On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:40:46 GMT, wrote:

>Facts that meat consumers want to disregard:
>1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
> killed so we can eat them.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone *ever* bought this argument, David?

--swamp

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 20:26:39 GMT, swamp > wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:40:46 GMT, wrote:
>
>>Facts that meat consumers want to disregard:
>>1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
>> killed so we can eat them.
>
>Just out of curiosity, has anyone *ever* bought this argument, David?
>
>--swamp

I have mentioned it to quite a few people in face to face conversations,
and have *never* had anyone attach a bunch of extra junk to it about a
right to life for unconceived hypothetical potential future animals, like the
Gonad and some of his veg*n buddies do. They have always agreed that
raising animals for food provides billions of them with life, since it would
be absurd to disagree. As for whether or not providing them with life is
an acceptable trade off for taking it later, no one has ever had a problem
with it. There has certainly never been anyone who felt that we should
*disregard* that aspect of the situation, and when I tell people about the
responses I get in these ngs, they feel that people making them are the
ones who don't think of things realistically. No offence to you swamp,
and no offence was intended when I mentioned it before, but the
objections you presented to it were for the most part if not entirely
arguments that veg*ns would use. Some of them I suppose I would
agree with to some extent, and others I wouldn't. I've been wondering
ever since how many of them you agreed with and how many you
didn't, but we never got down to details like that so I still don't know
which are objections that you agree with and which are not. I might
still have a list of them if you'd care to go through it and say which you
go along with and which you don't.

When I mention this aspect of the situation to people in person, it
is met with a completely different reaction than it is in these ngs. Why
not try it yourself with a few people and see what their reaction is,
just out of curiosity. Please let me know how it turns out if you give it
a go. You could just tell them that some moron you've seen online is
going around saying that billions of animals are not simply "killed" as
"ARAs" want us to perceive the situation, but that those same billions
of animals only get any life at all because people raise them for food,
and see what their reaction is.

wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 20:26:39 GMT, swamp > wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:40:46 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Facts that meat consumers want to disregard:
>>>1.The meat industry provides life for the billions of animals who are
>>> killed so we can eat them.
>>
>>Just out of curiosity, has anyone *ever* bought this argument, David?
>>
>>--swamp
>
>
> I have mentioned it to quite a few people in face to face conversations,
> and have *never* had anyone attach a bunch of extra junk to it about a
> right to life for unconceived hypothetical potential future animals, like the
> Gonad and some of his veg*n buddies do. They have always agreed that
> raising animals for food provides billions of them with life, since it would
> be absurd to disagree.

No more absurd than pointing it out. It is true, but
it's trivial; it is meaningless in the debate about
whether or not it's morally right to eat meat.

> As for whether or not providing them with life is
> an acceptable trade off for taking it later, no one has ever had a problem
> with it.

Thanks for the admission that you think "getting to
experience life" is some kind of moral good. I'm
adding this to the FAQ.

> There has certainly never been anyone who felt that we should
> *disregard* that aspect of the situation, and when I tell people about the
> responses I get in these ngs, they feel that people making them are the
> ones who don't think of things realistically.

You have a cherry-picked audience of brain-dead rednecks.

> No offence to you swamp,
> and no offence was intended when I mentioned it before, but the
> objections you presented to it were for the most part if not entirely
> arguments that veg*ns would use.

Some of what "vegans" say is correct.

> Some of them I suppose I would
> agree with to some extent, and others I wouldn't. I've been wondering
> ever since how many of them you agreed with and how many you
> didn't, but we never got down to details like that so I still don't know
> which are objections that you agree with and which are not. I might
> still have a list of them if you'd care to go through it and say which you
> go along with and which you don't.
>
> When I mention this aspect of the situation to people in person, it
> is met with a completely different reaction than it is in these ngs.

Dumb inbred southern rednecks. What did you expect?

> Why not try it yourself with a few people and see what their reaction is,
> just out of curiosity. Please let me know how it turns out if you give it
> a go. You could just tell them that some moron you've seen online is
> going around saying that billions of animals are not simply "killed" as
> "ARAs" want us to perceive the situation, but that those same billions
> of animals only get any life at all because people raise them for food,
> and see what their reaction is.

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:21:32 GMT, wrote:

>No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended

No apologies necessary. I never took any offense. I just disagree w/
your "benefit of life" argument and was wondering if you had any
takers.

--swamp

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:53:43 GMT, swamp > wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:21:32 GMT, wrote:
>
>>No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended
>
>No apologies necessary. I never took any offense. I just disagree w/
>your "benefit of life" argument and was wondering if you had any
>takers.
>
>--swamp

I've had some people say something like: do you know how those
animals are raised? And I'll say that I know how some of them are
raised, and that some have decent lives and some don't. The ones
who have decent lives benefit from the arrangement, but some are
overly restricted, or beaten by aggressors, or get sick and suffer
until they die, etc..., and they don't benefit from the arrangement.
It's simple enough, and just like it is for wildlife, and pets, and humans.
Since that's the way it is, no one has disagreed with that view, though
a lot of people say they had not thought of it that way before. So yes,
everyone I've discussed it with in person has agreed that some
animals benefit from farming and some don't, and they have usually
had insulting things to say about people who can't understand that.
Have you mentioned it to anyone?

wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:53:43 GMT, swamp > wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:21:32 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended
>>
>>No apologies necessary. I never took any offense. I just disagree w/
>>your "benefit of life" argument and was wondering if you had any
>>takers.
>>
>>--swamp
>
>
> I've had some people say something like: do you know how those
> animals are raised? And I'll say that I know how some of them are
> raised, and that some have decent lives and some don't. The ones
> who have decent lives benefit from the arrangement,

Not from "getting to live", ****wit. They "benefit"
only in comparison to animals who aren't treated well.

> but some are
> overly restricted, or beaten by aggressors, or get sick and suffer
> until they die, etc..., and they don't benefit from the arrangement.

But you want the animals to live, period. You don't
care one bit about their quality of life. That's why
you buy any meat or poultry that Piggly Wiggly has for
sale.

> It's simple enough, and just like it is for wildlife, and pets, and humans.
> Since that's the way it is, no one has disagreed with that view, though
> a lot of people say they had not thought of it that way before. So yes,
> everyone I've discussed it with in person has agreed that some
> animals benefit from farming and some don't,

No animals "benefit from farming", ****wit. Life
itself is never a benefit.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:46:10 GMT, wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:53:43 GMT, swamp > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:21:32 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>>No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended
>>
>>No apologies necessary. I never took any offense. I just disagree w/
>>your "benefit of life" argument and was wondering if you had any
>>takers.
>>
>>--swamp
>
> I've had some people say something like: do you know how those
>animals are raised? And I'll say that I know how some of them are
>raised, and that some have decent lives and some don't. The ones
>who have decent lives benefit from the arrangement, but some are
>overly restricted, or beaten by aggressors, or get sick and suffer
>until they die, etc..., and they don't benefit from the arrangement.
>It's simple enough, and just like it is for wildlife, and pets, and humans.
>Since that's the way it is, no one has disagreed with that view, though
>a lot of people say they had not thought of it that way before. So yes,
>everyone I've discussed it with in person has agreed that some
>animals benefit from farming and some don't, and they have usually
>had insulting things to say about people who can't understand that.
>Have you mentioned it to anyone?

Nope, just wanted to know. You've tossed this "benefit of life"
argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses
(and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it.

Go Sox!

--swamp

swamp wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:46:10 GMT, wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:53:43 GMT, swamp > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:21:32 GMT, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended
>>>
>>>No apologies necessary. I never took any offense. I just disagree w/
>>>your "benefit of life" argument and was wondering if you had any
>>>takers.
>>>
>>>--swamp
>>
>> I've had some people say something like: do you know how those
>>animals are raised? And I'll say that I know how some of them are
>>raised, and that some have decent lives and some don't. The ones
>>who have decent lives benefit from the arrangement, but some are
>>overly restricted, or beaten by aggressors, or get sick and suffer
>>until they die, etc..., and they don't benefit from the arrangement.
>>It's simple enough, and just like it is for wildlife, and pets, and humans.
>>Since that's the way it is, no one has disagreed with that view, though
>>a lot of people say they had not thought of it that way before. So yes,
>>everyone I've discussed it with in person has agreed that some
>>animals benefit from farming and some don't, and they have usually
>>had insulting things to say about people who can't understand that.
>>Have you mentioned it to anyone?
>
>
> Nope, just wanted to know. You've tossed this "benefit of life"
> argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses
> (and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it.
>
> Go Sox!

Too late. They just lost on an 11th inning home run.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 04:20:00 GMT, Jonathan Ball
> wrote:

>swamp wrote:

[snip]

>> Go Sox!
>
>Too late. They just lost on an 11th inning home run.

Yep. Great, we've got the store-bought ^&&^% Marlins and the
Steinbrenner-bought &*&%% Yankees in the Series. Too bad they can't
both lose.

Admittedly bitter,

--swamp

swamp wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:46:10 GMT, wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:53:43 GMT, swamp > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:21:32 GMT, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended
>>>
>>>No apologies necessary. I never took any offense. I just disagree w/
>>>your "benefit of life" argument and was wondering if you had any
>>>takers.
>>>
>>>--swamp
>>
>> I've had some people say something like: do you know how those
>>animals are raised? And I'll say that I know how some of them are
>>raised, and that some have decent lives and some don't. The ones
>>who have decent lives benefit from the arrangement, but some are
>>overly restricted, or beaten by aggressors, or get sick and suffer
>>until they die, etc..., and they don't benefit from the arrangement.
>>It's simple enough, and just like it is for wildlife, and pets, and humans.
>>Since that's the way it is, no one has disagreed with that view, though
>>a lot of people say they had not thought of it that way before. So yes,
>>everyone I've discussed it with in person has agreed that some
>>animals benefit from farming and some don't, and they have usually
>>had insulting things to say about people who can't understand that.
>>Have you mentioned it to anyone?
>
>
> Nope, just wanted to know. You've tossed this "benefit of life"
> argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses
> (and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it.

ONE exceptionally dimwitted goofball named "Polly"
(sheesh) halfway agreed with it. She used to describe
it as a "'neat' side benefit". To whom, she didn't
say, but it seemed evident to me she meant it was a
benefit to *humans*, not to any animals. It's further
obvious she meant to humans *like her*. See
http://tinyurl.com/r90b

As far as I can recall, she's the only one. She was a
good pal and confederate to that fat ugly asshole Sue
Bitchup, so that ought to tell you something.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:38:06 GMT, swamp > wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:46:10 GMT, wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:53:43 GMT, swamp > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:21:32 GMT, wrote:
>>>
>>>>No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended
>>>
>>>No apologies necessary. I never took any offense. I just disagree w/
>>>your "benefit of life" argument and was wondering if you had any
>>>takers.
>>>
>>>--swamp
>>
>> I've had some people say something like: do you know how those
>>animals are raised? And I'll say that I know how some of them are
>>raised, and that some have decent lives and some don't. The ones
>>who have decent lives benefit from the arrangement, but some are
>>overly restricted, or beaten by aggressors, or get sick and suffer
>>until they die, etc..., and they don't benefit from the arrangement.
>>It's simple enough, and just like it is for wildlife, and pets, and humans.
>>Since that's the way it is, no one has disagreed with that view, though
>>a lot of people say they had not thought of it that way before. So yes,
>>everyone I've discussed it with in person has agreed that some
>>animals benefit from farming and some don't, and they have usually
>>had insulting things to say about people who can't understand that.
>>Have you mentioned it to anyone?
>
>Nope, just wanted to know.

Well, you still don't then. But even if you did mention it to some
people in person, and they did agree with it, I don't believe there's
any chance that you would admit it. I asked you abou it, but didn't
expect anything much from you.

>You've tossed this "benefit of life"
>argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses
>(and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it.

Yup. Billions of animals benefit from farming every day, and many
of us see some of them every day as we drive around farming areas,
but no one agrees they are there. I can assure you that doesn't make
me feel like I am stupid.

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:38:06 GMT, swamp > wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 01:46:10 GMT, wrote:
> >
> >>On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 07:53:43 GMT, swamp >
wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:21:32 GMT, wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>No offence to you swamp, and no offence was intended
> >>>
> >>>No apologies necessary. I never took any offense. I just disagree w/
> >>>your "benefit of life" argument and was wondering if you had any
> >>>takers.
> >>>
> >>>--swamp
> >>
> >> I've had some people say something like: do you know how those
> >>animals are raised? And I'll say that I know how some of them are
> >>raised, and that some have decent lives and some don't. The ones
> >>who have decent lives benefit from the arrangement, but some are
> >>overly restricted, or beaten by aggressors, or get sick and suffer
> >>until they die, etc..., and they don't benefit from the arrangement.
> >>It's simple enough, and just like it is for wildlife, and pets, and
humans.
> >>Since that's the way it is, no one has disagreed with that view, though
> >>a lot of people say they had not thought of it that way before. So yes,
> >>everyone I've discussed it with in person has agreed that some
> >>animals benefit from farming and some don't, and they have usually
> >>had insulting things to say about people who can't understand that.
> >>Have you mentioned it to anyone?
> >
> >Nope, just wanted to know.
>
> Well, you still don't then. But even if you did mention it to some
> people in person, and they did agree with it, I don't believe there's
> any chance that you would admit it. I asked you abou it, but didn't
> expect anything much from you.
>
> >You've tossed this "benefit of life"
> >argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses
> >(and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it.
>
> Yup. Billions of animals benefit from farming every day, and many
> of us see some of them every day as we drive around farming areas,
> but no one agrees they are there. I can assure you that doesn't make
> me feel like I am stupid.

Everyone agrees that they're there, what is in dispute is the significance
of this fact.

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. There are only two possible conclusions to draw from
your failure to do so, either you believe that everyone else here are
morons, or your believe yourself to be a prophetic thinker, in possession of
a great revelation that no-one else understands. Which is it?

wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:38:06 GMT, swamp > wrote:
>
>

>>You've tossed this "benefit of life"
>>argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses
>>(and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it.
>
>
> Yup. Billions of animals benefit from farming every day,

No animals "benefit" from farming.

> and many
> of us see some of them every day as we drive around farming areas,
> but no one agrees they are there. I can assure you that doesn't make
> me feel like I am stupid.

You believe that animals "benefit" merely from "getting
to experience life". That makes you stupid by definition.

>
> Yup. Billions of animals benefit from farming every day, and many
> of us see some of them every day as we drive around farming areas,
> but no one agrees they are there. I can assure you that doesn't make
> me feel like I am stupid.

Reminds me of about the dumbest and most trivial excuse I ever heard for a
carnivorous diet. This was that if we all went Vegan there'd be no nice farm
animals in the fields for us to see as we drive past!

This alleged person also said that it'd be a shame if they went extinct - in
spite of the fact that they're nowhere near their natural ancestors which
have already gone extinct, having been bread for centuries into most
unnatural monstrosities to get more meat off them or more milk out of them.

This person also went on to say that it'd be a shame if we all went Vegan
because all the farm animals would have to be killed! "Well what the f**king
hell do you think happens to them now?" I replied.

Distinct deficiency in the brain cell department on their part, I think.

Nemo.
(No-one's found me yet.)

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:38:06 GMT, swamp > wrote:

[...]
>You've tossed this "benefit of life"
>argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses
>(and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it.
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball >
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s
Subject: contemplative affections
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:50:08 GMT

Snuffles wrote:

> "firstoftwins" > wrote in message
> ...

>>What about Mercers lab rats? Do they benefit from his morbid
>>usage too?
>>
>>
> Lab rats tend to live longer in better conditions and suffer less than wild
> rats!
> Their Quality and Quantity of Life is greater.

If that's true, and I suppose it is for some of them,
then that sure sounds like a benefit to me.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 03:38:06 GMT, swamp > wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>You've tossed this "benefit of life"
>>argument out in tpa for a couple years, and I've watched responses
>>(and crossposts) w/o seeing one person agree w/ it.
>
> __________________________________________________ _______
> From: Jonathan Ball >
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s
> Subject: contemplative affections
> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 20:50:08 GMT
>
> Snuffles wrote:
>
>
>>"firstoftwins" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>>What about Mercers lab rats? Do they benefit from his morbid
>>>usage too?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Lab rats tend to live longer in better conditions and suffer less than wild
>>rats!
>>Their Quality and Quantity of Life is greater.
>
>
> If that's true, and I suppose it is for some of them,
> then that sure sounds like a benefit to me.

Not a "benefit" from life itself, cocksucker. A
"benefit" compared to some other possible life.

Life per se is not a benefit.