wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:02:35 GMT, the Gonad wrote:
>
>
>>When you write:
>>
>> Life is the benefit that makes all others possible.
>> ****wit - June 25, 2003
>>
>>there is no room for the "some" in "some animals
>>benefit from farming and some don't", you stupid
>>asslick. You are saying that life is *necessarily* a
>>benefit to ALL farm animals.
>
>
> You are a moron Gonad. Life itself is the benefit
> that makes all others possible.

It is not, ****wit. Repeating it won't make it come true.

> That doesn't mean
> that the individual lives of every animal must be
> a benefit. Some are and some are not.

When you write "life is the benefit", ****wit, there is
no room for "some". What you wrote means that life
ALWAYS is a benefit, and of course, that's the stupid
trick you're trying to pull.

Life is not a "benefit", ****wit. It can't be: prior
to being born, there is no entity to receive the
benefit. Of course, you ****wittedly believe the
animals exist in some pre-born state. You lie and try
to deny your belief in that, but it is obvious you DO
believe it.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:58:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 06:21:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>[..]
>
>> >I think the point swamp was getting at was this.. surely it must give you
>> >some pause to re-examine your position, when virtually everyone on all
>sides
>> >finds it meaningless. I know that I would re-evaluate a position if I
>were
>> >in such a situation.
>>
>> I consider the possibility that I'm wrong quite a lot, and so far
>don't
>> believe there's any chance that I am. If I'm wrong, it would mean
>> that not one of the billions of animals raised for food during the last
>> ten thousand years has benefited from farming.
>
>Is that all you require to prove your case? Does only *one* out of billions
>over ten thousand years have to have had a good life for you to conclude
>that meat production is a good thing?

No. It just points out how absurd it is to think that none have.

>It seems like you're tilting the board
>a lot.
>
>> That idea seems
>> absurd just because it's so unlikely to be the case. If it's not the case,
>> and I certainly will never believe that it is, then some animals *do*
>> benefit from farming. Yes, that seems much more likely than the
>> absurd idea that not one of them has.
>
>That's actually a strawman. Jonathan disputes your use of the word "benefit"
>is this context, for valid reasons, but even if we take your meaning to that
>the animal has a quite a good life, isn't the truth that few in todays meat
>industry do?

I doubt it. Most of the chickens raised as broilers, their parents, and
the parents of hens who lay eggs for consumption have decent lives
imo. Most of the consumption eggs producers and their brothers
do not have decent lives imo. I believe most beef cattle have decent
lives, and the dairy farms I've been on provide decent lives for their
cows as well.

>>Then there's the fact that I
>> see them every day, grazing in fields, nursing their calves, etc, and
>> they definitely appear to be benefiting from the situation to me.
>
>You're taking a tiny snapshot, calves nursing in fields.. what proportion of
>meat animals get to roam in fields and exercise natural behaviours?

At this point it doesn't matter. If you're willing to admit that some have
decent lives and some don't, then we can move on to details like that.
If you're going to insist that none have decent lives and/or none of them
benefit, then just stick with that. There's no point in considering what
proportion of them have decent lives if you don't believe any of them do.

wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:58:40 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>

>>>I consider the possibility that I'm wrong quite a lot, and so far don't
>>>believe there's any chance that I am. If I'm wrong, it would mean
>>>that not one of the billions of animals raised for food during the last
>>>ten thousand years has benefited from farming.
>>
>>Is that all you require to prove your case? Does only *one* out of billions
>>over ten thousand years have to have had a good life for you to conclude
>>that meat production is a good thing?
>
>
> No. It just points out how absurd it is to think that none have.

Strawman, ****wit, you ****ing asshole. No one among
the opponents of "ar" has suggested that no animals
have had "decent lives".

What the opponents have pointed out, correctly, is that
the prospect of having a decent life is not a moral
justification for causing the animals to live. You
think it is one; sensible people don't think so.

>
>
>>It seems like you're tilting the board
>>a lot.

It's all ****wit does.

>>
>>
>>>That idea seems
>>>absurd just because it's so unlikely to be the case. If it's not the case,
>>>and I certainly will never believe that it is, then some animals *do*
>>>benefit from farming. Yes, that seems much more likely than the
>>>absurd idea that not one of them has.
>>
>>That's actually a strawman. Jonathan disputes your use of the word "benefit"
>>is this context, for valid reasons, but even if we take your meaning to that
>>the animal has a quite a good life, isn't the truth that few in todays meat
>>industry do?
>
>
> I doubt it.

You are ignorant. You don't know anything about how
most animals are raised. Your doubt is based wholly on
ignorance.

> Most of the chickens raised as broilers, their parents, and
> the parents of hens who lay eggs for consumption have decent lives
> imo. Most of the consumption eggs producers and their brothers
> do not have decent lives imo. I believe most beef cattle have decent
> lives, and the dairy farms I've been on provide decent lives for their
> cows as well.

It's all irrelevant to so-called "ethical vegetarians",
****wit. They think that the end of the animals' lives
outweighs the quality that occurred during the life,
and you, being a dishonest asshole, have given them no
reason to think otherwise.

>
>
>>>Then there's the fact that I
>>>see them every day, grazing in fields, nursing their calves, etc, and
>>>they definitely appear to be benefiting from the situation to me.
>>
>>You're taking a tiny snapshot, calves nursing in fields.. what proportion of
>>meat animals get to roam in fields and exercise natural behaviours?
>
>
> At this point it doesn't matter.

It does matter some, ****wit. You are passing this off
as the norm.

Dutch wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
>

>>
>>I consider the possibility that I'm wrong quite a lot,

That's a blatant lie.

>>and so far don't
>>believe there's any chance that I am. If I'm wrong, it would mean
>>that not one of the billions of animals raised for food during the last
>>ten thousand years has benefited from farming.
>
>
> Is that all you require to prove your case? Does only *one* out of billions
> over ten thousand years have to have had a good life for you to conclude
> that meat production is a good thing? It seems like you're tilting the board
> a lot.
>
>
>>That idea seems
>>absurd just because it's so unlikely to be the case. If it's not the case,
>>and I certainly will never believe that it is, then some animals *do*
>>benefit from farming. Yes, that seems much more likely than the
>>absurd idea that not one of them has.
>
>
> That's actually a strawman. Jonathan disputes your use of the word "benefit"
> is this context, for valid reasons,

Exactly right. ****wit, as usual, equivocates between:

- life _per se_ being a "benefit" to some animals who
didn't
previously exist, and

- a *decent* life being a "benefit" to animals that *do*
exist, where the alternative is a bad life, not no life


****wit thinks we can't see what he's doing, but he has
hundreds of eyes watching him, most of them in the
heads of opponents of "ar", not "aras". It is the
opponents of "ar" that make life difficult for him,
because we don't let him get away with his shit-minded
trick.

> but even if we take your meaning to that
> the animal has a quite a good life, isn't the truth that few in todays meat
> industry do?
>
>
>>Then there's the fact that I
>>see them every day, grazing in fields, nursing their calves, etc, and
>>they definitely appear to be benefiting from the situation to me.
>
>
> You're taking a tiny snapshot, calves nursing in fields.. what proportion of
> meat animals get to roam in fields and exercise natural behaviours? Isn't
> confinement and an early demise much more common, pound-for-pound? You are
> actually doing the same thing that ARAs do when they present HORRID videos
> of abuse, except in reverse. You're playing the phony propaganda game. You
> also don't see them every day, don't lie.
>
>
>>No one has provided reasons I agree with for feeling that the animals
>>don't benefit--

There he goes with the equivocation again...

>
>
> Because most of them have deprived, shitty lives, that's why, and saying
> that some live is better than no life at all, which is what you are
> implying, doesn't wash. Your argument actually makes things much worse for
> proponents of animal use. It makes it look like we're prepared to use any
> flimsy justification to support it.

Which is EXACTLY what ****wit is doing. He cannot
defend human use of animals in any terms EXCEPT this
mythical "benefit" to animals of "getting to experience
life".

>
>
>>and by this time I doubt they will--and every minute
>>of every day I have reason to believe that they do. It doesn't
>>matter how many of you say I'm wrong if you can't do any better
>>than you have done. Simply insisting that the animals lives can not
>>be figured into the equation doesn't mean anything to me.
>
>
> They can be figured all right, but to say they benefit simply by being born,
> and that each animal that's born has a positive moral implication for meat
> consumers, is ridiculous reasoning.

That is ****wit's reasoning, as I have clearly shown.

****wit is not advocating "decent lives" for animals,
in no small part because ****wit himself does not
choose the meat he eats based on the conditions in
which the animals were raised. What ****wit advocates
is life _per se_ for animals. ****wit believes that
life itself is a "benefit", and to believe that, he
MUST believe that they exist in some kind of pre-born
state. The rest of his stupid belief set hinges on that.

>
>
>>>There are only two possible conclusions to draw from
>>>your failure to do so, either you believe that everyone else here are
>>>morons,
>>
>> You don't have to be morons in order to be wrong, but I do
>>feel that people who believe the Gonad's lies can't be very good
>>thinkers. Morons? No. But impressively limited in some way.
>
>
> So everyone but you is out to lunch.. OK then.... I remember why I put you
> in the killfile.

That's it in a nutshell. ****wit believes he possesses
some special perception. He does not. He's actually
delusional and suffering from some serious mental
illness, and the belief that he possesses special
insight is just one of the symptoms.

****wit's mental illness is a definite fact to be
considered.

Dutch wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 06:21:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]

> That's actually a strawman. Jonathan disputes your use of the word "benefit"
> is this context, for valid reasons, but even if we take your meaning to that
> the animal has a quite a good life, isn't the truth that few in todays meat
> industry do?

Don't you consistently argue that the lives of livestock animals are
"more and more tolerable"? Now you're saying that "few" have a "good
life". Which is it?
>
> >Then there's the fact that I
> > see them every day, grazing in fields, nursing their calves, etc, and
> > they definitely appear to be benefiting from the situation to me.
>
> You're taking a tiny snapshot, calves nursing in fields.. what proportion of
> meat animals get to roam in fields and exercise natural behaviours? Isn't
> confinement and an early demise much more common, pound-for-pound?

Beef cattle are not confined, but they definitely die young.

(snip)
>
> Because most of them have deprived, shitty lives,

Are you the same Dutch that usually posts here?

(snip)

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:09:50 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:

>Dutch wrote:
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 06:21:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>
>> That's actually a strawman. Jonathan disputes your use of the word "benefit"
>> is this context, for valid reasons, but even if we take your meaning to that
>> the animal has a quite a good life, isn't the truth that few in todays meat
>> industry do?
>
>Don't you consistently argue that the lives of livestock animals are
>"more and more tolerable"? Now you're saying that "few" have a "good
>life". Which is it?
>>
>> >Then there's the fact that I
>> > see them every day, grazing in fields, nursing their calves, etc, and
>> > they definitely appear to be benefiting from the situation to me.
>>
>> You're taking a tiny snapshot, calves nursing in fields.. what proportion of
>> meat animals get to roam in fields and exercise natural behaviours? Isn't
>> confinement and an early demise much more common, pound-for-pound?
>
>Beef cattle are not confined, but they definitely die young.

Though what they get is much longer than nothing, which is what
veg*nism has to offfer.

>(snip)
>>
>> Because most of them have deprived, shitty lives,
>
>Are you the same Dutch that usually posts here?
>
>(snip)

wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:09:50 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:
>
>
>>Dutch wrote:
>>

>>>You're taking a tiny snapshot, calves nursing in fields.. what proportion of
>>>meat animals get to roam in fields and exercise natural behaviours? Isn't
>>>confinement and an early demise much more common, pound-for-pound?
>>
>>Beef cattle are not confined, but they definitely die young.
>
>
> Though what they get is much longer than nothing, which is what
> veg*nism has to offfer.

You are wrong to conclude that getting something is
better than getting nothing. Such a comparison is absurd.

You may legitimately compare a good life to a bad life,
but *only* once it is established that an animal is
alive. You may not legitimately compare "some" life to
"nothing", which is what you are doing. That latter
comparison makes no sense at all.

Anything ****wit Harrison thinks is an important fact.

If ****wit think's it's a fact, one or both of two
things is certain: it is not a fact; it doesn't merit
any ethical consideration.

Hey usual suspect,

I'm curious as to why you stick around this list. Do you really think you're
changing minds/making people think new thoughts etc? (I'm not trying to be
an ass, here, I'm just curious.)

-Jay

wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:09:50 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:

(snip)

> >Beef cattle are not confined, but they definitely die young.
>
> Though what they get is much longer than nothing,

But the unborn in a state of nothingness (no time) cannot and do not
miss or yearn for somethingness (time). Non-existent beings can't
suffer a loss.

>> which is what
>> veg*nism has to offfer.

Yes, vegans want no animal born, raised and killed for human
consumption. I wouldn't mind herds of feral cattle reclaiming lost
buffalo habitat, that is if the wolves, mountain lions and coyotes would
oblige.

"frlpwr" > wrote in message ...
> Dutch wrote:
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 06:21:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> > [..]
>
> > That's actually a strawman. Jonathan disputes your use of the word
"benefit"
> > is this context, for valid reasons, but even if we take your meaning to
that
> > the animal has a quite a good life, isn't the truth that few in todays
meat
> > industry do?
>
> Don't you consistently argue that the lives of livestock animals are
> "more and more tolerable"?

I don't recall saying that.

> Now you're saying that "few" have a "good life". Which is it?

The lives of livestock are probably improving in some respects and getting
worse in other respects. I would say that due to the problems of
over-production, the overall trend is downward. That's not to say that the
scenes of workers clubbing pigs to death with iron pipes are typical, as
ARAs would like to believe. The truth is that livestock live dreary, boring
lives, they don't all "suffer" as ARAs pretend, and don't live particularly
decent lives either.

> > >Then there's the fact that I
> > > see them every day, grazing in fields, nursing their calves, etc, and
> > > they definitely appear to be benefiting from the situation to me.
> >
> > You're taking a tiny snapshot, calves nursing in fields.. what
proportion of
> > meat animals get to roam in fields and exercise natural behaviours?
Isn't
> > confinement and an early demise much more common, pound-for-pound?
>
> Beef cattle are not confined, but they definitely die young.

I realize that.

> (snip)
> >
> > Because most of them have deprived, shitty lives,
>
> Are you the same Dutch that usually posts here?

Yep.

(snip)

> wrote
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:09:50 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:

> >Beef cattle are not confined, but they definitely die young.
>
> Though what they get is much longer than nothing, which is what
> veg*nism has to offfer.

Your "greater good" argument is actually preached by none other than Peter
Singer, the utilitarian animal liberationist, ironic that you call your
opponents here "ARAs". Although he stipulates that in order for the raising
of livestock to be seen as a net good, the animals must actually *have*
"decent lives". For you, the absolute minimum utilitarian, it only needs to
be theoretically possible for one animal in ten thousand years to have a
decent life to justify animal use. The ethics of your position are tenuous,
to say the least.

"Rocky" > wrote
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:09:50 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Dutch wrote:
> >>
>
> >>>You're taking a tiny snapshot, calves nursing in fields.. what
proportion of
> >>>meat animals get to roam in fields and exercise natural behaviours?
Isn't
> >>>confinement and an early demise much more common, pound-for-pound?
> >>
> >>Beef cattle are not confined, but they definitely die young.
> >
> >
> > Though what they get is much longer than nothing, which is what
> > veg*nism has to offfer.
>
> You are wrong to conclude that getting something is
> better than getting nothing. Such a comparison is absurd.
>
> You may legitimately compare a good life to a bad life,
> but *only* once it is established that an animal is
> alive. You may not legitimately compare "some" life to
> "nothing", which is what you are doing. That latter
> comparison makes no sense at all.

It makes sense to David's addled brain, Ray. One thing good about Harrison's
argument, it's so objectionable that it's one thing we can all agree on.

"frlpwr" > wrote
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:09:50 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > >Beef cattle are not confined, but they definitely die young.
> >
> > Though what they get is much longer than nothing,
>
> But the unborn in a state of nothingness (no time) cannot and do not
> miss or yearn for somethingness (time). Non-existent beings can't
> suffer a loss.

What David heard ......whooossshhh.......

> >> which is what
> >> veg*nism has to offfer.
>
> Yes, vegans want no animal born, raised and killed for human
> consumption. I wouldn't mind herds of feral cattle reclaiming lost
> buffalo habitat, that is if the wolves, mountain lions and coyotes would
> oblige.

Oh, they'd oblige all right.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:52:13 GMT, wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:09:50 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:
>
>>Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 06:21:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>> [..]
>>
>>> That's actually a strawman. Jonathan disputes your use of the word "benefit"
>>> is this context, for valid reasons, but even if we take your meaning to that
>>> the animal has a quite a good life, isn't the truth that few in todays meat
>>> industry do?
>>
>>Don't you consistently argue that the lives of livestock animals are
>>"more and more tolerable"? Now you're saying that "few" have a "good
>>life". Which is it?
>>>
>>> >Then there's the fact that I
>>> > see them every day, grazing in fields, nursing their calves, etc, and
>>> > they definitely appear to be benefiting from the situation to me.
>>>
>>> You're taking a tiny snapshot, calves nursing in fields.. what proportion of
>>> meat animals get to roam in fields and exercise natural behaviours? Isn't
>>> confinement and an early demise much more common, pound-for-pound?
>>
>>Beef cattle are not confined, but they definitely die young.
>
> Though what they get is much longer than nothing, which is what
>veg*nism has to offfer.

But, never being isn't necessarily worse than the something they're
getting, which is what both sides are trying to tell you. Putting a
timer on non-existence seems a futile exercise to me.

[snip]

--swamp

Jay wrote:
> I'm curious as to why you stick around this list. Do you really think you're
> changing minds/making people think new thoughts etc? (I'm not trying to be
> an ass, here, I'm just curious.)

I'm here mainly for recipes and fun.

suppository wrote:

> Cash Cow > wrote in message news:<V7Ejb.3147
>
>
>>The fact that ****wit wants to disregard: we all see
>>through your lamebrained, ****witted trick to try to
>>"promote life" for farm animals irrespective of the
>>quality of life.
>
>
> Excellent, Cash Cow! Tell this asshole!
>
> I discussed the loads and loads of insanity spewed by Usual Suspect
> and others on this newsgroup to my father, who is NOT a vegetarian.
> Even he realizes the insanity of Rick Etter and others who deny
> that being vegetarian will reduce the number of animals both killed
> and who suffer.

Sorry, shit4brains. I am not on your side.

Rick's point is a good one, and you, being a brainless
"animal rights" ****DRIP, don't get it.

The issue is not about "reducing" the number of animals
killed or who will suffer. THE ISSUE, you ****ing
moron, is that "vegans" claim not to be causing any
suffering or death with their diet, and they are WRONG:
they cause MASSIVE suffering and death with their
diet. The only difference is, they don't eat the
animals whose deaths they cause.

"veganism" is not an ethically coherent position, you
pusillanimous little prickcheese. "vegans" are NOT
following any ethical principles; instead, they are
following a stupid RULE that does not move them towards
being ethical. The stupid, inadequate rule is, "don't
eat meat". That rule is MEANINGLESS when it comes to
being what they want to consider "ethical". The
principle they PRETEND to be following via this stupid,
shitminded rule is "it is wrong to harm animals". If
it's wrong to harm animals, you stupid ****DRIP, then
it is wrong to harm them no matter what the purpose.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:57:21 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:

wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:09:50 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>> >Beef cattle are not confined, but they definitely die young.
>>
>> Though what they get is much longer than nothing,
>
>But the unborn in a state of nothingness (no time) cannot and do not
>miss or yearn for somethingness (time). Non-existent beings can't
>suffer a loss.

Neither can dead ones, which is why I often say the biggest difference
between raising animals for food and not doing so, is their lives not their
deaths. But then we conveniently are *not* supposed to give consideration
to their lives (unless they are horrible of course) even though their lives
are the biggest difference, and oddly enough we *are* supposed to
give consideration to their deaths even though when they're dead they're
simply back in the same condition of non-existence "they" were in to begin
with. No frlpwr, I don't know how so many people got persuaded to *only*
consider what amounts to pretty much nothing when you get right down
to it (unless animals have life after death that is, and if that's the case
meat consumers contribute to a ***whole LOT!*** more life for animals than
we already know they do), but I don't expect to fall for whatever it is.

>>> which is what
>>> veg*nism has to offfer.
>
>Yes, vegans want no animal born, raised and killed for human
>consumption. I wouldn't mind herds of feral cattle reclaiming lost
>buffalo habitat, that is if the wolves, mountain lions and coyotes would
>oblige.

Which brings us to the notion that it should be okay with veg*ns
if humans raise cattle and let wolves kill them when the time comes.
Or maybe just big dogs? Like wolves kill deer and it's cool 'cause it's
natural you know, so if they kill cattle for us that should be well cool
also. And after they're dead they won't care who eats them, so we're all
good in that deal.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 02:46:15 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote
>> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:09:50 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:
>
>> >Beef cattle are not confined, but they definitely die young.
>>
>> Though what they get is much longer than nothing, which is what
>> veg*nism has to offfer.
>
>Your "greater good" argument is actually preached by none other than Peter
>Singer, the utilitarian animal liberationist, ironic that you call your
>opponents here "ARAs". Although he stipulates that in order for the raising
>of livestock to be seen as a net good, the animals must actually *have*
>"decent lives". For you, the absolute minimum utilitarian, it only needs to
>be theoretically possible for one animal in ten thousand years to have a
>decent life to justify animal use.

No. Do you even understand what I was saying about that? Yes, I believe
you can understand it quite well. You just won't admit it, or admit that some
farm animals have decent lives. Some do regardless of what you want to think
though, which is a good thing for the animals.

>The ethics of your position are tenuous,
>to say the least.

It seems there are only a few positions we could take. Maybe you can tell
people what order these should fall in, from best to worst:

1. Feeling that it's okay to raise some animals for food and not others, depending
on the quality of their lives.
2. Feeling that it's not okay to raise any animals for food, regardless of the quality
of their lives.
3. Feeling that it is okay to raise animals for food, regardless of the quality of their
lives.

If you'd like to add other possibilities please just include them with mine in level of
ethical quality.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:28:19 GMT, swamp > wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:52:13 GMT, wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:09:50 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:
>>
>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 06:21:12 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [..]
>>>
>>>> That's actually a strawman. Jonathan disputes your use of the word "benefit"
>>>> is this context, for valid reasons, but even if we take your meaning to that
>>>> the animal has a quite a good life, isn't the truth that few in todays meat
>>>> industry do?
>>>
>>>Don't you consistently argue that the lives of livestock animals are
>>>"more and more tolerable"? Now you're saying that "few" have a "good
>>>life". Which is it?
>>>>
>>>> >Then there's the fact that I
>>>> > see them every day, grazing in fields, nursing their calves, etc, and
>>>> > they definitely appear to be benefiting from the situation to me.
>>>>
>>>> You're taking a tiny snapshot, calves nursing in fields.. what proportion of
>>>> meat animals get to roam in fields and exercise natural behaviours? Isn't
>>>> confinement and an early demise much more common, pound-for-pound?
>>>
>>>Beef cattle are not confined, but they definitely die young.
>>
>> Though what they get is much longer than nothing, which is what
>>veg*nism has to offfer.
>
>But, never being isn't necessarily worse than the something they're
>getting, which is what both sides are trying to tell you.

Are trying to tell *me*? I've been posting this or something like it
since 1999:

· Because there are so many different situations
involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
cruelty or abuse at all. ·

And I've said that some farm animals have decent lives and some
don't more than anyone has ever said it to me. Come to think of
it, no one has ever said it to me afaik, but I've pointed it out to a
lot of people. And now you're going to try to convince me that both
sides have been trying to tell me that? No, you're just saying that
both sides have been telling me the second part. Very few if any
are willing to admit the first part, but it's true none the less. I'm well
aware of both parts, and have made that clear many many times.

>Putting a
>timer on non-existence seems a futile exercise to me.
>
>[snip]
>
>--swamp

Hmmm....putting a timer on non-existence??? I don't recall
ever having done that, but now that you bring it up, if there is
a timer it only stops while things are alive. As I pointed out
to frlpwr, the biggest difference between meat comsumption
and veg*nism is the animals' lives not their deaths, so it doesn't
make sense to me to only consider their deaths.

> wrote
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 02:46:15 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > wrote
> >> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:09:50 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:
> >
> >> >Beef cattle are not confined, but they definitely die young.
> >>
> >> Though what they get is much longer than nothing, which is what
> >> veg*nism has to offfer.
> >
> >Your "greater good" argument is actually preached by none other than
Peter
> >Singer, the utilitarian animal liberationist, ironic that you call your
> >opponents here "ARAs". Although he stipulates that in order for the
raising
> >of livestock to be seen as a net good, the animals must actually *have*
> >"decent lives". For you, the absolute minimum utilitarian, it only needs
to
> >be theoretically possible for one animal in ten thousand years to have a
> >decent life to justify animal use.
>
> No. Do you even understand what I was saying about that? Yes, I
believe
> you can understand it quite well.

Yes I do, you specifically made the point that it was ridiculous for anyone
to suggest that no farm animal ever had a decent life. Nobody ever suggested
that, therefore your point is a ridiculous strawman.

> You just won't admit it, or admit that some
> farm animals have decent lives. Some do regardless of what you want to
think
> though, which is a good thing for the animals.

When are you going to stop claiming that people are saying that no farm
animals have decent lives? Some of them clearly do, what percentage that is,
is very debatable, but some definitely. So can we retire that claim now?
It's settled.

What nobody will EVER accept is your idea that raising farm animals is, in
and of itself, a morally praiseworthy act due to the fact that animals "get
to experience life" or that they "live a decent life".

> >The ethics of your position are tenuous,
> >to say the least.
>
> It seems there are only a few positions we could take. Maybe you can
tell
> people what order these should fall in, from best to worst:
>
> 1. Feeling that it's okay to raise some animals for food and not others,
depending
> on the quality of their lives.

I agree with this. It's morally right to consider the quality of animals'
lives.

> 2. Feeling that it's not okay to raise any animals for food, regardless of
the quality
> of their lives.

I disagree with this. It's the naive and fallacious belief called veganism.

> 3. Feeling that it is okay to raise animals for food, regardless of the
quality of their
> lives.

I disagree with this. It's morally wrong to ignore the quality of animals'
lives.

> If you'd like to add other possibilities please just include them with
mine in level of
> ethical quality.

Not really, that sums up animal welfare quite well, but what does it have to
do with your proposterous idea that farm animals' lives have moral
consequences for humans?

Let me ask you, in your world, is a person who raises 1000 happy pigs 1000x
more ethical than the person who raised only one? What's the connection
between animals being alive and human ethics? You've never made that
connection.

> wrote
> swamp > wrote:

[..]
> >>>Beef cattle are not confined, but they definitely die young.
> >>
> >> Though what they get is much longer than nothing, which is what
> >>veg*nism has to offfer.
> >
> >But, never being isn't necessarily worse than the something they're
> >getting, which is what both sides are trying to tell you.
>
> Are trying to tell *me*? I've been posting this or something like it
> since 1999:

That's right, and you still don't get it. Never being born is not like
death, it's nothing, not bad or good, nothing. Therefore "what they get is
much longer than nothing" means nothing of any consequence. It's an empty
rhetorical statement.

> · Because there are so many different situations
> involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
> unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
> way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
> cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
> the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
> and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
> really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
> cruelty or abuse at all. ·

That was not relevant whatsoever to "what they get is much longer than
nothing". It was a clumsy attempt to address animal welfare, not animal
existentialism.

> And I've said that some farm animals have decent lives and some
> don't more than anyone has ever said it to me. Come to think of
> it, no one has ever said it to me afaik, but I've pointed it out to a
> lot of people. And now you're going to try to convince me that both
> sides have been trying to tell me that? No, you're just saying that
> both sides have been telling me the second part. Very few if any
> are willing to admit the first part, but it's true none the less. I'm well
> aware of both parts, and have made that clear many many times.

No, listen. What is meaningless is the statement "what they get is much
longer than nothing".

> >Putting a
> >timer on non-existence seems a futile exercise to me.
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >--swamp
>
> Hmmm....putting a timer on non-existence??? I don't recall
> ever having done that,

RIGHT HERE=> "what they get is much longer than nothing"

> but now that you bring it up, if there is
> a timer it only stops while things are alive. As I pointed out
> to frlpwr, the biggest difference between meat comsumption
> and veg*nism is the animals' lives not their deaths, so it doesn't
> make sense to me to only consider their deaths.

True, but it makes even less sense to consider their lives in the way you
are attempting to do, with ideas like "what they get is much longer than
nothing."

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:00:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote
>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 02:46:15 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> > wrote
>> >> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:09:50 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Beef cattle are not confined, but they definitely die young.
>> >>
>> >> Though what they get is much longer than nothing, which is what
>> >> veg*nism has to offfer.
>> >
>> >Your "greater good" argument is actually preached by none other than
>Peter
>> >Singer, the utilitarian animal liberationist, ironic that you call your
>> >opponents here "ARAs". Although he stipulates that in order for the
>raising
>> >of livestock to be seen as a net good, the animals must actually *have*
>> >"decent lives". For you, the absolute minimum utilitarian, it only needs
>to
>> >be theoretically possible for one animal in ten thousand years to have a
>> >decent life to justify animal use.
>>
>> No. Do you even understand what I was saying about that? Yes, I
>believe
>> you can understand it quite well.
>
>Yes I do, you specifically made the point that it was ridiculous for anyone
>to suggest that no farm animal ever had a decent life. Nobody ever suggested
>that, therefore your point is a ridiculous strawman.

It was to establish whether or not we can agree that some farm animals
have decent lives and some do not.

>> You just won't admit it, or admit that some
>> farm animals have decent lives. Some do regardless of what you want to
>think
>> though, which is a good thing for the animals.
>
>When are you going to stop claiming that people are saying that no farm
>animals have decent lives? Some of them clearly do, what percentage that is,
>is very debatable, but some definitely. So can we retire that claim now?

Yes.

>It's settled.

Good.

>What nobody will EVER accept is your idea that raising farm animals is, in
>and of itself, a morally praiseworthy act due to the fact that animals "get
>to experience life" or that they "live a decent life".

I've seen animals in situations where I would rather not exist than be in
their position (I think), but had someone else who was also observing them
say something like, "well, at least they're alive...". I've been in that position
more than once as a matter of fact, and find it quite interesting that you never
have been. And even more interesting that you can't even imagine being in
that position.

>> >The ethics of your position are tenuous,
>> >to say the least.
>>
>> It seems there are only a few positions we could take. Maybe you can
>tell
>> people what order these should fall in, from best to worst:
>>
>> 1. Feeling that it's okay to raise some animals for food and not others,
>depending
>> on the quality of their lives.
>
>I agree with this. It's morally right to consider the quality of animals'
>lives.
>
>> 2. Feeling that it's not okay to raise any animals for food, regardless of
>the quality
>> of their lives.
>
>I disagree with this. It's the naive and fallacious belief called veganism.
>
>> 3. Feeling that it is okay to raise animals for food, regardless of the
>quality of their
>> lives.
>
>I disagree with this. It's morally wrong to ignore the quality of animals'
>lives.
>
>> If you'd like to add other possibilities please just include them with
>mine in level of
>> ethical quality.
>
>Not really, that sums up animal welfare quite well, but what does it have to
>do with your proposterous idea that farm animals' lives have moral
>consequences for humans?

Apparently they do. Look at all the discussion that goes on about it.

>Let me ask you, in your world, is a person who raises 1000 happy pigs 1000x
>more ethical than the person who raised only one?

Maybe. I would certainly give a person more credit for his efforts, and for
the lives of all the pigs if he raised 1000 than if he raised only one, whether
it's "ethical" credit or not.

>What's the connection
>between animals being alive and human ethics? You've never made that
>connection.

"ARAs" want us to consider the animals' deaths. The animals' lives are
more significant than their deaths, so they should be given at least as
much consideration, and should be given more imo. I've told you that before.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:11:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote
>> swamp > wrote:
>
>[..]
>> >>>Beef cattle are not confined, but they definitely die young.
>> >>
>> >> Though what they get is much longer than nothing, which is what
>> >>veg*nism has to offfer.
>> >
>> >But, never being isn't necessarily worse than the something they're
>> >getting, which is what both sides are trying to tell you.
>>
>> Are trying to tell *me*? I've been posting this or something like it
>> since 1999:
>
>That's right, and you still don't get it. Never being born is not like
>death,

What do you think is so different about it?

>it's nothing, not bad or good, nothing. Therefore "what they get is
>much longer than nothing" means nothing of any consequence. It's an empty
>rhetorical statement.

It's a fact that you don't want to consider for some reason, but it's very
true none the less.

>> · Because there are so many different situations
>> involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
>> unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
>> way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
>> cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
>> the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
>> and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
>> really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
>> cruelty or abuse at all. ·
>
>That was not relevant whatsoever to "what they get is much longer than
>nothing". It was a clumsy attempt to address animal welfare, not animal
>existentialism.
>
>> And I've said that some farm animals have decent lives and some
>> don't more than anyone has ever said it to me. Come to think of
>> it, no one has ever said it to me afaik, but I've pointed it out to a
>> lot of people. And now you're going to try to convince me that both
>> sides have been trying to tell me that? No, you're just saying that
>> both sides have been telling me the second part. Very few if any
>> are willing to admit the first part, but it's true none the less. I'm well
>> aware of both parts, and have made that clear many many times.
>
>No, listen. What is meaningless is the statement "what they get is much
>longer than nothing".
>
>> >Putting a
>> >timer on non-existence seems a futile exercise to me.
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >--swamp
>>
>> Hmmm....putting a timer on non-existence??? I don't recall
>> ever having done that,
>
>RIGHT HERE=> "what they get is much longer than nothing"

Since you think it involves a timer and I do not, explain when
the timer begins so I can get some idea of why you think so.

>> but now that you bring it up, if there is
>> a timer it only stops while things are alive. As I pointed out
>> to frlpwr, the biggest difference between meat comsumption
>> and veg*nism is the animals' lives not their deaths, so it doesn't
>> make sense to me to only consider their deaths.
>
>True, but it makes even less sense to consider their lives in the way you
>are attempting to do, with ideas like "what they get is much longer than
>nothing."

Interesting that you feel that way, since all you know involves
what you're getting which is much longer than nothing. So am
I safe in assuming that you feel your own time alive is worth no
consideration, like the animals'? Or is there some reason that yours
is different and deserves consideration? How do you decide
which lives do and which do not, or do you feel that no animals'
or humans' lives deserve consideration?

Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
>
>>swamp > wrote:
>
>
> [..]
>
>>>>>Beef cattle are not confined, but they definitely die young.
>>>>
>>>> Though what they get is much longer than nothing, which is what
>>>>veg*nism has to offfer.
>>>
>>>But, never being isn't necessarily worse than the something they're
>>>getting, which is what both sides are trying to tell you.
>>
>> Are trying to tell *me*? I've been posting this or something like it
>>since 1999:
>
>
> That's right, and you still don't get it. Never being born is not like
> death, it's nothing, not bad or good, nothing.

****wit believes not being born is a very bad thing:

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

****wit clearly believes that if the lives of some
unconceived farm animals are prevented from happening,
then "they" are being "denied" something good, and they
have experienced a "loss".

****wit clearly believes, based on what he has written,
that the unconceived animals exist in some kind of
pre-born state.

> Therefore "what they get is
> much longer than nothing" means nothing of any consequence. It's an empty
> rhetorical statement.

It IS empty, but emptiness has never stopped ****wit
before.

>
>
>> · Because there are so many different situations
>>involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
>>unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
>>way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
>>cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
>>the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
>>and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
>>really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
>>cruelty or abuse at all. ·
>
>
> That was not relevant whatsoever to "what they get is much longer than
> nothing". It was a clumsy attempt to address animal welfare, not animal
> existentialism.

****wit can't help mixing the two up. To ****wit, the
mere fact of existence is a "benefit". He's wrong, of
course, and all alone in his thinking; no one else
believes that merely "getting to experience life" in
the first place is a benefit.

>
>
>>And I've said that some farm animals have decent lives and some
>>don't more than anyone has ever said it to me. Come to think of
>>it, no one has ever said it to me afaik, but I've pointed it out to a
>>lot of people. And now you're going to try to convince me that both
>>sides have been trying to tell me that? No, you're just saying that
>>both sides have been telling me the second part. Very few if any
>>are willing to admit the first part, but it's true none the less. I'm well
>>aware of both parts, and have made that clear many many times.
>
>
> No, listen. What is meaningless is the statement "what they get is much
> longer than nothing".
>
>
>>>Putting a
>>>timer on non-existence seems a futile exercise to me.
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>--swamp
>>
>> Hmmm....putting a timer on non-existence??? I don't recall
>>ever having done that,
>
>
> RIGHT HERE=> "what they get is much longer than nothing"
>
>
>>but now that you bring it up, if there is
>>a timer it only stops while things are alive. As I pointed out
>>to frlpwr, the biggest difference between meat comsumption
>>and veg*nism is the animals' lives not their deaths, so it doesn't
>>make sense to me to only consider their deaths.
>
>
> True, but it makes even less sense to consider their lives in the way you
> are attempting to do, with ideas like "what they get is much longer than
> nothing."

It makes zero sense, but ****wit has never been
concerned with making sense.

****wit wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:00:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>

>>> No. Do you even understand what I was saying about that? Yes, I
>>>believe you can understand it quite well.
>>
>>Yes I do, you specifically made the point that it was ridiculous for anyone
>>to suggest that no farm animal ever had a decent life. Nobody ever suggested
>>that, therefore your point is a ridiculous strawman.
>
>
> It was to establish whether or not we can agree that some farm animals
> have decent lives and some do not.

No, that wasn't the goal. That was just a clumsy
attempt at a trick, a trick that has been fully exposed.

Your goal is not to try to get people to support
"decent lives" for farm animals, because your purchases
prove that you don't support that yourself. Your goal
is to trick people into supporting life per se for farm
animals.

>
>
>>>You just won't admit it, or admit that some
>>>farm animals have decent lives. Some do regardless of what you want to
>>>think though, which is a good thing for the animals.
>>
>>When are you going to stop claiming that people are saying that no farm
>>animals have decent lives? Some of them clearly do, what percentage that is,
>>is very debatable, but some definitely. So can we retire that claim now?
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>It's settled.
>
>
> Good.

Yes, it's settled: you are a liar, and you are trying
to trick people into support life per se for farm
animals, not "decent lives".

>
>
>>What nobody will EVER accept is your idea that raising farm animals is, in
>>and of itself, a morally praiseworthy act due to the fact that animals "get
>>to experience life" or that they "live a decent life".
>
>
> I've seen animals in situations where I would rather not exist than be in
> their position (I think), but had someone else who was also observing them
> say something like, "well, at least they're alive...".

That's a laughable lie, ****wit. You haven't been in
such a situtation, and no one has said that to you.

If you're going to lie so blatantly, ****wit, no one is
going to want to talk seriously with you.

> I've been in that position
> more than once as a matter of fact,

That's a lie.


>>I disagree with this. It's morally wrong to ignore the quality of animals'
>>lives.

****wit, however, agrees with it. ****wit buys meat
without consideration for the source.

>>
>>
>>>If you'd like to add other possibilities please just include them with
>>>mine in level of ethical quality.
>>
>>Not really, that sums up animal welfare quite well, but what does it have to
>>do with your proposterous idea that farm animals' lives have moral
>>consequences for humans?
>
>
> Apparently they do.

They don't.

> Look at all the discussion that goes on about it.

The "discussion" is EVERYONE ELSE telling you that the
mere fact of the animals' existence has no moral
meaning, when you stupidly claim it does.

>
>
>>Let me ask you, in your world, is a person who raises 1000 happy pigs 1000x
>>more ethical than the person who raised only one?
>
>
> Maybe.

Then you admit to being an idiot. You also admit,
although you obviously don't realize it, that you are
saying the mere fact of animal existence is a morally
good thing.

>>What's the connection
>>between animals being alive and human ethics? You've never made that
>>connection.
>
>
> "ARAs" want us to consider the animals' deaths.

Non sequitur.

> The animals' lives are more significant than their deaths,

You've been asked to explain HOW they are significant
AT ALL, let alone "more significant" than their deaths,
and you never have. However, your admission that their
lives DO have some absolute moral significance is all
we need. It proves that we are correct in inferring
that you believe the animals ought to "get to
experience life".

> so they should be given at least as
> much consideration, and should be given more imo. I've told you that before.

Never explained it, though, and clearly you can't.

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:00:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > wrote
> >> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 02:46:15 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > wrote
> >> >> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:09:50 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >Beef cattle are not confined, but they definitely die young.
> >> >>
> >> >> Though what they get is much longer than nothing, which is what
> >> >> veg*nism has to offfer.
> >> >
> >> >Your "greater good" argument is actually preached by none other than
> >Peter
> >> >Singer, the utilitarian animal liberationist, ironic that you call
your
> >> >opponents here "ARAs". Although he stipulates that in order for the
> >raising
> >> >of livestock to be seen as a net good, the animals must actually
*have*
> >> >"decent lives". For you, the absolute minimum utilitarian, it only
needs
> >to
> >> >be theoretically possible for one animal in ten thousand years to have
a
> >> >decent life to justify animal use.
> >>
> >> No. Do you even understand what I was saying about that? Yes, I
> >believe
> >> you can understand it quite well.
> >
> >Yes I do, you specifically made the point that it was ridiculous for
anyone
> >to suggest that no farm animal ever had a decent life. Nobody ever
suggested
> >that, therefore your point is a ridiculous strawman.
>
> It was to establish whether or not we can agree that some farm animals
> have decent lives and some do not.
>
> >> You just won't admit it, or admit that some
> >> farm animals have decent lives. Some do regardless of what you want to
> >think
> >> though, which is a good thing for the animals.
> >
> >When are you going to stop claiming that people are saying that no farm
> >animals have decent lives? Some of them clearly do, what percentage that
is,
> >is very debatable, but some definitely. So can we retire that claim now?
>
> Yes.
>
> >It's settled.
>
> Good.

Fantastic!

> >What nobody will EVER accept is your idea that raising farm animals is,
in
> >and of itself, a morally praiseworthy act due to the fact that animals
"get
> >to experience life" or that they "live a decent life".
>
> I've seen animals in situations where I would rather not exist than be
in
> their position (I think), but had someone else who was also observing them
> say something like, "well, at least they're alive..."

Never, not once, not for a moment.

>. I've been in that position
> more than once as a matter of fact,

I realize that you have this thought pattern. It's a problem you have.

> and find it quite interesting that you never
> have been. And even more interesting that you can't even imagine being in
> that position.

It's a corrupt thought process. It contributes nothing positive to this
dialogue or to animals, it only serves as a transparent mechanism for
someone like you to attempt to wring some kind of rhetorical justification
out of the situation. It's completely unecessary and stupid.

>
> >> >The ethics of your position are tenuous,
> >> >to say the least.
> >>
> >> It seems there are only a few positions we could take. Maybe you
can
> >tell
> >> people what order these should fall in, from best to worst:
> >>
> >> 1. Feeling that it's okay to raise some animals for food and not
others,
> >depending
> >> on the quality of their lives.
> >
> >I agree with this. It's morally right to consider the quality of animals'
> >lives.
> >
> >> 2. Feeling that it's not okay to raise any animals for food, regardless
of
> >the quality
> >> of their lives.
> >
> >I disagree with this. It's the naive and fallacious belief called
veganism.
> >
> >> 3. Feeling that it is okay to raise animals for food, regardless of the
> >quality of their
> >> lives.
> >
> >I disagree with this. It's morally wrong to ignore the quality of
animals'
> >lives.
> >
> >> If you'd like to add other possibilities please just include them with
> >mine in level of
> >> ethical quality.
> >
> >Not really, that sums up animal welfare quite well, but what does it have
to
> >do with your proposterous idea that farm animals' lives have moral
> >consequences for humans?
>
> Apparently they do. Look at all the discussion that goes on about it.

There is no discussion about the animals' lives per se. The discussion is
about the quality of their lives. The VERY fact they live is of no moral
consequence to man.

> >Let me ask you, in your world, is a person who raises 1000 happy pigs
1000x
> >more ethical than the person who raised only one?
>
> Maybe. I would certainly give a person more credit for his efforts,
and for
> the lives of all the pigs if he raised 1000 than if he raised only one,
whether
> it's "ethical" credit or not.

Wrong answer, there is no difference.

> >What's the connection
> >between animals being alive and human ethics? You've never made that
> >connection.

> "ARAs" want us to consider the animals' deaths.

We *do* consider their deaths. We consider their deaths a necessary part of
the process of obtaining their meat.

>The animals' lives are
> more significant than their deaths,

No, actually they aren't. The animal's deaths are the most important fact of
their lives, because that's what allows us to use them for food.

> so they should be given at least as
> much consideration, and should be given more imo.

This is where you are wrong. In the way you mean, the animals' lives are of
NO consequence at all. The "quality" of their lives is important, that's
what animal welfare is about, but their lives, in and of themselves are
completely irrelevant.

> I've told you that before.

Yes, and you've been wrong every time.

Dutch wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
>

>>>>You just won't admit it, or admit that some
>>>>farm animals have decent lives. Some do regardless of what you want to
>>>>think though, which is a good thing for the animals.
>>>
>>>When are you going to stop claiming that people are saying that no farm
>>>animals have decent lives? Some of them clearly do, what percentage that is,
>>>is very debatable, but some definitely. So can we retire that claim now?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>>>It's settled.
>>
>> Good.
>
>
> Fantastic!

You're dreaming. ****wit NEVER stops trotting out his
false assumptions.

>
>
>>>What nobody will EVER accept is your idea that raising farm animals is,
>>>in and of itself, a morally praiseworthy act due to the fact that animals
>>>"get to experience life" or that they "live a decent life".
>>
>> I've seen animals in situations where I would rather not exist than be in
>>their position (I think), but had someone else who was also observing them
>>say something like, "well, at least they're alive..."
>
>
> Never, not once, not for a moment.

Right. ****wit is obviously and absurdly lying.

>
>
>>. I've been in that position
>>more than once as a matter of fact,
>
>
> I realize that you have this thought pattern. It's a problem you have.

Re-read what he wrote. He isn't saying he thinks this;
he's saying that other people *literally* have said to
him, "well, at least they're alive..." He is lying:
no one has said that to him.

>
>
>>and find it quite interesting that you never
>>have been. And even more interesting that you can't even imagine being in
>>that position.
>
>
> It's a corrupt thought process. It contributes nothing positive to this
> dialogue or to animals, it only serves as a transparent mechanism for
> someone like you to attempt to wring some kind of rhetorical justification
> out of the situation. It's completely unnecessary and stupid.

And dishonest, and absurd.


>>>>If you'd like to add other possibilities please just include them with
>>>>mine in level of ethical quality.
>>>
>>>Not really, that sums up animal welfare quite well, but what does it have
>>>to do with your proposterous idea that farm animals' lives have moral
>>>consequences for humans?
>>
>> Apparently they do. Look at all the discussion that goes on about it.
>
>
> There is no discussion about the animals' lives per se. The discussion is
> about the quality of their lives. The VERY fact they live is of no moral
> consequence to man.

****wit, to his lasting discredit, thinks he can
equivocate between the two.


>>>Let me ask you, in your world, is a person who raises 1000 happy pigs
>>>1000x more ethical than the person who raised only one?
>>
>> Maybe. I would certainly give a person more credit for his efforts,
>> and for the lives of all the pigs if he raised 1000 than if he raised
>> only one, whether it's "ethical" credit or not.
>
>
> Wrong answer, there is no difference.

Note his sleazy, laughable, typically clumsy attempt at
another trick: he DOES give the guy who raises 1000
pigs more ethical credit than the guy who raises only
one, but ****wit lamely pretends that he could be
giving the guy some other kind of credit.

>
>
>>>What's the connection
>>>between animals being alive and human ethics? You've never made that
>>>connection.
>
>
>> "ARAs" want us to consider the animals' deaths.
>
>
> We *do* consider their deaths. We consider their deaths a necessary part of
> the process of obtaining their meat.
>
>
>>The animals' lives are
>>more significant than their deaths,
>
>
> No, actually they aren't. The animal's deaths are the most important fact of
> their lives, because that's what allows us to use them for food.

Note that ****wit, typically, does not explain HOW the
animals' lives are important. He never has, never
will, because he cannot.

>
>
>>so they should be given at least as
>>much consideration, and should be given more imo.
>
>
> This is where you are wrong. In the way you mean, the animals' lives are of
> NO consequence at all. The "quality" of their lives is important, that's
> what animal welfare is about, but their lives, in and of themselves are
> completely irrelevant.

****wit likes to equivocate on this point.

>
>
>>I've told you that before.
>
>
> Yes, and you've been wrong every time.

And will be wrong every time to come.

wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:11:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
> wrote
>>
>>>swamp > wrote:
>>
>>[..]
>>
>>>>>>Beef cattle are not confined, but they definitely die young.
>>>>>
>>>>> Though what they get is much longer than nothing, which is what
>>>>>veg*nism has to offfer.
>>>>
>>>>But, never being isn't necessarily worse than the something they're
>>>>getting, which is what both sides are trying to tell you.
>>>
>>> Are trying to tell *me*? I've been posting this or something like it
>>>since 1999:
>>
>>That's right, and you still don't get it. Never being born is not like
>>death,
>
>
> What do you think is so different about it?

Because it is not preceded by life, you moron. Because
if never being born is "caused" by never having been
conceived, then it isn't really "caused" at all, you
STUPID ****wit.

The better question is, why do you lamely think that
there is something similar about them?

>
>
>>it's nothing, not bad or good, nothing. Therefore "what they get is
>>much longer than nothing" means nothing of any consequence. It's an empty
>>rhetorical statement.
>
>
> It's a fact that you don't want to consider for some reason,

It's meaningless. It's an empty fact, and you have
done NOTHING in four and half years to put any
substance into it.

You have given no reason why you DO consider it.



>>>And I've said that some farm animals have decent lives and some
>>>don't more than anyone has ever said it to me. Come to think of
>>>it, no one has ever said it to me afaik, but I've pointed it out to a
>>>lot of people. And now you're going to try to convince me that both
>>>sides have been trying to tell me that? No, you're just saying that
>>>both sides have been telling me the second part. Very few if any
>>>are willing to admit the first part, but it's true none the less. I'm well
>>>aware of both parts, and have made that clear many many times.
>>
>>No, listen. What is meaningless is the statement "what they get is much
>>longer than nothing".

It is indeed meaningless. The perplexing, unanswered
question is, why do you see meaning in it, and why are
you so utterly unable to explain what the meaning is?

>>>>Putting a timer on non-existence seems a futile exercise to me.
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>--swamp
>>>
>>> Hmmm....putting a timer on non-existence??? I don't recall
>>>ever having done that,
>>
>>RIGHT HERE=> "what they get is much longer than nothing"
>
>
> Since you think it involves a timer and I do not, explain when
> the timer begins so I can get some idea of why you think so.

You sound really, really stupid when you try to write
sardonically. Go look up "sardonic", you uneducated
hillbilly.

You are implicitly putting a timer on non-existence.
It is a measure of your stupidity and lack of intellect
that you can't see it.

You frequently blather on and on about "getting" things
that others just can't get. In fact, ****wit, you
loathsome roach, it is YOU who are severely limited in
your thinking.

>
>
>>>but now that you bring it up, if there is
>>>a timer it only stops while things are alive. As I pointed out
>>>to frlpwr, the biggest difference between meat comsumption
>>>and veg*nism is the animals' lives not their deaths, so it doesn't
>>>make sense to me to only consider their deaths.
>>
>>True, but it makes even less sense to consider their lives in the way you
>>are attempting to do, with ideas like "what they get is much longer than
>>nothing."
>
>
> Interesting that you feel that way, since all you know involves
> what you're getting which is much longer than nothing.

An animal, or even a human, that is never born never
KNOWS that it is getting "less than something".

You have failed to give any reason whatever that anyone
ought to give even a split second's consideration to
the meaningless factlette.

> So am I safe in assuming that you feel your own time alive is worth no
> consideration, like the animals'? Or is there some reason that yours
> is different and deserves consideration?

The difference is, ****wit, that he IS alive, and he
and we can give consideration to his existence.

Why are you so STUPID, ****wit, that you can't see that
all of these things acquire meaning ONLY IF some entity
comes into existence?

> How do you decide
> which lives do and which do not, or do you feel that no animals'
> or humans' lives deserve consideration?

He feels, as do all normally thinking people, that the
consideration of a life is ONLY meaningful once that
life has started.

> wrote in message
news
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:11:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > wrote
> >> swamp > wrote:
> >
> >[..]
> >> >>>Beef cattle are not confined, but they definitely die young.
> >> >>
> >> >> Though what they get is much longer than nothing, which is what
> >> >>veg*nism has to offfer.
> >> >
> >> >But, never being isn't necessarily worse than the something they're
> >> >getting, which is what both sides are trying to tell you.
> >>
> >> Are trying to tell *me*? I've been posting this or something like
it
> >> since 1999:
> >
> >That's right, and you still don't get it. Never being born is not like
> >death,
>
> What do you think is so different about it?

Death is the termination of a life and everything that implies. Never being
born is nothing, nothing at all, unworthy of a moment's consideration..

> >it's nothing, not bad or good, nothing. Therefore "what they get is
> >much longer than nothing" means nothing of any consequence. It's an empty
> >rhetorical statement.
>
> It's a fact that you don't want to consider for some reason, but it's
very
> true none the less.

It's not a fact, it's a rhetorical statement, it's woolgathering. It's as
relevant as talking about a person who might have been born if two
hypotethical people had ****ed.

> >> · Because there are so many different situations
> >> involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
> >> unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
> >> way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
> >> cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
> >> the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
> >> and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
> >> really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
> >> cruelty or abuse at all. ·
> >
> >That was not relevant whatsoever to "what they get is much longer than
> >nothing". It was a clumsy attempt to address animal welfare, not animal
> >existentialism.

[..]

> >True, but it makes even less sense to consider their lives in the way you
> >are attempting to do, with ideas like "what they get is much longer than
> >nothing."
>
> Interesting that you feel that way, since all you know involves
> what you're getting which is much longer than nothing.

That statement has no value.

> So am
> I safe in assuming that you feel your own time alive is worth no
> consideration, like the animals'?

My life deserves consideration, but saying my time alive is longer than
nothing isn't one of those considerations.

> Or is there some reason that yours
> is different and deserves consideration?

Yes, human life is special.

> How do you decide
> which lives do and which do not, or do you feel that no animals'
> or humans' lives deserve consideration?

You're not giving valid consideration to anything, you're just posturing.

Dutch wrote:

> ****wit wrote in message
> news >
>>On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:11:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>

>>>That's right, and you still don't get it. Never being born is not like
>>>death,
>>
>> What do you think is so different about it?
>
>
> Death is the termination of a life and everything that implies. Never being
> born is nothing, nothing at all, unworthy of a moment's consideration..

****wit is easily confused.

One can certainly speculate, although not really very
fruitfully, about what it would have meant if some
particular person, who DID in fact live, had never been
born. It's been the stuff of literature probably
forever, and is probably most familiar to North
Americans, at least, in the movie "It's a Wonderful Life".

It is absurdly pointless to "give consideration" to the
lives of farm animals that never are conceived. The
only sense of speculating about the "missing" life of
an entity that makes any sense to me is if a couple who
want children, and never can have any, speculate on how
the kids they wanted but couldn't conceive might have
developed. Even that seems pretty wasteful to me, but
at least they aren't speculating about a whole broad
category of "missing" animals.

>
>
>>>it's nothing, not bad or good, nothing. Therefore "what they get is
>>>much longer than nothing" means nothing of any consequence. It's an empty
>>>rhetorical statement.
>>
>> It's a fact that you don't want to consider for some reason, but it's
>>very true none the less.
>
>
> It's not a fact, it's a rhetorical statement, it's woolgathering.

It also isn't "very [sic] true". Something is true or
not true; intelligent people do not speak of degrees of
truth.

> It's as relevant as talking about a person who might have been born
> if two hypothetical people had ****ed.
>
>
>>>> · Because there are so many different situations
>>>>involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
>>>>unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
>>>>way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
>>>>cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
>>>>the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
>>>>and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
>>>>really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
>>>>cruelty or abuse at all. ·
>>>
>>>That was not relevant whatsoever to "what they get is much longer than
>>>nothing". It was a clumsy attempt to address animal welfare, not animal
>>>existentialism.
>
>
> [..]
>
>
>>>True, but it makes even less sense to consider their lives in the way you
>>>are attempting to do, with ideas like "what they get is much longer than
>>>nothing."
>>
>> Interesting that you feel that way, since all you know involves
>>what you're getting which is much longer than nothing.
>
>
> That statement has no value.
>
>
>>So am
>>I safe in assuming that you feel your own time alive is worth no
>>consideration, like the animals'?
>
>
> My life deserves consideration,

Because you ARE alive. Some day, when you no longer
are alive, the life you led may be worthy of
consideration by some of the people who knew you (one
certainly has to hope so).

> but saying my time alive is longer than
> nothing isn't one of those considerations.

See the reference to "It's a Wonderful Life". Given
that you DID live, some people could, as sort of a
parlor game, speculate on what their lives would have
been had you never been born. As I say, it's a pretty
empty parlor game.

>
>
>>Or is there some reason that yours
>>is different and deserves consideration?
>
>
> Yes, human life is special.

Once it occurs, that is. One could say that some
animal lives are special...once they occur.

>
>
>>How do you decide
>>which lives do and which do not, or do you feel that no animals'
>>or humans' lives deserve consideration?
>
>
> You're not giving valid consideration to anything, you're just posturing.

Stubbornly.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:15:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote in message
>news
>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:11:32 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> > wrote
>> >> swamp > wrote:
>> >
>> >[..]
>> >> >>>Beef cattle are not confined, but they definitely die young.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Though what they get is much longer than nothing, which is what
>> >> >>veg*nism has to offfer.
>> >> >
>> >> >But, never being isn't necessarily worse than the something they're
>> >> >getting, which is what both sides are trying to tell you.
>> >>
>> >> Are trying to tell *me*? I've been posting this or something like
>it
>> >> since 1999:
>> >
>> >That's right, and you still don't get it. Never being born is not like
>> >death,
>>
>> What do you think is so different about it?
>
>Death is the termination of a life

No it isn't. "Killing" is the termination of a life. Death is nothing, as is
never being born.

>and everything that implies. Never being
>born is nothing, nothing at all, unworthy of a moment's consideration..
>
>> >it's nothing, not bad or good, nothing. Therefore "what they get is
>> >much longer than nothing" means nothing of any consequence. It's an empty
>> >rhetorical statement.
>>
>> It's a fact that you don't want to consider for some reason, but it's
>very
>> true none the less.
>
>It's not a fact,

Wrong again. Even two minutes is longer than nothing.

>it's a rhetorical statement, it's woolgathering. It's as
>relevant as talking about a person who might have been born if two
>hypotethical people had ****ed.
>
>> >> · Because there are so many different situations
>> >> involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
>> >> unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
>> >> way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
>> >> cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
>> >> the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
>> >> and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
>> >> really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
>> >> cruelty or abuse at all. ·
>> >
>> >That was not relevant whatsoever to "what they get is much longer than
>> >nothing". It was a clumsy attempt to address animal welfare, not animal
>> >existentialism.
>
>[..]
>
>> >True, but it makes even less sense to consider their lives in the way you
>> >are attempting to do, with ideas like "what they get is much longer than
>> >nothing."
>>
>> Interesting that you feel that way, since all you know involves
>> what you're getting which is much longer than nothing.
>
>That statement has no value.

Because your life has no value.

>> So am
>> I safe in assuming that you feel your own time alive is worth no
>> consideration, like the animals'?
>
>My life deserves consideration,

What makes you more special than farm animals.

>but saying my time alive is longer than
>nothing isn't one of those considerations.
>
>> Or is there some reason that yours
>> is different and deserves consideration?
>
>Yes, human life is special.

That statement has no value. Try to explain why.

>> How do you decide
>> which lives do and which do not, or do you feel that no animals'
>> or humans' lives deserve consideration?
>
>You're not giving valid consideration to anything, you're just posturing.

Do you think the lives of wildlife should be given consideration?
If so, all or just some of them? If so, why should they be given more
consideration than those of farm animals?

wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:15:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>

>>>>That's right, and you still don't get it. Never being born is not like
>>>>death,
>>>
>>> What do you think is so different about it?
>>
>>Death is the termination of a life
>
>
> No it isn't.

Yes, it is. You're an illiterate idiot. "Termination"
is synonymous with "end".

> "Killing" is the termination of a life.

That's only *one* way a life might end, in the sense
killing us normally understood.

> Death is nothing,

It is the end of a life, and when it comes at the hands
of a moral actor, it has moral meaning to sane people.

> as is
> never being born.
>
>
>>and everything that implies. Never being
>>born is nothing, nothing at all, unworthy of a moment's consideration..
>>
>>
>>>>it's nothing, not bad or good, nothing. Therefore "what they get is
>>>>much longer than nothing" means nothing of any consequence. It's an empty
>>>>rhetorical statement.
>>>
>>> It's a fact that you don't want to consider for some reason, but it's
>>
>>very
>>
>>>true none the less.
>>
>>It's not a fact,
>
>
> Wrong again. Even two minutes is longer than nothing.

It is not a meaningful fact.

>
>
>>it's a rhetorical statement, it's woolgathering. It's as
>>relevant as talking about a person who might have been born if two
>>hypotethical people had ****ed.
>>
>>
>>>>> · Because there are so many different situations
>>>>>involved in the raising of meat animals, it is completely
>>>>>unfair to the animals to think of them all in the same
>>>>>way, as "ARAs" appear to do. To think that all of it is
>>>>>cruel, and to think of all animals which are raised for
>>>>>the production of food in the same way, oversimplifies
>>>>>and distorts one's interpretation of the way things
>>>>>really are. Just as it would to think that there is no
>>>>>cruelty or abuse at all. ·
>>>>
>>>>That was not relevant whatsoever to "what they get is much longer than
>>>>nothing". It was a clumsy attempt to address animal welfare, not animal
>>>>existentialism.
>>
>>[..]
>>
>>
>>>>True, but it makes even less sense to consider their lives in the way you
>>>>are attempting to do, with ideas like "what they get is much longer than
>>>>nothing."
>>>
>>> Interesting that you feel that way, since all you know involves
>>>what you're getting which is much longer than nothing.
>>
>>That statement has no value.
>
>
> Because your life has no value.

Wrong. His life has value, at least to him: he exists.

Life has no value to non-existent entities, and the
absence of life for potential entities who never come
into existence has no value or meaning to sane people.

>
>
>>>So am
>>>I safe in assuming that you feel your own time alive is worth no
>>>consideration, like the animals'?
>>
>>My life deserves consideration,
>
>
> What makes you more special than farm animals.

His life deserves consideration at least by all other
humans, because he exists.

>
>
>>but saying my time alive is longer than
>>nothing isn't one of those considerations.
>>
>>
>>>Or is there some reason that yours
>>>is different and deserves consideration?
>>
>>Yes, human life is special.
>
>
> That statement has no value.

You're a lying buffoon. You don't even believe what
you just wrote.

> Try to explain why.

Try to explain your miserable shit-stained existence.

>
>
>>>How do you decide
>>>which lives do and which do not, or do you feel that no animals'
>>>or humans' lives deserve consideration?
>>
>>You're not giving valid consideration to anything, you're just posturing.
>
>
> Do you think the lives of wildlife should be given consideration?

When?

> If so, all or just some of them?

I think we can exclude ants.

> If so, why should they be given more
> consideration than those of farm animals?

Because humans consider them, as a class, to be
endangered things of beauty. They also consider them
to be useful.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:43:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:00:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> > wrote
>> >> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 02:46:15 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > wrote
>> >> >> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:09:50 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >Beef cattle are not confined, but they definitely die young.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Though what they get is much longer than nothing, which is what
>> >> >> veg*nism has to offfer.
>> >> >
>> >> >Your "greater good" argument is actually preached by none other than
>> >Peter
>> >> >Singer, the utilitarian animal liberationist, ironic that you call
>your
>> >> >opponents here "ARAs". Although he stipulates that in order for the
>> >raising
>> >> >of livestock to be seen as a net good, the animals must actually
>*have*
>> >> >"decent lives". For you, the absolute minimum utilitarian, it only
>needs
>> >to
>> >> >be theoretically possible for one animal in ten thousand years to have
>a
>> >> >decent life to justify animal use.
>> >>
>> >> No. Do you even understand what I was saying about that? Yes, I
>> >believe
>> >> you can understand it quite well.
>> >
>> >Yes I do, you specifically made the point that it was ridiculous for
>anyone
>> >to suggest that no farm animal ever had a decent life. Nobody ever
>suggested
>> >that, therefore your point is a ridiculous strawman.
>>
>> It was to establish whether or not we can agree that some farm animals
>> have decent lives and some do not.
>>
>> >> You just won't admit it, or admit that some
>> >> farm animals have decent lives. Some do regardless of what you want to
>> >think
>> >> though, which is a good thing for the animals.
>> >
>> >When are you going to stop claiming that people are saying that no farm
>> >animals have decent lives? Some of them clearly do, what percentage that
>is,
>> >is very debatable, but some definitely. So can we retire that claim now?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> >It's settled.
>>
>> Good.
>
>Fantastic!
>
>> >What nobody will EVER accept is your idea that raising farm animals is,
>in
>> >and of itself, a morally praiseworthy act due to the fact that animals
>"get
>> >to experience life" or that they "live a decent life".
>>
>> I've seen animals in situations where I would rather not exist than be
>in
>> their position (I think), but had someone else who was also observing them
>> say something like, "well, at least they're alive..."
>
>Never, not once, not for a moment.

I've seen it quite a few times.

>>. I've been in that position
>> more than once as a matter of fact,
>
>I realize that you have this thought pattern. It's a problem you have.
>
>> and find it quite interesting that you never
>> have been. And even more interesting that you can't even imagine being in
>> that position.
>
>It's a corrupt thought process. It contributes nothing positive to this
>dialogue or to animals,

You think life contributes nothing positive to animals. How stupid. But, if
you can give even one example of something positive for an animal that
doesn't have life, I'll begin to believe you might have a clue what you're
talking about.

>it only serves as a transparent mechanism for
>someone like you to attempt to wring some kind of rhetorical justification
>out of the situation. It's completely unecessary and stupid.
>
>>
>> >> >The ethics of your position are tenuous,
>> >> >to say the least.
>> >>
>> >> It seems there are only a few positions we could take. Maybe you
>can
>> >tell
>> >> people what order these should fall in, from best to worst:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Feeling that it's okay to raise some animals for food and not
>others,
>> >depending
>> >> on the quality of their lives.
>> >
>> >I agree with this. It's morally right to consider the quality of animals'
>> >lives.
>> >
>> >> 2. Feeling that it's not okay to raise any animals for food, regardless
>of
>> >the quality
>> >> of their lives.
>> >
>> >I disagree with this. It's the naive and fallacious belief called
>veganism.
>> >
>> >> 3. Feeling that it is okay to raise animals for food, regardless of the
>> >quality of their
>> >> lives.
>> >
>> >I disagree with this. It's morally wrong to ignore the quality of
>animals'
>> >lives.
>> >
>> >> If you'd like to add other possibilities please just include them with
>> >mine in level of
>> >> ethical quality.
>> >
>> >Not really, that sums up animal welfare quite well, but what does it have
>to
>> >do with your proposterous idea that farm animals' lives have moral
>> >consequences for humans?
>>
>> Apparently they do. Look at all the discussion that goes on about it.
>
>There is no discussion about the animals' lives per se. The discussion is
>about the quality of their lives. The VERY fact they live is of no moral
>consequence to man.
>
>> >Let me ask you, in your world, is a person who raises 1000 happy pigs
>1000x
>> >more ethical than the person who raised only one?
>>
>> Maybe. I would certainly give a person more credit for his efforts,
>and for
>> the lives of all the pigs if he raised 1000 than if he raised only one,
>whether
>> it's "ethical" credit or not.
>
>Wrong answer, there is no difference.

There is a huge difference.

>> >What's the connection
>> >between animals being alive and human ethics? You've never made that
>> >connection.
>
>> "ARAs" want us to consider the animals' deaths.
>
>We *do* consider their deaths.

I know.

>We consider their deaths a necessary part of
>the process of obtaining their meat.

Their lives are a necessary part of the process of
obtaining their meat.

>>The animals' lives are
>> more significant than their deaths,
>
>No, actually they aren't.

Yes, actually they are.

>The animal's deaths are the most important fact of
>their lives,

LOL!!! Why is your death the most important fact
of your life Dutch?

>because that's what allows us to use them for food.
>
>> so they should be given at least as
>> much consideration, and should be given more imo.
>
>This is where you are wrong. In the way you mean, the animals' lives are of
>NO consequence at all. The "quality" of their lives is important, that's
>what animal welfare is about, but their lives, in and of themselves are
>completely irrelevant.

Why is life completely irrelevant?

>> I've told you that before.
>
>Yes, and you've been wrong every time.

You can never present a good reason to believe that.

wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 09:43:21 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>

>>>>It's settled.
>>>
>>> Good.
>>
>>Fantastic!
>>
>>
>>>>What nobody will EVER accept is your idea that raising farm animals is,
>>
>>in
>>
>>>>and of itself, a morally praiseworthy act due to the fact that animals
>>
>>"get
>>
>>>>to experience life" or that they "live a decent life".
>>>
>>> I've seen animals in situations where I would rather not exist than be in
>>>their position (I think), but had someone else who was also observing them
>>>say something like, "well, at least they're alive..."
>>
>>Never, not once, not for a moment.
>
>
> I've seen it quite a few times.

You're lying, ****wit. No one, ever, has said to you,
"well, at least they're alive..."

>
>
>>>. I've been in that position
>>>more than once as a matter of fact,
>>
>>I realize that you have this thought pattern. It's a problem you have.
>>
>>
>>>and find it quite interesting that you never
>>>have been. And even more interesting that you can't even imagine being in
>>>that position.
>>
>>It's a corrupt thought process. It contributes nothing positive to this
>>dialogue or to animals,
>
>
> You think life contributes nothing positive to animals. How stupid.

No. He thinks life per se contributes nothing to non
existent entities. Every sane person thinks that, ****wit.


>>it only serves as a transparent mechanism for
>>someone like you to attempt to wring some kind of rhetorical justification
>>out of the situation. It's completely unecessary and stupid.

And part of a ****witted, dirty trick.


>>> Apparently they do. Look at all the discussion that goes on about it.
>>
>>There is no discussion about the animals' lives per se. The discussion is
>>about the quality of their lives. The VERY fact they live is of no moral
>>consequence to man.

No comment, eh, ****wit?

>>>>Let me ask you, in your world, is a person who raises 1000 happy pigs
>>>>1000x more ethical than the person who raised only one?
>>>
>>> Maybe. I would certainly give a person more credit for his efforts,
>>>and for the lives of all the pigs if he raised 1000 than if he raised only one,
>>>whether it's "ethical" credit or not.
>>
>>Wrong answer, there is no difference.
>
>
> There is a huge difference.

There is zero difference, morally.

>
>
>>>>What's the connection
>>>>between animals being alive and human ethics? You've never made that
>>>>connection.
>>
>>> "ARAs" want us to consider the animals' deaths.
>>
>>We *do* consider their deaths.
>
>
> I know.
>
>
>>We consider their deaths a necessary part of
>>the process of obtaining their meat.
>
>
> Their lives are a necessary part of the process of
> obtaining their meat.

Their lives are of no moral value, as you stupidly
believe them to be.

>
>
>>>The animals' lives are
>>>more significant than their deaths,
>>
>>No, actually they aren't.
>
>
> Yes, actually they are.

No, actually, they aren't. The mere fact of their
lives is of NO importance whatever, in terms of the
discussion going on here.

>
>
>>The animal's deaths are the most important fact of
>>their lives,
>
>
> LOL!!! Why is your death the most important fact
> of your life Dutch?

He didn't say it was, ****wit.

>
>
>>because that's what allows us to use them for food.

No comment, eh, ****wit?

>>
>>
>>>so they should be given at least as
>>>much consideration, and should be given more imo.
>>
>>This is where you are wrong. In the way you mean, the animals' lives are of
>>NO consequence at all. The "quality" of their lives is important, that's
>>what animal welfare is about, but their lives, in and of themselves are
>>completely irrelevant.
>
>
> Why is life completely irrelevant?

Why is it relevant, ****wit? In the absence of a
showing of relevance, one may safely assume it to be
irrelevant.

>
>
>>>I've told you that before.
>>
>>Yes, and you've been wrong every time.
>
>
> You can never present a good reason to believe that.

It's been presented thousands of times, ****wit.
That's why everyone believes me, not you.

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:08:19 GMT, BlowJob > wrote:

>You have failed to give any reason whatever that anyone
>ought to give even a split second's consideration to
>the meaningless factlette.

· Some animals benefit from farming and some don't. We
clearly see that it's of great importance to "ARAs" to
prevent people from considering that *any* animals benefit
from farming. That is because "ARAs" want to eliminate
domestic animals, and recognition of how some of them
benefit from their relationship with humans could only have
a negative influence on what they would like to accomplish.·

****wit wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:08:19 GMT, JoeBob > wrote:
>
>
>>You have failed to give any reason whatever that anyone
>>ought to give even a split second's consideration to
>>the meaningless factlette.
>
>
> · Some animals benefit from farming and some don't.

No animals benefit from farming, ****wit.

****wit wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:08:19 GMT, JoeBob > wrote:
>
>
>>You have failed to give any reason whatever that anyone
>>ought to give even a split second's consideration to
>>the meaningless factlette.
>
>
> · Some animals benefit from farming and some don't.

No animals benefit from farming, ****wit.

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:53:56 GMT, BlowJob > wrote:

>****wit wrote:

>> · Some animals benefit from farming and some don't.
>
>No animals benefit from farming, ****wit.

We know that's what you "ARAs" want everyone to believe
Gonad, but some animals benefit from farming none the less.
Some of them don't, and that's all you want people to consider.

****wit wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:53:56 GMT, JoeBob wrote:
>
>
>>****wit wrote:
>
>
>>> · Some animals benefit from farming and some don't.
>>
>>No animals benefit from farming, ****wit.
>
>
> We know that's what you "ARAs" want everyone to believe
> Gonad, but some animals benefit from farming none the less.

No animals benefit from farming, ****wit. It's
logically absurd.

You don't mean that "some do and some don't", ****wit,
because you consider life per se to be a "benefit", and
there's no room for "some" in that.

You're an absurd "ara" at heart, ****wit, and you are
too stupid to realize it.