swamp wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 04:00:09 GMT, wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:12:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yet another confused person has offered the faulty
>>>"logic of the larder" as a moral justification for
>>>human use of animals. That now makes two. Woo and yay.
>>>
>>>Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit to any
>>>creature.
>>
>> Then you still need to show how something (animal or not)
>>can benefit if it's not alive.
>
>
> No, you need to show it "suffers" from not being born. Good luck.
That belief - that some kind of moral loss results from
farm animals not being born - comes through clearly in
****WIT's ravings. Because he's uneducated, he thinks
he can shift the burden of proof onto others. He
can't; he's the one making the goofy claim - "being
born is a benefit to farm animals" - and he's the one
who must try to support it.
>
>
>>Since you can't...
>
>
> No one can. The unborn cannot benefit or suffer. Your argument is
> absurd.
>
>
>>we're left to...
>
>
> *You're* left to...
>
>
>>understand that life is the benefit which makes all others
>>possible.
>
>
> ...and makes all suffering possible. Non-life is a non-issue. No AR,
> no AW, nada.
>
> -- swamp
>
> "Who, me officer? What's a ferut? These guys?? No, they're Polish cats."