On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:29:46 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:43:22 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 10:01:27 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:27:06 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

wrote
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 21:08:10 GMT, Rudy Canoza


If animals had the same rights as humans it wouldn't prevent them
being killed by our lifestyles - just as humans are - but some could
be saved.

Animals are not killed "just as humans are", not even remotely.

They are for oil as in Iraq. And what in your room or office does not
depend on oil?

War is not the archetype for human moral behaviour, in fact human morals
are
essentially set aside when we wage war. That is why this is a false
analogy,
we are not at war with animals.

Nonsense. War is as much human behaviour as peace

So you essentially have declared war on animals? That's what you are
implying.


Not at all. I'm merely saying that war is human behaviour.

Well that is true, but it hardly needs saying. Your statements are not
hanging together.



Of course they are. It involves "rights".


The valid analogy in this case is human
labour laws and the endangerment of the public, especially workers. This
is
strongly mitigated against in the case of humans, no such mitigation is
contemplated nor even plausible in the case of animals.


All part of human behaviour.

So is murder and rape, neither presents an analogy for normal, moral human
behaviour.


It's all human behaviour.

So what? You seem to have abandoned any attempt to argue the logic of your
position.



I have already defended it.


Animals are
killed systematically, deliberately and in great numbers with very
little
effort to mitigate their suffering, except in the case of livestock.
Human
deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts are taken to avoid
them.
Yes, we could save some animals from being killed, but there's no
particular
reason why we should choose to save the ones we use for food and other
useful products.

Lets have some specifics in detail.

A single pass of farm machinery through a field decimates the population
of
field mice, toads, lizards, or whatever has taken up residence there.
Then
there are pesticides, herbicides, and chemical fertilizers to finish the
job.


Absolutely. But if we didn't eat produce from the land we'd not
survive.

Indeed, there's another way the analogy with war fails. We could survive
quite well without ever waging war on one another, in fact much better.
War
is an aberration in human behaviour, more like murder and rape, and not
like
food production at all.


Nonsense. Many territorial wars have been fought for fertile land to
grow crops; and will be in the future; probably sooner than later.

So in your world war is moral and eating meat is wrong.. hmmm


War is not moral but it is part of human behaviour and I don't oppose
farming.




So, as I have said, we all kill wildlife in our daily
lives.

Right, so why are you and other vegan-types so accepting of the
deliberate,
systematic and widespread destruction of wildlife yet you see the killing
of
livestock as brutal and immoral?

Who said I was a vegan?

I don't know, it wasn't me. I said you "and other *vegan-types*".


Same thing .




It's a shrill, hysterical, antisocial and
illogical way to think. Both are simply part of daily life, the production
and gathering of food.


Just like war in and around the world.

No, gathering food is not like war, not in the least.


It's still human behaviour.



You're contradicting yourself
above.

In what way?


Read what you wrote.

Be more specific. I can't see where I contradicted myself.


You say, "Animals are killed systematically, deliberately and in great
numbers with very little effort to mitigate their suffering, except in
the case of livestock" Which I agree with.

You then say, "Human deaths are rare by comparison, and great efforts
are taken to avoid them." Which I don't agree with.

Labour laws, criminal laws, traffic laws, religious teachings, safety
measures, all aimed at eliminating or minimizing human harm.


It doesn't prevent killing.



Where do we get animals systematically and deliberately blown to bits
by their own species?

Despite human animals having rights within their own so-called code it
happens daily. Human life is cheap. Truth is that humans don't
really care about other humans. Just look at parts of war torn
Africa.

War is not representative of moral human behaviour, it's organized brutal
insanity.

Which is part of human behaviour.

Nobody in their right mind rationalizes their moral outlook by
comparing their behaviour with the combatants in a war. This argument is
terrible, you obviously are incapable of seeing how you are undermining your
own moral position.



I haven't.


So we all kill animals and humans and that's why your argument is
crap.

That is a lame response.

Not at all; it's fact.

The argument has no merit at all. Animals being killed is part of
everyday
life, the process of feeding and clothing ourselves, it is not analagous
to
war which is the very antithesis of everyday life.

Very much analogous. Wars are part of everyday life.

It's inconsistent and frankly rather disturbing that you view war and the
killing of wildlife both as part of everyday life, yet you see the killing
of livestock, which are raised to be food, as brutal and immoral. You have
everything upside down.

It's you who has everything upside down.

How so? I should see war as representative of human morality and farming
animals as immoral?


Both are human behaviour. War is immoral and I don't oppose farming.


Read what I have written and don't jump to conclusions.

Everything you have said to me leads me to believe that you are hopelessly
confused, and not worth engaging any further. Perhaps you can clarify your
position, but at the moment it appears to be totally incoherent.


Ditto.



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)