On 5/1/2012 10:23 AM, Dutch wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:27:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>>>>
>>>> It means lives that are good.
>>>
>>> Right. That's *all* it ever meant to you.
>>
>> Because that's what it means, Goo. Duh Gooberdoodle, duh.
>
> Why are their lives good? The fact that we consume animal products has
> nothing to do with it.

Their lives are good, if in fact they are, because of what happens in
their lives. The mere fact they "get to experience life", of course, is
not "good" in any way for them.

On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:23:05 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:27:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>>>>
>>>> It means lives that are good.
>>>
>>>Right. That's *all* it ever meant to you.
>>
>> Because that's what it means, Goo. Duh Gooberdoodle, duh.
>
>Why are their lives good?

"The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"

"I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"

"Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"

****wit David Harrison, a felon convicted of engaging in illegal animal
combats, lied:


>>>>>
>>>>>> It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>>>>>
>>>>> It means lives that are good.
>>>>
>>>> Right. That's *all* it ever meant to you.
>>>
>>> Because that's what it means, Goo. Duh Gooberdoodle, duh.
>>
>> Why are their lives good?
>
> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"

Why are their lives good, Goo? Tell us in your own words.

dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:23:05 -0700, > wrote:
>
>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:27:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>> >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>>>>>
>>>>> It means lives that are good.
>>>>
>>>> Right. That's *all* it ever meant to you.
>>>
>>> Because that's what it means, Goo. Duh Gooberdoodle, duh.
>>
>> Why are their lives good?
>
> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>
> "I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
> animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"
>
> "Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
> experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"

Their lives are good when we act to support AW. Bringing them into
existence (arranged breeding) is no credit to us and it does not make
their lives good. You are assigning moral significance to something
which has none for your own misguided reasons.

On Apr 24, 7:27*am, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:00:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 18, 5:58*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:55:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Apr 17, 11:19*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 23:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >On Apr 11, 7:39*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Apr 9, 10:54*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:06:34 -0700, wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >"Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing
> >> >> >> >> >nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
> >> >> >> >> >why human use of animals is wrong. *This is meaningless. *First of all,
> >> >> >> >> >all species are "speciesist": *the members of all species pursue their
> >> >> >> >> >interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
> >> >> >> >> >no regard for the interests of other species.
>
> >> >> >> >> * * That's for sure. If humans were not speciesist we could no longer survive
> >> >> >> >> since rodents, bugs and germs would eventually wipe us out. Early humans also
> >> >> >> >> would not have been able to defend themselves from predators if they didn't care
> >> >> >> >> more for themselves than they do for the predators.
> >> >> >> >> . . .
>
> >> >> >> >> >The passivists cannot make a case as to *why* the interests of members
> >> >> >> >> >of other species ought to be given the same moral weight as the
> >> >> >> >> >interests of members of our own species.
>
> >> >> >> >> * * Someone who honestly felt that way would be insane and a danger to society.
> >> >> >> >> They would feel no worse about hitting a child with their car than they would a
> >> >> >> >> snake, which would truly be insane from my pov.
>
> >> >> >> >That does not follow.
>
> >> >> >> * * That it would be insane from my pov? Or that if they were not speciesist it
> >> >> >> would apply to snakes as well as to whatever else, if anything, or
> >> >> >> everything...?
>
> >> >> >Being non-speciesist does not require to get as upset about the death
> >> >> >of a snake as about the death of a human child.
>
> >> >> * * Sure it does. Why would you even want to *pretend otherwise, when you should
> >> >> be proud that it IS that way?
>
> >> >It doesn't.
>
> >> * * Of course it does but out of curiosity, what do you WANT people to believe
> >> it means?
>
> >It means that the relevantly similar interests of any two organisms
> >should be weighed equally (along with other morally relevant
> >considerations) regardless of the species to which the organisms
> >belong.
>
> >The question of what kinds of opportunities for satisfaction and
> >fulfilment are thwarted by the death is morally relevant
>
> * * So then you're being opportunitiesist or something, no better than being
> speciesist. Worse actually, imo.

You have not offered any rational grounds for these assertions.

On Apr 19, 4:53*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 4/18/2012 10:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 18, 5:19 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 4/18/2012 6:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 18, 1:30 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 4/17/2012 1:37 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Apr 17, 9:24 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/17/2012 11:08 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 17, 4:07 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/16/2012 11:49 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 11, 7:39 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), >
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 10:54 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:06:34 -0700, wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> why human use of animals is wrong. *This is meaningless. *First of all,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> all species are "speciesist": *the members of all species pursue their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> no regard for the interests of other species.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * *That's for sure. If humans were not speciesist we could no longer survive
> >>>>>>>>>>>> since rodents, bugs and germs would eventually wipe us out. Early humans also
> >>>>>>>>>>>> would not have been able to defend themselves from predators if they didn't care
> >>>>>>>>>>>> more for themselves than they do for the predators.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> . . .
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The passivists cannot make a case as to *why* the interests of members
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of other species ought to be given the same moral weight as the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> interests of members of our own species.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * *Someone who honestly felt that way would be insane and a danger to society.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> They would feel no worse about hitting a child with their car than they would a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> snake, which would truly be insane from my pov.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> That does not follow.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> * * * * *That it would be insane from my pov? Or that if they were not speciesist it
> >>>>>>>>>> would apply to snakes as well as to whatever else, if anything, or
> >>>>>>>>>> everything...?
>
> >>>>>>>>> Being non-speciesist does not require to get as upset about the death
> >>>>>>>>> of a snake as about the death of a human child.
>
> >>>>>>>> Of course it does. *Not only that, but it says we should be indifferent
> >>>>>>>> as to which one we save from harm. *So, if I see vehicles about to crush
> >>>>>>>> a snake and a human child, and I have time to rescue only one of them, I
> >>>>>>>> should give equal consideration to rescuing the snake and the child -
> >>>>>>>> essentially, flip a coin.
>
> >>>>>>>> Don't give me any of your specious sophistry about figuring out which
> >>>>>>>> one is more likely to have a richer, longer life of positive value
> >>>>>>>> <snicker> * * * *if saved - "non-speciesism" (****, what a revolting,
> >>>>>>>> disgusting made-up word) requires I give rescuing the snake as much
> >>>>>>>> consideration as rescuing the child.
>
> >>>>>>> No, it doesn't.
>
> >>>>>> It does.
>
> >>>>> As I say, you don't understand what speciesism is.
>
> >>>> I do understand exactly what it is.
>
> >>> Wrong.
>
> >> Nope; I'm right.
>
> > Apparently there is no hope of curing your delusion of competence.
>
> I operate under no such delusion.

So you're aware of your incompetence?

On Apr 24, 7:27*am, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
> >It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>
> * * It means lives that are good.

Okay fine, shame you couldn't have said that when I first asked, or
better yet simply used the phrase "good lives".

On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:21:08 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:23:05 -0700, > wrote:
>>
>>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:27:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It means lives that are good.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. That's *all* it ever meant to you.
>>>>
>>>> Because that's what it means, Goo. Duh Gooberdoodle, duh.
>>>
>>> Why are their lives good?
>>
>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>
>> "I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
>> animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"
>>
>> "Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
>> experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
>
>Their lives are good when we act to support AW. Bringing them into
>existence (arranged breeding) is no credit to us and it does not make
>their lives good. You are assigning moral significance to something
>which has none for your own misguided reasons.

In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist propaganda, considering the
lives as well as the deaths of livestock animals is a NECESSARY part of
developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on animals.

On Fri, 4 May 2012 10:31:07 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Apr 24, 7:27*am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>>
>> * * It means lives that are good.
>
>Okay fine, shame you couldn't have said that when I first asked,

I overestimated your ability to figure things out.

>or better yet simply used the phrase "good lives".

I explained why I don't use that way of referring to it, but the specifics
of why are beyond your ability to appreciate apparently or you would have been
able to appreciate why the entire time.

On Fri, 4 May 2012 10:14:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Apr 24, 7:27*am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:00:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 18, 5:58*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:55:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Apr 17, 11:19*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 23:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Apr 11, 7:39*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Apr 9, 10:54*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:06:34 -0700, wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >"Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing
>> >> >> >> >> >nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
>> >> >> >> >> >why human use of animals is wrong. *This is meaningless. *First of all,
>> >> >> >> >> >all species are "speciesist": *the members of all species pursue their
>> >> >> >> >> >interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
>> >> >> >> >> >no regard for the interests of other species.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> * * That's for sure. If humans were not speciesist we could no longer survive
>> >> >> >> >> since rodents, bugs and germs would eventually wipe us out. Early humans also
>> >> >> >> >> would not have been able to defend themselves from predators if they didn't care
>> >> >> >> >> more for themselves than they do for the predators.
>> >> >> >> >> . . .
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >The passivists cannot make a case as to *why* the interests of members
>> >> >> >> >> >of other species ought to be given the same moral weight as the
>> >> >> >> >> >interests of members of our own species.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> * * Someone who honestly felt that way would be insane and a danger to society.
>> >> >> >> >> They would feel no worse about hitting a child with their car than they would a
>> >> >> >> >> snake, which would truly be insane from my pov.
>>
>> >> >> >> >That does not follow.
>>
>> >> >> >> * * That it would be insane from my pov? Or that if they were not speciesist it
>> >> >> >> would apply to snakes as well as to whatever else, if anything, or
>> >> >> >> everything...?
>>
>> >> >> >Being non-speciesist does not require to get as upset about the death
>> >> >> >of a snake as about the death of a human child.
>>
>> >> >> * * Sure it does. Why would you even want to *pretend otherwise, when you should
>> >> >> be proud that it IS that way?
>>
>> >> >It doesn't.
>>
>> >> * * Of course it does but out of curiosity, what do you WANT people to believe
>> >> it means?
>>
>> >It means that the relevantly similar interests of any two organisms
>> >should be weighed equally (along with other morally relevant
>> >considerations) regardless of the species to which the organisms
>> >belong.
>>
>> >The question of what kinds of opportunities for satisfaction and
>> >fulfilment are thwarted by the death is morally relevant
>>
>> * * So then you're being opportunitiesist or something, no better than being
>> speciesist. Worse actually, imo.
>
>You have not offered any rational grounds for these assertions.

It is worse to be opportunitiesist than it is to be speciesist imo, not
better.

dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:21:08 -0700, > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:23:05 -0700, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:27:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It means lives that are good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right. That's *all* it ever meant to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because that's what it means, Goo. Duh Gooberdoodle, duh.
>>>>
>>>> Why are their lives good?
>>>
>>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>>
>>> "I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
>>> animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"
>>>
>>> "Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
>>> experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
>>
>> Their lives are good when we act to support AW. Bringing them into
>> existence (arranged breeding) is no credit to us and it does not make
>> their lives good. You are assigning moral significance to something
>> which has none for your own misguided reasons.
>
> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist propaganda, considering the
> lives as well as the deaths of livestock animals is a NECESSARY part of
> developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on animals.

No it isn't, its meaningless. Their lives don't balance their deaths,
that's not what the discussion is about at all.

On May 7, 7:03*am, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2012 10:31:07 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 24, 7:27*am, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>
> >> * * It means lives that are good.
>
> >Okay fine, shame you couldn't have said that when I first asked,
>
> * * I overestimated your ability to figure things out.
>

You did not provide sufficient information for someone to know what
you meant.

> >or better yet simply used the phrase "good lives".
>
> * * I explained why I don't use that way of referring to it, but the specifics
> of why are beyond your ability to appreciate apparently or you would have been
> able to appreciate why the entire time.

On May 7, 7:03*am, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2012 10:14:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 24, 7:27*am, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:00:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Apr 18, 5:58*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:55:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Apr 17, 11:19*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 23:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Apr 11, 7:39*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >On Apr 9, 10:54*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:06:34 -0700, wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >"Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing
> >> >> >> >> >> >nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
> >> >> >> >> >> >why human use of animals is wrong. *This is meaningless.. *First of all,
> >> >> >> >> >> >all species are "speciesist": *the members of all species pursue their
> >> >> >> >> >> >interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
> >> >> >> >> >> >no regard for the interests of other species.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> * * That's for sure. If humans were not speciesist we could no longer survive
> >> >> >> >> >> since rodents, bugs and germs would eventually wipe us out.. Early humans also
> >> >> >> >> >> would not have been able to defend themselves from predators if they didn't care
> >> >> >> >> >> more for themselves than they do for the predators.
> >> >> >> >> >> . . .
>
> >> >> >> >> >> >The passivists cannot make a case as to *why* the interests of members
> >> >> >> >> >> >of other species ought to be given the same moral weight as the
> >> >> >> >> >> >interests of members of our own species.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> * * Someone who honestly felt that way would be insane and a danger to society.
> >> >> >> >> >> They would feel no worse about hitting a child with their car than they would a
> >> >> >> >> >> snake, which would truly be insane from my pov.
>
> >> >> >> >> >That does not follow.
>
> >> >> >> >> * * That it would be insane from my pov? Or that if they were not speciesist it
> >> >> >> >> would apply to snakes as well as to whatever else, if anything, or
> >> >> >> >> everything...?
>
> >> >> >> >Being non-speciesist does not require to get as upset about the death
> >> >> >> >of a snake as about the death of a human child.
>
> >> >> >> * * Sure it does. Why would you even want to *pretend otherwise, when you should
> >> >> >> be proud that it IS that way?
>
> >> >> >It doesn't.
>
> >> >> * * Of course it does but out of curiosity, what do you WANT people to believe
> >> >> it means?
>
> >> >It means that the relevantly similar interests of any two organisms
> >> >should be weighed equally (along with other morally relevant
> >> >considerations) regardless of the species to which the organisms
> >> >belong.
>
> >> >The question of what kinds of opportunities for satisfaction and
> >> >fulfilment are thwarted by the death is morally relevant
>
> >> * * So then you're being opportunitiesist or something, no better than being
> >> speciesist. Worse actually, imo.
>
> >You have not offered any rational grounds for these assertions.
>
> * * It is worse to be opportunitiesist than it is to be speciesist imo, not
> better.

And why do you think that?

On Sun, 06 May 2012 15:30:55 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:21:08 -0700, > wrote:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:23:05 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:27:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It means lives that are good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right. That's *all* it ever meant to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because that's what it means, Goo. Duh Gooberdoodle, duh.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why are their lives good?
>>>>
>>>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>>>
>>>> "I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
>>>> animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"
>>>>
>>>> "Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
>>>> experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
>>>
>>> Their lives are good when we act to support AW. Bringing them into
>>> existence (arranged breeding) is no credit to us and it does not make
>>> their lives good. You are assigning moral significance to something
>>> which has none for your own misguided reasons.
>>
>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist propaganda, considering the
>> lives as well as the deaths of livestock animals is a NECESSARY part of
>> developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on animals.
>
>No it isn't, its meaningless.

It is NECESSARY in order to develop a realistic interpretation, and ONLY an
eliminationist would have reason to lie that it's not. An eliminationist
wouldn't be correct to tell that particular lie, but an eliminationist is the
only type person who would have reason to tell it.

>Their lives don't balance their deaths,

Why don't you feel that way about humans having children too, or do you want
to claim that you do?

>that's not what the discussion is about at all.

It's certainly a significant part of it and again ONLY an eliminationist
would have reason to lie that it's not.

On Mon, 7 May 2012 16:18:44 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On May 7, 7:03*am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 May 2012 10:31:07 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Apr 24, 7:27*am, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>>
>> >> * * It means lives that are good.
>>
>> >Okay fine, shame you couldn't have said that when I first asked,
>>
>> * * I overestimated your ability to figure things out.
>>
>
>You did not provide sufficient information for someone to know what
>you meant.

Not enough for YOU to figure it out, but a less clueless person would have
had no problem.

>> >or better yet simply used the phrase "good lives".
>>
>> * * I explained why I don't use that way of referring to it, but the specifics
>> of why are beyond your ability to appreciate apparently or you would have been
>> able to appreciate why the entire time.

On Mon, 7 May 2012 16:19:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On May 7, 7:03*am, dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 May 2012 10:14:11 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 24, 7:27*am, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:00:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Apr 18, 5:58*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:55:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >On Apr 17, 11:19*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 23:49:28 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Apr 11, 7:39*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 00:37:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >On Apr 9, 10:54*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:06:34 -0700, wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >> >"Animal rights activists" - actually, most are "passivists", doing
>> >> >> >> >> >> >nothing more than talk - commonly invoke "speciesism" to try to explain
>> >> >> >> >> >> >why human use of animals is wrong. *This is meaningless. *First of all,
>> >> >> >> >> >> >all species are "speciesist": *the members of all species pursue their
>> >> >> >> >> >> >interests, as individual entities and as members of their species, with
>> >> >> >> >> >> >no regard for the interests of other species.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> * * That's for sure. If humans were not speciesist we could no longer survive
>> >> >> >> >> >> since rodents, bugs and germs would eventually wipe us out. Early humans also
>> >> >> >> >> >> would not have been able to defend themselves from predators if they didn't care
>> >> >> >> >> >> more for themselves than they do for the predators.
>> >> >> >> >> >> . . .
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> >The passivists cannot make a case as to *why* the interests of members
>> >> >> >> >> >> >of other species ought to be given the same moral weight as the
>> >> >> >> >> >> >interests of members of our own species.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >> * * Someone who honestly felt that way would be insane and a danger to society.
>> >> >> >> >> >> They would feel no worse about hitting a child with their car than they would a
>> >> >> >> >> >> snake, which would truly be insane from my pov.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >That does not follow.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> * * That it would be insane from my pov? Or that if they were not speciesist it
>> >> >> >> >> would apply to snakes as well as to whatever else, if anything, or
>> >> >> >> >> everything...?
>>
>> >> >> >> >Being non-speciesist does not require to get as upset about the death
>> >> >> >> >of a snake as about the death of a human child.
>>
>> >> >> >> * * Sure it does. Why would you even want to *pretend otherwise, when you should
>> >> >> >> be proud that it IS that way?
>>
>> >> >> >It doesn't.
>>
>> >> >> * * Of course it does but out of curiosity, what do you WANT people to believe
>> >> >> it means?
>>
>> >> >It means that the relevantly similar interests of any two organisms
>> >> >should be weighed equally (along with other morally relevant
>> >> >considerations) regardless of the species to which the organisms
>> >> >belong.
>>
>> >> >The question of what kinds of opportunities for satisfaction and
>> >> >fulfilment are thwarted by the death is morally relevant
>>
>> >> * * So then you're being opportunitiesist or something, no better than being
>> >> speciesist. Worse actually, imo.
>>
>> >You have not offered any rational grounds for these assertions.
>>
>> * * It is worse to be opportunitiesist than it is to be speciesist imo, not
>> better.
>
>And why do you think that?

Because I don't believe you should let a blind child die so a dog that can
see could live instead, because I'm speciesist to OUR SPECIES over creatures who
are of other species. However, if you would volunteer for medical research so
that 10 or 20 or however many mice can be set free or whatever your deal would
be, I'd be in favor of you or any eliminationists WILLINGLY doing that.

dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 06 May 2012 15:30:55 -0700, > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:21:08 -0700, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:23:05 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:27:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It means lives that are good.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right. That's *all* it ever meant to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because that's what it means, Goo. Duh Gooberdoodle, duh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why are their lives good?
>>>>>
>>>>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>>>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>>>>
>>>>> "I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
>>>>> animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"
>>>>>
>>>>> "Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
>>>>> experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
>>>>
>>>> Their lives are good when we act to support AW. Bringing them into
>>>> existence (arranged breeding) is no credit to us and it does not make
>>>> their lives good. You are assigning moral significance to something
>>>> which has none for your own misguided reasons.
>>>
>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist propaganda, considering the
>>> lives as well as the deaths of livestock animals is a NECESSARY part of
>>> developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on animals.
>>
>> No it isn't, its meaningless.
>
> It is NECESSARY in order to develop a realistic interpretation,

No it isn't, it's meaningless.

and ONLY an
> eliminationist would have reason to lie that it's not. An eliminationist
> wouldn't be correct to tell that particular lie, but an eliminationist is the
> only type person who would have reason to tell it.

Only a moron would think that it has any relevance.

>> Their lives don't balance their deaths,
>
> Why don't you feel that way about humans having children too, or do you want
> to claim that you do?

I do feel that way about humans. Nobody who kills children can claim
that it is necessary to consider their lives in order to develop a
realistic interpretation of that act. Their lives have nothing to do
with it. There is currently a woman awaiting sentencing for murdering
her two children.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Mi...903/story.html

The fact that she allowed those kids to "get to experience life" is
playing no role in the case, it is irrelevant.



>> that's not what the discussion is about at all.
>
> It's certainly a significant part of it

It is less than insignificant, less than utterly beside the point, it is
inadmissible.


> and again ONLY an eliminationist
> would have reason to lie that it's not.

Yet a dozen antis have openly opposed the LoL.

On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:32:11 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 15:30:55 -0700, > wrote:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:21:08 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:23:05 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:27:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It means lives that are good.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right. That's *all* it ever meant to you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because that's what it means, Goo. Duh Gooberdoodle, duh.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why are their lives good?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>>>>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
>>>>>> animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
>>>>>> experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
>>>>>
>>>>> Their lives are good when we act to support AW. Bringing them into
>>>>> existence (arranged breeding) is no credit to us and it does not make
>>>>> their lives good. You are assigning moral significance to something
>>>>> which has none for your own misguided reasons.
>>>>
>>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist propaganda, considering the
>>>> lives as well as the deaths of livestock animals is a NECESSARY part of
>>>> developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on animals.
>>>
>>> No it isn't, its meaningless.
>>
>> It is NECESSARY in order to develop a realistic interpretation,
>
>No it isn't, it's meaningless.
>
> and ONLY an
>> eliminationist would have reason to lie that it's not. An eliminationist
>> wouldn't be correct to tell that particular lie, but an eliminationist is the
>> only type person who would have reason to tell it.
>
>Only a moron would think that it has any relevance.

That's an obvious lie, since anyone who is truly in favor of AW over
elimination can certainly appreciate when it results in lives of positive value
for billions of animals. DUH!

>>> Their lives don't balance their deaths,
>>
>> Why don't you feel that way about humans having children too, or do you want
>> to claim that you do?
>
>I do feel that way about humans.

Why don't you feel that any humans' lives balance their deaths? No doubt you
resent your parents for having you since you don't believe your own life
balances your own death. You might believe most people feel that same way about
it like you do, but I doubt most people resent their parents because they don't
feel that their life balances their death. I believe you're in an area pretty
much alone on that one, except of course for some people who commit
suicide...not all, but some.
.. . .
>a dozen antis have openly opposed the LoL.

I haven't seen a single one do it, and you can't provide any examples of any
doing it. The "closest" any came was Ward Clark saying he didn't agree with me
but never giving a single reason why not, and that other guy but I forget his
name at the moment...maybe it was Rick Etter. He never gave any reason either,
but just said he didn't agree like Ward did. Swamp doesn't count because his
arguments were all just eliminationist arguments. You lied blatantly again.

On 5/14/2012 1:52 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:32:11 -0700, > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 15:30:55 -0700, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:21:08 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:23:05 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:27:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It means lives that are good.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right. That's *all* it ever meant to you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because that's what it means, Goo. Duh Gooberdoodle, duh.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why are their lives good?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>>>>>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
>>>>>>> animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
>>>>>>> experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Their lives are good when we act to support AW. Bringing them into
>>>>>> existence (arranged breeding) is no credit to us and it does not make
>>>>>> their lives good. You are assigning moral significance to something
>>>>>> which has none for your own misguided reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist propaganda, considering the
>>>>> lives as well as the deaths of livestock animals is a NECESSARY part of
>>>>> developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on animals.
>>>>
>>>> No it isn't, its meaningless.
>>>
>>> It is NECESSARY in order to develop a realistic interpretation,
>>
>> No it isn't, it's meaningless.
>>
>> and ONLY an
>>> eliminationist would have reason to lie that it's not. An eliminationist
>>> wouldn't be correct to tell that particular lie, but an eliminationist is the
>>> only type person who would have reason to tell it.
>>
>> Only a moron would think that it has any relevance.
>
> That's an obvious lie, since

No, it's the truth. You're a moron - that's one of the reasons you
think there is any relevance.


>>>> Their lives don't balance their deaths,
>>>
>>> Why don't you feel that way about humans having children too, or do you want
>>> to claim that you do?
>>
>> I do feel that way about humans.
>
> Why don't you feel that any humans' lives balance their deaths?

They can't.


>> a dozen antis have openly opposed the LoL.
>
> I haven't seen a single one do it,

They all did it: Mercer, Martens, Ward Clark, Dutch, me, two dozen
others - all of us.

dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:32:11 -0700, > wrote:

[..]
>
>>>> Their lives don't balance their deaths,
>>>
>>> Why don't you feel that way about humans having children too, or do you want
>>> to claim that you do?
>>
>> I do feel that way about humans.
>
> Why don't you feel that any humans' lives balance their deaths?

Because the two are not related in any relevant way. If I was
instrumental in causing a human to come into existence, or if I saved
his life, that would not entitle me to end his life, or make it more
acceptable to do so. There simply is no connection, you're making up
bullshit. When we aid in causing certain animals to come into existence
that does not give us any more right to kill them for food than we have
to hunt and kill wild animals for food. It changes nothing, it's
irrelevant.

<snip lies and evasions>

On Mon, 14 May 2012 17:19:20 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:52:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:32:11 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 15:30:55 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:21:08 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:23:05 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:27:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It means lives that are good.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right. That's *all* it ever meant to you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because that's what it means, Goo. Duh Gooberdoodle, duh.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why are their lives good?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>>>>>>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
>>>>>>>> animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
>>>>>>>> experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Their lives are good when we act to support AW. Bringing them into
>>>>>>> existence (arranged breeding) is no credit to us and it does not make
>>>>>>> their lives good. You are assigning moral significance to something
>>>>>>> which has none for your own misguided reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist propaganda, considering the
>>>>>> lives as well as the deaths of livestock animals is a NECESSARY part of
>>>>>> developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it isn't, its meaningless.
>>>>
>>>> It is NECESSARY in order to develop a realistic interpretation,
>>>
>>>No it isn't, it's meaningless.
>>>
>>> and ONLY an
>>>> eliminationist would have reason to lie that it's not. An eliminationist
>>>> wouldn't be correct to tell that particular lie, but an eliminationist is the
>>>> only type person who would have reason to tell it.
>>>
>>>Only a moron would think that it has any relevance.
>>
>> That's an obvious lie, since anyone who is truly in favor of AW over
>>elimination can certainly appreciate when it results in lives of positive value
>>for billions of animals. DUH!
>>
>>>>> Their lives don't balance their deaths,
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you feel that way about humans having children too, or do you want
>>>> to claim that you do?
>>>
>>>I do feel that way about humans.
>>
>> Why don't you feel that any humans' lives balance their deaths? No doubt you
>>resent your parents for having you since you don't believe your own life
>>balances your own death. You might believe most people feel that same way about
>>it like you do, but I doubt most people resent their parents because they don't
>>feel that their life balances their death. I believe you're in an area pretty
>>much alone on that one, except of course for some people who commit
>>suicide...not all, but some.
>>. . .
>>>a dozen antis have openly opposed the LoL.
>>
>> I haven't seen a single one do it, and you can't provide any examples of any
>>doing it. The "closest" any came was Ward Clark saying he didn't agree with me
>>but never giving a single reason why not, and that other guy but I forget his
>>name at the moment...maybe it was Rick Etter. He never gave any reason either,
>>but just said he didn't agree like Ward did. Swamp doesn't count because his
>>arguments were all just eliminationist arguments. You lied blatantly again.
>
>When we aid in causing certain animals to come into existence
>that does not give us any more right to kill them for food than we have
>to hunt and kill wild animals for food.

Yes it sure does. Hunting regulations are one of the things that should tell
even someone as clueless as yourself that it does. Why do you want people to
believe it doesn't, are you able to say?

dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 17:19:20 -0700, > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:52:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:32:11 -0700, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 15:30:55 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:21:08 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:23:05 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:27:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means lives that are good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. That's *all* it ever meant to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because that's what it means, Goo. Duh Gooberdoodle, duh.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why are their lives good?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>>>>>>>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
>>>>>>>>> animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
>>>>>>>>> experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Their lives are good when we act to support AW. Bringing them into
>>>>>>>> existence (arranged breeding) is no credit to us and it does not make
>>>>>>>> their lives good. You are assigning moral significance to something
>>>>>>>> which has none for your own misguided reasons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist propaganda, considering the
>>>>>>> lives as well as the deaths of livestock animals is a NECESSARY part of
>>>>>>> developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it isn't, its meaningless.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is NECESSARY in order to develop a realistic interpretation,
>>>>
>>>> No it isn't, it's meaningless.
>>>>
>>>> and ONLY an
>>>>> eliminationist would have reason to lie that it's not. An eliminationist
>>>>> wouldn't be correct to tell that particular lie, but an eliminationist is the
>>>>> only type person who would have reason to tell it.
>>>>
>>>> Only a moron would think that it has any relevance.
>>>
>>> That's an obvious lie, since anyone who is truly in favor of AW over
>>> elimination can certainly appreciate when it results in lives of positive value
>>> for billions of animals. DUH!
>>>
>>>>>> Their lives don't balance their deaths,
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you feel that way about humans having children too, or do you want
>>>>> to claim that you do?
>>>>
>>>> I do feel that way about humans.
>>>
>>> Why don't you feel that any humans' lives balance their deaths? No doubt you
>>> resent your parents for having you since you don't believe your own life
>>> balances your own death. You might believe most people feel that same way about
>>> it like you do, but I doubt most people resent their parents because they don't
>>> feel that their life balances their death. I believe you're in an area pretty
>>> much alone on that one, except of course for some people who commit
>>> suicide...not all, but some.
>>> . . .
>>>> a dozen antis have openly opposed the LoL.
>>>
>>> I haven't seen a single one do it, and you can't provide any examples of any
>>> doing it. The "closest" any came was Ward Clark saying he didn't agree with me
>>> but never giving a single reason why not, and that other guy but I forget his
>>> name at the moment...maybe it was Rick Etter. He never gave any reason either,
>>> but just said he didn't agree like Ward did. Swamp doesn't count because his
>>> arguments were all just eliminationist arguments. You lied blatantly again.
>>
>> When we aid in causing certain animals to come into existence
>> that does not give us any more right to kill them for food than we have
>> to hunt and kill wild animals for food.
>
> Yes it sure does.

No, it doesn't.

> Hunting regulations are one of the things that should tell
> even someone as clueless as yourself that it does. Why do you want people to
> believe it doesn't, are you able to say?

Hunting regulations are there to manage wildlife populations. There is
no essential difference between hunting and killing wild animals for
food and raising them and killing them for food. None. The two acts are
exactly the same from a moral-ethical point of view. If I have some
moose meat and some beef in my freezer I am not judged differently with
respect to either one. There is no extra legitimacy to the beef because
the animal it came from "got to experience life". The Logic of the
Larder makes a false, sophistic point.

On Wed, 16 May 2012 19:01:19 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 17:19:20 -0700, > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:52:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:32:11 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 15:30:55 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:21:08 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:23:05 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:27:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means lives that are good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. That's *all* it ever meant to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Because that's what it means, Goo. Duh Gooberdoodle, duh.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why are their lives good?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>>>>>>>>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
>>>>>>>>>> animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
>>>>>>>>>> experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Their lives are good when we act to support AW. Bringing them into
>>>>>>>>> existence (arranged breeding) is no credit to us and it does not make
>>>>>>>>> their lives good. You are assigning moral significance to something
>>>>>>>>> which has none for your own misguided reasons.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist propaganda, considering the
>>>>>>>> lives as well as the deaths of livestock animals is a NECESSARY part of
>>>>>>>> developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on animals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No it isn't, its meaningless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is NECESSARY in order to develop a realistic interpretation,
>>>>>
>>>>> No it isn't, it's meaningless.
>>>>>
>>>>> and ONLY an
>>>>>> eliminationist would have reason to lie that it's not. An eliminationist
>>>>>> wouldn't be correct to tell that particular lie, but an eliminationist is the
>>>>>> only type person who would have reason to tell it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only a moron would think that it has any relevance.
>>>>
>>>> That's an obvious lie, since anyone who is truly in favor of AW over
>>>> elimination can certainly appreciate when it results in lives of positive value
>>>> for billions of animals. DUH!
>>>>
>>>>>>> Their lives don't balance their deaths,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't you feel that way about humans having children too, or do you want
>>>>>> to claim that you do?
>>>>>
>>>>> I do feel that way about humans.
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you feel that any humans' lives balance their deaths? No doubt you
>>>> resent your parents for having you since you don't believe your own life
>>>> balances your own death. You might believe most people feel that same way about
>>>> it like you do, but I doubt most people resent their parents because they don't
>>>> feel that their life balances their death. I believe you're in an area pretty
>>>> much alone on that one, except of course for some people who commit
>>>> suicide...not all, but some.
>>>> . . .
>>>>> a dozen antis have openly opposed the LoL.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen a single one do it, and you can't provide any examples of any
>>>> doing it. The "closest" any came was Ward Clark saying he didn't agree with me
>>>> but never giving a single reason why not, and that other guy but I forget his
>>>> name at the moment...maybe it was Rick Etter. He never gave any reason either,
>>>> but just said he didn't agree like Ward did. Swamp doesn't count because his
>>>> arguments were all just eliminationist arguments. You lied blatantly again.
>>>
>>> When we aid in causing certain animals to come into existence
>>> that does not give us any more right to kill them for food than we have
>>> to hunt and kill wild animals for food.
>>
>> Yes it sure does.
>
>No, it doesn't.
>
> > Hunting regulations are one of the things that should tell
>> even someone as clueless as yourself that it does. Why do you want people to
>> believe it doesn't, are you able to say?
>
>Hunting regulations are there to manage wildlife populations. There is
>no essential difference between hunting and killing wild animals for
>food and raising them and killing them for food. None.

There's a huge difference and ONLY an eliminationist has reason to lie that
there is not.

>The two acts are
>exactly the same from a moral-ethical point of view. If I have some
>moose meat and some beef in my freezer I am not judged differently with
>respect to either one. There is no extra legitimacy to the beef because
>the animal it came from "got to experience life".

Of course there is. Unless the moose was raised on a farm it got LESS life
because someone killed it, where the animal the beef came from got whatever life
it got--meaning MORE than no life at all--because it was raised for food.

The moose meat probably involved fewer CDs than the beef, but if you can't
appreciate what I pointed out above there's not much chance you could appreciate
details about the amount of CDs involved either.

dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2012 19:01:19 -0700, > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 17:19:20 -0700, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:52:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:32:11 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 15:30:55 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:21:08 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:23:05 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:27:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means lives that are good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. That's *all* it ever meant to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because that's what it means, Goo. Duh Gooberdoodle, duh.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are their lives good?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>>>>>>>>>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
>>>>>>>>>>> animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
>>>>>>>>>>> experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Their lives are good when we act to support AW. Bringing them into
>>>>>>>>>> existence (arranged breeding) is no credit to us and it does not make
>>>>>>>>>> their lives good. You are assigning moral significance to something
>>>>>>>>>> which has none for your own misguided reasons.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist propaganda, considering the
>>>>>>>>> lives as well as the deaths of livestock animals is a NECESSARY part of
>>>>>>>>> developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on animals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No it isn't, its meaningless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is NECESSARY in order to develop a realistic interpretation,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it isn't, it's meaningless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and ONLY an
>>>>>>> eliminationist would have reason to lie that it's not. An eliminationist
>>>>>>> wouldn't be correct to tell that particular lie, but an eliminationist is the
>>>>>>> only type person who would have reason to tell it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only a moron would think that it has any relevance.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an obvious lie, since anyone who is truly in favor of AW over
>>>>> elimination can certainly appreciate when it results in lives of positive value
>>>>> for billions of animals. DUH!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Their lives don't balance their deaths,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why don't you feel that way about humans having children too, or do you want
>>>>>>> to claim that you do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do feel that way about humans.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you feel that any humans' lives balance their deaths? No doubt you
>>>>> resent your parents for having you since you don't believe your own life
>>>>> balances your own death. You might believe most people feel that same way about
>>>>> it like you do, but I doubt most people resent their parents because they don't
>>>>> feel that their life balances their death. I believe you're in an area pretty
>>>>> much alone on that one, except of course for some people who commit
>>>>> suicide...not all, but some.
>>>>> . . .
>>>>>> a dozen antis have openly opposed the LoL.
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't seen a single one do it, and you can't provide any examples of any
>>>>> doing it. The "closest" any came was Ward Clark saying he didn't agree with me
>>>>> but never giving a single reason why not, and that other guy but I forget his
>>>>> name at the moment...maybe it was Rick Etter. He never gave any reason either,
>>>>> but just said he didn't agree like Ward did. Swamp doesn't count because his
>>>>> arguments were all just eliminationist arguments. You lied blatantly again.
>>>>
>>>> When we aid in causing certain animals to come into existence
>>>> that does not give us any more right to kill them for food than we have
>>>> to hunt and kill wild animals for food.
>>>
>>> Yes it sure does.
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>>> Hunting regulations are one of the things that should tell
>>> even someone as clueless as yourself that it does. Why do you want people to
>>> believe it doesn't, are you able to say?
>>
>> Hunting regulations are there to manage wildlife populations. There is
>> no essential difference between hunting and killing wild animals for
>> food and raising them and killing them for food. None.
>
> There's a huge difference

There's no difference.

and ONLY an eliminationist has reason to lie that
> there is not.

Morally speaking, ZERO. Hunting for food, farming animals for food, both
perfectly acceptable activities which involve killing animals.

NO DIFFERENCE

>> The two acts are
>> exactly the same from a moral-ethical point of view. If I have some
>> moose meat and some beef in my freezer I am not judged differently with
>> respect to either one. There is no extra legitimacy to the beef because
>> the animal it came from "got to experience life".
>
> Of course there is. Unless the moose was raised on a farm it got LESS life
> because someone killed it, where the animal the beef came from got whatever life
> it got--meaning MORE than no life at all--because it was raised for food.
>
> The moose meat probably involved fewer CDs than the beef, but if you can't
> appreciate what I pointed out above there's not much chance you could appreciate
> details about the amount of CDs involved either.

The death of animals in the production of food for humans is not a moral
issue. As you've been told 1000 times, you've fallen hook line and
sinker for ARA propaganda.

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon (various charges pertaining to
animals), lied:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means lives that are good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. That's *all* it ever meant to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because that's what it means, Goo. Duh Gooberdoodle, duh.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are their lives good?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>>>>>>>>>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
>>>>>>>>>>> animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
>>>>>>>>>>> experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Their lives are good when we act to support AW. Bringing them into
>>>>>>>>>> existence (arranged breeding) is no credit to us and it does not make
>>>>>>>>>> their lives good. You are assigning moral significance to something
>>>>>>>>>> which has none for your own misguided reasons.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist propaganda, considering the
>>>>>>>>> lives as well as the deaths of livestock animals is a NECESSARY part of
>>>>>>>>> developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on animals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No it isn't, its meaningless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is NECESSARY in order to develop a realistic interpretation,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it isn't, it's meaningless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and ONLY an
>>>>>>> eliminationist would have reason to lie that it's not. An eliminationist
>>>>>>> wouldn't be correct to tell that particular lie, but an eliminationist is the
>>>>>>> only type person who would have reason to tell it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only a moron would think that it has any relevance.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an obvious lie, since anyone who is truly in favor of AW over
>>>>> elimination can certainly appreciate when it results in lives of positive value
>>>>> for billions of animals. DUH!
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Their lives don't balance their deaths,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why don't you feel that way about humans having children too, or do you want
>>>>>>> to claim that you do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do feel that way about humans.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you feel that any humans' lives balance their deaths? No doubt you
>>>>> resent your parents for having you since you don't believe your own life
>>>>> balances your own death. You might believe most people feel that same way about
>>>>> it like you do, but I doubt most people resent their parents because they don't
>>>>> feel that their life balances their death. I believe you're in an area pretty
>>>>> much alone on that one, except of course for some people who commit
>>>>> suicide...not all, but some.
>>>>> . . .
>>>>>> a dozen antis have openly opposed the LoL.
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't seen a single one do it, and you can't provide any examples of any
>>>>> doing it. The "closest" any came was Ward Clark saying he didn't agree with me
>>>>> but never giving a single reason why not, and that other guy but I forget his
>>>>> name at the moment...maybe it was Rick Etter. He never gave any reason either,
>>>>> but just said he didn't agree like Ward did. Swamp doesn't count because his
>>>>> arguments were all just eliminationist arguments. You lied blatantly again.
>>>>
>>>> When we aid in causing certain animals to come into existence
>>>> that does not give us any more right to kill them for food than we have
>>>> to hunt and kill wild animals for food.
>>>
>>> Yes it sure does.
>>
>> No, it doesn't.
>>
>>> Hunting regulations are one of the things that should tell
>>> even someone as clueless as yourself that it does. Why do you want people to
>>> believe it doesn't, are you able to say?
>>
>> Hunting regulations are there to manage wildlife populations. There is
>> no essential difference between hunting and killing wild animals for
>> food and raising them and killing them for food. None.
>
> There's a huge difference and

No difference.


>> The two acts are
>> exactly the same from a moral-ethical point of view. If I have some
>> moose meat and some beef in my freezer I am not judged differently with
>> respect to either one. There is no extra legitimacy to the beef because
>> the animal it came from "got to experience life".
>
> Of course there is.

There isn't. Causing livestock animals to "get to experience life" is
morally meaningless.

On May 22, 2:04*am, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2012 19:01:19 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 14 May 2012 17:19:20 -0700, > *wrote:
>
> >>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:52:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
> >>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:32:11 -0700, > *wrote:
>
> >>>>> dh@. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 15:30:55 -0700, > * wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:21:08 -0700, > * *wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:23:05 -0700, > * * wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> <dh@.> * * wrote in messagenews:2f4up7t87c51enh7jr8fnhpl8ujfj37acm@4ax .com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:27:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * *It means lives that are good.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. *That's *all* it ever meant to you.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> * * * *Because that's what it means, Goo. Duh Gooberdoodle, duh.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Why are their lives good?
>
> >>>>>>>>>> * * * * "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
> >>>>>>>>>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>
> >>>>>>>>>> "I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
> >>>>>>>>>> animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"
>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
> >>>>>>>>>> experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
>
> >>>>>>>>> Their lives are good when we act to support AW. Bringing them into
> >>>>>>>>> existence (arranged breeding) is no credit to us and it does not make
> >>>>>>>>> their lives good. You are assigning moral significance to something
> >>>>>>>>> which has none for your own misguided reasons.
>
> >>>>>>>> * * * *In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist propaganda, considering the
> >>>>>>>> lives as well as the deaths of livestock animals is a NECESSARY part of
> >>>>>>>> developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on animals.
>
> >>>>>>> No it isn't, its meaningless.
>
> >>>>>> * * * It is NECESSARY in order to develop a realistic interpretation,
>
> >>>>> No it isn't, it's meaningless.
>
> >>>>> * and ONLY an
> >>>>>> eliminationist would have reason to lie that it's not. An eliminationist
> >>>>>> wouldn't be correct to tell that particular lie, but an eliminationist is the
> >>>>>> only type person who would have reason to tell it.
>
> >>>>> Only a moron would think that it has any relevance.
>
> >>>> * * That's an obvious lie, since anyone who is truly in favor of AW over
> >>>> elimination can certainly appreciate when it results in lives of positive value
> >>>> for billions of animals. DUH!
>
> >>>>>>> Their lives don't balance their deaths,
>
> >>>>>> * * * Why don't you feel that way about humans having children too, or do you want
> >>>>>> to claim that you do?
>
> >>>>> I do feel that way about humans.
>
> >>>> * * Why don't you feel that any humans' lives balance their deaths? No doubt you
> >>>> resent your parents for having you since you don't believe your own life
> >>>> balances your own death. You might believe most people feel that same way about
> >>>> it like you do, but I doubt most people resent their parents because they don't
> >>>> feel that their life balances their death. I believe you're in an area pretty
> >>>> much alone on that one, except of course for some people who commit
> >>>> suicide...not all, but some.
> >>>> . . .
> >>>>> a dozen antis have openly opposed the LoL.
>
> >>>> * * I haven't seen a single one do it, and you can't provide any examples of any
> >>>> doing it. The "closest" any came was Ward Clark saying he didn't agree with me
> >>>> but never giving a single reason why not, and that other guy but I forget his
> >>>> name at the moment...maybe it was Rick Etter. He never gave any reason either,
> >>>> but just said he didn't agree like Ward did. Swamp doesn't count because his
> >>>> arguments were all just eliminationist arguments. You lied blatantly again.
>
> >>> When we aid in causing certain animals to come into existence
> >>> that does not give us any more right to kill them for food than we have
> >>> to hunt and kill wild animals for food.
>
> >> * * *Yes it sure does.
>
> >No, it doesn't.
>
> > > Hunting regulations are one of the things that should tell
> >> even someone as clueless as yourself that it does. Why do you want people to
> >> believe it doesn't, are you able to say?
>
> >Hunting regulations are there to manage wildlife populations. There is
> >no essential difference between hunting and killing wild animals for
> >food and raising them and killing them for food. None.
>
> * * There's a huge difference and ONLY an eliminationist has reason to lie that
> there is not.
>
> >The two acts are
> >exactly the same from a moral-ethical point of view. If I have some
> >moose meat and some beef in my freezer I am not judged differently with
> >respect to either one. There is no extra legitimacy to the beef because
> >the animal it came from "got to experience life".
>
> * * Of course there is.

How many children do you have?

On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:47:34 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 19:01:19 -0700, > wrote:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 17:19:20 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:52:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:32:11 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 15:30:55 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:21:08 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:23:05 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:27:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means lives that are good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. That's *all* it ever meant to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because that's what it means, Goo. Duh Gooberdoodle, duh.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are their lives good?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>>>>>>>>>>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
>>>>>>>>>>>> animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
>>>>>>>>>>>> experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Their lives are good when we act to support AW. Bringing them into
>>>>>>>>>>> existence (arranged breeding) is no credit to us and it does not make
>>>>>>>>>>> their lives good. You are assigning moral significance to something
>>>>>>>>>>> which has none for your own misguided reasons.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist propaganda, considering the
>>>>>>>>>> lives as well as the deaths of livestock animals is a NECESSARY part of
>>>>>>>>>> developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on animals.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No it isn't, its meaningless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is NECESSARY in order to develop a realistic interpretation,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No it isn't, it's meaningless.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and ONLY an
>>>>>>>> eliminationist would have reason to lie that it's not. An eliminationist
>>>>>>>> wouldn't be correct to tell that particular lie, but an eliminationist is the
>>>>>>>> only type person who would have reason to tell it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only a moron would think that it has any relevance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's an obvious lie, since anyone who is truly in favor of AW over
>>>>>> elimination can certainly appreciate when it results in lives of positive value
>>>>>> for billions of animals. DUH!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Their lives don't balance their deaths,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why don't you feel that way about humans having children too, or do you want
>>>>>>>> to claim that you do?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do feel that way about humans.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't you feel that any humans' lives balance their deaths? No doubt you
>>>>>> resent your parents for having you since you don't believe your own life
>>>>>> balances your own death. You might believe most people feel that same way about
>>>>>> it like you do, but I doubt most people resent their parents because they don't
>>>>>> feel that their life balances their death. I believe you're in an area pretty
>>>>>> much alone on that one, except of course for some people who commit
>>>>>> suicide...not all, but some.
>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>> a dozen antis have openly opposed the LoL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't seen a single one do it, and you can't provide any examples of any
>>>>>> doing it. The "closest" any came was Ward Clark saying he didn't agree with me
>>>>>> but never giving a single reason why not, and that other guy but I forget his
>>>>>> name at the moment...maybe it was Rick Etter. He never gave any reason either,
>>>>>> but just said he didn't agree like Ward did. Swamp doesn't count because his
>>>>>> arguments were all just eliminationist arguments. You lied blatantly again.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we aid in causing certain animals to come into existence
>>>>> that does not give us any more right to kill them for food than we have
>>>>> to hunt and kill wild animals for food.
>>>>
>>>> Yes it sure does.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't.
>>>
>>>> Hunting regulations are one of the things that should tell
>>>> even someone as clueless as yourself that it does. Why do you want people to
>>>> believe it doesn't, are you able to say?
>>>
>>> Hunting regulations are there to manage wildlife populations. There is
>>> no essential difference between hunting and killing wild animals for
>>> food and raising them and killing them for food. None.
>>
>> There's a huge difference
>
>There's no difference.
>
> and ONLY an eliminationist has reason to lie that
>> there is not.
>
>Morally speaking, ZERO. Hunting for food, farming animals for food, both
>perfectly acceptable activities which involve killing animals.
>
>NO DIFFERENCE

LOL! They're both morally acceptable in general but they are MUCH different.

>>> The two acts are
>>> exactly the same from a moral-ethical point of view. If I have some
>>> moose meat and some beef in my freezer I am not judged differently with
>>> respect to either one. There is no extra legitimacy to the beef because
>>> the animal it came from "got to experience life".
>>
>> Of course there is. Unless the moose was raised on a farm it got LESS life
>> because someone killed it, where the animal the beef came from got whatever life
>> it got--meaning MORE than no life at all--because it was raised for food.
>>
>> The moose meat probably involved fewer CDs than the beef, but if you can't
>> appreciate what I pointed out above there's not much chance you could appreciate
>> details about the amount of CDs involved either.
>
>The death of animals in the production of food for humans is not a moral
>issue.

"Since we cause these events to happen as a direct result of feeding
ourselves we must bear some responsibility" - "Dutch"

dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:47:34 -0700, > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 19:01:19 -0700, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 17:19:20 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:52:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:32:11 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 15:30:55 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:21:08 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:23:05 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:27:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means lives that are good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. That's *all* it ever meant to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because that's what it means, Goo. Duh Gooberdoodle, duh.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are their lives good?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>>>>>>>>>>>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Their lives are good when we act to support AW. Bringing them into
>>>>>>>>>>>> existence (arranged breeding) is no credit to us and it does not make
>>>>>>>>>>>> their lives good. You are assigning moral significance to something
>>>>>>>>>>>> which has none for your own misguided reasons.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist propaganda, considering the
>>>>>>>>>>> lives as well as the deaths of livestock animals is a NECESSARY part of
>>>>>>>>>>> developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on animals.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No it isn't, its meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is NECESSARY in order to develop a realistic interpretation,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No it isn't, it's meaningless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and ONLY an
>>>>>>>>> eliminationist would have reason to lie that it's not. An eliminationist
>>>>>>>>> wouldn't be correct to tell that particular lie, but an eliminationist is the
>>>>>>>>> only type person who would have reason to tell it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Only a moron would think that it has any relevance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's an obvious lie, since anyone who is truly in favor of AW over
>>>>>>> elimination can certainly appreciate when it results in lives of positive value
>>>>>>> for billions of animals. DUH!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Their lives don't balance their deaths,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why don't you feel that way about humans having children too, or do you want
>>>>>>>>> to claim that you do?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do feel that way about humans.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why don't you feel that any humans' lives balance their deaths? No doubt you
>>>>>>> resent your parents for having you since you don't believe your own life
>>>>>>> balances your own death. You might believe most people feel that same way about
>>>>>>> it like you do, but I doubt most people resent their parents because they don't
>>>>>>> feel that their life balances their death. I believe you're in an area pretty
>>>>>>> much alone on that one, except of course for some people who commit
>>>>>>> suicide...not all, but some.
>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>>> a dozen antis have openly opposed the LoL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I haven't seen a single one do it, and you can't provide any examples of any
>>>>>>> doing it. The "closest" any came was Ward Clark saying he didn't agree with me
>>>>>>> but never giving a single reason why not, and that other guy but I forget his
>>>>>>> name at the moment...maybe it was Rick Etter. He never gave any reason either,
>>>>>>> but just said he didn't agree like Ward did. Swamp doesn't count because his
>>>>>>> arguments were all just eliminationist arguments. You lied blatantly again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we aid in causing certain animals to come into existence
>>>>>> that does not give us any more right to kill them for food than we have
>>>>>> to hunt and kill wild animals for food.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it sure does.
>>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't.
>>>>
>>>>> Hunting regulations are one of the things that should tell
>>>>> even someone as clueless as yourself that it does. Why do you want people to
>>>>> believe it doesn't, are you able to say?
>>>>
>>>> Hunting regulations are there to manage wildlife populations. There is
>>>> no essential difference between hunting and killing wild animals for
>>>> food and raising them and killing them for food. None.
>>>
>>> There's a huge difference
>>
>> There's no difference.
>>
>> and ONLY an eliminationist has reason to lie that
>>> there is not.
>>
>> Morally speaking, ZERO. Hunting for food, farming animals for food, both
>> perfectly acceptable activities which involve killing animals.
>>
>> NO DIFFERENCE
>
> LOL! They're both morally acceptable in general but they are MUCH different.

Of course they're "different", but moral differences are all that matter
in this context. This is a discussion about morals and ethics, in case
you forgot.

>>>> The two acts are
>>>> exactly the same from a moral-ethical point of view. If I have some
>>>> moose meat and some beef in my freezer I am not judged differently with
>>>> respect to either one. There is no extra legitimacy to the beef because
>>>> the animal it came from "got to experience life".
>>>
>>> Of course there is. Unless the moose was raised on a farm it got LESS life
>>> because someone killed it, where the animal the beef came from got whatever life
>>> it got--meaning MORE than no life at all--because it was raised for food.
>>>
>>> The moose meat probably involved fewer CDs than the beef, but if you can't
>>> appreciate what I pointed out above there's not much chance you could appreciate
>>> details about the amount of CDs involved either.
>>
>> The death of animals in the production of food for humans is not a moral
>> issue.
>
> "Since we cause these events to happen as a direct result of feeding
> ourselves we must bear some responsibility" - "Dutch"

Stop squirming. Farming is the moral equivalent of hunting. It is
civilized, organized hunting. The animals' lives are just a fact, they
don't offer the basis for any moral argument. The *treatment of* farm
animals creates a moral argument, but not "their lives", per se. Your
LOL argument needs to be discarded on the permanent trash heap like the
garbage it is. Show some character and do it now.

On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:07:11 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:47:34 -0700, > wrote:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 19:01:19 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 17:19:20 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:52:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:32:11 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 15:30:55 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:21:08 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:23:05 -0700, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:27:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It means lives that are good.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right. That's *all* it ever meant to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because that's what it means, Goo. Duh Gooberdoodle, duh.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why are their lives good?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Their lives are good when we act to support AW. Bringing them into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence (arranged breeding) is no credit to us and it does not make
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their lives good. You are assigning moral significance to something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which has none for your own misguided reasons.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist propaganda, considering the
>>>>>>>>>>>> lives as well as the deaths of livestock animals is a NECESSARY part of
>>>>>>>>>>>> developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on animals.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No it isn't, its meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is NECESSARY in order to develop a realistic interpretation,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No it isn't, it's meaningless.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and ONLY an
>>>>>>>>>> eliminationist would have reason to lie that it's not. An eliminationist
>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't be correct to tell that particular lie, but an eliminationist is the
>>>>>>>>>> only type person who would have reason to tell it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Only a moron would think that it has any relevance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's an obvious lie, since anyone who is truly in favor of AW over
>>>>>>>> elimination can certainly appreciate when it results in lives of positive value
>>>>>>>> for billions of animals. DUH!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Their lives don't balance their deaths,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you feel that way about humans having children too, or do you want
>>>>>>>>>> to claim that you do?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do feel that way about humans.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why don't you feel that any humans' lives balance their deaths? No doubt you
>>>>>>>> resent your parents for having you since you don't believe your own life
>>>>>>>> balances your own death. You might believe most people feel that same way about
>>>>>>>> it like you do, but I doubt most people resent their parents because they don't
>>>>>>>> feel that their life balances their death. I believe you're in an area pretty
>>>>>>>> much alone on that one, except of course for some people who commit
>>>>>>>> suicide...not all, but some.
>>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>>>> a dozen antis have openly opposed the LoL.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I haven't seen a single one do it, and you can't provide any examples of any
>>>>>>>> doing it. The "closest" any came was Ward Clark saying he didn't agree with me
>>>>>>>> but never giving a single reason why not, and that other guy but I forget his
>>>>>>>> name at the moment...maybe it was Rick Etter. He never gave any reason either,
>>>>>>>> but just said he didn't agree like Ward did. Swamp doesn't count because his
>>>>>>>> arguments were all just eliminationist arguments. You lied blatantly again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we aid in causing certain animals to come into existence
>>>>>>> that does not give us any more right to kill them for food than we have
>>>>>>> to hunt and kill wild animals for food.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes it sure does.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it doesn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hunting regulations are one of the things that should tell
>>>>>> even someone as clueless as yourself that it does. Why do you want people to
>>>>>> believe it doesn't, are you able to say?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hunting regulations are there to manage wildlife populations. There is
>>>>> no essential difference between hunting and killing wild animals for
>>>>> food and raising them and killing them for food. None.
>>>>
>>>> There's a huge difference
>>>
>>> There's no difference.
>>>
>>> and ONLY an eliminationist has reason to lie that
>>>> there is not.
>>>
>>> Morally speaking, ZERO. Hunting for food, farming animals for food, both
>>> perfectly acceptable activities which involve killing animals.
>>>
>>> NO DIFFERENCE
>>
>> LOL! They're both morally acceptable in general but they are MUCH different.
>
>Of course they're "different", but moral differences are all that matter
>in this context. This is a discussion about morals and ethics, in case
>you forgot.

I includes that the animals gain from the influence of humans, for example
every single thing including their life, but you have never been able to get
that far. Well...you did for a second one time so you say, but it made you feel
dirty to consider the big picture.

> >>>> The two acts are
>>>>> exactly the same from a moral-ethical point of view. If I have some
>>>>> moose meat and some beef in my freezer I am not judged differently with
>>>>> respect to either one. There is no extra legitimacy to the beef because
>>>>> the animal it came from "got to experience life".
>>>>
>>>> Of course there is. Unless the moose was raised on a farm it got LESS life
>>>> because someone killed it, where the animal the beef came from got whatever life
>>>> it got--meaning MORE than no life at all--because it was raised for food.
>>>>
>>>> The moose meat probably involved fewer CDs than the beef, but if you can't
>>>> appreciate what I pointed out above there's not much chance you could appreciate
>>>> details about the amount of CDs involved either.
>>>
>>> The death of animals in the production of food for humans is not a moral
>>> issue.
>>
>> "Since we cause these events to happen as a direct result of feeding
>> ourselves we must bear some responsibility" - "Dutch"
>
>Stop squirming. Farming is the moral equivalent of hunting. It is
>civilized, organized hunting. The animals' lives are just a fact, they
>don't offer the basis for any moral argument. The *treatment of* farm
>animals creates a moral argument, but not "their lives", per se.

All those things are part of it and so of course should be taken into
consideration. ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose consideration for the
lives of the animals we're discussing.

****wit David Harrison bullshitted:

>> Stop squirming. Farming is the moral equivalent of hunting. It is
>> civilized, organized hunting. The animals' lives are just a fact, they
>> don't offer the basis for any moral argument. The *treatment of* farm
>> animals creates a moral argument, but not "their lives", per se.
>
> All those things are part of it and so of course should be taken into
> consideration. ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose consideration for the
> lives of the animals we're discussing.

You don't consider the lives of animals. You pretend you do, but you
don't. Everyone can see that.

On 5/29/2012 4:03 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:07:11 -0700, > wrote:
>

>>>> Morally speaking, ZERO. Hunting for food, farming animals for food, both
>>>> perfectly acceptable activities which involve killing animals.
>>>>
>>>> NO DIFFERENCE
>>>
>>> LOL! They're both morally acceptable in general but they are MUCH different.
>>
>> Of course they're "different", but moral differences are all that matter
>> in this context. This is a discussion about morals and ethics, in case
>> you forgot.
>
> I includes that the animals gain from the influence of humans,

You mean, existence. Animals don't "gain" *anything* from existing.


>> >>>> The two acts are
>>>>>> exactly the same from a moral-ethical point of view. If I have some
>>>>>> moose meat and some beef in my freezer I am not judged differently with
>>>>>> respect to either one. There is no extra legitimacy to the beef because
>>>>>> the animal it came from "got to experience life".
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course there is. Unless the moose was raised on a farm it got LESS life
>>>>> because someone killed it, where the animal the beef came from got whatever life
>>>>> it got--meaning MORE than no life at all--because it was raised for food.
>>>>>
>>>>> The moose meat probably involved fewer CDs than the beef, but if you can't
>>>>> appreciate what I pointed out above there's not much chance you could appreciate
>>>>> details about the amount of CDs involved either.
>>>>
>>>> The death of animals in the production of food for humans is not a moral
>>>> issue.
>>>
>>> "Since we cause these events to happen as a direct result of feeding
>>> ourselves we must bear some responsibility" - "Dutch"
>>
>> Stop squirming. Farming is the moral equivalent of hunting. It is
>> civilized, organized hunting. The animals' lives are just a fact, they
>> don't offer the basis for any moral argument. The *treatment of* farm
>> animals creates a moral argument, but not "their lives", per se.
>
> All those things are part of it and

Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit for animals.

On Tue, 29 May 2012 17:35:13 -0700, Goo puled:

>You d

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration" - Goo

****wit David Harrison bullshitted:
>
>> You don't consider the lives of animals. You pretend you do, but you don't. Everyone can see that.
>
> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
> experience life" deserves no consideration" - George Plimpton

That's a true statement I made.

On 5/9/2012 11:48 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 06 May 2012 15:30:55 -0700, > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:21:08 -0700, > wrote:

>>>> Their lives are good when we act to support AW. Bringing them into
>>>> existence (arranged breeding) is no credit to us and it does not make
>>>> their lives good. You are assigning moral significance to something
>>>> which has none for your own misguided reasons.
>>>
>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist propaganda,

There's that ****wit false belief that he is adept at turning out great
written phrases. What a ****wit.


>>> considering the
>>> lives as well as the deaths of livestock animals is a NECESSARY part of
>>> developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on animals.

No, it is not necessarily to assign *ANY* moral weight at all to their
"getting to experience life". It simply has no meaning.


>>
>> No it isn't, its meaningless.
>
> It is NECESSARY in order to develop a realistic interpretation,

No, it is *MEANINGLESS*. In any moral calculation or evaluation of
whether or not it is ethical for us to raise animals for our
consumption, *NO* moral weight should be given to whether or not the
animals "get to experience life." If we decide it is unethical to raise
animals for human consumption and then stop doing it, so that no more
animals are bred into existence, there is no moral "loss" that results
from no more "billions of farm animals getting to experience life." And
if we decide to continue raising domestic animals, there is no moral
"gain" to any animals from that.

The *fact* of their lives has no moral meaning at all. The only thing
that has moral meaning is the *quality* of their lives, *IF* they exist.
It is only a conditional moral consideration: *IF* the animals exist,
THEN we must give moral consideration to the quality of their lives.
That does not create any compelling reason at all as to whether or not
they *should* exist.

Fact: someone who thinks domestic animals ought not exist any longer is
not failing to give due moral consideration to their lives - because
their lives are not due any moral consideration in the first place; it's
morally meaningless.


>
>> Their lives don't balance their deaths,
>
> Why don't you feel that way about humans having children too,

Because we don't raise children to kill and consume them, for starters.

On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:40:32 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 31 May 2012 18:03:46 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 May 2012 17:35:13 -0700, Goo puled:
>>
>>>You d
>>
>> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
>>experience life" deserves no consideration" - Goo
>
>That's a true statement I made.

It's a lie of course Goo, but you tell it none the less. You also insist
that it's true REGARDLESS of quality of life Goob, showing that quality of life
means nothing TO YOU. But Goober if you think you can explain how you want
people to think quality of life does mean something to you while at the same
time it means nothing to you, then try to explain HOW you want people to try to
believe something so idiotic.

****wit David Harrison, who has *never* posed a challenge to anyone -
because he is mentally incapable of it - lied:

>>>
>>>> You don't consider the lives of animals. You pretend you do, but you don't. Everyone can see that.
>>>
>>> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
>>> experience life" deserves no consideration" - George Plimpton
>>
>> That's a true statement I made.
>
> It's a lie of course

It's not a lie.

On Wed, 06 Jun 2012, Goo puled pathetically:

>On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 15:36:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:40:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 31 May 2012 18:03:46 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 29 May 2012 17:35:13 -0700, Goo puled:
>>>>
>>>>>You d
>>>>
>>>> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
>>>>experience life" deserves no consideration" - Goo
>>>
>>>That's a true statement I made.
>>
>> It's a lie of course Goo, but you tell it none the less. You also insist
>>that it's true REGARDLESS of quality of life Goob, showing that quality of life
>>means nothing TO YOU. But Goober if you think you can explain how you want
>>people to think quality of life does mean something to you while at the same
>>time it means nothing to you, then try to explain HOW you want people to try to
>>believe something so idiotic.
>
>It's not a lie.

Goober if you think you can explain how you want people to think quality of
life does mean something to you while at the same time it means nothing to you,
then try to explain HOW you want people to try to believe something so idiotic.

dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012, Goo puled pathetically:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 15:36:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:40:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 31 May 2012 18:03:46 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 29 May 2012 17:35:13 -0700, Goo puled:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You d
>>>>>
>>>>> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
>>>>> experience life" deserves no consideration" - Goo
>>>>
>>>> That's a true statement I made.
>>>
>>> It's a lie of course Goo, but you tell it none the less. You also insist
>>> that it's true REGARDLESS of quality of life Goob, showing that quality of life
>>> means nothing TO YOU. But Goober if you think you can explain how you want
>>> people to think quality of life does mean something to you while at the same
>>> time it means nothing to you, then try to explain HOW you want people to try to
>>> believe something so idiotic.
>>
>> It's not a lie.
>
> Goober if you think you can explain how you want people to think quality of
> life does mean something to you while at the same time it means nothing to you,
> then try to explain HOW you want people to try to believe something so idiotic.

Why are you talking about "quality of life" now? Don't tell me you
actually believe we can't see that you changed the subject.

****wit David Harrison, who has *never* posed a challenge to anyone -
because he is mentally incapable of it - lied:

>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't consider the lives of animals. You pretend you do, but you don't. Everyone can see that.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
>>>>> experience life" deserves no consideration" - George Plimpton
>>>>
>>>> That's a true statement I made.
>>>
>>> It's a lie of course
>>
>> It's not a lie.
>
> if you think you can explain how you want people to think

That's another ****witted cracker sentence construction, Goo. Everyone
laughs at you for your ****witted "explain how you want people to think"
bullshit, ****wit. It's just bullshit; no content at all.

"Getting to experience life" deserves no ethical consideration, ****wit
- none. I have proved this.

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 14:22:36 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 13:21:36 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Jun 2012, Goo puled pathetically:
>>
>>>On Wed, 06 Jun 2012 15:36:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:40:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 31 May 2012 18:03:46 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 29 May 2012 17:35:13 -0700, Goo puled:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You d
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
>>>>>>experience life" deserves no consideration" - Goo
>>>>>
>>>>>That's a true statement I made.
>>>>
>>>> It's a lie of course Goo, but you tell it none the less. You also insist
>>>>that it's true REGARDLESS of quality of life Goob, showing that quality of life
>>>>means nothing TO YOU. But Goober if you think you can explain how you want
>>>>people to think quality of life does mean something to you while at the same
>>>>time it means nothing to you, then try to explain HOW you want people to try to
>>>>believe something so idiotic.
>>>
>>>It's not a lie.
>>
>> Goober if you think you can explain how you want people to think quality of
>>life does mean something to you while at the same time it means nothing to you,
>>then try to explain HOW you want people to try to believe something so idiotic.
>
>That's ano

Goober if you think you can explain how you want people to think quality of
life does mean something to you while at the same time it means nothing to you,
then try to explain HOW you want people to try to believe something so idiotic