Ron asked:

>Goo hysterically raved:

>> homo pantywaist ronnie, as well as your jamtart-ness.
>
>
>"jamtart-ness"! ooooooo........Goober is so rattled he's inventing new
>words.
>
>Calm down Goober. You can hardly mentor young grasshopper ricky if you
>are rattled.
>
>Just answer the question: what about the ones who manage to reach farm
>sanctuaries?

Goo is admittedly too stupid to understand how life could have
positive value for anything at all. Unless the Goober can prove me
wrong and explain how life could have positive value for anything,
but we know he's not capable of doing that. He's just too stupid
to understand or even form an opinion. It's an aspect that he
obviously WANTS to be able to discuss, and even more obviously
can't even comprehend.

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:

dh explained:

>> Goo is admittedly too stupid
>
>No, ****wit. I haven't "admitted" anything to you.

You admittedly don't understand how life could have positive value
for any farm animals, regardless of quality.

>You claim to consider me stupid, but in fact you know
>that I am smarter than you, have a much higher IQ than
>you,

You can't be "smarter" than I am if you can't even understand how
life could have positive value for anything, you poor stupid Goober.
But you're too stupid to understand that too. There's an obvious
consistency about it Goo. And your methods of dealing with these
facts which you can't understand yet despise none the less, like by
lying, shows even more clearly that you can't understand things that
other people like myself can understand and are not threatened by.
What I believe is not threatened by the fact that some livestock have
lives of positive value. What you/"aras" WANT to believe--and even
more want everbody else to believe--most certainly is threatened by it.

>and have more than ten years more (and more
>rigorous) education than you.

Not in anything that has to do with animals.

>Your an undegreed, uneducated, semi-literate hillbilly
>cracker living on a decrepit houseboat in Georgia,
>****wit. You don't know anything relevant to animals.

Since I was in sixth grade I have known more about farm animals
than you will ever know Goo. You will remain ignorant, because of
your stupidity, for your entire life. That's not an insult. It's just the way
that it is, because it's the way that you want it. The insult is in the
fact that you want it this way, so you insult your own self.

<dh@.> wrote in
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>
> dh explained:
>
>>> Goo is admittedly too stupid
>>
>>No, ****wit. I haven't "admitted" anything to you.
>
> You admittedly don't understand how life could have positive value
> for any farm animals, regardless of quality.

You don't understand that no matter how good their lives might be, as a
consumer of them you cannot do any better than repay them for their
sacrifice. That is the BEST you can do, and by acting as you do, asserting
arbitrarily that *some of them have positive lives* then consuming
willy-nilly from the most convenient sources available you simply label
yourself a hypocrite.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:49:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>>
>> dh explained:
>>
>>>> Goo is admittedly too stupid
>>>
>>>No, ****wit. I haven't "admitted" anything to you.
>>
>> You admittedly don't understand how life could have positive value
>> for any farm animals, regardless of quality.
>
>You don't understand that no matter how good their lives might be, as a
>consumer of them you cannot do any better than repay them for their
>sacrifice. That is the BEST you can do, and by acting as you do, asserting
>arbitrarily that *some of them have positive lives*

Amusingly, you asserted it too. The difference is that I do understand it,
but you can not.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:49:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in
>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>>>
>>> dh explained:
>>>
>>>>> Goo is admittedly too stupid
>>>>
>>>>No, ****wit. I haven't "admitted" anything to you.
>>>
>>> You admittedly don't understand how life could have positive value
>>> for any farm animals, regardless of quality.
>>
>>You don't understand that no matter how good their lives might be, as a
>>consumer of them you cannot do any better than repay them for their
>>sacrifice. That is the BEST you can do, and by acting as you do,
>>asserting
>>arbitrarily that *some of them have positive lives*
>
> Amusingly, you asserted it too.

Sure, why not? It's probably true, although as it is the statement is too
vague to be meaningful.

> The difference is that I do understand it,
> but you can not.

The difference is that unlike me, and the rest of the sane people in the
world, you think that since some animals might have "positive experiences"
that means that you have done something good and admirable by consuming
animal products. Virtually everyone recognizes that reasoning as cheap
sophistry. Why can't you?

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 21:16:35 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:49:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in
>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> dh explained:
>>>>
>>>>>> Goo is admittedly too stupid
>>>>>
>>>>>No, ****wit. I haven't "admitted" anything to you.
>>>>
>>>> You admittedly don't understand how life could have positive value
>>>> for any farm animals, regardless of quality.
>>>
>>>You don't understand that no matter how good their lives might be, as a
>>>consumer of them you cannot do any better than repay them for their
>>>sacrifice. That is the BEST you can do, and by acting as you do,
>>>asserting
>>>arbitrarily that *some of them have positive lives*
>>
>> Amusingly, you asserted it too.
>
>Sure, why not? It's probably true, although as it is the statement is too
>vague to be meaningful.
>
>> The difference is that I do understand it,
>> but you can not.
>
>The difference is that unlike me, and the rest of the sane people in the
>world, you think that since some animals might have "positive experiences"
>that means that you have done something good and admirable by consuming
>animal products.

Not necessarily admirable, but I can consider it a good thing to contribute
to life of positive value, even for livestock, even though you can't.

>Virtually everyone recognizes that reasoning as cheap
>sophistry.

It's just a fact that you hate for some reason that I can't even begin to
understand, and you certainly can't begin to explain.

>Why can't you?

Because it's not sophistry, it's true. If it were a lie, then I would view it as
"virtually everyone" does. But some animals do have lives of positive value
--that is true--and I can consider it a good thing even when the animals are
livestock. Why can't you? Can you consider it a good thing in regards to
any animals?

<dh@.> wrote
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 21:16:35 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:49:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in
>>>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> dh explained:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Goo is admittedly too stupid
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, ****wit. I haven't "admitted" anything to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> You admittedly don't understand how life could have positive value
>>>>> for any farm animals, regardless of quality.
>>>>
>>>>You don't understand that no matter how good their lives might be, as a
>>>>consumer of them you cannot do any better than repay them for their
>>>>sacrifice. That is the BEST you can do, and by acting as you do,
>>>>asserting
>>>>arbitrarily that *some of them have positive lives*
>>>
>>> Amusingly, you asserted it too.
>>
>>Sure, why not? It's probably true, although as it is the statement is too
>>vague to be meaningful.
>>
>>> The difference is that I do understand it,
>>> but you can not.
>>
>>The difference is that unlike me, and the rest of the sane people in the
>>world, you think that since some animals might have "positive experiences"
>>that means that you have done something good and admirable by consuming
>>animal products.
>
> Not necessarily admirable, but I can consider it a good thing to
> contribute
> to life of positive value, even for livestock, even though you can't.

You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products. It's as simple as that,
The Logic of the Larder is self-serving sophistry.

[..]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 01:34:29 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote

>> Not necessarily admirable, but I can consider it a good thing to
>> contribute
>> to life of positive value, even for livestock, even though you can't.

"You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products."

"We should feel good if animals are given good treatment."

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

****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 01:34:29 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
>
> >> Not necessarily admirable, but I can consider it a good thing to
> >> contribute
> >> to life of positive value, even for livestock, even though you can't.
>
> "You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products."

Dutch is correct: you are not entitled to that.



>
> "We should feel good if animals are given good treatment."

That's a matter of choice, but if one cares about animal treatment,
then one may feel good that they receive good treatment. One may *not*
feel good, on behalf of the animals, that the animals existed in the
first place.



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

Dutch is correct, again. The basic fact of existence, however, is not
a benefit to animals.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 01:34:29 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

> "You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products."
>
> "We should feel good if animals are given good treatment."
>
> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
> has positive or negative value to the animal."

You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.
You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
experience life when you consume animal products.

Dutch wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote
> > On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 01:34:29 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > "You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> > experience life when you consume animal products."
> >
> > "We should feel good if animals are given good treatment."
> >
> > "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
> > has positive or negative value to the animal."
>
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.
> You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
> experience life when you consume animal products.




Gee Dutch, that effort must have really strained your brain.

Better lay down and let ~jonnie~ massage your head.

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 04:34:25 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 01:34:29 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> "You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
>> experience life when you consume animal products."
>>
>> "We should feel good if animals are given good treatment."
>>
>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>> has positive or negative value to the animal."
>
>You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
>experience life when you consume animal products.
[...]

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.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 04:34:25 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 01:34:29 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>> "You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
>>> experience life when you consume animal products."
>>>
>>> "We should feel good if animals are given good treatment."
>>>
>>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>> has positive or negative value to the animal."
>>
>>You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal got to
>>experience life when you consume animal products.
> [...]
>
> 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.

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. You can't, because you/"aras"
have no clue how it could have. You have no clue what you pasted.

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, merely enabling them to experience being farmed.

>You can't, because you/"aras"
> have no clue how it could have. You have no clue what you pasted

****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:29:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> >****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied
> >
> >> 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,

You may not legitimately feel any satisfaction due to causing the
animals to exist. Coming into existence is not a benefit for them, and
you deserve no moral credit for causing them to exist.

<dh@.> wrote in message news
> 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.

You are not morally entitled to feel satisfaction that an animal *got to
experience life* when you consume animal products.

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. Vegans are not.
Vegans only deliberately contribute to wildlife deaths, but never to
livestock lives.

>merely enabling them to experience being farmed.

It's that life or no life for them, not that life or a wild life. I can still
feel good about contributing to decent lives for livestock, even after
6 years of "aras" telling me that I can't. How many billion animals
have lived and died since I was first told that it's not worthy of
consideration? I wonder...

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:12:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message news
>> 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.
>
>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.

****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
> On 6 Feb 2006 09:59:35 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
> >> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:29:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied
> >>
> >> >> 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

You are not. You don't "contribute" anything to them, you lying
****wit.


> >merely enabling them to experience being farmed.
>
> It's that life or no life for them,

Coming into existence is not a benefit to them, ****wit. You haven't
"contributed" to them by adding your little shit-stained demand and
causing animals to exist.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:12:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news
>>> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:29:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>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.

That's a completely different statement. You are taking satisfaction in the
"billions of animal raised in the past six years" as your words in the other
thread attest. That makes NO reference at all to "positive value". Your
equivocating is obvious, it always has been,

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 but that in itself is nothing to be proud of.

> Vegans are not.

Then again they are not preventing the lives of other animals
by appropriating land resources for use by livestock.

> Vegans only deliberately contribute to wildlife deaths, but never to
> livestock lives.
>
> >merely enabling them to experience being farmed.
>
> It's that life or no life for them, not that life or a wild life.

Or.... that life for them or a wild life for a different animal

> I can still
> feel good about contributing to decent lives for livestock, even after
> 6 years of "aras" telling me that I can't. How many billion animals
> have lived and died since I was first told that it's not worthy of
> consideration? I wonder...

How many billions of animals would have lived or died otherwise.
I wonder....

On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:30:49 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:12:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message news >>>> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:29:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>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.
>
>That's a completely different statement. You are taking satisfaction in the
>"billions of animal raised in the past six years" as your words in the other
>thread attest. That makes NO reference at all to "positive value".

Paste the quote, if you can.

>Your
>equivocating is obvious, it always has been,
>
>

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.

>but that in itself is nothing to be proud of.
>
>> Vegans are not.
>
>Then again they are not preventing the lives of other animals
>by appropriating land resources for use by livestock.

No. They do worse by appropriating land to grow crops:
__________________________________________________ _______
Environmental Benefits

Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.

Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It
also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation
whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
crop production. It will also protect our water quality.

High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).

Wildlife Advantages

Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
populations are now at risk.

Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
(However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.

Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
(including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
may serve as wildlife habitat.

http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...s/MIG/Why.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> Vegans only deliberately contribute to wildlife deaths, but never to
>> livestock lives.
>>
>> >merely enabling them to experience being farmed.
>>
>> It's that life or no life for them, not that life or a wild life.
>
>Or.... that life for them or a wild life for a different animal

I'm still and always left to wonder which type wildlife you/"aras" want
to promote life for instead of livestock, and why....

>> I can still
>> feel good about contributing to decent lives for livestock, even after
>> 6 years of "aras" telling me that I can't. How many billion animals
>> have lived and died since I was first told that it's not worthy of
>> consideration? I wonder...
>
>How many billions of animals would have lived or died otherwise.
>I wonder....

Why do you wonder about those imaginary nonexistent "entities",
but can't even make yourself consider the billions of animals who
did live, do live, and will live as livestock?

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:30:49 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:12:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>news >>>>> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:29:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:tq8cu1lh27sj57f9f5k25ruecj13ffmlra@4ax. com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>That's a completely different statement. You are taking satisfaction in
>>the
>>"billions of animal raised in the past six years" as your words in the
>>other
>>thread attest. That makes NO reference at all to "positive value".
>
> Paste the quote, if you can.

"How many billion animals have lived and died since I was first told that
it's not worthy of consideration? I wonder..."

That quote clearly makes reference to *all* the animals that are raised for
livestock, and implies that we should all use the Logic of the Larder to
feel good about it, as you do. You frequently attach in non-sequitor fashion
the modifier "decent lives" when referring to livestock but nowhere do you
ever make it conditional to your belief that we are doing livestock a favor
by "promoting" their lives.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> 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.

That's a pathetic response. Humans don't need to "promote" any alternative
life, we only need to get out of the way and allow it to happen.

>>but that in itself is nothing to be proud of.
>>
>>> Vegans are not.
>>
>>Then again they are not preventing the lives of other animals
>>by appropriating land resources for use by livestock.
>
> No. They do worse by appropriating land to grow crops:

That's an entirely different argument. Stop moving the goalposts ****wit.
[..]

>>> It's that life or no life for them, not that life or a wild life.
>>
>>Or.... that life for them or a wild life for a different animal
>
> I'm still and always left to wonder which type wildlife you/"aras" want
> to promote life for instead of livestock, and why....

Whatever wildlife nature puts there.

>>> I can still
>>> feel good about contributing to decent lives for livestock, even after
>>> 6 years of "aras" telling me that I can't. How many billion animals
>>> have lived and died since I was first told that it's not worthy of
>>> consideration? I wonder...
>>
>>How many billions of animals would have lived or died otherwise.
>>I wonder....
>
> Why do you wonder about those imaginary nonexistent "entities",
> but can't even make yourself consider the billions of animals who
> did live, do live, and will live as livestock?

He isn't wondering, he is mocking your idiotic logic.

On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 14:50:59 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:30:49 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:12:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>news >>>>>> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:29:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:tq8cu1lh27sj57f9f5k25ruecj13ffmlra@4ax .com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>That's a completely different statement. You are taking satisfaction in
>>>the
>>>"billions of animal raised in the past six years" as your words in the
>>>other
>>>thread attest. That makes NO reference at all to "positive value".
>>
>> Paste the quote, if you can.
>
>"How many billion animals have lived and died since I was first told that
>it's not worthy of consideration? I wonder..."
>
>That quote clearly makes reference to *all* the animals that are raised for
>livestock, and implies that we should all use the Logic of the Larder to
>feel good about it, as you do. You frequently attach in non-sequitor fashion
>the modifier "decent lives" when referring to livestock but nowhere do you
>ever make it conditional to your belief that we are doing livestock a favor
>by "promoting" their lives.

Even as stupid as you insist you are, it seems even you should
be able to figure out that when I say quality of life determines whether
or not their lives have positive value, I am taking quality of life into
consideration. Actually I know both you and the Goober know I take
it into consideration, and I know all too damned well that you both
deliberately lie about it. Of course I can ONLY believe that you lie
because you're "aras", since there's no other reason why you would.

****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 14:50:59 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> >****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
> >> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:30:49 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
> >>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:12:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
> >>>>>news > >>>>>> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:29:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>****wit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
> >>>>>>>news:tq8cu1lh27sj57f9f5k25ruecj13ffmlra@4ax .com...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>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.
> >>>
> >>>That's a completely different statement. You are taking satisfaction in
> >>>the
> >>>"billions of animal raised in the past six years" as your words in the
> >>>other
> >>>thread attest. That makes NO reference at all to "positive value".
> >>
> >> Paste the quote, if you can.
> >
> >"How many billion animals have lived and died since I was first told that
> >it's not worthy of consideration? I wonder..."
> >
> >That quote clearly makes reference to *all* the animals that are raised for
> >livestock, and implies that we should all use the Logic of the Larder to
> >feel good about it, as you do. You frequently attach in non-sequitor fashion
> >the modifier "decent lives" when referring to livestock but nowhere do you
> >ever make it conditional to your belief that we are doing livestock a favor
> >by "promoting" their lives.
>
> Even as stupid as as I clearly am, it seems even you should
> be able to figure out that when I say quality of life determines whether
> or not their lives have positive value, I am taking quality of life into
> consideration.

You aren't.

"Life itself is the benefit which makes all other
benefits possible."
- ****wit David Harrison


You consider life -per se- to be a "benefit", ****wit - something of
"positive value" - IRRESPECTIVE of the quality of life.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 14:50:59 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006 12:30:49 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 22:12:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>newshueu19baec0p81r2gb36dir3644ruq8he@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 21:29:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:tq8cu1lh27sj57f9f5k25ruecj13ffmlra@4a x.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>That's a completely different statement. You are taking satisfaction in
>>>>the
>>>>"billions of animal raised in the past six years" as your words in the
>>>>other
>>>>thread attest. That makes NO reference at all to "positive value".
>>>
>>> Paste the quote, if you can.
>>
>>"How many billion animals have lived and died since I was first told that
>>it's not worthy of consideration? I wonder..."
>>
>>That quote clearly makes reference to *all* the animals that are raised
>>for
>>livestock, and implies that we should all use the Logic of the Larder to
>>feel good about it, as you do. You frequently attach in non-sequitor
>>fashion
>>the modifier "decent lives" when referring to livestock but nowhere do you
>>ever make it conditional to your belief that we are doing livestock a
>>favor
>>by "promoting" their lives.
>
> Even as stupid as you insist you are, it seems even you should
> be able to figure out that when I say quality of life determines whether
> or not their lives have positive value, I am taking quality of life into
> consideration. Actually I know both you and the Goober know I take
> it into consideration, and I know all too damned well that you both
> deliberately lie about it. Of course I can ONLY believe that you lie
> because you're "aras", since there's no other reason why you would.

How many of those "billions" of animals led decent lives? How did you use
that knowledge to benefit animals?

> 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.


> >but that in itself is nothing to be proud of.
> >
> >> Vegans are not.
> >
> >Then again they are not preventing the lives of other animals
> >by appropriating land resources for use by livestock.
>
> No. They do worse by appropriating land to grow crops:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> Environmental Benefits
>
> Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
> advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
> erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
> and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.
>
> Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
> average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
> Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
> was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
> pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
> pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It
> also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation
> whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
> limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
> the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
> crop production. It will also protect our water quality.
>
> High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
> can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
> several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
> pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
> waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
> wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
> phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
> low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).
>
> Wildlife Advantages
>
> Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
> meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
> the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
> thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
> 1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
> frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
> populations are now at risk.
>
> Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
> because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
> (However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
> rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
> detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
> until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
> as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
> bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
> benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
> cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
> provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.
>
> Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
> the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
> (including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
> wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
> future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
> invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
> also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
> may serve as wildlife habitat.
>
> http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...s/MIG/Why.html


(a) The comparison is loaded because you are comparing well managed
pastures with typical crop fields.

(b) Growing crops requires us to appropriate less land than grazing
cattle.

Having said that I do not see anything particularly wrong with raising
cattle
for food.

> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >> Vegans only deliberately contribute to wildlife deaths, but never to
> >> livestock lives.
> >>
> >> >merely enabling them to experience being farmed.
> >>
> >> It's that life or no life for them, not that life or a wild life.
> >
> >Or.... that life for them or a wild life for a different animal
>
> I'm still and always left to wonder which type wildlife you/"aras" want
> to promote life for instead of livestock, and why....

I just see no reason to value the life of livestock animals above
the lives of wild animals. I believe that it would be better to kill
more animals and have more animal life on the planet than to
have less of each. What I am opposed to is your selective
application of this sentiment.

> >> I can still
> >> feel good about contributing to decent lives for livestock, even after
> >> 6 years of "aras" telling me that I can't. How many billion animals
> >> have lived and died since I was first told that it's not worthy of
> >> consideration? I wonder...
> >
> >How many billions of animals would have lived or died otherwise.
> >I wonder....
>
> Why do you wonder about those imaginary nonexistent "entities",
> but can't even make yourself consider the billions of animals who
> did live,

look to the future and the now. One can't change the past.

> do live,

How does slaughtering an animal equate to considering the animals
who do live? I have my own ways of justifying it but I want to see
yours.

>and will live as livestock?

The animals that could live as livestock deserve exactly the same
consideration as the animals that could live as wild animals.

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:38:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...

>> Even as stupid as you insist you are, it seems even you should
>> be able to figure out that when I say quality of life determines whether
>> or not their lives have positive value, I am taking quality of life into
>> consideration. Actually I know both you and the Goober know I take
>> it into consideration, and I know all too damned well that you both
>> deliberately lie about it. Of course I can ONLY believe that you lie
>> because you're "aras", since there's no other reason why you would.
>
>How many of those "billions" of animals led decent lives? How did you use
>that knowledge to benefit animals?

I point it out and you lie about it. That's about as far as it goes,
and it's certainly as far as you want it to go. You would HATE to
see people who are considering a change in lifestlye, go with the
LoL = Decent AW approach, over the Vegan Meat Hater approach:
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
No one who accepts the philosophy of animal rights would be
satisfied with a continuation of our society's rapacious consumption
of farm animals, for example, even if these animals were raised in an
ecologically sustainable fashion, and were transported and
slaughtered "humanely". Animal welfarists, by contrast, are
committed to the pursuit of "gentle usage." They believe it morally
permissible to use nonhumans for human benefit, but think humans
should try to "minimize" suffering. Thus, whereas welfarists seek to
*reform* current practices of animal exploitation, while retaining such
exploitation in principle, rights advocates oppose all such
exploitation in principle and seek to *abolish* all such exploitation in
practice.
Recognition of the moral inviolability of individual animals
not only helps shape the ends that the animal rights movement seeks,
it should also help articulate the morally acceptable means that may
be used. And this is important. Many animal rights people who
disavow the philosophy of animal welfare believe they can
consistently support reformist means to abolition ends. This view is
mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual reasons.
[...]
"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and
Gary Francione
The Animal's Agenda (pp.40-43)
January/February 1992
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 15:38:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>
>>> Even as stupid as you insist you are, it seems even you should
>>> be able to figure out that when I say quality of life determines whether
>>> or not their lives have positive value, I am taking quality of life into
>>> consideration. Actually I know both you and the Goober know I take
>>> it into consideration, and I know all too damned well that you both
>>> deliberately lie about it. Of course I can ONLY believe that you lie
>>> because you're "aras", since there's no other reason why you would.
>>
>>How many of those "billions" of animals led decent lives? How did you use
>>that knowledge to benefit animals?
>
> I point it out

Which is meaningless and unproductive.

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.

> 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?
Has selective breeding and feeding methods resulted in them
growing too fast for their skeletal structures to keep up with?

> And even if four or five
> of our quail live to reproduce themselves some day, they only have
> one or two hatches a year where the chicken house(s) could be
> raising their 40 thousand chicks....did I say 20 or 40...lets just say
> 60 then...60 thousand of them every couple of months for 6 weeks
> vs. a couple of dozen quail at best twice a year for 4 weeks. So far the
> commercial influence doesn't appear lacking to the wildlife side.

Here's the other thing. Just because your chickens and quail are
packed together like commutors on the London underground does not
mean they can be supported on such a small area of land. In order to
feed them land has to be appropriated for cultivation and 1kg of feed
converts to <1 kg of meat.
>
> >> >but that in itself is nothing to be proud of.
> >> >
> >> >> Vegans are not.
> >> >
> >> >Then again they are not preventing the lives of other animals
> >> >by appropriating land resources for use by livestock.
> >>
> >> No. They do worse by appropriating land to grow crops:
> >> __________________________________________________ _______
> >> Environmental Benefits
> >>
> >> Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
> >> advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
> >> erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
> >> and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.
> >>
> >> Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
> >> average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
> >> Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
> >> was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
> >> pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
> >> pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It
> >> also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation
> >> whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
> >> limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
> >> the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
> >> crop production. It will also protect our water quality.
> >>
> >> High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
> >> can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
> >> several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
> >> pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
> >> waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
> >> wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
> >> phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
> >> low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).
> >>
> >> Wildlife Advantages
> >>
> >> Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
> >> meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
> >> the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
> >> thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
> >> 1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
> >> frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
> >> populations are now at risk.
> >>
> >> Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
> >> because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
> >> (However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
> >> rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
> >> detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
> >> until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
> >> as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
> >> bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
> >> benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
> >> cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
> >> provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.
> >>
> >> Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
> >> the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
> >> (including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
> >> wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
> >> future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
> >> invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
> >> also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
> >> may serve as wildlife habitat.
> >>
> >> http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...s/MIG/Why.html
> >
> >
> >(a) The comparison is loaded because you are comparing well managed
> >pastures with typical crop fields.
>
> That's the idea. You (note: by "you" I'm referring in this
> section to yourself and every veg*n/"ara" I've discussed
> this issue with in these ngs) never want to factor in the veggies.

If we are seeking to achieve the minimal environmental damage we
must compare with the most envioronmentally responsible methods
of crop production we can realistically hope to find, not your
average commercially mass produced fare.

> You also never want to factor in how much more mining etc
> there would have to be to replace the animal byproducts in things
> like:
>
> Tires, Paints, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
> Heparin, Insulin, Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12,
> Asphalt, auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, brake fluid,
> glues, inks, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin
> Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products, Plywood,
> Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and
> Tape, Abrasivesl, Steel Ball Bearings

Actually I think that's a relevant detail we should factor into our
calculations. However you also have to factor in all the materials
used to rear the animals, for example the fertilizers used for their
feed, the packaging to transport the feed, the electricity used to
light and heat the barns, etc.

> 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.
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.

> >(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.

> 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.

(B) I am still not convinced that any animal lives are saved
in grazing livestock instead of cultivating crops.

> >Having said that I do not see anything particularly wrong with raising
> >cattle
> >for food.
> >
> >> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> >> >> Vegans only deliberately contribute to wildlife deaths, but never to
> >> >> livestock lives.
> >> >>
> >> >> >merely enabling them to experience being farmed.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's that life or no life for them, not that life or a wild life.
> >> >
> >> >Or.... that life for them or a wild life for a different animal
> >>
> >> I'm still and always left to wonder which type wildlife you/"aras" want
> >> to promote life for instead of livestock, and why....
> >
> >I just see no reason to value the life of livestock animals
>
> You have made that very clear. I see more than one type of value
> in them...sometimes even value to the animals.
>
> >above
> >the lives of wild animals.
>
> You see no reason to value them at all.

Nonsense.
>
> >I believe that it would be better to kill
> >more animals and have more animal life on the planet than to
> >have less of each. What I am opposed to is your selective
> >application of this sentiment.
>
> You are being more selective than I am, since my "selection"
> includes both livestock and wildlife, but yours only wildlife.

You misunderstand me.

>
> >> >> I can still
> >> >> feel good about contributing to decent lives for livestock, even after
> >> >> 6 years of "aras" telling me that I can't. How many billion animals
> >> >> have lived and died since I was first told that it's not worthy of
> >> >> consideration? I wonder...
> >> >
> >> >How many billions of animals would have lived or died otherwise.
> >> >I wonder....
> >>
> >> Why do you wonder about those imaginary nonexistent "entities",
> >> but can't even make yourself consider the billions of animals who
> >> did live,
> >
> >look to the future and the now. One can't change the past.
>
> Some can learn from it.

True.

>Others apparently can not, and don't
> want to.
>
> >> do live,
> >
> >How does slaughtering an animal equate to considering the animals
> >who do live?
>
> It contributes however insignificantly to more of the same
> --good or bad--in the future.

No 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.
>
> >I have my own ways of justifying it but I want to see
> >yours.
> >
> >>and will live as livestock?
> >
> >The animals that could live as livestock deserve exactly the same
> >consideration as the animals that could live as wild animals.
>
> That's what I encourage.

Maybe that's what you mean to encourage but it isn't the impression
you give.

> That's what you/"aras" oppose.

I don't oppose it. I just advocated it.

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.

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. 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. ·

>> 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

I've been in several broiler houses, and always thought the houses
were a great place for chickens.

>Has selective breeding and feeding methods resulted in them
>growing too fast for their skeletal structures to keep up with?

I doubt it. Even though I've know "aras" to say so, I don't believe
that crap and have never seen any signs of it. They only live for
six weeks anyway.

>> And even if four or five
>> of our quail live to reproduce themselves some day, they only have
>> one or two hatches a year where the chicken house(s) could be
>> raising their 40 thousand chicks....did I say 20 or 40...lets just say
>> 60 then...60 thousand of them every couple of months for 6 weeks
>> vs. a couple of dozen quail at best twice a year for 4 weeks. So far the
>> commercial influence doesn't appear lacking to the wildlife side.
>
>Here's the other thing. Just because your chickens and quail are
>packed together like commutors on the London underground does not
>mean they can be supported on such a small area of land. In order to
>feed them land has to be appropriated for cultivation and 1kg of feed
>converts to <1 kg of meat.

It's the same as growing crops to feed humans imo.

[...]
>> 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.

"ar" would require that it's illegal to kill any animals in crop
production, or the construction of roads and buildings, or the
generation of electric power, or production of wood or paper,
etc....

>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. And if you do throw them in I'll consider them,
but most likely still be okay with the chickens.

>> 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!

>(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.

[...]
>> You are being more selective than I am, since my "selection"
>> includes both livestock and wildlife, but yours only wildlife.
>
>You misunderstand me.

As yet I can't believe that.

>> >> >> I can still
>> >> >> feel good about contributing to decent lives for livestock, even after
>> >> >> 6 years of "aras" telling me that I can't. How many billion animals
>> >> >> have lived and died since I was first told that it's not worthy of
>> >> >> consideration? I wonder...
>> >> >
>> >> >How many billions of animals would have lived or died otherwise.
>> >> >I wonder....
>> >>
>> >> Why do you wonder about those imaginary nonexistent "entities",
>> >> but can't even make yourself consider the billions of animals who
>> >> did live,
>> >
>> >look to the future and the now. One can't change the past.
>>
>> Some can learn from it.
>
>True.
>
>>Others apparently can not, and don't
>> want to.
>>
>> >> do live,
>> >
>> >How does slaughtering an animal equate to considering the animals
>> >who do live?
>>
>> It contributes however insignificantly to more of the same
>> --good or bad--in the future.
>
>No

Yes.

>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.

>> >I have my own ways of justifying it but I want to see
>> >yours.
>> >
>> >>and will live as livestock?
>> >
>> >The animals that could live as livestock deserve exactly the same
>> >consideration as the animals that could live as wild animals.
>>
>> That's what I encourage.
>
>Maybe that's what you mean to encourage but it isn't the impression
>you give.

That's because usually/always when I'm discussing it, I'm discussing it
with people who only want us to consider wildlife but *not!* livestock, which
is certainly the impression that you give.

>> That's what you/"aras" oppose.
>
>I don't oppose it. I just advocated it.
__________________________________________________ _______
The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should
Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet.

S.L. Davis, Department of Animal Sciences, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR 97331.

Published in the Proceedings of the Third Congress of the
European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics, 2001,
pp 440-450.

Key words: veganism, least harm, farm animals, field animals.

Introduction
Although the debate over the moral status of animals has been
going on for thousands of years (Shapiro, 2000), there has
been a resurgence of interest in this issue in the last quarter of
the 20th century. One of the landmark philosophical works of
this period was the book by Regan (1983) called "A Case for
Animal Rights." In that book, Regan concludes that animals
do have moral standing, that they are subjects-of-a-life with
interests that deserve equal consideration to the same interests
in humans, and therefore have the right to live their lives
without human interference. As a consequence, he concludes
that humans have a moral obligation to consume a vegan (use
no animal products) diet and eliminate animal agriculture.
However, production of an all vegan diet also comes at the
cost of the lives of many animals, including mice, moles,
gophers, pheasants, etc. Therefore, I asked Regan, "What
is the morally relevant difference between killing a field mouse
(or other animal of the field) so that humans may eat and killing
a pig (or chicken, calf or lamb) for the same purpose? Animals
must die so that humans may eat, regardless whether they eat
a vegan diet or not. So, how are we to choose our food supply
in a morally responsible manner?" Regan's response could be
summarized by what may be called the "Least Harm Principle"
or LHP (Regan, Personal Communication). According to LHP,
we must choose the food products that, overall, cause the
least harm to the least number of animals. The following
analysis is an attempt to try to determine what humans should
eat if we apply that principle.

Regan's Vegan Conclusion is Problematic

I find Regan's response to my question to be problematic for
two reasons. The first reason is because it seems to be a
philosophical slight of hand for one to turn to a utilitarian
defense (LHP) of a challenge to his vegan conclusion which
is based on animal rights theory. If the question, "What is
the morally relevant difference?" can't be supported by the
animal rights theory, then it seems to me that the animal rights
theory must be rejected. Instead, Regan turns to utilitarian
theory (which examines consequences of one's actions) to
defend the vegan conclusion.

The second problem I see with his vegan conclusion is that
he claims that the least harm would be done to animals if
animal agriculture was eliminated. It may certainly be true
that fewer animals may be killed if animal agriculture was
eliminated, but could the LHP also lead to other alternative
conclusions?

Would pasture-based animal agriculture cause least harm?

Animals of the field are killed by several factors, including:

1. Tractors and farm implements run over them.
2. Plows and cultivators destroy underground burrows
and kill animals.
3. Removal of the crops (harvest) removes ground
cover allowing animals on the surface to be killed
by predators.
4. Application of pesticides.

So, every time the tractor goes through the field to plow,
disc, cultivate, apply fertilizer and/or pesticide, harvest,
etc., animals are killed. And, intensive agriculture such
as corn and soybeans (products central to a vegan diet)
kills far more animals of the field than would extensive
agriculture like forage production, particularly if the forage
was harvested by ruminant animals instead of machines.
So perhaps fewer animals would be killed by producing
beef, lamb, and dairy products for humans to eat instead
of the vegan diet envisioned by Regan.

Accurate numbers of mortality aren't available, but Tew
and Macdonald (1993) reported that wood mouse
population density in cereal fields dropped from 25/ha
preharvest to less than 5/ha postharvest. This decrease
was attributed to migration out of the field and to mortality.
Therefore, it may be reasonable to estimate mortality of
10 animals/ha in conventional corn and soybean
production.

There are 120 million ha of harvested cropland in the US
(USDA, 2000). If all of that land was used to produce a
plant-based diet, and if 10 animals of the field are killed
per ha per year, then 10 x 120 million = 1200 million or
1.2 billion would be killed to produce a vegan diet. If half
of that land (60 million) was converted to forage
production and if forage production systems decreased
the number of animals of the field killed per year by 50%
(5 per year per ha), the number of animals killed would be:

1. 60 million ha of traditional agriculture x 10 animals
per ha = 0.6 billion animals killed.
2. 60 million ha of forage production x 5 animals of
the field = 0.3 billion.

Therefore, in this hypothetical example, the change to
include some forage-based animal agriculture would
result in the loss of only 0.9 billion animals of the field
instead of 1.2 billion to support a vegan diet. As a
result, the LHP would suggest that we are morally
obligated to consume a diet of ruminant products, not
a vegan diet, because it would result in the death of
fewer animals of the field.

But what of the ruminant animals that would need to
die to feed people? According to the USDA numbers
quoted by Francione (2000), of the 8.4 billion animals
killed each year for food in the US, 8 billion of those
are poultry and only 41 million are ruminants (cows,
calves, sheep, lambs). Even if the numbers of
ruminants killed for food each year doubled to replace
the 8 billion poultry, the total number of animals that
would need to be killed under this alternative would
still be fewer (0.9 billion + 82 million = 0.982 billion)
than in the vegan alternative (1.2 billion).

In conclusion, applying the Least Harm Principle as
proposed by Regan would actually argue that we
are morally obligated to move to a ruminant-based
diet rather than a vegan diet.

References

Davis, S.L. 2000. What is the Morally Relevant
Difference between the Mouse and the Pig?
Pp. 107-109 in the Proceedings of EurSafe 2000;
2nd Congress of the European Society for
Agricultural and Food Ethics.

Francione, Gary L. 2000. Introduction to Animal
Rights: Your child or the dog? Temple University
Press. Philadelphia.

Regan, Tom. 1983. A Case for Animal Rights.
University of California Press, Berkeley.

Shapiro, L.S. 2000. Applied Animal Ethics,
pp. 34-37. Delmar Press.

Tew, T.E. and D.W. Macdonald. 1993. The
effects of harvest on arable wood mice.
Biological Conservation 65:279-283.

USDA. 2000.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

lie -> lige

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.

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.

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. 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 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.

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

AW organisations take the opposite PoV but I applaud you for
showing the concern to inspect the conditions of the chickens
you intend to eat.

> >Has selective breeding and feeding methods resulted in them
> >growing too fast for their skeletal structures to keep up with?
>
> I doubt it. Even though I've know "aras" to say so,

AWers too.

> I don't believe
> that crap and have never seen any signs of it. They only live for
> six weeks anyway.
>
> >> And even if four or five
> >> of our quail live to reproduce themselves some day, they only have
> >> one or two hatches a year where the chicken house(s) could be
> >> raising their 40 thousand chicks....did I say 20 or 40...lets just say
> >> 60 then...60 thousand of them every couple of months for 6 weeks
> >> vs. a couple of dozen quail at best twice a year for 4 weeks. So far the
> >> commercial influence doesn't appear lacking to the wildlife side.
> >
> >Here's the other thing. Just because your chickens and quail are
> >packed together like commutors on the London underground does not
> >mean they can be supported on such a small area of land. In order to
> >feed them land has to be appropriated for cultivation and 1kg of feed
> >converts to <1 kg of meat.
>
> It's the same as growing crops to feed humans imo.

It shows that your talk of having a couple dozen quail
or a few thousand chickens in an area is profoundly
misleading since it gives the impression that the same
land area can be used for either.

> [...]
> >> 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.
>
> "ar" would require that it's illegal to

deliberately

> kill any animals in crop
> production, or the construction of roads and buildings, or the
> generation of electric power, or production of wood or paper,
> etc....

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

> >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?

> 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.
>
> >> 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?

> >(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.
>
> [...]
> >> You are being more selective than I am, since my "selection"
> >> includes both livestock and wildlife, but yours only wildlife.
> >
> >You misunderstand me.
>
> As yet I can't believe that.
>
> >> >> >> I can still
> >> >> >> feel good about contributing to decent lives for livestock, even after
> >> >> >> 6 years of "aras" telling me that I can't. How many billion animals
> >> >> >> have lived and died since I was first told that it's not worthy of
> >> >> >> consideration? I wonder...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >How many billions of animals would have lived or died otherwise.
> >> >> >I wonder....
> >> >>
> >> >> Why do you wonder about those imaginary nonexistent "entities",
> >> >> but can't even make yourself consider the billions of animals who
> >> >> did live,
> >> >
> >> >look to the future and the now. One can't change the past.
> >>
> >> Some can learn from it.
> >
> >True.
> >
> >>Others apparently can not, and don't
> >> want to.
> >>
> >> >> do live,
> >> >
> >> >How does slaughtering an animal equate to considering the animals
> >> >who do live?
> >>
> >> It contributes however insignificantly to more of the same
> >> --good or bad--in the future.
> >
> >No
>
> Yes.
>
> >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. You are right
that you have not managed to make me understand why you
deserve moral credit for this and you probably never will.

> >> >I have my own ways of justifying it but I want to see
> >> >yours.
> >> >
> >> >>and will live as livestock?
> >> >
> >> >The animals that could live as livestock deserve exactly the same
> >> >consideration as the animals that could live as wild animals.
> >>
> >> That's what I encourage.
> >
> >Maybe that's what you mean to encourage but it isn't the impression
> >you give.
>
> That's because usually/always when I'm discussing it, I'm discussing it
> with people who only want us to consider wildlife but *not!* livestock, which
> is certainly the impression that you give.
>
> >> That's what you/"aras" oppose.
> >
> >I don't oppose it. I just advocated it.

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.