On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:24:19 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:50:59 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:24:59 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 15:57:56 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:44:47 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:07:04 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:41:56 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:01:31 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:13:54 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:49:07 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:47:27 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wilson Woods:
>>>>>>>>>>> They answer, "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." There's
>>>>>>>>>>> your answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>So, the mangled pseudo-quote was not anyone speaking on his own behalf,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You told us the way you feel about it Goob, but if you want to try
>>>>>>>>>>explaining how you think you disagree with yourself then try doing it. Go:
>>>>>>>>>>. . .
>>>>>>>>>>>> you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
>>>>>>>>>>>> to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
>>>>>>>>>>>> results from killing them."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Actual statement:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe
>>>>>>>>>>> that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately
>>>>>>>>>>> to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in
>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that
>>>>>>>>>>> results from not raising the animal in the first place,
>>>>>>>>>>> or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in
>>>>>>>>>>> existing at all, then you MUST believe that it makes
>>>>>>>>>>> moral sense not to raise the animals as the only way to
>>>>>>>>>>> prevent the harm that results from killing them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Goober we know you DO believe that:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared
>>>>>>>>>>with never existing." - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in
>>>>>>>>>>magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from
>>>>>>>>>>"decent lives"" - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>>>>>>>>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"No animal "benefits" from coming into existence." - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>No animal is "better off" as a result of existing, versus
>>>>>>>>>>never existing." - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>>>>>>>>>>benefits from coming into existence." - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>>>>>>>>>at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"NO animals benefit from farming" - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
>>>>>>>>>>not make them better off than before" - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
>>>>>>>>>>to humans " - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"I *know* animals don't "benefit" from "getting to
>>>>>>>>>>experience life". They don't because there is no
>>>>>>>>>>alternative. They don't because they don't care
>>>>>>>>>>that they "get to experience life". They don't
>>>>>>>>>>because they can't conceive of the idea of "benefit"" - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing" - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit"
>>>>>>>>>>to them" - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"life itself is NOT a benefit at all. " - Goo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to
>>>>>>>>>>that entity." - Goo
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you now believe animals do benefit from their existence Goo?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course not, ****wit - they don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you still agree that "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
>>>>>>. . .
>>>>>>>> If not, you still agree that "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."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Coming into existence *CANNOT* be a benefit
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you still agree that "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
>>>>>
>>>>>"Ge
>>>>
>>>> Then according to yourself Goob, you MUST believe that it makes moral sense
>>>>not to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
>>>>killing them.
>>>>
>>>>"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, then you MUST believe that it makes moral
>>>>sense not to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results
>>>>from killing them." - Goo
>>>
>>>"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, ****wit.
>>
>> Then according to yourself Goob, you MUST believe that it makes moral sense
>>not to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
>>killing them.
>
>"according to yourself"

YOU MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the animals as the
only way to prevent the harm that results from killing them, Goo.