Dietary ethics
On 7/31/2012 11:55 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:51:52 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:40:36 -0400, 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.
>>
>> No.
>
> LOL!!! The idea that there are no animals in similar positions is so stupid
> it's hilarious Goo.
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> You *should* understand, but fail to understand, that "getting to
>> experience life" is not a benefit.
>
> It often appears that it is a benefit Goob so if you want people to think
> something prevents it from being one, YOU need to try to explain what you want
> people to think prevents it. Try explaining what you want people to think
> prevents you from benefitting from experiencing your own life, Goo. Go:
>
>
> (correct prediction: the Goober not only can't explain what he thinks is
> preventing him from benefitting, but he's ashamed to even attempt to explain)
>
|