On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:

>On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, dh@. wrote:
>
>>
>> * * I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>> decent lives of positive value.-
>
>Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>
>I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.

Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
have to understand that much.

>First
>of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>care of?

If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.

>Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>years old.

Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
for the animals you're referring to, regardless of what wild
animals do or don't get.

>They are crammed into rooms and/or cages. Their diet?
><big eye roll here>

They all eat better than their wild ancestors. We hear
complaints about beef cattle going to feed lots, but the
people I've talked to who have been on them say the
animals love to be able to eat grain all the time, and the
personal experiences I've had feeding and watching
other people feed grain to cattle is enough to make me
believe it.

>All those *icides you mentioned somewhere,
>steroids, hormones, antibiotics, and in cases their own species.

They like it and don't care about any of that.

>They are being raised to produce money.

Which is a good thing.

>You think milk cows produce
>enough milk to meet the yearly quota on their own? You think egg
>chickens produce enough eggs? They are forced to lay (if I remember
>correctly, if not I apologize) 300 percent more eggs per year than
>what is natural to them.

They lay what they lay because they are well fed and watered
and because they have been bred to produce eggs year round.

>And debeaking??

It's no worse than circumcision...probably not as bad. I am very
opposed to battery cages, but feel that cage free methods usually
provide decent lives of positive value.

>Jesus-****in-christ.
>
>http://www.animal-lib.org.au/subject...s--battery.htm
>
>Do I need to mention veal and foie gras? Have you ever spoke to a
>chicken catcher about his/her job?

Yes.

>As for free run animals. Large 'free run' companies, their animals
>are still kept inside, just not in cages. Obviously a better
>environment, barely.

It is MUCH better to the point of making the difference between
whether life is decent or hell for a very high percentage if not all of
the birds who are involved.

>True free run, organic fed, chemical free (as in
>hormones, steroids...) animals are not cost effective on a big scale,
>for producer or buyers.

In some cases they are.

>There are those of us who choose to support
>those companies for whatever reason. But these companies are small
>and you have to really read the labels to find them, do research.

I buy cage free eggs and so should everyone else who cares
anything about chickens. Even if you don't eat eggs you should
buy them and give them to someone who does, or feed them to
some animals, or just throw them away...

>The meat industry for the most part is about money.

LOL! What else could a way of making a living be about?

>Making and saving
>it. Being 'kind to animals' doesn't fatten their wallets, and doesn't
>get the job done.

The farmers I've known have been good to their animals.

>I tried to be a vegetarian. Honestly I couldn't do it. I *do* like
>meat. But I have my choices. We have a Menonite owned butcher shop
>in town. Good stuff. Nice people.

How are the animals raised? How much time on grass?
How much time in the feed lots? How long a truck ride to
the slaughterhouse? How are they stunned and slaughtered?
BTW, you might be in a good position to actually *help* an
animal or more if you wanted to. You could buy a veal calf
who wouldn't get much time to live, and pay a farmer to raise
him for you for two years, or three, or whatever... You could
give him a good, longer life, and then see to it that he has
as comfortable a ride to the slaughterhouse and slaughter
as possible. Then you could do it again...

>As for Satan and God having any part in animal torture...
>
>I think most 'believers' view Satan as some schemeing weaselly being
>with nothing better to do but sit around wringing his hands in glee
>trying to figure out how to break someones heart, make someone mad,
>hurt someone... Please. It's the Satanic view that we are animals too
>on this earth.

Pretty much everyone is up on that one by now.

>We have desires and impulses and needs, as animals,
>that we need to fulfill, and should. It's 'God' that states we are
>better than animals. It's 'God' that supposedly put animals on this
>earth for our food and clothing. It's 'God' that says we need to
>sacrifice. Were animals not sacrificed in the bible for God?

They were. Things have changed. Not for Jews though.

>What did Satan do?

No one knows what all Satan does. He's the accuser,
remember? And a liar. So being an accuser he wants to
be the one pointing the finger, and being a liar he's likely
to lie when the finger points back his way. And also don't
ever forget that if he exists, he told his man Howard Levey
to write a Satanic "bible" telling people that he does not.

>Offer Eve an apple. Pffft.

If Satan exists, of course he will have you believing what he
wants you to believe since you want to go his way instead of
toward the creator.

>Need to get ready for work. Sorry for any spelling errors. I am not
>a morning person.
>
>xo
>Spectre

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>
>>On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> * * I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>
>>Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>
>>I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>
> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>have to understand that much.
>
>>First
>>of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>care of?
>
> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>
>>Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>years old.
>
> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*

but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).

--

``The white "Christian" supremacists who have historically opposed either all immigration or all non-European immigration ... must not be permitted to play a prominent role in the debate over the way America responds to unprecedented demographic change. Nor should the anti-immigrant demagoguery of some black leadership be permitted to go unchallenged.'' --Stephen Steinlight

marques de sade wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 24, 3:23 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>> Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>
>>> I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>> free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>> decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>> begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>> have to understand that much.
>>
>>> First
>>> of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>> them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>> care of?
>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>
>>> Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>> years old.
>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>> really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>
> but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
> right? this is where Rudy loses you, i think (rightly so).

No, that is where Goo - 'dh@' is Goo, better known as
****wit David Harrison - loses the argument, period.
See right above, where Goo/****wit hysterically
emphasizes "*nothing*"? Goo/****wit is showing his
concern, right there, that animals that he believes
"pre-exist" will not get their "chance" at "getting to
experience life", and that this is somehow "bad".

Goo/****wit is simply stuck: he has repeatedly
indicated his belief, over nine miserable and
unproductive years, that animal rights activists -
"aras" - are "denying life" to farm animals that don't
yet exist. Goo/****wit has also said that what "aras"
want to do is impose a "loss" on these farm animals
that don't yet exist, and that what "aras" want to do
is "unfair" to farm animals that don't yet exist. I
have the quotes, which Goo/****wit cannot contest:


The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
****wit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
****wit - 10/19/1999


Goo/****wit tries to say that the second of those was a
"mistake", but that's a lie: it is *exactly* what he
believes, and he thought that answer out carefully over
a six week period.

The conclusion is unavoidable: Goo/****wit believes
that non-existent farm animals are actually in a state
of "pre-existence", and that they have interests.
Goo/****wit believes that these - *HIS* -
"pre-existent" farm animals can experience denial,
loss, deprivation and unfairness.

You said, "But since there's no entity...", but it is
excruciatingly obvious that Goo/****wit believes there
*IS* an entity: a "pre-existent" one. Goo/****wit is
simply insane.

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:08:38 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>
>>>On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> * * I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>
>>>Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>
>>>I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>
>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>have to understand that much.
>>
>>>First
>>>of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>care of?
>>
>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>
>>>Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>years old.
>>
>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>
>but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).

No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
Goo I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist afawk and
so can't be deprived of anything. I made a mistake in terminology
quite a few years ago, and that has been the Goober's grand prize
ever since. Goo of course only includes part of what I wrote when
he posts, so here's more of it which completes the idea:
__________________________________________________ _______
Date: 2000/08/01

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born if
nothing prevents that from happening, that would
experience the loss if their lives are prevented.
I don't believe that the individual animals exist
in any way before they are conceived, but I am
also aware that billions more animals *will* exist
as a result of the farming industry if nothing
(like ARAs) prevents it from happening. To me that
is a major aspect to take into consideration.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I admitted to the Goober that I had made a mistake
in saying I believe unconceived "animals" can
experience anything, and Goo has been lying about
it ever since. I even gave some examples which
should help even the Goober get a clue, saying I
understand that it's no more of a loss than the facts
that dinosaurs are extinct, rocks are not alive, and
there's no life on Venus.

Millions/billions of people do believe in reincarnation.
It's another example of Goobal lameness that he never
criticises that belief itself in any detail, but simply
accuses me of having such a belief as if it would be
an insult to me if I actually did.

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, the one and only Goo -
blabbered and lied and presented no challenge:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:08:38 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, Goo - ****wit David Harrison, the one and only Goo - blabbered and lied and presented no challenge:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 24, 3:23 pm, Goo - ****wit David Harrison, the one and only Goo - blabbered and lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>
>>>>> I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>> Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>>
>>>> I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>> free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>> decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>> begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>> have to understand that much.
>>>
>>>> First
>>>> of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>> them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>> care of?
>>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>>
>>>> Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>> years old.
>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>> really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>> but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>> right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).
>
> No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
> Rudy I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist

No, you did not admit any such thing, Goo. You
pretended to admit it, but then you went right on
whining about dirty meanie "aras" trying to "deny life"
to farm animals that don't exist: because *you*, Goo,
believe they "pre-exist", and can experience "loss",
"deprivation", "denial" and "unfairness":

The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
****wit - 12/09/1999

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000

What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
****wit - 10/12/2001

What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
****wit - 10/19/1999


You are ****ED, Goo: you believe in "pre-existence"
for farm animals, which is absurd, and now you're
trying to lie about it. You're ****ed.



> I admitted to the Goober that I had made a mistake

No mistake. You *MEANT* it when you wrote:

Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
****wit - 08/01/2000

It's obvious that you meant it, Goo. I had been
pestering you for SIX WEEKS to say who it as that
experienced the loss - you plainly believe there *is* a
loss, Goo - and after SIX WEEKS of considering it, that
was your answer. It is what you believe, Goo; it is
not a "mistake". Stop lying about that, Goo.

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:38:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:08:38 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> * * I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>>
>>>>Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>>
>>>>I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>>free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>>
>>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>>decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>>begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>>have to understand that much.
>>>
>>>>First
>>>>of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>>them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>>care of?
>>>
>>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>>
>>>>Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>>years old.
>>>
>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>
>>but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>>right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).
>
> No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
>Goo I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist afawk

well, i just quoted you doing it now... you said it was 2 years or
nothing, as if there was an entity that is better off experiencing
2 years rather than not experiencing anything at all...

i'm correcting you and saying that if nothing exists, then there
is no entity that is worse off than if they existed...

--

``The white "Christian" supremacists who have historically opposed either all immigration or all non-European immigration ... must not be permitted to play a prominent role in the debate over the way America responds to unprecedented demographic change. Nor should the anti-immigrant demagoguery of some black leadership be permitted to go unchallenged.'' --Stephen Steinlight

marques de sade wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:38:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:08:38 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 24, 3:23 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>>> Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>>>
>>>>> I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>>> free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>>> decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>>> begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>>> have to understand that much.
>>>>
>>>>> First
>>>>> of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>>> them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>>> care of?
>>>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>>>
>>>>> Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>>> years old.
>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>> really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>> but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>>> right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).
>> No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
>> Rudy I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist afawk
>
> well, i just quoted you doing it now... you said it was 2 years or
> nothing, as if there was an entity that is better off experiencing
> 2 years rather than not experiencing anything at all...

You have *exactly* understood where Goo/****wit is
coming from. He's just too stupid to understand all
the implications of what he believes and says.

He believes, as you have caught, that it is better for
farm animals to exist rather than never exist.
*NECESSARILY*, he believes "they" are worse off if they
never exist.



> i'm correcting you and saying that if nothing exists, then there
> is no entity that is worse off than if they existed...
>

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:31:26 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:38:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:08:38 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * * I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>>>
>>>>>Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>>>
>>>>>I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>>>free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>>>
>>>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>>>decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>>>begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>>>have to understand that much.
>>>>
>>>>>First
>>>>>of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>>>them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>>>care of?
>>>>
>>>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>>>
>>>>>Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>>>years old.
>>>>
>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>>really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>>
>>>but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>>>right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).
>>
>> No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
>>Goo I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist afawk
>
>well, i just quoted you doing it now... you said it was 2 years or
>nothing,

That's the deal. It needs to be clarified because some
people act like if these animals weren't born as livestock
they would or could be born as some happy wild animal
instead, which afawk is *not* the case. If you think it's
not then try explaining how.

>as if there was an entity that is better off experiencing
>2 years rather than not experiencing anything at all...

There is when they do. What do you think that has
to do with supposed non-existent entities or whatever,
do you have any idea?

>i'm correcting you

Not yet you sure aren't.

>and saying that if nothing exists, then there
>is no entity that is worse off than if they existed...

I know. What you need to do is explain how that prevents
existing entities from benefitting from lives of positive value.
If you can't do that--which you can't--then your mention of
supposed non-existent entities or whatever is worse than
wasting time--which it is.

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupid lying cracker -
lied and presented no challenge:

> 2nd Bleeding Hemorrhoid lied:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupid lying cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
>>
>>> 2nd Bleeding Hemorrhoid lied:
>>>
>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupid lying cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, stupid lying cracker - lied and presented no challenge:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>>>> Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>>>> free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>>>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>>>> decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>>>> begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>>>> have to understand that much.
>>>>>
>>>>>> First
>>>>>> of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>>>> them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>>>> care of?
>>>>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>>>> years old.
>>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>>> really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>>> but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>>>> right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).
>>> No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
>>> Goo I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist afawk
>> well, i just quoted you doing it now... you said it was 2 years or
>> nothing,
>
> That's the deal.

No, Goo. It's no "deal". There is no "choice"
presented to any animal before it's born: "Okay, you
can have two years of existence on earth, and then
you're killed; or you can 'get' no existence on earth."

But thanks again for confirming, you stupid ****wit,
that you believe these non-existent animals actually
"pre-exist" and are offered a "deal".


> It needs to be clarified because some
> people act like if these animals weren't born as livestock
> they would or could be born as some happy wild animal

No, *NO* one believes that or "acts like" that. Your
English is simply awful - truly wretched bullshit.
Tell us again what your terminal level of education
was, Goo/****wit. It was only high school at best, right?


>> as if there was an entity that is better off experiencing
>> 2 years rather than not experiencing anything at all...
>
> There is when they do.

Animals are not "better off" for living, Goo/****wit.
Better off than what? You're ****ed, Goo/****wit.


>> i'm correcting you
>
> Not yet you sure aren't.

He most certainly is, Goo/****wit.


>> and saying that if nothing exists, then there
>> is no entity that is worse off than if they existed...
>
> I know.

You *don't* know, you lying goober. You believe,
stupidly and wrongly, that an animal is "better off"
*MERELY* for having come into existence. This is
established beyond any doubt.


> What you need to do is explain how that prevents
> existing entities from benefitting from lives of positive value.

No, he doesn't need to do any such thing, you lying
cracker. For one thing, the phrase is empty bullshit.

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 18:09:21 -0500, dh@. wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:31:26 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:38:18 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:08:38 GMT, (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:33:55 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 06:26:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Jan 24, 3:23*pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * * I feel that most beef cattle have decent lives of positive value,
>>>>>>> also most broiler chickens and their parents, most cage free egg
>>>>>>> producers, and most dairy cattle. I feel that billions of them enjoy
>>>>>>> decent lives of positive value.-
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Skimming over this thread. Grabbing this point to reply to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I really don't see how any animal raised for food (excluding organic,
>>>>>>free run, etc) could enjoy a 'decent life of positive value'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meaning you are absolutely clueless in that area. Some have
>>>>>decent lives and some have terrible lives, so in order to even
>>>>>begin to get a realistic interpretation of the situation you would
>>>>>have to understand that much.
>>>>>
>>>>>>First
>>>>>>of all, animal producers are making money. How much would it cost
>>>>>>them to be sure the animals are comfortable, happy, and well taken
>>>>>>care of?
>>>>>
>>>>> If dairy cows are not in that position their milk prodution drops.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Most of these animals are slaughtered by the time they are 2
>>>>>>years old.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most baby wild animals don't make it that long, not that it
>>>>>really matters since it's 2 years (or whatever) or *nothing*
>>>>
>>>>but since there's no entity, then no one suffers from missing out,
>>>>right? this is where goo loses you, i think (rightly so).
>>>
>>> No, that's a really old subject there. Years ago I explained to
>>>Goo I understand the fact that "they" don't pre-exist afawk
>>
>>well, i just quoted you doing it now... you said it was 2 years or
>>nothing,
>
> That's the deal. It needs to be clarified because some
>people act like if these animals weren't born as livestock
>they would or could be born as some happy wild animal
>instead, which afawk is *not* the case. If you think it's
>not then try explaining how.

i don't think that because THERE IS NO ANIMAL that could be born
or anything else... UNTIL IT'S BORN...

>
>>as if there was an entity that is better off experiencing
>>2 years rather than not experiencing anything at all...
>
> There is when they do.

i don't base it on comparing how they do now than how they did
before they existed...

>What do you think that has
>to do with supposed non-existent entities or whatever,
>do you have any idea?

because you're saying they're better off existing than in
oblivion. i'm saying... in oblivion there is no entity that is
worse off... you're comparing apples and oranges...

>
>>i'm correcting you
>
> Not yet you sure aren't.

i guess people will make their own minds up.

>
>>and saying that if nothing exists, then there
>>is no entity that is worse off than if they existed...
>
> I know. What you need to do is explain how that prevents
>existing entities from benefitting from lives of positive value.

i believe they can benefit from lives of positive value. i just
don't believe in comparing getting to live 2 years with getting to
not exist at all... that's a bullshit comparison. when you don't
exist you dont' exist and so your'e not worse or better or
anything. you just dont' exist... there is no you...

--

``The white "Christian" supremacists who have historically opposed either all immigration or all non-European immigration ... must not be permitted to play a prominent role in the debate over the way America responds to unprecedented demographic change. Nor should the anti-immigrant demagoguery of some black leadership be permitted to go unchallenged.'' --Stephen Steinlight