kentoo said:
I find the current methods that are used to put animal products on the supermarket shelves ,not to my taste. The claims of mistreatment and even torture I am sure are true at least in part. Happily I live in a country larger than the United States, yet our population is smaller than that of the State of California. I have the room and the resources to raise animals myself. The fowl that I raise have the room to range where ever they choose. The livestock although fenced live in a density of one animal in every hectare. I agree that this is an idealic situation and cannot be applied on a global scale. My point is that if it can be done this way it should be done as such. The method of slaughter prefered, although I have never done it this way, would be as a shephard taking a fatted lamb and stroking it gently till it fell asleep , then cut its throat.
Yes, I am sure that you will understand that initiatives to push for or praise gently forms of killing/using are animal welfarist moves. As such they do not really address the animal rights position [not a rhetorical rights position like PeTA but a genuine rights-based position on human-animal relations].
As philosopher Gary Francione points out...
link [www.abolitionistapproach.com]
link [www.abolitionistapproach.com]
...it is, of course, "better" if a rapist does not also be violent to his victim in other ways. This does not satisfy a rights-based position because rights are still violated. Animal welfarism is a different matter.
rogy
Post in Forums 
Jul 15, 2008 @ 10:55:17
