From: David on
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 03:20:09 -0700 (PDT), Dragonblaze <dragonblaze(a)apexmail.com> wrote:

>On 3 Jul, 14:53, dh@. wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> >It means I support
>> >RSPCA, PDSA and buy organic/freerange - I'm lucky enough to have a
>> >city farm within walking distance and can see for myself how the
>> >animals are cared for and what conditions they live in.
>>
>> � � That is lucky. What kind of farm?
>
>It's a small one, but they breed and raise chickens, geese, pigs and
>cattle. I buy my eggs from there, and when they slaughter some
>livestock, also my meat whenever possible.
>
>Dragonblaze

That's the best sort of situation for the animals being slaughtered
if they're treated well on the farm, since they don't have to be
trucked off to the slaughter house. I'm guessing from the sound of
it that they don't keep their hens in battery cages, which is a very
significant thing to me.
From: David on
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 20:52:12 GMT, Dutch <no(a)email.com> wrote:

>Rupert wrote:
>
>> Most animals in modern farms do not have decent lives, and this is a
>> consequence of the mindset which says that it is okay for us to use
>> animals for our own ends.
>
>It's a consequence of the mindset that says that the quality of the
>animals' lives is of little or no importance.
>
>> Veganism is a perfectly reasonable strategy
>> for reducing suffering,
>
>It may be a fairly effective strategy but "perfectly reasonable" would
>be an overstatement. Avoiding the use of animal products at all cost may
>be counter-productive, for example buying high quality locally made
>leather goods or even local meat or fish products may ultimately reduce
>suffering more than than using imported or manufactured goods. You
>cause less suffering by wearing those recycled leather shoes than by
>buying the made in Indonesia plastic ones, even if your vegan friends
>look down their noses at you. Vegans typically dismiss or minimize the
>impact of their own consumption while addressing the issue of animal use
>with extreme exaggeration and over-reactions.

Yes, but you like that.

>A typical example of this
>is the common view by vegans that anything containing animal products is
>akin to poison, the belief, without evidence that it would make them
>violently ill, or that it would diminish them morally.
>
>A "perfectly reasonable" strategy might have a lot in common with
>veganism, but would be less hysterical and more pragmatic.

Promoting decent lives for livestock might be ethically equivalent or
superior to not raising them too, but how could you ever know?

> > and there is no basis for saying that vegans
>> don't "care" as much as conscientious omnivores, that is idiotic.
>> There is no reason why providing "decent" lives for livestock is
>> better than allowing wild animals to fill up the ecological niche.
>
>Exactly right.

We already have the livestock, so now we're back to you guys
needing to explain exactly which wildlife we should eliminate which
livestock in order to provide habitat for, and WHY??? GO:
From: David on
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:43:41 -0700, Zapanaz <http://joecosby.com/code/mail.pl> wrote:

>Dutch hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
>Thunder crashed, Dutch laughed madly, then wrote:
>
>>Rupert wrote:
>
>>> Veganism is a perfectly reasonable strategy
>>> for reducing suffering,
>>
>>It may be a fairly effective strategy but "perfectly reasonable" would
>>be an overstatement.
>
>Existence is suffering. There is no "fairly effective strategy" to
>reduce suffering.

Sure there is, and one of the best places for that to happen
is in the raising of livestock. Laying hens are an easy example.
Since they don't need to be with the cocks, they can be kept
in small little cages. The cages are so small they can't even
flap their wings. They can't scratch. They can't take dust baths.
They have no freedom at all to move around. Worst of all imo,
hens will often be horribly abused by other overly aggressive
hens they are stuck in the cage with, and there's no escape
for them. They bury their head in a corner afraid to come out
because they will be beaten. I'm convinced that's one common
reason for hens to be found dead with their feet clutching the
wire and all that. Raising them cage free eliminates it. Of
course it produces its own problems, but in general it reduces
suffering tremendously.
From: Dragonblaze on
On 9 Jul, 13:27, David <dh@.> wrote:

[snip]

> >It's a small one, but they breed and raise chickens, geese, pigs and
> >cattle. I buy my eggs from there, and when they slaughter some
> >livestock, also my meat whenever possible.
>
> >Dragonblaze
>
>     That's the best sort of situation for the animals being slaughtered
> if they're treated well on the farm, since they don't have to be
> trucked off to the slaughter house. I'm guessing from the sound of
> it that they don't keep their hens in battery cages, which is a very
> significant thing to me.-

No, they are completely free-range, running about and scratching the
dirt.

Dragonblaze
From: Rev. 11D Meow! on

"Dragonblaze" <dragonblaze(a)apexmail.com> wroted...
On 9 Jul, 13:27, David <dh@.> wrote:

[snip]

> >It's a small one, but they breed and raise chickens, geese, pigs and
> >cattle. I buy my eggs from there, and when they slaughter some
> >livestock, also my meat whenever possible.
>
> >Dragonblaze
>
> That's the best sort of situation for the animals being slaughtered
> if they're treated well on the farm, since they don't have to be
> trucked off to the slaughter house. I'm guessing from the sound of
> it that they don't keep their hens in battery cages, which is a very
> significant thing to me.-

No, they are completely free-range, running about and scratching the
dirt.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

no doubt the stuff inside an egg came before
the chicken that laid it could ever hatch.


eat stuff
it feeds you

fat or otherwise
a body does good