On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:39:22 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, 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. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
>>raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
>>them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
>>value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
>>only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
>>of positive value to a being without actually being "good".
>
>How do you know he doesn't believe they live terrible lives of positive
>value? Or wonderful, pleasant lives of negative value?

He can't comprehend the concept of lives of either positive value or
negative value. You pretend that you can Goober, so do you think you can help
your brother Rupert to comprehend as well? No, you can't Goo. No one can because
his brain is unfit to handle the task.

>> I believe most livestock animals do experience decent lives of positive
>>value, but that probably most caged commercial laying hens do not. Also I don't
>>know enough about how pigs are raised to have a real belief about them, but
>>suspect that a high percentage of them have lives which are overall of negative
>>value. Most cattle and possibly even most veal experience lives of positive
>>value imo.
>>
>> Goo doesn't believe any animals benefit from living and it's all the same to
>>him regardless of the quality of their lives:
>>
>>"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
>>
>>"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
>>how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo
>>
>>"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
>>the existence." - Goo
>>
>>"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
>>ever wrote." - Goo
>>
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>>"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>to experience life" - Goo
>>
>>"Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo
>>
>>""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
>>
>>"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." - 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
>>
>>"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 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
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>of the animals erases all of it." - 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
>>
>>"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>
>>"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" - 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
>>
>>"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
>>of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
>>ZERO importance to it." - Goo






>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
>>
>