View Single Post
  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
George Plimpton George Plimpton is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default Dietary ethics

On 7/12/2012 12:05 PM, ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


The statements below are all true, except for the obvious forgeries.

>>>>> "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.

>
> If you want people to


It's a forgery - 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.

>
> If you want people


It's a forgery - 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.

>
> If you want people to think


It's a forgery - 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.

>
> If you want people to think


It's a forgery - 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.

>
> If you want people


It's a forgery - not a quote.

>>>>> "one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>>>> ethically superior choice." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton