feeding cattle for food is a rich man's s****t.
learn to cook without meat for a while, then add meat back into your
diet as a sidedish......
grains, beans, rice and veggies will sustain us.
some will still eat cheese and eggs and drink milk,
yet meat eating is very expensive.
is it not 8 pounds of wheat for everyone pound of meat?
that means alot of vegetarians could rule the world.
in love with the living gay jesus,
merlin
On Jun 16, 8:45=A0am, dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Goo cried out:
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:08:40 -0100, dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
pointed out:
>
> >>On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:49:04 -0700 (PDT), phil <Philli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wro=
te:
>
> >>>What you are saying about how vegans cannot contribue anything to the
> >>>quality of life nor the quantity of life slaughtered is nieve.
=A0While=
> >>>you are correct in your assertation that even vegans cannot live a
> >>>life free of harm it is the purpose of veganism to minimize that
> >>>suffering. =A0To that end i am doing my part. =A0The nation is run on
a=
> >>>supply and demand concept the more people who become vegan or
> >>>vegetarian the less production of meat will be needed. =A0While again
i=
t
> >>>is true that animals raised in factory farms are owed their life to
> >>>that process it is the question as to the quality of life that is
> >>>owed. =A0
>
> >> =A0=B7 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 "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
> >>cruel, and to think of all animals which 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.
>
> >> =A0 =A0Beef cattle spend nearly their entire lives outside
> >>grazing, which is not a bad way to live. Veal are
> >>confined to such a degree that they appear to have
> >>terrible lives, so there's no reason to think of both
> >>groups of animals in the same way.
> >> =A0 =A0Chickens 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. =B7
>
> >Shut the **** up, Goo.
>
> =A0 =A0 LOL! Goober, why are you opposed to people considering
> the differences in quality of life, do you have any clue? If you
> do, can you say what it is? LOL!!! That's a good one, huh Goo?
> Of course you:
>
> a) don't.
> b) can't.
>
> All is not entirely lost though Goob, because I do and can.
> You have complete faith in the idea that the elimination of
> domestic animals is the most ethical possible approach for
> humans to take. That is a most extreme position though
> Goober, and one which necessarily allows us to have no
> consideration for the animals themselves:
>
> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
> experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
> whether or not it is moral to kill them. =A0Zero." - Goo
>
> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
> ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
> moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>
> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
> of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>
> "Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo
>
> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
> to experience life" - Goo
>
> "The op****tunity for potential livestock to "get to
> experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
> whatever" - Goo
>
> "It is completely UNIM****TANT, morally, that "billions
> of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
> ZERO im****tance to it." - Goo
>
> So, Goo, since the fact that some livestock experience
> decent lives of positive value suggests that providing
> decent AW could be ethically equivalent or even
> superior to your elimination objective:
>
> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
> animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
> killing them." - Goo
>
> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it."
> =A0- Goo
>
> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not
> to exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>
> it creates cognitive dissonance in your poor crusty little
> crumb of brain, so you try to shut it out. The act of giving
> consideration to the animals themselves works against
> you Goob, so of course the act of giving consideration to
> specific details regarding the quality/value of life for those
> animals works against the tightly restrictive tiny sliver of
> thought you want to allow yourself or anyone else to put
> toward the animals we are discussing. You eliminationists
> are terrified of the possibility that it could some day become
> commonplace for consumers to deliberately contribute to
> lives of possitive value for livestock with their lifestyle Goo,
> as some of us already do by one of the few options easily
> available to us at this time: buying cage free eggs. Even
> if you don't eat them Goob it would be good for you to
> buy some every once in a while in order to promote the
> cage free method or raising laying hens, contributing to
> a greater percentage of lives of sufficient quality to be
> of positive value to the birds themselves.
|
