dh@. wrote in message ...
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

dh@. wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

dh@. wrote

See if you and some students can calculate how many more
animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
if humans did not.

Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine,

Close enough would be close enough.

No,

Yes, it sure would.

impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, one
tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the
food
resource support for 100,000 field mice,

Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer?

Impossible to know, and nobody with any sense cares.

Why do you pretend to care about field mice provided they are
not living among cattle, do you have any idea Goo?


but who knows? The good thing is
that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never
exist,
I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to care
about them is UTILITY.

As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by
your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals
themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which
practices are and are not cruel TO THEM.

That's a lie
. . .
I don't care if cattle are born or if the natural resources are left
to support wildlife . . . except inasmuch as I want the small amount
of organic beef I occasionally consume.

LOL!!! First you said I lied, and then you proved me right.
Goo, you suck at this no matter who you're pretending to be.

You need to face up to your inability to answer this basic challenge to your
position. There is no objective reason to care if cattle exist or they
don't. Your claim that you "like them" or "give consideration" to them is an
obvious pretense, there's no reason to prefer them to mice unless you're
actually thinking about your own appetite.

On Mar 25, 6:34*pm, "Dutch" wrote:
dh@. wrote in messagenews:f58gu318g3e83lht0immee2o890f6u1ptu@4ax .com...
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

dh@. wrote in messagenews:hfhdu31tqqpmtapvt41jbd2aov729suc2s@4ax .com....
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

dh@. wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

dh@. wrote

* *See if you and some students can calculate how many more
animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
if humans did not.

Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine,

* *Close enough would be close enough.

No,

* *Yes, it sure would.

impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, one
tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the
food
resource support for 100,000 field mice,

* *Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer?

Impossible to know, and nobody with any sense cares.

* *Why do you pretend to care about field mice provided they are
not living among cattle, do you have any idea Goo?

but who knows? The good thing is
that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never
exist,
I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to care
about them is UTILITY.

* *As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by
your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals
themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which
practices are and are not cruel TO THEM.

That's a lie
. . .
I don't care if cattle are born or if the natural resources are left
to support wildlife . . . except inasmuch as I want the small amount
of organic beef I occasionally consume.

* *LOL!!! First you said I lied, and then you proved me right.
Goo, you suck at this no matter who you're pretending to be.

You need to face up to your inability to answer this basic challenge to your
position. There is no objective reason to care if cattle exist or they
don't. Your claim that you "like them" or "give consideration" to them is an
obvious pretense, there's no reason to prefer them to mice unless you're
actually thinking about your own appetite.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Saying people need to face up to the deficiencies in their arguments
is sometimes not a very realistic assumption on usenet. They clearly
get by well enough for many months or years without ever doing it.

"Rupert" wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 6:34 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
dh@. wrote in messagenews:f58gu318g3e83lht0immee2o890f6u1ptu@4ax .com...
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

dh@. wrote in
messagenews:hfhdu31tqqpmtapvt41jbd2aov729suc2s@4 ax.com...
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

dh@. wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

dh@. wrote

See if you and some students can calculate how many more
animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
if humans did not.

Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine,

Close enough would be close enough.

No,

Yes, it sure would.

impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature,
one
tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the
food
resource support for 100,000 field mice,

Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer?

Impossible to know, and nobody with any sense cares.

Why do you pretend to care about field mice provided they are
not living among cattle, do you have any idea Goo?

but who knows? The good thing is
that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never
exist,
I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to
care
about them is UTILITY.

As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by
your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals
themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which
practices are and are not cruel TO THEM.

That's a lie
. . .
I don't care if cattle are born or if the natural resources are left
to support wildlife . . . except inasmuch as I want the small amount
of organic beef I occasionally consume.

LOL!!! First you said I lied, and then you proved me right.
Goo, you suck at this no matter who you're pretending to be.

You need to face up to your inability to answer this basic challenge to
your
position. There is no objective reason to care if cattle exist or they
don't. Your claim that you "like them" or "give consideration" to them is
an
obvious pretense, there's no reason to prefer them to mice unless you're
actually thinking about your own appetite.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Saying people need to face up to the deficiencies in their arguments
is sometimes not a very realistic assumption on usenet. They clearly
get by well enough for many months or years without ever doing it.


It wasn't an assumption, it was a directive. It is true however that it was
largely rhetorical, I know he can't or won't do it.

who cares... stop crossposting this crap to alt.satanism...

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:31:22 -1100, dh@. wrote:

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, the Goober lied:

Goo****wit places *no* value on animals' "getting to
experience life".

We know that's a lie Goo. We also know and
have proof that YOU are guilty of what you so
dishonestly accused me of:

"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever" - Goo

"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock
"getting to experience life" - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration" - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in
other words - if humans kill animals they don't need
to kill, i.e. not in self defense.

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place
is the ethically superior choice." - Goo

--

`We come now to the idea of the Gaeia Universe, where the whole of the Universe would be a single living entity of which all mankind is barely an organelle. But unlike the organisms of Earth, the elements of the Universe, energy and matter, are not connected by the bloody and battering interaction of consumption that we experience on Earth, but by the same forces of physics and mechanics which govern the aforementioned astronomical principles. The concept of pantheism proposes an additional connection, one of an overarching divine presence. In this divinity, mind and matter are one, and all things in the Universe are evenly connected'' --B.D. Abramson

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:52:40 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:

On Mar 23, 6:15*pm, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 23, 1:13*pm, dh@. wrote:





On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 16:25:21 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:
On Mar 21, 7:57 am, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:56:27 -0700 (PDT), Rupert wrote:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about how to proceed. I might
include a discussion of R. M. Hare's views, in particular his essay
"Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian". That might do something by way of
addressing your points.

* * You could consider the lives of everything. You could compare
the lives of broiler chickens of 6-8 weeks, with those of any wild
birds who live for that period of time or less. You could do the same
with battery hens and cage-free egg producers. If you do it open
mindedly I don't see how you could come to the conclusion that
no livestock animals' lives are or could be worth living, especially
comparing them with equivalent length lives of wildlife.

Your question about whether speciesism can be
"justified" in nonhuman animals strikes me as ill-posed.

* * Saying that only humans need worry about the "rights" of
other creatures and whether or not we are speciesist, seems
very speciesist to me. Even in trying to avoid it you still end up
doing it anyway.

There will
probably be some discussion of this point in the project as well.

* * Will you include that fact that if we didn't remain speciesist
we would eventually be overtaken by animals who are, or
haven't you thought it through to the point of accepting that
fact?

I do not currently have any preconceptions about what conclusion I
will arrive at.

* * My guess is that you want to support the elimination
objective.

It is probably best to let me finish my thesis and write up the first
chapter before we discuss the matter further.

* * That would depend on how open minded you want to be.
If you just want to support the elimination objective then you're
probably ready to go, but if you're actually going to consider
any alternatives to be ethically equivalent or superior then I
get the feeling you haven't even begun the first inch of real
thought in that direction so you should discuss it with people
who have a good bit before you attempt writing about it. Do
AW minded people write anything, or is it only elimination
minded people? Come to think of it, there is tons of propaganda
to support elimination, but damn little to support decent lives.

We've already mentioned R. M. Hare. There's also Carl Cohen.

* * Wow. Have there really been two other people who can
appreciate billions of livestock experiencing decent lives of
possitive value?

Carl Cohen has not commented on the issue of whether it is a "good
thing" to bring animals into existence so that they can have lives of
"positive value". In his essay "Why I am Only a Demi-Vegetarian", R.
M. Hare takes a position similar to yours. You might like to have a
look. The essay appears in the anthology "Singer and his Critics". I
can find the original reference for you one of these days.


You might find it profitable to look at Part IV of Derek Parfit's
"Reasons and Persons". That is an exploration of some issues about the
ethics of decisions which involve bringing individuals into existence
who would not otherwise have existed. Parfit explores theses issues
and discusses some paradoxes which he does not know how to solve. Also
of interest might be Appendix G to that book, "Whether Causing Someone
to Exist Can Benefit This Person". That might give you ammunition in
your debate with Jonathan Ball.

For the most part Goo's side of the debate is no more than
lying about things. The only thing about it I'm aware of that
may not be a lie is his claim that things don't benefit by
actually coming into existence, but even if they don't the
Goober still can't explain how that could prevent them from
benefitting from lives of positive value after they do. In other
words: Goo has nothing.

I would suggest that reading these parts of Parfit's book, and maybe
some of the literature which that part of the book has generated,
would help you to think more clearly about these issues and strengthen
your arguments for your views (assuming you still retain them, another
possibility is that exploring the literature might lead you to change
your views).

My views are based on what I've learned from life itself.
If there are some in that book that you feel are particularly
significant then I'd be interested in reading them if you
want to present them, but it's not worth the effort for me to
hunt down and obtain the book and then try to figure out
what you find significant myself.

The objection I usually raise

Right. You need to find it and present it, not suggest
that I try to do it. You could probably find enough of
whatever you have in mind already online that you could
just copy some of it and present it that way, if you don't
feel like trying to hammer it out yourself.

against your views is "Do you
distinguish between the human and nonhuman cases, and if so on what
grounds?" I have never really managed to get clear on what your answer
to this one is. I think you need to do more to clarify this issue.

There are a number of ways to think about it. Maybe
we can sort of chart it out or something.

Consideration for the potential humans:

- Would they rather be raised by other humans than have
no life at all? I've never heard of human slaves refusing to
have children. Even if they sometimes did, it obviously was
not the general way to feel. I've never heard of mass suicides
among slaves. Even if there sometimes were, it obviously was
not the general thing to do. So, even though the people
suffered from the knowledge that they were slaves, it appears
that they would rather be slaves than have no life at all at
least in the vast majority of cases. From there we can see that
not raising humans as slaves is not necessarily always out of
consideration for the potential slaves.

Consideration of livestock in comparison:

- They don't know they are being raised by humans and
therefore don't suffer from the knowledge as human slaves
do. From their position it's easy for some people to feel that
it would be in the animals' best interest to provide livestock
with decent lives of positive value.

Consideration of our own interests:

- Most of us have grown up believing human slavery is
wrong and we accept that as being the case regardless
of whether the slaves would have lives of positive or
negative value. That means even if we think the slaves
would rather exist if given the choice, we would still be
opposed to it because we personally don't like the idea.
That part has nothing to do with consideration for the
potential slaves. The same is true for people who are
opposed to raising animals for food, etc.

- The slaves would cause such competition with
working free people that it would change our society
completely. I saw a documentary about modern slavery
in which men were trying to *become* slaves because
the slaves lived better than the free laborers could.
That doesn't mean they lived well, it just means that
they weren't dying of starvation.

Practicality

- It would be much more impractical to raise humans
than it is to raise the animals we are raising. It would
also be much harder to provide humans with an
environment that would give them lives of positive
value, than it is to do so for the livestock we raise.

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Boo wrote:

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

dh@. wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

dh@. wrote

See if you and some students can calculate how many more
animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
if humans did not.

Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine,

Close enough would be close enough.

No,

Yes, it sure would.

impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature, one
tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the
food
resource support for 100,000 field mice,

Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer?

Impossible to know, and nobody with any sense cares.

Why do you pretend to care about field mice provided they are
not living among cattle, do you have any idea Goo?


but who knows? The good thing is
that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never
exist,
I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to care
about them is UTILITY.

As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by
your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals
themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which
practices are and are not cruel TO THEM.

That's a lie
. . .
I don't care if cattle are born or if the natural resources are left
to support wildlife . . . except inasmuch as I want the small amount
of organic beef I occasionally consume.

LOL!!! First you said I lied, and then you proved me right.
Goo, you suck at this no matter who you're pretending to be.

You need to face up to your inability to answer this basic challenge to your
position. There is no objective reason to care if cattle exist

That's true ONLY if you are incredibly inconsiderate of
others, like you continually prove yourself to be.

or they
don't. Your claim that you "like them" or "give consideration" to them is an
obvious pretense, there's no reason to prefer them to mice unless you're
actually thinking about your own appetite.

The purity of your selfishness prevents you from having
any consideration for the lives of billions of animals.

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:00:44 GMT, Boo wrote:

"Rupert" wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 6:34 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
dh@. wrote in messagenews:f58gu318g3e83lht0immee2o890f6u1ptu@4ax .com...
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

dh@. wrote in
messagenews:hfhdu31tqqpmtapvt41jbd2aov729suc2s@4 ax.com...
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

dh@. wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008, Goo wrote:

dh@. wrote

See if you and some students can calculate how many more
animals experience life because humans eat meat, than would
if humans did not.

Given all the factors involved that is impossible to determine,

Close enough would be close enough.

No,

Yes, it sure would.

impossible to even come close. In the zero-sum world that is nature,
one
tonne of feed harvested and fed to a single steer might eliminate the
food
resource support for 100,000 field mice,

Now many farm mice does it support along with the steer?

Impossible to know, and nobody with any sense cares.

Why do you pretend to care about field mice provided they are
not living among cattle, do you have any idea Goo?

but who knows? The good thing is
that it doesn't matter. I don't care if millions of field mice never
exist,
I don't care if steers never exist, nobody does. The only reason to
care
about them is UTILITY.

As I continually explain: You are so completely consumed by
your own selfishness that you are unable to consider the animals
themselves, and therefore unable to even try to consider which
practices are and are not cruel TO THEM.

That's a lie
. . .
I don't care if cattle are born or if the natural resources are left
to support wildlife . . . except inasmuch as I want the small amount
of organic beef I occasionally consume.

LOL!!! First you said I lied, and then you proved me right.
Goo, you suck at this no matter who you're pretending to be.

You need to face up to your inability to answer this basic challenge to
your
position. There is no objective reason to care if cattle exist or they
don't. Your claim that you "like them" or "give consideration" to them is
an
obvious pretense, there's no reason to prefer them to mice unless you're
actually thinking about your own appetite.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Saying people need to face up to the deficiencies in their arguments
is sometimes not a very realistic assumption on usenet. They clearly
get by well enough for many months or years without ever doing it.


It wasn't an assumption, it was a directive. It is true however that it was
largely rhetorical, I know he can't or won't do it.

The "it" you're referring to is to stop being considerate of
livestock. The "it" you're completely incapable of is providing
a decent reason why anyone would, other than to support
the elimination objective. You suck so bad at this that you
openly support consideration for the lives of mice, at the same
time that you oppose consideration for the lives of cattle.

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008, the Goober lied:

Goo****wit places *no* value on animals' "getting to
experience life".

We know that's a lie Goo. We also know and
have proof that YOU are guilty of what you so
dishonestly accused me of:

"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever" - Goo

"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock
"getting to experience life" - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration" - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in
other words - if humans kill animals they don't need
to kill, i.e. not in self defense.

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place
is the ethically superior choice." - Goo

dh@. wrote
The "it" you're referring to is to stop being considerate of
livestock.

Can you give a good reason to prefer that livestock exist over mice except
that they are more useful? They're bigger, but that's not a good reason,
that just means there will be fewer of them, fewer animal to "experience
life".

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Boo wrote:

dh@. wrote
The "it" you're referring to is to stop being considerate of
livestock.

Can you give a good reason to prefer that livestock exist over mice except
that they are more useful?

I would prefer mice in the house than livestock,
but I kill mice when they come in even so.

They're bigger, but that's not a good reason,
that just means there will be fewer of them, fewer animal to "experience
life".

Can you in any way appreciate the fact that mice
experience life?

If not, then why do you keep bringing it up?

If so, then try explaining why you think that same
consideration should not be applied to all animals.

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Boo wrote:

dh@. wrote
The "it" you're referring to is to stop being considerate of
livestock.

Can you give a good reason to prefer that livestock exist over mice except
that they are more useful?

I would prefer mice in the house than livestock,
but I kill mice when they come in even so.

Why do you prefer livestock over mice "experiencing life"?

They're bigger, but that's not a good reason,
that just means there will be fewer of them, fewer animal to "experience
life".

Can you in any way appreciate the fact that mice
experience life?

If not, then why do you keep bringing it up?

If so, then try explaining why you think that same
consideration should not be applied to all animals.

I don't hear you complaining that people don't appreciate mice, it's always
livestock. What's the big thing you have with livestock? Sure, they're
tasty, but do they appreciate life more than mice?

Dutch wrote:
dh@. wrote in message ...
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Boo wrote:

dh@. wrote
The "it" you're referring to is to stop being considerate of
livestock.

Can you give a good reason to prefer that livestock exist over mice
except
that they are more useful?

I would prefer mice in the house than livestock,
but I kill mice when they come in even so.

Why do you prefer livestock over mice "experiencing life"?

Heh heh heh...****wit doesn't actually like *any* animals, as animals;
he only likes animal products. Mice don't yield any products, so
****wit has no use for them.

Dutch, ****wit's phony valuation of animals' "getting to experience
life" is so *obviously* phony. He doesn't care about animals at all;
****wit only cares about products from animals.


They're bigger, but that's not a good reason,
that just means there will be fewer of them, fewer animal to "experience
life".

Can you in any way appreciate the fact that mice
experience life?

*YOU* can't, ****wit. But that's because you don't give a shit about
any animals at all.

In any case, there's nothing to "appreciate"; so, rather strangely,
****wit, you're right not to appreciate it.


If not, then why do you keep bringing it up?

If so, then try explaining why you think that same
consideration should not be applied to all animals.

I don't hear you complaining that people don't appreciate mice, it's
always livestock. What's the big thing you have with livestock? Sure,
they're tasty, but do they appreciate life more than mice?

****wit *only* likes the products; he places no value whatever on
animals' "getting to experience life; that is obviously and irrefutably
just a smokescreen for ****wit.

On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 07:42:46 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Boo wrote:

dh@. wrote
The "it" you're referring to is to stop being considerate of
livestock.

Can you give a good reason to prefer that livestock exist over mice except
that they are more useful?

I would prefer mice in the house than livestock,
but I kill mice when they come in even so.

Why do you prefer livestock over mice "experiencing life"?

So far I'm in favor of livestock and mice, over mice
but no livestock. I believe livestock are capable of
getting more out of life than mice are, because I feel
that they have more mental ability to do so.

They're bigger, but that's not a good reason,
that just means there will be fewer of them, fewer animal to "experience
life".

Can you in any way appreciate the fact that mice
experience life?

If not, then why do you keep bringing it up?

If so, then try explaining why you think that same
consideration should not be applied to all animals.

I don't hear you complaining that people don't appreciate mice,

Who doesn't?

it's always
livestock. What's the big thing you have with livestock?

People who can't appreciate livestock pretend to
appreciate mice, which is a stupefying limitation of
the mind.

Sure, they're
tasty, but do they appreciate life more than mice?

I believe even very young chickens do. That is
from personal experience around both.

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 07:42:46 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Boo wrote:

dh@. wrote
The "it" you're referring to is to stop being considerate of
livestock.

Can you give a good reason to prefer that livestock exist over mice
except
that they are more useful?

I would prefer mice in the house than livestock,
but I kill mice when they come in even so.

Why do you prefer livestock over mice "experiencing life"?

So far I'm in favor of livestock and mice, over mice
but no livestock. I believe livestock are capable of
getting more out of life than mice are, because I feel
that they have more mental ability to do so.

They're bigger, but that's not a good reason,
that just means there will be fewer of them, fewer animal to "experience
life".

Can you in any way appreciate the fact that mice
experience life?

If not, then why do you keep bringing it up?

If so, then try explaining why you think that same
consideration should not be applied to all animals.

I don't hear you complaining that people don't appreciate mice,

Who doesn't?

You don't complain that people don't appreciate mice, yet you seem to think
that's it's wrong to not appreciate livestock.

it's always
livestock. What's the big thing you have with livestock?

People who can't appreciate livestock pretend to
appreciate mice, which is a stupefying limitation of
the mind.

People who appreciate mice or livestock, normally are appreciating live
ones, not wanting there to be more of them so that can "experience life",
that's the nonsense aspect with your position.


Sure, they're
tasty, but do they appreciate life more than mice?

I believe even very young chickens do. That is
from personal experience around both.

So just being destined to be eaten makes an animal appreciate life, or what
is it?

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:27:27 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 07:42:46 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

dh@. wrote in message ...
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Boo wrote:

dh@. wrote
The "it" you're referring to is to stop being considerate of
livestock.

Can you give a good reason to prefer that livestock exist over mice
except
that they are more useful?

I would prefer mice in the house than livestock,
but I kill mice when they come in even so.

Why do you prefer livestock over mice "experiencing life"?

So far I'm in favor of livestock and mice, over mice
but no livestock. I believe livestock are capable of
getting more out of life than mice are, because I feel
that they have more mental ability to do so.

They're bigger, but that's not a good reason,
that just means there will be fewer of them, fewer animal to "experience
life".

Can you in any way appreciate the fact that mice
experience life?

If not, then why do you keep bringing it up?

If so, then try explaining why you think that same
consideration should not be applied to all animals.

I don't hear you complaining that people don't appreciate mice,

Who doesn't?

You don't complain that people don't appreciate mice, yet you seem to think
that's it's wrong to not appreciate livestock.

it's always
livestock. What's the big thing you have with livestock?

People who can't appreciate livestock pretend to
appreciate mice, which is a stupefying limitation of
the mind.

People who appreciate mice or livestock, normally are appreciating live
ones, not wanting there to be more of them so that can "experience life",
that's the nonsense aspect with your position.

You need to explain why we should not consider the lives
of animals. Hey I know what...try doing it NOW:

Sure, they're
tasty, but do they appreciate life more than mice?

I believe even very young chickens do. That is
from personal experience around both.

So just being destined to be eaten makes an animal appreciate life,

Of course that's not it.

or what is it?

Try again.