View Single Post
  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-07-2012, 07:21 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,,alt.agnosticism,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
[email protected] dh@. is offline
external usenet poster
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Dietary ethics

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 17:50:57 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:20:00 -0700
Dutch wrote:
[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
Dutch wrote:
[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
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

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.

Many of them have decent lives of positive value too, and imo the majority
of them do. Eliminationists are opposed to us taking those lives into
consideration though because providing billions of livestock animals with lives
of positive value works against the elimination objective. Nothing would be
worse for eliminationists than for all animals raised for food to have lives of
positive value and humane deaths, and for their consumers to be aware of it.
What could work against their hopes for elimination any more than that? Those
people not only are incapable of distinguishing between lives that seem to be of
negative value and those which seem to be of positive, but they're incapable of
recognising any livestock lives at all that appear to be of positive value. In
the following list of URLs most if not all of the animals pictured appear to
have lives of positive value imo, yet eliminationists can't recognise a single
one that appears to be of positive value to them. Can you?