On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:28:12 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:24:12 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 08:46:25 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>I observe that no one gives equal moral consideration, including those
>>>who say we ought to do so.
>>
>>"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo
>
>The consideration in that quote is the fake "consideration" you pretend
>to give to their "getting to experience life"

Obviously I do give it consideration Goo, both for the animals I consume
parts of and also for the billions more that I don't. I make you give it
consideration too Goob, even though you don't want to you do, and you
deliberately oppose people appreciating the result when AW regulations provide
billions of animals with lives of positive value.

>, ****wit. The moral
>considerability I and others are talking about here is the consideration
>due the interests of the animals.

That's the decent lives of positive value part, Goo. Remember it's the part
that YOU are opposed to people taking into consideration because doing so can
work against the elimination objective.

>No consideration is due to their
>"getting to experience life", ****wit.

As much or more than their deaths Goob.

>>"It is irrelevant what I think *is* important enough to
>>merit consideration." - Goo
>>
>>"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>>ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>>eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>>
>>"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
>>of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Goo
>>
>>"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
>>experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
>>whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>killing them." - Goo
>>
>>"Fact: IF it is wrong to kill animals deliberately for food, then
>>having deliberately caused them to live in the first place does
>>not mitigate the wrong in any way." - Goo
>>
>>"Life "justifying" death is the
>>stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>>""appreciation for decent AW" doesn't *MEAN* anything" - Goo
>>
>>""appreciation for decent AW" doesn't mean anything." - Goo
>>
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>>"Existing animals don't figure into it in any
>>way." - Goo.
>>
>>"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
>>can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
>>a pre-existent state" - Goo
>>
>>"We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
>>existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo
>>
>>"The topic is not and never has been whether or not
>>existing animals enjoy living." - Goo
>>
>>"Whether or not some entity enjoys life once it does exist
>>is *NOT* the topic." - Goo
>>
>>"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
>>I was before." - Goo
>>
>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>its quality of live" - 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
>>
>>"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo