Web Images Videos Maps News Shopping Google Mail more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
Message from discussion Better to be an ethical meat eater, than an ethical veg*n.
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Follow-up To:
Add Cc | Add Follow-up to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers that you hear
 
David N. Harrison  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 19 Oct 1999, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals
From: dh...@yahoo.com (David N. Harrison)
Date: 1999/10/19
Subject: Re: Better to be an ethical meat eater, than an ethical veg*n.

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.

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.

Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google