Ethics question: the relative worth of different types of animals
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:02:42 -0700, Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
Just for example, how many more times is a cow worth than an earthworm? Would killing one cow be worse than killing a hundred earthworms? A thousand earthworms? There's more to think about than just the "death" of the cow, since it can't be killed unless it first has life. We can just consider the deaths of wildlife like worms, which are not deliberately raised to be killed, but since livestock are deliberately raised to be killed we must give their lives as much or more consideration than their deaths. So would raising and killing a cow be worse than killing a bunch of earthworms? · 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. · Here we see plowing: http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe and here harrowing: http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation, and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting kills in similar ways: http://tinyurl.com/k6sku and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be kept in mind: http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5 Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes them to predators: http://tinyurl.com/otp5l In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused by flooding: http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3 and later by draining and destroying the environment which developed as the result of the flooding: http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3 Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near as much suffering and death. · http://tinyurl.com/q7whm In vegetarian ethics, do earthworms have any value, relative to mammals? Ingrid Newkirk: Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses. - The Washington Post, 11/13/83 There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals. - Washingtonian magazine, 8/1/86 This is not a troll post. I'm x-posting it to alt.punk, which I read regularly, and where there are quite a few vegetarians. --Bryan · 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. · |
Ethics question: the relative worth of different types of animals
On Aug 26, 3:48 pm, dh@. wrote:
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:02:42 -0700, Bobo Bonobo® wrote: Just for example, how many more times is a cow worth than an earthworm? Would killing one cow be worse than killing a hundred earthworms? A thousand earthworms? Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near as much suffering and death. ·http://tinyurl.com/q7whm 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. · Wild Oats has grass fed sirloin steaks on sale this week for $4.99/ #!!! http://www.wildoats.com/u/find/ --Bryan |
Ethics question: the relative worth of different types of animals
dh@. wrote:
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:02:42 -0700, Bobo Bonobo® wrote: Just for example, how many more times is a cow worth than an earthworm? Would killing one cow be worse than killing a hundred earthworms? A thousand earthworms? There's more to think about than just the "death" of the cow, No there isn't. Once the animal is alive, the consideration is about killing it or not, and the implications of that. since it can't be killed unless it first has life. We can just consider the deaths of wildlife like worms, which are not deliberately raised to be killed, but since livestock are deliberately raised to be killed we must give their lives as much or more consideration than their deaths. Absolute rubbish, there' nothing about "their lives" per se to consider. We should take good care of them, that is it. So would raising and killing a cow be worse than killing a bunch of earthworms? · 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. · Here we see plowing: http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe and here harrowing: http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation, and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting kills in similar ways: http://tinyurl.com/k6sku and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be kept in mind: http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5 Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes them to predators: http://tinyurl.com/otp5l In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused by flooding: http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3 and later by draining and destroying the environment which developed as the result of the flooding: http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3 Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near as much suffering and death. · http://tinyurl.com/q7whm In vegetarian ethics, do earthworms have any value, relative to mammals? Ingrid Newkirk: Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses. - The Washington Post, 11/13/83 There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals. - Washingtonian magazine, 8/1/86 This is not a troll post. I'm x-posting it to alt.punk, which I read regularly, and where there are quite a few vegetarians. --Bryan · 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, No it doesn't. No human endeavor "provides life", humans and their "industries" control the breeding and deaths of animals so they become consumer products. Only nature, or God if you like, "provides life". You're trying to play God, claiming a credit for life itself, and nobody is buying it. I realize you think you have a new audience for your bull****, but they aren't 6-year olds. 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. What a load of garbage. I believe consuming animal products is perfectly moral, but bull**** rationalizations like that are NOT. |
Ethics question: the relative worth of different types of animals
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 17:08:37 -0700, Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
On Aug 26, 3:48 pm, dh@. wrote: On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:02:42 -0700, Bobo Bonobo® wrote: Just for example, how many more times is a cow worth than an earthworm? Would killing one cow be worse than killing a hundred earthworms? A thousand earthworms? Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near as much suffering and death. ·http://tinyurl.com/q7whm 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. · Wild Oats has grass fed sirloin steaks on sale this week for $4.99/ #!!! http://www.wildoats.com/u/find/ --Bryan It sounds great, but their closest store is 203 miles. That's a little too up the road for me. |
Ethics question: the relative worth of different types of animals
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:36:03 GMT, Dutch wrote:
dh@. wrote: On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:02:42 -0700, Bobo Bonobo® wrote: Just for example, how many more times is a cow worth than an earthworm? Would killing one cow be worse than killing a hundred earthworms? A thousand earthworms? There's more to think about than just the "death" of the cow, No there isn't. There is obviously the cow's life to consider. Once the animal is alive, the consideration is about killing it or not, and the implications of that. since it can't be killed unless it first has life. We can just consider the deaths of wildlife like worms, which are not deliberately raised to be killed, but since livestock are deliberately raised to be killed we must give their lives as much or more consideration than their deaths. Absolute rubbish, there' nothing about "their lives" per se to consider. We should take good care of them, that is it. So would raising and killing a cow be worse than killing a bunch of earthworms? · 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. · Here we see plowing: http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe and here harrowing: http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation, and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting kills in similar ways: http://tinyurl.com/k6sku and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be kept in mind: http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5 Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes them to predators: http://tinyurl.com/otp5l In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused by flooding: http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3 and later by draining and destroying the environment which developed as the result of the flooding: http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3 Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near as much suffering and death. · http://tinyurl.com/q7whm In vegetarian ethics, do earthworms have any value, relative to mammals? Ingrid Newkirk: Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses. - The Washington Post, 11/13/83 There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals. - Washingtonian magazine, 8/1/86 This is not a troll post. I'm x-posting it to alt.punk, which I read regularly, and where there are quite a few vegetarians. --Bryan · 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, No it doesn't. Obviously it provides billions of lives for various types of animals. No human endeavor "provides life", humans and their "industries" control the breeding and deaths of animals so they become consumer products. Only nature, or God if you like, "provides life". You're trying to play God, claiming a credit for life itself, Only a very stupid person would think about it like that. People with better ability to understand realise that the meat industry provides life for billions of animals. and nobody is buying it. I realize you think you have a new audience for your bull****, but they aren't 6-year olds. 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. What a load of garbage. I pointed out facts which you obviously hate to see pointed out for some personal reason. I believe consuming animal products is perfectly moral, I don't believe you. but bull**** rationalizations like that are NOT. I pointed out facts which you obviously hate to see pointed out for some personal reason. |
Ethics question: the relative worth of different types of animals
dh@. wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:36:03 GMT, Dutch wrote: dh@. wrote: On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:02:42 -0700, Bobo Bonobo® wrote: Just for example, how many more times is a cow worth than an earthworm? Would killing one cow be worse than killing a hundred earthworms? A thousand earthworms? There's more to think about than just the "death" of the cow, No there isn't. There is obviously the cow's life to consider. No, there decidedly is not "the cow's life to consider". That makes absolutely no sense. Once the animal is alive, the consideration is about killing it or not, and the implications of that. since it can't be killed unless it first has life. We can just consider the deaths of wildlife like worms, which are not deliberately raised to be killed, but since livestock are deliberately raised to be killed we must give their lives as much or more consideration than their deaths. Absolute rubbish, there' nothing about "their lives" per se to consider. We should take good care of them, that is it. So would raising and killing a cow be worse than killing a bunch of earthworms? · 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. · Here we see plowing: http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe and here harrowing: http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation, and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting kills in similar ways: http://tinyurl.com/k6sku and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be kept in mind: http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5 Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes them to predators: http://tinyurl.com/otp5l In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused by flooding: http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3 and later by draining and destroying the environment which developed as the result of the flooding: http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3 Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near as much suffering and death. · http://tinyurl.com/q7whm In vegetarian ethics, do earthworms have any value, relative to mammals? Ingrid Newkirk: Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses. - The Washington Post, 11/13/83 There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals. - Washingtonian magazine, 8/1/86 This is not a troll post. I'm x-posting it to alt.punk, which I read regularly, and where there are quite a few vegetarians. --Bryan · 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, No it doesn't. Obviously it provides billions of lives for various types of animals. No it doesn't, it provides NO life for anything. It systematically arranges animal breeding to serve it's purposes. No human endeavor "provides life", humans and their "industries" control the breeding and deaths of animals so they become consumer products. Only nature, or God if you like, "provides life". You're trying to play God, claiming a credit for life itself, Only a very stupid person would think about it like that. People with better ability to understand realise that the meat industry provides life for billions of animals. Nope, no industry ever "provided" a single life, they only arrange births and deaths to provide a consumer product to make a profit. and nobody is buying it. I realize you think you have a new audience for your bull****, but they aren't 6-year olds. 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. What a load of garbage. I pointed out facts which you obviously hate to see pointed out for some personal reason. You point out bull**** because you think the use of animals requires rationalization. I believe consuming animal products is perfectly moral, I don't believe you. I don't care what you believe. but bull**** rationalizations like that are NOT. I pointed out facts which you obviously hate to see pointed out for some personal reason. You point out bull**** because you think the use of animals requires rationalization. |
Ethics question: the relative worth of different types of animals
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 23:19:51 GMT, Dutch wrote:
dh@. wrote: On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:36:03 GMT, Dutch wrote: dh@. wrote: On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:02:42 -0700, Bobo Bonobo® wrote: Just for example, how many more times is a cow worth than an earthworm? Would killing one cow be worse than killing a hundred earthworms? A thousand earthworms? There's more to think about than just the "death" of the cow, No there isn't. There is obviously the cow's life to consider. No, there decidedly is not "the cow's life Yes there is Booger, for every single one of them. to consider". That makes absolutely no sense. Once the animal is alive, the consideration is about killing it or not, and the implications of that. since it can't be killed unless it first has life. We can just consider the deaths of wildlife like worms, which are not deliberately raised to be killed, but since livestock are deliberately raised to be killed we must give their lives as much or more consideration than their deaths. Absolute rubbish, there' nothing about "their lives" per se to consider. We should take good care of them, that is it. So would raising and killing a cow be worse than killing a bunch of earthworms? · 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. · Here we see plowing: http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe and here harrowing: http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation, and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting kills in similar ways: http://tinyurl.com/k6sku and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be kept in mind: http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5 Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes them to predators: http://tinyurl.com/otp5l In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused by flooding: http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3 and later by draining and destroying the environment which developed as the result of the flooding: http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3 Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near as much suffering and death. · http://tinyurl.com/q7whm In vegetarian ethics, do earthworms have any value, relative to mammals? Ingrid Newkirk: Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses. - The Washington Post, 11/13/83 There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals. - Washingtonian magazine, 8/1/86 This is not a troll post. I'm x-posting it to alt.punk, which I read regularly, and where there are quite a few vegetarians. --Bryan · 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, No it doesn't. Obviously it provides billions of lives for various types of animals. No it doesn't, it provides NO life for anything. It systematically arranges animal breeding to serve it's purposes. No human endeavor "provides life", humans and their "industries" control the breeding and deaths of animals so they become consumer products. Only nature, or God if you like, "provides life". You're trying to play God, claiming a credit for life itself, Only a very stupid person would think about it like that. People with better ability to understand realise that the meat industry provides life for billions of animals. Nope, no industry ever "provided" a single life, they only arrange births and deaths to provide a consumer product You poor stupid fool. The consumer product comes from the life necessarily provided as you just stated. You are such a slow, shallow little fool. |
Ethics question: the relative worth of different types of animals
dh@. wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 23:19:51 GMT, Dutch wrote: [..] The meat industry provides life for the animals that it slaughters, No it doesn't. Obviously it provides billions of lives for various types of animals. No it doesn't, it provides NO life for anything. It systematically arranges animal breeding to serve it's purposes. No human endeavor "provides life", humans and their "industries" control the breeding and deaths of animals so they become consumer products. Only nature, or God if you like, "provides life". You're trying to play God, claiming a credit for life itself, Only a very stupid person would think about it like that. People with better ability to understand realise that the meat industry provides life for billions of animals. Nope, no industry ever "provided" a single life, they only arrange births and deaths to provide a consumer product You poor stupid fool. The consumer product comes from the life necessarily provided as you just stated. You are such a slow, shallow little fool. No industry, no human, has ever "provided life" for any animal. Humans herd animals into barns and orchestrate breeding, feeding and slaughter to provide "products", not life. Humans can cause death of animals, they can't cause life of animals. Placing animals in pens together is not "giving life", artificial insemination is not "creating life". You're trying to put yourself on a pedestal, just like ARAs do. |
Ethics question: the relative worth of different types of animals
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:24:20 GMT, Dutch wrote:
dh@. wrote: On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 23:19:51 GMT, Dutch wrote: [..] The meat industry provides life for the animals that it slaughters, No it doesn't. Obviously it provides billions of lives for various types of animals. No it doesn't, it provides NO life for anything. It systematically arranges animal breeding to serve it's purposes. No human endeavor "provides life", humans and their "industries" control the breeding and deaths of animals so they become consumer products. Only nature, or God if you like, "provides life". You're trying to play God, claiming a credit for life itself, Only a very stupid person would think about it like that. People with better ability to understand realise that the meat industry provides life for billions of animals. Nope, no industry ever "provided" a single life, they only arrange births and deaths to provide a consumer product You poor stupid fool. The consumer product comes from the life necessarily provided as you just stated. You are such a slow, shallow little fool. No industry, no human, has ever "provided life" for any animal. Humans herd animals into barns and orchestrate breeding, feeding and slaughter to provide "products", not life. You really are proving to be MUCH too stupid to discuss things like this, Booger. You are always confused, wandering in a bewildered fog between your own ears. The product provided is meat. The meat does not occur without animals being provided with life THROUGH BREEDING, resulting in the animals who actually ARE the product. You don't understand the difference between providing life through breeding, and the concept of producing life from lifeless materials. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CatBanter.com