Jonathan Ball/Citizen/Benfez/Wilson Woods/Radical Moderate/
Bingo/Edward/George/Bill/Fred/Mystery Poster/Merlin the dog/
Bob the /elvira/Dieter/Abner Hale/
Roger Whitaker/****tard/Apoo/Ted /
Jay /Rudy Canoza...
aka the Gonad wrote:

wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:58:05 GMT, the Gonad wrote:
>>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>The animal's existence for ANY length of time is of zero value
>compared
>> >>>to never having existed.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> · When "ARAs" say things like: No animals
>> >> benefit from farming
>> >
>> >No animals "benefit" from farming. What you mean when
>> >you say they do is that coming into existence is
>> >"better" than not coming into existence. You are wrong.
>> >
>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It is consideration for animals which
>> >>>
>> >>>It is a foolish consideration of some mythical, imaginary
>"benefit"
>> >>>they get from living. They do not derive any benefit from living,
>> >>>compared with never living at all.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> When "ARAs" say things like: No animals
>> >> benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
>> >> the animals gain nothing from the arrangement
>> >
>> >They don't. They are not better off for having
>> >existed, versus never having existed.
>>
>> Explain how you know that
>
>No. You have read the explanation dozens of times. You know that it
>is compelling, and right.

LOL!!! I mean: no as a matter of fact I've never seen it Gonad. Please
present it so I can learn from your great wisdom, or at least consider that
you may not be lying about this as you lie about everything else. Please.
Gonad. Present it now.

>> >>>>>>The author is very obviously trying to
>> >>>>>>persuade people to feel that
>> >>>
>> >>>that causing pigs to live is not a moral justification for killing
>> >>>them. That is what the author is trying to show people. He does
>a
>> >>>good job of it, too. In fact, he does such a good job of it that
>you
>> >>>can't even begin to address it,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Real pigs are not capable of any of
>> >
>> >The author is saying that causing pigs to live is not a
>> >moral justification for killing them.
>>
>> The author created a
>
>The author explained, lucidly and compellingly, that causing pigs to
>live is not doing any favor to the pigs.

Oh? I missed that part Gonad, unless you're referring to that thing
about filth. Show me:

" This, then, is the benign attitude of the Philosopher towards the Pig;
and what shall be the reply of the Pig to the Philosopher? "Revered
moralist," he might plead, "it were unseemly for me, who am to-day a
pig, and to-morrow but ham and sausages, to dispute with a master of
ethics, yet to my porcine intellect it appeareth that having first determined
to kill and devour me, thou hast afterwards bestirred thee to find a moral
reason. For mark, I pray thee, that in my entry into the world my own
predilection was in no wise considered, nor did I purchase life on condition
of my own butchery. If, then, thou art firm set on pork, so be it, for pork
I am: but though thou hast not spared my life, at least spare me thy
sophistry. It is not for his sake, but for thine, that in his life the Pig is filthily
housed and fed, and at the end barbarously butchered.""

exactly where does the author explain that causing pigs to live is not
doing any favor to the pigs?