View Single Post
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:04:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote


>> · Since the animals we raise would not be alive if we
>> didn't raise them, it's a distortion of reality not to take that
>> fact into consideration whenever we think about the fact
>> that the animals are going to be killed. The animals are not
>> being cheated out of any part of their life by being raised
>> and dying, but instead they are experiencing whatever life
>> they get as a result of it. ·

>
>That's the Logic of the Larder again. Once the animals are born we keep them
>in captivity then take away a significant part of their natural lifespan.


They gain life from it. Remember? Or did you unlearn that too?
They gain life from it, and you want very badly to PREVENT people
from considering that aspect. Remember? That's the main reason
for the hundreds or thousands of posts you've made to me, in your
attempts to make the lives of billions of animals appear to be
insignificant to me. Remember?
[···]
>>>marked by suffering,
>>>deprivation

[···]
> it means that their lives are *used* for our own ends.

[···]
>>>and exploitation.

[···]
>Exploitation is exploitation,

[···]
>>>Only by consuming selectively,

>>
>> Maybe that's where you're confused. When I say people can deliberately
>>contribute to decent lives for farm animals, I mean that they can deliberately
>>contribute to decent lives for farm animals.

>
>That is not a clarification, you repeated the same wording.


I was hoping you might somehow understand the second time. Let's
try it this way: How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute
to decent lives for farm animals, without consuming selectively?

>>>simply consuming does not do that.

>>
>> I never said it does.

>
>It's implied in your position.


I am very curious to see how.

>>>You are
>>>pushing a fallacy, just like vegans push the fallacy that one can
>>>automatically eliminate animal deaths by abstaining from meat. Why don't
>>>you
>>>stop lying ****wit?

>>
>> I don't lie. In fact, what you hate about me is the truth that I point
>> out.

>
>You don't "point out truth"


If I were going to lie, I wouldn't say the things I do you stupid
moron. I'd say things that I thought would make people like me
better. You dumbass.

>****wit, you spin a shabby sophistry.
>
>> For example here are some facts that I point out, and you hate:
>>
>> 1. Some farm animals benefit from farming.

>
>Being born is not a benefit.


The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life has
positive or negative value to the animal. How did you unlearn that?

>> 2. People can deliberately contribute to decent lives for farm animals.

>
>Only if the animals are born.


How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute to decent
lives for farm animals, if the animals are never born?

>> 3. "AR" would make decent AW impossible.

>
>No


Liar.

>it would make it irrelevant.
>
>> 4. People who are in favor of decent AW for farm animals should not
>> contribute to their elimination.

>
>Sure they can, there is no contradiction there.


How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute to decent
AW for farm animals, if the animals are never born?

>> 5. People can contribute to fewer wildlife deaths and decent lives for
>> livestock by consuming some animals products, than by consuming
>> some vegetable products.

>
>There is som truth mixed in there, but the comment is polluted


How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute fewer wildlife
deaths and to decent lives for farm animals, if the animals are never born?

>with your
>spinny rhetoric.
>
>> 6. The lives of food animals should be given as much or more consideration
>> than their deaths.

>
>"Their lives" are not a source of moral perks for consumers.


How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute to decent
lives for farm animals, if the animals are never born?

>> 7. Raising animals for food is not like raising children for sex slaves.

>
>Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very existence is analagous to
>taking moral credit for the life of a daughter you sell onto the streets.


Explain how a farmer taking credit for the life of his favorite cow, is
analagous to him whoring out his daughter.

>We
>raise animals to kill them and eat them, there is nothing wrong with that,
>but to say that we are entitled to feel satisfaction that the animals
>"experience life" is the shabbiest sophism possible.


When considering whether or not it's cruel to the animals to do so,
I will not attempt to avoid considering their life.

[...]
>> 4. The fact that you want to PREVENT people from considering the huge
>> difference between AW and "AR" because it could result in less support
>> for "AR" organizations.

>
>I don't even understand that one.


You want me to kill myself because I point out the difference between
AW and "AR". The reason you want me to kill myself is because you
believe, as I do, that the vast majority of the financial support for "AR"As
comes from people who do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of
animal use. We agree about that. The difference is that I want people
to understand the difference, so they will stop contributing to your elimination
objective. Of course, you do NOT want them to stop. You understood better
than I did before I explained it, and we both damn well know it. I understand
that is the way it is, but don't understand why. You do understand why, and
also why you created the situation.

>> 5. The fact that you would rather see people become vegan than
>> deliberately
>> contribute to decent lives for food animals.

>
>Those are not the only two options,


What's the other one?

>it's a fase choice fallacy.


[...]
>> Help me out Doutche. How could you un-learn something that's so
>> significant and applies to all life, and at the same time is so very easy
>> to
>> understand? Please explain how you could un-learn such a thing!

>
>I didn't unlearn anything ****wit. An animal's life is not a moral brownie
>point for you when you consume it, the two are not connected.


Well, I don't really give a **** whether you consider it a moral brownie
point or any other imaginary damn stupid thing. No brownie points. No
gold stars. No lollipops or any other stupid ass thing. How's that?

Here is where you can't go, but I won't forget about it. The method of
husbandry determines whether or not the life has positive or negative
value to the animal. That means TO THE ANIMAL you selfish *******.
Not to you. You are too selfish to understand the truth of your own
words, and Salt's imaginary singing pig was correct when it said in its
final moments:

It is not for their sake but for thine, that you would
rather prevent their lives than see them deliberately
provided with decent lives and humane deaths.