dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
>>> truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
>>> positive value to them
>>
>> Those people already exist,
>
> So do animals in similar positions.

Exactly my point. Those people who advocate the elimination of livestock
breeding, and I am not one of them, and you know I'm not, are NOT
advocating harming animals, or denying the "positive value" of animals'
lives, because they propose that those animals never exist in the first
place, and from the point of view of actual animals with interests, that
suggestion is neutral.


>> life only has value to a being once they
>> exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.
>
> I understand that commercially raised pigs are no longer filthily housed and
> fed, and also that Salt didn't have any idea whether life is of positive value
> to most modern commercially raised pigs or not. I'd also say it's safe to
> believe that he wouldn't feel any livestock animals' lives were worth living the
> same as you and the Goober and all other misnomer addicts, meaning that none of
> you could make a realistic distinction between which lives seem to be negative
> and which seem to be positive.

That's not the part of the essay I mean. The point you're missing is
that people like Salt, ARAs, vegans and PeTA, "eliminationists" are not
doing anything morally assailable by suggesting that livestock be
eliminated. No matter how "positive" the lives of existing livestock
might be, suggesting that the species be eliminated does those animals
no harm. Your "LoL" argument is circular, meaningless.