On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:39:09 -0700
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700
[email protected] 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
[email protected] 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
Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once
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
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
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
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 [email protected] 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".
I don't see the need for taking pride in that, because the life
experience is merely incidental to being alive regardless of the
duration of one's life. I'm interested in learning more about the
motivations behind this expectation of taking pride in this way.
The "idea" that "those who don't consume animal products aren't
contributing directly" is a bit of a misnomer (I'm not pointing the
finger here, but just examining the idea for its own merits), for an
indirect contribution as a result of less demand for meat products is
logically expected to reduce the overall number of food animals being
raised for slaughter. The assumed causal effect is that fewer animals
should be mistreated in the context of fewer animals being raised for
slaughter, which is central to the total number of animals (based on
basic overall population counts) rather than a percentage (based on the intrinsic habits/policies of handlers).
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Unfortunately, the people of Louisiana are not racists."
-- Dan Quayle