FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 16:16:27 GMT, wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:09:24 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:05:24 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>[..]
>>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
>>>slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do
>>>in any other habitat. They also depend on it for their
>>>lives like the animals in any other habitat. 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.
>>
>>Most meatarians justify their diet using the same logic
>>you use,
>
> They know that what I point out is true.

I've no doubt they believe it.

> So do you.

No, I don't.

>>and they use it because they intuitively know
>>they are doing something terribly wrong when eating
>>rights-holding farmed animals.
>
> That could only be true if there were rights-holding
>farmed animals, but there are none.

They and you believe they have rights, else you wouldn't
be trying to morally justify your diet on them. I remember
you once tried to tell me my rights don't trump the rights
of unborn animals, so what does that say about your false
stance against the proposition of rights for the animals
already existing, comrade?

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
David Harrison- 10/12/2001

>>You don't get to see vegans arguing we should all eat
>>veg on the basis that such a diet provides life for more
>>cabbages,
>
> No.

Then why do you argue we should eat farmed animals
on the basis that such a diet provides life for more farmed
animals, if the lives of farmed animals, like cabbages have
no moral meaning to you?

>You argue we should all eat veg to prevent the
>lives and deaths of billions of animals.

Yes, I do.

>>do you, and that's because we all know that
>>the life and death of a cabbage is morally meaningless.
>>You're an AR, Harrison, else you would not be trying
>>to morally justify the life and death of your food.
>
> No

Yes, Harrison. You would not be trying to morally justify
something that didn't warrant such a moral justification, so
it's patently obvious you intuitively know animals hold a right
against you not to be farmed, and you justify violating this
perceived right by declaring you and the beast both benefit
from farming it, just as a rueful slaver would to his critic.

>Gonad.

I'm Derek.

>I believe that it's ethically equivalent or
>superior to contribute to decent lives for farm animals,
>as it is to contribute to none at all.

Then you must also sanction slavery and the raising of
children for food, research models and clothing material.

>We know you "ARAs" don't feel that way,

Exactly! We don't think the way you do in those respects.

>so it's incredibly stupid of you to say I'm in favor of "AR".

You're just misguided and a bit extreme in your AR views,
that's all. For example, even I wouldn't declare an unborn
animal has such rights that mine can't trump, as you did.

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
David Harrison- 10/12/2001

>I'm very much in favor of decent
>Animal Welfare, which is something you "ARAs" want
>to prevent.

How is it in an animal's interest or welfare to be kept
on farms and slaughtered when just in its prime of life?
Let's believe you ARE a welfarist for just a moment.
Aren't you troubled by the fact that your view and use
of the term "welfare" can be used by those actually
opposed to the proposition?

>You certainly will NOT contribute to decent
>AW for food animals with you diet, and you make it very
>obvious that you don't want anyone else to either.

That's right.