 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
animal rights is an issue in which i have no interest, and i therefore feel
i'm unqualified to pronounce upon it. > wrote in message ... > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:57:51 GMT, "misanthrope" > wrote: > > > wrote in message > .. . > > >> Well, if instead of discussing the topic you simply complain about > >> it being brought up, that *could* have a negative influence as well, > >> imo. > > > >that would be valid point in the case of valid topics, but it's not valid > >for posts that contain nothing more than back-biting garbage. > > Some farm animals benefit from farming and some do not. > The so called "Animal Rights" people believe that no farm > animals benefit from farming, which is absurd. Maybe you > don't think human influence on animals has anything to > do with philosophy, but I feel sure some philosophers have > discussed it. > The "ARAs" in their desperation have decided to > promote the idea that life has never been a benefit to > anything. But life is the benefit which allows zygotes to > grow into animals, so every animal has benefitted from > life in at least that way. Life is the benefit which makes > all others possible. > Life itself and the individual lives of animals are completely > different things, and just because life itself is a benefit it > doesn't mean that all of the things experienced in the life > of a being are a benefit to the being. > When I post things to the philosophy group I'm hoping > that you guys would have covered all that sort of thing > and could add something interesting that we have not > already been over. Even though you apparently don't > want to discuss it, I still believe such topics are not > inappropriate for philosophers to discuss. > > http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...osophy&x=0&y=0 > > Main Entry: phi·los·o·phy > Pronunciation: f&-'lä-s(&-)fE > Function: noun > Inflected Form(s): plural -phies > Etymology: Middle English philosophie, from Old French, from > Latin philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos philosopher > [...] > 2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding > of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational > means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing > fundamental beliefs > 3 a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or > regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war> > <philosophy of science> > 4 a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual > or group |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
**** off from alt.philosophy
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
I believe that existence is a benefit. It seems that species are incorrectly divided up into individuals when they they really are more of a continuum. So the benefit of existence is to the parents and the species. To the parents in that their genes and their need to continue is fulfilled and to the species in that it is continued. But it is a sort of false benefit in that the species can be continued quite well without farming and most meat eaters could not care less about a species except for the benefit of their bloody meat. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tim" > wrote in message news
...> On a farm Cows are afforded protection from predators and easy access to a > well balanced diet. Compare to a wild herd in say Africa - Lions and all > sorts of predators to get you - competition for food - poor supply of water. > Sounds like a farm animal benefits to me. Livestock Suffer, Too http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter5.html |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tim" > wrote in message news
...> On a farm Cows are afforded protection from predators and easy access to a > well balanced diet. Compare to a wild herd in say Africa - Lions and all > sorts of predators to get you - competition for food - poor supply of water. > Sounds like a farm animal benefits to me. Livestock Suffer, Too http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter5.html |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote:
> I believe that existence is a benefit. No, it isn't. A benefit is something that makes an entity better off; that is, something that improves the welfare of an entity. Prior to existing, the entity DIDN'T HAVE a welfare that could be improved. Thus, initial existence did not improve the entity's welfare, and initial existence therefore CANNOT be a benefit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article <_XqHd.6000$Nu.3438@fed1read04>,
"formerly known as 'cat arranger'" > wrote: > I believe that existence is a benefit. > It seems that species are incorrectly > divided up into individuals when they > they really are more of a continuum. > So the benefit of existence is to the > parents and the species. To the parents > in that their genes and their need to > continue is fulfilled and to the species > in that it is continued. Continuation of a species requires death. One generation must die off for the next one to survive and thrive. The continuation of the species is possible through the dying off of individual members and over time. What does seem to be a contentious point is when and where the individual members of the species will die so that the species can flourish. There does seem to be a benefit to death. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote: > > I believe that existence is a benefit. > > No, it isn't. A benefit is something that makes an > entity better off; that is, something that improves the > welfare of an entity. What is a "benefit" is also subjective. > Prior to existing, the entity DIDN'T HAVE a welfare > that could be improved. Thus, initial existence did > not improve the entity's welfare, and initial existence > therefore CANNOT be a benefit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote: > > I believe that existence is a benefit. > > No, it isn't. A benefit is something that makes an > entity better off; that is, something that improves the > welfare of an entity. What is a "benefit" is also subjective. > Prior to existing, the entity DIDN'T HAVE a welfare > that could be improved. Thus, initial existence did > not improve the entity's welfare, and initial existence > therefore CANNOT be a benefit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <_XqHd.6000$Nu.3438@fed1read04>, > "formerly known as 'cat arranger'" > > wrote: > > >>I believe that existence is a benefit. >>It seems that species are incorrectly >>divided up into individuals when they >>they really are more of a continuum. >>So the benefit of existence is to the >>parents and the species. To the parents >>in that their genes and their need to >>continue is fulfilled and to the species >>in that it is continued. > > > Continuation of a species requires death. One generation must die off > for the next one to survive and thrive. The continuation of the species > is possible through the dying off of individual members and over time. > What does seem to be a contentious point is when and where the > individual members of the species will die so that the species can > flourish. There does seem to be a benefit to death. Not to the individual animal. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <_XqHd.6000$Nu.3438@fed1read04>, > "formerly known as 'cat arranger'" > > wrote: > > >>I believe that existence is a benefit. >>It seems that species are incorrectly >>divided up into individuals when they >>they really are more of a continuum. >>So the benefit of existence is to the >>parents and the species. To the parents >>in that their genes and their need to >>continue is fulfilled and to the species >>in that it is continued. > > > Continuation of a species requires death. One generation must die off > for the next one to survive and thrive. The continuation of the species > is possible through the dying off of individual members and over time. > What does seem to be a contentious point is when and where the > individual members of the species will die so that the species can > flourish. There does seem to be a benefit to death. Not to the individual animal. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
> In article t>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote: >> >>>I believe that existence is a benefit. >> >>No, it isn't. A benefit is something that makes an >>entity better off; that is, something that improves the >>welfare of an entity. > > > What is a "benefit" is also subjective. Irrelevant, thus non sequitur. It doesn't change the FACT that an entity MUST ALREADY exist in order to realize any benefit from anything. You regularly spew irrelevancies. Why is that? > > >>Prior to existing, the entity DIDN'T HAVE a welfare >>that could be improved. Thus, initial existence did >>not improve the entity's welfare, and initial existence >>therefore CANNOT be a benefit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
> In article t>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote: >> >>>I believe that existence is a benefit. >> >>No, it isn't. A benefit is something that makes an >>entity better off; that is, something that improves the >>welfare of an entity. > > > What is a "benefit" is also subjective. Irrelevant, thus non sequitur. It doesn't change the FACT that an entity MUST ALREADY exist in order to realize any benefit from anything. You regularly spew irrelevancies. Why is that? > > >>Prior to existing, the entity DIDN'T HAVE a welfare >>that could be improved. Thus, initial existence did >>not improve the entity's welfare, and initial existence >>therefore CANNOT be a benefit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > Ron wrote: > > > In article <_XqHd.6000$Nu.3438@fed1read04>, > > "formerly known as 'cat arranger'" > > > wrote: > > > > > >>I believe that existence is a benefit. > >>It seems that species are incorrectly > >>divided up into individuals when they > >>they really are more of a continuum. > >>So the benefit of existence is to the > >>parents and the species. To the parents > >>in that their genes and their need to > >>continue is fulfilled and to the species > >>in that it is continued. > > > > > > Continuation of a species requires death. One generation must die off > > for the next one to survive and thrive. The continuation of the species > > is possible through the dying off of individual members and over time. > > What does seem to be a contentious point is when and where the > > individual members of the species will die so that the species can > > flourish. There does seem to be a benefit to death. > > Not to the individual animal. The parent dies leaving room and resources for the children, the grand children and the great grand children. I would think it selfish for anyone to deny their children and subsequent generations of their genetic line their time at a successful existence by refusing to die off when the time comes. Humans just don't have our expiry dates stamped on our bottoms. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
> In article >, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>Ron wrote: >> >> >>>In article <_XqHd.6000$Nu.3438@fed1read04>, >>> "formerly known as 'cat arranger'" > >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I believe that existence is a benefit. >>>>It seems that species are incorrectly >>>>divided up into individuals when they >>>>they really are more of a continuum. >>>>So the benefit of existence is to the >>>>parents and the species. To the parents >>>>in that their genes and their need to >>>>continue is fulfilled and to the species >>>>in that it is continued. >>> >>> >>>Continuation of a species requires death. One generation must die off >>>for the next one to survive and thrive. The continuation of the species >>>is possible through the dying off of individual members and over time. >>>What does seem to be a contentious point is when and where the >>>individual members of the species will die so that the species can >>>flourish. There does seem to be a benefit to death. >> >>Not to the individual animal. > > > The parent dies leaving room and resources for the children The parent would probably gladly trade some room and resources for some additional time. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
> In article >, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>Ron wrote: >> >> >>>In article <_XqHd.6000$Nu.3438@fed1read04>, >>> "formerly known as 'cat arranger'" > >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>I believe that existence is a benefit. >>>>It seems that species are incorrectly >>>>divided up into individuals when they >>>>they really are more of a continuum. >>>>So the benefit of existence is to the >>>>parents and the species. To the parents >>>>in that their genes and their need to >>>>continue is fulfilled and to the species >>>>in that it is continued. >>> >>> >>>Continuation of a species requires death. One generation must die off >>>for the next one to survive and thrive. The continuation of the species >>>is possible through the dying off of individual members and over time. >>>What does seem to be a contentious point is when and where the >>>individual members of the species will die so that the species can >>>flourish. There does seem to be a benefit to death. >> >>Not to the individual animal. > > > The parent dies leaving room and resources for the children The parent would probably gladly trade some room and resources for some additional time. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > Ron wrote: > > > In article >, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>Ron wrote: > >> > >> > >>>In article <_XqHd.6000$Nu.3438@fed1read04>, > >>> "formerly known as 'cat arranger'" > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>I believe that existence is a benefit. > >>>>It seems that species are incorrectly > >>>>divided up into individuals when they > >>>>they really are more of a continuum. > >>>>So the benefit of existence is to the > >>>>parents and the species. To the parents > >>>>in that their genes and their need to > >>>>continue is fulfilled and to the species > >>>>in that it is continued. > >>> > >>> > >>>Continuation of a species requires death. One generation must die off > >>>for the next one to survive and thrive. The continuation of the species > >>>is possible through the dying off of individual members and over time. > >>>What does seem to be a contentious point is when and where the > >>>individual members of the species will die so that the species can > >>>flourish. There does seem to be a benefit to death. > >> > >>Not to the individual animal. > > > > > > The parent dies leaving room and resources for the children > > The parent would probably gladly trade some room and > resources for some additional time. Greedy and selfish. Frankly, I just don't see the difference if someone dies at 72 or 75. It's only time. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > Ron wrote: > > > In article >, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>Ron wrote: > >> > >> > >>>In article <_XqHd.6000$Nu.3438@fed1read04>, > >>> "formerly known as 'cat arranger'" > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>I believe that existence is a benefit. > >>>>It seems that species are incorrectly > >>>>divided up into individuals when they > >>>>they really are more of a continuum. > >>>>So the benefit of existence is to the > >>>>parents and the species. To the parents > >>>>in that their genes and their need to > >>>>continue is fulfilled and to the species > >>>>in that it is continued. > >>> > >>> > >>>Continuation of a species requires death. One generation must die off > >>>for the next one to survive and thrive. The continuation of the species > >>>is possible through the dying off of individual members and over time. > >>>What does seem to be a contentious point is when and where the > >>>individual members of the species will die so that the species can > >>>flourish. There does seem to be a benefit to death. > >> > >>Not to the individual animal. > > > > > > The parent dies leaving room and resources for the children > > The parent would probably gladly trade some room and > resources for some additional time. Greedy and selfish. Frankly, I just don't see the difference if someone dies at 72 or 75. It's only time. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "Tim" > wrote in message > news
> ..>> On a farm Cows are afforded protection from predators and easy access to >> a >> well balanced diet. Compare to a wild herd in say Africa - Lions and all >> sorts of predators to get you - competition for food - poor supply of >> water. >> Sounds like a farm animal benefits to me. > > Livestock Suffer, Too > http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter5.html > > Agreed. Factory farming methods cause suffering. But not all methods of animal raising cause suffering. So not all livestock suffer. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "Tim" > wrote in message > news
> ..>> On a farm Cows are afforded protection from predators and easy access to >> a >> well balanced diet. Compare to a wild herd in say Africa - Lions and all >> sorts of predators to get you - competition for food - poor supply of >> water. >> Sounds like a farm animal benefits to me. > > Livestock Suffer, Too > http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter5.html > > Agreed. Factory farming methods cause suffering. But not all methods of animal raising cause suffering. So not all livestock suffer. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
> In article t>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>Ron wrote: >> >> >>>In article >, >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Ron wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <_XqHd.6000$Nu.3438@fed1read04>, >>>>>"formerly known as 'cat arranger'" > >>>>>wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>I believe that existence is a benefit. >>>>>>It seems that species are incorrectly >>>>>>divided up into individuals when they >>>>>>they really are more of a continuum. >>>>>>So the benefit of existence is to the >>>>>>parents and the species. To the parents >>>>>>in that their genes and their need to >>>>>>continue is fulfilled and to the species >>>>>>in that it is continued. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Continuation of a species requires death. One generation must die off >>>>>for the next one to survive and thrive. The continuation of the species >>>>>is possible through the dying off of individual members and over time. >>>>>What does seem to be a contentious point is when and where the >>>>>individual members of the species will die so that the species can >>>>>flourish. There does seem to be a benefit to death. >>>> >>>>Not to the individual animal. >>> >>> >>>The parent dies leaving room and resources for the children >> >>The parent would probably gladly trade some room and >>resources for some additional time. > > > Greedy and selfish. Your opinion. You have revealed yourself to hold primitive, poorly developed opinions. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote: > Ron wrote: > > > In article t>, > > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > > > > >>Ron wrote: > >> > >> > >>>In article >, > >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Ron wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>In article <_XqHd.6000$Nu.3438@fed1read04>, > >>>>>"formerly known as 'cat arranger'" > > >>>>>wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>I believe that existence is a benefit. > >>>>>>It seems that species are incorrectly > >>>>>>divided up into individuals when they > >>>>>>they really are more of a continuum. > >>>>>>So the benefit of existence is to the > >>>>>>parents and the species. To the parents > >>>>>>in that their genes and their need to > >>>>>>continue is fulfilled and to the species > >>>>>>in that it is continued. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Continuation of a species requires death. One generation must die off > >>>>>for the next one to survive and thrive. The continuation of the species > >>>>>is possible through the dying off of individual members and over time. > >>>>>What does seem to be a contentious point is when and where the > >>>>>individual members of the species will die so that the species can > >>>>>flourish. There does seem to be a benefit to death. > >>>> > >>>>Not to the individual animal. > >>> > >>> > >>>The parent dies leaving room and resources for the children > >> > >>The parent would probably gladly trade some room and > >>resources for some additional time. > > > > > > Greedy and selfish. > > Your opinion. You have revealed yourself to hold > primitive, poorly developed opinions. I know. The "me" generation certainly changed that perspective for many people. I was always told by people that they would happily give their lives for their children. Window dressing, I imagine. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:53:58 GMT, "misanthrope" > wrote:
>animal rights is an issue in which i have no interest, and i therefore feel >i'm unqualified to pronounce upon it. That doesn't mean human influence on animals should not be discussed in a philosophy group. It may well be that none of you care about it, but that doesn't mean it's not appropriate. And it is certainly more appropriate than whining and crying because other people are discussing it like your buddy Jones. > wrote in message .. . >> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:57:51 GMT, "misanthrope" > wrote: >> >> > wrote in message >> .. . >> >> >> Well, if instead of discussing the topic you simply complain about >> >> it being brought up, that *could* have a negative influence as well, >> >> imo. >> > >> >that would be valid point in the case of valid topics, but it's not valid >> >for posts that contain nothing more than back-biting garbage. >> >> Some farm animals benefit from farming and some do not. >> The so called "Animal Rights" people believe that no farm >> animals benefit from farming, which is absurd. Maybe you >> don't think human influence on animals has anything to >> do with philosophy, but I feel sure some philosophers have >> discussed it. >> The "ARAs" in their desperation have decided to >> promote the idea that life has never been a benefit to >> anything. But life is the benefit which allows zygotes to >> grow into animals, so every animal has benefitted from >> life in at least that way. Life is the benefit which makes >> all others possible. >> Life itself and the individual lives of animals are completely >> different things, and just because life itself is a benefit it >> doesn't mean that all of the things experienced in the life >> of a being are a benefit to the being. >> When I post things to the philosophy group I'm hoping >> that you guys would have covered all that sort of thing >> and could add something interesting that we have not >> already been over. Even though you apparently don't >> want to discuss it, I still believe such topics are not >> inappropriate for philosophers to discuss. >> >> >http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...osophy&x=0&y=0 >> >> Main Entry: phi·los·o·phy >> Pronunciation: f&-'lä-s(&-)fE >> Function: noun >> Inflected Form(s): plural -phies >> Etymology: Middle English philosophie, from Old French, from >> Latin philosophia, from Greek, from philosophos philosopher >> [...] >> 2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding >> of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational >> means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing >> fundamental beliefs >> 3 a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or >> regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war> >> <philosophy of science> >> 4 a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual >> or group > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 18 Jan 2005 08:37:42 -0800, "John Jones" > wrote:
>**** off from here then You're the one who doesn't like it, so you **** off. Go hang out in alt.whiners.crybabies or something. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron wrote:
> In article t>, > Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>anal leakage wrote: >> >> >>>In article t>, >>> Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Not to the individual animal. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>The parent dies leaving room and resources for the children >>>> >>>>The parent would probably gladly trade some room and >>>>resources for some additional time. >>> >>> >>>Greedy and selfish. >> >>Your opinion. You have revealed yourself to hold >>primitive, poorly developed opinions. > > > I know. Well, then, why don't you try to think out and develop your opinions a little better? The POINT, little leaky homo/sophist, is that the parent probably would like some additional time and would be willing to live on fewer resources and in less space, so your claim that death is a "benefit" is contradicted, no matter what your subjective, poorly developed MORAL opinion on the matter might be. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 02:50:31 -0800, "formerly known as 'cat arranger'" > wrote:
> >I believe that existence is a benefit. Life is the benefit which allows zygotes to grow into animals. Life is the benefit which makes all others possible. >It seems that species are incorrectly >divided up into individuals They are divided up into individuals. You should know that from the cats, if nothing else. >when they >they really are more of a continuum. That depends on what you are discussing specifically... >So the benefit of existence is to the >parents ....like there you're discussing individuals... >and the species. ....and there the species. >To the parents >in that their genes and their need to >continue is fulfilled and to the species >in that it is continued. > >But it is a sort of false benefit in that the >species can be continued quite well without >farming · The meat industry includes habitats in which a small variety of animals are raised. The animals in those habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg that begin their particular lives. Those particular animals will only live if people continue to raise them for food. Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals which are raised for food will always be dependant on that industry, and will only experience life if humans continue to consume them. · >and most meat eaters could not >care less about a species except for the >benefit of their bloody meat. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:05:57 GMT, the Gonad wrote:
>formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote: >> I believe that existence is a benefit. > >No, it isn't. A benefit is something that makes an >entity better off; that is, something that improves the >welfare of an entity. > >Prior to existing, the entity DIDN'T HAVE a welfare >that could be improved. Thus, initial existence did >not improve the entity's welfare, and initial existence >therefore CANNOT be a benefit. Life is the benefit which allows zygotes to grow into animals. Life is the benefit which makes all others possible. It's not a sure sign of stupidity if a person can't figure that out for himself--maybe--but it is a sure sign of stupidity if a person can't understand it even after it has been pointed out to him. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:19:00 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>In article t>, > the Gonad wrote: > >> formerly known as 'cat arranger' wrote: >> > I believe that existence is a benefit. >> >> No, it isn't. A benefit is something that makes an >> entity better off; that is, something that improves the >> welfare of an entity. > >What is a "benefit" is also subjective. The Gonad has not been--and apparently never will be--able to provide an example of a definition backing up his claim. If he could have he would have done it by now, and would have done it repeatedly. >> Prior to existing, the entity DIDN'T HAVE a welfare >> that could be improved. Thus, initial existence did >> not improve the entity's welfare, and initial existence >> therefore CANNOT be a benefit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:53:43 -0500, "Tim" > wrote:
> >the Gonad wrote in message ink.net... >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 05:57:51 GMT, "misanthrope" >>> > wrote: >>> >>> > wrote in message m... >>>> >>>>>On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:00:18 GMT, "misanthrope" >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes, if it ever was, it's too bad that it isn't any more. I've >>>>> posted >>>>>to it more than once and don't recall anything useful or interesting >>>>>coming from it, so I can't be blamed for its downfall. >>>> >>>>then just maybe it's the wrong group for you. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>it not only deters new members but also drives >>>>>>away old ones, and can in the long run kill the group. >>>>> >>>>> Well, if instead of discussing the topic you simply complain about >>>>>it being brought up, that *could* have a negative influence as well, >>>>>imo. >>>> >>>>that would be valid point in the case of valid topics, but it's not valid >>>>for posts that contain nothing more than back-biting garbage. >>> >>> >>> Some farm animals benefit from farming and some do not. >> >> NO farmed animals benefit from farming. Existing per se is not a benefit. > >On a farm Cows are afforded protection from predators and easy access to a >well balanced diet. Compare to a wild herd in say Africa - Lions and all >sorts of predators to get you - competition for food - poor supply of water. >Sounds like a farm animal benefits to me. "ARAs" can't afford to consider such things, and as we can see they are very much opposed to other people considering such things as well. Doesn't it seem strange that the people who say they care about animals, don't care about animals who benefit from farming? On the surface it could seem strange, but when we consider that their objective is to eliminate farm animals it makes a lot more sense. Since they want to eliminate farm animals completely, the last thing they would want is for people to recognise that some farm animals benefit from farming. If that became popular, some people who are considering veg*nism might decide to contribute to decent lives for farm animals instead. They know that if people felt good about contributing to decent lives for farm animals, it could hinder their hopes of making the elimination of farm animals appear to be the most "ethical" approach humans could take. Especially if it becomes more popular for people to consider that some types of meat involve fewer animal deaths than some types of veggies... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:39:45 -0000, "pearl" > wrote:
>"Tim" > wrote in message news
>..>> On a farm Cows are afforded protection from predators and easy access to a >> well balanced diet. Compare to a wild herd in say Africa - Lions and all >> sorts of predators to get you - competition for food - poor supply of water. >> Sounds like a farm animal benefits to me. > >Livestock Suffer, Too >http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter5.html Some do and some don't. One thing that's always true though, is that people can't contribute to decent lives for livestock with their lifestyle if they are vegan. Only conscientious consumers can do that. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
> wrote in message
... > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:53:58 GMT, "misanthrope" > wrote: > > >animal rights is an issue in which i have no interest, and i therefore feel > >i'm unqualified to pronounce upon it. > > That doesn't mean human influence on animals should not be > discussed in a philosophy group. It may well be that none of you > care about it, but that doesn't mean it's not appropriate. And it is > certainly more appropriate than whining and crying because other > people are discussing it like your buddy Jones. that would be valid point in the case of valid topics, but it's not valid for posts that contain nothing more than back-biting garbage. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Candy Assed Canadian John Kinal Still Spamming US Politics Over Canadian Government - God does tell that Satanic enemies of Life do exist, And Other Lies By John Kinal, Sociopathic Canadian Newsgroup Terrorist | General Cooking | |||
| Leaky pie filling jars | Preserving | |||
| Vintage port - leaky bottle : ( | Wine | |||
| How To Fillet A Homo | General Cooking | |||
| Canadian foodie expression as per the Canadian Oxford | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
