On 29 Sep 2006 01:23:27 -0700, "Blueshark" gmail.com> wrote:

The truth is usually simple to understand when you think about it.
The part that usually gets "complicated" is when people like "aras"
start trying to refute it. For example: Raising livestock for food
*does* provide them with life, so their lives should be given as
much or more consideration than their deaths. "aras" have been
maniacally trying to oppose that simple fact any way they can
for as long as I've been posting--about seven years--and I feel
certain since before I started whenever the issue was brought up.

I have yet to encounter *any* vegan who cares anywhere
near as much about human influence on animals, as about
promoting veganism *regardless!!!* of that influence.

'Each year in the United States, approximately ten billion land
animals are raised and slaughtered for human consumption.
....
The wild mouse lives free of confinement and is able to practice
natural habits...

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 11:37:04 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

Ten billion animals who only experience life because of their
consumers, unlike the willdlife who are killed as well. How many
more wild animals are killed than livestock, have you even the
slightest clue?

(prediction: no clue, because you don't care in the least)

What's the big deal? In nature, the animals higher up the food chain
harvest the animals further down the food chain. There is no ethics
question involved in the process. You do what you do.

Here is how it works. You bait a hook. You catch the fish. You eat it.
Or you go to the store, buy the fish, bring it home, cook it and eat
it.

And the world revolves as it should. Denying who and what you are is
not a healthy thing.

TC

dh@. wrote:

Paul Hilbert wrote:

pearl wrote: