> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:29:55 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:50:04 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > wrote
> >> >> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:44:14 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >[..]
> >> >> >When you say we should "consider" the good, you really mean that we
> >> >should
> >> >> >be using it to rationalize the raising of domestic animals.
> >> >>
> >> >> If "we" care about the animals, we should include it in our
> >> >considerations
> >> >> regarding them.
> >> >
> >> >Why? What function does this "consideration of the good" have? How
does
> >it
> >> >help the animals?
> >>
> >> A better question might be how could it help future animals.
> >
> >I'll take that evasion as meaning it doesn't help existing animals AT
ALL.
>
> Of course it doesn't.

Then it's dishonest of you to imply that it does.

> Neither does veg*nism.

That's debatable, a smaller demand for meat may mean better conditions for
the remaining ones.

> What does?

More space, better lighting, cleaner conditions, quiet, proper diet,
interaction with others in a natural environment, caring handlers, etc.,
things you don't care about at all.

> >I agree.
> >
> >> But that wouldn't
> >> matter if you're unwilling to consider future animals, and you damn
sure
> >seem to
> >> spend your posts at me trying to prevent thought being given to them.
> >
> >All right, assuming we are going to breed more animals for food, how does
> >this "consideration" of the good they might experience help them?
>
> How "does" it? You know, to be as picky as you pretend to be you
> sure ask some foolish questions. The question should be how "could"
> it help them, one reason being (there are more but that's beyond you)
> because they don't even exist yet. So now, how "could" it help them?
> Again, it's beyond you or you would already know how it could help
> them.

I can only conclude from that display of confusion that this "consideration"
of the good helps no animals. Thank you, I already knew that it's only
purpose was to make YOU feel better.

>
> >> >> >You have it
> >> >> >backwards, we should make the good happen because we have a duty to
do
> >> >so.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's another part of it.
> >> >
> >> >It's the only part of it.
> >>
> >> It's another part of it. And it's really just bullshit since we
don't
> >actually have
> >> any duty to make the good happen anyway. I would have thought you were
> >> aware of that by now, after seeing the things that go on on this
planet.
> >
> >Thank you for admitting that you don't believe humans have any moral duty
to
> >treat animals humanely,
>
> I know that humans don't have any moral duty.

You're wrong.

> If you think we do, then
> what do you think assigns us that duty?

Your moral duties are a function of your membership in a social community.
If your social community says that fighting roosters is immoral, then your
moral duty is to not do it.

> With all of the horrible things people
> and animals do to each other, it's quite obvious that there is no duty or
obligation
> to treat each other humanely.

That just shows that people regularly fail to live up to their moral duties,
not that those duties don't exist.

> It's a choice we make, not a duty we have.

We have a choice to live up to or *not* live up to our moral duties, that
doesn't mean they don't exist. If you die, those duties continue to exist
and apply to other people, so they obviously are not soley a function of
you. Your point of view borders on sociopathy.

> But again, that's apparently beyond you.

No, it's just wrong-headed, like most of what you think.

> >we've known it all along, cock-fighter. Your only
> >concern is constructing a thought pattern in which you are able to
> >congratulate yourself for gobbling down pork chops and chicken wings and
> >fighting roosters.
>
> My concern is to point out that some animals benefit from being raised
by
> humans and some don't.

That does not have the significance that you attempt to imply it does.

> Yours is to insist that none do,

No, mine is to point out that your "concern" is misplaced and wrong-headed.

> which is a stupid
> and extremely dishonest thing to insist upon.

Since it's not true that doesn't apply.

> >> >Your "consideration of the good" is nothing more
> >> >than empty sophistry.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:09:20 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:29:55 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:50:04 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > wrote
>> >> >> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:44:14 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >[..]
>> >> >> >When you say we should "consider" the good, you really mean that we
>> >> >should
>> >> >> >be using it to rationalize the raising of domestic animals.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If "we" care about the animals, we should include it in our
>> >> >considerations
>> >> >> regarding them.
>> >> >
>> >> >Why? What function does this "consideration of the good" have? How
>does
>> >it
>> >> >help the animals?
>> >>
>> >> A better question might be how could it help future animals.
>> >
>> >I'll take that evasion as meaning it doesn't help existing animals AT
>ALL.
>>
>> Of course it doesn't.
>
>Then it's dishonest of you to imply that it does.
>
>> Neither does veg*nism.
>
>That's debatable, a smaller demand for meat may mean better conditions for
>the remaining ones.
>
>> What does?
>
>More space, better lighting, cleaner conditions, quiet, proper diet,
>interaction with others in a natural environment, caring handlers, etc.,
>things you don't care about at all.
>
>> >I agree.
>> >
>> >> But that wouldn't
>> >> matter if you're unwilling to consider future animals, and you damn
>sure
>> >seem to
>> >> spend your posts at me trying to prevent thought being given to them.
>> >
>> >All right, assuming we are going to breed more animals for food, how does
>> >this "consideration" of the good they might experience help them?
>>
>> How "does" it? You know, to be as picky as you pretend to be you
>> sure ask some foolish questions. The question should be how "could"
>> it help them, one reason being (there are more but that's beyond you)
>> because they don't even exist yet. So now, how "could" it help them?
>> Again, it's beyond you or you would already know how it could help
>> them.
>
>I can only conclude from that display of confusion that this "consideration"
>of the good helps no animals. Thank you, I already knew that it's only
>purpose was to make YOU feel better.
>
>>
>> >> >> >You have it
>> >> >> >backwards, we should make the good happen because we have a duty to
>do
>> >> >so.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's another part of it.
>> >> >
>> >> >It's the only part of it.
>> >>
>> >> It's another part of it. And it's really just bullshit since we
>don't
>> >actually have
>> >> any duty to make the good happen anyway. I would have thought you were
>> >> aware of that by now, after seeing the things that go on on this
>planet.
>> >
>> >Thank you for admitting that you don't believe humans have any moral duty
>to
>> >treat animals humanely,
>>
>> I know that humans don't have any moral duty.
>
>You're wrong.
>
>> If you think we do, then
>> what do you think assigns us that duty?
>
>Your moral duties are a function of your membership in a social community.
>If your social community says that fighting roosters is immoral, then your
>moral duty is to not do it.

I don't do it. Still no one has shown why it's better to hang a baby
chicken by its feet and cut its throat, than it is to let a mature rooster
fight for his life if he wants to. There are more things to consider as
always, but you can't get as far as "we" got this time.

>> With all of the horrible things people
>> and animals do to each other, it's quite obvious that there is no duty or
>obligation
>> to treat each other humanely.
>
>That just shows that people regularly fail to live up to their moral duties,
>not that those duties don't exist.
>
>> It's a choice we make, not a duty we have.
>
>We have a choice to live up to or *not* live up to our moral duties, that
>doesn't mean they don't exist. If you die, those duties continue to exist
>and apply to other people, so they obviously are not soley a function of
>you. Your point of view borders on sociopathy.
>
>> But again, that's apparently beyond you.
>
>No, it's just wrong-headed, like most of what you think.
>
>> >we've known it all along, cock-fighter. Your only
>> >concern is constructing a thought pattern in which you are able to
>> >congratulate yourself for gobbling down pork chops and chicken wings and
>> >fighting roosters.
>>
>> My concern is to point out that some animals benefit from being raised
>by
>> humans and some don't.
>
>That does not have the significance that you attempt to imply it does.
>
>> Yours is to insist that none do,
>
>No, mine is to point out that your "concern" is misplaced and wrong-headed.
>
>> which is a stupid
>> and extremely dishonest thing to insist upon.
>
>Since it's not true that doesn't apply.
>
>> >> >Your "consideration of the good" is nothing more
>> >> >than empty sophistry.

Merry Christmas!

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:09:20 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:29:55 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> .. .
> >> >> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:50:04 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > wrote
> >> >> >> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:44:14 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >[..]
> >> >> >> >When you say we should "consider" the good, you really mean that
we
> >> >> >should
> >> >> >> >be using it to rationalize the raising of domestic animals.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If "we" care about the animals, we should include it in our
> >> >> >considerations
> >> >> >> regarding them.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Why? What function does this "consideration of the good" have? How
> >does
> >> >it
> >> >> >help the animals?
> >> >>
> >> >> A better question might be how could it help future animals.
> >> >
> >> >I'll take that evasion as meaning it doesn't help existing animals AT
> >ALL.
> >>
> >> Of course it doesn't.
> >
> >Then it's dishonest of you to imply that it does.
> >
> >> Neither does veg*nism.
> >
> >That's debatable, a smaller demand for meat may mean better conditions
for
> >the remaining ones.
> >
> >> What does?
> >
> >More space, better lighting, cleaner conditions, quiet, proper diet,
> >interaction with others in a natural environment, caring handlers, etc.,
> >things you don't care about at all.
> >
> >> >I agree.
> >> >
> >> >> But that wouldn't
> >> >> matter if you're unwilling to consider future animals, and you damn
> >sure
> >> >seem to
> >> >> spend your posts at me trying to prevent thought being given to
them.
> >> >
> >> >All right, assuming we are going to breed more animals for food, how
does
> >> >this "consideration" of the good they might experience help them?
> >>
> >> How "does" it? You know, to be as picky as you pretend to be you
> >> sure ask some foolish questions. The question should be how "could"
> >> it help them, one reason being (there are more but that's beyond you)
> >> because they don't even exist yet. So now, how "could" it help them?
> >> Again, it's beyond you or you would already know how it could help
> >> them.
> >
> >I can only conclude from that display of confusion that this
"consideration"
> >of the good helps no animals. Thank you, I already knew that it's only
> >purpose was to make YOU feel better.
> >
> >>
> >> >> >> >You have it
> >> >> >> >backwards, we should make the good happen because we have a duty
to
> >do
> >> >> >so.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That's another part of it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It's the only part of it.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's another part of it. And it's really just bullshit since we
> >don't
> >> >actually have
> >> >> any duty to make the good happen anyway. I would have thought you
were
> >> >> aware of that by now, after seeing the things that go on on this
> >planet.
> >> >
> >> >Thank you for admitting that you don't believe humans have any moral
duty
> >to
> >> >treat animals humanely,
> >>
> >> I know that humans don't have any moral duty.
> >
> >You're wrong.
> >
> >> If you think we do, then
> >> what do you think assigns us that duty?
> >
> >Your moral duties are a function of your membership in a social
community.
> >If your social community says that fighting roosters is immoral, then
your
> >moral duty is to not do it.
>
> I don't do it.

I didn't say you did, it was just an example.

> Still no one has shown why it's better to hang a baby
> chicken by its feet and cut its throat, than it is to let a mature rooster
> fight for his life if he wants to.

Both are violent acts against animals staged by humans, the first is is
considered an acceptable reason by society, to obtain food, the second,
entertainment, is not considered a legitimate reason to stage violence
towards animals. It's considered immoral.

> There are more things to consider as
> always, but you can't get as far as "we" got this time.

I thoroughly refuted about five statements by you in this post alone, that's
enough for now.

> >> With all of the horrible things people
> >> and animals do to each other, it's quite obvious that there is no duty
or
> >obligation
> >> to treat each other humanely.
> >
> >That just shows that people regularly fail to live up to their moral
duties,
> >not that those duties don't exist.
> >
> >> It's a choice we make, not a duty we have.
> >
> >We have a choice to live up to or *not* live up to our moral duties, that
> >doesn't mean they don't exist. If you die, those duties continue to exist
> >and apply to other people, so they obviously are not soley a function of
> >you. Your point of view borders on sociopathy.
> >
> >> But again, that's apparently beyond you.
> >
> >No, it's just wrong-headed, like most of what you think.
> >
> >> >we've known it all along, cock-fighter. Your only
> >> >concern is constructing a thought pattern in which you are able to
> >> >congratulate yourself for gobbling down pork chops and chicken wings
and
> >> >fighting roosters.
> >>
> >> My concern is to point out that some animals benefit from being
raised
> >by
> >> humans and some don't.
> >
> >That does not have the significance that you attempt to imply it does.
> >
> >> Yours is to insist that none do,
> >
> >No, mine is to point out that your "concern" is misplaced and
wrong-headed.
> >
> >> which is a stupid
> >> and extremely dishonest thing to insist upon.
> >
> >Since it's not true that doesn't apply.
> >
> >> >> >Your "consideration of the good" is nothing more
> >> >> >than empty sophistry.
>
> Merry Christmas!

Same to you.

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:36:39 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 13:09:20 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:29:55 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> .. .
>> >> >> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:50:04 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > wrote
>> >> >> >> On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:44:14 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >[..]
>> >> >> >> >When you say we should "consider" the good, you really mean that
>we
>> >> >> >should
>> >> >> >> >be using it to rationalize the raising of domestic animals.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> If "we" care about the animals, we should include it in our
>> >> >> >considerations
>> >> >> >> regarding them.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Why? What function does this "consideration of the good" have? How
>> >does
>> >> >it
>> >> >> >help the animals?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A better question might be how could it help future animals.
>> >> >
>> >> >I'll take that evasion as meaning it doesn't help existing animals AT
>> >ALL.
>> >>
>> >> Of course it doesn't.
>> >
>> >Then it's dishonest of you to imply that it does.
>> >
>> >> Neither does veg*nism.
>> >
>> >That's debatable, a smaller demand for meat may mean better conditions
>for
>> >the remaining ones.
>> >
>> >> What does?
>> >
>> >More space, better lighting, cleaner conditions, quiet, proper diet,
>> >interaction with others in a natural environment, caring handlers, etc.,
>> >things you don't care about at all.
>> >
>> >> >I agree.
>> >> >
>> >> >> But that wouldn't
>> >> >> matter if you're unwilling to consider future animals, and you damn
>> >sure
>> >> >seem to
>> >> >> spend your posts at me trying to prevent thought being given to
>them.
>> >> >
>> >> >All right, assuming we are going to breed more animals for food, how
>does
>> >> >this "consideration" of the good they might experience help them?
>> >>
>> >> How "does" it? You know, to be as picky as you pretend to be you
>> >> sure ask some foolish questions. The question should be how "could"
>> >> it help them, one reason being (there are more but that's beyond you)
>> >> because they don't even exist yet. So now, how "could" it help them?
>> >> Again, it's beyond you or you would already know how it could help
>> >> them.
>> >
>> >I can only conclude from that display of confusion that this
>"consideration"
>> >of the good helps no animals. Thank you, I already knew that it's only
>> >purpose was to make YOU feel better.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >> >> >You have it
>> >> >> >> >backwards, we should make the good happen because we have a duty
>to
>> >do
>> >> >> >so.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> That's another part of it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >It's the only part of it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's another part of it. And it's really just bullshit since we
>> >don't
>> >> >actually have
>> >> >> any duty to make the good happen anyway. I would have thought you
>were
>> >> >> aware of that by now, after seeing the things that go on on this
>> >planet.
>> >> >
>> >> >Thank you for admitting that you don't believe humans have any moral
>duty
>> >to
>> >> >treat animals humanely,
>> >>
>> >> I know that humans don't have any moral duty.
>> >
>> >You're wrong.
>> >
>> >> If you think we do, then
>> >> what do you think assigns us that duty?
>> >
>> >Your moral duties are a function of your membership in a social
>community.
>> >If your social community says that fighting roosters is immoral, then
>your
>> >moral duty is to not do it.
>>
>> I don't do it.
>
>I didn't say you did, it was just an example.
>
>> Still no one has shown why it's better to hang a baby
>> chicken by its feet and cut its throat, than it is to let a mature rooster
>> fight for his life if he wants to.
>
>Both are violent acts against animals staged by humans, the first is is
>considered an acceptable reason by society, to obtain food, the second,
>entertainment, is not considered a legitimate reason to stage violence
>towards animals. It's considered immoral.

One provides life for millions of cage free hens and roosters who
lay the eggs to provide the fryers. It also provides about 6 weeks of
life for billions of cage free chicks. The other provides life for however
many game chickens, which vary in quality and length of time. But.
Many of those birds have very good lives, and a lot of them are running
free. The hens never have to go fight. The male chicks who don't make
it to maturity never have to go fight, which is the majority of them. Those
who do go fight and die don't have to do it again. Those who go fight and
do well are often kept as brood fowl and live for over 10 years, being well
cared for and having a good life with several hens. It's the type of small
farm situation that people often act like is a good thing, but in this case
they act differently. And why? Is it out of consideration for the animals?
No! It's only out of consideration for themselves/**yourself!**.

>> There are more things to consider as
>> always, but you can't get as far as "we" got this time.
>
>I thoroughly refuted about five statements by you in this post alone,

You haven't refuted even one. All you have done is show that
your ethical equation only considers the way that you personally
think about things, and has between little and no consideration
for how these things influence animals. That's the way it always
is, and what we're really disagreeing about. I believe the way
animals are influenced should be our biggest consideration when
considering human influence on animals, but you (laughably?
saddly? stupidly? proudly? desperately? all of those things!!!) feel
that aspect should *not* be considered. It always comes back to
you only care about you:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Subject: Credible info on how other farm animals live + a little extra
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 14:51:16 -0700
Message-ID: >

> You can't explain why life of a positive value is of no benefit to
you, or
> to animals.

Why should I, it's not what I'm saying. What you need to show is how the
life *of a chicken* in a barn somewhere has ethical value to ME as a chicken
consumer.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
to the point that you are opposed to giving consideration toward
the animals. In that way you are in agreement with the "ARAs".

> wrote
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:36:39 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]

[..]
> >> Still no one has shown why it's better to hang a baby
> >> chicken by its feet and cut its throat, than it is to let a mature
rooster
> >> fight for his life if he wants to.
> >
> >Both are violent acts against animals staged by humans, the first is is
> >considered an acceptable reason by society, to obtain food, the second,
> >entertainment, is not considered a legitimate reason to stage violence
> >towards animals. It's considered immoral.
>
> One provides life for millions of cage free hens and roosters who
> lay the eggs to provide the fryers.

Logic of the larder, 2000 year old sophism, read it again, try to understand
it.

Have a good Christmas.

Dutch wrote:

> > wrote
>

>>>Both are violent acts against animals staged by humans, the first is is
>>>considered an acceptable reason by society, to obtain food, the second,
>>>entertainment, is not considered a legitimate reason to stage violence
>>>towards animals. It's considered immoral.
>>
>> One provides life for millions of cage free hens and roosters who
>>lay the eggs to provide the fryers.
>
>
> Logic of the larder, 2000 year old sophism, read it again, try to understand
> it.
>
> Have a good Christmas.

****wit is not the sort of worthy opponent to whom one
offers good wishes. I wish ill on no person, but there
are those, like ****wit, to whom I never would wish
anything good, either.

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 11:04:36 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote
>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:36:39 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>[..]
>
>[..]
>> >> Still no one has shown why it's better to hang a baby
>> >> chicken by its feet and cut its throat, than it is to let a mature
>rooster
>> >> fight for his life if he wants to.
>> >
>> >Both are violent acts against animals staged by humans, the first is is
>> >considered an acceptable reason by society, to obtain food, the second,
>> >entertainment, is not considered a legitimate reason to stage violence
>> >towards animals. It's considered immoral.
>>
>> One provides life for millions of cage free hens and roosters who
>> lay the eggs to provide the fryers.
>
>Logic of the larder, 2000 year old sophism, read it again, try to understand
>it.

It says nothing to disprove the fact that raising animals for food provides
life for billions of animals. In fact, there is nothing that does or *could*
disprove the fact that raising animals for food provides life for billions of
animals. So the "best" that anyone is capable of doing, is saying that the
animals' deaths are all that should be taken into consideration, without
providing a decent reason why people should restrict their thinking in a
way that distorts their view of reality in such a huge way. To "think" that
none of the hundreds of cattle grazing in pastures that I drove by today
benefit from farming, is absolutely absurd.

>Have a good Christmas.

Thank you. I did, and hope that you did as well.

wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 11:04:36 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>

>>> One provides life for millions of cage free hens and roosters who
>>>lay the eggs to provide the fryers.
>>
>>Logic of the larder, 2000 year old sophism, read it again, try to understand
>>it.
>
>
> It says nothing to disprove the fact that raising animals for food provides
> life for billions of animals.

It says that "providing life for billions of animals"
is morally worthless. You are morally worthless.

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 11:04:36 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > wrote
> >> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:36:39 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >[..]
> >
> >[..]
> >> >> Still no one has shown why it's better to hang a baby
> >> >> chicken by its feet and cut its throat, than it is to let a mature
> >rooster
> >> >> fight for his life if he wants to.
> >> >
> >> >Both are violent acts against animals staged by humans, the first is
is
> >> >considered an acceptable reason by society, to obtain food, the
second,
> >> >entertainment, is not considered a legitimate reason to stage violence
> >> >towards animals. It's considered immoral.
> >>
> >> One provides life for millions of cage free hens and roosters who
> >> lay the eggs to provide the fryers.
> >
> >Logic of the larder, 2000 year old sophism, read it again, try to
understand
> >it.
>
> It says nothing to disprove the fact that raising animals for food
provides
> life for billions of animals.

That's not what it's trying to do.

> In fact, there is nothing that does or *could*
> disprove the fact that raising animals for food provides life for billions
of
> animals. So the "best" that anyone is capable of doing, is saying that the
> animals' deaths are all that should be taken into consideration, without
> providing a decent reason why people should restrict their thinking in a
> way that distorts their view of reality in such a huge way. To "think"
that
> none of the hundreds of cattle grazing in pastures that I drove by today
> benefit from farming, is absolutely absurd.

That's the logic of the larder. You're attempting to extract some moral
significance from something that has none.


> >Have a good Christmas.
>
> Thank you. I did, and hope that you did as well.

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 22:46:33 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 11:04:36 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> > wrote
>> >> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 21:36:39 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >[..]
>> >
>> >[..]
>> >> >> Still no one has shown why it's better to hang a baby
>> >> >> chicken by its feet and cut its throat, than it is to let a mature
>> >rooster
>> >> >> fight for his life if he wants to.
>> >> >
>> >> >Both are violent acts against animals staged by humans, the first is
>is
>> >> >considered an acceptable reason by society, to obtain food, the
>second,
>> >> >entertainment, is not considered a legitimate reason to stage violence
>> >> >towards animals. It's considered immoral.
>> >>
>> >> One provides life for millions of cage free hens and roosters who
>> >> lay the eggs to provide the fryers.
>> >
>> >Logic of the larder, 2000 year old sophism, read it again, try to
>understand
>> >it.
>>
>> It says nothing to disprove the fact that raising animals for food
>provides
>> life for billions of animals.
>
>That's not what it's trying to do.
>
>> In fact, there is nothing that does or *could*
>> disprove the fact that raising animals for food provides life for billions
>of
>> animals. So the "best" that anyone is capable of doing, is saying that the
>> animals' deaths are all that should be taken into consideration, without
>> providing a decent reason why people should restrict their thinking in a
>> way that distorts their view of reality in such a huge way. To "think"
>that
>> none of the hundreds of cattle grazing in pastures that I drove by today
>> benefit from farming, is absolutely absurd.
>
>That's the logic of the larder. You're attempting to extract some moral
>significance from something that has none.

If so, then maybe nothing has moral significance.

>> >Have a good Christmas.
>>
>> Thank you. I did, and hope that you did as well.
>

> wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

> >> To "think" that
> >> none of the hundreds of cattle grazing in pastures that I drove by
today
> >> benefit from farming, is absolutely absurd.
> >
> >That's the logic of the larder. You're attempting to extract some moral
> >significance from something that has none.
>
> If so, then maybe nothing has moral significance.

That's wrong also, plenty of things have moral significance, that just
doesn't happen to be one of them.

If a pig lives in a barn, and you happen to be a worker in that barn, it's
morally signicant whether you handle that pig with care and respect or if
you club it with a piece of re-bar.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:24:52 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote
>> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> >> To "think" that
>> >> none of the hundreds of cattle grazing in pastures that I drove by
>today
>> >> benefit from farming, is absolutely absurd.
>> >
>> >That's the logic of the larder. You're attempting to extract some moral
>> >significance from something that has none.
>>
>> If so, then maybe nothing has moral significance.
>
>That's wrong also, plenty of things have moral significance, that just
>doesn't happen to be one of them.

You can't show why their lives shouldn't be given as much consideration
as their deaths. Apparently it should be given more, since their deaths are
not a loss to them. Dead animals can't suffer a loss. If you think that instant
that they die makes their whole lives not worth living, then you're in the same
boat and your life isn't worth living for the same reason.

>If a pig lives in a barn, and you happen to be a worker in that barn, it's
>morally signicant whether you handle that pig with care and respect or if
>you club it with a piece of re-bar.

Agreed. I also believe the radicalness of PeTA causes much harm to
animals. I've known kids who work in chicken houses picking up the dead
chicks, who would do things to the poor living ones (like stomp them or
throw them through a fan...) as a lame defiance toward "AR" groups.

> wrote
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:24:52 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > wrote
> >> "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >> >> To "think" that
> >> >> none of the hundreds of cattle grazing in pastures that I drove by
> >today
> >> >> benefit from farming, is absolutely absurd.
> >> >
> >> >That's the logic of the larder. You're attempting to extract some
moral
> >> >significance from something that has none.
> >>
> >> If so, then maybe nothing has moral significance.
> >
> >That's wrong also, plenty of things have moral significance, that just
> >doesn't happen to be one of them.
>
> You can't show why their lives shouldn't be given as much
consideration
> as their deaths.

You keep repeating that "their lives should be given consideration", that is
the self-serving logic of the larder. It implies that we ought to conclude
that we have done something morally admirable based simply on the fact that
animals we exploit are alive. You go even further, you don't require, as
Singer does that we raise animals in an idyllic environment, you don't even
require that we actually breed the animals ourselves, you think we ought to
be congratulated for simply buying animal products.

> Apparently it should be given more, since their deaths are
> not a loss to them. Dead animals can't suffer a loss.

They aren't dead when they are killed, they're still alive.

> If you think that instant
> that they die makes their whole lives not worth living,

The instant they die they cease to be a liability and become "animal
products", hence they begin to have value to humans. In that sense, we view
them as having negative value when they are alive (they consume resources)
which should be a clue to you that we do not deserve moral credit for those
lives. At no time in the process did the very fact that they are alive
qualify as a moral credit to those who raise them or demand those products.

> then you're in the same
> boat and your life isn't worth living for the same reason.

The only boat here is the rudderless skiff you are in with this position.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:45:56 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> wrote
>> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:24:52 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> > wrote
>> >> "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> To "think" that
>> >> >> none of the hundreds of cattle grazing in pastures that I drove by
>> >today
>> >> >> benefit from farming, is absolutely absurd.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's the logic of the larder. You're attempting to extract some
>moral
>> >> >significance from something that has none.
>> >>
>> >> If so, then maybe nothing has moral significance.
>> >
>> >That's wrong also, plenty of things have moral significance, that just
>> >doesn't happen to be one of them.
>>
>> You can't show why their lives shouldn't be given as much
>consideration
>> as their deaths.
>
>You keep repeating that "their lives should be given consideration", that is
>the self-serving logic of the larder. It implies that we ought to conclude
>that we have done something morally admirable based simply on the fact that
>animals we exploit are alive. You go even further, you don't require, as
>Singer does that we raise animals in an idyllic environment, you don't even
>require that we actually breed the animals ourselves, you think we ought to
>be congratulated for simply buying animal products.
>
>> Apparently it should be given more, since their deaths are
>> not a loss to them. Dead animals can't suffer a loss.
>
>They aren't dead when they are killed, they're still alive.

Things they suffer throughout their lives are sometimes more disturbing
to them than their deaths:
__________________________________________________ _______
Reactions to the throat cut

The variable of reactions to the incision must be separated from the variable of
the time required for the animal to become completely insensible. Recordings of
EEG or evoked potentials measure the time required for the animal to lose
consciousness. They are not measures of pain. Careful observations of the
animal's behavioural reactions to the cut are one of the best ways to determine
if cutting the throat without prior stunning is painful. The time required for the
animals to become unconscious will be discussed later.
[...]
Blood on the equipment did not appear to upset the cattle. They voluntarily
entered the box when the rear gate was opened. Some cattle licked the blood.

In all three restraint systems, the animals had little or no reaction to the throat cut.
There was a slight flinch when the blade first touched the throat. This flinch was
much less vigorous than an animal's reaction to an eartag punch. There was no
further reaction as the cut proceeded. Both carotids were severed in all animals.
Some animals in the modified ASPCA pen were held so loosely by the head holder
and rear pusher gate that they could have easily pulled away from the knife.
[...]
http://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaugh.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I'll never be convinced that such a death destroys any positive value their
lives have had. But of course you don't believe their lives have any positive
value at all, and their deaths are all you consider.

>> If you think that instant
>> that they die makes their whole lives not worth living,
>
>The instant they die they cease to be a liability and become "animal
>products", hence they begin to have value to humans. In that sense, we view
>them as having negative value when they are alive (they consume resources)
>which should be a clue to you that we do not deserve moral credit for those
>lives. At no time in the process did the very fact that they are alive
>qualify as a moral credit to those who raise them or demand those products.

You are consistent in your total lack of consideration for the animals.
The things you mentioned are completely meaningless in regards to
whether or not some animals benefit from being raised for food, which
some do and some don't.

>> then you're in the same
>> boat and your life isn't worth living for the same reason.
>
>The only boat here is the rudderless skiff you are in with this position.

We are all in the same position in regards to whether or not death
makes life not worth having experienced. You feel that it does, regardless
of quality of life, or the amount of suffering involved in death. I feel that it
depends on the particular situations.

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:45:56 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> > wrote
> >> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:24:52 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > wrote
> >> >> "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >> To "think" that
> >> >> >> none of the hundreds of cattle grazing in pastures that I drove
by
> >> >today
> >> >> >> benefit from farming, is absolutely absurd.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That's the logic of the larder. You're attempting to extract some
> >moral
> >> >> >significance from something that has none.
> >> >>
> >> >> If so, then maybe nothing has moral significance.
> >> >
> >> >That's wrong also, plenty of things have moral significance, that just
> >> >doesn't happen to be one of them.
> >>
> >> You can't show why their lives shouldn't be given as much
> >consideration
> >> as their deaths.
> >
> >You keep repeating that "their lives should be given consideration", that
is
> >the self-serving logic of the larder. It implies that we ought to
conclude
> >that we have done something morally admirable based simply on the fact
that
> >animals we exploit are alive. You go even further, you don't require, as
> >Singer does that we raise animals in an idyllic environment, you don't
even
> >require that we actually breed the animals ourselves, you think we ought
to
> >be congratulated for simply buying animal products.
> >
> >> Apparently it should be given more, since their deaths are
> >> not a loss to them. Dead animals can't suffer a loss.
> >
> >They aren't dead when they are killed, they're still alive.
>
> Things they suffer throughout their lives are sometimes more
disturbing
> to them than their deaths:
> __________________________________________________ _______
> Reactions to the throat cut
>
> The variable of reactions to the incision must be separated from the
variable of
> the time required for the animal to become completely insensible.
Recordings of
> EEG or evoked potentials measure the time required for the animal to lose
> consciousness. They are not measures of pain. Careful observations of the
> animal's behavioural reactions to the cut are one of the best ways to
determine
> if cutting the throat without prior stunning is painful. The time required
for the
> animals to become unconscious will be discussed later.
> [...]
> Blood on the equipment did not appear to upset the cattle. They
voluntarily
> entered the box when the rear gate was opened. Some cattle licked the
blood.
>
> In all three restraint systems, the animals had little or no reaction to
the throat cut.
> There was a slight flinch when the blade first touched the throat. This
flinch was
> much less vigorous than an animal's reaction to an eartag punch. There was
no
> further reaction as the cut proceeded. Both carotids were severed in all
animals.
> Some animals in the modified ASPCA pen were held so loosely by the head
holder
> and rear pusher gate that they could have easily pulled away from the
knife.
> [...]
> http://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaugh.html
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> I'll never be convinced that such a death destroys any positive value
their
> lives have had. But of course you don't believe their lives have any
positive
> value at all, and their deaths are all you consider.
>
> >> If you think that instant
> >> that they die makes their whole lives not worth living,
> >
> >The instant they die they cease to be a liability and become "animal
> >products", hence they begin to have value to humans. In that sense, we
view
> >them as having negative value when they are alive (they consume
resources)
> >which should be a clue to you that we do not deserve moral credit for
those
> >lives. At no time in the process did the very fact that they are alive
> >qualify as a moral credit to those who raise them or demand those
products.
>
> You are consistent in your total lack of consideration for the
animals.

You've never demonstrated any concern for the animals beyond claiming a
credit for their lives.

> The things you mentioned are completely meaningless in regards to
> whether or not some animals benefit from being raised for food, which
> some do and some don't.

That statement is meaningless. If you were advocating carefully selecting
animal products derived from those animals that "benefit" (receive humane
care) then you'd be saying something. To simply say that "some benefit and
some don't" is idiotic. Yet you repeat it broken record-style as it meant
something.

> >> then you're in the same
> >> boat and your life isn't worth living for the same reason.
> >
> >The only boat here is the rudderless skiff you are in with this position.
>
> We are all in the same position in regards to whether or not death
> makes life not worth having experienced. You feel that it does, regardless
> of quality of life, or the amount of suffering involved in death. I feel
that it
> depends on the particular situations.

None of that is meaningful in this discussion, you're off on a stupid
tangent.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 15:38:02 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:45:56 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > wrote
>> >> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:24:52 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > wrote
>> >> >> "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >> To "think" that
>> >> >> >> none of the hundreds of cattle grazing in pastures that I drove
>by
>> >> >today
>> >> >> >> benefit from farming, is absolutely absurd.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >That's the logic of the larder. You're attempting to extract some
>> >moral
>> >> >> >significance from something that has none.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If so, then maybe nothing has moral significance.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's wrong also, plenty of things have moral significance, that just
>> >> >doesn't happen to be one of them.
>> >>
>> >> You can't show why their lives shouldn't be given as much
>> >consideration
>> >> as their deaths.
>> >
>> >You keep repeating that "their lives should be given consideration", that
>is
>> >the self-serving logic of the larder. It implies that we ought to
>conclude
>> >that we have done something morally admirable based simply on the fact
>that
>> >animals we exploit are alive. You go even further, you don't require, as
>> >Singer does that we raise animals in an idyllic environment, you don't
>even
>> >require that we actually breed the animals ourselves, you think we ought
>to
>> >be congratulated for simply buying animal products.
>> >
>> >> Apparently it should be given more, since their deaths are
>> >> not a loss to them. Dead animals can't suffer a loss.
>> >
>> >They aren't dead when they are killed, they're still alive.
>>
>> Things they suffer throughout their lives are sometimes more
>disturbing
>> to them than their deaths:
>> __________________________________________________ _______
>> Reactions to the throat cut
>>
>> The variable of reactions to the incision must be separated from the
>variable of
>> the time required for the animal to become completely insensible.
>Recordings of
>> EEG or evoked potentials measure the time required for the animal to lose
>> consciousness. They are not measures of pain. Careful observations of the
>> animal's behavioural reactions to the cut are one of the best ways to
>determine
>> if cutting the throat without prior stunning is painful. The time required
>for the
>> animals to become unconscious will be discussed later.
>> [...]
>> Blood on the equipment did not appear to upset the cattle. They
>voluntarily
>> entered the box when the rear gate was opened. Some cattle licked the
>blood.
>>
>> In all three restraint systems, the animals had little or no reaction to
>the throat cut.
>> There was a slight flinch when the blade first touched the throat. This
>flinch was
>> much less vigorous than an animal's reaction to an eartag punch. There was
>no
>> further reaction as the cut proceeded. Both carotids were severed in all
>animals.
>> Some animals in the modified ASPCA pen were held so loosely by the head
>holder
>> and rear pusher gate that they could have easily pulled away from the
>knife.
>> [...]
>> http://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaugh.html
>> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>> I'll never be convinced that such a death destroys any positive value
>their
>> lives have had. But of course you don't believe their lives have any
>positive
>> value at all, and their deaths are all you consider.
>>
>> >> If you think that instant
>> >> that they die makes their whole lives not worth living,
>> >
>> >The instant they die they cease to be a liability and become "animal
>> >products", hence they begin to have value to humans. In that sense, we
>view
>> >them as having negative value when they are alive (they consume
>resources)
>> >which should be a clue to you that we do not deserve moral credit for
>those
>> >lives. At no time in the process did the very fact that they are alive
>> >qualify as a moral credit to those who raise them or demand those
>products.
>>
>> You are consistent in your total lack of consideration for the
>animals.
>
>You've never demonstrated any concern for the animals beyond claiming a
>credit for their lives.

Well, that's sure a lie.

>> The things you mentioned are completely meaningless in regards to
>> whether or not some animals benefit from being raised for food, which
>> some do and some don't.
>
>That statement is meaningless. If you were advocating carefully selecting
>animal products derived from those animals that "benefit" (receive humane
>care) then you'd be saying something. To simply say that "some benefit and
>some don't" is idiotic. Yet you repeat it broken record-style as it meant
>something.

It does mean something. If it didn't then you wouldn't have said: If you were
advocating carefully selecting animal products derived from those animals that
"benefit". The first step in that of course is to recognise that some do benefit.
All that you "ARAs" want people to recognise is some do not. So I point out that
some do and some do not, and then you "ARAs" oppose it being pointed out
because it doesn't support the elimination of domestic animals.

>> >> then you're in the same
>> >> boat and your life isn't worth living for the same reason.
>> >
>> >The only boat here is the rudderless skiff you are in with this position.
>>
>> We are all in the same position in regards to whether or not death
>> makes life not worth having experienced. You feel that it does, regardless
>> of quality of life, or the amount of suffering involved in death. I feel
>that it
>> depends on the particular situations.
>
>None of that is meaningful in this discussion,

We're discussing whether or not life is worth living, and if so when and
when not. Were you unaware of that?

>you're off on a stupid
>tangent.
>

wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 15:38:02 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>

>>You've never demonstrated any concern for the animals beyond claiming a
>>credit for their lives.
>
>
> Well, that's sure a lie.

No, it's completely the truth.

>
>
>>>The things you mentioned are completely meaningless in regards to
>>>whether or not some animals benefit from being raised for food, which
>>>some do and some don't.
>>
>>That statement is meaningless. If you were advocating carefully selecting
>>animal products derived from those animals that "benefit" (receive humane
>>care) then you'd be saying something. To simply say that "some benefit and
>>some don't" is idiotic. Yet you repeat it broken record-style as it meant
>>something.
>
>
> It does mean something.

It means crap, ****WIT.

> wrote
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 15:38:02 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

> >You've never demonstrated any concern for the animals beyond claiming a
> >credit for their lives.
>
> Well, that's sure a lie.

Show me one single statement where you have demonstrated any concern beyond
this vague self-serving "consideration" thing you keep harping on.

> >> The things you mentioned are completely meaningless in regards to
> >> whether or not some animals benefit from being raised for food, which
> >> some do and some don't.
> >
> >That statement is meaningless. If you were advocating carefully selecting
> >animal products derived from those animals that "benefit" (receive humane
> >care) then you'd be saying something. To simply say that "some benefit
and
> >some don't" is idiotic. Yet you repeat it broken record-style as it meant
> >something.
>
> It does mean something. If it didn't then you wouldn't have said: If
you were
> advocating carefully selecting animal products derived from those animals
that
> "benefit". The first step in that of course is to recognise that some do
benefit.

Some animals receive humane care, which beneifts them. That doesn't make
their lives a benefit.

> All that you "ARAs" want people to recognise is some do not.

I'm not an ARA and I don't mind saying that some animals receive adequate
care.

> So I point out that
> some do and some do not,

That statement by itself means absolutely nothing. If you were saying that
you choose only products from those that "benefit" from this humane care,
that would have value.

To say, "some do and some do not" is utterly vacant of any meaning.

> and then you "ARAs" oppose it being pointed out
> because it doesn't support the elimination of domestic animals.

No, I oppose the use of sophistry to support it, especially the logic of the
larder, a particularly disgusting form.


> >> >> then you're in the same
> >> >> boat and your life isn't worth living for the same reason.
> >> >
> >> >The only boat here is the rudderless skiff you are in with this
position.
> >>
> >> We are all in the same position in regards to whether or not death
> >> makes life not worth having experienced. You feel that it does,
regardless
> >> of quality of life, or the amount of suffering involved in death. I
feel
> >that it
> >> depends on the particular situations.
> >
> >None of that is meaningful in this discussion,
>
> We're discussing whether or not life is worth living,

No, we are not.

> and if so when and
> when not. Were you unaware of that?

I am aware that you are saying that humans should "consider" that some food
animals live tolerable lives and some don't.

I am telling you that it's a stupid, meaningless thing to "consider". Your
"considering" is just so much ethical masturbation.

> >you're off on a stupid
> >tangent.

That's true.

Dutch wrote:

> > wrote
>
>>On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 15:38:02 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>>You've never demonstrated any concern for the animals beyond claiming a
>>>credit for their lives.
>>
>> Well, that's sure a lie.
>
>
> Show me one single statement where you have demonstrated any concern beyond
> this vague self-serving "consideration" thing you keep harping on.

On the other hand, he has admitted he eats whatever
beef he can get at the local supermarket.

He's a liar: he shows no consideration for the
conditions in which animals live at all. Remember,
****wit believes he is doing animals a good turn by
causing them to "experience life". That's ALL the
consideration the liar gives.

****wit David Harrison ) wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 15:38:02 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>>The things you mentioned are completely meaningless in regards to
>>>whether or not some animals benefit from being raised for food, which
>>>some do and some don't.
>>
>>That statement is meaningless. If you were advocating carefully selecting
>>animal products derived from those animals that "benefit" (receive humane
>>care) then you'd be saying something. To simply say that "some benefit and
>>some don't" is idiotic. Yet you repeat it broken record-style as it meant
>>something.
>
>
> It does mean something.

It doesn't. It doesn't mean a ****ing thing.

> If it didn't then you wouldn't have said: If you were
> advocating carefully selecting animal products derived from those animals that
> "benefit". The first step in that of course is to recognise that some do benefit.

NO animals "benefit" merely from being born, ****WIT.
Not any.

> All that you "ARAs" want people to recognise is some do not.

I am not an "ara". Neither is Dutch. You know it.

NO animals "benefit" from being born, ****WIT.

> So I point out that some do and some do not,

NONE do. Being born is not a 'benefit' to ANY animal.


>>None of that is meaningful in this discussion,
>
>
> We're discussing whether or not life is worth living,

No, we are not. We are discussing whether being born
is a "benefit" to animals. It isn't.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:40:09 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote

>> We're discussing whether or not life is worth living,
>
>No, we are not.
>
>> and if so when and
>> when not. Were you unaware of that?
>
>I am aware that you are saying that humans should "consider" that some food
>animals live tolerable lives and some don't.
>
>I am telling you that it's a stupid, meaningless thing to "consider".

You only want people to consider that some don't, and are extremely
opposed to people considering that some do because it doesn't support
the elimination of them.

>Your
>"considering" is just so much ethical masturbation.
>
>> >you're off on a stupid
>> >tangent.
>
>That's true.
>

****WIT David Harrison ) wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:40:09 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
> wrote
>
>
>>> We're discussing whether or not life is worth living,
>>
>>No, we are not.
>>
>>
>>>and if so when and
>>>when not. Were you unaware of that?
>>
>>I am aware that you are saying that humans should "consider" that some food
>>animals live tolerable lives and some don't.
>>
>>I am telling you that it's a stupid, meaningless thing to "consider".
>
>
> You only want people to consider that some don't,

NO animal 'benefits' from being born, ****WIT. None.

> wrote
> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:40:09 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > wrote
>
> >> We're discussing whether or not life is worth living,
> >
> >No, we are not.
> >
> >> and if so when and
> >> when not. Were you unaware of that?
> >
> >I am aware that you are saying that humans should "consider" that some
food
> >animals live tolerable lives and some don't.
> >
> >I am telling you that it's a stupid, meaningless thing to "consider".
>
> You only want people to consider that some don't,

That's right, because then something can be done about it, such as improving
conditions, strengthening animal welfare laws, etc..

> and are extremely
> opposed to people considering that some do

There's no point considering (I hate that stupid word) *thinking about* the
animals who live good lives because they're OK, there's not much more we
need do for them. Therefore the only logical reason for it must be to engage
in some sort of misplaced self-congratulation ritual.

> because it doesn't support
> the elimination of them.

I obviously don't support elimination of them, as I eat meat, use animal
products, and support essential animal research. Therefore it would seem
your assessment of my motives is as faulty as the rest of your position.

No, I oppose your "considering" shit, because it's just that, shit. It's
self-serving ethical masturbation of the worst kind. It's at least as
misguided as AR, perhaps more so. You've ensconced yourself in a real
stickler of a catch-22, you can't admit to yourself that your love of the
"logic of the larder" is shite because you'd lose face massively, so you are
compelled to continue with it, and continue to be the mockery of everyone
here.

Too bad, oh well, at least you get to keep saying that some animals benefit
and some don't, and thinking to yourself that we all just don't get it, that
must be worth something..

What a Retard.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:28:37 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:40:09 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> > wrote
>>
>> >> We're discussing whether or not life is worth living,
>> >
>> >No, we are not.
>> >
>> >> and if so when and
>> >> when not. Were you unaware of that?
>> >
>> >I am aware that you are saying that humans should "consider" that some
>food
>> >animals live tolerable lives and some don't.
>> >
>> >I am telling you that it's a stupid, meaningless thing to "consider".
>>
>> You only want people to consider that some don't,
>
>That's right, because then something can be done about it, such as improving
>conditions, strengthening animal welfare laws, etc..
>
>> and are extremely
>> opposed to people considering that some do
>
>There's no point considering (I hate that stupid word) *thinking about* the
>animals who live good lives because they're OK, there's not much more we
>need do for them.

The point is to encourage interest in promoting more conditions like that,
which you are aware of and extremely opposed to because it doesn't
support the elimination of them.

>Therefore the only logical reason for it must be to engage
>in some sort of misplaced self-congratulation ritual.
>
>> because it doesn't support
>> the elimination of them.
>
>I obviously don't support elimination of them, as I eat meat, use animal
>products, and support essential animal research. Therefore it would seem
>your assessment of my motives is as faulty as the rest of your position.
>
>No, I oppose your "considering" shit, because it's just that, shit. It's
>self-serving ethical masturbation of the worst kind. It's at least as
>misguided as AR, perhaps more so. You've ensconced yourself in a real
>stickler of a catch-22, you can't admit to yourself that your love of the
>"logic of the larder" is shite because you'd lose face massively, so you are
>compelled to continue with it, and continue to be the mockery of everyone
>here.
>
>Too bad, oh well, at least you get to keep saying that some animals benefit
>and some don't,

I can keep saying it as long as it remains a fact...and the fact that people
like you don't like seeing it pointed out means that it's a good thing to continue
to point out.

>and thinking to yourself that we all just don't get it, that
>must be worth something..
>
>What a Retard.

That's certainly how I view you, ****IF**** you're not an "ARA". But I don't
believe you are a retard, so I'm left to believe you're an "ARA".

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 01:27:20 GMT, wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:28:37 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>What a Retard.
>
> That's certainly how I view you, ****IF**** you're not an "ARA". But I don't
>believe you are a retard, so I'm left to believe you're an "ARA".

Your ARA meter is as defective as your "benefit of life" argument.

-- swamp

swamp wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 01:27:20 GMT, wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:28:37 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>>What a Retard.
>>
>> That's certainly how I view you, ****IF**** you're not an "ARA". But I don't
>>believe you are a retard, so I'm left to believe you're an "ARA".
>
>
> Your ARA meter is as defective as your "benefit of life" argument.

****WIT doesn't believe Dutch, you or I are "aras".
It's his Lyndon Larouche trick: Larouche calls anyone
who disagrees with his fanatical platform a
"drug-dealer", and ****WIT calls anyone who disagrees
with any of his bullshit an "ara".

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 22:45:11 -0800, swamp > wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 01:27:20 GMT, wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:28:37 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>>What a Retard.
>>
>> That's certainly how I view you, ****IF**** you're not an "ARA". But I don't
>>believe you are a retard, so I'm left to believe you're an "ARA".
>
>Your ARA meter is as defective as your "benefit of life" argument.
>
>-- swamp

Some farm animals benefit from farming and some don't. It's almost
unbelievable that you are only aware of those which don't....in fact I
don't believe it.

wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 22:45:11 -0800, swamp > wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 01:27:20 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:28:37 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>>What a Retard.
>>>
>>> That's certainly how I view you, ****IF**** you're not an "ARA". But I don't
>>>believe you are a retard, so I'm left to believe you're an "ARA".
>>
>>Your ARA meter is as defective as your "benefit of life" argument.
>>
>>-- swamp
>
>
> Some farm animals benefit from farming and some don't.

NO animal 'benefits' from being born, ****WIT. Admit
it: your claim is bullshit.

Swamp is correct: your 'ara' meter is defective, just
like your braincell.