As it turns out, it is no loss to animals when they are killed for
food. Since they can't experience the loss of life while they're
still alive, it's not a loss then. Since they can't experience the
loss of anything after they're dead (afawk), it's not a loss then
either.

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 23:35:25 GMT, wrote:

>===<> As it turns out, it is no loss to animals when they are killed for
>===<>food. Since they can't experience the loss of life while they're
>===<>still alive, it's not a loss then. Since they can't experience the
>===<>loss of anything after they're dead (afawk), it's not a loss then
>===<>either.

I dunno, I think an animal can and does know when one of its pack or
herd or flock members is killed.

Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
Opinions expressed are those of my wifes,
I had no input whatsoever.
Remove "nospam" from email addy.

"Roy" > wrote in message
...
> I dunno, I think an animal can and does know when one of its pack or
> herd or flock members is killed.

They sure know when they are gone.

I sold a horse. I loaded her in the trailer to deliver her and none of the
other horses "said" anything. Now, whenever I have trailered out a horse,
when I return, all the horses come running and calling. I always thought
the one in the trailer called first, but...

I came home with an empty trailer, yet all the remaining horses came running
and calling to greet their friend again. I was doing good with selling her
until that. Kind of knocked the wind right out of me.

They were expecting her to come back and she didn't and they knew it.
Freaky.

Jena
>
> Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
> Opinions expressed are those of my wifes,
> I had no input whatsoever.
> Remove "nospam" from email addy.

> wrote
> As it turns out, it is no loss to animals when they are killed for
> food. Since they can't experience the loss of life while they're
> still alive, it's not a loss then. Since they can't experience the
> loss of anything after they're dead (afawk), it's not a loss then
> either.

At the moment you kill them they experience the loss of their life.

I note that your sophism is so vulgar that the other responders didn't even
know what you were talking about.

wrote:

> As it turns out, it is no loss to animals when they are killed for
> food. Since they can't experience the loss of life while they're
> still alive, it's not a loss then. Since they can't experience the
> loss of anything after they're dead (afawk), it's not a loss then
> either.

You are a moron, ****wit.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> wrote:
>
> > As it turns out, it is no loss to animals when they are killed for
> > food. Since they can't experience the loss of life while they're
> > still alive, it's not a loss then. Since they can't experience the
> > loss of anything after they're dead (afawk), it's not a loss then
> > either.
>
> You are a moron, ****wit.




You are a ****ing boring mongoloid dwarf 4'-6""~~jonnie~~

When are you going to stop boring people with your ****ing politically
biased crap, **** off this NG. Try alt. dwarfism (Moderated). You're about
as much use to the Anti's as that lying hypocrite Nash is to the ARs.

You both have one thing in common, nobody cares what you think.

As for you David [Since they can't experience the loss of life while they're
still alive] is really illuminating.
Think about it.

Ray.
>

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 20:26:44 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" > wrote:

>
>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
>> wrote:
>>
>> > As it turns out, it is no loss to animals when they are killed for
>> > food. Since they can't experience the loss of life while they're
>> > still alive, it's not a loss then. Since they can't experience the
>> > loss of anything after they're dead (afawk), it's not a loss then
>> > either.
>>
>> You are a moron, ****wit.
>
>
>
>
>You are a ****ing boring mongoloid dwarf 4'-6""~~jonnie~~
>
>When are you going to stop boring people with your ****ing politically
>biased crap, **** off this NG. Try alt. dwarfism (Moderated). You're about
>as much use to the Anti's as that lying hypocrite Nash is to the ARs.
>
>You both have one thing in common, nobody cares what you think.
>
>As for you David [Since they can't experience the loss of life while they're
>still alive] is really illuminating.
>Think about it.
>
>Ray.

I've been thinking about it and been told about it. They can't
experience a loss when they don't exist...like when they're dead.
And they sure can't experience loss of life while they're alive, so
there must be no loss for them.

On 9 Dec 2003 02:43:41 GMT, "JMartin" > wrote:

>
>"Roy" > wrote in message
.. .
>> I dunno, I think an animal can and does know when one of its pack or
>> herd or flock members is killed.
>
>They sure know when they are gone.
>
>I sold a horse. I loaded her in the trailer to deliver her and none of the
>other horses "said" anything. Now, whenever I have trailered out a horse,
>when I return, all the horses come running and calling. I always thought
>the one in the trailer called first, but...
>
>I came home with an empty trailer, yet all the remaining horses came running
>and calling to greet their friend again. I was doing good with selling her
>until that. Kind of knocked the wind right out of me.
>
>They were expecting her to come back and she didn't and they knew it.
>Freaky.
>
>Jena
>>
>> Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
>> Opinions expressed are those of my wifes,
>> I had no input whatsoever.
>> Remove "nospam" from email addy.

The point is that since non-existent "animals" can't suffer a loss,
they can't suffer a loss of life after they're dead. And they can't
suffer it while they're alive either, so there's no loss for animals
who are killed for food.

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:57:35 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote
>> As it turns out, it is no loss to animals when they are killed for
>> food. Since they can't experience the loss of life while they're
>> still alive, it's not a loss then. Since they can't experience the
>> loss of anything after they're dead (afawk), it's not a loss then
>> either.
>
>At the moment you kill them they experience the loss of their life.

For how long?

>I note that your sophism is so vulgar

It's just another of those facts which you don't like, though
as much as you and your Gonad like thinking about the fact
that nonexistent animals can't suffer a loss, it seems like this
fact should be one that you both love. But no, you hate it
because it doesn't support the elimination of domestic animals.

>that the other responders didn't even
>know what you were talking about.
>

wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2003 02:43:41 GMT, "JMartin" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Roy" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>>>I dunno, I think an animal can and does know when one of its pack or
>>>herd or flock members is killed.
>>
>>They sure know when they are gone.
>>
>>I sold a horse. I loaded her in the trailer to deliver her and none of the
>>other horses "said" anything. Now, whenever I have trailered out a horse,
>>when I return, all the horses come running and calling. I always thought
>>the one in the trailer called first, but...
>>
>>I came home with an empty trailer, yet all the remaining horses came running
>>and calling to greet their friend again. I was doing good with selling her
>>until that. Kind of knocked the wind right out of me.
>>
>>They were expecting her to come back and she didn't and they knew it.
>>Freaky.
>>
>>Jena
>>
>>>Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com
>>>Opinions expressed are those of my wifes,
>>>I had no input whatsoever.
>>>Remove "nospam" from email addy.
>
>
> The point is that since non-existent "animals" can't suffer a loss,
> they can't suffer a loss of life after they're dead. And they can't
> suffer it while they're alive either, so there's no loss for animals
> who are killed for food.

The point is you don't have a point, ****wit. You are
simply wrong. Why don't you try that as a defense when
you kill someone in a drunken redneck rage?

wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:57:35 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
> wrote
>>
>>> As it turns out, it is no loss to animals when they are killed for
>>>food. Since they can't experience the loss of life while they're
>>>still alive, it's not a loss then. Since they can't experience the
>>>loss of anything after they're dead (afawk), it's not a loss then
>>>either.
>>
>>At the moment you kill them they experience the loss of their life.
>
>
> For how long?

It doesn't matter how long: they experience it.

>
>
>>I note that your sophism is so vulgar
>
>
> It's just another of those facts which you don't like

No. It isn't a fact at all. You are dead wrong.

> wrote
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:57:35 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > wrote
> >> As it turns out, it is no loss to animals when they are killed for
> >> food. Since they can't experience the loss of life while they're
> >> still alive, it's not a loss then. Since they can't experience the
> >> loss of anything after they're dead (afawk), it's not a loss then
> >> either.
> >
> >At the moment you kill them they experience the loss of their life.
>
> For how long?

What's the difference? Any way you look at, death is a loss, you were wrong.

> >I note that your sophism is so vulgar
>
> It's just another of those facts which you don't like,

It's not the fact I don't like, it's the way you attempt to use it. In your
classic "logic of the larder" fashion, you are attempting to obtain an
unseemly bargain with the lives of animals to make a moral gain not due to
you.

> though
> as much as you and your Gonad like thinking about the fact
> that nonexistent animals can't suffer a loss, it seems like this
> fact should be one that you both love. But no, you hate it
> because it doesn't support the elimination of domestic animals.

Both of us are avid meat-eaters and supporters of raising livestock so you
need to re-think your confusion.

>
> >that the other responders didn't even
> >know what you were talking about.
> >
>

Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
>
>>On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:57:35 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>
> wrote
>>>
>>>> As it turns out, it is no loss to animals when they are killed for
>>>>food. Since they can't experience the loss of life while they're
>>>>still alive, it's not a loss then. Since they can't experience the
>>>>loss of anything after they're dead (afawk), it's not a loss then
>>>>either.
>>>
>>>At the moment you kill them they experience the loss of their life.
>>
>> For how long?
>
>
> What's the difference? Any way you look at, death is a loss, you were wrong.

Exactly: the animal suffers a loss because it is
alive, and soon its life will be taken from it.
****wit doesn't understand the existential basics. But
what do you expect from someone whose career consists
of mopping up the vomit in a redneck Georgia beer dive?

>
>
>>>I note that your sophism is so vulgar
>>
>> It's just another of those facts which you don't like,
>
>
> It's not the fact I don't like, it's the way you attempt to use it. In your
> classic "logic of the larder" fashion, you are attempting to obtain an
> unseemly bargain with the lives of animals to make a moral gain not due to
> you.

When the FACT is, there is NO moral gain from the
animals "getting to experience life".

>
>
>>though
>>as much as you and your Gonad like thinking about the fact
>>that nonexistent animals can't suffer a loss, it seems like this
>>fact should be one that you both love. But no, you hate it
>>because it doesn't support the elimination of domestic animals.
>
>
> Both of us are avid meat-eaters and supporters of raising livestock so you
> need to re-think your confusion.

****wit thrives on this sort of confusion.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Dutch wrote:
> > > wrote
> >
> >>On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:57:35 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> > wrote
> >>>
> >>>> As it turns out, it is no loss to animals when they are killed for
> >>>>food. Since they can't experience the loss of life while they're
> >>>>still alive, it's not a loss then. Since they can't experience the
> >>>>loss of anything after they're dead (afawk), it's not a loss then
> >>>>either.
> >>>
> >>>At the moment you kill them they experience the loss of their life.
> >>
> >> For how long?
> >
> >
> > What's the difference? Any way you look at, death is a loss, you were
wrong.
>
> Exactly: the animal suffers a loss because it is
> alive, and soon its life will be taken from it.
> ****wit doesn't understand the existential basics. But
> what do you expect from someone whose career consists
> of mopping up the vomit in a redneck Georgia beer dive?

I expect more of him, a bad job is no excuse. I know smart, creative people
who have shit jobs, or no job.

> >>>I note that your sophism is so vulgar
> >>
> >> It's just another of those facts which you don't like,
> >
> >
> > It's not the fact I don't like, it's the way you attempt to use it. In
your
> > classic "logic of the larder" fashion, you are attempting to obtain an
> > unseemly bargain with the lives of animals to make a moral gain not due
to
> > you.
>
> When the FACT is, there is NO moral gain from the
> animals "getting to experience life".

None that I can see.

> >>though
> >>as much as you and your Gonad like thinking about the fact
> >>that nonexistent animals can't suffer a loss, it seems like this
> >>fact should be one that you both love. But no, you hate it
> >>because it doesn't support the elimination of domestic animals.
> >
> >
> > Both of us are avid meat-eaters and supporters of raising livestock so
you
> > need to re-think your confusion.
>
> ****wit thrives on this sort of confusion.

I wonder why we find ignorance such an interesting study...

Dutch wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Dutch wrote:
>>
> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:57:35 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> As it turns out, it is no loss to animals when they are killed for
>>>>>>food. Since they can't experience the loss of life while they're
>>>>>>still alive, it's not a loss then. Since they can't experience the
>>>>>>loss of anything after they're dead (afawk), it's not a loss then
>>>>>>either.
>>>>>
>>>>>At the moment you kill them they experience the loss of their life.
>>>>
>>>> For how long?
>>>
>>>
>>>What's the difference? Any way you look at, death is a loss, you were
>
> wrong.
>
>>Exactly: the animal suffers a loss because it is
>>alive, and soon its life will be taken from it.
>>****wit doesn't understand the existential basics. But
>>what do you expect from someone whose career consists
>>of mopping up the vomit in a redneck Georgia beer dive?
>
>
> I expect more of him, a bad job is no excuse.

I wasn't suggesting it was an excuse. I think it is
the only sort of employment he ever *could* get, given
his looniness.

> I know smart, creative people
> who have shit jobs, or no job.
>
>
>>>>>I note that your sophism is so vulgar
>>>>
>>>> It's just another of those facts which you don't like,
>>>
>>>
>>>It's not the fact I don't like, it's the way you attempt to use it. In your
>>>classic "logic of the larder" fashion, you are attempting to obtain an
>>>unseemly bargain with the lives of animals to make a moral gain not due to
>>>you.
>>
>>When the FACT is, there is NO moral gain from the
>>animals "getting to experience life".
>
>
> None that I can see.

It's not logically conceivable.

>
>
>>>>though
>>>>as much as you and your Gonad like thinking about the fact
>>>>that nonexistent animals can't suffer a loss, it seems like this
>>>>fact should be one that you both love. But no, you hate it
>>>>because it doesn't support the elimination of domestic animals.
>>>
>>>
>>>Both of us are avid meat-eaters and supporters of raising livestock so
>
> you
>
>>>need to re-think your confusion.
>>
>>****wit thrives on this sort of confusion.
>
>
> I wonder why we find ignorance such an interesting study...
>
>

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:37:55 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote
>> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:57:35 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> > wrote
>> >> As it turns out, it is no loss to animals when they are killed for
>> >> food. Since they can't experience the loss of life while they're
>> >> still alive, it's not a loss then. Since they can't experience the
>> >> loss of anything after they're dead (afawk), it's not a loss then
>> >> either.
>> >
>> >At the moment you kill them they experience the loss of their life.
>>
>> For how long?
>
>What's the difference? Any way you look at, death is a loss,

They can't experience the loss when they are alive. They can't
experience it when they are dead.

>you were wrong.
>
>> >I note that your sophism is so vulgar
>>
>> It's just another of those facts which you don't like,
>
>It's not the fact I don't like,

You hate it.

>it's the way you attempt to use it.

You would hate it any way it was used. You would hate it if you
were drunk and confused. You would hate it in a house. You would
hate it with a mouse. In a box. On an ox. You would hate it regardless.

>In your
>classic "logic of the larder" fashion, you are attempting to obtain an
>unseemly bargain with the lives of animals to make a moral gain not due to
>you.

Some farm animals benefit from farming. Some don't.

>> though
>> as much as you and your Gonad like thinking about the fact
>> that nonexistent animals can't suffer a loss, it seems like this
>> fact should be one that you both love. But no, you hate it
>> because it doesn't support the elimination of domestic animals.
>
>Both of us are avid meat-eaters and supporters of raising livestock

Why?

>so you
>need to re-think your confusion.
>
>>
>> >that the other responders didn't even
>> >know what you were talking about.
>> >
>>
>

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:09:11 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...
>> Dutch wrote:
>> > > wrote
>> >
>> >>On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:57:35 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> > wrote
>> >>>
>> >>>> As it turns out, it is no loss to animals when they are killed for
>> >>>>food. Since they can't experience the loss of life while they're
>> >>>>still alive, it's not a loss then. Since they can't experience the
>> >>>>loss of anything after they're dead (afawk), it's not a loss then
>> >>>>either.
>> >>>
>> >>>At the moment you kill them they experience the loss of their life.
>> >>
>> >> For how long?
>> >
>> >
>> > What's the difference? Any way you look at, death is a loss, you were
>wrong.
>>
>> Exactly: the animal suffers a loss because it is
>> alive, and soon its life will be taken from it.
>> ****wit doesn't understand the existential basics. But
>> what do you expect from someone whose career consists
>> of mopping up the vomit in a redneck Georgia beer dive?
>
>I expect more of him, a bad job is no excuse. I know smart, creative people
>who have shit jobs, or no job.
>
>> >>>I note that your sophism is so vulgar
>> >>
>> >> It's just another of those facts which you don't like,
>> >
>> >
>> > It's not the fact I don't like, it's the way you attempt to use it. In
>your
>> > classic "logic of the larder" fashion, you are attempting to obtain an
>> > unseemly bargain with the lives of animals to make a moral gain not due
>to
>> > you.
>>
>> When the FACT is, there is NO moral gain from the
>> animals "getting to experience life".
>
>None that I can see.

Oh, so now you can (NOT!) explain how getting to experience life
is not a gain, but loss of life is somehow still a loss. And then you're
back to (NOT!) explaining how a dead animal can experience the loss
of its life...uh...or is it only a live animal who can experience the loss
of its life?

>> >>though
>> >>as much as you and your Gonad like thinking about the fact
>> >>that nonexistent animals can't suffer a loss, it seems like this
>> >>fact should be one that you both love. But no, you hate it
>> >>because it doesn't support the elimination of domestic animals.
>> >
>> >
>> > Both of us are avid meat-eaters and supporters of raising livestock so
>you
>> > need to re-think your confusion.
>>
>> ****wit thrives on this sort of confusion.
>
>I wonder why we find ignorance such an interesting study...
>

> wrote
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:37:55 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > wrote
> >> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:57:35 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > wrote

> >> >> As it turns out, it is no loss to animals when they are killed
for
> >> >> food. Since they can't experience the loss of life while they're
> >> >> still alive, it's not a loss then. Since they can't experience the
> >> >> loss of anything after they're dead (afawk), it's not a loss then
> >> >> either.
> >> >
> >> >At the moment you kill them they experience the loss of their life.
> >>
> >> For how long?
> >
> >What's the difference? Any way you look at, death is a loss,
>
> They can't experience the loss when they are alive.

Yes they can, they experience the "losing". This line of argument is even
more irrational than your usual one.

> They can't
> experience it when they are dead.

Brilliant.

> >you were wrong.
> >
> >> >I note that your sophism is so vulgar
> >>
> >> It's just another of those facts which you don't like,
> >
> >It's not the fact I don't like,
>
> You hate it.

No, I don't. All by itself, the fact you are pointing out is not offensive.
Animals are born because we as consumers demand animal products. If you were
leading up to a discussion about the responsibilities that fact implies I
would find it quite appropriate. The fact is, you are using the fact to
infer that we deserve some kind of moral badge of honor due to the fact they
are alive. It's the age-old moral fallacy called "the logic of the larder"
and you have re-invented it.

> >it's the way you attempt to use it.
>
> You would hate it any way it was used. You would hate it if you
> were drunk and confused. You would hate it in a house. You would
> hate it with a mouse. In a box. On an ox. You would hate it regardless.

Now I'm dealing with Dr. Seuss, great.

> >In your
> >classic "logic of the larder" fashion, you are attempting to obtain an
> >unseemly bargain with the lives of animals to make a moral gain not due
to
> >you.
>
> Some farm animals benefit from farming. Some don't.

Now you're a broken record.

> >> though
> >> as much as you and your Gonad like thinking about the fact
> >> that nonexistent animals can't suffer a loss, it seems like this
> >> fact should be one that you both love. But no, you hate it
> >> because it doesn't support the elimination of domestic animals.
> >
> >Both of us are avid meat-eaters and supporters of raising livestock
>
> Why?

Because we like eating meat, certainly not because causing pigs to spend a
few months in a barn is some kind of noble deed.

> wrote
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:09:11 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

[..]
> >> >> It's just another of those facts which you don't like,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > It's not the fact I don't like, it's the way you attempt to use it.
In your
> >> > classic "logic of the larder" fashion, you are attempting to obtain
an
> >> > unseemly bargain with the lives of animals to make a moral gain not
due
> >> > to you.
> >>
> >> When the FACT is, there is NO moral gain from the
> >> animals "getting to experience life".
> >
> >None that I can see.
>
> Oh, so now you can (NOT!) explain how getting to experience life
> is not a gain, but loss of life is somehow still a loss.

Because only once something exists does it aquire the ability to suffer a
loss. The animal can't "gain" it's life because "it" doesn't exist prior to
being conceived.

> And then you're
> back to (NOT!) explaining how a dead animal can experience the loss
> of its life

Who said that?

....uh...or is it only a live animal who can experience the loss
> of its life?

Brilliant.

****wit David Harrison put down the vomit mop and wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:09:11 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>>
>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>
> wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:57:35 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As it turns out, it is no loss to animals when they are killed for
>>>>>>>food. Since they can't experience the loss of life while they're
>>>>>>>still alive, it's not a loss then. Since they can't experience the
>>>>>>>loss of anything after they're dead (afawk), it's not a loss then
>>>>>>>either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At the moment you kill them they experience the loss of their life.
>>>>>
>>>>> For how long?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What's the difference? Any way you look at, death is a loss, you were
>>
>>wrong.
>>
>>>Exactly: the animal suffers a loss because it is
>>>alive, and soon its life will be taken from it.
>>>****wit doesn't understand the existential basics. But
>>>what do you expect from someone whose career consists
>>>of mopping up the vomit in a redneck Georgia beer dive?
>>
>>I expect more of him, a bad job is no excuse. I know smart, creative people
>>who have shit jobs, or no job.
>>
>>
>>>>>>I note that your sophism is so vulgar
>>>>>
>>>>> It's just another of those facts which you don't like,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's not the fact I don't like, it's the way you attempt to use it. In
>>
>>your
>>
>>>>classic "logic of the larder" fashion, you are attempting to obtain an
>>>>unseemly bargain with the lives of animals to make a moral gain not due
>>
>>to
>>
>>>>you.
>>>
>>>When the FACT is, there is NO moral gain from the
>>>animals "getting to experience life".
>>
>>None that I can see.
>
>
> Oh, so now you can (NOT!) explain how getting to experience life
> is not a gain, but loss of life is somehow still a loss.

Yes, easily, ****wit. As stupid as you are, I think
you could even understand it, but you'll pretend -
well, maybe you're not pretending - not to understand.

"Getting to experience life" is not a gain because,
prior to being alive, there is no entity to receive the
"benefit". Losing one's life is a loss because:

a) The gerund "losing" incorporates the root word "loss"
b) The entity that loses its life exists right up to
the moment of being killed

It's really quite simple, ****wit, you stupid ****ing
lump of shit, but you are too pig-headed to admit you
are wrong. Everyone else can see you're wrong, though.

****wit David Harrison wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:37:55 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
> wrote
>>
>>>On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:57:35 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> As it turns out, it is no loss to animals when they are killed for
>>>>>food. Since they can't experience the loss of life while they're
>>>>>still alive, it's not a loss then. Since they can't experience the
>>>>>loss of anything after they're dead (afawk), it's not a loss then
>>>>>either.
>>>>
>>>>At the moment you kill them they experience the loss of their life.
>>>
>>> For how long?
>>
>>What's the difference? Any way you look at, death is a loss,
>
>
> They can't experience the loss when they are alive.

False. That's why we have the common expression, "he
lost his life."

>>
>>
>>>>I note that your sophism is so vulgar
>>>
>>> It's just another of those facts which you don't like,
>>
>>It's not the fact I don't like,
>
>
> You hate it.

No. It isn't a fact.

>
>
>>it's the way you attempt to use it.
>
>
> You would hate it any way it was used.

He can't hate what isn't a fact.

>
>
>>In your
>>classic "logic of the larder" fashion, you are attempting to obtain an
>>unseemly bargain with the lives of animals to make a moral gain not due to
>>you.
>
>
> Some farm animals benefit from farming. Some don't.

No animals benefit from being born, ****wit. None.

Not "benefit from farming", ****wit; benefit from being
born. No animal benefits from being born, ****wit.

>
>
>>>though
>>>as much as you and your Gonad like thinking about the fact
>>>that nonexistent animals can't suffer a loss, it seems like this
>>>fact should be one that you both love. But no, you hate it
>>>because it doesn't support the elimination of domestic animals.
>>
>>Both of us are avid meat-eaters and supporters of raising livestock
>
>
> Why?

Stupid question. **** off.

Dutch wrote:

(snip)

> > Why?
>
> Because we like eating meat, certainly not because causing pigs to
> spend a few months in a barn is some kind of noble deed.

Have you given up all pretense of having animal welfare concerns? You
now admit you eat factory-farmed pork? You have become one of those
peoples who can't use "animals and ethics" in the same sentence.

frlpwr wrote:

> Dutch wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>
>>> Why?
>>
>>Because we like eating meat, certainly not because causing pigs to
>>spend a few months in a barn is some kind of noble deed.
>
>
> Have you given up all pretense of having animal welfare concerns? You
> now admit you eat factory-farmed pork?

No, assmunch. He didn't say anything about eating
factory farmed pork, you stupid ****.

"Pit_Bull" > wrote
>
> >It's really quite simple, ****wit, you stupid ****ing
> >lump of shit, but you are too pig-headed to admit you
> >are wrong. Everyone else can see you're wrong, though.
>
> Well well. Look at mr. "the whole world is wrong and I am right" telling
> that to someone. Want to see someone pig headed? Go look in the mirror
> monkey dick.

You're no pit bull Pete, you're a ****ing Yorkie.

"frlpwr" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > > Why?
> >
> > Because we like eating meat, certainly not because causing pigs to
> > spend a few months in a barn is some kind of noble deed.
>
> Have you given up all pretense of having animal welfare concerns? You
> now admit you eat factory-farmed pork? You have become one of those
> peoples who can't use "animals and ethics" in the same sentence.\

I don't know where my bacon comes from, any more than the typical vegan
knows where his winter broccoli comes from.

"Pit_Bull" > wrote

> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:34:16 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
> >> Well well. Look at mr. "the whole world is wrong and I am right"
telling
> >> that to someone. Want to see someone pig headed? Go look in the mirror
> >> monkey dick.
> >
> >You're no pit bull Pete, you're a ****ing Yorkie.
> >
>
> I just ****ed on your leg. One false move and your knee cap is a chew toy.
> Pit_Bull

Oops, I just stepped on your head.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 16:16:13 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:

>****wit David Harrison wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:37:55 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>
> wrote
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:57:35 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> As it turns out, it is no loss to animals when they are killed for
>>>>>>food. Since they can't experience the loss of life while they're
>>>>>>still alive, it's not a loss then. Since they can't experience the
>>>>>>loss of anything after they're dead (afawk), it's not a loss then
>>>>>>either.
>>>>>
>>>>>At the moment you kill them they experience the loss of their life.
>>>>
>>>> For how long?
>>>
>>>What's the difference? Any way you look at, death is a loss,
>>
>>
>> They can't experience the loss when they are alive.
>
>False. That's why we have the common expression, "he
>lost his life."
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I note that your sophism is so vulgar
>>>>
>>>> It's just another of those facts which you don't like,
>>>
>>>It's not the fact I don't like,
>>
>>
>> You hate it.
>
>No. It isn't a fact.
>
>>
>>
>>>it's the way you attempt to use it.
>>
>>
>> You would hate it any way it was used.
>
>He can't hate what isn't a fact.
>
>>
>>
>>>In your
>>>classic "logic of the larder" fashion, you are attempting to obtain an
>>>unseemly bargain with the lives of animals to make a moral gain not due to
>>>you.
>>
>>
>> Some farm animals benefit from farming. Some don't.
>
>No animals benefit from being born, ****wit. None.
>
>Not "benefit from farming", ****wit; benefit from being
>born. No animal benefits from being born, ****wit.

Some animals do and some don't, Gonad.

>>>>though
>>>>as much as you and your Gonad like thinking about the fact
>>>>that nonexistent animals can't suffer a loss, it seems like this
>>>>fact should be one that you both love. But no, you hate it
>>>>because it doesn't support the elimination of domestic animals.
>>>
>>>Both of us are avid meat-eaters and supporters of raising livestock
>>
>>
>> Why?
>
>Stupid question.

Moronic reply.

>**** off.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:41:09 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:09:11 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>[..]
>> >> >> It's just another of those facts which you don't like,
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > It's not the fact I don't like, it's the way you attempt to use it.
>In your
>> >> > classic "logic of the larder" fashion, you are attempting to obtain
>an
>> >> > unseemly bargain with the lives of animals to make a moral gain not
>due
>> >> > to you.
>> >>
>> >> When the FACT is, there is NO moral gain from the
>> >> animals "getting to experience life".
>> >
>> >None that I can see.
>>
>> Oh, so now you can (NOT!) explain how getting to experience life
>> is not a gain, but loss of life is somehow still a loss.
>
>Because only once something exists does it aquire the ability to suffer a
>loss. The animal can't "gain" it's life because "it" doesn't exist prior to
>being conceived.
>
>> And then you're
>> back to (NOT!) explaining how a dead animal can experience the loss
>> of its life
>
>Who said that?
>
>...uh...or is it only a live animal who can experience the loss
>> of its life?
>
>Brilliant.

It could only experience the course of action leading up to it, not a loss
from loss of life since it would cease to exist when it lost its life.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 21:30:24 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:

>Dutch wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>> > Why?
>>
>> Because we like eating meat, certainly not because causing pigs to
>> spend a few months in a barn is some kind of noble deed.
>
>Have you given up all pretense of having animal welfare concerns?

"Animal Rights" would make better AW for future farm animals
impossible. Dutch disagrees with that.

>You
>now admit you eat factory-farmed pork? You have become one of those
>peoples who can't use "animals and ethics" in the same sentence.
>

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:48:06 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"frlpwr" > wrote
>> Dutch wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> > > Why?
>> >
>> > Because we like eating meat, certainly not because causing pigs to
>> > spend a few months in a barn is some kind of noble deed.
>>
>> Have you given up all pretense of having animal welfare concerns? You
>> now admit you eat factory-farmed pork? You have become one of those
>> peoples who can't use "animals and ethics" in the same sentence.\
>
>I don't know where my bacon comes from, any more than the typical vegan
>knows where his winter broccoli comes from.

What does it matter? If we're not supposed to consider the lives the animals
experience, then it wouldn't matter what their lives are like. But when I eat pork
I wonder if their lives are as bad as "ARAs" want us to believe they are.
>
>

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:41:09 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > wrote
> >> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:09:11 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >[..]
> >> >> >> It's just another of those facts which you don't like,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It's not the fact I don't like, it's the way you attempt to use
it.
> >In your
> >> >> > classic "logic of the larder" fashion, you are attempting to
obtain
> >an
> >> >> > unseemly bargain with the lives of animals to make a moral gain
not
> >due
> >> >> > to you.
> >> >>
> >> >> When the FACT is, there is NO moral gain from the
> >> >> animals "getting to experience life".
> >> >
> >> >None that I can see.
> >>
> >> Oh, so now you can (NOT!) explain how getting to experience life
> >> is not a gain, but loss of life is somehow still a loss.
> >
> >Because only once something exists does it aquire the ability to suffer a
> >loss. The animal can't "gain" it's life because "it" doesn't exist prior
to
> >being conceived.
> >
> >> And then you're
> >> back to (NOT!) explaining how a dead animal can experience the loss
> >> of its life
> >
> >Who said that?
> >
> >...uh...or is it only a live animal who can experience the loss
> >> of its life?
> >
> >Brilliant.
>
> It could only experience the course of action leading up to it, not a
loss
> from loss of life since it would cease to exist when it lost its life.

What are you getting at?

> wrote
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 21:30:24 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:
>
> >Dutch wrote:
> >
> >(snip)
> >
> >> > Why?
> >>
> >> Because we like eating meat, certainly not because causing pigs to
> >> spend a few months in a barn is some kind of noble deed.
> >
> >Have you given up all pretense of having animal welfare concerns?
>
> "Animal Rights" would make better AW for future farm animals
impossible.

AW is only relevant inasmuch as there are animals to receive it, it's not a
goal onto itself.

> Dutch disagrees with that.

I neither agree nor disagree, it's just a stupid statement.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:42:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

> wrote
>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 21:30:24 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:
>>
>> >Dutch wrote:
>> >
>> >(snip)
>> >
>> >> > Why?
>> >>
>> >> Because we like eating meat, certainly not because causing pigs to
>> >> spend a few months in a barn is some kind of noble deed.
>> >
>> >Have you given up all pretense of having animal welfare concerns?
>>
>> "Animal Rights" would make better AW for future farm animals
>impossible.
>
>AW is only relevant inasmuch as there are animals to receive it, it's not a
>goal onto itself.
>
>> Dutch disagrees with that.
>
>I neither agree nor disagree, it's just a stupid statement.

It's just another fact you don't want people to consider because
it doesn't support the elimination of domestic animals. It always
gets back to opposition to considering what the animals get out
of the arrangement...unless it's something terrible of course...you
all feel we should consider the bad things and not the good.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:38:35 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:41:09 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> > wrote
>> >> On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:09:11 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >
>> >[..]
>> >> >> >> It's just another of those facts which you don't like,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > It's not the fact I don't like, it's the way you attempt to use
>it.
>> >In your
>> >> >> > classic "logic of the larder" fashion, you are attempting to
>obtain
>> >an
>> >> >> > unseemly bargain with the lives of animals to make a moral gain
>not
>> >due
>> >> >> > to you.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> When the FACT is, there is NO moral gain from the
>> >> >> animals "getting to experience life".
>> >> >
>> >> >None that I can see.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, so now you can (NOT!) explain how getting to experience life
>> >> is not a gain, but loss of life is somehow still a loss.
>> >
>> >Because only once something exists does it aquire the ability to suffer a
>> >loss. The animal can't "gain" it's life because "it" doesn't exist prior
>to
>> >being conceived.
>> >
>> >> And then you're
>> >> back to (NOT!) explaining how a dead animal can experience the loss
>> >> of its life
>> >
>> >Who said that?
>> >
>> >...uh...or is it only a live animal who can experience the loss
>> >> of its life?
>> >
>> >Brilliant.
>>
>> It could only experience the course of action leading up to it, not a
>loss
>> from loss of life since it would cease to exist when it lost its life.
>
>What are you getting at?

It's all right there. If you want to take it from the other direction: the
dead body of an animal can't experience any loss, so an animal can't
experience a loss from the loss of its life. It can only experience the
things which lead up to the loss of its life. From your position, any course
of events leading up to the slaughter of an animal--regardless of whether
or not they involve much suffering for the animal--cancel out anything
positive about the life the animal had, regardless of the quality of that life.

****wit David Harrison wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:42:01 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
> wrote
>>
>>>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 21:30:24 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>(snip)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>
>>>>>Because we like eating meat, certainly not because causing pigs to
>>>>>spend a few months in a barn is some kind of noble deed.
>>>>
>>>>Have you given up all pretense of having animal welfare concerns?
>>>
>>> "Animal Rights" would make better AW for future farm animals
>>
>>impossible.
>>
>>AW is only relevant inasmuch as there are animals to receive it, it's not a
>>goal onto itself.
>>
>>
>>>Dutch disagrees with that.
>>
>>I neither agree nor disagree, it's just a stupid statement.
>
>
> It's just another fact you don't want people to consider because

It's not a fact, ****wit. Your crap is fact-free.

****wit David Harrison ) wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:48:06 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>"frlpwr" > wrote
>>
>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>>Because we like eating meat, certainly not because causing pigs to
>>>>spend a few months in a barn is some kind of noble deed.
>>>
>>>Have you given up all pretense of having animal welfare concerns? You
>>>now admit you eat factory-farmed pork? You have become one of those
>>>peoples who can't use "animals and ethics" in the same sentence.\
>>
>>I don't know where my bacon comes from, any more than the typical vegan
>>knows where his winter broccoli comes from.
>
>
> What does it matter? If we're not supposed to consider the lives the animals
> experience,

He did not suggest, ever, that we're not supposed to
consider the lives the animals experience. Stop lying.

wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 21:30:24 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:
>
>
>>Dutch wrote:
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>>Because we like eating meat, certainly not because causing pigs to
>>>spend a few months in a barn is some kind of noble deed.
>>
>>Have you given up all pretense of having animal welfare concerns?
>
>
> "Animal Rights" would make better AW for future farm animals
> impossible.

Unimportant. Concern about farm animal welfare is only
needed if there are farm animals. There is no ethical
reason there should be farm animals. If farm animals
go extinct, there is no ethical issue.

****wit David Harrison ) wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 16:16:13 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>
>
>>****wit David Harrison wrote:
>>
>>

>>>>>>At the moment you kill them they experience the loss of their life.
>>>>>
>>>>> For how long?
>>>>
>>>>What's the difference? Any way you look at, death is a loss,
>>>
>>>
>>> They can't experience the loss when they are alive.
>>
>>False. That's why we have the common expression, "he
>>lost his life."

No answer from ****wit, of course.


>>>>In your classic "logic of the larder" fashion, you are attempting to
>>>>obtain an unseemly bargain with the lives of animals to make a moral gain
>>>>not due to you.
>>>
>>>
>>> Some farm animals benefit from farming. Some don't.
>>
>>No animals benefit from being born, ****wit. None.
>>
>>Not "benefit from farming", ****wit; benefit from being
>>born. No animal benefits from being born, ****wit.
>
>
> Some animals do and some don't

No animal benefits from being born, ****wit; not one.


>>>>>as much as you like thinking about the fact
>>>>>that nonexistent animals can't suffer a loss,

No, YOU are the one who thinks about non-existent
animals suffering losses, ****wit, and you believe they
*DO* suffer losses:

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

You are an irrational ****wit, ****wit. You believe
non-existent animals can suffer losses, and that they
can be deprived of things:

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

You are just nuts, ****wit.

>>>>>it seems like this
>>>>>fact should be one that you both love. But no, you hate it
>>>>>because it doesn't support the elimination of domestic animals.
>>>>
>>>>Both of us are avid meat-eaters and supporters of raising livestock
>>>
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>>Stupid question.
>
>
> Moronic reply.

No, it was a stupid question, ****wit. It wasn't a
serious question; you weren't trying to engage in
serious discussion by posing that ****witted question.

Dutch wrote:
>
> "frlpwr" > wrote
> > Dutch wrote:
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > > > Why?
> > >
> > > Because we like eating meat, certainly not because causing pigs to
> > > spend a few months in a barn is some kind of noble deed.
> >
> > Have you given up all pretense of having animal welfare concerns? > > You
> > now admit you eat factory-farmed pork? You have become one of those
> > peoples who can't use "animals and ethics" in the same sentence.\
>
> I don't know where my bacon comes from,

Well, here's our animal welfarist, folks. Like Harrison, you
pontificate on the decent lives and deaths of farm animals while chowing
down on factory-farmed meat.

> any more than the typical vegan

So, you're a "typical meat-eater", not an animal welfarist. Why have
you lied about yourself all this time? Disgraceful!

> knows where his winter broccoli comes from.

I know exactly where my winter broccoli comes from. It's the frozen
surplus from my late summer harvest.

wrote:
>
(snip)

> "Animal Rights" would make better AW for future farm animals
> impossible. Dutch disagrees with that.
>
Please list farm animal welfare reforms initiated by the welfarist camp.