On 16 Nov 2005 12:26:56 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:

>dh@. explained to Goo:
>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:56:54 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> I'm trying to get YOU/"ARAs"
>
>I'm not an "ara".
>
>You don't need to tell me what you're trying to do.

No. We both know I'm encouraging people to consider
THE ANIMALS, and we both know that YOU/"ARAs"
HATE IT.

>I've known for a
>long time what you're trying to do: a cheap, sophomoric, ****witted
>trick.

It says quite a lot that you consider the FACTS I point out and
YOU/"ARAs" hate so much, to be a trick. And says even more
that you consider an imaginary fantasy about a talking "AR" pig,
to be of greater significance than the lives of billions of animals.

>It hasn't worked in over six years, and it's not going to work
>now.

[...]
>Their deaths *are* worthy of moral consideration.

Why?

>That's just how it is.
>
>> >>>>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.
>>
>> Dutch has amusingly pretended to believe it's a moral
>> bonus to provide a decent life over a bad one, but there
>> is no such alternative. You contribute to the lives they get,
>> or you don't, and since you think that's meaningless you
>> must think it doesn't matter what type of lives people
>> contribute to because you feel it " is morally MEANINGLESS".
>
>No, what is morally meaningless is whether they "get to experience
>life" at all.

It has meaning when they do, not when they don't. You can't
understand that either, but that's how it is regardless of your gross
mental inabilities.

>If they come into existence, then it is morally
>MEANINGFUL what quality of life they have. If everyone stopped buying
>inhumanely raised animal products and began buying only humanely raised
>animal products, then soon there would only be humanely raised animal
>products available.

Then a lot more animals would have decent lives, which YOU/"ARAs"
don't care a bit about. But no doubt you would still care about their deaths.
You would still prevent their lives--even if you knew they would be decent
lives--because YOU/"ARAs" believe that: "no matter how "decent" the
conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it."

>But there is no moral reason for farmed animal
>products to exist at all, from the standpoint of the animals.

Are you aware of *any* reason(s) how farmed animal products could be
of significance to farm animals, Goo?