<dh@.> wrote
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> 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?

Causing which to happen, the life or the decent conditions? This is where
you equivocate, and where the distinction you refuse to make lies. I may
"cause" one but not the other.

>>> 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.

What is disregarded in the moral calculation is that the animal "got to
experience life". This is not something you can claim credit for. Everything
else, like "positive value TO THE ANIMAL" is fair game.

>>>>>>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?

It's not. It's a misstep to claim credit for "causing the animal to
experience life", not to claim credit for "causing the animal to experience
A GOOD life". Can't you see the difference between those statements?

>>> 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.

Isn't that what AW is all about?

> But you certainly don't want any consideration given
> to when they do, much less as much as is given when they don't,

I already said I do. I purchase free range beef and eggs for the very reason
that I give consideration when they do.

> *because* it suggests that something could be ethically equivalent or
> superior to veganism.

You are suggesting that since some livestock live decent lives, that makes
consuming meat morally superior or equivalent to veganism. I'm telling you
that this is a false comparison. By abstaining from animal products vegans
remove themselves from this equation. They are still culpable for all the
collateral deaths in the products they consume but that's another issue
entirely. The valid comparison if there is one is between those who choose
animal products willy-nilly and those who consider the conditions in which
the animals live.

>>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,

Correct, in fact I might properly feel guilt or remorse. Do you ever feel
guilt or remorse when consuming animal products willy-nilly?

> or if they never lived...

If they never lived I would feel nothing about them, how could I?

>>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.

Of course, the two ideas are the same.

> Restricting what you
> consider in such absurd ways produces an absurd view of reality.

Taking satisfaction in promoting a good or better life for an animal is
relative to promoting a bad life or not considering the animal's welfare at
all. It's not relative to NOT demanding the animal be bred at all. You
constantly conflate the two arguments.

> 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.

The fact remains, the only valid comparison is between contributing to lives
of animals who will "do well" and contributing to the lives of animals who
will "do poorly". Contributing to NO livestock lives by completely
abstaining, such as by fasting or being a vegetarian, is not comparable to
these options when discussing the effect of humans "on those animals".
Abstaining encourages that the sperm and egg are never combined, therefore
"the animals" never exist in the first place. I can't be judged based on
something that never happens.


>>> 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 understand it. The point you made above doesn't change anything, you are
still trying to extract some moral credit from that act of combining egg and
sperm, and it just doesn't work. It doesn't deserve any.

>
>>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?

We manipulate reality in such a way that billions of chickens raised for
food are born in captivity so we can kill them more easily. We don't
"provide experience of life", that's self-serving, back-patting sophistry.

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

No. We don't manipulate reality in such a way that millions of porcupines
are born in captivity so we can kill them more easily.

> 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 don't "provide life", we arrange animal sex.

>>we aren't Gods.
>
> That doesn't mean we don't provide life for beings,

Yes it does, that's exactly what it means.

> 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 understand that man has not yet learned how to create life, he can only
arrange the circumstances of when and where it occurs.

> I thought you disbelieve in God btw.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in god. She has not revealed herself to me,
so I have no basis on which to base a conclusion.

> If you do, then your comment
> is ridiculous.

I used "Gods" as a way to express the "source of life".

> 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?

I prefer to stick to the reality which begins at conception and ends at
death. Any such speculation is meaningless.