Re: If life is a benefit...

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 16:28:57 -0500, "Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:07:46 -0500, "Miller"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Jonathan Ball" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> Miller wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >
>> >> >>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:58 GMT, ipse dixit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
>> >> >>no life [ie never existing at all] is a loss.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Why is deference to dualism logical?  And what does "life is a
>benefit"
>> >mean
>> >> > to you in the first place?
>> >>
>> >> You have to go back to the moron who has introduced
>> >> this loathsome construction in the first place, a
>> >> high-school dropout in Atlanta named David Harrison,
>> >> better known as Fuckwit.  He believes that the mere
>> >> fact of "getting to experience life" (his phrasing,
>> >> hence the quotes) is a "benefit" to farm animals.  As a
>> >> logically necessary consequence, and borne out in his
>> >> further incoherent scribblings on the topic, he
>> >> believes that "vegans" are trying to impose a loss on
>> >> unconceived "future farm animals" by trying to get
>> >> everyone to become vegetarian, thereby ensuring the
>> >> extinction of farm animals raised for human consumption.
>> >>
>> >> It's a dirty, juvenile, stupid clumsy trick he's been
>> >> trying to play on "vegans" for about four and a half
>> >> years now.
>> >
>> >Well, its somewhat interesting, I guess.  Seems to engender a bit of
>fierce
>> >opposition.
>> >
>> >Scott
>>
>>     Which is expected. "ARAs" want people to believe that the
>> most ethical approach we could take would be to all become
>> veg*n, so no more animals are "killed" for food. They seem to
>> have promoted that idea fairly successfully, and the last thing
>> they would want is to see people decide it would be better to
>> provide farm animals with decent lives, than it would be to
>> prevent them from having any. They are also very opposed to
>> seeing it pointed out that some types of meat involve fewer
>> animal deaths than some types of veggies. We can get over
>> 500 servings of beef from the life and death of a grass raised
>> steer. Due to plowing, planting, use of *icides, harvesting, and
>> protection of stored grains, a few servings of tofu are likely to
>> involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings of grass
>> raised beef. If veg*ns really cared about animals, they would
>> want such things pointed out. But since they don't, they are
>> opposed to seeing them pointed out, and as you can see they
>> are opposed to seeing it pointed out that some farm animals
>> benefit from farming....things like that don't contribute to the
>> impression of ethical superiority they want to promote for
>> themselves.
>>
>
>
>Good lord!  

    If he exists, he kicks ass no doubt.

>Who can afford grass or even grain-fed beef these days!  And do
>you really believe it takes less energy and resources to raise beef than it
>does to raise the equivalent in vegetable products?  

    Ask yourself a couple of things:

Do you think that there are great differences in the ways that different 
crops and livestock are raised?

Do you believe that when considering different farming methods, in some 
cases it takes less energy and resources to raise beef than it does to raise 
the equivalent in vegetable products?  

I believe both. An example of why: We used to have about 14 acres of
land with fence around it, and a few black angus cattle. Then didn't get
any grain unless we just decided to give them a handful for the hell of it
when we were giving some to the ponys. They ate only grass, and a very
small amount of hay when it happend to snow, which was rare. When we
killed one we got hundreds of pounds of meat from an animal that did 
nothing much other than eat grass and drink milk for a year and a half
or so. It takes less energy and resources to grow a few hundred pounds
of grass raised beef, than a few hundred pounds of rice.

>Sounds like you got a
>bone to pick with these Vegan guys.
>
>Scott

    It also involves less wildlife deaths to grow a few hundred pounds of
grass raised beef, than a few hundred pounds of rice imo. Or tofu. Or
bread. In some ngs people discuss the ethics of their diet. To me the
veg*ns seem to have promoted the impression on the population in
general, that a veg*n diet is superior to an omnivorous one because 
animals aren't slaughtered in order to feed veg*ns. But we can see
from the above that in some cases an omnivorous diet involves less 
deaths than a veg*n one. Also, meat comsumption provides life--not
only death--for billions of animals. Some of their lives are decent, and
some of them are not. "ARAs"/veg*ns only want us to consider the
lives which are filled with over-restrictions and pain. I believe we 
should consider the good as well as the bad, and also that some
typs of veggies involve more animal deaths than some types of meat.
It's funny, sad and disgusting that the veg*ns who pretend to care
about the animals so much, don't want to consider such things that
have so much influence on the lives of billions of animals. IMO.