wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>> It is consideration for animals which
> >> >>>
> >> >>>It is a foolish consideration of some mythical, imaginary
"benefit"
> >> >>>they get from living. They do not derive any benefit from
living,
> >> >>>compared with never living at all.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> When "ARAs" say things like: No animals
> >> >> benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
> >> >> the animals gain nothing from the arrangement
> >> >
> >> >They don't. They are not better off for having
> >> >existed, versus never having existed.
> >>
> >> Explain how you know that
> >
> >No. You have read the explanation dozens of times. You know that
it
> >is compelling, and right.
>
> LOL!!!

Why do you find it funny that you pretend not to know what has been
written in response to your ravings?

It is a logical absurdity to believe that coming into existence is a
"benefit" compared to never existing.


> >> >>>>>>The author is very obviously trying to
> >> >>>>>>persuade people to feel that
> >> >>>
> >> >>>that causing pigs to live is not a moral justification for
killing
> >> >>>them. That is what the author is trying to show people. He
does
> >a
> >> >>>good job of it, too. In fact, he does such a good job of it
that
> >you
> >> >>>can't even begin to address it,
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Real pigs are not capable of any of
> >> >
> >> >The author is saying that causing pigs to live is not a
> >> >moral justification for killing them.
> >>
> >> The author created a
> >
> >The author explained, lucidly and compellingly, that causing pigs to
> >live is not doing any favor to the pigs.
>
> Oh? I missed that part

You always miss the logic.

>
> " This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the
Pig

You didn't "miss" that part - that's what YOU believe. You believe
that you are being "benign" to animals, because you "provided them
life".

>
> exactly where does the author explain that causing pigs to live is
not
> doing any favor to the pigs?

When he says that it is not for the pig's sake, but for the sake of the
philosopher, that the pig was caused to be born. Right there. That's
where he explains it.