PDA

View Full Version : Re: "animal rights" vs Animal Welfare


July 11th 06, 01:43 PM
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:09:17 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 19:07:02 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote
>>>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 18:43:48 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote
>>>>>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 01:20:34 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>the fewer livestock that are born the more
>>>>>>>animals that would be born.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If so, so what? That's what we're trying to find out. WHY would it
>>>>>> be better?
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not an ecologist, but let's agree for the sake of discussion that it
>>>>>wouldn't be better, or at least that we don't care if there is more
>>>>>wildlife.
>>>>
>>>> Good.
>>>>
>>>>>Now that that is settled, why would it be better for there to be
>>>>>more livestock? You're the one claiming that it would be better, why?
>>>>
>>>> Better for what?
>>>
>>>Better for the animals.
>>
>> Since future animals don't exist it couldn't be "better" for "them",
>> but it could be of positive value to them. I can appreciate that. You
>> can not. Your inability to understand or appreciate the fact limits your
>> thinking to the extent that you can't consider the animals themselves,
>> but when/if you have ever tried to all you can consider is your own
>> imaginary browny points. While you are forever stuck at your impasse,
>> I have gone on to even consider specific ways that people could
>> provide longer better lives for the animals, which is beyond what
>> you/"aras" could ever give a second's thought.
>
>List a few of those specific ways.

I'll give you one. Buy a baby bull headed to be veal, and pay a
farmer to let him eat grass in a pasture until he's big enough for
his owner to have him slaughtered...or slaughter himself. If you
try one, I'll try matching you with another.

>>>> You're the one making the restrictions, so what
>>>> would you restrict us to consider?
>>>
>>>Why would it better *for animals* for there to be more livestock and
>>>thereby
>>>less wildlife?
>>>
>>>>So far you won't allow us to consider
>>>> the livestock themselves,
>>>
>>>You haven't given anyone a reason to consider livestock, aside from the
>>>obvious ones, welfare
>>
>> How could you possibly consider their welfare but not their lives?
>
>Easily, their welfare is what is relevant, their live per se are not.

They both are. It's hilarious that you/"aras" claim to respect the
lives of animals whose lives you insist are irrelevant.

>>>and utility.
>>>
>>>> and you probably find fault with considering
>>>> human interest, so what would you allow consideration of?
>>>
>>>Human interests, the interest of the environment, the welfare interests of
>>>living animals.
>>
>> How could you possibly consider their welfare but not their lives? And
>> do NOT even hint or say anything to do with your browny points, but stick
>> to the animals.
>
>Explain what you mean by "consider their lives".

What the animals get from the arrangement.

>>>>>Why shouldn't we have no preference? There's all this plant material out
>>>>>there, we can harvest it and feed it to livestock, or we can let it grow
>>>>>and
>>>>>let wild animal populations feed off it. Apart from the fact that we
>>>>>want
>>>>>livestock to produce products, why should we care which animals eat it?
>>>>
>>>> "aras" say that we should leave it only to wildlife,
>>>
>>>Right, they do, and think the LoL is a coherent argument against it, it
>>>isn't.
>>
>> LOL! Since you are unable to understand or appreciate the fact that
>> some livestock have lives of positive value, your opinion about that--and
>> probably everything else now that we think about it--is necessarily
>> distorted
>> by your own ignorance and confusion. That distortion is GREATLY amplified
>> by your obsession with your own imaginary browny points...an obsession so
>> great that it prevents you from considering anything else.
>
>Explain what you mean by "consider their lives".

What the animals get from the arrangement.
.. . .

>>>We should consider the welfare of living animals, and of important animal
>>>populations. Livestock are not important animal populations aside from
>>>their utility.
>>
>> At last you have acknowledged that you give no consideration to decent
>> AW for livestock,
>
>Liar "We should consider the welfare of living animals.."

Why not future animals as well?

>> as I have also been pointing out over and over... So through
>> this you of course have been unable to explain the big mystery WHY???,
>> though you have still insisted we should favor wildlife over livestock at
>> least
>> twice in your last post.
>
>Why did you lie when my statement is right there?

You're the one who said livestock are not important animal populations,
plus the fact that you don't even know HOW to consider their lives...in fact
you/"aras" insist their lives are irrelevant. AND you said that appreciation
of decent AW--ie the LoL--is a "bigger load of crap" than "leaving the
resources to wildlife."

>To sum it up, you have:
>>
>> 1. proven without question that you're unable to understand or appreciate
>> the
>> fact that some livestock have lives of positive value, meaning that you
>> are
>> necessarily incapable of considering a difference between when they are
>> and when they are not.
>
>We should consider the welfare of living animals

Why not future animals as well?

>> 2. insisted that there is a greater "moral imperative"--ie, you think you
>> get more
>> browny points--for "leaving the resources to wildlife" than for
>> promoting
>> decent lives for livestock, without being able to explain WHY???.
>
>We should consider the welfare of living animals
>>
>> 2. insisted that we should only consider the welfare of animal populations
>> which
>> YOU/"aras" consider to be "important".
>
>We should consider the welfare of living animals

Why not future animals as well?

>> 3. insisted that livestock are not important enough for YOU/"aras" to
>> consider
>> their lives or their welfare.
>
>We should consider the welfare of living animals

Why not future animals as well???