On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:33:16 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:13:55 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:54:08 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On 7/3/2012 8:24 PM, Olrik wrote:
>>>> Le 2012-07-03 12:42, dh@. a écrit :
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>That's good.
>>
>> If it's "good" then why are you maniacally opposed to people having
>>appreciation for when millions of livestock animals experience decent lives of
>>positive value, Goo?
>>
>>>Just don't make the mistake of thinking that if they do,
>>>it justifies eating them. It doesn't.
>>
>> For one thing you don't know whether it "does" or not Goob, and for another
>>only an eliminationist has reason to oppose giving the lives of livestock as
>>much or more consideration than their deaths. Olrik doesn't appear to be an
>>eliminationist and also doesn't appear to be opposed to taking the animals'
>>lives into consideration.
>>
>>>The justification has to come
>>>from elsewhere.
>>
>> Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
>>have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving on
>>beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's good
>>and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and
>>only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals
>>works against the elimination objective.
>
>Show it.

"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

"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - 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

"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

"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo