On 7/5/2012 10:14 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik >:
>>
>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>
>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>
>>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>
>> Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
>> error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.
>
> Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
> negative value to the animals.

How do you know he doesn't believe they live terrible lives of positive
value? Or wonderful, pleasant lives of negative value?

You stupid ****ing redneck douchebag: a terrible life is, by
definition, a life of [gag] "negative value"; and a wonderful, pleasant
life is, by definition, a life of [retch] "positive value".

You're being redundant, you stupid ****:

"decent lives" *EQUALS* "positive value"
"terrible lives" *EQLAUS* "negative value"

You stupid, idiotic, plodding redneck ****.


>
> I believe most livestock animals do experience decent lives of positive
> value

1. You don't know
2. You don't care


>
> George Plimpton doesn't believe any animals benefit from living

They don't. No living entity "benefits" simply from existing.
Existence, or "getting to experience life" in your wretchedly shitty
phrase, is not a benefit. It cannot be one.


All of the below are true statements.


>
> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
> its quality of live" - George Plimpton
>
> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - George Plimpton
>
> "It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
> how pleasant the condition of their existence." - George Plimpton
>
> "It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
> the existence." - George Plimpton
>
> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
> ever wrote." - George Plimpton
>
> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - George Plimpton
>
> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - George Plimpton
>
> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
> to experience life" - George Plimpton
>
> "Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - George Plimpton
>
> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - George Plimpton
>
> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
> consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
> of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
> consideration, and gets it." - George Plimpton
>
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
> their deaths" - George Plimpton
>
> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
> (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
> killing them." - George Plimpton
>
> "You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
> of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - George Plimpton
>
> "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." - George Plimpton
>
> "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" - George Plimpton
>
> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - George Plimpton
>
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
> of the animals erases all of it." - George Plimpton
>
> "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." - George Plimpton
>
> "one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
> ethically superior choice." - George Plimpton
>
> "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
> experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
> whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
> breeding of livestock" - George Plimpton
>
> "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." - George Plimpton
>
> "It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
> of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
> ZERO importance to it." - George Plimpton
>