<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> 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
glegroups.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.

None of us can, legitimately, you do it illegitimately..

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

Anyone *can*, nobody should.

>>>>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.

It is instantly apparent that it has nothing to do with it.

> And the only time that
> CONSIDERATION OF THE ANIMALS reduces the quality of their
> lives, is when there's not enough of it.

"Consideration" in this context has no bearing on the quality of their
lives. The only consideration that impacts the quality of their lives is,
*consideration of the quality of their lives*. "Considering what they get
out of it" doesn't help them at all, therefore declining to do it as all
sensible people do, is not selfish or "inconsiderate" in any way.

>>> 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.

Some of those "considerations" are actually shabby sophistry.

> Others of you pick and
> choose what supports "ar", and only want people to consider that.
> Duh.

Ethical people avoid "considerations" that are shabby sophistry.

>>>>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.

So it made absolutely no difference that the decison was made in advance,
thank you.

>>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?

It is irrelevant to those being enslaved whether or not their masters
planned to enslave them or not. This is just a feeble attempt by you to
dismiss a valid analogy that highlights the kind of shabby sophistry you
desperately need someone to accept.