On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:01:51 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 14:09:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:08:01 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Rupert" > wrote in message
legroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am good at assessing the strength of an
>>>>>> argument.
>>>>>
>>>>>No you aren't, you don't even listen to my arguments, you repeat them
>>>>>back
>>>>>to me in terms that reveal your bias, discarding the essence of my
>>>>>aguments.
>>>>
>>>> Have you "explained" to him why you believe we should think of child
>>>> prostitution and raising animals for food in the same way yet?
>>>
>>>I don't have to, he probably understands the analogy. You're the only one
>>>I
>>>know of that doesn't. Since you brought it up I will explain it again.
>>>
>>>The analogy is intended to discover if in judging if an action is
>>>good/bad,
>>>right/wrong if the recipient of that act "getting to exerience life" is
>>>ever
>>>a relevant factor. Obviously the contexts that apply are those which
>>>produce
>>>or help to produce animal life. One of those contexts is having children,
>>>breeding of pets would be another, in this case it is the breeding of
>>>livestock. The basic criticism requiring a response is that it is wrong to
>>>kill these livestock animals for food. Can we use the argument that "they
>>>only get to experience life because of us" to respond to that criticism?
>>
>> Of course.
>
>I mean can we do it *legitimately*?

Some of we can. Others of "we"--like YOU "aras"--can't do it at all.

>>>It's tempting, but does it hold up
>>
>> LOL! I mean: Of course.
>
>No it doesn't, an argument to that effect is included.
>
>>>or is it self-serving and circular?
>>
>> That's a different issue.
>
>It is THE issue. If an argument is self-serving and circular then it should
>been seen as suspect and discarded.

It should be examimed to see if that aspect of the situation in any
way reduces the quality of life for animals. And the only time that
CONSIDERATION OF THE ANIMALS reduces the quality of their
lives, is when there's not enough of it.

>> No matter how loud you sing or how you
>> dance around it, the fact will always remain that the animals are not
>> cheated out of longer lives, better lives, or anything like that because
>> they are raised to be eaten.
>
>Nobody said they were "cheated out of longer lives" because they are raised
>to be eaten, they are "cheated out of longer lives" because we kill them.
>That's what we are defending, killing them.

Some of us are considering everything. Others of you pick and
choose what supports "ar", and only want people to consider that.
Duh.

>>>One
>>>of the ways we can examine the response is to attempt to apply it in other
>>>contexts.
>>
>> No. That's changing the subject to something completely different,
>> as I point out when you change the subject to something completely
>> different.
>
>It is legitimate and necessary to examine other contexts in which the same
>kind of reasoning may be used.
>
>>>Lets say we are criticized for our treatment of our children, can
>>>we answer, "they only get to experience life because of me" or is that an
>>>evasion that fails to answer the accusation?
>>
>> It depends on whether or not the children were deliberately raised
>> ONLY to be treated that way.
>> Some of us have decided IN ADVANCE
>> that it's okay to raise and kill animals for food.
>
>As I have, therefore "giving them life" is an extraneous and circular
>argument to add on after you already decided that IN ADVANCE that it's
>right.
>
>> So if you're going to
>> make up some grotesquery about children as you want so badly to
>> do, you need to come up with something that people have decided
>> IN ADVANCE is okay to raise them for.
>
>Slaves were deliberately raised in order to be worked 16 hours a day for no
>pay and whipped or hung from a tree if they talked back. Did that make it
>OK?

No. I wouldn't say it is okay for animals either.

>No, the issue of the decision being made "IN ADVANCE" is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant in regards to those being enslaved, but you can't
understand how it is, can you?