wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:18:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>>> A variation of this argument, termed "the logic of the larder"
> >>>> or "the replacement argument" is one of the oldest and
best-known
> >>>> justifications for the routinized raising and killing of animals
> >>>> for food (see Salt 185). In basic form, it runs as follows:
Killing
> >>>> an animal is justified where the animal would not have existed
but
> >>>> for the fact that humans have chosen to raise it, where its
existence
> >>>> for even a short while is of positive value, and where, for
every
> >>>> animal that is killed, another "replacement" animal is brought
into
> >>>> being who would not have otherwise existed and who will enjoy
its
> >>>> existence as much as the one that was killed (Sapontzis 177; see
> >>>> Nozick 38).

The animal's existence for ANY length of time is of zero value compared
to never having existed.

> >>>
> >>>The above logic relies on the notion that humans have a moral
right to
> >>>consider that an animal's existence amounts to a valid
justification for
> >>>killing it.
> >>
> >> No justification is needed.

You CLEARLY seem to feel one is needed.

> >> Regardless of that, billions of animals are
> >> not simply killed as you would like people to "think", but those
same
> >> billions of them only experience life because humans raise them to
eat.
> >
> >That *IS* an attempt at justification, there is NO OTHER REASON to
point it
> >out.
>
> 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.

> >>>This idea quickly falls apart when one attempts to use the logic
> >>>in ANY other set of circumstances in which animals (including
humans) are
> >>>"brought into being".
> >>
> >> All will die. "This idea" simply considers livestock like it
does ANY
> >> other set of circumstances...
> >
> >There is NO other circumstance, no other class animal or human where
we
> >factor that they "only experience life because humans raise them.."
>
> That fact applies to all situations where it is true, including
humans, pets,
> etc...

Gobbledygook.

>
> >when assessing the morality of killing them.
>
> That's because food animals are in a unique situation, but you
still
> want everyone to "think" of them as YOU think of everything else.

Food animals are not in a "unique" situation when considering the
morality of whether or not they are born to begin with. Life is not a
benefit to them.

>
> >NONE, ZERO.
> >
> >>>It also presumes that a further justification for raising animals
for food
> >>>is needed,
> >>
> >> It considers more very real aspects of the situation than you
"ARAs"
> >> want
> >> people to consider.
> >
> >It considers them to be a rationalization, an unecessary one.
> >
> >>>which indicates that the person using the argument has an "Animal
> >>>Rights" basis in their thinking,
> >>
> >> That's a lie, since "AR" would prevent livestock from having
any life
> >> at all.
> >
> >So that means that your position is even MORE of an "Animal Rights"
position
> >that that of ARAs. They don't want them to ever live, you think
their
> >getting to live is a good thing, which is more of an Animal Rights
position?
>
> I don't believe any animals have rights.

You very clearly and undeniably believe that intended farm animals have
a right to be born, and you feel animal rights activists, because they
want to eliminate farm animals, are "denying" them that right. It is
absurd for you to claim you don't believe this.

> >>>albeit turned rather upside-down.
> >>>
> >>>> Notice below that the supposed refutation--the talking
> >>>> pig "logic

It is not a benefit to pigs to cause them to live, and people who want
to eat pork cannot claim as justification for killing pigs that they
have in any way "benefitted" the pigs by causing them to live.

> >
> >Your position is founded on one thing, to use the lives of livestock
for
> >some justification for raising them. It's a nasty bit of sophistry,
and you
> >don't even know what sophistry means, which makes things worse.

Exactly right. It IS sophistry, and he obviously isn't intelligent
enough to appreciate it.

> >>>> Real pigs are not capable of any of the things required to make
> >>>> The Logic of the

Causing pigs to be born is not conferring any benefit upon them. If
one wants to eat pork, and if one feels a need to justify killing pigs
to obtain pork - and you CLEARLY feel the need for such justification -
it is absurd to think causing the pigs to "benefit" from having lived
is a suitable justification.

> >>>
> >>>They are capable of some of them,
> >>
> >> Not even one of them.
> >
> >I thought you knew pigs. They are very aware of filth,
>
> I don't believe that.

It doesn't matter what you believe. Your beliefs are based in
ignorance. Not just ignorance, but DELIBERATE stupidity.

>
> >by nature they are
> >very clean animals.
>
> I don't believe that either.

It doesn't matter what you believe. You believe life itself is some
kind of benefit, but the fact is it is NOT any kind of benefit at all.
You believe LOTS of unreal things.

> >>>but it's irrelevant.
> >>
> >> It's extremely relevant. But since you prefer

What he prefers is to see that causing pigs to live is not any kind of
moral justification for killing them.

> >
> >No fantasy.
> >
> >>>The talking pig is
> >>>simply a rhetorical device expressing the author's idea of a
human/animal
> >>>moral relationship.
> >>
> >> No, it's much more than that.
> >
> >Nope, it's a rhetorical device.
> >
> >> 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, preferring instead to mischaracterize
it.

> >> which apparently it is to you and you
> >> want it to be for other people. The influence it could have on
other
> >> people is what you like about it, and what I don't like about it.
It is
> >> an impressively large number of fantasys which do not apply to
reality
> >> in the case of pigs, but for whatever reason(s) you want people to
> >> side with the fantasys. Why Dutch?
> >
> >Your level of comprehension is lower than your morals.
>
> Then explain extra clearly why you want people to side with the
fantasies.

He wants people to side with logic, and logic dictates that causing
pigs and other animals to live is not any kind of valid moral
justification for killing them.

On 13 Jan 2005 10:54:20 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:18:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >>>> A variation of this argument, termed "the logic of the larder"
>> >>>> or "the replacement argument" is one of the oldest and
>best-known
>> >>>> justifications for the routinized raising and killing of animals
>> >>>> for food (see Salt 185). In basic form, it runs as follows:
>Killing
>> >>>> an animal is justified where the animal would not have existed
>but
>> >>>> for the fact that humans have chosen to raise it, where its
>existence
>> >>>> for even a short while is of positive value, and where, for
>every
>> >>>> animal that is killed, another "replacement" animal is brought
>into
>> >>>> being who would not have otherwise existed and who will enjoy
>its
>> >>>> existence as much as the one that was killed (Sapontzis 177; see
>> >>>> Nozick 38).
>
>The animal's existence for ANY length of time is of zero value compared
>to never having existed.

· When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals
benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider
it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to
become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative.

>> >>>The above logic relies on the notion that humans have a moral
>right to
>> >>>consider that an animal's existence amounts to a valid
>justification for
>> >>>killing it.
>> >>
>> >> No justification is needed.
>
>You CLEARLY seem to feel one is needed.
>
>> >> Regardless of that, billions of animals are
>> >> not simply killed as you would like people to "think", but those
>same
>> >> billions of them only experience life because humans raise them to
>eat.
>> >
>> >That *IS* an attempt at justification, there is NO OTHER REASON to
>point it
>> >out.
>>
>> 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" like the Gonad say things like: No animals
benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider
it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to
become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative.

>> >>>This idea quickly falls apart when one attempts to use the logic
>> >>>in ANY other set of circumstances in which animals (including
>humans) are
>> >>>"brought into being".
>> >>
>> >> All will die. "This idea" simply considers livestock like it
>does ANY
>> >> other set of circumstances...
>> >
>> >There is NO other circumstance, no other class animal or human where
>we
>> >factor that they "only experience life because humans raise them.."
>>
>> That fact applies to all situations where it is true, including
>humans, pets,
>> etc...
>
>Gobbledygook.
>
>>
>> >when assessing the morality of killing them.
>>
>> That's because food animals are in a unique situation, but you
>still
>> want everyone to "think" of them as YOU think of everything else.
>
>Food animals are not in a "unique" situation when considering the
>morality of whether or not they are born to begin with. Life is not a
>benefit to them.

· When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals
benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider
it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to
become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative.

>> >NONE, ZERO.
>> >
>> >>>It also presumes that a further justification for raising animals
>for food
>> >>>is needed,
>> >>
>> >> It considers more very real aspects of the situation than you
>"ARAs"
>> >> want
>> >> people to consider.
>> >
>> >It considers them to be a rationalization, an unecessary one.
>> >
>> >>>which indicates that the person using the argument has an "Animal
>> >>>Rights" basis in their thinking,
>> >>
>> >> That's a lie, since "AR" would prevent livestock from having
>any life
>> >> at all.
>> >
>> >So that means that your position is even MORE of an "Animal Rights"
>position
>> >that that of ARAs. They don't want them to ever live, you think
>their
>> >getting to live is a good thing, which is more of an Animal Rights
>position?
>>
>> I don't believe any animals have rights.
>
>You very clearly and undeniably believe that intended farm animals have
>a right to be born, and you feel animal rights activists, because they
>want to eliminate farm animals, are "denying" them that right. It is
>absurd for you to claim you don't believe this.
>
>> >>>albeit turned rather upside-down.
>> >>>
>> >>>> Notice below that the supposed refutation--the talking
>> >>>> pig "logic
>
>It is not a benefit to pigs to cause them to live, and people who want
>to eat pork cannot claim as justification for killing pigs that they
>have in any way "benefitted" the pigs by causing them to live.

· When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals
benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider
it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to
become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative.

>> >Your position is founded on one thing, to use the lives of livestock
>for
>> >some justification for raising them. It's a nasty bit of sophistry,
>and you
>> >don't even know what sophistry means, which makes things worse.
>
>Exactly right. It IS sophistry, and he obviously isn't intelligent
>enough to appreciate it.
>
>> >>>> Real pigs are not capable of any of the things required to make
>> >>>> The Logic of the
>
>Causing pigs to be born is not conferring any benefit upon them. If
>one wants to eat pork, and if one feels a need to justify killing pigs
>to obtain pork - and you CLEARLY feel the need for such justification -
>it is absurd to think causing the pigs to "benefit" from having lived
>is a suitable justification.

· When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals
benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider
it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to
become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative.

>> >>>
>> >>>They are capable of some of them,
>> >>
>> >> Not even one of them.
>> >
>> >I thought you knew pigs. They are very aware of filth,
>>
>> I don't believe that.
>
>It doesn't matter what you believe. Your beliefs are based in
>ignorance. Not just ignorance, but DELIBERATE stupidity.
>
>>
>> >by nature they are
>> >very clean animals.
>>
>> I don't believe that either.
>
>It doesn't matter what you believe. You believe life itself is some
>kind of benefit, but the fact is it is NOT any kind of benefit at all.


· When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals
benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider
it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to
become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative.

>You believe LOTS of unreal things.
>
>> >>>but it's irrelevant.
>> >>
>> >> It's extremely relevant. But since you prefer
>
>What he prefers is to see that causing pigs to live is not any kind of
>moral justification for killing them.
>
>> >
>> >No fantasy.
>> >
>> >>>The talking pig is
>> >>>simply a rhetorical device expressing the author's idea of a
>human/animal
>> >>>moral relationship.
>> >>
>> >> No, it's much more than that.
>> >
>> >Nope, it's a rhetorical device.
>> >
>> >> 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 things required to make
The Logic of the Talking Pig anything other than a fantasy about
a talking pig. The Talking Pig is really a collection of at least
34 fantasies presented to give the false impression that pigs are
capable of things which they are not. In order for the fantasies
to be any more than childish fantasies, it would be required that:

1. pigs are capable of replying to humans
2. pigs are aware of revered moralists
3. pigs understand the concept of pleading
4. pigs contemplate time
5. pigs contemplate their own existence
6. pigs contemplate the future
7. pigs understand their bodies will be butchered
and prepared in specific ways
8. pigs understand and are capable of disputing
verbally with humans
9. pigs consider that they may be unworthy to dispute
with "a master of ethics"
10. pigs consider themselves to have an inferior intellect
11. pigs know humans deliberately raise them
12. pigs are aware of death
13. pigs know they can be killed
14. pigs know humans deliberately kill them
15. pigs know humans eat their dead bodies
16. pigs consider what motivates human thinking
17. pigs are aware of moral reasoning
18. pigs believe recognition of the fact that they only exist because
humans raise them, can only be done in an attempt "to find a
moral reason" for devouring them
19. pigs consider how they come into existence
20. pigs accurately understand what humans do and do not consider
21. pigs contemplate their own fate
22. pigs would rather they had never been born
23. pigs know humans eat meat
24. pigs know they are "pork"
25. pigs have a "so be it" attitude about humans killing them for food
26. pigs are able to understand human speach
27. pigs believe recognition of the fact that they only exist because
humans raise them, is in some way "sophistry"
28. pigs understand the situation they are in
29. pigs understand how the situation they are in relates to humans
30. pigs are aware of filth
31. pigs feel they are forced to live in filth
32. pigs contemplate the fact that humans feed them
33. pigs feel that what and or how they are fed is filthy
34. pigs contemplate what will happen to their bodies after their death

wrote:
> On 13 Jan 2005 10:54:20 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:18:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>A variation of this argument, termed "the logic of the larder"
>>>>>>>or "the replacement argument" is one of the oldest and
>>
>>best-known
>>
>>>>>>>justifications for the routinized raising and killing of animals
>>>>>>>for food (see Salt 185). In basic form, it runs as follows:
>>
>>Killing
>>
>>>>>>>an animal is justified where the animal would not have existed
>>
>>but
>>
>>>>>>>for the fact that humans have chosen to raise it, where its
>>
>>existence
>>
>>>>>>>for even a short while is of positive value, and where, for
>>
>>every
>>
>>>>>>>animal that is killed, another "replacement" animal is brought
>>
>>into
>>
>>>>>>>being who would not have otherwise existed and who will enjoy
>>
>>its
>>
>>>>>>>existence as much as the one that was killed (Sapontzis 177; see
>>>>>>>Nozick 38).
>>
>>The animal's existence for ANY length of time is of zero value compared
>>to never having existed.
>
>
> · When "ARAs" Gonad 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.


>
>>
>>> I don't believe any animals have rights.
>>
>>You very clearly and undeniably believe that intended farm animals have
>>a right to be born, and you feel animal rights activists, because they
>>want to eliminate farm animals, are "denying" them that right. It is
>>absurd for you to claim you don't believe this.
>>
>>
>>>>>>albeit turned rather upside-down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Notice below that the supposed refutation--the talking
>>>>>>>pig "logic
>>
>>It is not a benefit to pigs to cause them to live, and people who want
>>to eat pork cannot claim as justification for killing pigs that they
>>have in any way "benefitted" the pigs by causing them to live.
>

>>>>I thought you knew pigs. They are very aware of filth,
>>>
>>> I don't believe that.
>>
>>It doesn't matter what you believe. Your beliefs are based in
>>ignorance. Not just ignorance, but DELIBERATE stupidity.
>>
>>
>>>>by nature they are
>>>>very clean animals.
>>>
>>> I don't believe that either.
>>
>>It doesn't matter what you believe. You believe life itself is some
>>kind of benefit, but the fact is it is NOT any kind of benefit at all.
>>
>>You believe LOTS of unreal things.
>>
>>
>>>>>>but it's irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's extremely relevant. But since you prefer
>>
>>What he prefers is to see that causing pigs to live is not any kind of
>>moral justification for killing them.
>>
>>

>>>>> No, it's much more than that.
>>>>
>>>>Nope, it's a rhetorical device.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>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.

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:58:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

wrote:
>> On 13 Jan 2005 10:54:20 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>>
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:18:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>A variation of this argument, termed "the logic of the larder"
>>>>>>>>or "the replacement argument" is one of the oldest and
>>>
>>>best-known
>>>
>>>>>>>>justifications for the routinized raising and killing of animals
>>>>>>>>for food (see Salt 185). In basic form, it runs as follows:
>>>
>>>Killing
>>>
>>>>>>>>an animal is justified where the animal would not have existed
>>>
>>>but
>>>
>>>>>>>>for the fact that humans have chosen to raise it, where its
>>>
>>>existence
>>>
>>>>>>>>for even a short while is of positive value, and where, for
>>>
>>>every
>>>
>>>>>>>>animal that is killed, another "replacement" animal is brought
>>>
>>>into
>>>
>>>>>>>>being who would not have otherwise existed and who will enjoy
>>>
>>>its
>>>
>>>>>>>>existence as much as the one that was killed (Sapontzis 177; see
>>>>>>>>Nozick 38).
>>>
>>>The animal's existence for ANY length of time is of zero value compared
>>>to never having existed.
>>
>>
>> · When "ARAs" Gonad 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 Gonad.

>>>> I don't believe any animals have rights.
>>>
>>>You very clearly and undeniably believe that intended farm animals have
>>>a right to be born, and you feel animal rights activists, because they
>>>want to eliminate farm animals, are "denying" them that right. It is
>>>absurd for you to claim you don't believe this.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>albeit turned rather upside-down.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Notice below that the supposed refutation--the talking
>>>>>>>>pig "logic
>>>
>>>It is not a benefit to pigs to cause them to live, and people who want
>>>to eat pork cannot claim as justification for killing pigs that they
>>>have in any way "benefitted" the pigs by causing them to live.
>>
>
>>>>>I thought you knew pigs. They are very aware of filth,
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe that.
>>>
>>>It doesn't matter what you believe. Your beliefs are based in
>>>ignorance. Not just ignorance, but DELIBERATE stupidity.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>by nature they are
>>>>>very clean animals.
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe that either.
>>>
>>>It doesn't matter what you believe. You believe life itself is some
>>>kind of benefit, but the fact is it is NOT any kind of benefit at all.
>>>
>>>You believe LOTS of unreal things.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>but it's irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's extremely relevant. But since you prefer
>>>
>>>What he prefers is to see that causing pigs to live is not any kind of
>>>moral justification for killing them.
>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>> No, it's much more than that.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope, it's a rhetorical device.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>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 fantasy about a talking pig who knows
many things that no pig could ever know, to encourage people
to have the false impression that pigs suffer from the knowledge
that they will be killed.
Meanwhile here in reality billions of animals continue to
experience life only because humans raise them to eat, and many
of them have decent lives. Too bad for those of you who hate it.

wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:58:05 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>The animal's existence for ANY length of time is of zero value
compared
> >>>to never having existed.
> >>
> >>
> >> =B7 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.

> >>>>>>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.

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?

wrote:
> On 13 Jan 2005 10:54:20 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:18:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>A variation of this argument, termed "the logic of the larder"
>>>>>>>or "the replacement argument" is one of the oldest and
>>
>>best-known
>>
>>>>>>>justifications for the routinized raising and killing of animals
>>>>>>>for food (see Salt 185). In basic form, it runs as follows:
>>
>>Killing
>>
>>>>>>>an animal is justified where the animal would not have existed
>>
>>but
>>
>>>>>>>for the fact that humans have chosen to raise it, where its
>>
>>existence
>>
>>>>>>>for even a short while is of positive value, and where, for
>>
>>every
>>
>>>>>>>animal that is killed, another "replacement" animal is brought
>>
>>into
>>
>>>>>>>being who would not have otherwise existed and who will enjoy
>>
>>its
>>
>>>>>>>existence as much as the one that was killed (Sapontzis 177; see
>>>>>>>Nozick 38).
>>
>>The animal's existence for ANY length of time is of zero value compared
>>to never having existed.
>
>
> · When "ARAs" Gonad 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.


>
>>
>>> I don't believe any animals have rights.
>>
>>You very clearly and undeniably believe that intended farm animals have
>>a right to be born, and you feel animal rights activists, because they
>>want to eliminate farm animals, are "denying" them that right. It is
>>absurd for you to claim you don't believe this.
>>
>>
>>>>>>albeit turned rather upside-down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Notice below that the supposed refutation--the talking
>>>>>>>pig "logic
>>
>>It is not a benefit to pigs to cause them to live, and people who want
>>to eat pork cannot claim as justification for killing pigs that they
>>have in any way "benefitted" the pigs by causing them to live.
>

>>>>I thought you knew pigs. They are very aware of filth,
>>>
>>> I don't believe that.
>>
>>It doesn't matter what you believe. Your beliefs are based in
>>ignorance. Not just ignorance, but DELIBERATE stupidity.
>>
>>
>>>>by nature they are
>>>>very clean animals.
>>>
>>> I don't believe that either.
>>
>>It doesn't matter what you believe. You believe life itself is some
>>kind of benefit, but the fact is it is NOT any kind of benefit at all.
>>
>>You believe LOTS of unreal things.
>>
>>
>>>>>>but it's irrelevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's extremely relevant. But since you prefer
>>
>>What he prefers is to see that causing pigs to live is not any kind of
>>moral justification for killing them.
>>
>>

>>>>> No, it's much more than that.
>>>>
>>>>Nope, it's a rhetorical device.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>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.

wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:34:35 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > wrote
> >> "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >> Real pigs are not capable of any of the things required to
make
> >> The Logic of the Talking Pig anything other than a fantasy about
> >> a talking pig. [..]
> >
> >Bullshit. The same first-person device could be used to express how
infant
> >children ought to be treated.
> >
> >"You should cuddle me why I cry. You should change my diapers when
they are
> >dirty. You should feed me when I'm hungry. You should love me
> >unconditionally."
> >
> >That doesn't mean babies can talk or form those thoughts, it's way
of
> >communicating moral attitudes, not a fantasy about a talking baby.
>
> If you're presenting a fantasy

He isn't.

>
> >You're too stupid for words.
> >
> >[..]
> >
> >> >"Death" is not a moral issue, neither is "life", per se, the
issue is to
> >> >raise in captivity or not,
> >>
> >> How do you do that without considering the animals' lives?
> >
> >Just do it, the animals' lives per se are immaterial to the
evaluation.
>
> That's true for you because you are incredibly inconsiderate.

No. He is considerate where moral consideration is due.

> >> Your main objective is to maintain the false belief that no
farm
> >> animals benefit from farming,

That is not a false belief. It is a FACT. No farm animals benefit
from coming into existence.

> >
> >If by that you mean "The Logic of the Larder" then yes.
>
> Each year billions of animals experience life only because humans
> raise them for food.

Their lives are not something for which you can claim any moral credit,
much as you'd like to.

>
> >> >I am proposing that
> >> >we ADVOCATE the breeding of domestic animals by using rational
argument,
> >>
> >> You are obsessively insisting that people do NOT consider the
> >> animals themselves.
> >
> >If by that you mean "The Logic of the Larder" then yes.
>
> Real pigs

"Giving life" to real pigs may not validly be offered as moral
justification for subsequently killing the pigs.

wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:18:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >>>> A variation of this argument, termed "the logic of the larder"
> >>>> or "the replacement argument" is one of the oldest and
best-known
> >>>> justifications for the routinized raising and killing of animals
> >>>> for food (see Salt 185). In basic form, it runs as follows:
Killing
> >>>> an animal is justified where the animal would not have existed
but
> >>>> for the fact that humans have chosen to raise it, where its
existence
> >>>> for even a short while is of positive value, and where, for
every
> >>>> animal that is killed, another "replacement" animal is brought
into
> >>>> being who would not have otherwise existed and who will enjoy
its
> >>>> existence as much as the one that was killed (Sapontzis 177; see
> >>>> Nozick 38).

The animal's existence for ANY length of time is of zero value compared
to never having existed.

> >>>
> >>>The above logic relies on the notion that humans have a moral
right to
> >>>consider that an animal's existence amounts to a valid
justification for
> >>>killing it.
> >>
> >> No justification is needed.

You CLEARLY seem to feel one is needed.

> >> Regardless of that, billions of animals are
> >> not simply killed as you would like people to "think", but those
same
> >> billions of them only experience life because humans raise them to
eat.
> >
> >That *IS* an attempt at justification, there is NO OTHER REASON to
point it
> >out.
>
> 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.

> >>>This idea quickly falls apart when one attempts to use the logic
> >>>in ANY other set of circumstances in which animals (including
humans) are
> >>>"brought into being".
> >>
> >> All will die. "This idea" simply considers livestock like it
does ANY
> >> other set of circumstances...
> >
> >There is NO other circumstance, no other class animal or human where
we
> >factor that they "only experience life because humans raise them.."
>
> That fact applies to all situations where it is true, including
humans, pets,
> etc...

Gobbledygook.

>
> >when assessing the morality of killing them.
>
> That's because food animals are in a unique situation, but you
still
> want everyone to "think" of them as YOU think of everything else.

Food animals are not in a "unique" situation when considering the
morality of whether or not they are born to begin with. Life is not a
benefit to them.

>
> >NONE, ZERO.
> >
> >>>It also presumes that a further justification for raising animals
for food
> >>>is needed,
> >>
> >> It considers more very real aspects of the situation than you
"ARAs"
> >> want
> >> people to consider.
> >
> >It considers them to be a rationalization, an unecessary one.
> >
> >>>which indicates that the person using the argument has an "Animal
> >>>Rights" basis in their thinking,
> >>
> >> That's a lie, since "AR" would prevent livestock from having
any life
> >> at all.
> >
> >So that means that your position is even MORE of an "Animal Rights"
position
> >that that of ARAs. They don't want them to ever live, you think
their
> >getting to live is a good thing, which is more of an Animal Rights
position?
>
> I don't believe any animals have rights.

You very clearly and undeniably believe that intended farm animals have
a right to be born, and you feel animal rights activists, because they
want to eliminate farm animals, are "denying" them that right. It is
absurd for you to claim you don't believe this.

> >>>albeit turned rather upside-down.
> >>>
> >>>> Notice below that the supposed refutation--the talking
> >>>> pig "logic

It is not a benefit to pigs to cause them to live, and people who want
to eat pork cannot claim as justification for killing pigs that they
have in any way "benefitted" the pigs by causing them to live.

> >
> >Your position is founded on one thing, to use the lives of livestock
for
> >some justification for raising them. It's a nasty bit of sophistry,
and you
> >don't even know what sophistry means, which makes things worse.

Exactly right. It IS sophistry, and he obviously isn't intelligent
enough to appreciate it.

> >>>> Real pigs are not capable of any of the things required to make
> >>>> The Logic of the

Causing pigs to be born is not conferring any benefit upon them. If
one wants to eat pork, and if one feels a need to justify killing pigs
to obtain pork - and you CLEARLY feel the need for such justification -
it is absurd to think causing the pigs to "benefit" from having lived
is a suitable justification.

> >>>
> >>>They are capable of some of them,
> >>
> >> Not even one of them.
> >
> >I thought you knew pigs. They are very aware of filth,
>
> I don't believe that.

It doesn't matter what you believe. Your beliefs are based in
ignorance. Not just ignorance, but DELIBERATE stupidity.

>
> >by nature they are
> >very clean animals.
>
> I don't believe that either.

It doesn't matter what you believe. You believe life itself is some
kind of benefit, but the fact is it is NOT any kind of benefit at all.
You believe LOTS of unreal things.

> >>>but it's irrelevant.
> >>
> >> It's extremely relevant. But since you prefer

What he prefers is to see that causing pigs to live is not any kind of
moral justification for killing them.

> >
> >No fantasy.
> >
> >>>The talking pig is
> >>>simply a rhetorical device expressing the author's idea of a
human/animal
> >>>moral relationship.
> >>
> >> No, it's much more than that.
> >
> >Nope, it's a rhetorical device.
> >
> >> 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, preferring instead to mischaracterize
it.

> >> which apparently it is to you and you
> >> want it to be for other people. The influence it could have on
other
> >> people is what you like about it, and what I don't like about it.
It is
> >> an impressively large number of fantasys which do not apply to
reality
> >> in the case of pigs, but for whatever reason(s) you want people to
> >> side with the fantasys. Why Dutch?
> >
> >Your level of comprehension is lower than your morals.
>
> Then explain extra clearly why you want people to side with the
fantasies.

He wants people to side with logic, and logic dictates that causing
pigs and other animals to live is not any kind of valid moral
justification for killing them.

On 13 Jan 2005 10:54:20 -0800, "Rudy Canoza" > wrote:

wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:18:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >>>> A variation of this argument, termed "the logic of the larder"
>> >>>> or "the replacement argument" is one of the oldest and
>best-known
>> >>>> justifications for the routinized raising and killing of animals
>> >>>> for food (see Salt 185). In basic form, it runs as follows:
>Killing
>> >>>> an animal is justified where the animal would not have existed
>but
>> >>>> for the fact that humans have chosen to raise it, where its
>existence
>> >>>> for even a short while is of positive value, and where, for
>every
>> >>>> animal that is killed, another "replacement" animal is brought
>into
>> >>>> being who would not have otherwise existed and who will enjoy
>its
>> >>>> existence as much as the one that was killed (Sapontzis 177; see
>> >>>> Nozick 38).
>
>The animal's existence for ANY length of time is of zero value compared
>to never having existed.

· When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals
benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider
it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to
become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative.

>> >>>The above logic relies on the notion that humans have a moral
>right to
>> >>>consider that an animal's existence amounts to a valid
>justification for
>> >>>killing it.
>> >>
>> >> No justification is needed.
>
>You CLEARLY seem to feel one is needed.
>
>> >> Regardless of that, billions of animals are
>> >> not simply killed as you would like people to "think", but those
>same
>> >> billions of them only experience life because humans raise them to
>eat.
>> >
>> >That *IS* an attempt at justification, there is NO OTHER REASON to
>point it
>> >out.
>>
>> 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" like the Gonad say things like: No animals
benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider
it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to
become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative.

>> >>>This idea quickly falls apart when one attempts to use the logic
>> >>>in ANY other set of circumstances in which animals (including
>humans) are
>> >>>"brought into being".
>> >>
>> >> All will die. "This idea" simply considers livestock like it
>does ANY
>> >> other set of circumstances...
>> >
>> >There is NO other circumstance, no other class animal or human where
>we
>> >factor that they "only experience life because humans raise them.."
>>
>> That fact applies to all situations where it is true, including
>humans, pets,
>> etc...
>
>Gobbledygook.
>
>>
>> >when assessing the morality of killing them.
>>
>> That's because food animals are in a unique situation, but you
>still
>> want everyone to "think" of them as YOU think of everything else.
>
>Food animals are not in a "unique" situation when considering the
>morality of whether or not they are born to begin with. Life is not a
>benefit to them.

· When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals
benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider
it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to
become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative.

>> >NONE, ZERO.
>> >
>> >>>It also presumes that a further justification for raising animals
>for food
>> >>>is needed,
>> >>
>> >> It considers more very real aspects of the situation than you
>"ARAs"
>> >> want
>> >> people to consider.
>> >
>> >It considers them to be a rationalization, an unecessary one.
>> >
>> >>>which indicates that the person using the argument has an "Animal
>> >>>Rights" basis in their thinking,
>> >>
>> >> That's a lie, since "AR" would prevent livestock from having
>any life
>> >> at all.
>> >
>> >So that means that your position is even MORE of an "Animal Rights"
>position
>> >that that of ARAs. They don't want them to ever live, you think
>their
>> >getting to live is a good thing, which is more of an Animal Rights
>position?
>>
>> I don't believe any animals have rights.
>
>You very clearly and undeniably believe that intended farm animals have
>a right to be born, and you feel animal rights activists, because they
>want to eliminate farm animals, are "denying" them that right. It is
>absurd for you to claim you don't believe this.
>
>> >>>albeit turned rather upside-down.
>> >>>
>> >>>> Notice below that the supposed refutation--the talking
>> >>>> pig "logic
>
>It is not a benefit to pigs to cause them to live, and people who want
>to eat pork cannot claim as justification for killing pigs that they
>have in any way "benefitted" the pigs by causing them to live.

· When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals
benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider
it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to
become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative.

>> >Your position is founded on one thing, to use the lives of livestock
>for
>> >some justification for raising them. It's a nasty bit of sophistry,
>and you
>> >don't even know what sophistry means, which makes things worse.
>
>Exactly right. It IS sophistry, and he obviously isn't intelligent
>enough to appreciate it.
>
>> >>>> Real pigs are not capable of any of the things required to make
>> >>>> The Logic of the
>
>Causing pigs to be born is not conferring any benefit upon them. If
>one wants to eat pork, and if one feels a need to justify killing pigs
>to obtain pork - and you CLEARLY feel the need for such justification -
>it is absurd to think causing the pigs to "benefit" from having lived
>is a suitable justification.

· When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals
benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider
it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to
become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative.

>> >>>
>> >>>They are capable of some of them,
>> >>
>> >> Not even one of them.
>> >
>> >I thought you knew pigs. They are very aware of filth,
>>
>> I don't believe that.
>
>It doesn't matter what you believe. Your beliefs are based in
>ignorance. Not just ignorance, but DELIBERATE stupidity.
>
>>
>> >by nature they are
>> >very clean animals.
>>
>> I don't believe that either.
>
>It doesn't matter what you believe. You believe life itself is some
>kind of benefit, but the fact is it is NOT any kind of benefit at all.


· When "ARAs" like the Gonad say things like: No animals
benefit from farming, what they *mean* is that they believe
the animals gain nothing from the arrangement, they consider
it to be absolute exploitation, and they want all people to
become veg*ns without considering *any!* type of alternative.

>You believe LOTS of unreal things.
>
>> >>>but it's irrelevant.
>> >>
>> >> It's extremely relevant. But since you prefer
>
>What he prefers is to see that causing pigs to live is not any kind of
>moral justification for killing them.
>
>> >
>> >No fantasy.
>> >
>> >>>The talking pig is
>> >>>simply a rhetorical device expressing the author's idea of a
>human/animal
>> >>>moral relationship.
>> >>
>> >> No, it's much more than that.
>> >
>> >Nope, it's a rhetorical device.
>> >
>> >> 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 things required to make
The Logic of the Talking Pig anything other than a fantasy about
a talking pig. The Talking Pig is really a collection of at least
34 fantasies presented to give the false impression that pigs are
capable of things which they are not. In order for the fantasies
to be any more than childish fantasies, it would be required that:

1. pigs are capable of replying to humans
2. pigs are aware of revered moralists
3. pigs understand the concept of pleading
4. pigs contemplate time
5. pigs contemplate their own existence
6. pigs contemplate the future
7. pigs understand their bodies will be butchered
and prepared in specific ways
8. pigs understand and are capable of disputing
verbally with humans
9. pigs consider that they may be unworthy to dispute
with "a master of ethics"
10. pigs consider themselves to have an inferior intellect
11. pigs know humans deliberately raise them
12. pigs are aware of death
13. pigs know they can be killed
14. pigs know humans deliberately kill them
15. pigs know humans eat their dead bodies
16. pigs consider what motivates human thinking
17. pigs are aware of moral reasoning
18. pigs believe recognition of the fact that they only exist because
humans raise them, can only be done in an attempt "to find a
moral reason" for devouring them
19. pigs consider how they come into existence
20. pigs accurately understand what humans do and do not consider
21. pigs contemplate their own fate
22. pigs would rather they had never been born
23. pigs know humans eat meat
24. pigs know they are "pork"
25. pigs have a "so be it" attitude about humans killing them for food
26. pigs are able to understand human speach
27. pigs believe recognition of the fact that they only exist because
humans raise them, is in some way "sophistry"
28. pigs understand the situation they are in
29. pigs understand how the situation they are in relates to humans
30. pigs are aware of filth
31. pigs feel they are forced to live in filth
32. pigs contemplate the fact that humans feed them
33. pigs feel that what and or how they are fed is filthy
34. pigs contemplate what will happen to their bodies after their death

Ron wrote:
> In article >,
> Oz > wrote:
>
> Dogs do not live in harmony with humans. They are enslaved. They are
> removed from their parents and their siblings and forced to live
amonst
> humans.

Wrong, of course. You've never read *anything* about dogs; you're just
spewing your typical knew-jerk sophistry.

If you had read anything by Stephen Budiansky on the subject of dogs,
you'd know there is a developing body of belief among zoologists and
anthropologists that rather than having been domesticated by humans,
dogs domesticated themselves, as an evolutionary "strategy".

Of course, you won't use the more-than-sufficient information I've
given you to do some research on this and possibly discard your
ignorant biases; you PREFER your ignorance and irrational bias.

>
> This is not a natural relationship for any human.

That's a moral judgment you're projecting. It's a moral judgment based
on ignorance - par for the course with you.