On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:11:21 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>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.

To you people that is extremely significant, but to those of us who are not
misnomer addicts it's as meaningless as the fact that rocks aren't alive. The
fact that millions of animals will experience life in the future because humans
eat meat IS VERY significant, but the fact that veganism does nothing for
livestock is no more significant than the fact that dinosaurs are extinct. It's
the "best" that you people have, but meaningless to other people.

>>> 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.

That's only the most significant thing to eliminationists.

>Your ...[appreciation for lives of positive value for millions of animals] argument
>is circular, meaningless.

ONLY to eliminationists. For people who honestly favor decent AW over
elimination lives of positive value for millions of animals is a VERY
significant aspect of the situation, in some part because it means AW
regulations are working successfully. The fact that you can't appreciate that
fact is one of the ways you reveal yourself.