Vegetarian Discussion: "Consideration" For Future Animals' Lives - Utter Nonsense

"Consideration" For Future Animals' Lives - Utter Nonsense
Posts: 149

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)

George Plimpton
2011-01-27 15:48:04 EST
A participant in these groups has long objected to "animal rights" on
the grounds that if "animal rights activists" (aras) were to succeed in
halting the breeding of livestock animals, countless animals in future
will not exist. He pretends that animals that don't exist today, but
might in future if we breed them into existence, somehow "benefit" from
existing and "getting to experience life." Because of that, he says
that aras are being "inconsiderate" in their desire to halt the breeding
of livestock animals. He thinks the merely potential lives of future
farm animals deserve moral consideration today, *and* he thinks the only
morally correct conclusion resulting from that consideration is that
farm animals "ought" to exist in future, in order to "benefit" from
"getting to experience life."

It's nonsense. No matter how pleasant a short life for a broiler
chicken in 2014 might be, that provides no compelling reason for such a
chicken - or any chicken - to exist. If society for whatever reason -
environmental consideration, or human health, or the ethics of livestock
husbandry - decided to stop breeding livestock right now, the fact that
countless future livestock animal lives would not occur has no moral
meaning at all - zero. No "consideration" is due their lives.

Ben Kaufman
2011-01-27 19:37:53 EST
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 12:48:04 -0800, George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote:

>A participant in these groups has long objected to "animal rights" on
>the grounds that if "animal rights activists" (aras) were to succeed in
>halting the breeding of livestock animals, countless animals in future
>will not exist. He pretends that animals that don't exist today, but
>might in future if we breed them into existence, somehow "benefit" from
>existing and "getting to experience life." Because of that, he says
>that aras are being "inconsiderate" in their desire to halt the breeding
>of livestock animals. He thinks the merely potential lives of future
>farm animals deserve moral consideration today, *and* he thinks the only
>morally correct conclusion resulting from that consideration is that
>farm animals "ought" to exist in future, in order to "benefit" from
>"getting to experience life."
>
>It's nonsense. No matter how pleasant a short life for a broiler
>chicken in 2014 might be, that provides no compelling reason for such a
>chicken - or any chicken - to exist. If society for whatever reason -
>environmental consideration, or human health, or the ethics of livestock
>husbandry - decided to stop breeding livestock right now, the fact that
>countless future livestock animal lives would not occur has no moral
>meaning at all - zero. No "consideration" is due their lives.

And most "food animals" do not enjoy a pleasant life.

Ben

George Plimpton
2011-01-27 22:35:29 EST
On 1/27/2011 4:37 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 12:48:04 -0800, George Plimpton<george@si.not> wrote:
>
>> A participant in these groups has long objected to "animal rights" on
>> the grounds that if "animal rights activists" (aras) were to succeed in
>> halting the breeding of livestock animals, countless animals in future
>> will not exist. He pretends that animals that don't exist today, but
>> might in future if we breed them into existence, somehow "benefit" from
>> existing and "getting to experience life." Because of that, he says
>> that aras are being "inconsiderate" in their desire to halt the breeding
>> of livestock animals. He thinks the merely potential lives of future
>> farm animals deserve moral consideration today, *and* he thinks the only
>> morally correct conclusion resulting from that consideration is that
>> farm animals "ought" to exist in future, in order to "benefit" from
>> "getting to experience life."
>>
>> It's nonsense. No matter how pleasant a short life for a broiler
>> chicken in 2014 might be, that provides no compelling reason for such a
>> chicken - or any chicken - to exist. If society for whatever reason -
>> environmental consideration, or human health, or the ethics of livestock
>> husbandry - decided to stop breeding livestock right now, the fact that
>> countless future livestock animal lives would not occur has no moral
>> meaning at all - zero. No "consideration" is due their lives.
>
> And most "food animals" do not enjoy a pleasant life.

Depends on the animals, but certainly most spend a significant part of
their lives in low welfare conditions. The conditions are not static
through their lives.

Beef cattle spend much of their lives grazing in open range land.
That's probably reasonably pleasant for them, as grazing in open range
land is what their wild ancestors evolved doing. At some point, most
beef cattle in North America and Europe are moved to feedlots and fed an
unnatural diet of grain. This stage of their lives is not pleasant.
They're standing or lying all the time in a mixture of dirt and manure,
not on grass, and eating grain makes them sick. Their conditions only
worsen from then until the point of slaughter are anything but pleasant.

Most egg-producing hens are confined to battery cages - unpleasant.
Broiler chickens generally live in windowless, poorly ventilated sheds -
unpleasant. There are free-range birds, but they're a tiny minority.

Pregnant sows are kept in gestation and farrowing crates, which prevent
them from moving around - unpleasant. Once the hogs are raised for
meat, they probably don't have it too bad.

All in all, a lot of animals raised for human consumption have rather
unpleasant lives.

Michael Gordge
2011-01-28 03:58:16 EST
On Jan 28, 12:35 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:

> All in all, a lot of animals raised for human consumption have rather
> unpleasant lives.

Anthropomorphic crap.

MG

Dutch
2011-01-28 04:00:45 EST
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote
> On Jan 28, 12:35 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
>> All in all, a lot of animals raised for human consumption have rather
>> unpleasant lives.
>
> Anthropomorphic crap.
>
> MG

What's anthropomorphic about it?

Are you sure it's not a commie conspiracy?

George Plimpton
2011-01-28 10:07:36 EST
On 1/28/2011 1:00 AM, Dutch wrote:
> "Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote
>> On Jan 28, 12:35 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>
>>> All in all, a lot of animals raised for human consumption have rather
>>> unpleasant lives.
>>
>> Anthropomorphic crap.
>>
>> MG
>
> What's anthropomorphic about it?
> Are you sure it's not a commie conspiracy?

He's not worth a response.


--
...and that's just how it is.

D*@.
2011-01-31 21:38:53 EST
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 Goo wrote:

>On 1/27/2011 4:37 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 12:48:04 -0800, George Plimpton<george@si.not> wrote:
>>
>>> A participant in these groups has long objected to "animal rights" on
>>> the grounds that if "animal rights activists" (aras) were to succeed in
>>> halting the breeding of livestock animals, countless animals in future
>>> will not exist. He pretends that animals that don't exist today, but
>>> might in future if we breed them into existence, somehow "benefit" from
>>> existing and "getting to experience life." Because of that, he says
>>> that aras are being "inconsiderate" in their desire to halt the breeding
>>> of livestock animals. He thinks the merely potential lives of future
>>> farm animals deserve moral consideration today, *and* he thinks the only
>>> morally correct conclusion resulting from that consideration is that
>>> farm animals "ought" to exist in future, in order to "benefit" from
>>> "getting to experience life."
>>>
>>> It's nonsense. No matter how pleasant a short life for a broiler
>>> chicken in 2014 might be, that provides no compelling reason for such a
>>> chicken - or any chicken - to exist. If society for whatever reason -
>>> environmental consideration, or human health, or the ethics of livestock
>>> husbandry - decided to stop breeding livestock right now, the fact that
>>> countless future livestock animal lives would not occur has no moral
>>> meaning at all - zero. No "consideration" is due their lives.
>>
>> And most "food animals" do not enjoy a pleasant life.
>
>Depends on the animals, but certainly most spend a significant part of
>their lives in low welfare conditions. The conditions are not static
>through their lives.
>
>Beef cattle spend much of their lives grazing in open range land.
>That's probably reasonably pleasant for them,

What more could a grazing animal want than to graze Goo?

>as grazing in open range
>land is what their wild ancestors evolved doing. At some point, most
>beef cattle in North America and Europe are moved to feedlots and fed an
>unnatural diet of grain. This stage of their lives is not pleasant.

The answer to the first question is: To eat grain. Goo.

>They're standing or lying all the time in a mixture of dirt and manure,

They don't care Goo. When they are out in an open pasture
they will walk through or lie down on a pile of shit as soon as
not. They give it no notice.

>not on grass, and eating grain makes them sick.

It can kill them Goo, but the feeders know how to give them
the right mix to keep from killing them. Cattle like nothing
better than to eat grain Goo, and as a side note horses are much
the same, but you people can't even acknowledge stuff like that
much less appreciate it.

>Their conditions only
>worsen from then until the point of slaughter are anything but pleasant.
>
>Most egg-producing hens are confined to battery cages - unpleasant.

That one you're correct about Goob because the cage itself is
overly restricting, and one of the worst restrictions is that
hens can't get away from overly aggresive hens who keep them
afraid and hiding their head in a corner all the time.

>Broiler chickens generally live in windowless,

Not that it matters much, I have never seen a windowless
broiler house that I can recall. Give us links to some photos
Goo.

>poorly ventilated sheds -

That's a lie Goober. In contrast to your eliminationist
sounding lie, the houses have to be well ventilated so the
chickens don't die, and you can bet the companies that actually
own the chicks have guidlines their grower's houses have to meet
before they take them on as a grower and let them have some
chicks.

>unpleasant. There are free-range birds, but they're a tiny minority.

Free range doesn't mean much, but it's not surprising that
eliminationists can't appreciate that either.

>Pregnant sows are kept in gestation and farrowing crates, which prevent
>them from moving around - unpleasant.

Goober the sows are kept in farrowing crates to deliberately
restrict their movement so they step on and lie on a lower
percentage of their own pigs. I had a sow who had several litters
of pigs and because I didn't have any sort of farrowing crate she
killed quite a few of her own pigs by lying on them and stepping
on them. Lying on usually killed them, but stepping on caused all
kinds of different injuries. Having a crate would have reduced
the number of injuries and deaths, but I didn't want to do that
because I favored the sow. Commercial farmers favor the pigs Goo,
but you people will never acknowledge that either.

>Once the hogs are raised for
>meat, they probably don't have it too bad.
>
>All in all, a lot of animals raised for human consumption have rather
>unpleasant lives.

You lied about beef cattle and broiler chickens Goo, and told
less than half a truth about sows and pigs.

D*@.
2011-01-31 21:39:15 EST
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 19:37:53 -0500, Ben Kaufman
<spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 12:48:04 -0800, George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote:
>
>>A participant in these groups has long objected to "animal rights" on
>>the grounds that if "animal rights activists" (aras) were to succeed in
>>halting the breeding of livestock animals, countless animals in future
>>will not exist. He pretends that animals that don't exist today, but
>>might in future if we breed them into existence, somehow "benefit" from
>>existing and "getting to experience life." Because of that, he says
>>that aras are being "inconsiderate" in their desire to halt the breeding
>>of livestock animals. He thinks the merely potential lives of future
>>farm animals deserve moral consideration today, *and* he thinks the only
>>morally correct conclusion resulting from that consideration is that
>>farm animals "ought" to exist in future, in order to "benefit" from
>>"getting to experience life."
>>
>>It's nonsense. No matter how pleasant a short life for a broiler
>>chicken in 2014 might be, that provides no compelling reason for such a
>>chicken - or any chicken - to exist. If society for whatever reason -
>>environmental consideration, or human health, or the ethics of livestock
>>husbandry - decided to stop breeding livestock right now, the fact that
>>countless future livestock animal lives would not occur has no moral
>>meaning at all - zero. No "consideration" is due their lives.
>
>And most "food animals" do not enjoy a pleasant life.

Most do imo. Though short, most broiler chickens certainly
should, and so should their parents. Most commercial laying hens
probably don't because they're kept in little cages, but their
parents do because they're kept in open houses. Most cattle, beef
and dairy, certainly should both in pastures and in barns and
feed lots. Cattle like eating grain better than anything else.
But eliminationists can't afford to consider ANY, because
considering any works in favor of decent animal welfare which
works directly against the gross misnomer "animal rights", ie
elimination. These people want the extreme, which is no more
livestock of any kind ever, so they are necessarily opposed to
considering any benefits for livestock. In complete contrast to
that, people in favor of providing decent animal welfare
encourage considering the animals' lives when they are of
positive value, and are glad for animals to experience them. We
also consider when they are of negative value and are in favor of
making changes or doing away with methods that seem overly
cruel.. I'm in favor of doing away with battery cages for laying
hens, and buy cage free eggs to contribute to that type of
farming. They cost more money but since I hate the cages it's
worth it to not contribute to the damn cages, while at the same
time supporting cage free farming. It would be great to see the
US move that direction voluntarily instead of because it becomes
illegal to use cages like in parts of Europe.

Immortalist
2011-01-31 21:44:32 EST
On Jan 27, 12:48 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> A participant in these groups has long objected to "animal rights" on
> the grounds that if "animal rights activists" (aras) were to succeed in
> halting the breeding of livestock animals, countless animals in future
> will not exist.  He pretends that animals that don't exist today, but
> might in future if we breed them into existence, somehow "benefit" from
> existing and "getting to experience life."  Because of that, he says
> that aras are being "inconsiderate" in their desire to halt the breeding
> of livestock animals.  He thinks the merely potential lives of future
> farm animals deserve moral consideration today, *and* he thinks the only
> morally correct conclusion resulting from that consideration is that
> farm animals "ought" to exist in future, in order to "benefit" from
> "getting to experience life."
>
> It's nonsense.  No matter how pleasant a short life for a broiler
> chicken in 2014 might be, that provides no compelling reason for such a
> chicken - or any chicken - to exist.  If society for whatever reason -
> environmental consideration, or human health, or the ethics of livestock
> husbandry - decided to stop breeding livestock right now, the fact that
> countless future livestock animal lives would not occur has no moral
> meaning at all - zero.  No "consideration" is due their lives.

So your saying that humans are never responsible for their behavior?
If a human changes the sequence of events that would have otherwise
unfolded he or she is to believe that it don't matter even if it
results in pain suffering and altered life?

Still trying to find an example of something benefiting. You got any?

George Plimpton
2011-01-31 23:19:10 EST
On 1/31/2011 6:38 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 Goo wrote:
>
>> On 1/27/2011 4:37 PM, Ben Kaufman wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 12:48:04 -0800, George Plimpton<george@si.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A participant in these groups has long objected to "animal rights" on
>>>> the grounds that if "animal rights activists" (aras) were to succeed in
>>>> halting the breeding of livestock animals, countless animals in future
>>>> will not exist. He pretends that animals that don't exist today, but
>>>> might in future if we breed them into existence, somehow "benefit" from
>>>> existing and "getting to experience life." Because of that, he says
>>>> that aras are being "inconsiderate" in their desire to halt the breeding
>>>> of livestock animals. He thinks the merely potential lives of future
>>>> farm animals deserve moral consideration today, *and* he thinks the only
>>>> morally correct conclusion resulting from that consideration is that
>>>> farm animals "ought" to exist in future, in order to "benefit" from
>>>> "getting to experience life."
>>>>
>>>> It's nonsense. No matter how pleasant a short life for a broiler
>>>> chicken in 2014 might be, that provides no compelling reason for such a
>>>> chicken - or any chicken - to exist. If society for whatever reason -
>>>> environmental consideration, or human health, or the ethics of livestock
>>>> husbandry - decided to stop breeding livestock right now, the fact that
>>>> countless future livestock animal lives would not occur has no moral
>>>> meaning at all - zero. No "consideration" is due their lives.
>>>
>>> And most "food animals" do not enjoy a pleasant life.
>>
>> Depends on the animals, but certainly most spend a significant part of
>> their lives in low welfare conditions. The conditions are not static
>> through their lives.
>>
>> Beef cattle spend much of their lives grazing in open range land.
>> That's probably reasonably pleasant for them, as grazing in open range
>> land is what their wild ancestors evolved doing. At some point, most
>> beef cattle in North America and Europe are moved to feedlots and fed an
>> unnatural diet of grain. This stage of their lives is not pleasant.
>
> The answer to the first question is: To eat grain.

It's bad for them. Eating grain lowers their welfare.


>> They're standing or lying all the time in a mixture of dirt and manure,
>
> They don't care

It's unpleasant for them.


>> not on grass, and eating grain makes them sick.
>
> It can kill them

It makes them very sick. It reduces their welfare by a lot.



>> Their conditions only
>> worsen from then until the point of slaughter are anything but pleasant.
>>
>> Most egg-producing hens are confined to battery cages - unpleasant.
>
> That one you're correct about

I'm correct about all of it.



>> Broiler chickens generally live in windowless,
>
> Not that it matters much

It does.


>> poorly ventilated sheds -
>
> That's a lie

It's not.


>> unpleasant. There are free-range birds, but they're a tiny minority.
>
> Free range doesn't mean much

The welfare of free range birds is considerably higher than that of
birds kept in sheds.


>> Pregnant sows are kept in gestation and farrowing crates, which prevent
>> them from moving around - unpleasant.
>
> the sows are kept in farrowing crates to deliberately
> restrict their movement so they step on and lie on a lower
> percentage of their own pigs.

It reduces the welfare of the sows.



>> Once the hogs are raised for
>> meat, they probably don't have it too bad.
>>
>> All in all, a lot of animals raised for human consumption have rather
>> unpleasant lives.
>
> You lied about beef cattle and broiler chickens

I didn't lie about anything.

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