FoodBanter.com - View Single Post - Eating animal products (was: Satan as a Composite Entity/Being?)

marques de sade

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:09:21 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:31:26 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:38:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:08:38 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * * I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>>>>free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>>>>decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>>>>begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>>>>have to understand that much.
>>>>>
>>>>>>First
>>>>>>of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>>>>them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>>>>care of?
>>>>>
>>>>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>>>>years old.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>>>really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>>>
>>>>but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>>>>right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).
>>>
>>> No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
>>>Goo I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist afawk
>>
>>well, i just quoted you doing it now... you said it was 2 years or
>>nothing,
>
> That's the deal. It needs to be clarified because some
>people act like if these animals weren't born as livestock
>they would or could be born as some happy wild animal
>instead, which afawk is *not* the case. If you think it's
>not then try explaining how.

i don't think that because THERE IS NO ANIMAL that could be born
or anything else... UNTIL IT'S BORN...

>
>>as if there was an entity that is better off experiencing
>>2 years rather than not experiencing anything at all...
>
> There is when they do.

i don't base it on comparing how they do now than how they did
before they existed...

>What do you think that has
>to do with supposed non-existent entities or whatever,
>do you have any idea?

because you're saying they're better off existing than in
oblivion. i'm saying... in oblivion there is no entity that is
worse off... you're comparing apples and oranges...

>
>>i'm correcting you
>
> Not yet you sure aren't.

i guess people will make their own minds up.

>
>>and saying that if nothing exists, then there
>>is no entity that is worse off than if they existed...
>
> I know. What you need to do is explain how that prevents
>existing entities from benefitting from lives of positive value.

i believe they can benefit from lives of positive value. i just
don't believe in comparing getting to live 2 years with getting to
not exist at all... that's a bullshit comparison. when you don't
exist you dont' exist and so your'e not worse or better or
anything. you just dont' exist... there is no you...

--

``The white "Christian" supremacists who have historically opposed either all immigration or all non-European immigration ... must not be permitted to play a prominent role in the debate over the way America responds to unprecedented demographic change. Nor should the anti-immigrant demagoguery of some black leadership be permitted to go unchallenged.'' --Stephen Steinlight