View Single Post
  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
dh@. dh@. is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Vagan question, getting started.

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:40:47 +0100, Derek > wrote:

>Why don't YOU challenge him if you can?


I challenge you, Goo, or anyone else to provide
any decent argument(s) Goo has presented
opposing "AR".

While we wait (and wait, and wait, and wait...),
let's look at some of his "arguments" attempting
to promote acceptance of it:
_________________________________________________
"ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
consideration." - Goo

"We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing" - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

"Fact: IF it is wrong to kill animals deliberately for food, then
having deliberately caused them to live in the first place does
not mitigate the wrong in any way." - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"It is ONLY about the invalidity and logical absurdity of the
belief that causing animals to "get to experience life" somehow
offsets any moral harm that is done in killing them." - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo