On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:12:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:

>Yet another confused person has offered the faulty
>"logic of the larder" as a moral justification for
>human use of animals. That now makes two. Woo and yay.
>
>Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit to any
>creature.

Then you still need to show how something (animal or not)
can benefit if it's not alive. Since you can't, we're left to
understand that life is the benefit which makes all others
possible.

cross posts cut

> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:12:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball >
wrote:
>
> >Yet another confused person has offered the faulty
> >"logic of the larder" as a moral justification for
> >human use of animals. That now makes two. Woo and yay.
> >
> >Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit to any
> >creature.
>
> Then you still need to show how something (animal or not)
> can benefit if it's not alive. Since you can't, we're left to
> understand that life is the benefit which makes all others
> possible.


Life is only a benefit if actual benefits follow from its existence. If
only harm (or even net harm) is a consequence of the existence of a life,
how is it a benefit? Life is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
either benefit or harm, but is neither in itself.

JA Golczewski, Ph.D.
http://users.rcn.com/jigo/jg.HTM
Updates, free book on health and life-extension

wrote in message >. ..
> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:12:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>
> >Yet another confused person has offered the faulty
> >"logic of the larder" as a moral justification for
> >human use of animals. That now makes two. Woo and yay.
> >
> >Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit to any
> >creature.
>
> Then you still need to show how something (animal or not)
> can benefit if it's not alive. Since you can't, we're left to
> understand that life is the benefit which makes all others
> possible.

This is a very silly little discussion which is all about definition
and tricky use of language. Make your point without that, if it
matters so much.

"Something can/cannot benefit if it's not alive" assumes some
existence when it is dead.

"Life is the benefit" begs the question.

C'mon, you can do better.

-tg

JG wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
>
>>On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:12:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball >
>
> wrote:
>
>>>Yet another confused person has offered the faulty
>>>"logic of the larder" as a moral justification for
>>>human use of animals. That now makes two. Woo and yay.
>>>
>>>Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit to any
>>>creature.
>>
>> Then you still need to show how something (animal or not)
>>can benefit if it's not alive. Since you can't, we're left to
>>understand that life is the benefit which makes all others
>>possible.
>
>
>
> Life is only a benefit if actual benefits follow from its existence. If
> only harm (or even net harm) is a consequence of the existence of a life,
> how is it a benefit? Life is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
> either benefit or harm, but is neither in itself.

*Continued* life may contingently be a benefit,
although it isn't life, but rather the things -
benefits - that life brings. Life _per se_ - being
born - can never be a benefit.

tg wrote:

> wrote in message >. ..
>
>>On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:12:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yet another confused person has offered the faulty
>>>"logic of the larder" as a moral justification for
>>>human use of animals. That now makes two. Woo and yay.
>>>
>>>Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit to any
>>>creature.
>>
>> Then you still need to show how something (animal or not)
>>can benefit if it's not alive. Since you can't, we're left to
>>understand that life is the benefit which makes all others
>>possible.
>
>
> This is a very silly little discussion which is all about definition
> and tricky use of language. Make your point without that, if it
> matters so much.
>
> "Something can/cannot benefit if it's not alive" assumes some
> existence when it is dead.
>
> "Life is the benefit" begs the question.
>
> C'mon, you can do better.

No, he can't. Seriously. This has been his shabby
little attempt at a trick since he first began posting
to usenet, four-and-a-half years ago.

As you point out, it involves question-begging and
other tricky use of language. It's odd that ****WIT
would even attempt it, because he is an uneducated
high-school dropout, and simply doesn't have the skill
to engage in that kind of sophistry.

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 04:00:09 GMT, wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:12:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>
>>Yet another confused person has offered the faulty
>>"logic of the larder" as a moral justification for
>>human use of animals. That now makes two. Woo and yay.
>>
>>Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit to any
>>creature.
>
> Then you still need to show how something (animal or not)
>can benefit if it's not alive.

No, you need to show it "suffers" from not being born. Good luck.

>Since you can't...

No one can. The unborn cannot benefit or suffer. Your argument is
absurd.

>we're left to...

*You're* left to...

>understand that life is the benefit which makes all others
>possible.

....and makes all suffering possible. Non-life is a non-issue. No AR,
no AW, nada.

-- swamp

"Who, me officer? What's a ferut? These guys?? No, they're Polish cats."

swamp wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 04:00:09 GMT, wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:12:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yet another confused person has offered the faulty
>>>"logic of the larder" as a moral justification for
>>>human use of animals. That now makes two. Woo and yay.
>>>
>>>Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit to any
>>>creature.
>>
>> Then you still need to show how something (animal or not)
>>can benefit if it's not alive.
>
>
> No, you need to show it "suffers" from not being born. Good luck.

That belief - that some kind of moral loss results from
farm animals not being born - comes through clearly in
****WIT's ravings. Because he's uneducated, he thinks
he can shift the burden of proof onto others. He
can't; he's the one making the goofy claim - "being
born is a benefit to farm animals" - and he's the one
who must try to support it.

>
>
>>Since you can't...
>
>
> No one can. The unborn cannot benefit or suffer. Your argument is
> absurd.
>
>
>>we're left to...
>
>
> *You're* left to...
>
>
>>understand that life is the benefit which makes all others
>>possible.
>
>
> ...and makes all suffering possible. Non-life is a non-issue. No AR,
> no AW, nada.
>
> -- swamp
>
> "Who, me officer? What's a ferut? These guys?? No, they're Polish cats."

Jonathan Ball > wrote in message ink.net>...
> tg wrote:
>
> > wrote in message >. ..
> >
> >>On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:12:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Yet another confused person has offered the faulty
> >>>"logic of the larder" as a moral justification for
> >>>human use of animals. That now makes two. Woo and yay.
> >>>
> >>>Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit to any
> >>>creature.
> >>
> >> Then you still need to show how something (animal or not)
> >>can benefit if it's not alive. Since you can't, we're left to
> >>understand that life is the benefit which makes all others
> >>possible.
> >
> >
> > This is a very silly little discussion which is all about definition
> > and tricky use of language. Make your point without that, if it
> > matters so much.
> >
> > "Something can/cannot benefit if it's not alive" assumes some
> > existence when it is dead.
> >
> > "Life is the benefit" begs the question.
> >
> > C'mon, you can do better.
>
> No, he can't. Seriously. This has been his shabby
> little attempt at a trick since he first began posting
> to usenet, four-and-a-half years ago.
>
> As you point out, it involves question-begging and
> other tricky use of language. It's odd that ****WIT
> would even attempt it, because he is an uneducated
> high-school dropout, and simply doesn't have the skill
> to engage in that kind of sophistry.

Ok, but I would apply a somewhat different challenge to what I've seen
of your position---what the hell is it? What if all the ****wits
didn't exist, would you have any purpose in life?

The argument about being omnivorous v. vegetarian or vegan or whatever
fine distinction you like to make seems to be all about farming rather
than some fundamental principle.
Putting aside the natural competition for energy (what I eat is stuff
you can't), it seems obvious that an herbivore causes less suffering
to other entities than a predatory carnivore. You may have some
fundamentalist concern about eating nuts as a form of abortion, but I
doubt that they (the nuts) experience fear when they are being cracked
open.
So there is some ethical position regarding eating meat which is
reasonable---you could choose to forage for plants and eggs and
scavenge kills rather than hunting. Would you still be a ****wit?

-tg

tg wrote:

> Jonathan Ball > wrote in message ink.net>...
>
>>tg wrote:
>>
>>
wrote in message >. ..
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:12:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Yet another confused person has offered the faulty
>>>>>"logic of the larder" as a moral justification for
>>>>>human use of animals. That now makes two. Woo and yay.
>>>>>
>>>>>Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit to any
>>>>>creature.
>>>>
>>>> Then you still need to show how something (animal or not)
>>>>can benefit if it's not alive. Since you can't, we're left to
>>>>understand that life is the benefit which makes all others
>>>>possible.
>>>
>>>
>>>This is a very silly little discussion which is all about definition
>>>and tricky use of language. Make your point without that, if it
>>>matters so much.
>>>
>>>"Something can/cannot benefit if it's not alive" assumes some
>>>existence when it is dead.
>>>
>>>"Life is the benefit" begs the question.
>>>
>>>C'mon, you can do better.
>>
>>No, he can't. Seriously. This has been his shabby
>>little attempt at a trick since he first began posting
>>to usenet, four-and-a-half years ago.
>>
>>As you point out, it involves question-begging and
>>other tricky use of language. It's odd that ****WIT
>>would even attempt it, because he is an uneducated
>>high-school dropout, and simply doesn't have the skill
>>to engage in that kind of sophistry.
>
>
> Ok, but I would apply a somewhat different challenge to what I've seen
> of your position---what the hell is it?

On what?

> What if all the ****wits
> didn't exist, would you have any purpose in life?

Of course I would; I have lots of other high-quality
uses of my time. However, ****wits will *always*
exist. Hell, just listen to Phil Hendrie some night -
that guy gives away the secret of his show almost every
night, and *still* the ****wits call up...


> The argument about being omnivorous v. vegetarian or vegan or whatever
> fine distinction you like to make seems to be all about farming rather
> than some fundamental principle.

Uh...no.

> Putting aside the natural competition for energy (what I eat is stuff
> you can't), it seems obvious that an herbivore causes less suffering
> to other entities than a predatory carnivore.

So what?

> You may have some
> fundamentalist concern about eating nuts as a form of abortion, but I
> doubt that they (the nuts) experience fear when they are being cracked
> open.
> So there is some ethical position regarding eating meat which is
> reasonable---you could choose to forage for plants and eggs and
> scavenge kills rather than hunting. Would you still be a ****wit?

Well, that's not a diet I'd ever follow, so I think you
must mean would *one* still be a ****wit if one
followed that diet? I'd have to say it would depend on
what kind of moral conclusions one was reaching, but of
course we'd have to know a lot more about the person
than merely the source of his food.

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:55:09 -0500, "JG" > wrote:

> wrote in message ...
>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:12:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball >
>wrote:
>>
>> >Yet another confused person has offered the faulty
>> >"logic of the larder" as a moral justification for
>> >human use of animals. That now makes two. Woo and yay.
>> >
>> >Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit to any
>> >creature.
>>
>> Then you still need to show how something (animal or not)
>> can benefit if it's not alive. Since you can't, we're left to
>> understand that life is the benefit which makes all others
>> possible.
>
>
>Life is only a benefit if actual benefits follow from its existence. If
>only harm (or even net harm) is a consequence of the existence of a life,
>how is it a benefit? Life is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
>either benefit or harm, but is neither in itself.
>
>JA Golczewski, Ph.D.
>http://users.rcn.com/jigo/jg.HTM
>Updates, free book on health and life-extension

Life itself is the benefit which makes all others possible. Nothing
can benefit if it's not alive. That doesn't mean that the individual
lives of every living thing are a benefit to every individual. Those
are two (or billions of) entirely different subjects. We know the word
life has more than one meaning, as do many other words.

****WIT David Harrison wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:55:09 -0500, "JG" > wrote:
>
>
> wrote in message ...
>>
>>>On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:12:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball >
>>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Yet another confused person has offered the faulty
>>>>"logic of the larder" as a moral justification for
>>>>human use of animals. That now makes two. Woo and yay.
>>>>
>>>>Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit to any
>>>>creature.
>>>
>>> Then you still need to show how something (animal or not)
>>>can benefit if it's not alive. Since you can't, we're left to
>>>understand that life is the benefit which makes all others
>>>possible.
>>
>>
>>Life is only a benefit if actual benefits follow from its existence. If
>>only harm (or even net harm) is a consequence of the existence of a life,
>>how is it a benefit? Life is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
>>either benefit or harm, but is neither in itself.
>>
>>JA Golczewski, Ph.D.
>>http://users.rcn.com/jigo/jg.HTM
>>Updates, free book on health and life-extension
>
>
> Life itself is the benefit which makes all others possible.

Life itself is NOT a benefit, ****WIT. It cannot be.

> Nothing can benefit if it's not alive.

Exactly, ****WIT! Since there was no entity to receive
the benefit prior to being alive, and since "benefit"
requires a beneficiary, life itself CANNOT be a benefit.

> That doesn't mean that the individual
> lives of every living thing are a benefit to every individual.

The individual lives themselves CANNOT be a benefit,
****WIT.

Everyone sees it but you. You are uniquely stupid.

****WIT David Harrison wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:55:09 -0500, "JG" > wrote:
>
>
> wrote in message ...
>>
>>>On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:12:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball >
>>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Yet another confused person has offered the faulty
>>>>"logic of the larder" as a moral justification for
>>>>human use of animals. That now makes two. Woo and yay.
>>>>
>>>>Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit to any
>>>>creature.
>>>
>>> Then you still need to show how something (animal or not)
>>>can benefit if it's not alive. Since you can't, we're left to
>>>understand that life is the benefit which makes all others
>>>possible.
>>
>>
>>Life is only a benefit if actual benefits follow from its existence. If
>>only harm (or even net harm) is a consequence of the existence of a life,
>>how is it a benefit? Life is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
>>either benefit or harm, but is neither in itself.
>>
>>JA Golczewski, Ph.D.
>>http://users.rcn.com/jigo/jg.HTM
>>Updates, free book on health and life-extension
>
>
> Life itself is the benefit which makes all others possible.

Life itself is NOT a benefit, ****WIT. It cannot be.

> Nothing can benefit if it's not alive.

Exactly, ****WIT! Since there was no entity to receive
the benefit prior to being alive, and since "benefit"
requires a beneficiary, life itself CANNOT be a benefit.

> That doesn't mean that the individual
> lives of every living thing are a benefit to every individual.

The individual lives themselves CANNOT be a benefit,
****WIT.

Everyone sees it but you. You are uniquely stupid.

Jonathan Ball > wrote in message link.net>...
> tg wrote:
>
> > Jonathan Ball > wrote in message ink.net>...
> >
> >>tg wrote:
> >>
> >>
> wrote in message >. ..
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 17:12:20 GMT, Jonathan Ball > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Yet another confused person has offered the faulty
> >>>>>"logic of the larder" as a moral justification for
> >>>>>human use of animals. That now makes two. Woo and yay.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Life per se - basic existence - is not a benefit to any
> >>>>>creature.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then you still need to show how something (animal or not)
> >>>>can benefit if it's not alive. Since you can't, we're left to
> >>>>understand that life is the benefit which makes all others
> >>>>possible.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>This is a very silly little discussion which is all about definition
> >>>and tricky use of language. Make your point without that, if it
> >>>matters so much.
> >>>
> >>>"Something can/cannot benefit if it's not alive" assumes some
> >>>existence when it is dead.
> >>>
> >>>"Life is the benefit" begs the question.
> >>>
> >>>C'mon, you can do better.
> >>
> >>No, he can't. Seriously. This has been his shabby
> >>little attempt at a trick since he first began posting
> >>to usenet, four-and-a-half years ago.
> >>
> >>As you point out, it involves question-begging and
> >>other tricky use of language. It's odd that ****WIT
> >>would even attempt it, because he is an uneducated
> >>high-school dropout, and simply doesn't have the skill
> >>to engage in that kind of sophistry.
> >
> >
> > Ok, but I would apply a somewhat different challenge to what I've seen
> > of your position---what the hell is it?
>
> On what?
>
> > What if all the ****wits
> > didn't exist, would you have any purpose in life?
>
> Of course I would; I have lots of other high-quality
> uses of my time. However, ****wits will *always*
> exist. Hell, just listen to Phil Hendrie some night -
> that guy gives away the secret of his show almost every
> night, and *still* the ****wits call up...
>
>
> > The argument about being omnivorous v. vegetarian or vegan or whatever
> > fine distinction you like to make seems to be all about farming rather
> > than some fundamental principle.
>
> Uh...no.
>
> > Putting aside the natural competition for energy (what I eat is stuff
> > you can't), it seems obvious that an herbivore causes less suffering
> > to other entities than a predatory carnivore.
>
> So what?
>
> > You may have some
> > fundamentalist concern about eating nuts as a form of abortion, but I
> > doubt that they (the nuts) experience fear when they are being cracked
> > open.
> > So there is some ethical position regarding eating meat which is
> > reasonable---you could choose to forage for plants and eggs and
> > scavenge kills rather than hunting. Would you still be a ****wit?
>
> Well, that's not a diet I'd ever follow, so I think you
> must mean would *one* still be a ****wit if one
> followed that diet? I'd have to say it would depend on
> what kind of moral conclusions one was reaching, but of
> course we'd have to know a lot more about the person
> than merely the source of his food.

A very cautious answer.

The "moral conclusion" or reasoning would be that such a diet caused
less suffering than if one hunted. This assumes that one is not a
"perfect hunter" who owns a perfect weapon and gets instantaneous
clean and painless kills.

The point of the question is to understand if you object to any moral
position or only to ones which you can demonstrate to be internally
inconsistent.

-tg

tg wrote:

> Jonathan Ball > wrote in message link.net>...
>
>>tg wrote:

[...]

>>>You may have some
>>>fundamentalist concern about eating nuts as a form of abortion, but I
>>>doubt that they (the nuts) experience fear when they are being cracked
>>>open.
>>>So there is some ethical position regarding eating meat which is
>>>reasonable---you could choose to forage for plants and eggs and
>>>scavenge kills rather than hunting. Would you still be a ****wit?
>>
>>Well, that's not a diet I'd ever follow, so I think you
>>must mean would *one* still be a ****wit if one
>>followed that diet? I'd have to say it would depend on
>>what kind of moral conclusions one was reaching, but of
>>course we'd have to know a lot more about the person
>>than merely the source of his food.
>
>
> A very cautious answer.
>
> The "moral conclusion" or reasoning would be that such a diet caused
> less suffering than if one hunted. This assumes that one is not a
> "perfect hunter" who owns a perfect weapon and gets instantaneous
> clean and painless kills.
>
> The point of the question is to understand if you object to any moral
> position or only to ones which you can demonstrate to be internally
> inconsistent.

The latter. Let's be clear that it isn't the moral
position per se that I find internally inconsistent,
but rather the reasoning that leads to the moral
conclusion. "vegans" follow a consumption rule -
"don't consume animal parts" - that does not lead to
either the practical result (zero, or at least
"minimized", animal deaths) they imagine; thus, any
moral claim based on having obtained the result they
falsely claim to have obtained is logically invalid.