View Single Post
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 03:37:11 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:56:15 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 15:42:36 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>>>>> Who decides?

>
> More proof that you're an "ARA" here. The fact that you can't
> distinguish
> between whether life has a positive value or not for animals, shows that
> you
> agree with "ARAs" that none do.
>
>>>>YOU use the concept in all your arguments then when asked to define it
>>>>that's the best you can do?
>>>
>>> It's a question that must be asked, though we agree that asking
>>> YOU/"ARAs"
>>> anything about the subject at all is a waste of time, since YOU/"ARAs"
>>> have no
>>> clue at all about it.

>>
>>I repeat, the onus is on YOU to define what you mean by it. You have never
>>even tried.

>
> I did. You can't understand. I'll simplify it for you, and you still
> won't
> understand:
>
> If it's not so abusive or overly restrictive conditions that it gives life
> a
> negative value, then I believe it has a positive one.


What exactly comprises "abusive or overly restrictive conditions"? We need
to know exactly what you mean if we are going to attempt to follow your
suggestions.

[...]
>>> I explained my belief about it clearly enough that if it were
>>> possible
>>> for you
>>> to understand the concept, you would be able to understand my belief.
>>> But
>>> since YOU/"ARAs" can't comprehend how life could possibly have any value
>>> for animals raised for food, how could you comprehend how life could
>>> have
>>> any
>>> value for animals raised for food no matter what anyone tells you about
>>> it?

>>
>>That's not the point. No matter how much "value" livestock might derive
>>from
>>life in this completely undefined nonsensical position of yours, YOU as a
>>consumer of meat get NO credit for it.

>
> LOL! This is classic. You, who can't even comprehend how life could
> have positive or negative value for the animal, are trying to tell
> everybody
> how to feel about the fact.


I don't need to tell "everybody", "everybody" but you already knows how to
feel about it.

It is right to feel regret or anger if an animal is mistreated, and it is
right to feel glad if an animal is well-treated.

It is crass sophistry to feel pride than an animal someone else raises for
you to eat "experiences life".

>>This is a discussion of human ethics,


> No it's not.


Yes it is.

> It's about human influence on animals, and whether or not
> particular things are cruel TO THE ANIMALS!


Cruelty is an issue of human ethics. You just contradicted yourself while
demonstrating that after all this time you don't even understand the basis
of these discussions.

> NOT YOUR imaginary
> moral browny points.


Satisfaction that animals "get to experience life" is *your* concept, not
mine.

>>and they are NOT impacted AT ALL by food animals "experiencing life".

>
> Your browny points don't mean anything to me Dutch,


You're lying. You advocate feeling satisfaction that animals "get to
experience life".

> but the animals'
> lives do.


Exactly what I said, what the animals lives mean to you is that YOU have
done something worthwhile FOR THE ANIMALS by consuming animal products.

> So it in some twisted way makes sense that the animals' lives
> don't mean anything to you Dutch, but your browny points do.


*You* are the one claiming brownie points ****wit, make no mistake.

> And you
> amusingly claim ethical supperiority for YOU/"ARAs" for feeling that way!


You need to stop claiming ethical superiority for causing animals to
"experience life", it's sophistry.
>
>>The
>>Logic of the Larder is discredited sophistry, not only by Salt, by many
>>people on this forum.

>
> Considering the animals' lives can't be discredited regardless of how
> hard YOU/"ARAs" try to discredit it,


Their lives are not what I have discredited, I, and others, have discredited
your notion that their lives are a moral bonus for consumers.

> but I certainly continue to invite
> you to present anything better than you imaginary talking "AR" pig. And
> what do think the imaginary talking "AR" opponent pig might say? Huh?
> You sure can't comprehend anything like that...


I sure can't comprehend how anyone can think like you do, that's for sure.