feed with forage,
> >> >waste products and sometimes even weeds and pests then
> >> >I'm not so confident.
> >>
> >> They always are. It's synergistic. Things supporting other
> >> things. The more supported things replace the less supported
> >> things. Which is why I always stress that we need to consider
> >> what we want to support, as much or more than what we don't.
> >>
> >> >> >(b) Growing crops requires us to appropriate less land than grazing
> >> >> >cattle.
> >> >>
> >> >> You read the differences. You don't care about wildlife, which
> >> >> is what you just proved. You people ALWAYS prove it.
> >> >
> >> >No. I didn't. I pointed out relevant factors that you appear to have
> >> >neglected when promoting the meat.
> >>
> >> I probably didn't neglect them. I probably considered them and
> >> concluded that I'm okay with the hundreds of thousands of chickens
> >> over a few quail, Dutch's mice frogs and groundhogs, and whatever
> >> else you want to throw in.
> >
> >Take all the land used to grow crops for chickens minus the land
> >that would be needed to grow crops directly for humans if we weren't
> >eating those chickens. Now I want to throw in all the animals that
> >could have lived on that land if it had been left wild. Ok?
>
> Now throw in why anyone should support them instead of the
> chickens.

They don't need our support. They just need us to stop taking.
>
> >> And if you do throw them in I'll consider them,
> >> but most likely still be okay with the chickens.
> >
> >Okay but don't claim you are doing it so that animals
> >can experience life.
>
> I don't. I also don't disregard the fact that they do, even though
> "aras" desperately want us to.
>
> >> >> Every
> >> >> single time people prove that they care more about promoting
> >> >> veganism than they do about human influence on animals,
> >> >> when we get to the examples where veggies cause more deaths
> >> >> than livestock farming.
> >> >
> >> >(A) I thought we agreed that the amount of animal life is more
> >> >important than the number of animals we kill.
> >>
> >> In that regard we *should* agree that life always means death,
> >> every single time, for every animal and human!
> >
> >Truism. What is its significance?
>
> Animal life is equal to that of animals killed.

Eh?
>
> >> >(B) I am still not convinced that any animal lives are saved
> >> >in grazing livestock instead of cultivating crops.
> >>
> >> See "The Least Harm Principle..." which I'll paste to the bottom
> >> of this message.
> >
> >Davis made a serious error in that article, which has subsequently
> >been corrected by Matheny. Davis compared the animal deaths
> >per ha. He should have compared animal deaths per calorie.
> >Matheny used Davis' guesses to calculate that growing crops
> >causes fewer animal deaths per calorie.
>
> Let's see it.

http://homepage.uab.edu/nnobis/papers/least-harm.pdf

> [...]
> >> >that equates to considering the animals that could live in the
> >> >future,
> >> >but only those animals that you want to live because they are useful
> >> >to you.
> >>
> >> It's true for any animals you contribute to--good or bad--like I've
> >> been trying to get you to understand. It's truly amazing that anyone
> >> can't understand that simple fact. I don't really believe you can't
> >> understand it either, so I'm left to wonder why you pretend not to.
> >
> >At this stage all the farm animals who might exist in the future
> >are potential animals who will exist if we continue as we are.
> >All the wild animals who might be able to exist on the same
> >land are also potential animals who might exist if we change
> >our behaviour. Compared with a vegan you are not promoting
> >life for extra animals, merely for different animals.
>
> I've been asking why we should change, and no one can give a
> decent reason. For example: you have never given a decent reason
> why we should change, and you probably never will.

Right. I won't give you a reason why we shouldn't raise livestock
because that isn't my position.

> >You are right
> >that you have not managed to make me understand why you
> >deserve moral credit for this and you probably never will.
>
> And you/"aras" have never explained why you deserve moral
> credit for promoting wildlife instead of livestock, and by this time
> it's almost certain that you never will.

Aras have explained why they feel that way. You should try reading
Pearl, Derek and Glorfindel sometime.

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, the Goober proclaimed:

>Whenever you're arguing with anyone on this stuff, There I'll Be, to
>**** you over but good.

One might wonder why a Goober would boast of such an apparently
asinine conviction. And Goo himself explains it's because of his maniacal
belief that:

"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other words - if humans
kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense. There's
your answer." - Goo

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:33:10 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, the Goober proclaimed:
>
>>Whenever you're arguing with anyone on this stuff, There I'll Be, to
>>**** you over but good.
>
> One might wonder why a Goober would boast of such an apparently
>asinine conviction. And Goo himself explains it's because of his maniacal
>belief that:
>
>"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other words - if humans
>kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense. There's
>your answer." - Goo

Once again you're caught trying the same misquote that
you've already been caught trying before, yet still you try
using it again and again despite being caught so many times
before. How stupid you are, Harrison. Here's his quote in
full and a link to it, showing that you are indeed a very bad
liar, Harrison.

[start - Harrison]
> I've asked you "ARAs"

No.

> more than once for whom or what it would
> be better not to raise animals to eat.

They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
- unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they
don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
your answer.]
Jon, as Wilson Woods 15 May 2004 http://tinyurl.com/4pfdu

Note that your quote which you attribute to Jon is missing
the essential reference to whom Jon was referring: "they",
vegans. "They answer", vegans, not Jon. Why do keep
using the same lies and misquotes when they're so easily
unearthed and repeatedly shoved down your lying throat,
Harrison?

On 17 Feb 2006 15:33:22 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:

>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
>> >other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
>>
>> How do they?
>
>In exactly the same way farmed animals would get "cheated"
>out of their lives if no one raised them for food.

The fact which you refer to as an argument, is that animals
who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of life.
That's in reply to the "ar" insistence that

>> >is transparantly selective and self serving.
>> >
>> >> >> You can't tell me why it
>> >> >> would be better to have a couple dozen quail hatch in an area, for
>> >> >> example, and be killed by foxes, hawks, etc within a month of when
>> >> >> they're born, than for 20 thousand chickens to live there for six weeks
>> >> >> without ever having to be afraid or hungry.
>> >> >
>> >> >If you're referring to the standard method of raising broiler chickens
>> >> >I would raise the following concerns. Do they have enough room?
>> >> >is the litter clean enough to prevent them getting hock burns?
>> >>
>> >> I believe so:
>> >>
>> >> http://tinyurl.com/3ss2m
>> >
>> >What stage of their life cycle are the chickens in that picture?
>> >They do look a bit crowded for me but I don't know how much
>> >space chickens need to be happy. As for hock burns, the
>> >evidence is still there when you buy a whole chicken from
>> >a supermarket. Not all chickens but an unacceptably high
>> >percentage.
>>
>> It's not enough to make their lives of negative value imo.
>
>Enough to make there lives of less positive value than the wild
>animals they compete for resources with....

Not to me. You need to explain which wildlife would have it enough
better that we should replace broilers with them. As yet you haven't
come close, and by now we know you never will. The chickens remain
the only option to even consider.

>> >> I've been in several broiler houses, and always thought the houses
>> >> were a great place for chickens.
>> >
>> >AW organisations take the opposite PoV
>>
>> You would have to show me more than one example before
>> I would believe you, and "ar" organisations do *not!* count.
>> Note that as yet you haven't even shown one example.
>
>"We want to improve the lives of these chickens, the majority
>of which are reared to standards that the RSPCA believes are
>unacceptably low."
>http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Sate...ckens/chickens
>
>Please be aware when buying chicken - either at the supermarket,
>the butchers or at fast foodoutlets - that the bird will probably
>have
>gone through great misery during its life. Yes, it's cheap- but its
>
>knock-down price has been bought at the cost of great suffering
>to the chicken.
>http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/...cheap_2002.pdf
>
>There's more than one.

Good enough then. I'm glad to see people promoting better lives. It's a nice contrast
to only seeing people who want to see them eliminated.

>How many AR organisations can you
>find that agree with you?

About what?

>> >The point is that LoL if applied consistently requires you to
>> >minimize land use so that more animals can experience life.
>>
>> Not to me it doesn't.
>>
>> >> >Where they are part of a mixed enterprise with the animals
>> >> >fertilizing the soil and supplementing their feed with forage,
>> >> >waste products and sometimes even weeds and pests then
>> >> >I'm not so confident.
>> >>
>> >> They always are. It's synergistic. Things supporting other
>> >> things. The more supported things replace the less supported
>> >> things. Which is why I always stress that we need to consider
>> >> what we want to support, as much or more than what we don't.
>> >>
>> >> >> >(b) Growing crops requires us to appropriate less land than grazing
>> >> >> >cattle.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You read the differences. You don't care about wildlife, which
>> >> >> is what you just proved. You people ALWAYS prove it.
>> >> >
>> >> >No. I didn't. I pointed out relevant factors that you appear to have
>> >> >neglected when promoting the meat.
>> >>
>> >> I probably didn't neglect them. I probably considered them and
>> >> concluded that I'm okay with the hundreds of thousands of chickens
>> >> over a few quail, Dutch's mice frogs and groundhogs, and whatever
>> >> else you want to throw in.
>> >
>> >Take all the land used to grow crops for chickens minus the land
>> >that would be needed to grow crops directly for humans if we weren't
>> >eating those chickens. Now I want to throw in all the animals that
>> >could have lived on that land if it had been left wild. Ok?
>>
>> Now throw in why anyone should support them instead of the
>> chickens.
>
>They don't need our support. They just need us to stop taking.

They would need for us to stop using particular land to grow food
for ourselves and for chickens, so the wild animals could live there
instead. The problem remains that you can provide no good reason
for people to make that change.

>> >> And if you do throw them in I'll consider them,
>> >> but most likely still be okay with the chickens.
>> >
>> >Okay but don't claim you are doing it so that animals
>> >can experience life.
>>
>> I don't. I also don't disregard the fact that they do, even though
>> "aras" desperately want us to.
>>
>> >> >> Every
>> >> >> single time people prove that they care more about promoting
>> >> >> veganism than they do about human influence on animals,
>> >> >> when we get to the examples where veggies cause more deaths
>> >> >> than livestock farming.
>> >> >
>> >> >(A) I thought we agreed that the amount of animal life is more
>> >> >important than the number of animals we kill.
>> >>
>> >> In that regard we *should* agree that life always means death,
>> >> every single time, for every animal and human!
>> >
>> >Truism. What is its significance?
>>
>> Animal life is equal to that of animals killed.
>
>Eh?

The only way to eliminate death, is to eliminate life.

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Goo's boy wrote:

>
><dh@. wondered:

>> Which wildlife were cheated because of livestock who were raised
>> for food?
>
>You can't have it both ways ****wit.

It's the same both ways Doutche.

>If wildlife that is never born due to
>lack of resources is not "cheated out of the life it would have had" then
>livestock that is never born isn't either. Whichever way you look at it you
>lose.

As always it depends on whether or not you can understand that the
method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or
negative value to the animal. You don't. I do. So I can understand things
that you and the Goober--and all other "aras" as well--will *necessarily*
NEVER be aware of, much less be able to consider in any detail. That's
how that works.

On 17 Feb 2006 12:53:47 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>Dutch wrote:
>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:57:32 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >
>> >><dh@.> wrote
>> >>> On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>>We didn't create them. We just shaped habitats
>> >>>>and controlled breeding (which can happen in nature without
>> >>>>our interference)
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> 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.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
>> >>>>other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
>> >>>
>> >>> How do they?
>> >>
>> >>You can't have it both ways ****wit. If you want credit because livestock
>> >>are "experiencing whatever life they get" then you must take
>> >>responsibility
>> >>for whatever wildlife they displaced. It's a no-win argument for you.
>> >
>> > Which wildlife were cheated because of livestock who were raised
>> > for food?
>>
>> You can't have it both ways ****wit. If wildlife that is never born due to
>> lack of resources is not "cheated out of the life it would have had" then
>> livestock that is never born isn't either. Whichever way you look at it you
>> lose.
>
>Thanks for summing my argument up so succintly. My basic problem
>with David Harrison's position is precisely that; he appears to think
>he can have it both ways.

We can have livestock and wildlife both. We do have livestock and
wildlife both. It's amusing you can't appreciate that. It's pathetic that
you/"aras" promote doing away with livestock and making all livestock
related property into wildlife sanctuaries, when you can't even explain
why we should do it instead of promoting decent AW for livestock.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Goo's boy wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@. wondered:
>
>>> Which wildlife were cheated because of livestock who were raised
>>> for food?
>>
>>You can't have it both ways ****wit.
>
> It's the same both ways

Right, you lose.

>>If wildlife that is never born due to
>>lack of resources is not "cheated out of the life it would have had" then
>>livestock that is never born isn't either. Whichever way you look at it
>>you
>>lose.
>
> As always it depends on whether or not you can understand that the
> method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or
> negative value to the animal. You don't. I do. So I can understand things
> that you and the Goober--and all other "aras" as well--will *necessarily*
> NEVER be aware of, much less be able to consider in any detail. That's
> how that works.

Right, you remain a loser, living in his own private little fantasy world.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On 17 Feb 2006 12:53:47 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
>>
>>Dutch wrote:
>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:57:32 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >><dh@.> wrote
>>> >>> On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>>We didn't create them. We just shaped habitats
>>> >>>>and controlled breeding (which can happen in nature without
>>> >>>>our interference)
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> 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.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
>>> >>>>other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
>>> >>>
>>> >>> How do they?
>>> >>
>>> >>You can't have it both ways ****wit. If you want credit because
>>> >>livestock
>>> >>are "experiencing whatever life they get" then you must take
>>> >>responsibility
>>> >>for whatever wildlife they displaced. It's a no-win argument for you.
>>> >
>>> > Which wildlife were cheated because of livestock who were raised
>>> > for food?
>>>
>>> You can't have it both ways ****wit. If wildlife that is never born due
>>> to
>>> lack of resources is not "cheated out of the life it would have had"
>>> then
>>> livestock that is never born isn't either. Whichever way you look at it
>>> you
>>> lose.
>>
>>Thanks for summing my argument up so succintly. My basic problem
>>with David Harrison's position is precisely that; he appears to think
>>he can have it both ways.
>
> We can have livestock and wildlife both.

Not an equal number of both, because there is a finite amount of resources.
Every livestock animal consumes resources taken from the wild that would
have enabled an equal or greater number of wild animals to subsist. It's a
zero-sum game, at best.

>We do have livestock and
> wildlife both. It's amusing you can't appreciate that. It's pathetic that
> you/"aras" promote doing away with livestock and making all livestock
> related property into wildlife sanctuaries, when you can't even explain
> why we should do it instead of promoting decent AW for livestock.

You have degenerated into *total* irrelevance by your refusal to address
this flaw in your argument.

dh@. wrote:
> On 17 Feb 2006 15:33:22 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
>
> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> >To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
> >> >other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
> >>
> >> How do they?
> >
> >In exactly the same way farmed animals would get "cheated"
> >out of their lives if no one raised them for food.
>
> The fact which you refer to as an argument, is that animals
> who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of life.
> That's in reply to the "ar" insistence tha

That argument is no more valid than the argument that wild
animals whose habitat is destroyed in order to feed farm animals
are cheated out of the whole of their lives. You are still trying to
have it both ways.

> >> >is transparantly selective and self serving.
> >> >
> >> >> >> You can't tell me why it
> >> >> >> would be better to have a couple dozen quail hatch in an area, for
> >> >> >> example, and be killed by foxes, hawks, etc within a month of when
> >> >> >> they're born, than for 20 thousand chickens to live there for six weeks
> >> >> >> without ever having to be afraid or hungry.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >If you're referring to the standard method of raising broiler chickens
> >> >> >I would raise the following concerns. Do they have enough room?
> >> >> >is the litter clean enough to prevent them getting hock burns?
> >> >>
> >> >> I believe so:
> >> >>
> >> >> http://tinyurl.com/3ss2m
> >> >
> >> >What stage of their life cycle are the chickens in that picture?
> >> >They do look a bit crowded for me but I don't know how much
> >> >space chickens need to be happy. As for hock burns, the
> >> >evidence is still there when you buy a whole chicken from
> >> >a supermarket. Not all chickens but an unacceptably high
> >> >percentage.
> >>
> >> It's not enough to make their lives of negative value imo.
> >
> >Enough to make there lives of less positive value than the wild
> >animals they compete for resources with....
>
> Not to me. You need to explain which wildlife would have it enough
> better that we should replace broilers with them. As yet you haven't
> come close, and by now we know you never will. The chickens remain
> the only option to even consider.
>
> >> >> I've been in several broiler houses, and always thought the houses
> >> >> were a great place for chickens.
> >> >
> >> >AW organisations take the opposite PoV
> >>
> >> You would have to show me more than one example before
> >> I would believe you, and "ar" organisations do *not!* count.
> >> Note that as yet you haven't even shown one example.
> >
> >"We want to improve the lives of these chickens, the majority
> >of which are reared to standards that the RSPCA believes are
> >unacceptably low."
> >http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Sate...ckens/chickens
> >
> >Please be aware when buying chicken - either at the supermarket,
> >the butchers or at fast foodoutlets - that the bird will probably
> >have
> >gone through great misery during its life. Yes, it's cheap- but its
> >
> >knock-down price has been bought at the cost of great suffering
> >to the chicken.
> >http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/...cheap_2002.pdf
> >
> >There's more than one.
>
> Good enough then. I'm glad to see people promoting better lives. It's a nice contrast
> to only seeing people who want to see them eliminated.

They are not promoting life for the chickens as such.
AR says animals should not be raised for food period.
standard AW says animals that are raised for food should be treated
kindly.
You say animals should be raised for food specifically so that they
can be treated kindly.

> >How many AR organisations can you
> >find that agree with you?
>
> About what?

About whether welfare standards applied to indoor raised broiler
chickens are acceptable.
>
> >> >The point is that LoL if applied consistently requires you to
> >> >minimize land use so that more animals can experience life.
> >>
> >> Not to me it doesn't.
> >>
> >> >> >Where they are part of a mixed enterprise with the animals
> >> >> >fertilizing the soil and supplementing their feed with forage,
> >> >> >waste products and sometimes even weeds and pests then
> >> >> >I'm not so confident.
> >> >>
> >> >> They always are. It's synergistic. Things supporting other
> >> >> things. The more supported things replace the less supported
> >> >> things. Which is why I always stress that we need to consider
> >> >> what we want to support, as much or more than what we don't.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >(b) Growing crops requires us to appropriate less land than grazing
> >> >> >> >cattle.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You read the differences. You don't care about wildlife, which
> >> >> >> is what you just proved. You people ALWAYS prove it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >No. I didn't. I pointed out relevant factors that you appear to have
> >> >> >neglected when promoting the meat.
> >> >>
> >> >> I probably didn't neglect them. I probably considered them and
> >> >> concluded that I'm okay with the hundreds of thousands of chickens
> >> >> over a few quail, Dutch's mice frogs and groundhogs, and whatever
> >> >> else you want to throw in.
> >> >
> >> >Take all the land used to grow crops for chickens minus the land
> >> >that would be needed to grow crops directly for humans if we weren't
> >> >eating those chickens. Now I want to throw in all the animals that
> >> >could have lived on that land if it had been left wild. Ok?
> >>
> >> Now throw in why anyone should support them instead of the
> >> chickens.
> >
> >They don't need our support. They just need us to stop taking.
>
> They would need for us to stop using particular land to grow food
> for ourselves and for chickens, so the wild animals could live there
> instead. The problem remains that you can provide no good reason
> for people to make that change.

I am not trying to present a reason why people should make that change.
I am merely trying to explain to you that you can't have this both
ways.
>
> >> >> And if you do throw them in I'll consider them,
> >> >> but most likely still be okay with the chickens.
> >> >
> >> >Okay but don't claim you are doing it so that animals
> >> >can experience life.
> >>
> >> I don't. I also don't disregard the fact that they do, even though
> >> "aras" desperately want us to.
> >>
> >> >> >> Every
> >> >> >> single time people prove that they care more about promoting
> >> >> >> veganism than they do about human influence on animals,
> >> >> >> when we get to the examples where veggies cause more deaths
> >> >> >> than livestock farming.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >(A) I thought we agreed that the amount of animal life is more
> >> >> >important than the number of animals we kill.
> >> >>
> >> >> In that regard we *should* agree that life always means death,
> >> >> every single time, for every animal and human!
> >> >
> >> >Truism. What is its significance?
> >>
> >> Animal life is equal to that of animals killed.
> >
> >Eh?
>
> The only way to eliminate death, is to eliminate life.

Yes but if you kill an animal you still cause it to die
prematurely.

Dave wrote:

> dh@. wrote:
>
>>On 17 Feb 2006 15:33:22 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
>>>>>other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
>>>>
>>>> How do they?
>>>
>>>In exactly the same way farmed animals would get "cheated"
>>>out of their lives if no one raised them for food.
>>
>> The fact which you refer to as an argument, is that animals
>>who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of life.
>>That's in reply to the "ar" insistence tha
>
>
> That argument is no more valid than the argument that wild
> animals whose habitat is destroyed in order to feed farm animals
> are cheated out of the whole of their lives. You are still trying to
> have it both ways.
>
>
>>>>>is transparantly selective and self serving.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You can't tell me why it
>>>>>>>>would be better to have a couple dozen quail hatch in an area, for
>>>>>>>>example, and be killed by foxes, hawks, etc within a month of when
>>>>>>>>they're born, than for 20 thousand chickens to live there for six weeks
>>>>>>>>without ever having to be afraid or hungry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you're referring to the standard method of raising broiler chickens
>>>>>>>I would raise the following concerns. Do they have enough room?
>>>>>>>is the litter clean enough to prevent them getting hock burns?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe so:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/3ss2m
>>>>>
>>>>>What stage of their life cycle are the chickens in that picture?
>>>>>They do look a bit crowded for me but I don't know how much
>>>>>space chickens need to be happy. As for hock burns, the
>>>>>evidence is still there when you buy a whole chicken from
>>>>>a supermarket. Not all chickens but an unacceptably high
>>>>>percentage.
>>>>
>>>> It's not enough to make their lives of negative value imo.
>>>
>>>Enough to make there lives of less positive value than the wild
>>>animals they compete for resources with....
>>
>> Not to me. You need to explain which wildlife would have it enough
>>better that we should replace broilers with them. As yet you haven't
>>come close, and by now we know you never will. The chickens remain
>>the only option to even consider.
>>
>>
>>>>>>I've been in several broiler houses, and always thought the houses
>>>>>>were a great place for chickens.
>>>>>
>>>>>AW organisations take the opposite PoV
>>>>
>>>> You would have to show me more than one example before
>>>>I would believe you, and "ar" organisations do *not!* count.
>>>>Note that as yet you haven't even shown one example.
>>>
>>>"We want to improve the lives of these chickens, the majority
>>>of which are reared to standards that the RSPCA believes are
>>>unacceptably low."
>>>http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Sate...ckens/chickens
>>>
>>>Please be aware when buying chicken - either at the supermarket,
>>>the butchers or at fast foodoutlets - that the bird will probably
>>>have
>>>gone through great misery during its life. Yes, it's cheap- but its
>>>
>>>knock-down price has been bought at the cost of great suffering
>>>to the chicken.
>>>http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/...cheap_2002.pdf
>>>
>>>There's more than one.
>>
>> Good enough then. I'm glad to see people promoting better lives. It's a nice contrast
>>to only seeing people who want to see them eliminated.
>
>
> They are not promoting life for the chickens as such.

Exactly. No sensible person thinks the chickens "get
something" out of the "deal". There is no moral
content to "providing life" for any livestock.


> AR says animals should not be raised for food period.
> standard AW says animals that are raised for food should be treated
> kindly.
> You say animals should be raised for food specifically so that they
> can be treated kindly.

Not quite. It's just the best he *can* say. His
concern for animal welfare is a complete and utter
sham; a fraud. He doesn't CARE how livestock animals
are treated; he just wants to ensure they continue to
exist, and his excuse for that is that they "get
something" out of some "deal". He's full of shit.


>>>How many AR organisations can you
>>>find that agree with you?
>>
>> About what?
>
>
> About whether welfare standards applied to indoor raised broiler
> chickens are acceptable.
>
>>>>>The point is that LoL if applied consistently requires you to
>>>>>minimize land use so that more animals can experience life.
>>>>
>>>> Not to me it doesn't.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Where they are part of a mixed enterprise with the animals
>>>>>>>fertilizing the soil and supplementing their feed with forage,
>>>>>>>waste products and sometimes even weeds and pests then
>>>>>>>I'm not so confident.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They always are. It's synergistic. Things supporting other
>>>>>>things. The more supported things replace the less supported
>>>>>>things. Which is why I always stress that we need to consider
>>>>>>what we want to support, as much or more than what we don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>(b) Growing crops requires us to appropriate less land than grazing
>>>>>>>>>cattle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You read the differences. You don't care about wildlife, which
>>>>>>>>is what you just proved. You people ALWAYS prove it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No. I didn't. I pointed out relevant factors that you appear to have
>>>>>>>neglected when promoting the meat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I probably didn't neglect them. I probably considered them and
>>>>>>concluded that I'm okay with the hundreds of thousands of chickens
>>>>>>over a few quail, Dutch's mice frogs and groundhogs, and whatever
>>>>>>else you want to throw in.
>>>>>
>>>>>Take all the land used to grow crops for chickens minus the land
>>>>>that would be needed to grow crops directly for humans if we weren't
>>>>>eating those chickens. Now I want to throw in all the animals that
>>>>>could have lived on that land if it had been left wild. Ok?
>>>>
>>>> Now throw in why anyone should support them instead of the
>>>>chickens.
>>>
>>>They don't need our support. They just need us to stop taking.
>>
>> They would need for us to stop using particular land to grow food
>>for ourselves and for chickens, so the wild animals could live there
>>instead. The problem remains that you can provide no good reason
>>for people to make that change.
>
>
> I am not trying to present a reason why people should make that change.

Don't worry - he'll accuse you of it all the same.

In ****wit's unreality, if you don't accept his fatuous
and ****witted rationale for opposing "ar" (he doesn't
really oppose "ar" at all), then *you* become an "ara".


> I am merely trying to explain to you that you can't have this both
> ways.
>
>>>>>>And if you do throw them in I'll consider them,
>>>>>>but most likely still be okay with the chickens.
>>>>>
>>>>>Okay but don't claim you are doing it so that animals
>>>>>can experience life.
>>>>
>>>> I don't. I also don't disregard the fact that they do, even though
>>>>"aras" desperately want us to.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every
>>>>>>>>single time people prove that they care more about promoting
>>>>>>>>veganism than they do about human influence on animals,
>>>>>>>>when we get to the examples where veggies cause more deaths
>>>>>>>>than livestock farming.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>(A) I thought we agreed that the amount of animal life is more
>>>>>>>important than the number of animals we kill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In that regard we *should* agree that life always means death,
>>>>>>every single time, for every animal and human!
>>>>>
>>>>>Truism. What is its significance?
>>>>
>>>> Animal life is equal to that of animals killed.
>>>
>>>Eh?
>>
>> The only way to eliminate death, is to eliminate life.
>
>
> Yes but if you kill an animal you still cause it to die
> prematurely.

Earlier than it would die if you bred it, then chose
*not* to kill it.

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:09:58 +0000, Derek > wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:33:10 -0500, dh@. asked:
>
> > more than once for whom or what it would
> > be better not to raise animals to eat.
>
> They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense
> - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they
> don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's
> your answer.]
> Jon, as Wilson Woods 15 May 2004 http://tinyurl.com/4pfdu
>
>Note that your quote which you attribute to Jon is missing

LOL!!!

>the essential reference

LOL! The lie! You are actually crying because I removed
the Goober's LIE! So funny!

>to whom Jon was referring: "they",

Hilarious!!! Are you really stupid enough to think you can
get me to believe the Goober answered the question with
something that he disagrees with?

>vegans. "They answer", vegans, not Jon. Why do keep
>using the same lies and misquotes when they're so easily
>unearthed and repeatedly shoved down your lying throat,
>Harrison?

Goo agrees with "them"/"you".

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 15:00:19 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On 17 Feb 2006 12:53:47 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:57:32 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >><dh@.> wrote
>>>> >>> On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>>We didn't create them. We just shaped habitats
>>>> >>>>and controlled breeding (which can happen in nature without
>>>> >>>>our interference)
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> 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.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
>>>> >>>>other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> How do they?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>You can't have it both ways ****wit. If you want credit because
>>>> >>livestock
>>>> >>are "experiencing whatever life they get" then you must take
>>>> >>responsibility
>>>> >>for whatever wildlife they displaced. It's a no-win argument for you.
>>>> >
>>>> > Which wildlife were cheated because of livestock who were raised
>>>> > for food?
>>>>
>>>> You can't have it both ways ****wit. If wildlife that is never born due
>>>> to
>>>> lack of resources is not "cheated out of the life it would have had"
>>>> then
>>>> livestock that is never born isn't either. Whichever way you look at it
>>>> you
>>>> lose.
>>>
>>>Thanks for summing my argument up so succintly. My basic problem
>>>with David Harrison's position is precisely that; he appears to think
>>>he can have it both ways.
>>
>> We can have livestock and wildlife both.
>
>Not an equal number of both, because there is a finite amount of resources.
>Every livestock animal consumes resources taken from the wild that would
>have enabled an equal or greater number of wild animals to subsist. It's a
>zero-sum game, at best.

It's a zero for you/"aras" unless you can explain why we should eliminate
livestock in order to benefit which wildlife.

> >We do have livestock and
>> wildlife both. It's amusing you can't appreciate that. It's pathetic that
>> you/"aras" promote doing away with livestock and making all livestock
>> related property into wildlife sanctuaries, when you can't even explain
>> why we should do it instead of promoting decent AW for livestock.
>
>You have degenerated into *total* irrelevance by your refusal to address
>this flaw in your argument.

There can't be a flaw in facts, which is what I point out and you hate.

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 14:55:57 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Goo's boy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@. wondered:
>>
>>>> Which wildlife were cheated because of livestock who were raised
>>>> for food?
>>>
>>>You can't have it both ways ****wit.
>>
>> It's the same both ways
>
>Right, you lose.
>
>>>If wildlife that is never born due to
>>>lack of resources is not "cheated out of the life it would have had" then
>>>livestock that is never born isn't either. Whichever way you look at it
>>>you
>>>lose.
>>
>> As always it depends on whether or not you can understand that the
>> method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or
>> negative value to the animal. You don't. I do. So I can understand things
>> that you and the Goober--and all other "aras" as well--will *necessarily*
>> NEVER be aware of, much less be able to consider in any detail. That's
>> how that works.
>
>Right

Yup.

On 18 Feb 2006 16:55:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 17 Feb 2006 15:33:22 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>>
>> >> >> 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.
>> >> >
>> >> >To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
>> >> >other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
>> >>
>> >> How do they?
>> >
>> >In exactly the same way farmed animals would get "cheated"
>> >out of their lives if no one raised them for food.
>>
>> The fact which you refer to as an argument, is that animals
>> who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of life.
>> That's in reply to the "ar" insistence tha
>
>That argument is no more valid than the argument that wild
>animals whose habitat is destroyed in order to feed farm animals
>are cheated out of the whole of their lives.

Animals who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of
life. You're having an amazingly hard time understanding that
easy fact.

>You are still trying to
>have it both ways.

Unless you/"aras" get your way, we will still have wildlife and livestock.

[...]
>You say animals should be raised for food specifically so that they
>can be treated kindly.

No. I ask you why we should STOP raising them so your potential
wildlife can live instead, but none of you can explain why.

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 Goo stupidly repeated:


>He doesn't CARE how

It's not that I don't care how Goober, it's that you have no idea how
there is a distinction between the following definitions of life:
__________________________________________________ _______
1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, Goo continues to wonder:

>dh asked the inept Goober:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 Goob cried out:

>>>If you destroy wildlife habitat in order to raise
>>>livestock, ****wit, the "getting to experience life"
>>>for the livestock comes at the *EXPENSE* of the similar
>>>opportunity for the wildlife. More livestock = less
>>>wildlife.
>>
>> The question is Goober: So what?
>
>*THE* question is

Obviously more than any of you are capable of answering,
you poor inept Goober.

>****wit: Why are you obsessed with
>livestock, in particular, "getting to experience life"?

Because of people who insist things like:

"logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the
first place is the ethically superior choice." - Goo

> Why do you think livestock outrank wildlife?

We have better control over being able to provide them with
decent lives. That's one reason Goo, but that one is more than
you can understand, much less care about.

>You have no answer, ****wit, because you have no reasoning.

I did answer Goober, you pathetic inept liar. Now we will again
see proof of you're inability to answer mine:

Why should we care if more livestock = less wildlife?

dh@. wrote:
> On 18 Feb 2006 16:55:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 17 Feb 2006 15:33:22 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >> 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.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
> >> >> >other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
> >> >>
> >> >> How do they?
> >> >
> >> >In exactly the same way farmed animals would get "cheated"
> >> >out of their lives if no one raised them for food.
> >>
> >> The fact which you refer to as an argument, is that animals
> >> who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of life.
> >> That's in reply to the "ar" insistence tha
> >
> >That argument is no more valid than the argument that wild
> >animals whose habitat is destroyed in order to feed farm animals
> >are cheated out of the whole of their lives.
>
> Animals who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of
> life.

When an animal is killed it is "cheated" out of the remainder of
its life. You can not use the fact that it only lives because it
is being raised for food as mitigation without (a) being logically
inconsistent or (b) accepting that the wild animals who could
live if natural habitats weren't being used to support these livestock
*are* being cheated out of life.

> You're having an amazingly hard time understanding that
> easy fact.

Not at all. What I am having a hard time doing is convincing
you that you can not have your proverbial cake and eat it.

> >You are still trying to
> >have it both ways.
>
> Unless you/"aras" get your way, we will still have wildlife and livestock.
>
> [...]
> >You say animals should be raised for food specifically so that they
> >can be treated kindly.
>
> No. I ask you why we should STOP raising them so your potential
> wildlife can live instead, but none of you can explain why.

Dave wrote:
> ****wit David Harrison, lying pig-****ing cracker in Buford, GA, lied:
>
>>On 18 Feb 2006 16:55:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>****wit David Harrison, lying pig-****ing cracker in Buford, GA, lied:
>>>
>>>>On 17 Feb 2006 15:33:22 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>****wit David Harrison, lying pig-****ing cracker in Buford, GA, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>****wit David Harrison, lying pig-****ing cracker in Buford, GA, lied:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
>>>>>>>other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do they?
>>>>>
>>>>>In exactly the same way farmed animals would get "cheated"
>>>>>out of their lives if no one raised them for food.
>>>>
>>>> The fact which you refer to as an argument, is that animals
>>>>who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of life.
>>>>That's in reply to the "ar" insistence tha
>>>
>>>That argument is no more valid than the argument that wild
>>>animals whose habitat is destroyed in order to feed farm animals
>>>are cheated out of the whole of their lives.
>>
>> Animals who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of
>>life.
>
>
> When an animal is killed it is "cheated" out of the remainder of
> its life. You can not use the fact that it only lives because it
> is being raised for food as mitigation without (a) being logically
> inconsistent or (b) accepting that the wild animals who could
> live if natural habitats weren't being used to support these livestock
> *are* being cheated out of life.

****wit only care about "animals getting to experience
life" if it leads to "****wit getting to experience
eating animals".


>>You're having an amazingly hard time understanding that
>>easy fact.
>
>
> Not at all. What I am having a hard time doing is convincing
> you that you can not have your proverbial cake and eat it.
>
>
>>>You are still trying to
>>>have it both ways.
>>
>> Unless you/"aras" get your way, we will still have wildlife and livestock.
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>You say animals should be raised for food specifically so that they
>>>can be treated kindly.
>>
>> No.

YES, ****wit. That's exactly what you're saying. You
consider "decent 'aw'" to be an end in itself; in
effect, you believe we "need" livestock JUST so we can
practice "decent 'aw'". You're an idiot, ****wit - a
pig-****ing idiot.

S. Maizlich wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > ****wit David Harrison, lying pig-****ing cracker in Buford, GA, lied:
> >
> >>On 18 Feb 2006 16:55:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>****wit David Harrison, lying pig-****ing cracker in Buford, GA, lied:
> >>>
> >>>>On 17 Feb 2006 15:33:22 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>****wit David Harrison, lying pig-****ing cracker in Buford, GA, lied:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>****wit David Harrison, lying pig-****ing cracker in Buford, GA, lied:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>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.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
> >>>>>>>other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How do they?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>In exactly the same way farmed animals would get "cheated"
> >>>>>out of their lives if no one raised them for food.
> >>>>
> >>>> The fact which you refer to as an argument, is that animals
> >>>>who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of life.
> >>>>That's in reply to the "ar" insistence tha
> >>>
> >>>That argument is no more valid than the argument that wild
> >>>animals whose habitat is destroyed in order to feed farm animals
> >>>are cheated out of the whole of their lives.
> >>
> >> Animals who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of
> >>life.
> >
> >
> > When an animal is killed it is "cheated" out of the remainder of
> > its life. You can not use the fact that it only lives because it
> > is being raised for food as mitigation without (a) being logically
> > inconsistent or (b) accepting that the wild animals who could
> > live if natural habitats weren't being used to support these livestock
> > *are* being cheated out of life.
>
> ****wit only care about "animals getting to experience
> life" if it leads to "****wit getting to experience
> eating animals".

I don't presume to know what David Harrison thinks but
that's what it looks like to me.
>
>
> >>You're having an amazingly hard time understanding that
> >>easy fact.
> >
> >
> > Not at all. What I am having a hard time doing is convincing
> > you that you can not have your proverbial cake and eat it.
> >
> >
> >>>You are still trying to
> >>>have it both ways.
> >>
> >> Unless you/"aras" get your way, we will still have wildlife and livestock.
> >>
> >>[...]
> >>
> >>>You say animals should be raised for food specifically so that they
> >>>can be treated kindly.
> >>
> >> No.
>
> YES, ****wit. That's exactly what you're saying. You
> consider "decent 'aw'" to be an end in itself; in
> effect, you believe we "need" livestock JUST so we can
> practice "decent 'aw'". You're an idiot, ****wit - a
> pig-****ing idiot.

On 20 Feb 2006 17:20:34 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 18 Feb 2006 16:55:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 17 Feb 2006 15:33:22 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> >> 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.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
>> >> >> >other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How do they?
>> >> >
>> >> >In exactly the same way farmed animals would get "cheated"
>> >> >out of their lives if no one raised them for food.
>> >>
>> >> The fact which you refer to as an argument, is that animals
>> >> who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of life.
>> >> That's in reply to the "ar" insistence tha
>> >
>> >That argument is no more valid than the argument that wild
>> >animals whose habitat is destroyed in order to feed farm animals
>> >are cheated out of the whole of their lives.
>>
>> Animals who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of
>> life.
>
>When an animal is killed it is "cheated" out of the remainder of
>its life. You can not use the fact that it only lives because it
>is being raised for food as mitigation without (a) being logically
>inconsistent or (b) accepting that the wild animals who could
>live if natural habitats weren't being used to support these livestock
>*are* being cheated out of life.

LOL! Of course I can't agree with either of your claims, since
both are absurd and of course can never be supported.

>> You're having an amazingly hard time understanding that
>> easy fact.
>
>Not at all. What I am having a hard time doing is convincing
>you that you can not have your proverbial cake and eat it.

We can and sure do provide animals with life and eat them
too...well....those of us who eat meat contribute to them while
you/"aras" only contribute to the deaths of wildlife.

>> [...]
>>I ask you why we should STOP raising them so your potential
>> wildlife can live instead, but none of you can explain why.

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Goo lied:

>On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:51:23 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, Goo continues to wonder:

>>"logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the
>>first place is the ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>
>>> Why do you think livestock outrank wildlife?
>>
>> We have better control over being able to provide them with
>>decent lives. That's one reason Goo, but that one is more than
>>you can understand, much less care about.
>
>You didn't answer

I did answer Goober, you pathetic inept liar. I also correctly
pointed out that it's more than you can understand, which is
proven by the fact that you're too stupid to even realise that I
answered you.

Now we will AGAIN see proof that you/"aras" are unable
to answer this question:

Why should we care if more livestock = less wildlife?

dh@. wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2006 17:20:34 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 18 Feb 2006 16:55:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 17 Feb 2006 15:33:22 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> 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.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
> >> >> >> >other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> How do they?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >In exactly the same way farmed animals would get "cheated"
> >> >> >out of their lives if no one raised them for food.
> >> >>
> >> >> The fact which you refer to as an argument, is that animals
> >> >> who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of life.
> >> >> That's in reply to the "ar" insistence tha
> >> >
> >> >That argument is no more valid than the argument that wild
> >> >animals whose habitat is destroyed in order to feed farm animals
> >> >are cheated out of the whole of their lives.
> >>
> >> Animals who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of
> >> life.
> >
> >When an animal is killed it is "cheated" out of the remainder of
> >its life. You can not use the fact that it only lives because it
> >is being raised for food as mitigation without (a) being logically
> >inconsistent or (b) accepting that the wild animals who could
> >live if natural habitats weren't being used to support these livestock
> >*are* being cheated out of life.
>
> LOL! Of course I can't agree with either of your claims, since
> both are absurd and of course can never be supported.

The only way I can see for both claims to be incorrect is if animals
have no moral entitlement to life. If that is what you believe then
why make such a big deal about "providing life for animals"?

> >> You're having an amazingly hard time understanding that
> >> easy fact.
> >
> >Not at all. What I am having a hard time doing is convincing
> >you that you can not have your proverbial cake and eat it.
>
> We can and sure do provide animals with life and eat them
> too.

Livestock farming is not a necessary condition for animal life to
occur. You haven't even be able to demonstrate that it leads
to more animal life than an AR/vegan utopia.

>.well....those of us who eat meat contribute to them while
> you/"aras" only contribute to the deaths of wildlife.

What about those animals who thrive inc crop fields until
the crops are harvested. By the same standard that meat eaters
provide life for livestock, do plant eaters not provide life
for field animals?
>
> >> [...]
> >>I ask you why we should STOP raising them so your potential
> >> wildlife can live instead, but none of you can explain why.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
> > dh@. wrote:
> >
> >>On 17 Feb 2006 15:33:22 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>dh@. wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>dh@. wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
> >>>>>other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
> >>>>
> >>>> How do they?
> >>>
> >>>In exactly the same way farmed animals would get "cheated"
> >>>out of their lives if no one raised them for food.
> >>
> >> The fact which you refer to as an argument, is that animals
> >>who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of life.
> >>That's in reply to the "ar" insistence tha
> >
> >
> > That argument is no more valid than the argument that wild
> > animals whose habitat is destroyed in order to feed farm animals
> > are cheated out of the whole of their lives. You are still trying to
> > have it both ways.
> >
> >
> >>>>>is transparantly selective and self serving.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>You can't tell me why it
> >>>>>>>>would be better to have a couple dozen quail hatch in an area, for
> >>>>>>>>example, and be killed by foxes, hawks, etc within a month of when
> >>>>>>>>they're born, than for 20 thousand chickens to live there for six weeks
> >>>>>>>>without ever having to be afraid or hungry.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>If you're referring to the standard method of raising broiler chickens
> >>>>>>>I would raise the following concerns. Do they have enough room?
> >>>>>>>is the litter clean enough to prevent them getting hock burns?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I believe so:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/3ss2m
> >>>>>
> >>>>>What stage of their life cycle are the chickens in that picture?
> >>>>>They do look a bit crowded for me but I don't know how much
> >>>>>space chickens need to be happy. As for hock burns, the
> >>>>>evidence is still there when you buy a whole chicken from
> >>>>>a supermarket. Not all chickens but an unacceptably high
> >>>>>percentage.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's not enough to make their lives of negative value imo.
> >>>
> >>>Enough to make there lives of less positive value than the wild
> >>>animals they compete for resources with....
> >>
> >> Not to me. You need to explain which wildlife would have it enough
> >>better that we should replace broilers with them. As yet you haven't
> >>come close, and by now we know you never will. The chickens remain
> >>the only option to even consider.
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>I've been in several broiler houses, and always thought the houses
> >>>>>>were a great place for chickens.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>AW organisations take the opposite PoV
> >>>>
> >>>> You would have to show me more than one example before
> >>>>I would believe you, and "ar" organisations do *not!* count.
> >>>>Note that as yet you haven't even shown one example.
> >>>
> >>>"We want to improve the lives of these chickens, the majority
> >>>of which are reared to standards that the RSPCA believes are
> >>>unacceptably low."
> >>>http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Sate...ckens/chickens
> >>>
> >>>Please be aware when buying chicken - either at the supermarket,
> >>>the butchers or at fast foodoutlets - that the bird will probably
> >>>have
> >>>gone through great misery during its life. Yes, it's cheap- but its
> >>>
> >>>knock-down price has been bought at the cost of great suffering
> >>>to the chicken.
> >>>http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/...cheap_2002.pdf
> >>>
> >>>There's more than one.
> >>
> >> Good enough then. I'm glad to see people promoting better lives. It's a nice contrast
> >>to only seeing people who want to see them eliminated.
> >
> >
> > They are not promoting life for the chickens as such.
>
> Exactly. No sensible person thinks the chickens "get
> something" out of the "deal".

I wouldn't go that far. If the pleasant experiences of the chicken
outweigh the negative than the chicken can be said to have benefited
from being alive. I think it would be better to have a fertile planet
that supports a lot of animal and human lives rather than a sterile
lifeless planet. However I don't think David Harrison has explained
why this preference means I should encourage people to eat meat,
milk and eggs.

> There is no moral
> content to "providing life" for any livestock.
>
>
> > AR says animals should not be raised for food period.
> > standard AW says animals that are raised for food should be treated
> > kindly.
> > You say animals should be raised for food specifically so that they
> > can be treated kindly.
>
> Not quite. It's just the best he *can* say. His
> concern for animal welfare is a complete and utter
> sham; a fraud. He doesn't CARE how livestock animals
> are treated; he just wants to ensure they continue to
> exist, and his excuse for that is that they "get
> something" out of some "deal". He's full of shit.
>
>
> >>>How many AR organisations can you
> >>>find that agree with you?
> >>
> >> About what?
> >
> >
> > About whether welfare standards applied to indoor raised broiler
> > chickens are acceptable.
> >
> >>>>>The point is that LoL if applied consistently requires you to
> >>>>>minimize land use so that more animals can experience life.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not to me it doesn't.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>Where they are part of a mixed enterprise with the animals
> >>>>>>>fertilizing the soil and supplementing their feed with forage,
> >>>>>>>waste products and sometimes even weeds and pests then
> >>>>>>>I'm not so confident.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> They always are. It's synergistic. Things supporting other
> >>>>>>things. The more supported things replace the less supported
> >>>>>>things. Which is why I always stress that we need to consider
> >>>>>>what we want to support, as much or more than what we don't.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>(b) Growing crops requires us to appropriate less land than grazing
> >>>>>>>>>cattle.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You read the differences. You don't care about wildlife, which
> >>>>>>>>is what you just proved. You people ALWAYS prove it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>No. I didn't. I pointed out relevant factors that you appear to have
> >>>>>>>neglected when promoting the meat.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I probably didn't neglect them. I probably considered them and
> >>>>>>concluded that I'm okay with the hundreds of thousands of chickens
> >>>>>>over a few quail, Dutch's mice frogs and groundhogs, and whatever
> >>>>>>else you want to throw in.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Take all the land used to grow crops for chickens minus the land
> >>>>>that would be needed to grow crops directly for humans if we weren't
> >>>>>eating those chickens. Now I want to throw in all the animals that
> >>>>>could have lived on that land if it had been left wild. Ok?
> >>>>
> >>>> Now throw in why anyone should support them instead of the
> >>>>chickens.
> >>>
> >>>They don't need our support. They just need us to stop taking.
> >>
> >> They would need for us to stop using particular land to grow food
> >>for ourselves and for chickens, so the wild animals could live there
> >>instead. The problem remains that you can provide no good reason
> >>for people to make that change.
> >
> >
> > I am not trying to present a reason why people should make that change.
>
> Don't worry - he'll accuse you of it all the same.
>
> In ****wit's unreality, if you don't accept his fatuous
> and ****witted rationale for opposing "ar" (he doesn't
> really oppose "ar" at all), then *you* become an "ara".
>
>
> > I am merely trying to explain to you that you can't have this both
> > ways.
> >
> >>>>>>And if you do throw them in I'll consider them,
> >>>>>>but most likely still be okay with the chickens.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Okay but don't claim you are doing it so that animals
> >>>>>can experience life.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't. I also don't disregard the fact that they do, even though
> >>>>"aras" desperately want us to.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> Every
> >>>>>>>>single time people prove that they care more about promoting
> >>>>>>>>veganism than they do about human influence on animals,
> >>>>>>>>when we get to the examples where veggies cause more deaths
> >>>>>>>>than livestock farming.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>(A) I thought we agreed that the amount of animal life is more
> >>>>>>>important than the number of animals we kill.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In that regard we *should* agree that life always means death,
> >>>>>>every single time, for every animal and human!
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Truism. What is its significance?
> >>>>
> >>>> Animal life is equal to that of animals killed.
> >>>
> >>>Eh?
> >>
> >> The only way to eliminate death, is to eliminate life.
> >
> >
> > Yes but if you kill an animal you still cause it to die
> > prematurely.
>
> Earlier than it would die if you bred it, then chose
> *not* to kill it.

On 24 Feb 2006 07:39:19 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>Leif Erikson wrote:
>> Dave wrote:
>>
>> > dh@. wrote:
>> >
>> >> Good enough then. I'm glad to see people promoting better lives. It's a nice contrast
>> >>to only seeing people who want to see them eliminated.
>> >
>> >
>> > They are not promoting life for the chickens as such.
>>
>> Exactly. No sensible person thinks the chickens "get
>> something" out of the "deal".
>
>I wouldn't go that far. If the pleasant experiences of the chicken
>outweigh the negative than the chicken can be said to have benefited
>from being alive.

Right. Amusingly, there are people who can't grasp that, like
Goo. Disgustingly, "aras" can not understand it either.

>I think it would be better to have a fertile planet
>that supports a lot of animal and human lives rather than a sterile
>lifeless planet.

Life means death. Some "aras" openly explain that they believe:
"Life does not justify death" - Dutch

>However I don't think David Harrison has explained
>why this preference means I should encourage people to eat meat,
>milk and eggs.

You explained it yourself when you pointed out that some things:
"have benefited from being alive. " - You
LOL...can you see the humor in the fact that you pretend not to
understand something that you just explained?

On 24 Feb 2006 07:11:39 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 20 Feb 2006 17:20:34 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 18 Feb 2006 16:55:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On 17 Feb 2006 15:33:22 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> 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.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
>> >> >> >> >other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> How do they?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >In exactly the same way farmed animals would get "cheated"
>> >> >> >out of their lives if no one raised them for food.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The fact which you refer to as an argument, is that animals
>> >> >> who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of life.
>> >> >> That's in reply to the "ar" insistence tha
>> >> >
>> >> >That argument is no more valid than the argument that wild
>> >> >animals whose habitat is destroyed in order to feed farm animals
>> >> >are cheated out of the whole of their lives.
>> >>
>> >> Animals who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of
>> >> life.
>> >
>> >When an animal is killed it is "cheated" out of the remainder of
>> >its life. You can not use the fact that it only lives because it
>> >is being raised for food as mitigation without (a) being logically
>> >inconsistent or (b) accepting that the wild animals who could
>> >live if natural habitats weren't being used to support these livestock
>> >*are* being cheated out of life.
>>
>> LOL! Of course I can't agree with either of your claims, since
>> both are absurd and of course can never be supported.
>
>The only way I can see for both claims to be incorrect is if animals
>have no moral entitlement to life.

None of us do. But that has nothing to do with it.

>If that is what you believe then
>why make such a big deal about "providing life for animals"?

Because even though all of you amusingly pretend that you
can't understand, or pathetically TRULY can not understand,
what we're really discussing is which animals we should and
should not provide life for, and why.

>> >> You're having an amazingly hard time understanding that
>> >> easy fact.
>> >
>> >Not at all. What I am having a hard time doing is convincing
>> >you that you can not have your proverbial cake and eat it.
>>
>> We can and sure do provide animals with life and eat them
>> too.
>
>Livestock farming is not a necessary condition for animal life to
>occur. You haven't even be able to demonstrate that it leads
>to more animal life than an AR/vegan utopia.

You/"aras" need to explain why we should make the change,
but none of you can do it. So we are left with absolutely no
reason to consider anything other than the lives of the livestock
who are actually living because we raise them.

>>.well....those of us who eat meat contribute to them while
>> you/"aras" only contribute to the deaths of wildlife.
>
>What about those animals who thrive inc crop fields until
>the crops are harvested. By the same standard that meat eaters
>provide life for livestock, do plant eaters not provide life
>for field animals?

Not deliberately as meat consumers do. Since you can't even
consider the lives of livestock which are raised deliberately,
what makes you think you would be able to consider the lives
of which type animals you imagine happen to live as a result of crop
production? Why can't you apply that same imagined consideration
to the animals that you know for a fact live as a result of raising
them for food?

>> >> [...]
>> >>I ask you why we should STOP raising them so your potential
>> >> wildlife can live instead, but none of you can explain why.

Dave wrote:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>Dave wrote:
>>
>>
>>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 17 Feb 2006 15:33:22 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
>>>>>>>other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do they?
>>>>>
>>>>>In exactly the same way farmed animals would get "cheated"
>>>>>out of their lives if no one raised them for food.
>>>>
>>>> The fact which you refer to as an argument, is that animals
>>>>who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of life.
>>>>That's in reply to the "ar" insistence tha
>>>
>>>
>>>That argument is no more valid than the argument that wild
>>>animals whose habitat is destroyed in order to feed farm animals
>>>are cheated out of the whole of their lives. You are still trying to
>>>have it both ways.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>is transparantly selective and self serving.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You can't tell me why it
>>>>>>>>>>would be better to have a couple dozen quail hatch in an area, for
>>>>>>>>>>example, and be killed by foxes, hawks, etc within a month of when
>>>>>>>>>>they're born, than for 20 thousand chickens to live there for six weeks
>>>>>>>>>>without ever having to be afraid or hungry.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If you're referring to the standard method of raising broiler chickens
>>>>>>>>>I would raise the following concerns. Do they have enough room?
>>>>>>>>>is the litter clean enough to prevent them getting hock burns?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I believe so:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/3ss2m
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What stage of their life cycle are the chickens in that picture?
>>>>>>>They do look a bit crowded for me but I don't know how much
>>>>>>>space chickens need to be happy. As for hock burns, the
>>>>>>>evidence is still there when you buy a whole chicken from
>>>>>>>a supermarket. Not all chickens but an unacceptably high
>>>>>>>percentage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not enough to make their lives of negative value imo.
>>>>>
>>>>>Enough to make there lives of less positive value than the wild
>>>>>animals they compete for resources with....
>>>>
>>>> Not to me. You need to explain which wildlife would have it enough
>>>>better that we should replace broilers with them. As yet you haven't
>>>>come close, and by now we know you never will. The chickens remain
>>>>the only option to even consider.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>I've been in several broiler houses, and always thought the houses
>>>>>>>>were a great place for chickens.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>AW organisations take the opposite PoV
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You would have to show me more than one example before
>>>>>>I would believe you, and "ar" organisations do *not!* count.
>>>>>>Note that as yet you haven't even shown one example.
>>>>>
>>>>>"We want to improve the lives of these chickens, the majority
>>>>>of which are reared to standards that the RSPCA believes are
>>>>>unacceptably low."
>>>>>http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Sate...ckens/chickens
>>>>>
>>>>>Please be aware when buying chicken - either at the supermarket,
>>>>>the butchers or at fast foodoutlets - that the bird will probably
>>>>>have
>>>>>gone through great misery during its life. Yes, it's cheap- but its
>>>>>
>>>>>knock-down price has been bought at the cost of great suffering
>>>>>to the chicken.
>>>>>http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/...cheap_2002.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>There's more than one.
>>>>
>>>> Good enough then. I'm glad to see people promoting better lives. It's a nice contrast
>>>>to only seeing people who want to see them eliminated.
>>>
>>>
>>>They are not promoting life for the chickens as such.
>>
>>Exactly. No sensible person thinks the chickens "get
>>something" out of the "deal".
>
>
> I wouldn't go that far. If the pleasant experiences of the chicken
> outweigh the negative than the chicken can be said to have benefited
> from being alive.

No, ABSOLUTELY NOT. The chicken "benefited" from
having pleasant experiences vs. having unpleasant ones.
It did NOT "benefit" from "getting to experience
life" vs. never being born in the first place. That is
an absurd comparison. Being conceived and born, thus
"getting to experience life", IS NOT a "benefit"
compared to never existing at all. It simply *cannot* be.


> I think it would be better

For whom?


> to have a fertile planet
> that supports a lot of animal and human lives rather than a sterile
> lifeless planet.

Bullshit.


> However I don't think David Harrison has explained
> why this preference means I should encourage people to eat meat,
> milk and eggs.
>
>
>>There is no moral
>>content to "providing life" for any livestock.
>>
>>
>>
>>>AR says animals should not be raised for food period.
>>>standard AW says animals that are raised for food should be treated
>>>kindly.
>>>You say animals should be raised for food specifically so that they
>>>can be treated kindly.
>>
>>Not quite. It's just the best he *can* say. His
>>concern for animal welfare is a complete and utter
>>sham; a fraud. He doesn't CARE how livestock animals
>>are treated; he just wants to ensure they continue to
>>exist, and his excuse for that is that they "get
>>something" out of some "deal". He's full of shit.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>How many AR organisations can you
>>>>>find that agree with you?
>>>>
>>>> About what?
>>>
>>>
>>>About whether welfare standards applied to indoor raised broiler
>>>chickens are acceptable.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>The point is that LoL if applied consistently requires you to
>>>>>>>minimize land use so that more animals can experience life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to me it doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Where they are part of a mixed enterprise with the animals
>>>>>>>>>fertilizing the soil and supplementing their feed with forage,
>>>>>>>>>waste products and sometimes even weeds and pests then
>>>>>>>>>I'm not so confident.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They always are. It's synergistic. Things supporting other
>>>>>>>>things. The more supported things replace the less supported
>>>>>>>>things. Which is why I always stress that we need to consider
>>>>>>>>what we want to support, as much or more than what we don't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>(b) Growing crops requires us to appropriate less land than grazing
>>>>>>>>>>>cattle.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You read the differences. You don't care about wildlife, which
>>>>>>>>>>is what you just proved. You people ALWAYS prove it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No. I didn't. I pointed out relevant factors that you appear to have
>>>>>>>>>neglected when promoting the meat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I probably didn't neglect them. I probably considered them and
>>>>>>>>concluded that I'm okay with the hundreds of thousands of chickens
>>>>>>>>over a few quail, Dutch's mice frogs and groundhogs, and whatever
>>>>>>>>else you want to throw in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Take all the land used to grow crops for chickens minus the land
>>>>>>>that would be needed to grow crops directly for humans if we weren't
>>>>>>>eating those chickens. Now I want to throw in all the animals that
>>>>>>>could have lived on that land if it had been left wild. Ok?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now throw in why anyone should support them instead of the
>>>>>>chickens.
>>>>>
>>>>>They don't need our support. They just need us to stop taking.
>>>>
>>>> They would need for us to stop using particular land to grow food
>>>>for ourselves and for chickens, so the wild animals could live there
>>>>instead. The problem remains that you can provide no good reason
>>>>for people to make that change.
>>>
>>>
>>>I am not trying to present a reason why people should make that change.
>>
>>Don't worry - he'll accuse you of it all the same.
>>
>>In ****wit's unreality, if you don't accept his fatuous
>>and ****witted rationale for opposing "ar" (he doesn't
>>really oppose "ar" at all), then *you* become an "ara".
>>
>>
>>
>>>I am merely trying to explain to you that you can't have this both
>>>ways.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>And if you do throw them in I'll consider them,
>>>>>>>>but most likely still be okay with the chickens.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Okay but don't claim you are doing it so that animals
>>>>>>>can experience life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't. I also don't disregard the fact that they do, even though
>>>>>>"aras" desperately want us to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Every
>>>>>>>>>>single time people prove that they care more about promoting
>>>>>>>>>>veganism than they do about human influence on animals,
>>>>>>>>>>when we get to the examples where veggies cause more deaths
>>>>>>>>>>than livestock farming.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>(A) I thought we agreed that the amount of animal life is more
>>>>>>>>>important than the number of animals we kill.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In that regard we *should* agree that life always means death,
>>>>>>>>every single time, for every animal and human!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Truism. What is its significance?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Animal life is equal to that of animals killed.
>>>>>
>>>>>Eh?
>>>>
>>>> The only way to eliminate death, is to eliminate life.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes but if you kill an animal you still cause it to die
>>>prematurely.
>>
>>Earlier than it would die if you bred it, then chose
>>*not* to kill it.
>
>

****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker,
lied:
> On 24 Feb 2006 07:11:39 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
>>
>>>On 20 Feb 2006 17:20:34 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
>>>>
>>>>>On 18 Feb 2006 16:55:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 17 Feb 2006 15:33:22 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
>>>>>>>>>>other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How do they?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In exactly the same way farmed animals would get "cheated"
>>>>>>>>out of their lives if no one raised them for food.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact which you refer to as an argument, is that animals
>>>>>>>who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of life.
>>>>>>>That's in reply to the "ar" insistence tha
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That argument is no more valid than the argument that wild
>>>>>>animals whose habitat is destroyed in order to feed farm animals
>>>>>>are cheated out of the whole of their lives.
>>>>>
>>>>> Animals who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of
>>>>>life.
>>>>
>>>>When an animal is killed it is "cheated" out of the remainder of
>>>>its life. You can not use the fact that it only lives because it
>>>>is being raised for food as mitigation without (a) being logically
>>>>inconsistent or (b) accepting that the wild animals who could
>>>>live if natural habitats weren't being used to support these livestock
>>>>*are* being cheated out of life.
>>>
>>> LOL! Of course I can't agree with either of your claims, since
>>>both are absurd and of course can never be supported.
>>
>>The only way I can see for both claims to be incorrect is if animals
>>have no moral entitlement to life.
>
>
> None of us do. But that has nothing to do with it.

It has *EVERYTHING* to do with it in your ****witted,
insane moral calculation, you liar. You think
non-existent farm animals have a "right" to life.


>>If that is what you believe then
>>why make such a big deal about "providing life for animals"?
>
>
> Because even though all of you amusingly pretend that you
> can't understand,

We don't "pretend" anything, ****wit. We *fully*
understand: "providing life" for farm animals is not
doing them a favor; does not confer a "benefit" on
them; does not earn people moral brownie points. It is
MORALLY EMPTY. It's a zero.


>>>>>You're having an amazingly hard time understanding that
>>>>>easy fact.
>>>>
>>>>Not at all. What I am having a hard time doing is convincing
>>>>you that you can not have your proverbial cake and eat it.
>>>
>>> We can and sure do provide animals with life and eat them
>>>too.
>>
>>Livestock farming is not a necessary condition for animal life to
>>occur. You haven't even be able to demonstrate that it leads
>>to more animal life than an AR/vegan utopia.
>
>
> You/"aras"

He isn't an "ara". YOU, ****wit David Harrison, need
to recognize that you have lost, and your labeling of
people who reject your ****witted redneck bullshit
aren't "aras". It's that simple, ****wit.


>
>>>.well....those of us who eat meat contribute to them while
>>>you/"aras" only contribute to the deaths of wildlife.
>>
>>What about those animals who thrive inc crop fields until
>>the crops are harvested. By the same standard that meat eaters
>>provide life for livestock, do plant eaters not provide life
>>for field animals?
>
>
> Not deliberately as meat consumers do

Meat eaters do no such thing.

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 00:28:37 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>On 24 Feb 2006 07:11:39 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
[..]
>>What about those animals who thrive inc crop fields until
>>the crops are harvested. By the same standard that meat
>>eaters provide life for livestock, do plant eaters not provide
>>life for field animals?
>
> Not deliberately as meat consumers do.

So, vegans are responsible for their deaths (CD) but not
responsible for their lives? You can't have it just one way
to suit your blame game, Harrison. If vegans are responsible
and blameworthy for the deaths found in agriculture, then
by that same rule they MUST also be responsible and
praiseworthy for their lives. If the consumer is a candidate
for blame, then it follows that he must also be a candidate
for praise. Now, if you continue to insist that the vegan causes
more collateral deaths, and therefore lives, than the consumer
of grass fed beef, the vegan is doing better than Rick Etter.
Priceless! Well done. You're an idiot, and I've been showing
you this error in your pathetic attack against vegans for years
now, yet you still continue using that same error none the less.
Look below at a discussion we had nearly 3 years ago where
I showed where you were going wrong.

[start - me to you]
> >You continually lie when claiming vegans do nothing
> >to help animals, even though many of us here have
> >proved you wrong just as continually. To prove what
> >I'm writing is correct let's consider your argument
> >which insists animals benefit from being born, combine
> >it with your other argument which insists vegans cause
> >massive collateral deaths, and look at the result. If vegans
> >are causing massive collateral deaths, then it is only right
> >to assume we are providing a massive benefit to the
> >animals which will inevitably replace them by being born.
>
> If that's true then eating grain fed meat provides even
> more massive benefit, to wildlife and farm animals both.

According to you, yes, but I don't agree with your
illogical reasoning that compels you to believe animals
benefit by being born. The point I'm raising with you
here, is that you claim vegans do nothing to help animals,
yet you also claim that they cause more deaths by eating
vegetables than they would by eating meat, but this is
obviously a lie according to you, because, as you've
admitted, veganism provides a massive benefit to wildlife
by killing it and allowing more wildlife to come into being.
Your argument against vegans shoots itself in the foot
leaving you with no criticism against them at all.
[end]
Derek Aug 9 2003 http://tinyurl.com/kddzx

And you're still embarrassing yourself with it 3 years later. You
really do deserve your name, ****wit.

dh@. wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2006 07:39:19 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Leif Erikson wrote:
> >> Dave wrote:
> >>
> >> > dh@. wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Good enough then. I'm glad to see people promoting better lives. It's a nice contrast
> >> >>to only seeing people who want to see them eliminated.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > They are not promoting life for the chickens as such.
> >>
> >> Exactly. No sensible person thinks the chickens "get
> >> something" out of the "deal".
> >
> >I wouldn't go that far. If the pleasant experiences of the chicken
> >outweigh the negative than the chicken can be said to have benefited
> >from being alive.
>
> Right. Amusingly, there are people who can't grasp that, like
> Goo. Disgustingly, "aras" can not understand it either.
>
> >I think it would be better to have a fertile planet
> >that supports a lot of animal and human lives rather than a sterile
> >lifeless planet.
>
> Life means death. Some "aras" openly explain that they believe:
> "Life does not justify death" - Dutch

Consider the following alternatives: (A) 100 animals live for 12 months
each.
(B) 200 animals live for 6 months each. Which is better and why?
You may assume that the animals in question are comparable in terms
of the value of thier lives.

> >However I don't think David Harrison has explained
> >why this preference means I should encourage people to eat meat,
> >milk and eggs.
>
> You explained it yourself when you pointed out that some things:
> "have benefited from being alive. " - You
> LOL...can you see the humor in the fact that you pretend not to
> understand something that you just explained?

No. I have also explained why the "explaination" does not justfiy LoL.
If the chicken is raised for food then he might possibly benefit from
his
life but if he is not raised for food than some other animal might
benefit instead.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> >>Dave wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On 17 Feb 2006 15:33:22 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>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.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
> >>>>>>>other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How do they?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>In exactly the same way farmed animals would get "cheated"
> >>>>>out of their lives if no one raised them for food.
> >>>>
> >>>> The fact which you refer to as an argument, is that animals
> >>>>who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of life.
> >>>>That's in reply to the "ar" insistence tha
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That argument is no more valid than the argument that wild
> >>>animals whose habitat is destroyed in order to feed farm animals
> >>>are cheated out of the whole of their lives. You are still trying to
> >>>have it both ways.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>is transparantly selective and self serving.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>You can't tell me why it
> >>>>>>>>>>would be better to have a couple dozen quail hatch in an area, for
> >>>>>>>>>>example, and be killed by foxes, hawks, etc within a month of when
> >>>>>>>>>>they're born, than for 20 thousand chickens to live there for six weeks
> >>>>>>>>>>without ever having to be afraid or hungry.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>If you're referring to the standard method of raising broiler chickens
> >>>>>>>>>I would raise the following concerns. Do they have enough room?
> >>>>>>>>>is the litter clean enough to prevent them getting hock burns?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I believe so:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/3ss2m
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>What stage of their life cycle are the chickens in that picture?
> >>>>>>>They do look a bit crowded for me but I don't know how much
> >>>>>>>space chickens need to be happy. As for hock burns, the
> >>>>>>>evidence is still there when you buy a whole chicken from
> >>>>>>>a supermarket. Not all chickens but an unacceptably high
> >>>>>>>percentage.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's not enough to make their lives of negative value imo.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Enough to make there lives of less positive value than the wild
> >>>>>animals they compete for resources with....
> >>>>
> >>>> Not to me. You need to explain which wildlife would have it enough
> >>>>better that we should replace broilers with them. As yet you haven't
> >>>>come close, and by now we know you never will. The chickens remain
> >>>>the only option to even consider.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>I've been in several broiler houses, and always thought the houses
> >>>>>>>>were a great place for chickens.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>AW organisations take the opposite PoV
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You would have to show me more than one example before
> >>>>>>I would believe you, and "ar" organisations do *not!* count.
> >>>>>>Note that as yet you haven't even shown one example.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"We want to improve the lives of these chickens, the majority
> >>>>>of which are reared to standards that the RSPCA believes are
> >>>>>unacceptably low."
> >>>>>http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Sate...ckens/chickens
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Please be aware when buying chicken - either at the supermarket,
> >>>>>the butchers or at fast foodoutlets - that the bird will probably
> >>>>>have
> >>>>>gone through great misery during its life. Yes, it's cheap- but its
> >>>>>
> >>>>>knock-down price has been bought at the cost of great suffering
> >>>>>to the chicken.
> >>>>>http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/...cheap_2002.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>>>There's more than one.
> >>>>
> >>>> Good enough then. I'm glad to see people promoting better lives. It's a nice contrast
> >>>>to only seeing people who want to see them eliminated.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>They are not promoting life for the chickens as such.
> >>
> >>Exactly. No sensible person thinks the chickens "get
> >>something" out of the "deal".
> >
> >
> > I wouldn't go that far. If the pleasant experiences of the chicken
> > outweigh the negative than the chicken can be said to have benefited
> > from being alive.
>
> No, ABSOLUTELY NOT. The chicken "benefited" from
> having pleasant experiences vs. having unpleasant ones.
> It did NOT "benefit" from "getting to experience
> life" vs. never being born in the first place. That is
> an absurd comparison. Being conceived and born, thus
> "getting to experience life", IS NOT a "benefit"
> compared to never existing at all. It simply *cannot* be.

I don't agree. I think a happy existence is preferable to
non-existence.

>
> > I think it would be better
>
> For whom?

the collective consciousness of the universe.

> > to have a fertile planet
> > that supports a lot of animal and human lives rather than a sterile
> > lifeless planet.
>
> Bullshit.

I'm sorry you have such a dim view of life.

>
> > However I don't think David Harrison has explained
> > why this preference means I should encourage people to eat meat,
> > milk and eggs.
> >
> >
> >>There is no moral
> >>content to "providing life" for any livestock.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>AR says animals should not be raised for food period.
> >>>standard AW says animals that are raised for food should be treated
> >>>kindly.
> >>>You say animals should be raised for food specifically so that they
> >>>can be treated kindly.
> >>
> >>Not quite. It's just the best he *can* say. His
> >>concern for animal welfare is a complete and utter
> >>sham; a fraud. He doesn't CARE how livestock animals
> >>are treated; he just wants to ensure they continue to
> >>exist, and his excuse for that is that they "get
> >>something" out of some "deal". He's full of shit.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>How many AR organisations can you
> >>>>>find that agree with you?
> >>>>
> >>>> About what?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>About whether welfare standards applied to indoor raised broiler
> >>>chickens are acceptable.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>The point is that LoL if applied consistently requires you to
> >>>>>>>minimize land use so that more animals can experience life.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not to me it doesn't.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Where they are part of a mixed enterprise with the animals
> >>>>>>>>>fertilizing the soil and supplementing their feed with forage,
> >>>>>>>>>waste products and sometimes even weeds and pests then
> >>>>>>>>>I'm not so confident.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> They always are. It's synergistic. Things supporting other
> >>>>>>>>things. The more supported things replace the less supported
> >>>>>>>>things. Which is why I always stress that we need to consider
> >>>>>>>>what we want to support, as much or more than what we don't.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>(b) Growing crops requires us to appropriate less land than grazing
> >>>>>>>>>>>cattle.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You read the differences. You don't care about wildlife, which
> >>>>>>>>>>is what you just proved. You people ALWAYS prove it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>No. I didn't. I pointed out relevant factors that you appear to have
> >>>>>>>>>neglected when promoting the meat.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I probably didn't neglect them. I probably considered them and
> >>>>>>>>concluded that I'm okay with the hundreds of thousands of chickens
> >>>>>>>>over a few quail, Dutch's mice frogs and groundhogs, and whatever
> >>>>>>>>else you want to throw in.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Take all the land used to grow crops for chickens minus the land
> >>>>>>>that would be needed to grow crops directly for humans if we weren't
> >>>>>>>eating those chickens. Now I want to throw in all the animals that
> >>>>>>>could have lived on that land if it had been left wild. Ok?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now throw in why anyone should support them instead of the
> >>>>>>chickens.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>They don't need our support. They just need us to stop taking.
> >>>>
> >>>> They would need for us to stop using particular land to grow food
> >>>>for ourselves and for chickens, so the wild animals could live there
> >>>>instead. The problem remains that you can provide no good reason
> >>>>for people to make that change.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I am not trying to present a reason why people should make that change.
> >>
> >>Don't worry - he'll accuse you of it all the same.
> >>
> >>In ****wit's unreality, if you don't accept his fatuous
> >>and ****witted rationale for opposing "ar" (he doesn't
> >>really oppose "ar" at all), then *you* become an "ara".
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I am merely trying to explain to you that you can't have this both
> >>>ways.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>And if you do throw them in I'll consider them,
> >>>>>>>>but most likely still be okay with the chickens.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Okay but don't claim you are doing it so that animals
> >>>>>>>can experience life.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't. I also don't disregard the fact that they do, even though
> >>>>>>"aras" desperately want us to.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Every
> >>>>>>>>>>single time people prove that they care more about promoting
> >>>>>>>>>>veganism than they do about human influence on animals,
> >>>>>>>>>>when we get to the examples where veggies cause more deaths
> >>>>>>>>>>than livestock farming.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>(A) I thought we agreed that the amount of animal life is more
> >>>>>>>>>important than the number of animals we kill.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In that regard we *should* agree that life always means death,
> >>>>>>>>every single time, for every animal and human!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Truism. What is its significance?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Animal life is equal to that of animals killed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Eh?
> >>>>
> >>>> The only way to eliminate death, is to eliminate life.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Yes but if you kill an animal you still cause it to die
> >>>prematurely.
> >>
> >>Earlier than it would die if you bred it, then chose
> >>*not* to kill it.
> >
> >

Dave wrote:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>Dave wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dave wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 17 Feb 2006 15:33:22 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
>>>>>>>>>other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do they?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In exactly the same way farmed animals would get "cheated"
>>>>>>>out of their lives if no one raised them for food.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact which you refer to as an argument, is that animals
>>>>>>who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of life.
>>>>>>That's in reply to the "ar" insistence tha
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That argument is no more valid than the argument that wild
>>>>>animals whose habitat is destroyed in order to feed farm animals
>>>>>are cheated out of the whole of their lives. You are still trying to
>>>>>have it both ways.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>is transparantly selective and self serving.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>You can't tell me why it
>>>>>>>>>>>>would be better to have a couple dozen quail hatch in an area, for
>>>>>>>>>>>>example, and be killed by foxes, hawks, etc within a month of when
>>>>>>>>>>>>they're born, than for 20 thousand chickens to live there for six weeks
>>>>>>>>>>>>without ever having to be afraid or hungry.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>If you're referring to the standard method of raising broiler chickens
>>>>>>>>>>>I would raise the following concerns. Do they have enough room?
>>>>>>>>>>>is the litter clean enough to prevent them getting hock burns?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I believe so:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/3ss2m
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What stage of their life cycle are the chickens in that picture?
>>>>>>>>>They do look a bit crowded for me but I don't know how much
>>>>>>>>>space chickens need to be happy. As for hock burns, the
>>>>>>>>>evidence is still there when you buy a whole chicken from
>>>>>>>>>a supermarket. Not all chickens but an unacceptably high
>>>>>>>>>percentage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not enough to make their lives of negative value imo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Enough to make there lives of less positive value than the wild
>>>>>>>animals they compete for resources with....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to me. You need to explain which wildlife would have it enough
>>>>>>better that we should replace broilers with them. As yet you haven't
>>>>>>come close, and by now we know you never will. The chickens remain
>>>>>>the only option to even consider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I've been in several broiler houses, and always thought the houses
>>>>>>>>>>were a great place for chickens.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>AW organisations take the opposite PoV
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You would have to show me more than one example before
>>>>>>>>I would believe you, and "ar" organisations do *not!* count.
>>>>>>>>Note that as yet you haven't even shown one example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"We want to improve the lives of these chickens, the majority
>>>>>>>of which are reared to standards that the RSPCA believes are
>>>>>>>unacceptably low."
>>>>>>>http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Sate...ckens/chickens
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Please be aware when buying chicken - either at the supermarket,
>>>>>>>the butchers or at fast foodoutlets - that the bird will probably
>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>gone through great misery during its life. Yes, it's cheap- but its
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>knock-down price has been bought at the cost of great suffering
>>>>>>>to the chicken.
>>>>>>>http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/...cheap_2002.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There's more than one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good enough then. I'm glad to see people promoting better lives. It's a nice contrast
>>>>>>to only seeing people who want to see them eliminated.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>They are not promoting life for the chickens as such.
>>>>
>>>>Exactly. No sensible person thinks the chickens "get
>>>>something" out of the "deal".
>>>
>>>
>>>I wouldn't go that far. If the pleasant experiences of the chicken
>>>outweigh the negative than the chicken can be said to have benefited
>>>from being alive.
>>
>>No, ABSOLUTELY NOT. The chicken "benefited" from
>>having pleasant experiences vs. having unpleasant ones.
>> It did NOT "benefit" from "getting to experience
>>life" vs. never being born in the first place. That is
>>an absurd comparison. Being conceived and born, thus
>>"getting to experience life", IS NOT a "benefit"
>>compared to never existing at all. It simply *cannot* be.
>
>
> I don't agree. I think a happy existence is preferable to
> non-existence.

That's patently absurd. You have to exist in the first
place in order to think that. Existence (at any
quality of life) vs. non-existence simply isn't a
legitimate comparison to make.

****wit calls existence, *irrespective* of quality of
life, a "benefit" for livestock animals. It isn't. A
benefit is something that improves the welfare of the
entity that receives the benefit, compared with its
welfare prior to receiving it. Life (existence)
*cannot* be a benefit, because it doesn't improve the
entity's welfa prior to existing, there was no
entity, hence there was no welfare that could be
improved. It's that simple.

Suppose, on the other hand, you believe - as ****wit
frequently gives evidence of believing - that animals
and other entities are sitting around in some kind of
"pre-existence", just waiting for their chance to be
incorporated into physically existing entities. We
have no knowledge of their state of existence, so by
"causing" them to come into existence, we don't know if
we are improving their welfare, degrading it, or
leaving it unchanged.

Life is not a benefit.


>
>
>>>I think it would be better
>>
>>For whom?
>
>
> the collective consciousness of the universe.

No such thing.


>>>to have a fertile planet
>>>that supports a lot of animal and human lives rather than a sterile
>>>lifeless planet.
>>
>>Bullshit.
>
>
> I'm sorry you have such a dim view of life.

I don't have a dim view of life. I don't make - won't
attempt to make - absurd, invalid comparisons.

On 26 Feb 2006 15:28:27 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>Leif Erikson wrote:
>> Dave wrote:
>> >
>> > If the pleasant experiences of the chicken outweigh the
>> > negative than the chicken can be said to have benefited
>> > from being alive.
>>
>> No, ABSOLUTELY NOT. The chicken "benefited" from
>> having pleasant experiences vs. having unpleasant ones.
>> It did NOT "benefit" from "getting to experience
>> life" vs. never being born in the first place. That is
>> an absurd comparison. Being conceived and born, thus
>> "getting to experience life", IS NOT a "benefit"
>> compared to never existing at all. It simply *cannot* be.
>
>I don't agree. I think a happy existence is preferable to
>non-existence.

You have no knowledge concerning the preconceived state
of animals, or even if such a preconceived state actually
exists. That in mind, you cannot then assert that existence
is preferable to this unknowable, disputed state. Your task
is now to describe this unknowable state and then argue
that it is better to be brought from that place into being.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> >>Dave wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On 17 Feb 2006 15:33:22 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>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.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
> >>>>>>>other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How do they?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>In exactly the same way farmed animals would get "cheated"
> >>>>>out of their lives if no one raised them for food.
> >>>>
> >>>> The fact which you refer to as an argument, is that animals
> >>>>who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of life.
> >>>>That's in reply to the "ar" insistence tha
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That argument is no more valid than the argument that wild
> >>>animals whose habitat is destroyed in order to feed farm animals
> >>>are cheated out of the whole of their lives. You are still trying to
> >>>have it both ways.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>is transparantly selective and self serving.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>You can't tell me why it
> >>>>>>>>>>would be better to have a couple dozen quail hatch in an area, for
> >>>>>>>>>>example, and be killed by foxes, hawks, etc within a month of when
> >>>>>>>>>>they're born, than for 20 thousand chickens to live there for six weeks
> >>>>>>>>>>without ever having to be afraid or hungry.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>If you're referring to the standard method of raising broiler chickens
> >>>>>>>>>I would raise the following concerns. Do they have enough room?
> >>>>>>>>>is the litter clean enough to prevent them getting hock burns?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I believe so:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/3ss2m
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>What stage of their life cycle are the chickens in that picture?
> >>>>>>>They do look a bit crowded for me but I don't know how much
> >>>>>>>space chickens need to be happy. As for hock burns, the
> >>>>>>>evidence is still there when you buy a whole chicken from
> >>>>>>>a supermarket. Not all chickens but an unacceptably high
> >>>>>>>percentage.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's not enough to make their lives of negative value imo.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Enough to make there lives of less positive value than the wild
> >>>>>animals they compete for resources with....
> >>>>
> >>>> Not to me. You need to explain which wildlife would have it enough
> >>>>better that we should replace broilers with them. As yet you haven't
> >>>>come close, and by now we know you never will. The chickens remain
> >>>>the only option to even consider.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>I've been in several broiler houses, and always thought the houses
> >>>>>>>>were a great place for chickens.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>AW organisations take the opposite PoV
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You would have to show me more than one example before
> >>>>>>I would believe you, and "ar" organisations do *not!* count.
> >>>>>>Note that as yet you haven't even shown one example.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>"We want to improve the lives of these chickens, the majority
> >>>>>of which are reared to standards that the RSPCA believes are
> >>>>>unacceptably low."
> >>>>>http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Sate...ckens/chickens
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Please be aware when buying chicken - either at the supermarket,
> >>>>>the butchers or at fast foodoutlets - that the bird will probably
> >>>>>have
> >>>>>gone through great misery during its life. Yes, it's cheap- but its
> >>>>>
> >>>>>knock-down price has been bought at the cost of great suffering
> >>>>>to the chicken.
> >>>>>http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/...cheap_2002.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>>>There's more than one.
> >>>>
> >>>> Good enough then. I'm glad to see people promoting better lives. It's a nice contrast
> >>>>to only seeing people who want to see them eliminated.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>They are not promoting life for the chickens as such.
> >>
> >>Exactly. No sensible person thinks the chickens "get
> >>something" out of the "deal".
> >
> >
> > I wouldn't go that far. If the pleasant experiences of the chicken
> > outweigh the negative than the chicken can be said to have benefited
> > from being alive.
>
> No, ABSOLUTELY NOT. The chicken "benefited" from
> having pleasant experiences vs. having unpleasant ones.
> It did NOT "benefit" from "getting to experience
> life" vs. never being born in the first place. That is
> an absurd comparison. Being conceived and born, thus
> "getting to experience life", IS NOT a "benefit"
> compared to never existing at all. It simply *cannot* be.
>
>
> > I think it would be better
>
> For whom?
>
>
> > to have a fertile planet
> > that supports a lot of animal and human lives rather than a sterile
> > lifeless planet.
>

> Bullshit.


And you claim you aren't a meat/drug/dairy industry shill.
You'd prefer a sterile lifeless planet.

Stupid little booger.







>
>
> > However I don't think David Harrison has explained
> > why this preference means I should encourage people to eat meat,
> > milk and eggs.
> >
> >
> >>There is no moral
> >>content to "providing life" for any livestock.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>AR says animals should not be raised for food period.
> >>>standard AW says animals that are raised for food should be treated
> >>>kindly.
> >>>You say animals should be raised for food specifically so that they
> >>>can be treated kindly.
> >>
> >>Not quite. It's just the best he *can* say. His
> >>concern for animal welfare is a complete and utter
> >>sham; a fraud. He doesn't CARE how livestock animals
> >>are treated; he just wants to ensure they continue to
> >>exist, and his excuse for that is that they "get
> >>something" out of some "deal". He's full of shit.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>How many AR organisations can you
> >>>>>find that agree with you?
> >>>>
> >>>> About what?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>About whether welfare standards applied to indoor raised broiler
> >>>chickens are acceptable.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>The point is that LoL if applied consistently requires you to
> >>>>>>>minimize land use so that more animals can experience life.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not to me it doesn't.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Where they are part of a mixed enterprise with the animals
> >>>>>>>>>fertilizing the soil and supplementing their feed with forage,
> >>>>>>>>>waste products and sometimes even weeds and pests then
> >>>>>>>>>I'm not so confident.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> They always are. It's synergistic. Things supporting other
> >>>>>>>>things. The more supported things replace the less supported
> >>>>>>>>things. Which is why I always stress that we need to consider
> >>>>>>>>what we want to support, as much or more than what we don't.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>(b) Growing crops requires us to appropriate less land than grazing
> >>>>>>>>>>>cattle.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You read the differences. You don't care about wildlife, which
> >>>>>>>>>>is what you just proved. You people ALWAYS prove it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>No. I didn't. I pointed out relevant factors that you appear to have
> >>>>>>>>>neglected when promoting the meat.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I probably didn't neglect them. I probably considered them and
> >>>>>>>>concluded that I'm okay with the hundreds of thousands of chickens
> >>>>>>>>over a few quail, Dutch's mice frogs and groundhogs, and whatever
> >>>>>>>>else you want to throw in.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Take all the land used to grow crops for chickens minus the land
> >>>>>>>that would be needed to grow crops directly for humans if we weren't
> >>>>>>>eating those chickens. Now I want to throw in all the animals that
> >>>>>>>could have lived on that land if it had been left wild. Ok?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Now throw in why anyone should support them instead of the
> >>>>>>chickens.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>They don't need our support. They just need us to stop taking.
> >>>>
> >>>> They would need for us to stop using particular land to grow food
> >>>>for ourselves and for chickens, so the wild animals could live there
> >>>>instead. The problem remains that you can provide no good reason
> >>>>for people to make that change.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I am not trying to present a reason why people should make that change.
> >>
> >>Don't worry - he'll accuse you of it all the same.
> >>
> >>In ****wit's unreality, if you don't accept his fatuous
> >>and ****witted rationale for opposing "ar" (he doesn't
> >>really oppose "ar" at all), then *you* become an "ara".
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I am merely trying to explain to you that you can't have this both
> >>>ways.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>And if you do throw them in I'll consider them,
> >>>>>>>>but most likely still be okay with the chickens.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Okay but don't claim you are doing it so that animals
> >>>>>>>can experience life.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't. I also don't disregard the fact that they do, even though
> >>>>>>"aras" desperately want us to.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Every
> >>>>>>>>>>single time people prove that they care more about promoting
> >>>>>>>>>>veganism than they do about human influence on animals,
> >>>>>>>>>>when we get to the examples where veggies cause more deaths
> >>>>>>>>>>than livestock farming.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>(A) I thought we agreed that the amount of animal life is more
> >>>>>>>>>important than the number of animals we kill.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In that regard we *should* agree that life always means death,
> >>>>>>>>every single time, for every animal and human!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Truism. What is its significance?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Animal life is equal to that of animals killed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Eh?
> >>>>
> >>>> The only way to eliminate death, is to eliminate life.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Yes but if you kill an animal you still cause it to die
> >>>prematurely.
> >>
> >>Earlier than it would die if you bred it, then chose
> >>*not* to kill it.
> >
> >