Moral considerability
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:57:27 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:41:36 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:50:55 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:29:40 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:28:12 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, dh@. quoted Goo revealing that
>>>>> quality of life doesn't matter to him:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>>
>>>You give the quality of their lives *zero* consideration, Goo.
>>
>> Your quote above proves that quality means nothing to you, 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
>>. . .
>>>>>>"The topic is not and never has been whether or not
>>>>>>existing animals enjoy living." - Goo
>>. . .
>>>>>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>>>>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>>
>>>The part to which you give *no* consideration, Goo. I've proved it, via
>>>your own quotes.
>>
>> I proved that you give no consideration to the part about quality of life by
>>posting your quotes Goob. You have confirmed that it means nothing to you, but I
>>proved it to begin with by quoting you specifically saying so.
>
>No.
Yes that's how I proved it Goob.
>>>>>>"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
|