If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"animal rights" vs Animal Welfare
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 19:07:02 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
dh@. wrote On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 18:43:48 -0700, "Dutch" wrote: dh@. 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. 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? 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. 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. and if you're going to defend that against the LoL YOU!!! need to do it. Leaving the resources to wildlife and the LoL are not the alternatives, they are two extremist AR views. One says that there is a moral imperative that livestock should never be bred, the other, your LoL, says there is a moral imperative that livestock should be bred. They're both nonsense, there is no moral imperative either way, Immediately your obsession with your browny points takes complete control of your thinking, totally removing the animals you sometimes pretend to care about. How could any browny points associated with some imagined moral imperative, do something that's "Better for the animals" in question...and don't forget that the animals in question right now are livestock. but between the two, the LoL is bigger load of crap. That's what you/"aras" keep insisting. But what you consistently fail to be able to do is to explain WHY????? As I have pointed out many many times, and you continue to prove. So quit maundering like the goo you've proven yourself to be, and try to do what you're pretending to try to do. You need to explain why we should only consider the lives of wildlife but not those of livestock. Go: 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, 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. 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. 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???. 2. insisted that we should only consider the welfare of animal populations which YOU/"aras" consider to be "important". 3. insisted that livestock are not important enough for YOU/"aras" to consider their lives or their welfare. You have shown that you're just not capable of realistic thinking about this issue, because you're not capable of considering all animals involved. People interested in promoting decent AW are capable, but you/"aras" are not. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Animals do not "anticipate" | [email protected] | Cat community | 108 | May 29th 06 05:40 PM |
Animal Rights Activists Gone BESERK!!! | SuperZee via CatKB.com | Cat health & behaviour | 3 | May 19th 05 03:26 AM |
URGENT: Small NO KILL Animal Shelter in need of support to fix up donated building!!! | The Last Resort Animal Sanctuary | Cat community | 0 | October 26th 04 04:18 AM |
Listing Of Animal Rescue Groups In CA Fire Zones | Cat Protector | Cat health & behaviour | 4 | October 31st 03 09:03 AM |