Vegetarian Discussion: Short Argument

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   Next  (First | Last)

Rupert
2010-01-09 17:43:49 EST
(1) Morality requires that, whenever you have an opportunity to make
an expected reduction in the extent to which the processes which
produce the products you pay for cause pain and suffering to sentient
beings, by a means which you have good reason to believe would involve
exerting very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on
yourself, and there is no other means incompatible with taking
advantage of this opportunity by which you can accomplish any
comparably morally important goal, then you should take advantage of
the opportunity.
(2) For most people who live in agriculturally bountiful
societies with many healthy, tasty plant foods easily available which
can form the basis of a nutritionally adequate diet, boycotting almost
all animal-derived food products is a step which makes an expected
reduction in the extent to which the processes which produce the
products they pay for causes pain and suffering to sentient beings, by
a means which they have good reason to believe would involve exerting
very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on themselves,
and there is no other means incompatible with taking advantage of this
opportunity by which they could accomplish any comparably morally
important goal.
(3) So most such people are morally required to boycott almost all
animal-derived food products.

Dutch
2010-01-10 02:01:53 EST

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote
> (1) Morality requires that, whenever you have an opportunity to make
> an expected reduction in the extent to which the processes which
> produce the products you pay for cause pain and suffering to sentient
> beings, by a means which you have good reason to believe would involve
> exerting very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on
> yourself, and there is no other means incompatible with taking
> advantage of this opportunity by which you can accomplish any
> comparably morally important goal, then you should take advantage of
> the opportunity.
> (2) For most people who live in agriculturally bountiful
> societies with many healthy, tasty plant foods easily available which
> can form the basis of a nutritionally adequate diet, boycotting almost
> all animal-derived food products is a step which makes an expected
> reduction in the extent to which the processes which produce the
> products they pay for causes pain and suffering to sentient beings, by
> a means which they have good reason to believe would involve exerting
> very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on themselves,
> and there is no other means incompatible with taking advantage of this
> opportunity by which they could accomplish any comparably morally
> important goal.
> (3) So most such people are morally required to boycott almost all
> animal-derived food products.

You vegans have one track minds. Even assuming that boycotting
"animal-derived food products" would have the desired effect, and you
haven't proven that to be the case, why is that particular step to reduce
animal suffering morally obligatory while none of the other steps one might
undertake even rate a mention?


Rupert
2010-01-10 05:37:43 EST
On Jan 10, 6:01 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > (1) Morality requires that, whenever you have an opportunity to make
> > an expected reduction in the extent to which the processes which
> > produce the products you pay for cause pain and suffering to sentient
> > beings, by a means which you have good reason to believe would involve
> > exerting very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on
> > yourself, and there is no other means incompatible with taking
> > advantage of this opportunity by which you can accomplish any
> > comparably morally important goal, then you should take advantage of
> > the opportunity.
> > (2) For most people who live in agriculturally bountiful
> > societies with many healthy, tasty plant foods easily available which
> > can form the basis of a nutritionally adequate diet, boycotting almost
> > all animal-derived food products is a step which makes an expected
> > reduction in the extent to which the processes which produce the
> > products they pay for causes pain and suffering to sentient beings, by
> > a means which they have good reason to believe would involve exerting
> > very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on themselves,
> > and there is no other means incompatible with taking advantage of this
> > opportunity by which they could accomplish any comparably morally
> > important goal.
> > (3) So most such people are morally required to boycott almost all
> > animal-derived food products.
>
> You vegans have one track minds. Even assuming that boycotting
> "animal-derived food products" would have the desired effect, and you
> haven't proven that to be the case, why is that particular step to reduce
> animal suffering morally obligatory while none of the other steps one might
> undertake even rate a mention?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If we could just specific about which of the premises are false that
would be great. Is it both of them? Or just premise (2)?

You may also possibly want to argue that I am not fully complying with
all that is required by premise (1). That is possible, but not really
relevant to the soundness of the argument. However if it is true it
would merit my consideration. But maybe you could be more specific
about why you think that. Why is it that I am not complying, given the
various qualifications in the premise?

You may want to say "Well, there is no principled reason why the
qualifications should be there". Well, maybe not. That is worth
looking into. But is that a reason to deny that we should do at least
as much as is required by premise (1)? This is the "all-or-nothing"
idea that some of you folks seem to push. Either we must drop out of
technological civilisation entirely or there is no moral requirement
to do *anything at all*. Doesn't sound very plausible to me, and you
don't believe it. Because you do think that we are required to show
*some* moral restraint towards nonhuman animals, but not everything we
can do. So the question is where to draw the line. Any attempt to
explain why it is that wherever it is you draw the line is better
welcome.

In any event, if we could just have some kind of comment, is premise
(1) true or false, that would be great.

If you could just get specific about which of the premises are false
and why it is you think that I am not complying with premise (1) that
would be great. If you think that premise (1) is false, then I suppose
it doesn't really matter whether I am complying or not, the task would
be to explain to me why it is false. If it's true, well, there it is,
both of us should see what we can do about complying, whatever exactly
that may involve for each of us given our particular situations.

I am not sure that I am not complying with premise (1), but if I am
not then that in itself is not a *reason* to think that it is false.

Rupert
2010-01-10 06:21:16 EST
On Jan 10, 6:01 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > (1) Morality requires that, whenever you have an opportunity to make
> > an expected reduction in the extent to which the processes which
> > produce the products you pay for cause pain and suffering to sentient
> > beings, by a means which you have good reason to believe would involve
> > exerting very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on
> > yourself, and there is no other means incompatible with taking
> > advantage of this opportunity by which you can accomplish any
> > comparably morally important goal, then you should take advantage of
> > the opportunity.
> > (2) For most people who live in agriculturally bountiful
> > societies with many healthy, tasty plant foods easily available which
> > can form the basis of a nutritionally adequate diet, boycotting almost
> > all animal-derived food products is a step which makes an expected
> > reduction in the extent to which the processes which produce the
> > products they pay for causes pain and suffering to sentient beings, by
> > a means which they have good reason to believe would involve exerting
> > very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on themselves,
> > and there is no other means incompatible with taking advantage of this
> > opportunity by which they could accomplish any comparably morally
> > important goal.
> > (3) So most such people are morally required to boycott almost all
> > animal-derived food products.
>
> You vegans have one track minds. Even assuming that boycotting
> "animal-derived food products" would have the desired effect, and you
> haven't proven that to be the case, why is that particular step to reduce
> animal suffering morally obligatory while none of the other steps one might
> undertake even rate a mention?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

In all seriousness I don't know of any reason why I shouldn't be
complying with premise (1) *given its highly qualified statement*. If
you think I'm not then I'm certainly happy to listen to any reasons
why.

I don't know if you find this essay interesting.

http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/unger/papers/ethics.html

He tries to argue that the standards for whether or not a judgement of
"Your conduct is acceptable", with regard to the ethics of
benevolence, depend on the context. Different standards are acceptable
for different contexts.

Specifically he puts forward a principle

"Cheaply Decreasing Deaths. Other things being even nearly equal, if
at (nearly) insignificant cost to yourself, you can (help) prevent one
or more other people from each dying soon, while substantially raising
the chances that they'll live healthily for years, and if even so
you'll still be at least reasonably well off, then it's wrong for you
not to (help) prevent such others from suffering such loss of life."

He tries to construct an argument from this premise together with
other information that he takes to me factual that most people in this
society act wrongly.

The trouble is that some of his factual premises are false. It is not
true that if you donate money to UNICEF earmarked for ORT you can be
confident that a life is saved for every 40 cents donated. However, I
have looked into the matter. I think these people do pretty good
research about how much it costs to save a life.

http://givewell.net

And I think that based on their findings Unger could rescue his
argument. It is arguable that donating $1000 in the next year is an
"insigificant cost", but nevertheless in most contexts we would judge
that donating nothing at all is still acceptable. So Unger's argument
for the context-sensitive aspect of the semantics would still go
through. Various terms in the moral premise such as "insignificant
cost" are somewhat vague, but we feel that we understand them well
enough to apply the premise in at least some specific situations.

I would be at least open to a similar treatment for the ethics of how
far we should go in taking steps to reduce the extent to which the
processes that produce the products we pay for cause pain and
suffering to sentient beings, although obviously that's very different
from the line taken by the animal rights movement.

In all seriousness I think that I should comply with premise (1), and
I think I might be doing that already, but if you have any suggestions
for why I'm not I'm happy to listen. I would have to acknowledge that
I'm not doing everything that I should do with regard to my
contribution to climate change. I ought to do something about that.

I don't know what's wrong with publicly advocating premise (1) as a
standard which everyone should comply with.

D*@.
2010-01-10 14:20:50 EST
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:43:49 -0800 (PST), Rupert
<*m@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. it works against the misnomer.

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

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

Dutch
2010-01-10 20:11:09 EST

"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:87be991c-32a2-4f4d-a479-c3c3964d4c64@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 10, 6:01 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > (1) Morality requires that, whenever you have an opportunity to make
> > an expected reduction in the extent to which the processes which
> > produce the products you pay for cause pain and suffering to sentient
> > beings, by a means which you have good reason to believe would involve
> > exerting very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on
> > yourself, and there is no other means incompatible with taking
> > advantage of this opportunity by which you can accomplish any
> > comparably morally important goal, then you should take advantage of
> > the opportunity.
> > (2) For most people who live in agriculturally bountiful
> > societies with many healthy, tasty plant foods easily available which
> > can form the basis of a nutritionally adequate diet, boycotting almost
> > all animal-derived food products is a step which makes an expected
> > reduction in the extent to which the processes which produce the
> > products they pay for causes pain and suffering to sentient beings, by
> > a means which they have good reason to believe would involve exerting
> > very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on themselves,
> > and there is no other means incompatible with taking advantage of this
> > opportunity by which they could accomplish any comparably morally
> > important goal.
> > (3) So most such people are morally required to boycott almost all
> > animal-derived food products.
>
> You vegans have one track minds. Even assuming that boycotting
> "animal-derived food products" would have the desired effect, and you
> haven't proven that to be the case, why is that particular step to reduce
> animal suffering morally obligatory while none of the other steps one
> might
> undertake even rate a mention?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If we could just specific about which of the premises are false that
would be great. Is it both of them? Or just premise (2)?
----->

Both, now would you please answer my question? It is very simple, why single
out the production of animal "products" when so many other processes are
harmful to animals?




Dutch
2010-01-10 20:20:11 EST

<*h@.> wrote in message news:41akk5dhgfp0c9kel5rgaeh59uqco4m8a5@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 14:43:49 -0800 (PST), Rupert
> <rupertmccallum@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>(1) Morality requires that, whenever you have an opportunity to make
>>an expected reduction in the extent to which the processes which
>>produce the products you pay for cause pain and suffering to sentient
>>beings, by a means which you have good reason to believe would involve
>>exerting very little effort, and imposing very little sacrifice on
>>yourself, and there is no other means incompatible with taking
>>advantage of this opportunity by which you can accomplish any
>>comparably morally important goal,
>
> · From

No boilerplate bullshit


D*@.
2010-01-11 11:05:38 EST
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:20:11 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Dutch
2010-01-11 17:19:23 EST

<*h@.> wrote
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 17:20:11 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

>>No boilerplate bullshit
>
> The stock answers show

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


D*@.
2010-01-12 14:05:23 EST
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:19:23 -0800, "Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Consideration for other beings' lives ALWAYS applies to
trying to determine whether or not life has positive value TO
THEM.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)


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