A dog & canine forum. DogBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » DogBanter forum » Dog forums » Dogs - general
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Taking Animals Seriously



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 26th 06, 03:08 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.animals.wildlife,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc,rec.pets.birds
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default Taking Animals Seriously

On 24 Jun 2006 18:11:17 -0700, "Dave" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:


We're considering the difference between two different approaches to
the situation:

1. my suggestion that we consider the animals' lives and provide them with
decent lives and humane deaths attempting to make it a benefit for
both us and them.

2. your/"aras" suggestion that we not raise any animals for food, but simply
kill wild animals.

My suggestion would deliberately provide decent lives for billions of animals.
Your/"aras" suggestion would not. It's pretty easy and obvious what "force",
or type of result would be the outcome of my suggestion: decent lives for
billions of animals.


The ARAs suggestions also have the outcome: decent lives for
billions of animals. There may be a difference in number of animal
lives between your scenario and their's but you don't even seem to
care or know whether your's means more animals or fewer.


No, because that's not what's being investigated. We're really
considering whether or not it's cruel to animals to raise them for
food, so that's what I try to stick to. Did you for some reason think
the only consideration here is how to provide life for the highest
number of animals? It's not. If it were, we'd need to raise something
small like mice or hamsters, and we'd need a reason why which
you would have to provide, etc...

The other self evident difference lies in what types of animals get to
experience what sort of lives.


Which brings us back to the need for "aras" to explain which
particular wildlife they are pretending to want to promote life for
instead of livestock, and why everyone else should agree with
them. But "aras" can NOT say which types of wildlife they feel
we should try to provide life for instead of livestock, much less
why we should do it...yet amusingly, they still insist that we should.

I'm not saying that livestock farming is always wrong or that human
considerations are irrelevant but as far as the collective interests of

non-human animals are concerned, you are fixated upon the wrong
variable; namely how many animals get to experience being farmed.


No it's not. In fact, I have no idea how many animals get to
experience being farmed, and have never even attempted to
find out.

Don't let that cause you to believe I have no appreciation for
the fact that billions of animals experience life only because we
raise them for food, because I certainly am capable of appreciating
things like that.
  #2  
Old June 27th 06, 01:32 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.animals.wildlife,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc,rec.pets.birds
Dave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Taking Animals Seriously


[email protected] wrote:
On 24 Jun 2006 18:11:17 -0700, "Dave" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:


We're considering the difference between two different approaches to
the situation:

1. my suggestion that we consider the animals' lives and provide them with
decent lives and humane deaths attempting to make it a benefit for
both us and them.

2. your/"aras" suggestion that we not raise any animals for food, but simply
kill wild animals.

My suggestion would deliberately provide decent lives for billions of animals.
Your/"aras" suggestion would not. It's pretty easy and obvious what "force",
or type of result would be the outcome of my suggestion: decent lives for
billions of animals.


The ARAs suggestions also have the outcome: decent lives for
billions of animals. There may be a difference in number of animal
lives between your scenario and their's but you don't even seem to
care or know whether your's means more animals or fewer.


No, because that's not what's being investigated. We're really
considering whether or not it's cruel to animals to raise them for
food, so that's what I try to stick to.


The AR position that it is cruel to raise animals for food takes
account
of what happens during the lifetime of the animal. If you wish to
consider
the "interests" of potential animals to become actual animals then it
is irrational not to consider that "animals" who are denied the
opportunity
to experience life, because the resources they need are used to feed
livestock instead, are "harmed".

Did you for some reason think
the only consideration here is how to provide life for the highest
number of animals?


If you could demonstrate that AR would cause fewer animals to exist
or that farmed animals lead better lives than wild ones then the
position that AR does not serve the interest of animals as a whole
would be valid. You have not demonstrated either of the above
but more significantly you have not even attempted to. Therefore
your accusations that ARAs are doing animals a disservice is
absurd.

It's not. If it were, we'd need to raise something
small like mice or hamsters, and we'd need a reason why which
you would have to provide, etc...


Nature provides if we allow it to.

The other self evident difference lies in what types of animals get to
experience what sort of lives.


Which brings us back to the need for "aras" to explain which
particular wildlife they are pretending to want to promote life for
instead of livestock, and why everyone else should agree with
them. But "aras" can NOT say which types of wildlife they feel
we should try to provide life for instead of livestock, much less
why we should do it...yet amusingly, they still insist that we should.


Neither myself, Leif or Dutch are insisting that we should "provide"
life
to wildlife instead of livestock. We are merely pointing out the
absurdity
of using the fact that we control animals' breeding and environment,
for our own benefit, as a justification for killing.

I'm not saying that livestock farming is always wrong or that human
considerations are irrelevant but as far as the collective interests of

non-human animals are concerned, you are fixated upon the wrong
variable; namely how many animals get to experience being farmed.


No it's not. In fact, I have no idea how many animals get to
experience being farmed, and have never even attempted to
find out.

Don't let that cause you to believe I have no appreciation for
the fact that billions of animals experience life only because we
raise them for food, because I certainly am capable of appreciating
things like that.


I am aware of this. Apparantly though, you are not capable of
appreciating the fact that billions of potential animals never
experience
life only because we raise animals for food.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Taking Animals Seriously [email protected] Dogs - general 0 June 23rd 06 08:46 PM
(Can anyone confirm this?) URGENT!!! Order given: Shoot to kill all animals in New Orleans TomH Dog behavior 2 September 7th 05 03:23 AM
Absolutely OT - PETA caught in the act buglady Dog health 154 July 2nd 05 12:56 AM
Watch SPCA, they will hurt your animals Noname Dog breeds 6 May 13th 05 06:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0 (Unregistered)
Copyright 2004-2019 DogBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.