Encourage consumer interest in promoting lives of positive value
for livestock, which is why cage free eggs are available. There is no
way of knowing how much more it could do for livestock is consumers
took more of an interest in how they are raised. In contrast to that,
it's quite obvious that "ar" has absolutely nothing to offer livestock
....literally "nothing" at all.

Your interpretation clearly shows that you have no understanding
of it, though you've very obviously accepted the "ar" pov.


So now you need to explain why that would be better than providing
them with decent lives and humane deaths. Go:


It's the only alternative left after YOUR opposition. Duh. So YOU need
to support it in order to support your opposition.

No it's not. That's just another lie that you hope people will believe,
and you have specifically pointed out your objection to Salt's honesty
regarding the issue.

You've pretended to understand the fact that life sometimes has
positive value for them. It's always been obvious that you can't, but
you've pretended that you can on more than one occasion. Can you
at least explain WHY you pretended to understand it? Of course I
can only predict that you can't explain that either...........
(and you yourself have SHOWN that you can't!)

dutch

Wrong, producers and consumers of free-range eggs are not considering the
LoL at all. Try again, what can the LoL do for livestock?
<snip nonsense>

LOL!!! Yes WE are, you poor ignorant fool. If not, there would be no
market for the products. Even you should be able to understand that,
and maybe you really can but you're being deliberately dishonest again.


Encourage much consumer interest in promoting decent lives and
humane deaths for the billions of animals raised for food, which is
exactly what you "aras" obviously do NOT want to see happen,
because:
__________________________________________________ _______
.. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare
separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
achievement of animal rights.

.. . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.

.. . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to abolition
ends. This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral, practical, and conceptual
reasons.

.. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace
at which animal rights goals are achieved.
.. . .

"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

dutch

The principle of Animal Welfare says that we should consider the conditions
in which livestock live and do everything in our power to alleviate their
suffering. One of those ways is to allow laying hens to run free, and that's
why cage-free eggs happened.

The Logic of the Larder says that we should consider that livestock would
have no life at all if it were not for the fact that we raise them for food.
That concept says nothing about conditions. You can mention that Salt added
"Provided their lives are decent.." but that principle can and does stand
alone.

You're trying to oversimplify it and make it seem that somehow that
magically happened. It didn't. It took people who are intertested enough
in the animals' lives to have the basic consideration that you refuse to
give them to BEGIN with, and THEN they moved on to make ideas
regarding their lives become a reality. And THEN the consumers like
myself have to consider the animals lives, and decide we're willing to
pay EXTRA money in order to contribute to decent lives for them. You
will probably never be able to understand any part of all that, but that's
the way it is none the less.
Here's an extra clue for the totally clueless: The reason that grass
raised beef isn't available in most grocery stores is because not enough
people care enough about the animals' lives to request that it be made
available. So we have an example of what happens when people do
take an interest, and an example of what happens when they do not
take an interest like you don't.

"I decline to "consider" the lives of animals" - Dutch

That's because livestock would have no life at all if it were not for the
fact that we raise them for food. It's another one of those things that even
you really SHOULD be able to grasp, but it's too much for you.


That aspect is only PART of the LoL, but since you obviously have a
problem with that much you can't be expected to be able to comprehend
the whole idea.

You've made it quite clear that you really don't know what to believe,
what you yourself believe, and that you have no problem at all disagreeing
with yourself even when you can't explain why or how. Most people aren't
so screwed up Dutch, and they have no problem understanding that lives
which are not of positive value, are NOT of positive value. You're the only
person I've ever discussed this with who seems to have a problem grasping
THAT aspect of the concept, but you sure can't get it.


That was completely meaningless.

dutch

It happens because people care about alleviating animal suffering, there's
nothing magical about it.


Bullshit, it takes people being interested in conditions in which livestock
live, that is ALL. The Logic of the Larder is irrelevant and an
embarrassment.

ONLY to fools.

dutch

The Logic of the Larder is a fool's argument.

ONLY to fools. To anyone capable of consideration of other
beings, it's a necessary consideration when considering whether
or not it's cruel to animals to be raised for food. The purity of
your selfishness prevents you from considering what the animals
get out of the arrangement.

dutch

To a fool it makes perfect sense.


You're equivocating, you implied several different shades of meaning of the
word "consider(ation)" there. In the first line it implies a kind or
generous, as a "considerate" approach. The two instances on the second line
imply 'to ponder or think about, i.e. "consider" in a certain way, but then
you mention "consideration" of cruelty to animals, which actually is
attempting to conflate the meanings. In the last sentence you are implying
the same meaning as you did in the first line. The reason I stopped
responding to you is this mess of equivocations, and the fact that you
obviously do not even realize you're doing it. You are so hell-bent on
winning this argument that your brain is operating in full automatic mode