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

"animal rights" vs Animal Welfare



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 11th 06, 01:43 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,rec.animals.wildlife,rec.pets.dogs.misc,rec.pets.cats.misc,uk.business.agriculture
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default "animal rights" vs Animal Welfare

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 12:09:17 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 19:07:02 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 18:43:48 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 01:20:34 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

the fewer livestock that are born the more
animals that would be born.

If so, so what? That's what we're trying to find out. WHY would it
be better?

I'm not an ecologist, but let's agree for the sake of discussion that it
wouldn't be better, or at least that we don't care if there is more
wildlife.

Good.

Now that that is settled, why would it be better for there to be
more livestock? You're the one claiming that it would be better, why?

Better for what?

Better for the animals.


Since future animals don't exist it couldn't be "better" for "them",
but it could be of positive value to them. I can appreciate that. You
can not. Your inability to understand or appreciate the fact limits your
thinking to the extent that you can't consider the animals themselves,
but when/if you have ever tried to all you can consider is your own
imaginary browny points. While you are forever stuck at your impasse,
I have gone on to even consider specific ways that people could
provide longer better lives for the animals, which is beyond what
you/"aras" could ever give a second's thought.


List a few of those specific ways.


I'll give you one. Buy a baby bull headed to be veal, and pay a
farmer to let him eat grass in a pasture until he's big enough for
his owner to have him slaughtered...or slaughter himself. If you
try one, I'll try matching you with another.

You're the one making the restrictions, so what
would you restrict us to consider?

Why would it better *for animals* for there to be more livestock and
thereby
less wildlife?

So far you won't allow us to consider
the livestock themselves,

You haven't given anyone a reason to consider livestock, aside from the
obvious ones, welfare


How could you possibly consider their welfare but not their lives?


Easily, their welfare is what is relevant, their live per se are not.


They both are. It's hilarious that you/"aras" claim to respect the
lives of animals whose lives you insist are irrelevant.

and utility.

and you probably find fault with considering
human interest, so what would you allow consideration of?

Human interests, the interest of the environment, the welfare interests of
living animals.


How could you possibly consider their welfare but not their lives? And
do NOT even hint or say anything to do with your browny points, but stick
to the animals.


Explain what you mean by "consider their lives".


What the animals get from the arrangement.

Why shouldn't we have no preference? There's all this plant material out
there, we can harvest it and feed it to livestock, or we can let it grow
and
let wild animal populations feed off it. Apart from the fact that we
want
livestock to produce products, why should we care which animals eat it?

"aras" say that we should leave it only to wildlife,

Right, they do, and think the LoL is a coherent argument against it, it
isn't.


LOL! Since you are unable to understand or appreciate the fact that
some livestock have lives of positive value, your opinion about that--and
probably everything else now that we think about it--is necessarily
distorted
by your own ignorance and confusion. That distortion is GREATLY amplified
by your obsession with your own imaginary browny points...an obsession so
great that it prevents you from considering anything else.


Explain what you mean by "consider their lives".


What the animals get from the arrangement.
.. . .

We should consider the welfare of living animals, and of important animal
populations. Livestock are not important animal populations aside from
their utility.


At last you have acknowledged that you give no consideration to decent
AW for livestock,


Liar "We should consider the welfare of living animals.."


Why not future animals as well?

as I have also been pointing out over and over... So through
this you of course have been unable to explain the big mystery WHY???,
though you have still insisted we should favor wildlife over livestock at
least
twice in your last post.


Why did you lie when my statement is right there?


You're the one who said livestock are not important animal populations,
plus the fact that you don't even know HOW to consider their lives...in fact
you/"aras" insist their lives are irrelevant. AND you said that appreciation
of decent AW--ie the LoL--is a "bigger load of crap" than "leaving the
resources to wildlife."

To sum it up, you have:

1. proven without question that you're unable to understand or appreciate
the
fact that some livestock have lives of positive value, meaning that you
are
necessarily incapable of considering a difference between when they are
and when they are not.


We should consider the welfare of living animals


Why not future animals as well?

2. insisted that there is a greater "moral imperative"--ie, you think you
get more
browny points--for "leaving the resources to wildlife" than for
promoting
decent lives for livestock, without being able to explain WHY???.


We should consider the welfare of living animals

2. insisted that we should only consider the welfare of animal populations
which
YOU/"aras" consider to be "important".


We should consider the welfare of living animals


Why not future animals as well?

3. insisted that livestock are not important enough for YOU/"aras" to
consider
their lives or their welfare.


We should consider the welfare of living animals


Why not future animals as well???
 




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
"animal rights" vs Animal Welfare [email protected] Dogs - general 1 July 10th 06 04:49 PM
"animal rights" vs Animal Welfare Leif Erikson Dog behavior 2 June 12th 06 01:14 AM
Animals do not "anticipate" [email protected] Dog behavior 126 May 29th 06 05:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:42 AM.


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.