****wit David Harrison, cracker lighting tech at Mega Amusement, lied:

>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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

Nothing you write is beyond his comprehension. You just write shit.


All true statements below, except for the unethically mangled ones.
>>>
>>> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>> its quality of live" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
>>> how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
>>> the existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
>>> ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>> to experience life" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Prof. Geo. 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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>> (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>> killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
>>> of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Prof. Geo. 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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>

The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

>>> "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" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

>>>
>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.


>>>
>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

>>>
>>> "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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

>>>
>>> "one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>> ethically superior choice." - Prof. Geo. 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" - Prof. Geo. 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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
>>> of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
>>> ZERO importance to it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> 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
>>>
>>