Prev: Animal activists accuse ministers of snaring deal
Next: Goo, the consistent loser...
From: maxdenton on 21 Apr 2008 05:22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqW_4fhDNxQ

Alex
From: dh on 20 Apr 2008 20:01
� 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.
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. �
From: maxdenton on 21 Apr 2008 11:33
On Apr 20, 5:01 pm, dh@. wrote:
>   · 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.
>     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. ·

I hope that someday the family farm will be restored.

alex
From: dh on 21 Apr 2008 21:07
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:33:41 -0700 (PDT), maxdenton(a)lycos.com wrote:

>On Apr 20, 5:01�pm, dh@. wrote:
>> � � 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.
>> � � 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. �
>
>I hope that someday the family farm will be restored.
>
>alex

Treating animals decently on all farms would be the way
to go. They could all be given decent lives of positive value
and still be profitable to raise imo. But no one wants to think
about the lives of the animals themselves. Eliminationists who
hide beneath the gross misnomer "animal rights" are literally
*opposed* to seeing people consider the lives of livestock
animals, because doing so works against their elimination
objective:
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic
animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical
obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through
selective breeding." (Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for
Animals, Animal People, May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University

"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)

http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
.. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
achievement of animal rights.

.. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace
at which animal rights goals are achieved.
.. . .

"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
���������������������������������������������������������

"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic

_________________________________________________________
"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero.

no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it.

the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives"

you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
killing them.

Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it.

There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
���������������������������������������������������������
We can clearly see that providing domestic animals with
decent lives of positive value and appreciation of that
aspect of our relationship with them, works directly *against*
what these people are trying to accomplish and the way they
want everyone to think about human influence on animals.
From: dh on 23 Apr 2008 01:19
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, dh@. quoted the Goober:
>>_________________________________________________________
>>"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
>>experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
>>whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero.
>>
>>no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>of the animals erases all of it.
>>
>>the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives"
>>
>>you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
>>animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
>>killing them.
>>
>>Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it.
>>
>>There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>>���������������������������������������������������������
>>We can clearly see that providing domestic animals with
>>decent lives of positive value and appreciation of that
>>aspect of our relationship with them, works directly *against*
>>what these people are trying to accomplish and the way they
>>want everyone to think about human influence on animals.
>
>David Harrison - does not care about the welfare of animals.

Explain why you don't want people to consider the fact that
many livestock animals have decent lives of positive value, Goo.
GO:
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Animal activists accuse ministers of snaring deal
Next: Goo, the consistent loser...