On 14 Jan 2005 11:37:44 -0800, the Gonad wrote:

wrote:
>> the Gonad 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.

How do you know what never existing is like Mr Gonad?

>> >> >>>>>>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.

It doesn't say the pigs don't benefit too, it just says the reason
they are born is to benefit humans. Some of them do benefit too,
and some of them don't. It's really hard to imagine anyone being
too ignorant to understand something that's so obviously true.
Even without ever being on a pig farm anyone should be able to
understand that some pigs have decent lives and that some don't,
the same as with everything else including humans.