View Single Post
  #9  
Old August 29th 07, 08:45 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.punk,alt.pets.rodents,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc
dh@.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default 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.