<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:01:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:09:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You may truly be too stupid to understand
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice.
>>>>>> The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs
>>>>>>"no life".
>>>>>
>>>>> In the case of farm animals who have decent lives, it is
>>>>> that or no life.
>>>>
>>>>It would be my choice to support raising animals who in my opinion have
>>>>decent lives and stop supporting raising the ones who dont.
>>>>
>>>>Agree?
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>
>>That should be the end of our discussion. We agree on the most basic
>>relevant issue before us.

There's nothing more of any significance to discuss...

>>>>> IF! you don't believe me, then explain how our diet could
>>>>> improve life for any existing farm animals, so we can both
>>>>> understand how the fact I point out is "a false choice."
>>>>
>>>>It's false because it's unbalanced and therefore incongruent, since you
>>>>compare "no life" with "decent life". You have a modifier on one and not
>>>>the
>>>>other. To be logical you must say, "a life or no life", using no
>>>>modifiers,
>>>>or else "a bad life or a decent life" using modifiers on both.
>>>
>>> It is the life they get or no life, not the life they get or a
>>> different
>>> one. Sometimes it's a good life or no life...sometimes it's a terrible
>>> life or no life...often it's in between...more often it changes...often
>>> more than once...
>>
>>Too convoluted...
>
> What I pointed out is true, but the truth is obviously more complicated
> than you are able to understand, much less think about in any detail.

OK, so what am I supposed to do with all that complicated information?
Sometimes they have good lives, sometimes bad, sometimes both at different
times... sometimes it's hard to know which... let's say all that's true,
what do I do about it?

Why don't we just keep it simple for the sake of discussion just say that we
are able to tell which animals have decent lives and which do not?

>>The options are;
>>1) supporting the raising of animals who have decent living conditions,
>>2) supporting the raising of animals who have poor living conditions, or
>>3) not supporting the raising of animals, by abstaining from animal
>>products.
>>
>>The ARA believes that 3) is the only moral option. I believe that 1) and
>>3)
>>are both moral. That's ALL there is to it.
>>
>>What is your disagreement with that?
>
> YOU/"ARAs" are the ones who have been disagreeing with the
> suggestion that providing decent lives for farm animals could be
> ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination.

Would you please answer the specific question I asked? I thought we agreed
on this already, do you agree that 1) and 3) above are moral and 2) is not?
This should be very straightforward. Do you agree or not that it sums up the
issue? If not, what's missing or wrong with it?

>>> If you contribute to lives which you feel are decent it's that or
>>> nothing,
>>> NOT that or something else. You can contribute to other things ALSO, or
>>> not, but for them *as well* it's those lives or nothing! If you can
>>> learn
>>> to
>>> understand that it could help you have a more accurate view of the
>>> situation, and possibly even some idea why I keep on and on about it.
>>>
>>>>You're mixing
>>>>dichotomies.
>>>
>>> You're still mixed up if you think your diet improves quality of life
>>> for any particular animals, unless you can explain how it improves
>>> their particular lives. You can't do that simply imo, but you would
>>> have to get right down there in it, and deliberately have influence
>>> which would help some particular animals. For example I've
>>> explained that people who want to actually DO something could
>>> get some of the newly hatched broiler pullets' brothers and raise
>>> them up and give them MUCH longer lives...as long as they
>>> wanted to...and then be sure to kill them as humanely as they
>>> wanted to take the trouble to do it. That would save them from
>>> the shitty death they do get, plus give them a LOT more life....
>>>
>>> To let you know just how incredibly much I overestimated
>>> the people in these ngs--and this is really pretty amusing by now--
>>> that is the sort of thing I imagined at least SOME of you people
>>> were already doing. Of course the amusing part is the reality: That
>>> not only are NONE of you even thinking about it, but for the past
>>> 6 years or however long, it's that sort of thinking that YOU/"ARAs"
>>> have been so maniacally trying to PREVENT.
>>
>>Too convoluted, I can't make any sense out of any of that.
>
> Of course you can't, because it involves thinking about the
> ANIMALS and not simply thinking about YOU/"ARAs".

I have already stipulated in my 1), 2), 3) question that the treatment of
the animal is PARAMOUNT in deciding if it's moral or not. I have also stated
categorically that I believe that both 1) and 3) are moral, completely
contrary to what ARAs believe, so I can't understand how you can refer to me
as "YOU/ARAs", as if we have the same view, we don't.

The
> idea of how people could actually contribute to decent lives
> for farm animals never even enters YOUR/"ARAs'" minds,
> and when someone points out one obvious way it could be
> done, YOU/"ARAs" can't make any sense out of any of it.
> I've been telling you this for quite a while now, here we have
> a perfect example of it, and still you can't understand.

If you would please, just answer the question and stop muddying the waters.