****wit David Harrison, criminal breeder of fighting roosters, lied:


>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>> *No* animals benefit by existing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many appear to,

No.


>>
>> I didn't mean that animal living conditions don't matter to me, I mean that
>> for the purpose of this example it doesn't matter what the reason is for the
>> suffering,
>
> Yes it does.

No, it does not, homo ****wit.


>
>> the animals in the hypothetical are suffering, that's stipulated.
>
> The opinion of an eliminationist

Ha ha ha ha ha!



>>>> anything, sleeping on cold concrete or slats.
>>>
>>> IMO they should be provided with something better, but it's hard to
>>> provide
>>> pigs with something they won't make a huge mess of. When it's all they
>>> ever
>>> know, I'm not convinced concrete floors make life of negative value for
>>> pigs.
>>
>> Bullshit,
>
> If they never know anything different,

It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999

I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
to make the effort.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - July 31, 2003


>> pigs are clean animals, if given the opportunity they will always
>> keep their bedding and mess areas separate.
>
> That doesn't stop them from making a mess,

It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999

I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
to make the effort.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - July 31, 2003


>> But again, this is not relevant
>> to my point.
>
> It's all relevant.

It's irrelevant.




>>>>>> and deprivation
>>>>>
>>>>> From what?
>>>>
>>>> Light, space, access to earth, whatever, it's unimportant what from, it's
>>>> theoretical.
>>>
>>> We'll just forget that one since the concrete was covered above. Life
>>> still
>>> seems like it may have positive value to Salatin.
>>
>> Sigh, you are obviously missing the point.
>
> No, I asked you for

You bullshitted, attempting to spike the conversation.

You are deliberately ignoring the point.



>>> It's a benefit which makes all others possible
>>
>> Calling it a benefit is begging the question, I have shown that it isn't, as
>> have others.
>
> You have simply claimed that it's not without being able to even attempt to
> explain what you want people to believe prevents it from being one.

It has been well and thoroughly explained why it isn't one: it doesn't
meet the definition.




>>>> It's not trickery,
>>>
>>> Trying to get people to incorrectly believe life is not a benefit when

Life is not a benefit - proved.


>>
>> Life cannot be called a benefit,
>
> It certainly can until

It is not a benefit. Calling it one is lying.



>> Sure I have, the "consideration" you are advocating is cheap sophistry,
>
> That's just a lie the same as

It is not a lie. Your *FAKE* "consideration" - which you don't even
attempt to show - is sophistry.


>> not
>> real "consideration" that helps animals. and the proof of that is that your
>> "consideration" has never helped a single animal, never will, and cannot.
>
> In contrast to that lie

Not a lie - you show no legitimate consideration for animals at all.

It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999

I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
to make the effort.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - July 31, 2003