dh@. lied:

> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:27:03 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> lied
>>
>>>On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>I understand exactly what you're doing,
>>>
>>> No, not what I'm doing

He understands exactly what you're doing. We all do.
You're trying a cheap, sophomoric trick. You've been
trying it for six years. You've failed to complete it
for six years. You will always fail at it.


>>>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.
>
>
> It provides life for an animal.

That is morally MEANINGLESS. The very fact you state
it as if it's something important *proves* that Dutch
is correct: you are trying to claim some moral credit
for having done something good. You have NOT done
something good by causing the animal to live. You earn
no moral credit.


> Life that it otherwise would NOT have.

Irrelevant. You haven't done the animal a good deed.


>>>>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

They're very good analogies. They show exactly what is
foul about your belief.


>>>>>reason you feel comforted by taking refuge in your little fantasies,

YOU are the one harboring a fantasy: the fantastical,
false belief that you are doing something good for
animals by causing them to live. You aren't.


>>>>>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.

No.


>>>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
>
>
> No, we don't.

It wouldn't matter if we did. In NEITHER case do
humans earn moral credit for manipulating reality to
cause the animals to live.


>
>>in captivity so we can kill them more easily.
>
>
> Nope.

>>>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.
>
>
> OHHH! LOL!!!....this may come as a great shock to you, but when
> animals have sex, very very often that results in a little baby animal.

It doesn't earn humans any moral credit for being the
pimps.


>>>>we aren't Gods.
>>>
>>> That doesn't mean we don't provide life for beings,
>>
>>Yes it does, that's exactly what it means.
>
>
> No it doesn't.

Yes, it does. We do not "provide life". We arrange
for them to breed. We are not doing them a good deed.


>>>because we do.

We don't.


>>>If you want to pretend we don't,

It isn't a pretense. We don't. You are projecting
your wish system onto what it is we do.


>>>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,
>
>
> That's my understanding. That doesn't mean he can't make more or
> less life occur on this planet.

It is not "providing life". You are arrogant and wrong
to think it.


>>he can only
>>arrange the circumstances of when and where it occurs.
>
>
> That's a lie.

No, it isn't.


>>> 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".
>
>
> Stop referring to it at all. Since you won't consider the individual
> lives of any animals,

That's false: he *does* consider them, but only
*after* they exist.


> then you have no business showing regard
> for life in general either.

Not for you to say.


>>>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
>
>
> LOL!!!

You should try it.


>>which begins at conception and ends at
>>death.
>
>
> No.

Yes.


>>Any such speculation is meaningless.
>
>
> Well since YOU/"ARAs" consider thinking about their lives
> to be shameful and whatever,

No, and he isn't an "ara", which you know.

He *does* believe that thinking about their lifes,
*after* they exist, is worthwhile. More specifically,
it is thinking about the *quality* of their lives that
is worthwhile; thinking about some moral meaning of the
fact they "get to live" at all is stupid.