On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 20:23:06 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>>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.
>>
>> But not for the animal, only for YOU? Is that right?
>
>No, for the animal, and by association morally for the producer and the
>consumer.

So I can feel glad for you, and for me, that the animal got to experience
a decent life, as long as I don't feel any pride for anyone for causing it to
happen?

>> You damn sure can't
>> feel glad for me if an animal is well-treated
>
>Sure you can.
>
>> and if you can't feel glad for an
>> animal if it has a life of positive value, you damn sure can't feel glad
>> for it
>> about anything else.
>
>You can feel glad that an animal's life was good.
>
>>>It is crass sophistry to feel pride than an animal someone else raises for
>>>you to eat "experiences life".
>>
>> And we can't even feel "glad" if it had a life of positive value, so
>> how
>> exactly are we permitted by YOU/"ARAs" to feel "glad"???
>
>You're confused.

You're the one confused. So far you haven't been able to define
your restrictions very well, and still show no signs of understanding
how life could have positive value TO THE ANIMAL even though
you say you do, and of course you have never come close to
explaining why anyone with any interest in promoting decent AW
would completely disregard the fact (EVER!!!) when considering
human influence on animals.

>>>>>This is a discussion of human ethics,
>>>
>>>> No it's not.
>>>
>>>Yes it is.
>
>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.
>
>>>> It's about human influence on animals, and whether or not
>>>> particular things are cruel TO THE ANIMALS!
>>
>> [...]
>>>I sure can't comprehend how anyone can think like you do, that's for sure.
>>
>> Well, yes, you have certainly proven you can't consider that farm
>> animals' lives could ever be of positive value for them,
>
>Wrong, their lives CAN be positive, decent, I think they sometimes are.

Okay then, out of consideration for those particular animals, how do you
feel it's ethically superior to completely disregard that fact when we consider
whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise them?

>> much less conclude
>> that when they do we should give the fact as much consideration as when
>> they don't,
>
>I think we DO need to give consideration when they don't.

It's obvious that YOU/"ARAs" very much DO want us to consider
when they don't. But you certainly don't want any consideration given
to when they do, much less as much as is given when they don't,
*because* it suggests that something could be ethically equivalent or
superior to veganism.

>That's why I eat
>only organic free-range beef and chicken and free-range eggs, because I want
>the animals I eat to have decent lives. For me that is morally superior to
>close confinement where animals are pumped with drugs.
>
>> and/or as their deaths, when we think about human influence
>> on animals. That shows you are incapable of considering all aspects of
>> human influence on animals, and are only willing to consider those which
>> support whatever it is that YOU WANT to believe.
>
>You're wrong. I am willing to take moral satisfaction in the fact that an
>animal did better because I chose an organic free-range product. What I am
>NOT willing or able to do is take satisfaction in their life

You couldn't take much moral satisfaction if they had a horrible life,
or if they never lived...

>per se. Please
>try to understand the distinction.

....so trying to take satisfaction that they "did better" without having
satisfaction that they did well is absurd. Restricting what you
consider in such absurd ways produces an absurd view of reality.

Taking satisfaction that an animal "did better" is just absurdity,
because if there had been a completely different farming method in
place (I'm guessing you're talking about on a specific area of land,
but it's hard to tell with you...), then the exact pairing of sperm and egg
which produce particular animals would often and very likely always
result in different animals being born. For example instead of this
particular egg being fertilized by this particular sperm, a different sperm
would fertilize it, and often/always a different egg would be fertilized.
Once that happens the first time, completely different animals will be
born to that group from then on. In some/many cases, entirely different
breeds of animals will be raised if a different farming method is used.
So you are not helping any animals do "better". You are simply contributing
to that type of life for animals, as I've been encouraging people to do
and you have been in my ass for encouraging, for years now. I understand
the distinction between deluding yourself into believing "an animal did better",
and realising that no animal did "better", but that it did have a life of positive
value because that's what a person contributes to.

>> You also can't understand what exactly YOU WANT to believe. Because
>> at one time you pasted the quote: "The method of husbandry determines
>> whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal", and
>> then
>> later reconfirmed the belief:
>
>I still believe that.
>
>> It's quite obvious that you're bewildered and confused by an aspect of
>> the situation your cognitive dissonance prevents you from understanding,
>> though it appears that you actually might *wish* you could understand it.
>
>I understand exactly what you're doing,

No, not what I'm doing or what you're doing, unless you can understand
what I explained above...which sure doesn't seem likely after all these years.

>I just don't agree with it.
>
>> Maybe you can overcome...rise out of your tiny little stinking, stagnant
>> pool
>> of disgusting "analogies" about livestock and child sex slaves, and
>> fantastic
>> grotesqueries about talking pigs who know of their fate, children eating
>> their
>> parents, etc... Sadly, and this part isn't funny, probably not though. For
>> some
>> reason you feel comforted by taking refuge in your little fantasies, while
>> the
>> mean old truth for some rea$on scares the hell out of YOU/"ARAs":
>
>Those analogies are to show you one thing that you don't get, when we
>"consider all aspects of human influence on animals" we cannot reach the
>conclusion that the fact that those animals we eat "experience life" is a
>fact that we can take pride in. We can take pride in providing better lives
>for them, but not in "providing life" for them, because we do not "provide
>life",

Yes, we do. The porcupines are still an excellent example, if you're
ready to begin trying to understand with something very simple. Try
something like:

Do we provide experience of life for billions of chickens raised for food?
Do we provide experience of life for millions of porcupines raised for food?

If you can seriously see no difference the in degree to which we provide
life for chickens and the degree to which we provide life for porcupines,
please let me know.

>we aren't Gods.

That doesn't mean we don't provide life for beings, because we
do. If you want to pretend we don't, then that is just you either being
dishonest with yourself, and/or still not understanding how we do.

I thought you disbelieve in God btw. If you do, then your comment
is ridiculous. If you don't, do you believe there is any possibility of a
life after this for any humans or animals? If so, for which ones?