<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:13:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:53:31 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:32:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:422gn61ddj4dtujmoidj9fc4s4p5ndil0t@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:30:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>*No* animals benefit by existing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Many appear to Goo, so what do you want people to think
>>>>>>>>> prevents
>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> benefitting as they appear to, and how do you want people to think
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> prevents
>>>>>>>>> them?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Logic, here's one argument:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Two pigs exist, one has a good life provided by the farmer, Salatin,
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>other has a life full of pain,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Doesn't matter,
>>>>>
>>>>> It does to me.
>>>>
>>>>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 doesn't, the animal suffering, for whatever reason it occurs, is
>>*stipulated*.
>>
>>>>the animals in the hypothetical are suffering, that's stipulated.
>>>
>>> The opinion of an eliminationist as to whether or not an animal is
>>> suffering
>>> is of no value at all since you people believe all of them live lives of
>>> suffering and I do not.
>>
>>I'm not a <felch> "eliminationist", but even if I were, the animals in
>>this
>>argument are *stipulated* to be suffering.
>>
>>Do you even understand the word "stipulate"?
>
> You're trying to get me to take your word for something you apparently
> don't
> have any idea about. What I've done is establish the fact that you have no
> idea
> which I correctly predicted, but you had to show me before I could be
> sure. You
> did.

Some livestock suffer, right? They have "lives of negative value", right?
Those are the ones I'm talking about.

This is not hard.

>>>>>>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, there's no reason to believe
>>> that
>>> living on concrete makes life of negative value for them.
>>
>>That's not what I meant, but that is also debatable.
>
> I'm convinced that it varies from one animal to the next, and has very
> much
> to do with whether or not the animal has sores or other injuries.

Right, therefore you DO know what I'm talking about, contrary to your
felching above.


>>>>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, because whatever they have
>>> for
>>> bedding they will want to root through looking for food, which usually
>>> is
>>> going
>>> to end up getting it mixed in with their shit and also their food.
>>
>>Because they don't have enough space and/or their areas are not kept
>>clean.
>>Given a sleeping area, a feeding area and a clear area, they will shit and
>>**** in the clear area and not spread it into their bedding or food.
>
> I said they would spread their bedding around rooting for food, not
> that
> they would spread their shit around. You can't handle even the most basic
> of
> details, yet you want me to take your word on things I know you don't
> understand
> and even about things I know damn well you're wrong about.

I said that pigs are clean animals, given the opportunity. It's a fact.
>
>>I've raised pigs,
>
> I disbelieve you.

I don't give a flying **** what redneck cracker goober cockfighting shitbags
believe.

In contrast to that I did raise some pigs...one sow who
> had several litters. We raised some of her young to slaughter and eat, and
> sold
> the rest. I was in high school at the time and my parents bought the feed
> for my
> sow in exchange for two pigs from each litter, which we raised to about
> 100
> pounds, killed and butchered ourselves, and all ate.
>
>>they're clean animals if given the opportunity. Pigs in filthy
>>conditions will suffer, not only from poor health.
>>
>>>>But again, this is not relevant
>>>>to my point.
>>>
>>> It's all relevant. You just can't appreciate details enough to
>>> understand
>>> why.
>>
>>It's not relevant, you're just suffering from cognitive dissonance (CD).
>
> LOL! No you poor fool, it's the guy who can't handle the details, which
> is
> you, who are experiencing CD. Not the person presenting the details.

You're not "presenting details", you're blowing smoke out of your ass.

>>Your brain on some level sees that this destroys your argument so is
>>throwing up meaningless defenses against it.
>
> In contrast to that I'm considering more details than you can handle,
> and
> that's pretty much as "far" as it looks like it can ever get for you.

Your "considering", like your "consideration" is bogus.

>>>>>>>>suffering
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What does it matter, it's a theoretical example.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's say a tail infection. That doesn't make life of negative
>>>>> value
>>>>> still,
>>>>> I hope.
>>>>
>>>>I hope also,
>>>
>>> Maybe.
>>
>>Don't be ridiculous, nobody who has ever posted here wants animals to
>>suffer.
>>
>>>>but again, not relevant to the point.
>>>
>>> In contrast to that, if it's the case then it destroys your point.
>>
>>Why? I didn't say anything about a tail infection. Is it your contention
>>that NO livestock suffer,
>
> You know it's not, and I know you know it's not.

Then why are you refusing to stipulate it?

>>EVER? If so, you're an idiot, if not, then the
>>ones which do suffer are the ones I am talking about. Those animals who
>>do
>>suffer *experience life* in the same measure as the ones who don't.
>>Therefore *experiencing life* is not what creates value,
>
> It can have positive or negative value, as I've pointed out to you
> countless
> times.

It's conditions (circumstances) that create positive or negative value. Life
itself is a constant.

>>it is a constant
>>among ALL animals.
>
> And should be taken into consideration for ALL creatures, instead of
> none as
> eliminationists insist.

If life itself apart from circumstances is a constant then it doesn't matter
whether we consider it all cases or no cases. If we consider it in all cases
then what do we do about the case of lives of negative value? What does this
"consideration" tell us then?


>>>>>>>>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 details to establish whether you had a point or
>>> not. It
>>> turns out in this case you don't.
>>
>>The point has been made very clear,
>
> You couldn't even provide an example, much less make a point with it.
> Even
> if you had though, since nothing can benefit after it's dead, and nothing
> that's
> not alive can benefit at all, it will always remain clear that life is one
> of
> the benefits which makes all others possible regardless of how you try to
> lie
> that it's not.

Life makes benefits possible, it isn't a benefit itself. That's impossible.

> . . .
>>>>> 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's been explained to you probably a thousand times. A benefit means "an
>>improvement to the welfare of an entity", that means an entity must have
>>two
>>states, one before and one after the benefit for such a measurement to be
>>possible. Before existence there is no such state.
>
> How do you want us to believe that something about "Before existence"
> prevents beings from benefitting from lives they clearly appear to be
> benefitting from?

They're not, they are benefitting from positive circumstances.

>>> So far you
>>> have never been able to explain, so of course neither you nor I nor
>>> anyone
>>> else
>>> has any idea what you think you're trying to talk about. That being the
>>> case it
>>> continues to appear this is just something else you're trying to lie
>>> about
>>> in an
>>> attempt to support acceptance of elimination.
>>
>>I just explained it
>
> No you did not. All you did was make a claim that something about
> "Before
> existence" prevents animals from benefitting from lives they clearly
> appear to
> be benefitting from, but you can never explain what you want us to think
> does so
> or how you want us to think anything does so.

I get it, you're TOO STUPID to grasp basic logic.

> . . .
>>>>"consideration" has never helped a single animal, never will, and
>>>>cannot.
>>>
>>> In contrast to that lie what you are afraid of is that considering
>>> the
>>> lives
>>> of the animals they consume would cause more people to favor decent AW
>>> over
>>> elimination, causing them to become more conscientious consumers of
>>> animal
>>> products instead of vegans.
>>
>>I'm not afraid of that because it's an absurdity. Nobody consumes meat
>>because it means livestock "get to experience life", not you, not me,
>>nobody.
>
> It wouldn't necessarily mean many people would stop being vegan in
> order to
> contribute to lives of positive value with their lifestyle. As you suggest
> most
> would be too selfish to consider anything like that and they are only
> vegan
> because they don't like meat, not in any real attempt to try to help
> livestock.

That paragraph is false, misleading and misguided on a number of levels.
First, consuming meat is not a prerequisite for contributing to better lives
for livestock. Second there is no reason to believe that vegetarians are
more selfish than meat eaters. Finally, consuming animal products does not
"help livestock". You're just spinning your wheels with these stupid
assumptions. In fact I would say many vegetarians *would* like to eat meat
except that feel they can't for ethical reasons.

> But there are those few who either have no personal aversion to eating
> meat
> or even like it, but (again) they have been fooled into believing veganism
> is
> ethically supreme. THOSE are the people who should learn to appreciate
> when
> livestock have lives of positive value so they can be more conscientious
> consumers of animal products and contribute to decent lives for livestock
> with
> their lifestyle instead of doing nothing. People in favor of elimination
> refuse
> to consider the animals for selfish personal reasons and will just never
> consider them, and as you demonstrate some of the more extreme are
> maniacally
> opposed to seeing people consider the animals. But some of us do in spite
> of you
> which is why cage free eggs are available, and why we pay extra to support
> cage
> free lives for laying hens and encourage other people to do so also.

That's considering the "conditions" animals are provided, not the bullshit
"consider their lives" you are trying to push.