Though there are no doubt cruel and abusive situations imposed on many animals that are raised for the production of food, there are also many animals in the food industry that have decent lives. The "Animal Rights" way of thinking encourages people to believe that *all* animals raised in the food industry live lives of torture and suffering. That is a way of intentionally causing people to develop an incorrect impression of reality. This is not really surprising, since the main goal of the "Animal Rights" movement appears to be to "save" these animals from being killed, by causing them to never get to experience life. That approach is illogical, since if it is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is *far worse* to keep those same animals from getting to have any life at all.
The food industry is an environment in which animals live, just as they do in any other habitat. The animals that are born to the food industry, will *not* be born to any other environment--they are totally dependant on that industry for their lives. Their lives can be made as good or bad as the industry decides to make them. The consumers are the people who influence the way these animals are raised, and how/if their lives will be improved in the future. People who do not eat any animal products are *not* encouraging life (better or worse) for any of them.
People who eat products from animals that are raised in ways that they feel are decent, are encouraging the lives of those animals. If those consumers show growing interest in how animals are raised, and steadily buy more products from animals that are raised in better conditions, the industry will steadily improve the conditions in which they raise animals. By consuming products from animals that they feel are raised in decent ways, people are not only encouraging life for those animals, but *better* lives for animals in general.
Wow. We haven't seen the "happy darkies singin' in the fields, blessin' Massa fo' his kind condescention" argument lately. Here it is again, sort of like a bad smell rising again from a neglected sewer system....
Rat
David wrote:
> (Posted monthly. Revisions likely.)
> Though there are no doubt cruel and abusive situations > imposed on many animals that are raised for the production > of food, there are also many animals in the food industry > that have decent lives. The "Animal Rights" way of thinking > encourages people to believe that *all* animals raised in > the food industry live lives of torture and suffering. That > is a way of intentionally causing people to develop an > incorrect impression of reality. > This is not really surprising, since the main goal of > the "Animal Rights" movement appears to be to "save" these > animals from being killed, by causing them to never get to > experience life. That approach is illogical, since if it is > wrong to end the lives of animals, it is *far worse* to keep > those same animals from getting to have any life at all.
> The food industry is an environment in which animals > live, just as they do in any other habitat. The animals that > are born to the food industry, will *not* be born to any > other environment--they are totally dependant on that > industry for their lives. Their lives can be made as good or > bad as the industry decides to make them. > The consumers are the people who influence the way these > animals are raised, and how/if their lives will be improved > in the future. People who do not eat any animal products are > *not* encouraging life (better or worse) for any of them.
> People who eat products from animals that are raised in > ways that they feel are decent, are encouraging the lives of > those animals. > If those consumers show growing interest in how animals > are raised, and steadily buy more products from animals that > are raised in better conditions, the industry will steadily > improve the conditions in which they raise animals. > By consuming products from animals that they feel are > raised in decent ways, people are not only encouraging life > for those animals, but *better* lives for animals in general.
In article <37d3859e.2103...@news.mindspring.com> , dh...@yahoo.com (David) wrote:
> The food industry is an environment in which animals > live, just as they do in any other habitat. The animals that > are born to the food industry, will *not* be born to any > other environment--they are totally dependant on that > industry for their lives.
So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do not have rights, no matter how much you whine.
.> .> > So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do not have rights, .> > no matter how much you whine. .> .> So why do we worry about ecological conservation? .> .> If the unborn (future generations) do not have rights, why don't .> we simply consume everything in the present generation?
Martin, you still haven't grasped the difference between acknowledging the concerns that beings who *will exist* shall have *when they exist*, and worrying about the "concerns" of beings who *do not exist at the time of the supposed injustice*.
--
"Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
> Martin Martens wrote: > .> > .> Tony Martin wrote: > .> > .> > So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do not > .> > have rights, > .> > no matter how much you whine. > .> > .> So why do we worry about ecological conservation? > .> > .> If the unborn (future generations) do not have rights, why don't > .> we simply consume everything in the present generation?
> Martin, you still haven't grasped the difference between > acknowledging the concerns that beings who *will exist* shall > have *when they exist*, and worrying about the "concerns" of > beings who *do not exist at the time of the supposed injustice*.
I'm quite confident that my grasp of the construct of rights far exceeds yours and Tony's, for that matter. Feel free to attempt to explain the niche into which you've just wedged yourself.
.> > .> > Martin Martens wrote: .> > .> .> > .> Tony Martin wrote: .> > .> .> > .> > So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do not .> > .> > have rights, .> > .> > no matter how much you whine. .> > .> .> > .> So why do we worry about ecological conservation? .> > .> .> > .> If the unborn (future generations) do not have rights, why don't .> > .> we simply consume everything in the present generation? .> > .> > Martin, you still haven't grasped the difference between .> > acknowledging the concerns that beings who *will exist* shall .> > have *when they exist*, and worrying about the "concerns" of .> > beings who *do not exist at the time of the supposed injustice*. .> .> I'm quite confident that my grasp of the construct of rights far .> exceeds yours and Tony's, for that matter. Feel free to attempt .> to explain the niche into which you've just wedged yourself.
Hmm, now why does the phrase 'over-inflated ego' spring to mind...?
>. You now believe you can predict the future?
One has only to reason it out this way: in the future, there will *probably* be people. These people will *probably* have wants and needs quite similar to our own. Thus, the reasonable thing to do is to leave the planet in good enough shape to provide for those wants and needs. This is quite different from ringing one's hands over the deprivation suffered by those Poor Non-Existent Beings who don't get to live because of the Evil ARAs, ZPGers, and onanists.
--
"Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
> Martin Martens wrote: > .> > .> Michael Cerkowski wrote: > .> > > .> > Martin Martens wrote: > .> > .> > .> > .> Tony Martin wrote: > .> > .> > .> > .> > So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do not > .> > .> > have rights, > .> > .> > no matter how much you whine. > .> > .> > .> > .> So why do we worry about ecological conservation? > .> > .> > .> > .> If the unborn (future generations) do not have rights, why don't > .> > .> we simply consume everything in the present generation? > .> > > .> > Martin, you still haven't grasped the difference between > .> > acknowledging the concerns that beings who *will exist* shall > .> > have *when they exist*, and worrying about the "concerns" of > .> > beings who *do not exist at the time of the supposed injustice*. > .> > .> I'm quite confident that my grasp of the construct of rights far > .> exceeds yours and Tony's, for that matter. Feel free to attempt > .> to explain the niche into which you've just wedged yourself.
> Hmm, now why does the phrase 'over-inflated ego' spring > to mind...?
> >. You now believe you can predict the future?
> One has only to reason it out this way: in the future, > there will *probably* be people. These people will *probably* > have wants and needs quite similar to our own. Thus, the > reasonable thing to do is to leave the planet in good enough > shape to provide for those wants and needs. This is quite > different from ringing one's hands over the deprivation > suffered by those Poor Non-Existent Beings who don't get > to live because of the Evil ARAs, ZPGers, and onanists.
Very good so far Michael. Now, show me where in the above statement you've contradicted my statement to Tony or that I've made the claim that you are attributing to me.
You are merely and as usual whacking away at your strawman.
(...) .> > .> > .> Tony Martin wrote: .> > .> > .> .> > .> > .> > So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do not .> > .> > .> > have rights, .> > .> > .> > no matter how much you whine. .> > .> > .> .> > .> > .> So why do we worry about ecological conservation? .> > .> > .> .> > .> > .> If the unborn (future generations) do not have rights, why don't .> > .> > .> we simply consume everything in the present generation? .> > .> > .> > .> > Martin, you still haven't grasped the difference between .> > .> > acknowledging the concerns that beings who *will exist* shall .> > .> > have *when they exist*, and worrying about the "concerns" of .> > .> > beings who *do not exist at the time of the supposed injustice*. .> > .> .> > .> I'm quite confident that my grasp of the construct of rights far .> > .> exceeds yours and Tony's, for that matter. Feel free to attempt .> > .> to explain the niche into which you've just wedged yourself. .> > .> > Hmm, now why does the phrase 'over-inflated ego' spring .> > to mind...? .> > .> > >. You now believe you can predict the future? .> > .> > One has only to reason it out this way: in the future, .> > there will *probably* be people. These people will *probably* .> > have wants and needs quite similar to our own. Thus, the .> > reasonable thing to do is to leave the planet in good enough .> > shape to provide for those wants and needs. This is quite .> > different from ringing one's hands over the deprivation .> > suffered by those Poor Non-Existent Beings who don't get .> > to live because of the Evil ARAs, ZPGers, and onanists. .> .> Very good so far Michael. Now, show me where in the above .> statement you've contradicted my statement to Tony or that I've .> made the claim that you are attributing to me.
My, you do have a short memory. It's right above, but I'll repost it:
"If the unborn (future generations) do not have rights, why don't we simply consume everything in the present generation?"
The answer, of course, is that the unborn *don't* have rights. When people are born in the future, they will acquire them *then*. If you were simply asking for enlightenment instead of stating your position, then consider yourself...well, more enlightened, anyway.
> You are merely and as usual whacking away at your strawman.
You've been hanging with Master James, I see.
--
"Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
> Martin Martens wrote: > .> > .> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
[...]
> .> > One has only to reason it out this way: in the future, > .> > there will *probably* be people. These people will *probably* > .> > have wants and needs quite similar to our own. Thus, the > .> > reasonable thing to do is to leave the planet in good enough > .> > shape to provide for those wants and needs. This is quite > .> > different from ringing one's hands over the deprivation > .> > suffered by those Poor Non-Existent Beings who don't get > .> > to live because of the Evil ARAs, ZPGers, and onanists. > .> > .> Very good so far Michael. Now, show me where in the above > .> statement you've contradicted my statement to Tony or that I've > .> made the claim that you are attributing to me.
> My, you do have a short memory. It's right above, but > I'll repost it:
> "If the unborn (future generations) do not have rights, why don't > we simply consume everything in the present generation?"
Gee, I don't see anything there about "...the deprivation suffered by those Poor Non-Existent Beings...".
> The answer, of course, is that the unborn *don't* > have rights.
In your opinion but as we saw in the other post, your credibility on the subject of rights is quite weak.
> When people are born in the future, they > will acquire them *then*.
There you go predicting the future again. What was it that Gordon said about that? Something about not knowing what could happen in the future. Why I seem to recall someone who was sharply criticizing a certain organization for making categorical claims about the future. Why that was *you*, wasn't it? Have you suddenly changed your position and now agree with AMPEF's claim of fact?
> If you were simply asking > for enlightenment instead of stating your position, > then consider yourself...well, more enlightened, > anyway.
I'm more than happy to shine a light on your ignorance any day Michael. Keep whacking, I predict that you will shortly start to spin away.
> Once you resort to nothing but weak insults, it's > clear that you've thrown in the towel, Martin. Snip > all you want; people can still read the exchange and > decide who won that one.
Um, Michael, you snipped the whole thing out. Cut and run...
I'm waiting for you to show that you can predict the future.
>Wow. We haven't seen the "happy darkies singin' in > the fields, blessin' Massa fo' his kind condescention" > argument lately. Here it is again, sort of like a > bad smell rising again from a neglected sewer system....
> Rat
Man, that was beautiful. It brings to mind images of the gentle Black Angus, hollerin' in the pastures on a moonlit night. They loudly and proudly sing their songs of the promised land, and of the freedom they once knew (err...well maybe not) and will know again some day if these people will ever quit killing them. The cows explain each night to their calves that the reason they have to endure this live of pain and torture--living confined in fields and pastures, forced to eat grass all day, and sometimes that "grain" stuff --is that they are going to be killed by the humans. "The humans will cut you up into pre-determined slices, and they and their children are going to eat you Sweetie" a mother will sadly explain. "And they are going to rip your skin off and make it into clothes for themselves, and items for sexual pleasures, etc." "Why mommy? Why must it be this way???" the young ones ask. "As we learned from 'the Lion King', lions, who are carnivores, can be encouraged to eat nothing but grubs and beetles (which are yucky and no cares about anyway). So why must humans, who are not even omnivores, but just self glorified vegetarians no better than us cows--wannabees!!!-- keep on killing us for no good reason?" "Because they are brutal and selfish murderers who care only for themselves" their mothers will tell them. "Just be thankful that you are not a veal calf instead of a beef calf Darling......".
But the fowl stench of real life is in the air, to corrupt the ridiculous illusion just described. Rising straight from the neglected sewers of truth, here is some putrid old *reality* :
Animals don't know that they are being raised by humans. They certainly don't know what they are being raised for. They don't have a language with which to communicate ideas which are as detailed as the concept that they will be killed so that humans can eat them. If they did know, that would make their lives a *lot* different, since they would have to live with the knowledge that they will be killed. They also don't see their brethren killed until the time comes for them to die--and they don't understand it even then.
The animals don't know that they are being raised to be killed. What is cruel *to the animals* is what matters --*not!* what "feels" unethical to some humans. If we are thinking about what's best for the animals, we would have to *try* to think about it from the animals' point of view. In order to even get an idea of how they feel about their lives, we would have to try to ignore all of the things that we know, but they do not know. But instead of that, people *often* do just the opposite. Instead of trying to understand how the animals would perceive their lives, they instead deliberately ignore that idea, and try to apply their own "ethical" feelings to animals that know nothing about them. That is not fair to the animals!!
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.
Once you resort to nothing but weak insults, it's clear that you've thrown in the towel, Martin. Snip all you want; people can still read the exchange and decide who won that one. --
"Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
>> The food industry is an environment in which animals >> live, just as they do in any other habitat. The animals that >> are born to the food industry, will *not* be born to any >> other environment--they are totally dependant on that >> industry for their lives.
>So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do not have rights, >no matter how much you whine.
If it's wrong to kill them, it's even worse to deny them of every second of what life they could have had......(pretty simple and obvious really). That has nothing to do with "rights", and "rights" have nothing to do with what I said, so I guess we agree that "rights" have nothing to do with it?
>--
>"My dog is nicer than you. He is too."
He probably cares more about other animals than you do too (at least he doesn't encourage people in this ng to feel that they shouldn't consider them), so chances are he's also nicer than you are.
Michael Cerkowski <m...@albany.net> wrote: >Martin Martens wrote: >.> >.> Michael Cerkowski wrote: >.> > >.> > Martin Martens wrote: >.> > .> >.> > .> Tony Martin wrote: >.> > .> >.> > .> > So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do >not >.> > .> > have rights, >.> > .> > no matter how much you whine. >.> > .> >.> > .> So why do we worry about ecological conservation? >.> > .> >.> > .> If the unborn (future generations) do not have rights, why don't >.> > .> we simply consume everything in the present generation? >.> > >.> > Martin, you still haven't grasped the difference between >.> > acknowledging the concerns that beings who *will exist* shall >.> > have *when they exist*, and worrying about the "concerns" of >.> > beings who *do not exist at the time of the supposed injustice*. >.> >.> I'm quite confident that my grasp of the construct of rights far >.> exceeds yours and Tony's, for that matter. Feel free to attempt >.> to explain the niche into which you've just wedged yourself.
> Hmm, now why does the phrase 'over-inflated ego' spring >to mind...?
>>. You now believe you can predict the future?
> One has only to reason it out this way: in the future, >there will *probably* be people. These people will *probably* >have wants and needs quite similar to our own. Thus, the >reasonable thing to do is to leave the planet in good enough >shape to provide for those wants and needs. This is quite >different from ringing one's hands over the deprivation >suffered by those Poor Non-Existent Beings who don't get >to live because of the Evil ARAs, ZPGers, and onanists.
Taking the lives of future animals into consideration is just that, whether they are human or not. "Ethical" veg*ns and "Animal Rights" people consistently encourage meat eaters not to care about the lives of future animals who are not human....while at the same time they pretend to care more about those same animals than the meat eaters do. Right?
>--
> "Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
.> Taking the lives of future animals into consideration is .> just that, whether they are human or not. .> "Ethical" veg*ns and "Animal Rights" people consistently .> encourage meat eaters not to care about the lives of future .> animals who are not human....while at the same time they .> pretend to care more about those same animals than the .> meat eaters do. Right?
Wrong. ARAs do what we do mainly *because* we care about future animals. The difference is that we care about whatever animals *will actually exist* in the future, not about those that will never exist. If you haven't gotten that distinction by now, then I doubt that you ever will...
--
"Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
dh...@yahoo.com (David) | > The food industry is an environment in which animals | > live, just as they do in any other habitat. The animals that | > are born to the food industry, will *not* be born to any | > other environment--they are totally dependant on that | > industry for their lives.
"Tony Martin " <tonymar...@vegetarians.com>: | So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do not have rights, | no matter how much you whine.
I think everyone on Usenet has tried to explain to David that the non-existent do not have rights / interests / lives, but he doesn't get it and doesn't appear to be about to get it. The regular production of a FAQ is simply an extension of his customary method of argument, which is to repeat his original assertion indefinitely without supporting evidence or logic. Might as well leave it alone.
> Once you resort to nothing but weak insults, it's > clear that you've thrown in the towel, Martin. Snip > all you want; people can still read the exchange and > decide who won that one.
As usual, not you!
James Hepler
> --
> "Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
Michael Cerkowski <m...@albany.net> wrote: >David wrote: >(...)
>.> Taking the lives of future animals into consideration is >.> just that, whether they are human or not. >.> "Ethical" veg*ns and "Animal Rights" people consistently >.> encourage meat eaters not to care about the lives of future >.> animals who are not human....while at the same time they >.> pretend to care more about those same animals than the >.> meat eaters do. Right?
> Wrong. ARAs do what we do mainly *because* we care about >future animals. The difference is that we care about whatever >animals *will actually exist* in the future, not about those >that will never exist. If you haven't gotten that distinction >by now, then I doubt that you ever will... > "Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
The animals that will be raised for us to eat are more than just "nothing", because they *will* be born unless something stops their lives from happening. Since that is the case, if something stops their lives from happening, whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying" them of the life they otherwise would have had.
If it is wrong to take the life of animals it is even *worse* to try to keep them from ever getting to live at all. That is a point that surely should be ignored if you are only trying to promote vegetarianism, but if you are really thinking about what's best for the animals, it is something that should be given the highest consideration. It's a pretty safe bet that the animals' lives mean more to them than anything else.....even their death.
People have often pointed out that there is an infinite number of possible future lives, so there is no point in trying to worry about all of them. A more realistic way of thinking about that same thing, is to believe that since there are an infinite number of possible future lives, each being that gets to actually be born and experience life to some degree, is *very* fortunate to get that opportunity, since the infinite odds are against all of them (us).
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote: >dh...@yahoo.com (David) >| > The food industry is an environment in which animals >| > live, just as they do in any other habitat. The animals that >| > are born to the food industry, will *not* be born to any >| > other environment--they are totally dependant on that >| > industry for their lives.
>"Tony Martin " <tonymar...@vegetarians.com>: >| So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do not have rights, >| no matter how much you whine.
>I think everyone on Usenet has tried to explain to David >that the non-existent do not have rights / interests / lives, >but he doesn't get it and doesn't appear to be about to get >it.
What I'm saying is true. It will only be significant to people who are more interested in the animals themselves, than they are in promoting vegetarianism....obviously. Those are the people who I am trying to encourage to think the whole thing through. The veg*ns who have a lot of time invested in their diet, aren't likely to decide it has not been the right course of action after all. Encouraging better lives for the billions of animals we use for food, and encouraging vegetarianism are conflicting ideas. Vegetarians can not afford to care about future animals, but meat eaters most certainly can.
> The regular production of a FAQ is simply an extension >of his customary method of argument, which is to repeat his >original assertion indefinitely without supporting evidence >or logic.
Here's some more (it's the same reply I made to Michael):
The animals that will be raised for us to eat are more than just "nothing", because they *will* be born unless something stops their lives from happening. Since that is the case, if something stops their lives from happening, whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying" them of the life they otherwise would have had.
If it is wrong to take the life of animals it is even *worse* to try to keep them from ever getting to live at all. That is a point that surely should be ignored if you are only trying to promote vegetarianism, but if you are really thinking about what's best for the animals, it is something that should be given the highest consideration. It's a pretty safe bet that the animals' lives mean more to them than anything else.....even their death.
People have often pointed out that there is an infinite number of possible future lives, so there is no point in trying to worry about all of them. A more realistic way of thinking about that same thing, is to believe that since there are an infinite number of possible future lives, each being that gets to actually be born and experience life to some degree, is *very* fortunate to get that opportunity, since the infinite odds are against all of them (us).
> Might as well leave it alone.
Since it is true, you can't prove it wrong. If you are a veg*n, you can't really afford to agree. You don't have many choices.
>> The food industry is an environment in which animals >> live, just as they do in any other habitat. The animals that >> are born to the food industry, will *not* be born to any >> other environment--they are totally dependant on that >> industry for their lives.
>So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do not have rights, >no matter how much you whine.
But animals don't have rights either, no matter how much you whine. That's not to say it is a good thing that they do not have rights. I am with you on this, that they should have rights. Sorry, but in the USA certainly there are more people clamouring for unborn children to be granted rights, than are vegan or vegetarian. That is simply the truth, the abortion issue gets far more attention than AR. I am equally pro-life on both issues.
> >dh...@yahoo.com (David) > >| > The food industry is an environment in which animals > >| > live, just as they do in any other habitat. The animals that > >| > are born to the food industry, will *not* be born to any > >| > other environment--they are totally dependant on that > >| > industry for their lives.
> >"Tony Martin " <tonymar...@vegetarians.com>: > >| So don't let them be born in the first place. The unborn do not have rights, > >| no matter how much you whine.
> >I think everyone on Usenet has tried to explain to David > >that the non-existent do not have rights / interests / lives, > >but he doesn't get it and doesn't appear to be about to get > >it.
> What I'm saying is true. It will only be significant to > people who are more interested in the animals themselves, > than they are in promoting vegetarianism....obviously. > Those are the people who I am trying to encourage to think > the whole thing through.
Funny. Support a philosophy that advocates the extinction of multiple species and call it Animal Rights. That never ceases to surprise me. That's kinda how all extinction works, right? "They'd be better off not existing"?!? Coming from an ARA it sounds more absurd than coming from people who hunt California Condors.
James Hepler -- "I've learned there's nothing quite as pressing as those doing the pressing want you to believe". -Bright Eyes
I've just GOT to ask you people something. Do you really feel, with your heart and soul, these things, or are you only trying to outwit each other in the spirit of a good debate? Every thread I've read so far is the same way, phrases such as 'how do you explain what you just said?' 'how will you get out of the place you just wedged yourself into?' and 'now show me where in the above statement you've contradicted my statement.' Are you people actually IN politics? Do you actually MAKE laws that determine an animal's future? If not, you people are seriously wasting your time. Your arguments are juvenile and unconstructive.
David is actually, so far, the only one writing in this group that sounds like he has any sense. ANIMALS eat other animals, for crying out loud! However, just because we eat animals does not give us the right to, in ANY way, abuse these animals, no matter what kind of animal it is! I can't believe there is actually a need to regulate this. I would think that humans would naturally, inately, feel responsible for the treatment of slaughter animals. I would think there would be procedures in place to INSURE that an animal is killed INSTANTLY and PAINLESSLY and then rendered for food. It is OUR RESPONSIBILITY to be humane in the treatment of ALL God's animals. I think that slaughter animals should be allowed to live a normal life, experiencing growth and birth before its life is ended. I also think that if we CAN'T provide a decent, humane life for all these animals, if it is found to actually be feasibly impossible, then we should think of other sources of food. For example, horsemeat. Horses sent to slaughter houses are PURPOSELY not killed instantly because they claim the meat MUST stay alive until the last minute for it to be any good by the time it reaches dinner tables in other countries. Now, we don't HAVE to export horsemeat. Companies are doing it only for the money. In other words, your body does not have to have it to live healthily. This is where animal rights groups can do a lot of good. These horses are suffering tremendously and needlessly. This is NOT RIGHT! I can't believe there are humans on this earth who feel it's just okay to do this. They feel nothing for the animal that it's being done to. It's unbelieveable!! Premarin is a drug manufactured by Wyeth Ayerst to combat menopause. It is derived from pregnant mare urine. Urine bags are tied to the hind legs and tubes are connected to the horse's uretha. The horse is impregnated and made to stand in one spot for the duration of their pregnancy. They are then allowed to foal, the baby is sent to a feedlot where it is fattened for slaughter. Then the baby's mother is impregnated again. This is cruel. How can people do this? How can this be just okay with people? If almost all of the people in the world feel that this is okay, then it is of no wonder to me any longer why God said "The path to righteousness is narrow."
I hope you people read this, especially those anti-PETA people!
David wrote: > (Posted monthly. Revisions likely.)
> Though there are no doubt cruel and abusive situations > imposed on many animals that are raised for the production > of food, there are also many animals in the food industry > that have decent lives. The "Animal Rights" way of thinking > encourages people to believe that *all* animals raised in > the food industry live lives of torture and suffering. That > is a way of intentionally causing people to develop an > incorrect impression of reality. > This is not really surprising, since the main goal of > the "Animal Rights" movement appears to be to "save" these > animals from being killed, by causing them to never get to > experience life. That approach is illogical, since if it is > wrong to end the lives of animals, it is *far worse* to keep > those same animals from getting to have any life at all.
> The food industry is an environment in which animals > live, just as they do in any other habitat. The animals that > are born to the food industry, will *not* be born to any > other environment--they are totally dependant on that > industry for their lives. Their lives can be made as good or > bad as the industry decides to make them. > The consumers are the people who influence the way these > animals are raised, and how/if their lives will be improved > in the future. People who do not eat any animal products are > *not* encouraging life (better or worse) for any of them.
> People who eat products from animals that are raised in > ways that they feel are decent, are encouraging the lives of > those animals. > If those consumers show growing interest in how animals > are raised, and steadily buy more products from animals that > are raised in better conditions, the industry will steadily > improve the conditions in which they raise animals. > By consuming products from animals that they feel are > raised in decent ways, people are not only encouraging life > for those animals, but *better* lives for animals in general.
Um, yes he is. He is claiming that he knows how the concept of rights will exist in the future. "When people are born in the future, they will acquire them *then*." That statement requires the knowledge that rights will exist in the future. Considering that the modern notion and usage of the concept of rights has only been around for a few hundred years, he doesn't have much to go on.
Just like he condemned AMPEF for stating that medical research will require the use of animals.
That's why he threw in the towel, cut, and ran.
You aren't doing a good job of defending Michael but he does need all the help he can get.
|
