On Fri, 08 Aug 2008, Goo wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:18:41 -0100, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:21:03 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 30, 8:00*am, Goo wrote:
>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>> > On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:24:42 -0700 (PDT), Rupert > wrote:
>>>> >> On Jul 29, 9:13 pm, Derek > wrote:
>>>> >>> Rupert Mccallum claims to be an animal rights advocate
>>>> >>> calling for an end to all animal farming.
>>>> >> I used to volunteer at Animal Liberation NSW and have recently been
>>>> >> invited to be a voting member of the committee.
>>>>
>>>> >> However, I have been persuaded by what has been said here that there
>>>> >> might be some forms of animal farming no more harmful than existing
>>>> >> plant-based agriculture, and I acknowledge that I have no consistent
>>>> >> basis for opposing those.
>>>>
>>>> >> For that reason, I acknowledge that the label "animal rights advocate"
>>>> >> might be a bit misleading.
>>>>
>>>> > No, that label you gave yourself wasn't a "bit misleading": it
>>>> > was a lie. You're not an animal rights advocate and you never
>>>> > have been.
>>>>
>>>> rupie incoherently flip-flops between utilitarianism and deontology. *He
>>>> doesn't have a ****ing clue.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>It would be very nice for you if the only coherent positions
>>>advocating radical reform in our treatment of nonhuman animals were
>>>Peter Singer's and Gary Francione's, but unfortunately for you it is
>>>not the case.
>>
>> It still breaks down to:
>>
>>a) not raising the animals.
>>b) providing the animals with decent lives.
>>c) imposing on the animals lives of negative value.
>
>False.
>
>>
>> Those are the options.
>
>False.

Goober if you think you're aware of others, then
don't be such a pig about it but try sharing them.

(Correct prediction: There being no other options,
Goo can't suggest other options.)

>>Of course the value of life can change
>>throughout the animals' lives, but that's more complex (even
>>though it's easy) than this sort of discussion has ever gotten
>>close to in my experience around here. Most of the time--like
>>always--it gets hung up on arguing over whether or not the
>>issue should even be discussed or not, so it can never move
>>on to more complex things like which type lives would be of
>>postive value and which of negative because someone
>>always wants to insist that they're all bad.
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate
>>killing of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>
>Not a quote.

That's a lie Goo, since it's a direct quote. If you think you
somehow disagree with yourself about it though Goober,
try explaining how you think you do. GO:

(Correct prediction: the Goober cannot, because he does
agree with himself about it.)

>>>No-one, not even Tibor Machan, says that there are no constraints at
>>>all on how we may treat nonhuman animals. Everyone advocates some
>>>constraints.
>>
>>"It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that
>>it is better for them to live and to be butchered than not to live
>>at all. Now, obviously, if such reasoning justifies the practice of
>>flesh-eating, it must equally justify all breeding of animals for profit
>>or pastime, when their life is a fairly happy one." - Henry "ar" Salt
>
>Yep - Salt was an "animal rights activist", no doubt about it. It
>happens that his analysis of the "(il)Logic of the Larder" is correct.

What makes you think talking pigs of today are housed in
filthy conditions, as the supposed fantastic pig complained
that they were back during "ar" Salt's time, Goo?

>>>The question is how strong they are. There is nothing
>>>wrong with taking a position somewhere in between a position that
>>>advocates no constraints, and Gary Francione's.
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>>>Just about everyone,
>>>including Tibor Machan and you, does it. So so far you haven't offered
>>>any grounds for saying that my position is incoherent which wouldn't
>>>equally apply to your own.
>>
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>
>Correct.
>
>>"IF one believes that the moral harm caused by killing
>>them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might
>>derive from "decent lives", then logically one MUST
>>conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>
>Correct.
>
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>
>Correct.
>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>
>Correct.
>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>
>Correct.

How do you think you agree with yourself there, but still
disagree with yourself that:

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

do you have any clue at all, Goo?

>>"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
>>experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
>>whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
>>breeding of livestock" - Goo
>
>Correct.
>
>>"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
>>of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
>>ZERO importance to it." - Goo
>
>Correct.
>
>>"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
>>I was" - Goo
>
>Correct.
>
>>"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>>benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals
>>benefit from farming." - Goo
>
>Correct.







>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate
>> killing of the animals erases all of it." - Rudy
>
>Not a quote.
>
>
>>
>>> No-one, not even Tibor Machan, says that there are no constraints at
>>> all on how we may treat nonhuman animals. Everyone advocates some
>>> constraints.
>>
>> "It is often said, as an excuse for the slaughter of animals, that
>> it is better for them to live and to be butchered than not to live
>> at all. Now, obviously, if such reasoning justifies the practice of
>> flesh-eating, it must equally justify all breeding of animals for profit
>> or pastime, when their life is a fairly happy one." - Henry "ar" Salt
>
>Yep - Salt was an "animal rights activist", no doubt about it. It
>happens that his analysis of the "(il)Logic of the Larder" is correct.
>
>
>>
>>> The question is how strong they are. There is nothing
>>> wrong with taking a position somewhere in between a position that
>>> advocates no constraints, and Gary Francione's.
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>>> Just about everyone,
>>> including Tibor Machan and you, does it. So so far you haven't offered
>>> any grounds for saying that my position is incoherent which wouldn't
>>> equally apply to your own.
>>
>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Rudy Canoza
>
>Correct.
>
>
>>
>> "IF one believes that the moral harm caused by killing
>> them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might
>> derive from "decent lives", then logically one MUST
>> conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>> ethically superior choice." - Rudy Canoza
>
>Correct.
>
>>
>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Rudy Canoza
>
>Correct.
>
>>
>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>> their deaths" - Rudy Canoza
>
>Correct.
>
>
>>
>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Rudy Canoza
>
>Correct.
>
>>
>> "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
>> experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
>> whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
>> breeding of livestock" - Rudy Canoza
>
>Correct.
>
>>
>> "It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
>> of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
>> ZERO importance to it." - Rudy Canoza
>
>Correct.
>
>>
>> "coming into existence didn't make me better off than
>> I was" - Rudy Canoza
>
>Correct.
>
>>
>> "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
>> benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals
>> benefit from farming." - Rudy Canoza
>
>Correct.