A cat forum. CatBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » CatBanter forum » Cat Newsgroups » Cats - misc
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ethics question: the relative worth of different types of animals



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 26th 07, 09:48 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.punk,alt.pets.rodents,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default 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. ·
  #2  
Old August 27th 07, 01:08 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.punk,alt.pets.rodents,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc
Bobo Bonobo®
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Ethics question: the relative worth of different types of animals

On Aug 26, 3:48 pm, [email protected] 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

  #3  
Old August 27th 07, 08:36 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.punk,alt.pets.rodents,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc
Dutch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Ethics question: the relative worth of different types of animals

[email protected] 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.


  #4  
Old August 27th 07, 09:44 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.punk,alt.pets.rodents,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default 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, [email protected] 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.
  #5  
Old August 27th 07, 09:44 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.punk,alt.pets.rodents,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default Ethics question: the relative worth of different types of animals

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:36:03 GMT, Dutch wrote:

[email protected] 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.
  #6  
Old August 28th 07, 12:19 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.punk,alt.pets.rodents,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc
Dutch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Ethics question: the relative worth of different types of animals

[email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:36:03 GMT, Dutch wrote:

[email protected] 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.
  #7  
Old August 28th 07, 07:26 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.punk,alt.pets.rodents,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default Ethics question: the relative worth of different types of animals

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 23:19:51 GMT, Dutch wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 07:36:03 GMT, Dutch wrote:

[email protected] 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.

  #8  
Old August 28th 07, 08:24 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.punk,alt.pets.rodents,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc
Dutch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Ethics question: the relative worth of different types of animals

[email protected] 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.

  #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
[email protected]
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:

[email protected] 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.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Types of purrs Takayuki Cat anecdotes 16 April 8th 07 08:56 PM
Veterinary Ethics CatNipped Cat health & behaviour 7 March 18th 06 07:57 PM
OT - Reproduction Ethics KellyH Cat health & behaviour 1 February 20th 05 09:07 PM
ethics: The stray that wasn't.. Brian Link Cat rescue 22 July 12th 04 11:01 PM
ethics followup: Not the same cat Brian Link Cat rescue 6 July 10th 04 06:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2017 CatBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.