View Single Post
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:32:22 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:06:26 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:

>
>>>You can feel good about a "decent" life as opposed to a
>>>painful life. You may not legitimately feel good about
>>>the animal living versus never living, which is what's
>>>always lurking behind your nonsense about "decent
>>>life".

>>
>> That's all there is. An animal that would be born as a grass raised
>> steer isn't going to be born as a different kind of animal if it's not
>> born
>> as a grass raised steer, for example. So you're not contributing to
>> a "decent" life over a less decent one for any animals. You're only
>> contributing to what they get, which is why I encourage people to
>> consider what they get. Why you oppose it is still a huge question.
>> Why do you oppose people thinking about it the way it is?

>
>Have ever even eaten grass-fed beef?


We used to raise our own, when we had some land available. And
you know what? No, and you still won't after I tell you, but here it is:
It was that life or no life for the ones we raised too, just like it is for all
the rest of them. You can't contribute to "better" lives for them. You
can only contribute to what they get, or try not to, but you can't
contribute to "better" lives for them as you dishonestly reap in your
imaginary moral browny points for claiming to do.

>I didn't think so...


No surprise there...no surprise at all.

>You're a fraud.


You don't think. Maybe you could, but so far you have yet
to give it a try....in fact, so far all you're done is insist that we do
NOT think.