On 13 Jan 2005 10:54:20 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:18:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >>>> A variation of this argument, termed "the logic of the larder"
>> >>>> or "the replacement argument" is one of the oldest and
>best-known
>> >>>> justifications for the routinized raising and killing of animals
>> >>>> for food (see Salt 185). In basic form, it runs as follows:
>Killing
>> >>>> an animal is justified where the animal would not have existed
>but
>> >>>> for the fact that humans have chosen to raise it, where its
>existence
>> >>>> for even a short while is of positive value, and where, for
>every
>> >>>> animal that is killed, another "replacement" animal is brought
>into
>> >>>> being who would not have otherwise existed and who will enjoy
>its
>> >>>> existence as much as the one that was killed (Sapontzis 177; see
>> >>>> Nozick 38).
>
>The animal's existence for ANY length of time is of zero value compared
>to never having existed.

· When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals
benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider
it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to
become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative.

>> >>>The above logic relies on the notion that humans have a moral
>right to
>> >>>consider that an animal's existence amounts to a valid
>justification for
>> >>>killing it.
>> >>
>> >> No justification is needed.
>
>You CLEARLY seem to feel one is needed.
>
>> >> Regardless of that, billions of animals are
>> >> not simply killed as you would like people to "think", but those
>same
>> >> billions of them only experience life because humans raise them to
>eat.
>> >
>> >That *IS* an attempt at justification, there is NO OTHER REASON to
>point it
>> >out.
>>
>> 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" like the Gonad say things like: No animals
benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider
it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to
become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative.

>> >>>This idea quickly falls apart when one attempts to use the logic
>> >>>in ANY other set of circumstances in which animals (including
>humans) are
>> >>>"brought into being".
>> >>
>> >> All will die. "This idea" simply considers livestock like it
>does ANY
>> >> other set of circumstances...
>> >
>> >There is NO other circumstance, no other class animal or human where
>we
>> >factor that they "only experience life because humans raise them.."
>>
>> That fact applies to all situations where it is true, including
>humans, pets,
>> etc...
>
>Gobbledygook.
>
>>
>> >when assessing the morality of killing them.
>>
>> That's because food animals are in a unique situation, but you
>still
>> want everyone to "think" of them as YOU think of everything else.
>
>Food animals are not in a "unique" situation when considering the
>morality of whether or not they are born to begin with. Life is not a
>benefit to them.

· When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals
benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider
it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to
become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative.

>> >NONE, ZERO.
>> >
>> >>>It also presumes that a further justification for raising animals
>for food
>> >>>is needed,
>> >>
>> >> It considers more very real aspects of the situation than you
>"ARAs"
>> >> want
>> >> people to consider.
>> >
>> >It considers them to be a rationalization, an unecessary one.
>> >
>> >>>which indicates that the person using the argument has an "Animal
>> >>>Rights" basis in their thinking,
>> >>
>> >> That's a lie, since "AR" would prevent livestock from having
>any life
>> >> at all.
>> >
>> >So that means that your position is even MORE of an "Animal Rights"
>position
>> >that that of ARAs. They don't want them to ever live, you think
>their
>> >getting to live is a good thing, which is more of an Animal Rights
>position?
>>
>> I don't believe any animals have rights.
>
>You very clearly and undeniably believe that intended farm animals have
>a right to be born, and you feel animal rights activists, because they
>want to eliminate farm animals, are "denying" them that right. It is
>absurd for you to claim you don't believe this.
>
>> >>>albeit turned rather upside-down.
>> >>>
>> >>>> Notice below that the supposed refutation--the talking
>> >>>> pig "logic
>
>It is not a benefit to pigs to cause them to live, and people who want
>to eat pork cannot claim as justification for killing pigs that they
>have in any way "benefitted" the pigs by causing them to live.

· When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals
benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider
it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to
become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative.

>> >Your position is founded on one thing, to use the lives of livestock
>for
>> >some justification for raising them. It's a nasty bit of sophistry,
>and you
>> >don't even know what sophistry means, which makes things worse.
>
>Exactly right. It IS sophistry, and he obviously isn't intelligent
>enough to appreciate it.
>
>> >>>> Real pigs are not capable of any of the things required to make
>> >>>> The Logic of the
>
>Causing pigs to be born is not conferring any benefit upon them. If
>one wants to eat pork, and if one feels a need to justify killing pigs
>to obtain pork - and you CLEARLY feel the need for such justification -
>it is absurd to think causing the pigs to "benefit" from having lived
>is a suitable justification.

· When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals
benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider
it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to
become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative.

>> >>>
>> >>>They are capable of some of them,
>> >>
>> >> Not even one of them.
>> >
>> >I thought you knew pigs. They are very aware of filth,
>>
>> I don't believe that.
>
>It doesn't matter what you believe. Your beliefs are based in
>ignorance. Not just ignorance, but DELIBERATE stupidity.
>
>>
>> >by nature they are
>> >very clean animals.
>>
>> I don't believe that either.
>
>It doesn't matter what you believe. You believe life itself is some
>kind of benefit, but the fact is it is NOT any kind of benefit at all.


· When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals
benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider
it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to
become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative.

>You believe LOTS of unreal things.
>
>> >>>but it's irrelevant.
>> >>
>> >> It's extremely relevant. But since you prefer
>
>What he prefers is to see that causing pigs to live is not any kind of
>moral justification for killing them.
>
>> >
>> >No fantasy.
>> >
>> >>>The talking pig is
>> >>>simply a rhetorical device expressing the author's idea of a
>human/animal
>> >>>moral relationship.
>> >>
>> >> No, it's much more than that.
>> >
>> >Nope, it's a rhetorical device.
>> >
>> >> 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 things required to make
The Logic of the Talking Pig anything other than a fantasy about
a talking pig. The Talking Pig is really a collection of at least
34 fantasies presented to give the false impression that pigs are
capable of things which they are not. In order for the fantasies
to be any more than childish fantasies, it would be required that:

1. pigs are capable of replying to humans
2. pigs are aware of revered moralists
3. pigs understand the concept of pleading
4. pigs contemplate time
5. pigs contemplate their own existence
6. pigs contemplate the future
7. pigs understand their bodies will be butchered
and prepared in specific ways
8. pigs understand and are capable of disputing
verbally with humans
9. pigs consider that they may be unworthy to dispute
with "a master of ethics"
10. pigs consider themselves to have an inferior intellect
11. pigs know humans deliberately raise them
12. pigs are aware of death
13. pigs know they can be killed
14. pigs know humans deliberately kill them
15. pigs know humans eat their dead bodies
16. pigs consider what motivates human thinking
17. pigs are aware of moral reasoning
18. pigs believe recognition of the fact that they only exist because
humans raise them, can only be done in an attempt "to find a
moral reason" for devouring them
19. pigs consider how they come into existence
20. pigs accurately understand what humans do and do not consider
21. pigs contemplate their own fate
22. pigs would rather they had never been born
23. pigs know humans eat meat
24. pigs know they are "pork"
25. pigs have a "so be it" attitude about humans killing them for food
26. pigs are able to understand human speach
27. pigs believe recognition of the fact that they only exist because
humans raise them, is in some way "sophistry"
28. pigs understand the situation they are in
29. pigs understand how the situation they are in relates to humans
30. pigs are aware of filth
31. pigs feel they are forced to live in filth
32. pigs contemplate the fact that humans feed them
33. pigs feel that what and or how they are fed is filthy
34. pigs contemplate what will happen to their bodies after their death