Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700
> Dutch > wrote:
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the
>>> non-existent atheist goddess" > 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
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated
>>>> by negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).
>>>
>>> It's still positive in respect that they want to continue
>>> living.
>>>
>>>>> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once
>>>>> they exist.
>>>>
>>>> That's a logical point.
>>>
>>> It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except
>>> for the fact that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago
>>
>> It is not a mistake in terminology, it is a fundamental error in
>> logic which persists in your arguments to this day.
>>
>> and some people referred
>>> to as the goos still dishonestly insist that I believe unconceived
>>> potential future "beings" can somehow "suffer a loss" if "they"
>>> never experience life. It's a lie, though I do consider the
>>> possibility that there could be multiple lives somehow. I don't
>>> have a true belief, but do NOT believe unconceived potential beings
>>> experience any sort of loss for not being born as livestock. That
>>> doesn't mean I can't appreciate it when they are and experience
>>> decent lives of positive value TO THEM. Eliminationists can't
>>> afford to consider that aspect of human influence on animals, but
>>> anyone who favors decent AW over elimination certainly should both
>>> consider and appreciate it. Appreciation for that aspect is
>>> something eliminationists are opposed to, as you can see by the
>>> goos' behavior. There are three goos, which include Goo himself,
>>> his boy "Dutch" and his boy "Derek". In this thread we only have
>>> Goo and "Dutch", both of whom are maniacally opposed to taking
>>> decent lives of livestock into consideration. "Dutch" claims to
>>> have tried it once, and it made him feel "dirty". It made him feel
>>> dirty to have appreciation for lives of positive value for the
>>> animals he claims to consume. That's one of the ways he reveals
>>> that he does NOT favor AW over elimination.
>>
>> That's a lie, and you KNOW it, both of us favor continuing to raise
>> livestock (over the elimination of livestock) AND we both favor the
>> provision of good welfare over the neglect or abuse of animals (TWO
>> separate and distinct choices)
>
> I think it's pretty obvious that there's a consensus in the value of
> Animal Welfare.
>
> I wonder if things may have gotten off track also because there's may
> be a hint of various perceptions of cannibalism that are subconsciously
> being applied to eating animals. Although cannibalism is generally
> regarded as a horrific practice by many people who are not familiar
> with it, there are some societies that value it as an important
> practice because it frees the deceased's spirit from limbo, making it
> possible to progress to some notion of an afterlife (or reincarnation).
>
> (Interestingly, some cannibalistic tribes have been known to not eat
> their enemies as a means of punishment that prevents them from
> progressing where they might continue to wage war against their fallen
> brethren.)
>
> The fact is that humans are natural predators, and eating meat is a
> normal life experience for most people. The problem is that many food
> animals are raised and slaughtered without regard for their comfort
> and pain, which I suspect is the crux of the issue.

I agree with everything you said, except that animal welfare is not part
of the issue in the debate between dh@ and everyone else. He tries to
make it appear that it is, but that's just one of his smokescreens. The
crux if his position is that users of animals and animal products should
take pride in the fact that those animals "get to experience life" and
conversely vegans ("eliminationists") as he calls them) do not sponsor
animals getting to experience life. Also anyone who rejects his nonsense
is labelled as an "eliminationist".