Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-05-2004, 09:42 PM
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak


"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
ink.net...
JethroUK© wrote:

for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
if animals come into existence?



It would be better for:

1/ That particular animal


NO. "That particular animal" didn't exist prior to
existing, so coming into existence CANNOT "benefit" it.


it's not 'comming into existance' (as per a twinkle in it's mothers eye - as
per the article you are trying to regurgite, but totally MIS-read) - it
already exists!

typically - you see what you want to see - dont read into an article what
isn't there, just because it suits you


2/ Animal Kind


No such thing.


you need to get out more - of course there is



3/ My sandwich


No one cares.


i do - i need a balanced diet - i am an omnivore (which means i need meat),
and i have the teeth to prove it


4/ World as a whole


No.


Ceratinly Yes!


Bad answers, as I expected, and as you knew you would
provide.


what answers would you like - or more correctly - what answers would you
feel comfortable attacking - i'll provide them


  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 04:19 AM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

JethroUK© wrote:

"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
news
wrote:


On Mon, 17 May 2004 00:08:41 +0100, "JethroUK©" wrote:



for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
if animals come into existence?

It would be better for:

1/ That particular animal
2/ Animal Kind
3/ My sandwich
4/ World as a whole


Well, that's four things.


Four unimportant and/or wrong pieces of crap.



i can imagine you thinking my sandwich is unimportant (but it is to me) -
but how can you describe:

An animals life
Animal Kind
World

as unimporatant?


It is not important to any animal, a priori, that it
"gets to exist".

"animal kind" does not have interests; only individual
entities have interests.

"the world" doesn't have interests.

Your answers are absurd: it can't be "better" for any
of those things that animals are born and "get to
experience life". One thing is for certain: life -
basic existence - is NOT a "benefit" to any animal.

  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 04:22 AM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

JethroUK© wrote:

"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
ink.net...

JethroUK© wrote:


for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
if animals come into existence?


It would be better for:

1/ That particular animal


NO. "That particular animal" didn't exist prior to
existing, so coming into existence CANNOT "benefit" it.



it's not 'comming into existance' (as per a twinkle in it's mothers eye - as
per the article you are trying to regurgite, but totally MIS-read) - it
already exists!


No, DUMMY. The question is, for whom or what is it
better for an animal to come into existence? Can't you
read?

The answer CANNOT be for the animal itself. In order
for something to be "better" for some entity, the
entity must ALREADY exist. "Coming into existence",
THEREFORE, cannot be "better" for an animal.




2/ Animal Kind


No such thing.



you need to get out more - of course there is


No, there isn't; not as some interest-holding entity.




3/ My sandwich


No one cares.



i do


No one else does.



4/ World as a whole


No.



Ceratinly Yes!


Certainly NO - "the world as a whole" also does not
have any interests.



Bad answers, as I expected, and as you knew you would
provide.



what answers would you like


Sensible, well-thought ones. I won't get them from
you, that's for sure.



  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 05:30 PM
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak


It is not important to any animal, a priori, that it
"gets to exist".


yes it is - and repeatedly saying it isn't, doesn't make it so



  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 05:36 PM
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak


"animal kind" does not have interests; only individual
entities have interests.


depends how you [choose] to use the word 'interest'

it is in the best interest of animal kind that it's populous is
retained/replaced/managed (includes the birth of an individual animal) -
another fact!


  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 05:49 PM
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak


"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
ink.net...
JethroUK© wrote:

"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
ink.net...

JethroUK© wrote:


for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
if animals come into existence?


It would be better for:

1/ That particular animal

NO. "That particular animal" didn't exist prior to
existing, so coming into existence CANNOT "benefit" it.



it's not 'comming into existance' (as per a twinkle in it's mothers

eye - as
per the article you are trying to regurgite, but totally MIS-read) - it
already exists!


No, DUMMY. The question is, for whom or what is it
better for an animal to come into existence? Can't you
read?

The answer CANNOT be for the animal itself. In order
for something to be "better" for some entity, the
entity must ALREADY exist. "Coming into existence",
THEREFORE, cannot be "better" for an animal.


yes it can! - 'better' is a relative term - thus only needs a perspective -
from the point of view of the [live] animal itsself (it's perspective) - it
is better to be alive than not - of course it would not have any persepctive
if it didn't exist - but once it does - it does - and [we] can consider
'it's' perspective - another fact!


  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 05:49 PM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

JethroUK© wrote:

It is not important to any animal, a priori, that it
"gets to exist".



yes it is


No, it isn't. I've explained in plain English why it
cannot be. I suppose English is not your native tongue.

  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 05:50 PM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

JethroUK© wrote:

"animal kind" does not have interests; only individual
entities have interests.



depends how you [choose] to use the word 'interest'


No, it doesn't, Mr Semantic-Game-Playing ****tard. The
word "interest" in ethics is very well defined and
understood, and not susceptible to your
definition-fiddling.


it is in the best interest of animal kind


No. Only individuals have interests. You lose, right
off the line.



  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 05:54 PM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:

"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
ink.net...

JethroUK© wrote:


"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
thlink.net...


JethroUK© wrote:



for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
if animals come into existence?


It would be better for:

1/ That particular animal

NO. "That particular animal" didn't exist prior to
existing, so coming into existence CANNOT "benefit" it.


it's not 'comming into existance' (as per a twinkle in it's mothers


eye - as

per the article you are trying to regurgite, but totally MIS-read) - it
already exists!


No, DUMMY. The question is, for whom or what is it
better for an animal to come into existence? Can't you
read?

The answer CANNOT be for the animal itself. In order
for something to be "better" for some entity, the
entity must ALREADY exist. "Coming into existence",
THEREFORE, cannot be "better" for an animal.



yes it can!


No, it can't! I've just explained why it can't be!
You don't get it!

- 'better' is a relative term - thus only needs a perspective -
from the point of view of the [live] animal itsself (it's perspective) - it
is better to be alive than not


No. That's impossible. You cannot compare existence
to non-existence: the entity didn't have a welfare or
well-being prior to existing, so existence cannot
improve anything.

- of course it would not have any persepctive
if it didn't exist


Thus, there is on basis for any comparison.

You lose.

  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 06:06 PM
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak


"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
.net...
the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:

"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
ink.net...

JethroUK© wrote:


"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
thlink.net...


JethroUK© wrote:



for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
if animals come into existence?


It would be better for:

1/ That particular animal

NO. "That particular animal" didn't exist prior to
existing, so coming into existence CANNOT "benefit" it.


it's not 'comming into existance' (as per a twinkle in it's mothers


eye - as

per the article you are trying to regurgite, but totally MIS-read) - it
already exists!

No, DUMMY. The question is, for whom or what is it
better for an animal to come into existence? Can't you
read?

The answer CANNOT be for the animal itself. In order
for something to be "better" for some entity, the
entity must ALREADY exist. "Coming into existence",
THEREFORE, cannot be "better" for an animal.



yes it can!


No, it can't! I've just explained why it can't be!
You don't get it!

- 'better' is a relative term - thus only needs a perspective -
from the point of view of the [live] animal itsself (it's perspective) -

it
is better to be alive than not


No. That's impossible. You cannot compare existence
to non-existence:


yes you can, but only if you exist - the existance define the perspective -
if you can consider yourself better off dead than alive - you can equally
consider yourself better off alive than dead

your only argument is [me] putting words in [it's] mouth (sumising [it's]
perspective) - and that would be a valid argument since [it] cant talk



  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 06:07 PM
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak


"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
.net...
JethroUK© wrote:

It is not important to any animal, a priori, that it
"gets to exist".



yes it is


No, it isn't. I've explained in plain English why it
cannot be. I suppose English is not your native tongue.


yes it is


  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 06:08 PM
JethroUK©
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak


"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
news
JethroUK© wrote:

"animal kind" does not have interests; only individual
entities have interests.



depends how you [choose] to use the word 'interest'


No, it doesn't, Mr Semantic-Game-Playing ****tard. The
word "interest" in ethics is very well defined and
understood, and not susceptible to your
definition-fiddling.


it is in the best interest of animal kind


No. Only individuals have interests. You lose, right
off the line.


it is in the best interest of animal kind and the world as a whole


  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-05-2004, 06:19 PM
Wilson Woods
 
Posts: n/a
Default If we breed more cattle - I can get a cheaper steak

JethroUK© wrote:

"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
.net...

the semi-literate JethroUK© scrawled:


"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
thlink.net...


JethroUK© wrote:



"Wilson Woods" wrote in message
arthlink.net...



JethroUK© wrote:




for whom or what might it be "better"/"more moral"
if animals come into existence?


It would be better for:

1/ That particular animal

NO. "That particular animal" didn't exist prior to
existing, so coming into existence CANNOT "benefit" it.


it's not 'comming into existance' (as per a twinkle in it's mothers

eye - as


per the article you are trying to regurgite, but totally MIS-read) - it
already exists!

No, DUMMY. The question is, for whom or what is it
better for an animal to come into existence? Can't you
read?

The answer CANNOT be for the animal itself. In order
for something to be "better" for some entity, the
entity must ALREADY exist. "Coming into existence",
THEREFORE, cannot be "better" for an animal.


yes it can!


No, it can't! I've just explained why it can't be!
You don't get it!


- 'better' is a relative term - thus only needs a perspective -
from the point of view of the [live] animal itsself (it's perspective) -


it

is better to be alive than not


No. That's impossible. You cannot compare existence
to non-existence:



yes you can, but only if you exist - the existance define the perspective -
if you can consider yourself better off dead than alive - you can equally
consider yourself better off alive than dead


No. That's the whole issue. When you exist, you can
think that your existence is so awful, you don't want
to continue it. You won't *really* be "better off"
dead than alive, because you won't BE.

However, prior to existence you have no perspective at
all; there is no 'you'. Thus, it is plainly absurd to
say that 'you' are "better off" - have an improved
well-being - for coming into existence, as prior to
existing, 'you' didn't HAVE any well-being to improve.

No animal, human or non-human, is "better off" merely
for coming into existence. It's absurd and impossible.


I'm growing tired of trifling with you. You're
incompetent to discuss philosophy, and I don't like
wasting time with semi-literate cretins. Learn to
spell, learn to capitalize, learn proper punctuation,
and learn *something* about metaphysics. Right now,
you're just a buffoon.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mundane Questions that a Fairly Sophisticated Cook is Afraid to Ask Lynn from Fargo General Cooking 20 01-11-2008 05:29 AM
Mundane Questions that a Fairly Sophisticated Cook is Afraid to Ask Lynn from Fargo General Cooking 3 26-10-2008 03:41 AM
Mundane Questions that a Fairly Sophisticated Cook is Afraid to Ask Lynn from Fargo General Cooking 0 26-10-2008 12:22 AM
simple question, bet the answer isnt..... snpm Winemaking 4 12-04-2007 06:04 PM
Why is JethroUK so horribly afraid to answer simple and good questions? Wilson Woods Vegan 28 22-05-2004 02:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017