Vegetarian Discussion: What If We Don't Raise Cattle To Eat Them?

What If We Don't Raise Cattle To Eat Them?
Posts: 419

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)

Jeff
2009-12-23 18:07:23 EST
Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live. And, they seem to live to eat - I
think that's what they enjoy. Since we want them to grow rapidly, they get
to eat a lot - perhaps that makes them happy. Of course they are killed
early, but if we didn't raise them, they wouldn't get to live at all. I
don't really feel this way, but it is an interesting viewpoint, don't you
think?
- Jeff
www.worlds-strangest-website.com

Mr.Smartypants
2009-12-23 18:52:25 EST
On Dec 23, 4:07 pm, Jeff <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
> they wouldn't have a chance to live. And, they seem to live to eat - I
> think that's what they enjoy. Since we want them to grow rapidly, they get
> to eat a lot - perhaps that makes them happy. Of course they are killed
> early, but if we didn't raise them, they wouldn't get to live at all. I
> don't really feel this way, but it is an interesting viewpoint, don't you
> think?
> - Jeffwww.worlds-strangest-website.com



No.

Ex-PFC Wintergreen
2009-12-23 20:24:49 EST
On Dec 23, 3:07 pm, Jeff <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
> they wouldn't have a chance to live. And, they seem to live to eat - I
> think that's what they enjoy. Since we want them to grow rapidly, they get
> to eat a lot - perhaps that makes them happy. Of course they are killed
> early, but if we didn't raise them, they wouldn't get to live at all.

That doesn't mean anything. There is no value to their "getting to
experience life".

Dutch
2009-12-24 00:54:25 EST

"Jeff" <clistener@aol.com> wrote
> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
> they wouldn't have a chance to live. And, they seem to live to eat - I
> think that's what they enjoy. Since we want them to grow rapidly, they get
> to eat a lot - perhaps that makes them happy. Of course they are killed
> early, but if we didn't raise them, they wouldn't get to live at all. I
> don't really feel this way, but it is an interesting viewpoint, don't you
> think?
> - Jeff
> www.worlds-strangest-website.com

No it is not interesting, it is utterly irrelevant.



Dutch
2009-12-24 00:56:18 EST

"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jonnie@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:cb65baba-82a4-47e8-9036-8c6a5dfdb0eb@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 23, 4:07 pm, Jeff <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
> they wouldn't have a chance to live. And, they seem to live to eat - I
> think that's what they enjoy. Since we want them to grow rapidly, they get
> to eat a lot - perhaps that makes them happy. Of course they are killed
> early, but if we didn't raise them, they wouldn't get to live at all. I
> don't really feel this way, but it is an interesting viewpoint, don't you
> think?
> - Jeffwww.worlds-strangest-website.com



No.
--->

Your bosom buddy thinks it is a very interesting viewpoint.


Mr.Smartypants
2009-12-24 12:26:58 EST
On Dec 23, 10:56 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cb65baba-82a4-47e8-9036-8c6a5dfdb0eb@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 23, 4:07 pm, Jeff <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
> > they wouldn't have a chance to live. And, they seem to live to eat - I
> > think that's what they enjoy. Since we want them to grow rapidly, they get
> > to eat a lot - perhaps that makes them happy. Of course they are killed
> > early, but if we didn't raise them, they wouldn't get to live at all. I
> > don't really feel this way, but it is an interesting viewpoint, don't you
> > think?
> > - Jeffwww.worlds-strangest-website.com
>
> No.
> --->
>
> Your bosom buddy thinks it is a very interesting viewpoint.


Your butt-buddy Goo is going to start disagreeing with himself very
soon......then he'll flip out and start squealing about computer clock
times.


D*@.
2009-12-24 12:33:39 EST
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
<*r@aol.com> wrote:

>Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
>they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is. What dishonesty could have led you to think
there's something controversial about the fact, can you say?

>And, they seem to live to eat - I
>think that's what they enjoy.

It's the main thing in their lives.

>Since we want them to grow rapidly, they get
>to eat a lot - perhaps that makes them happy.

Of course it makes them as happy as cattle can be.

>Of course they are killed
>early, but if we didn't raise them, they wouldn't get to live at all.

· 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. ·

>I don't really feel this way,

Do you think you feel that cattle would become part of our
society, and maybe even get jobs, if humans stopped raising them?

>but it is an interesting viewpoint, don't you think?
>- Jeff

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

Ex-PFC Wintergreen
2009-12-24 13:00:07 EST
dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
> <clistener@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
>> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>
> That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

Jared
2009-12-24 18:25:27 EST
On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
> > <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
> >> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>
> >     That's how it is.
>
> It's meaningless.

It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.

Ex-PFC Wintergreen
2009-12-24 18:43:52 EST
Jared wrote:
> On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> wrote:
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>>> <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
>>>> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>>> That's how it is.
>> It's meaningless.
>
> It means something.

It means nothing ethically. There is no moral or ethical loss
experienced by never-conceived cattle (or any other never-conceived
livestock) if humans stop breeding them into existence.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron