>.> >.> >.> Why do some people on one hand call for the extinction of a >.> >species >.> >.> >.> while on the other hand lamenting the extinction of another? >Are >.> >.> >they >.> >.> >.> not all equal? >.> >.> > >.> >.> > Because wild species have evolved to fill niches in the >.> >.> >environment; they are both necessary parts of the ecosystem >.> >.> >and, in the case of endangered species, warnings that the >.> >.> >system is getting out of balance. Domestic breeds of >.> >.> >animals are neither evolved parts of a given ecosystem nor >.> >.> >indicators of its health, except in incidental ways. >.> >.> >.> >.> Humans are evolving our ecosystem, and the animals we >.> >.> make use of are evolving with us. It's as natural as anything >.> >.> else. What else could it be? >.> > >.> > Natural evolution is more or less self-correcting: if a >.> >species doesn't work out in a given environment, either it >.> >dies out, or the environment changes to regain a balance >.> >that includes the new species. >.> >.> Beavers no doubt. Ants. Humans. What else?
> The new organism doesn't have to practice physical >engineering to have a profound effect.
If you mean that it wouldn't have to consciously change its habitat, I agree with what you are saying.
>.> > Human-controlled >.changes >.> >are usually too quick, and too extensive, for the ecosystem >.> >to adapt in a way that allows it to maintain diversity and, >.> >for want of a better word, health. A typical human experiment >.> >in "evolution" seems to have an effect more like a rare >.> >cataclysmic mistake in natural evolution. I guess that you >.> >can argue that we are agents of evolution - of the worst sort. >.> >.> We are infants. The plus is that we are already thinking >.> about and discussing such things. There are a lot more >.> people thinking about the future than there were 50 years >.> ago. Much less 100...or a few thousand.... "Evolution" >.> doesn't think about the future, but humans can, and some >.> do. Humans can think about future animals also.
> The fact that we are finally thinking about the consequences >(some of us, anyway) doesn't mean that we aren't still making >things worse for the environment as a whole. We are.
IMO it is still way too early in the game to feel that humans are going to screw it all up. Things could always be better. Encouraging better lives for animals instead of no life, is better IMO. Isn't it a natural part of the cycle that humans are still making things worse? We haven't figured out all of the solutions, and as we do figure some out, they lead to new problems, etc. But we haven't even been civilized for any real period of time yet, so it's a bit early to be looking for expert control of our surroundings, wouldn't you agree?
"Martin L. Martens" <martin.marte...@ragingbull.com>: | > | > | That doesn't make Gould's punctuated equilibrium into what you | > | > | attempted to make it.
Gordon wrote:
| > | > Right. It's just a hint, as I said. The rest is left as an | > | > exercise for the reader.
"Martin L. Martens" <martin.marte...@ragingbull.com>: | > | IOW, it isn't what you attempted to make it and your point is | > | pointless.
Gordon wrote:
| > For you, perhaps.
"Martin L. Martens" <martin.marte...@ragingbull.com>: | > | At least when you retreat, you do it quickly.
Gordon wrote:
| > I haven't "retreated." I simply pointed out that the term | > "balance" is reasonable when applied to ecological systems, | > after Michael was criticized for using the term. It's as | > reasonable now as it was then and as it will be in the | > future.
"Martin L. Martens" <martin.marte...@ragingbull.com>: | Let's see, you attempted to point out that the term is | reasonable by taking a concept "punctuated equilibrium" and | twist its meaning to fit a definition that you have admit it | does not have.
Martin, go look up _equilibrium_ in a dictionary. It'll probably give a number of synonyms. Pay special attention to those which start with the letter _b_.
| ... -- }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{ { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 10/2/99 }
> "Martin L. Martens" <martin.marte...@ragingbull.com>: > | Let's see, you attempted to point out that the term is > | reasonable by taking a concept "punctuated equilibrium" and > | twist its meaning to fit a definition that you have admit it > | does not have.
> Martin, go look up _equilibrium_ in a dictionary. It'll > probably give a number of synonyms. Pay special attention > to those which start with the letter _b_.
Gordon - Go look up the term "punctuated equilibrium" in Gould's books. Pay special attention to his meaning. Oh wait, you've already admitted that it does not mean what you are attempting to make it out to mean.
Your desperate attempt to twist this one is just hilarious Gordon. You missed on this one by a mile and can't admit it. I thought you were better than that. Now you are being just as childish as Michael. Next thing you know, you are going to start calling me a liar.
"Martin L. Martens" wrote: > Gordon wrote: > [...]
> > "Martin L. Martens" <martin.marte...@ragingbull.com>: > > | Let's see, you attempted to point out that the term is > > | reasonable by taking a concept "punctuated equilibrium" and > > | twist its meaning to fit a definition that you have admit it > > | does not have.
> > Martin, go look up _equilibrium_ in a dictionary. It'll > > probably give a number of synonyms. Pay special attention > > to those which start with the letter _b_.
> Gordon - Go look up the term "punctuated equilibrium" in Gould's > books. Pay special attention to his meaning. Oh wait, you've > already admitted that it does not mean what you are attempting > to make it out to mean.
> Your desperate attempt to twist this one is just hilarious > Gordon. You missed on this one by a mile and can't admit it. I > thought you were better than that. Now you are being just as > childish as Michael. Next thing you know, you are going to start > calling me a liar.
No, I doubt that he will. Unlike Michael, Gordon is basically civil.
However, I find myself wondering about this guy. He just...never...goes...away. He always has to come back with something. His writing style doesn't suggest a dog with a bone, but his persistence certainly does. No thread he's involved in ever dies other than on one of his posts. He is the supreme sophist: well read, articulate to the point of glibness, and confident that, through his persistence if nothing else, he can make any and every thing mean what he wants it to mean.
Jonathan Ball wrote in message <38074FA7.7594C...@earthlink.net>... >However, I find myself wondering about this guy. He >just...never...goes...away. He always has to come back with something. >His writing style doesn't suggest a dog with a bone, but his persistence >certainly does. No thread he's involved in ever dies other than on one >of his posts. He is the supreme sophist: well read, articulate to the >point of glibness, and confident that, through his persistence if >nothing else, he can make any and every thing mean what he wants it to >mean.
My experience differs somewhat. Actually, Gordon has left quite a few of *my* replies "hanging". I notice this when it happens (with anyone) because I hate that. I've always figured he just didn't consider them worthy of a response, or maybe the thread went in a direction he wasn't comfortable discussing.
Either way, its ultimately his choice. Perhaps a better one than maniacally responding to virtually every reply with lame attempts at refutation (not naming names, present company excepted).
I do consider it rude though if someone posts an honest query and they receive no response.
>> >> >I don't see anyone morning over a used condom and all the potential life >> >> >lost. Very few call into question the ethics of birth control, except for >> >the >> >> >fringe right.
>> >> That's possibly because we are discussing the animals >> >> in the food industry, not human birth control.
>> >Not in and of itself is birth control being discussed, but your argument is >> >that is better to allow a being to come into existence than not. So, then, >> >your position should be that human birth control is cruel, in that it denies >> >potential humans a shot at life.
>> The reason my argument applies to the >> "ethical" veg*ns, is that those people are trying >> to "save" animals from being killed by not eating >> them. But by doing that the animals are saved >> from being killed, by not ever getting to live at >> all. That fact counters out completely any good >> intentions in regards to not killing them,
>In what way does the animals not ever "getting" to live "counter out" the good >intentions?
To not kill them is so they can have a longer life. To not raise them gives them less life than to raise and kill them.
>> which is >> why this logic does apply to these particular >> animals. It's just another part of the picture that >> should be looked at, out of consideration for >> the animals themselves.
>> >I'm not trying to turn this into an argument about the pros/cons of >> >contraception, and I don't think that the various questions posted here >> >asking you whether your position holds for human birth control as well >> >(questions which, with all due respect, you've yet to answer directly) are >> >either. I'd just like to know if your >> >statement that prevention of life in animals is cruel means that human >> >contraception is also cruel.
>> I haven't said that I believe prevention of life >> in animals is "cruel"....but that it is inconsiderate, >> etc.
>Inconsiderate to whom, or what?
The animals that could be.
>"Etc." is short for "et cetera", meaning "and others". What else besides >"inconsiderate"?
Who cares? There is no "etc"...I'm sorry, I was wrong. Whatever.
>> Discussing contraception has nothing to do >> with the animals in the meat industry. IMO it is >> just a way of changing the subject, and distorting >> the way people perceive the entire situation. So >> I intentionally ignore that trick more and more >> frequently.
>If an animal not "getting" to live is unfair "to the animal" (what does that >mean, anyway?), then wouldn't a human not getting to live be unfair to the >human? If both are unfair in the same way, then why do you consider the >comparison a trick? If they are not unfair in the same way, then what do you >feel is the difference that justifies disregarding the comparison to human >contraception?
>> As far as actually applying my thinking to the >> birth of humans: if a person does not have >> children, only because of the fact that the >> children will eventually be killed by something, >> I don't think they are doing the best thing. But I >> feel that people should or should not have kids >> according to whether or not they want to raise >> them. Which is totally different than the meat >> industry, which obviously does want to raise and >> care for the animals.
>Not in the same way or for any of the same reasons that people might want to >raise and care for children. No one in the meat industry has any concern for the >emotional development and well being of the animals, the way parents ideally have >for their children.
People in the meat industry care about the well being of the animals they raise. They can't be expected to care as much about them as they care about their own children.
>> This is one of the differences >> in the two situations, that makes comparing the >> human use of contraception, and the raising of >> animals for food, a useless thing to do.
>It's not a difference, until you show that the meat industry "wanting" to raise >and care for animals is the same as human parents wanting to raise and care for a >child. You haven't done that, and you can't.
Whatever...
I am discussing the animals in the food industry, *not* humans. Changing the subject to humans is a tactic that has two purposes IMO:
1) To lead the subject of discussion away from what it is, that being the future animals in the food industry--animals which "ethical" veg*ns apparently, and usually admittedly, care nothing at all about.
2) To strengthen the twisted view already held by people who say they think of humans and animals in the same way.
There is no reason to continue this type of comparison any further IMO. People who act as though they think of humans and animals in the same way, have a distorted view of reality (probably due to too much Disney, etc.), and to me it would be counter-productive to participate in the delusion.
You say if we didnt eat them they would be dead. And it is true. But look, we are the ONLY things keeping these animals alive. Maybe they were supposed to die out a long time ago. ANd maybe we are just holding nature back. And maybe it would be for the greater good of man kind if cows died out. It would be sad, but the life these animals lead now is even sadder. -Bruno
Tony Martin <tonymar...@vegetarians.com> wrote in message
> In article <37e3983b.186081...@news.mindspring.com> , dh...@yahoo.com > (David) wrote:
> > Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive > > if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of > > reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever > > we think about the fact that the animals are going to be > > killed. When we think about the truth of it, the animals > > are not being cheated out of any part of their life by > > being raised for food, but instead they are getting the > > opportunity to experience whatever life they get as a > > result of it.
> That is a lot of bull. The only 'ethical meat eater' is a hunter that has > the guts to do his or her own killing, and you are not that.
> --
> "The idea of God is for those who have no moral compass of their own"
"David N. Harrison" wrote: > Jonathan Ball <jonb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> [...]
> >In what way does the animals not ever "getting" to live "counter out" the good > >intentions?
> To not kill them is so they
existing animals
> can have a longer > life. To not raise them
non-existent animals
> gives them
Who? You can't give or not give anything to something that doesn't exist.
> less life than > to raise and kill them.
That doesn't answer my question. Not surprising - you never do. You can't.
The people who don't want animals killed in order to be eaten feel that way out of intentions toward *existing* animals. They feel - mistakenly, in my view - that it is unethical or immoral to kill an animal in order to eat it. But they feel that it is immoral to kill a *living* animal. In what way does discontinuing the breeding of meat animals "counter out" the supposedly good intentions toward existing animals? In what way does not having any regard for something that doesn't exist, and doesn't need to exist, counter out supposedly good intentions toward something that does exist?
The fundamental question that you cannot answer, because you simply are too stupid to understand what it means: why should animals "get" to be born? Who - other than you - cares if they never are born?
> >> which is > >> why this logic does apply to these particular > >> animals. It's just another part of the picture that > >> should be looked at, out of consideration for > >> the animals themselves.
> >> >I'm not trying to turn this into an argument about the pros/cons of > >> >contraception, and I don't think that the various questions posted here > >> >asking you whether your position holds for human birth control as well > >> >(questions which, with all due respect, you've yet to answer directly) are > >> >either. I'd just like to know if your > >> >statement that prevention of life in animals is cruel means that human > >> >contraception is also cruel.
> >> I haven't said that I believe prevention of life > >> in animals is "cruel"....but that it is inconsiderate, > >> etc.
> >Inconsiderate to whom, or what?
> The animals that could be.
You can't show consideration, and don't owe any consideration, to something that doesn't exist.
> >"Etc." is short for "et cetera", meaning "and others". What else besides > >"inconsiderate"?
> Who cares? There is no "etc"...I'm sorry, > I was wrong. Whatever.
> >> Discussing contraception has nothing to do > >> with the animals in the meat industry. IMO it is > >> just a way of changing the subject, and distorting > >> the way people perceive the entire situation. So > >> I intentionally ignore that trick more and more > >> frequently.
> >If an animal not "getting" to live is unfair "to the animal" (what does that > >mean, anyway?), then wouldn't a human not getting to live be unfair to the > >human? If both are unfair in the same way, then why do you consider the > >comparison a trick? If they are not unfair in the same way, then what do you > >feel is the difference that justifies disregarding the comparison to human > >contraception?
> I am not wasting time discussing humans any more.
You can't answer it. You're throwing in the towel.
> >> As far as actually applying my thinking to the > >> birth of humans: if a person does not have > >> children, only because of the fact that the > >> children will eventually be killed by something, > >> I don't think they are doing the best thing. But I > >> feel that people should or should not have kids > >> according to whether or not they want to raise > >> them. Which is totally different than the meat > >> industry, which obviously does want to raise and > >> care for the animals.
> >Not in the same way or for any of the same reasons that people might want to > >raise and care for children. No one in the meat industry has any concern for the > >emotional development and well being of the animals, the way parents ideally have > >for their children.
> People in the meat industry care about the well > being of the animals they raise.
> They can't be > expected to care as much about them as they > care about their own children.
> >> This is one of the differences > >> in the two situations, that makes comparing the > >> human use of contraception, and the raising of > >> animals for food, a useless thing to do.
> >It's not a difference, until you show that the meat industry "wanting" to raise > >and care for animals is the same as human parents wanting to raise and care for a > >child. You haven't done that, and you can't.
> Whatever...
> I am discussing the animals in the food industry, *not* > humans.
But other people feel there are analogies that can be drawn. In a discussion, David, as distinct from a sermon, you can't unilaterally declare what is and isn't pertinent, and expect to be taken seriously. If the other people discussing the topic with you feel there are analogies that invalidate your contentions, you either have to address their beliefs about the relevance, and show why the analogies are invalid; or, you have to shut the fuck up, go back to inhaling the alcohol vapors from the beer soaked bar rag, and stay the hell out of the news group.
> Changing the subject to humans is a tactic that has > two purposes IMO:
> 1) To lead the subject of discussion away from what it is, > that being the future animals in the food industry--animals > which "ethical" veg*ns apparently, and usually admittedly, > care nothing at all about.
No, it isn't. It's because you're trying to assign moral weight to the prevention of animals' births (which no one else does), and plenty of people *do* assign moral weight to the prevention of births of humans, and they think there might be some grounds for comparison, and they'd like you to explain why the two are not comparable.
> 2) To strengthen the twisted view already held by people > who say they think of humans and animals in the same > way.
> There is no reason to continue this type of comparison any > further IMO.
You haven't explained, and seemingly can't explain, why the comparison is invalid. You just say that you won't discuss it any more. This is the same as a crybaby kid saying he's going to take his ball and go home because he doesn't like having his ass kicked in some kids' sports game.
> People who act as though they think of humans > and animals in the same way, have a distorted view of reality > (probably due to too much Disney, etc.
What's the "et cetera"? What others?
> ), and to me it would > be counter-productive to participate in the delusion.
No, that's not it. It's because you see fully well that the situations are indeed analogous, and that your entire silly argument collapses in a shit hemorrhage.
>i've got a newsflash for you. you are an omnivore, also. you just >prefer yours ground up into invisible bits and disguised. you are also >disengenuious for not being willing to take responsibility for the >deaths you commission on your behalf.
Not a newsflash - it's old news by now. I am perfectly aware that I am not hovering above ground, and that every time I take a step in a forest (or just on grass) I kill animals. I know that animals are killed as a result of all kinds of harvesting, and that it is impossible, under current circumstances, to avoid this.
How do you want me to take responsibility for it? By agreeing to it? In that case, I always have.
>it is very, very likely you are responsible for more deaths than any >hunter on this group.
This belongs in one of the threads about meat vs. vegetarian (or vegan) diet. I have the impression that you're wrong.
But that is not the entire question - as far as I'm concerned. I think there is a considerable difference between someone deliberately killing animals and someone trying as hard as he/she can to avoid this - the meat-eater will, in all probability not change, whereas the vegetarian will steadily improve.
Being fatalistic solves no problems.
>[...] >> This is totally meaningless, and obviously colored by prejudices >> towards vegetarians.
>true, i do not hold a very high opinion of the intellectual or emotional >prowess of the average religious vegetarian,
Why do you say "religious"? Is that because our ethical stand is basically subjective? In that case, all ethics are.
>but let us not confuse my >opinion with the *facts* of your diet. you *are* an omnivore and are >not truthful about your diet, nor of the amount of blood you hire others >to spill on your behalf.
Where have I lied about my diet?
>> I am a consumer like everybody else. What I buy and what I don't buy >> is just as insignificant as what you buy.
>if you do not retain a vote with your guilders(?) for meat raised a >certain way (and not raised another way), you opinion is as meaningful >as a fly's fart.
If I don't eat meat, less meat will be produced than if I did eat meat. This seems very obvious to me.
>[...]
>> I care about animals*. You care about your conscience. >> * Not as in _not-existent_ animals.
>you care about rules to make you feel good.
Yes, I do. Interestingly, I think you feel much better than me.
>your rules have nothing to >do with animals in real time.
No, they don't.
>you have no troubled yourself to inform >yourself about the facts of your diet; how can you have an opinion about >animals?
As this is an unsubstantiated allegation, and as I have already shown I am perfectly (almost) aware of the facts of my diet, I won't repeat myself.
>cordially, >diderot
Andreas -- "The man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, 'Limit yourself'; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian."
>Well, Andreas, this is scary but I had exactly the same discussion with a >friend. The only difference , in the end we get a vision of a couple of >"future cows" with AK-47's. They were very nasty and so we were converted.
Did they walk on their hind legs and talk? That sounds very scary - we better stop breeding cattle before they take over the world!-)
Andreas -- "The man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, 'Limit yourself'; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian."
G*rd*n wrote in message <7ua8g2$e7...@panix2.panix.com>... >Jonathan Ball wrote in message <38074FA7.7594C...@earthlink.net>... >| >However, I find myself wondering about this guy. He >| >just...never...goes...away. He always has to come back with something. >| >His writing style doesn't suggest a dog with a bone, but his persistence >| >certainly does. No thread he's involved in ever dies other than on one >| >of his posts. He is the supreme sophist: well read, articulate to the >| >point of glibness, and confident that, through his persistence if >| >nothing else, he can make any and every thing mean what he wants it to >| >mean.
>I've been compared to a dog with a bone before. Maybe I >should change my handle to "D*g." (G*d spelled backward!)
Please don't! Anyone with "dog" in their handle automatically becomes a posting-buddy of mine.
>"Swamp Thing" <dkoc...@icdc.com>: >| My experience differs somewhat. >| Actually, Gordon has left quite a few of *my* replies "hanging". >| I notice this when it happens (with anyone) because I hate that. >| I've always figured he just didn't consider them worthy of a response, >| or maybe the thread went in a direction he wasn't comfortable discussing. >| >| Either way, its ultimately his choice. Perhaps a better one than maniacally >| responding to virtually every reply with lame attempts at refutation >| (not naming names, present company excepted). >| >| I do consider it rude though if someone posts an honest query and >| they receive no response.
>1. Sometimes I lose a thread, or it doesn't show up here, >or I'm too busy, or I'm away, etc. etc. etc.
Ha! Did you know that in a court of law, any mail sent is considered to be received? I extend the definition to usenet (except when it conflicts with *my* excuses)
>2. Sometimes I figure everything has been said that can be >said. If I think I've made my point, and my interlocutors >still disagree with me, I don't see the point of going >around in a circle about it (except for the sake of a little >humor now and then).
That's what I meant by "not worthy". Keep practicing the humor bit though. I was almost going to suggest to Michael to put a bit in his new FAQ about ARA's being severely handicapped in the sense of humor department. BTW, I think you might make a pretty good straight-man.
>3. Sometimes the thread goes off in a direction I'm bored >with, or at least one that seems to require fresh, uh, >blood.
"not comfortable" (boredom is an uncomfort)
>4. Sometimes I agree with what's been said. Why add blab? >If I want to just encourage the author, I'll do it by email.
I somehow doubt that has occured in my case. My insecurity requires hard acknowledgment or I'm forever left wondering.
>5. Sometimes I want to go off and think about something >that's been written -- I don't have an immediate reply.
I tried that once, and promptly forgot all about it. I'd like to tak this opportunity to apologize to whoever that was.
>6. Sometimes you really do get all the meat off the bone, >crack it, get the marrow out, and chew up the bits and >pieces. Then it's time for a nice nap.
After a good cigar!
>But enough about me! In closing, I'll just note that both >of you have left threads I've posted on hanging.
Ahh, so it was you! My sincerest apologies. I tried taking ghinko, but that stuff is crap.
> In such >cases I assume one of the above must hold. Always glad, >though, to have a dicussion of my peculiarities.
>> >In what way does the animals not ever "getting" to live "counter out" the good >> >intentions?
>> To not kill them is so they
>existing animals
>> can have a longer >> life. To not raise them
>non-existent animals
>> gives them
>Who? You can't give or not give anything to something that doesn't exist.
>> less life than >> to raise and kill them.
>That doesn't answer my question. Not surprising - you never do. You can't.
>The people who don't want animals killed in order to be eaten feel that way out of >intentions toward *existing* animals. They feel - mistakenly, in my view - that it is >unethical or immoral to kill an animal in order to eat it. But they feel that it is >immoral to kill a *living* animal. In what way does discontinuing the breeding of >meat animals "counter out" the supposedly good intentions toward existing animals? In >what way does not having any regard for something that doesn't exist, and doesn't need >to exist, counter out supposedly good intentions toward something that does exist?
>The fundamental question that you cannot answer, because you simply are too stupid to >understand what it means: why should animals "get" to be born? Who - other than you >- cares if they never are born?
Many people devote much of their lives to influence future animals, so you can't really get me to believe they are unimportant. All farmers are concerned with future animals--they aren't likely to build a $100K+ chicken house just to raise one batch of chickens, etc. And all medical researchers, and even all vets, are no doubt concerned with trying to influence future animals. People who produce, and people who sell feed couldn't keep going without future animals...nor could people involved with meat packing, and sales, etc. Future animals are worth caring about, and fortunately for them there are people who do (just not quite enough...yet...).
>> >> which is >> >> why this logic does apply to these particular >> >> animals. It's just another part of the picture that >> >> should be looked at, out of consideration for >> >> the animals themselves.
>> >> >I'm not trying to turn this into an argument about the pros/cons of >> >> >contraception, and I don't think that the various questions posted here >> >> >asking you whether your position holds for human birth control as well >> >> >(questions which, with all due respect, you've yet to answer directly) are >> >> >either. I'd just like to know if your >> >> >statement that prevention of life in animals is cruel means that human >> >> >contraception is also cruel.
>> >> I haven't said that I believe prevention of life >> >> in animals is "cruel"....but that it is inconsiderate, >> >> etc.
>> >Inconsiderate to whom, or what?
>> The animals that could be.
>You can't show consideration, and don't owe any consideration, to something that >doesn't exist.
>> >"Etc." is short for "et cetera", meaning "and others". What else besides >> >"inconsiderate"?
>> Who cares? There is no "etc"...I'm sorry, >> I was wrong. Whatever.
>> >> Discussing contraception has nothing to do >> >> with the animals in the meat industry. IMO it is >> >> just a way of changing the subject, and distorting >> >> the way people perceive the entire situation. So >> >> I intentionally ignore that trick more and more >> >> frequently.
>> >If an animal not "getting" to live is unfair "to the animal" (what does that >> >mean, anyway?), then wouldn't a human not getting to live be unfair to the >> >human? If both are unfair in the same way, then why do you consider the >> >comparison a trick? If they are not unfair in the same way, then what do you >> >feel is the difference that justifies disregarding the comparison to human >> >contraception?
>> I am not wasting time discussing humans any more.
>You can't answer it. You're throwing in the towel.
>> >> As far as actually applying my thinking to the >> >> birth of humans: if a person does not have >> >> children, only because of the fact that the >> >> children will eventually be killed by something, >> >> I don't think they are doing the best thing. But I >> >> feel that people should or should not have kids >> >> according to whether or not they want to raise >> >> them. Which is totally different than the meat >> >> industry, which obviously does want to raise and >> >> care for the animals.
>> >Not in the same way or for any of the same reasons that people might want to >> >raise and care for children. No one in the meat industry has any concern for the >> >emotional development and well being of the animals, the way parents ideally have >> >for their children.
>> People in the meat industry care about the well >> being of the animals they raise.
>What sort of "well being"?
>> They can't be >> expected to care as much about them as they >> care about their own children.
>> >> This is one of the differences >> >> in the two situations, that makes comparing the >> >> human use of contraception, and the raising of >> >> animals for food, a useless thing to do.
>> >It's not a difference, until you show that the meat industry "wanting" to raise >> >and care for animals is the same as human parents wanting to raise and care for a >> >child. You haven't done that, and you can't.
>> Whatever...
>> I am discussing the animals in the food industry, *not* >> humans.
>But other people feel there are analogies that can be drawn. In a discussion, David, >as distinct from a sermon, you can't unilaterally declare what is and isn't pertinent, >and expect to be taken seriously. If the other people discussing the topic with you >feel there are analogies that invalidate your contentions, you either have to address >their beliefs about the relevance, and show why the analogies are invalid; or, you >have to shut the fuck up, go back to inhaling the alcohol vapors from the beer soaked >bar rag, and stay the hell out of the news group.
>> Changing the subject to humans is a tactic that has >> two purposes IMO:
>> 1) To lead the subject of discussion away from what it is, >> that being the future animals in the food industry--animals >> which "ethical" veg*ns apparently, and usually admittedly, >> care nothing at all about.
>No, it isn't. It's because you're trying to assign moral weight to the prevention of >animals' births (which no one else does), and plenty of people *do* assign moral >weight to the prevention of births of humans, and they think there might be some >grounds for comparison, and they'd like you to explain why the two are not comparable.
>> 2) To strengthen the twisted view already held by people >> who say they think of humans and animals in the same >> way.
>> There is no reason to continue this type of comparison any >> further IMO.
>You haven't explained, and seemingly can't explain, why the comparison is invalid. >You just say that you won't discuss it any more. This is the same as a crybaby kid >saying he's going to take his ball and go home because he doesn't like having his ass >kicked in some kids' sports game.
>> People who act as though they think of humans >> and animals in the same way, have a distorted view of reality >> (probably due to too much Disney, etc.
>What's the "et cetera"? What others?
>> ), and to me it would >> be counter-productive to participate in the delusion.
>No, that's not it. It's because you see fully well that the situations are indeed >analogous, and that your entire silly argument collapses in a shit hemorrhage.
"Jeff Graham" <crono...@pacbell.net> wrote: >You say if we didnt eat them they would be dead. And it is true. But look, >we are the ONLY things keeping these animals alive. Maybe they were supposed >to die out a long time ago. ANd maybe we are just holding nature back. And >maybe it would be for the greater good of man kind if cows died out. It >would be sad, but the life these animals lead now is even sadder. >-Bruno
Because there are so many different situations involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same way, as "ethical" veg*ns appear to do. To say that *all* of it is cruel, and to think of *all* animals that are raised for the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies and distorts one's interpretation of the way things really are. Just as it would to think that there is no cruelty or abuse at all.
Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside grazing--that is not a bad way to live. Veal are confined to such a degree that they appear to have terrible lives, so there is no reason to think of both groups of animals in the same way. Chickens raised as fryers and broilers, and egg producers who are in a cage free environment--as well as the birds who parent all of them, and the birds who parent battery hens--are raised in houses, but not in cages. The lives of those birds are not bad. Battery hens are confined to cages, and have what appear to be terrible lives, so there is no reason to think of battery hens and the other groups in the same way.
>> > Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive >> > if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of >> > reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever >> > we think about the fact that the animals are going to be >> > killed. When we think about the truth of it, the animals >> > are not being cheated out of any part of their life by >> > being raised for food, but instead they are getting the >> > opportunity to experience whatever life they get as a >> > result of it.
>> That is a lot of bull. The only 'ethical meat eater' is a hunter that has >> the guts to do his or her own killing, and you are not that.
>> --
>> "The idea of God is for those who have no moral compass of their own"
"David N. Harrison" wrote: > Jonathan Ball <jonb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> [...]
> >The people who don't want animals killed in order to be eaten feel that way out of > >intentions toward *existing* animals. They feel - mistakenly, in my view - that it is > >unethical or immoral to kill an animal in order to eat it. But they feel that it is > >immoral to kill a *living* animal. In what way does discontinuing the breeding of > >meat animals "counter out" the supposedly good intentions toward existing animals? In > >what way does not having any regard for something that doesn't exist, and doesn't need > >to exist, counter out supposedly good intentions toward something that does exist?
> >The fundamental question that you cannot answer, because you simply are too stupid to > >understand what it means: why should animals "get" to be born? Who - other than you > >- cares if they never are born?
> Many people devote much of their lives to influence > future animals, so you can't really get me to believe they > are unimportant. All farmers are concerned with future > animals--they aren't likely to build a $100K+ chicken house > just to raise one batch of chickens, etc. And all medical > researchers, and even all vets, are no doubt concerned > with trying to influence future animals. People who produce, > and people who sell feed couldn't keep going without future > animals...nor could people involved with meat packing, and > sales, etc. Future animals are worth caring about, and > fortunately for them there are people who do (just not quite > enough...yet...).
None of them is concerned with the meaning of the future animals' lives. None of them.
They're concerned about those animals as a product, not from any philosophical perspective. They're concerned about them in the same way Wal-Mart and Sears are concerned about about the future supply of refrigerators and lawn chairs: those companies aren't likely to build multi-million dollar stores and warehouses in order to sell just the current inventory.
If demand for those products goes away, no one feels bad because the lawn chairs didn't "get" to sit in someone's back yard.
>"Andreas Vedeler" <ana...@online.no>: >| It would be very annoying for their surroundings if they lived in the >| country, but if they were city-dwellers, it would more likely be a >| mildly entertaining eccentricity. I don't see why it should affect their >| credibility much, though.
G*rd*n skrev i meldingen <7ub5em$pk...@panix2.panix.com>...
>It would certainly affect their credibility as >taxonomists.
Well, you certainly tax my knowledge of the English language (and force me to dig out my dictionary:-)
Andreas -- "The man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, 'Limit yourself'; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian."
"Andreas Vedeler" <ana...@online.no>: | >| It would be very annoying for their surroundings if they lived in the | >| country, but if they were city-dwellers, it would more likely be a | >| mildly entertaining eccentricity. I don't see why it should affect | their | >| credibility much, though.
G*rd*n skrev i meldingen <7ub5em$pk...@panix2.panix.com>... | >It would certainly affect their credibility as | >taxonomists.
"Andreas Vedeler" <ana...@online.no>: | Well, you certainly tax my knowledge of the English language | (and force me to dig out my dictionary:-)
Taxonomy: "the science, laws, or principles of classification, esp. of biological organisms." Someone who cried wolf whenever he saw a cow would not be very good at this. In spite of the fact that the first great taxonomist was Linnaeus, a Swede, my English-Swedish dictionary fails to give a translation.
> My point is would be better *for the animals* to >encourage better lives for them than no life at all.
Your arguments take for granted that I accept your basic premise - that somehow non-existant entities can even be contemplated.
I don't. I don't think these animals exists - as what you're talking about is the _concept_ of an animal, the idea, as Aristotle would say. Therefore, when you want me to contemplate the rights of this concept, I find myself unable to do so, and I find myself unable to understand how it is possible, and what possible ethical means it would serve, if possible.
I think this whole theory is based in your mixing "individuals" with "species" - one is actual, the other fictional. My logic faculty rebels when even attempting to debate this, as it defies - ignores - logic.
If you want to discuss this, you must first convince me that it is possible for a human being to consider something which does not exist, and then you must convince me that this (that last word almost hurt) can in any way be granted rights - or anything else, for that matter.
[snip]
> Many people devote much of their lives to influence >future animals, so you can't really get me to believe they >are unimportant. All farmers are concerned with future >animals--they aren't likely to build a $100K+ chicken house >just to raise one batch of chickens, etc. And all medical >researchers, and even all vets, are no doubt concerned >with trying to influence future animals. People who produce, >and people who sell feed couldn't keep going without future >animals...nor could people involved with meat packing, and >sales, etc. Future animals are worth caring about, and >fortunately for them there are people who do (just not quite >enough...yet...).
It is possible to contemplate the fact that new entities will come into being (I can see how you would think of your theory when looking at how things are phrased in common language) and it is perfectly possible to consider the well-being of these. The difference is that you don't think about _specific_ entities, but rather an idea, to bring Aristotle back. You can realize that, once these entities (damn! you've made me oversensitive!) come into being, they will have some claim to rights (by being in a position in which they can be afforded them).
[snip]
> A chicken that will be born is a month is a future >chicken...how hard is that?
As I have explained - not hard at all, provided this chicken exists. I can to some extent agree that a larvae(?) is a future butterfly. But the larvae exists.
[snip]
> I know a man who said he is still raising calves >from a bull that has been dead for over 20 years. That >bull's semen is a great example of *potential* future lives.
I agree. The semen has potential to develop into a life - in some extent it is alive now. The same way a carrot is.
If you reply to these comments, this discussion may have a future.
Andreas -- "The man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, 'Limit yourself'; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian."
David N. Harrison skrev i meldingen <3804fb21.2725...@news.mindspring.com>...
> We are infants. The plus is that we are already thinking >about and discussing such things. There are a lot more >people thinking about the future than there were 50 years >ago. Much less 100...or a few thousand.... "Evolution" >doesn't think about the future, but humans can, and some >do. Humans can think about future animals also.
No. Humans can think about the _concept_ of future animals (in the same way we can think about a character in a novel). It is only possible to think about _something_, and in the case of "future animals", that something only exists inside our heads - and that's the only place it will ever exist.
Andreas -- "The man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, 'Limit yourself'; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian."
>[snip] >> My point is would be better *for the animals* to >>encourage better lives for them than no life at all.
>Your arguments take for granted that I accept your >basic premise - that somehow non-existant >entities can even be contemplated.
>I don't. I don't think these animals exists -
Neither do I. I've never said that I do. Other people say that I do. Apparently I've given the impression that I believe they do though, so I'll make a conscious effort to avoid doing that.
> as what >you're talking about is the _concept_ of an animal, >the idea, as Aristotle would say. Therefore, when >you want me to contemplate the rights of this >concept,
I've also never encouraged people to contemplate the "rights" of any animals.
> I find myself unable to do so, and I find >myself unable to understand how it is possible, >and what possible ethical means it would serve, >if possible.
>I think this whole theory is based in your mixing >"individuals" with "species" - one is actual, the >other fictional. My logic faculty rebels when >even attempting to debate this, as it defies - >ignores - logic.
Well, since "species" do exist, as well as the "individuals" that make up each species, it's hard for me to understand which you feel is fictional.
>If you want to discuss this, you must first >convince me that it is possible for a human >being to consider something which does not >exist, and then you must convince me that this >(that last word almost hurt) can in any way be >granted rights - or anything else, for that >matter.
>[snip] >> Many people devote much of their lives to influence >>future animals, so you can't really get me to believe they >>are unimportant. All farmers are concerned with future >>animals--they aren't likely to build a $100K+ chicken house >>just to raise one batch of chickens, etc. And all medical >>researchers, and even all vets, are no doubt concerned >>with trying to influence future animals. People who produce, >>and people who sell feed couldn't keep going without future >>animals...nor could people involved with meat packing, and >>sales, etc. Future animals are worth caring about, and >>fortunately for them there are people who do (just not quite >>enough...yet...).
>It is possible to contemplate the fact that new entities will >come into being (I can see how you would think of your >theory when looking at how things are phrased in common >language) and it is perfectly possible to consider the >well-being of these.
The new entities that I am discussing will only come into being if we continue to raise animals for food. That doesn't mean that I think they are out there someplace just waiting for the chance to be born, or anything other than what I said.
> The difference is that you don't think >about _specific_ entities, but rather an idea, to bring >Aristotle back. You can realize that, once these entities >(damn! you've made me oversensitive!) come into >being, they will have some claim to rights (by being in >a position in which they can be afforded them).
>[snip] >> A chicken that will be born is a month is a future >>chicken...how hard is that?
>As I have explained - not hard at all, provided this >chicken exists.
No, the chicken doesn't have to exist at this time in any way. It's just a matter of terminology. There will be chickens born in the future. What do you want to call the chickens that will be born in the future, if you don't want to call them future chickens? I don't care what we call them. I'd sure like to move on beyond this type of argument though!
> I can to some extent agree that a >larvae(?) is a future butterfly. But the larvae exists.
>[snip] >> I know a man who said he is still raising calves >>from a bull that has been dead for over 20 years. That >>bull's semen is a great example of *potential* future lives.
>I agree. The semen has potential to develop into a >life - in some extent it is alive now. The same way a >carrot is.
Good. The semen has the potential to develop into many lives. The majority of them are unlikely to ever come into existence though. Only one in thousands or millions of sperm actually get to begin their potential lives. Do we agree?
>If you reply to these comments, this discussion may have >a future.
>Andreas >-- >"The man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making >power into the hands of the central government and then >says, 'Limit yourself'; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian."
> The new entities that I am discussing will only come > into being if we continue to raise animals for food. That > doesn't mean that I think they are out there someplace > just waiting for the chance to be born, or anything other > than what I said.
Okay, so you say you're not talking about some kind of "pre-born" being, with a "right" to be born. And preventing animals from being born certainly can't be "unfair" to existing animals, because they have no awareness that their species might go extinct, and I doubt you're talking about the existing animals having a "right" to reproduce: you've already indicated that you don't believe in any kind of animal "rights".
So - in what sense is it unfair "to the animals" to prevent them from being born? And, which animals?
Jonathan Ball <jonb...@earthlink.net> wrote: >"David N. Harrison" wrote:
>> [...]
>> The new entities that I am discussing will only come >> into being if we continue to raise animals for food. That >> doesn't mean that I think they are out there someplace >> just waiting for the chance to be born, or anything other >> than what I said.
>Okay, so you say you're not talking about some kind of "pre-born" being, with >a "right" to be born. And preventing animals from being born certainly can't >be "unfair" to existing animals, because they have no awareness that their >species might go extinct, and I doubt you're talking about the existing >animals having a "right" to reproduce: you've already indicated that you don't >believe in any kind of animal "rights".
>So - in what sense is it unfair "to the animals" to prevent them from being >born? And, which animals?
I'm not saying that it's unfair to them to not let them be born, since they don't exist, and all that. But. There are people who don't eat meat because they want to "save" animals from being killed. It doesn't work like that though. The animals will be killed, whether they eat them or not. It's too late to worry about the animals that are alive now, unless they buy some and release them, or whatever. Future animals are what people influence by what they consume, not the animals that are alive at the moment.... those animals are being influenced by what the consumers did in the past. What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that *could* get to live, is for people not to consider the fact that they are only keeping these animals from being killed, by keeping them from getting to live at all. This only applies to the people who haven't given that aspect of what they are doing the consideration that they should...it is a very important aspect IMO. After taking that into consideration, this type of discussion could move on into the different pros and cons of letting these animals experience life. And which animals to encourage life for and which ones not to, etc (yes dammit, there are "and others" details that could be discussed...plenty of them in fact). So far however, the few people who have even gotten as far as actually discussing future animals (or whatever you want to call them...come up with a better term if you want...) have indicated that they feel the same way about *all* animals that we raise for food. Since there are so many different ways that the animals are raised, it is not fair to think of the quality of life of all these animals in the same way. But apparently a discussion about details like that is beyond their interest or ability. Since I'm going on about all this, I'll mention a couple of other things. As you have so helpfully pointed out: I'm not good at this shit. One reason for that is that I don't like it much. I also keep running into the same arguments over and over, which is why I have developed the stock answer plan. That helps to move on into the discussion with new people, without causing me to waste any more time than I have to. The discussion so far hasn't gone far enough that anyone has actually discussed which animals they feel may have lives that are worth living, or what might be done to encourage better lives for them, or anything like that. The fact that I thought that it might eventually get that far, and maybe even turn into something that could some day become constructive instead of just a bunch of arguing, is another indication that I'm a fuckin' moron I guess... but I still haven't given up hope entirely, which is why I keep on with it. To me this is an important thing, even if to no one else. All I can do is try or not try, so I keep trying in my own half ass way. I pay my $19.95/month for internet access, so I feel that I have as much right as anyone to use it.
"David N. Harrison" wrote: > Jonathan Ball <jonb...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >"David N. Harrison" wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> The new entities that I am discussing will only come > >> into being if we continue to raise animals for food. That > >> doesn't mean that I think they are out there someplace > >> just waiting for the chance to be born, or anything other > >> than what I said.
> >Okay, so you say you're not talking about some kind of "pre-born" being, with > >a "right" to be born. And preventing animals from being born certainly can't > >be "unfair" to existing animals, because they have no awareness that their > >species might go extinct, and I doubt you're talking about the existing > >animals having a "right" to reproduce: you've already indicated that you don't > >believe in any kind of animal "rights".
> >So - in what sense is it unfair "to the animals" to prevent them from being > >born? And, which animals?
> I'm not saying that it's unfair to them to not let them be born, since > they don't exist, and all that. But. There are people who don't eat > meat because they want to "save" animals from being killed. It > doesn't work like that though.
Sure it does. They're not born, they're not killed, and there's no unfairness about any part of it. How clean could it be?
> The animals will be killed, whether > they eat them or not.
The ones who are alive, yes.
> It's too late to worry about the animals that > are alive now, unless they buy some and release them, or > whatever. Future animals are what people influence by what > they consume, not the animals that are alive at the moment.... > those animals are being influenced by what the consumers did > in the past. What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that *could* > get to live,
How can anything be "unfair" to something that doesn't exist, and that might never exist? That's impossible.
> is for people not to consider the fact that they are > only keeping these animals from being killed, by keeping them > from getting to live at all.
But it doesn't matter if they don't "get" to live. You've already said it isn't "unfair". In what way could it be bad if they don't "get" to live?
> This only applies to the people who > haven't given that aspect of what they are doing the consideration > that they should
What do you mean, "that they should"? Why should anyone?
> ...it is a very important aspect IMO. > After taking that into consideration, this type of discussion > could move on into the different pros and cons of letting these > animals experience life.
There are none. If they don't live, they simply...don't live. The end.
> And which animals to encourage life > for and which ones not to, etc (yes dammit, there are "and > others" details that could be discussed...plenty of them in fact).
You're going to have to start providing a few of the "others", or I'm going to have to ask you to stop saying it. It just looks like you're trying to bulk up your, uh, "argument" with some fluff.
> So far however, the few people who have even gotten as far > as actually discussing future animals (or whatever you want to > call them...come up with a better term if you want...) have > indicated that they feel the same way about *all* animals that > we raise for food. Since there are so many different ways that > the animals are raised, it is not fair to think of the quality of > life of all these animals in the same way.
But to so-called "ethical" vegetarians, the only thing that counts, silly as it may be, is the death of animals at that hands of humans. No matter how "good" a life the edible animals have, to the AuRAs, their human caused deaths void all the good. So to them, it *is* correct to consider all the living animals together, and not to want any livestock animals to come into existence.
> But apparently a > discussion about details like that is beyond their interest or > ability.
Uh...no. You're the one who's having all the trouble.
> Since I'm going on about all this, I'll mention a couple of > other things. As you have so helpfully pointed out: I'm not good > at this shit. One reason for that is that I don't like it much. I also > keep running into the same arguments over and over, which is > why I have developed the stock answer plan. That helps to > move on into the discussion with new people, without causing > me to waste any more time than I have to. The discussion > so far hasn't gone far enough that anyone has actually discussed > which animals they feel may have lives that are worth living, or > what might be done to encourage better lives for them, or > anything like that. The fact that I thought that it might eventually > get that far, and maybe even turn into something that could > some day become constructive instead of just a bunch of > arguing, is another indication that I'm a fuckin' moron I guess... > but I still haven't given up hope entirely, which is why I keep > on with it. To me this is an important thing, even if to no one > else. All I can do is try or not try, so I keep trying in my own > half ass way. I pay my $19.95/month for internet access, so I > feel that I have as much right as anyone to use it.
Wu Jianguo, Loucks Orie L. (1995) "From balance of nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: A paradigm shift in ecology." Quarterly Review of Biology. 70(4):439-466.
"The classical equilibrium view, however, has failed not only because equilibrium conditions are rare in nature, but also because of our past inability to incorporate heterogeneity and scale multiplicity into our quantitative expressions for stability. The theories and models built around these equilibrium and stability principles have misrepresented the foundations of resource management, nature conservation, and environmental protection."
"'The balance of nature' does not exist, and perhaps never has existed. The numbers of wild animals are constantly varying a greater or less extent, and the variations are usually irregular in period and always irregular in amplitude. Each variation in the numbers of one species causes direct and indirect repercussions on the numbers of the others, and since many of the latter are themselves independently varying in numbers, the resultant confusion is remarkable."
>> >> The new entities that I am discussing will only come >> >> into being if we continue to raise animals for food. That >> >> doesn't mean that I think they are out there someplace >> >> just waiting for the chance to be born, or anything other >> >> than what I said.
>> >Okay, so you say you're not talking about some kind of "pre-born" being, with >> >a "right" to be born. And preventing animals from being born certainly can't >> >be "unfair" to existing animals, because they have no awareness that their >> >species might go extinct, and I doubt you're talking about the existing >> >animals having a "right" to reproduce: you've already indicated that you don't >> >believe in any kind of animal "rights".
>> >So - in what sense is it unfair "to the animals" to prevent them from being >> >born? And, which animals?
>> I'm not saying that it's unfair to them to not let them be born, since >> they don't exist, and all that. But. There are people who don't eat >> meat because they want to "save" animals from being killed. It >> doesn't work like that though.
>Sure it does. They're not born, they're not killed, and there's no unfairness >about any part of it. How clean could it be?
>> The animals will be killed, whether >> they eat them or not.
>The ones who are alive, yes.
>> It's too late to worry about the animals that >> are alive now, unless they buy some and release them, or >> whatever. Future animals are what people influence by what >> they consume, not the animals that are alive at the moment.... >> those animals are being influenced by what the consumers did >> in the past. What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that *could* >> get to live,
>How can anything be "unfair" to something that doesn't exist, and that might never >exist? That's impossible.
>> is for people not to consider the fact that they are >> only keeping these animals from being killed, by keeping them >> from getting to live at all.
>But it doesn't matter if they don't "get" to live. You've already said it isn't >"unfair". In what way could it be bad if they don't "get" to live?
It doesn't have to be "bad" for them not to get to live, in order for it to be better if they *do* get to live, if they have a decent life. That's the way it is IMO, and that is what I'm trying to encourage other people to think about. Especially the people who are changing their whole diet in order to try to help the animals.
>> This only applies to the people who >> haven't given that aspect of what they are doing the consideration >> that they should
>What do you mean, "that they should"? Why should anyone?
>> ...it is a very important aspect IMO. >> After taking that into consideration, this type of discussion >> could move on into the different pros and cons of letting these >> animals experience life.
>There are none. If they don't live, they simply...don't live. The end.
If that's where you stop thinking it's the end. That's what you and the veggies do it seems. It's obviously not where the people who raise them stop thinking, or there wouldn't be any of these animals to have a discussion about. So there's no reason for me to stop thinking there either since I am a consumer.
>> And which animals to encourage life >> for and which ones not to, etc (yes dammit, there are "and >> others" details that could be discussed...plenty of them in fact).
>You're going to have to start providing a few of the "others", or I'm going to have >to ask you to stop saying it. It just looks like you're trying to bulk up your, >uh, "argument" with some fluff.
Maybe "which animals to encourage life" for is the only detail that could be discussed, but I don't think so. We haven't even gotten to that subject yet though.
>> So far however, the few people who have even gotten as far >> as actually discussing future animals (or whatever you want to >> call them...come up with a better term if you want...) have >> indicated that they feel the same way about *all* animals that >> we raise for food. Since there are so many different ways that >> the animals are raised, it is not fair to think of the quality of >> life of all these animals in the same way.
>But to so-called "ethical" vegetarians, the only thing that counts, silly as it may >be, is the death of animals at that hands of humans. No matter how "good" a life >the edible animals have, to the AuRAs, their human caused deaths void all the >good. So to them, it *is* correct to consider all the living animals together, and >not to want any livestock animals to come into existence.
I know that Jonathan. That's what I've been arguing with them about. And have stock answers for their arguments that encourage thinking in those ways. If you think it's silly, why are you acting like it's OK for them to feel that way, and that I should just go along with it too? No! They don't encourage making life better for any animals in the meat industry...or at least when they do they aren't encouraging vegetarianism when they do it.
>> But apparently a >> discussion about details like that is beyond their interest or >> ability.
>Uh...no. You're the one who's having all the trouble.
>> Since I'm going on about all this, I'll mention a couple of >> other things. As you have so helpfully pointed out: I'm not good >> at this shit. One reason for that is that I don't like it much. I also >> keep running into the same arguments over and over, which is >> why I have developed the stock answer plan. That helps to >> move on into the discussion with new people, without causing >> me to waste any more time than I have to. The discussion >> so far hasn't gone far enough that anyone has actually discussed >> which animals they feel may have lives that are worth living, or >> what might be done to encourage better lives for them, or >> anything like that. The fact that I thought that it might eventually >> get that far, and maybe even turn into something that could >> some day become constructive instead of just a bunch of >> arguing, is another indication that I'm a fuckin' moron I guess... >> but I still haven't given up hope entirely, which is why I keep >> on with it. To me this is an important thing, even if to no one >> else. All I can do is try or not try, so I keep trying in my own >> half ass way. I pay my $19.95/month for internet access, so I >> feel that I have as much right as anyone to use it.
> if they > have a decent life. That's the way it is IMO, and that is > what I'm trying to encourage other people to think about. > Especially the people who are changing their whole diet > in order to try to help the animals.
> >> This only applies to the people who > >> haven't given that aspect of what they are doing the consideration > >> that they should
> >What do you mean, "that they should"? Why should anyone?
> >> ...it is a very important aspect IMO. > >> After taking that into consideration, this type of discussion > >> could move on into the different pros and cons of letting these > >> animals experience life.
> >There are none. If they don't live, they simply...don't live. The end.
> If that's where you stop thinking it's the end. That's what > you and the veggies do it seems. It's obviously not where > the people who raise them stop thinking,
The people who raise animals for food don't think about the meaning of the animals' lives, except as a product. Period.
> or there wouldn't > be any of these animals to have a discussion about. So > there's no reason for me to stop thinking there either since > I am a consumer.
> >> And which animals to encourage life > >> for and which ones not to, etc (yes dammit, there are "and > >> others" details that could be discussed...plenty of them in fact).
> >You're going to have to start providing a few of the "others", or I'm going to have > >to ask you to stop saying it. It just looks like you're trying to bulk up your, > >uh, "argument" with some fluff.
> Maybe "which animals to encourage life" for is the only > detail that could be discussed, but I don't think so. We > haven't even gotten to that subject yet though.
No one is "encouraging life" for livestock animals, as an end in itself. The only thing that has meaning, to the producers and consumers, is the product value. The lives don't mean anything to anyone.
> >> So far however, the few people who have even gotten as far > >> as actually discussing future animals (or whatever you want to > >> call them...come up with a better term if you want...) have > >> indicated that they feel the same way about *all* animals that > >> we raise for food. Since there are so many different ways that > >> the animals are raised, it is not fair to think of the quality of > >> life of all these animals in the same way.
> >But to so-called "ethical" vegetarians, the only thing that counts, silly as it may > >be, is the death of animals at that hands of humans. No matter how "good" a life > >the edible animals have, to the AuRAs, their human caused deaths void all the > >good. So to them, it *is* correct to consider all the living animals together, and > >not to want any livestock animals to come into existence.
> I know that Jonathan. That's what I've been arguing with them > about. And have stock answers for their arguments that encourage > thinking in those ways. If you think it's silly, why are you acting like > it's OK for them to feel that way, and that I should just go along with > it too?
Because your reasons why they should consider the lives of the animals that won't be born are idiocy. You're still trying to get people to put a moral value on the lives of livestock animals, and there's no reason to do it, and no one does it...except you.
> No! They don't encourage making life better for any animals > in the meat industry
They don't want there to be any animals in the meat industry. Apart from the meat, you haven't shown any reason why there should be.
> ...or at least when they do they aren't encouraging > vegetarianism when they do it.
|
