Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
Louis Boyd wrote:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > > >>> Either they benefit from their life or they don't. >> >> >> >> No animal benefits from coming into existence. Period. > > > Humans don't either. Exactly right. > They have to make something of their lives for > their lives to be of benefit to themselves or other. Exactly right again. But the original poster, ****wit David Harrison, believes that farm animals somehow "benefit" simply by coming into existence. That is, he believes that "getting to experience life", versus never living at all, is in and of itself a "benefit" to farm animals (and, presumably, others.) It's easy to see what is wrong with this thinking. A "benefit" is something that improves the welfare of the entity that receives the benefit. But coming into existence itself cannot be a benefit, because it doesn't improve the welfare of the new entity: that new entity didn't *have* a welfare to be improved. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life can have positive value
Davey Cockfight wrote:
>>> I believe most broilers, turkeys, beef and dairy cattle, and cage free >>>hens have decent lives. >> >>You don't make any effort to ensure that the animals you consume had >>decent lives. > > How could we do that? *You* could start by no longer raising (abusing) chickens and dogs for fighting. <...> |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life can have positive value
usual suspect wrote:
> Davey Cockfight wrote: > >>>> I believe most broilers, turkeys, beef and dairy cattle, and cage >>>> free >>>> hens have decent lives. >>> >>> >>> You don't make any effort to ensure that the animals you consume had >>> decent lives. >> >> >> How could we do that? > > > *You* could start by no longer raising (abusing) chickens and dogs for > fighting. But...but...then those chickens and dogs will NOT get to experience life! Oh, the horror! |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life can have positive value
Leif Erikson wrote:
> usual suspect wrote: > >> Davey Cockfight wrote: >> >>>>> I believe most broilers, turkeys, beef and dairy cattle, and >>>>> cage free >>>>> hens have decent lives. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You don't make any effort to ensure that the animals you consume had >>>> decent lives. >>> >>> >>> >>> How could we do that? >> >> >> >> *You* could start by no longer raising (abusing) chickens and dogs for >> fighting. > > > But...but...then those chickens and dogs will NOT get to experience > life! Oh, the horror! No problem -- a 46 year-old *** hillbilly who moves from his mom's house onto a houseboat isn't exactly experiencing life, either. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life can have positive value
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:20:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:53:30 -0800, "Seeker" > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>><dh@.> wrote in message m... >>>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:26:41 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>><dh@.> wrote >>>>>><snip repetition> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>I understand it. The point you made above doesn't change anything, >>>>>>>>you >>>>>>>>are >>>>>>>>still trying to extract some moral credit from that act of combining >>>>>>>>egg >>>>>>>>and >>>>>>>>sperm, and it just doesn't work. It doesn't deserve any. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It provides life for an animal. Life that it otherwise would NOT >>>>>>> have. >>>>>> >>>>>>That fact has no moral content. The morally relevant facts are; the >>>>>>animal >>>>>>was bred to be food, well-treated or not, killed humanely or not, sold >>>>>>and >>>>>>consumed. >>>>> >>>>> LOL!!! Hilarious that you consider what happens to the dead bodies >>>>> to >>>>> be morally significant, but that the living animals' lives are not. >>>> >>>>What happens to the dead bodies is morally significant because it >>>>indicates >>>>why we killed them, which is part of the moral calculation. The living >>>>animals lives are morally significant because they indicate how we treat >>>>the >>>>animals. >>> >>> When considering whether or not it's cruel *to the animals* to raise >>> them >>> for food, a person must take their lives into consideration. "ARAs" do >>> NOT >>> want us to take the animals' lives into consideration, because some of >>> them >>> are of positive value. >> >>That should mean the same as their treatment is not cruel, not that they >>experience life as opposed to "no life". That idea has no place in the >>calculation. > > That's ALL there is to it, so that is EXACTLY what needs to be > considered > if you want to stick with reality. Let's test that: if you don't want to > consider > the fact that it's the life they experience as opposed to "no life", what > fantasy > do you want to consider in place of "no life", and why???? There is no such thing as "no life". There is "no food" which causes an animal to starve, there is "no space", or "no stimulation", which causes animal suffering, but "no life" harms no animal. Your argument is smoke and mirrors. >>> Since providing food animals with lives of positive >>> value could be considered ethically equivalent or superior to >>> eliminating >>> them, >>> "ARAs" are very much opposed to it being considered. >> >>You are WRONG. As a matter of fact, ARAs consider it very important to >>consider the humane treatment of animals. They are among the most vocal >>campaigners for livestock welfare. > > They exploit AW i$$ue$ for $ome rea$on...and I believe even you have > a clue what that rea$on might be. That's bullshit, the vast majority of ARAs don't make a nickel from their support of animal welfare causes. >>They may not consider it as good as >>elimination of livestock, but they DO wish us to consider the animals' >>lives, that is for sure. > > People who are in favor of decent lives for livestock should be OPPOSED > to the elimination objective, no matter how much YOU/"ARAs" hate it, and > in part because you do. Why should they? Elimination of artificial livestock species isn't a moral issue for anyone, particularly not for welfare advocates. That's just more of you blowing smoke. >>>>>>Combining egg and sperm for the purpose of creating a product >>>>>>involves no sacrifice, no "consideration" of the well-being of any >>>>>>animal. >>>>>>Those are the morally relevant concepts in this equation. >>>>>> >>>>>>The rest is just more of your rubbish. >>>>> >>>>> You can contribute to the lives they get, or try not to. >>>> >>>>And if their lives are not decent then you shouldn't. You don't make any >>>>effort to ensure that they are. >>> >>> I believe most broilers, turkeys, beef and dairy cattle, and cage >>> free >>> hens have decent lives. Other than vegetable products, most of what >>> I eat comes from those groups. I don't know what to think about pork >>> yet, but I eat very little of it. >> >>Then you are not contributing to decent lives for pigs, > > I feel sure that when they are suckling pigs their lives are of > positive > value. After that I don't know what to think about it, since I don't know > just how they are raised. One thing I am certain about though is that > life has positive value for some, and negative for others. You know jack-shit. You blow smoke out you're arse. >>how terrible. > > As I've said many times and incredibly no one has had what little > brain it requires to understand: it's not when animals don't live that > matters, it's when they do. Since obviously none of you can understand > how that could be, considering details about it must be out of the > question. Then what's the problem with livestock species being eliminated if it doesn't matter when they don't live? You're chasing you're own tail again. >>>>>You can not >>>>> contribute to "better" lives for them, as you dishonestly claim. >>>> >>>>More tap-dancing. "Them" refers to all livestock, not to specific >>>>animals. >>> >>> LOL! Yes it does. When I buy cage free eggs to contribute to life for >>> future cage free laying hens--to support them--"them" does not refer to >>> *any* other livestock, much less to *all* OTHER livestock. >> >>>>Once you consume an animal product it's too late for that animal, but by >>>>making the right choices you can have a positive impact on the treatment >>>>of >>>>animals in general. >>> >>> Of FUTURE animals. No one contributes to "better" lives for >>> animals.... >>> battery hens are not going to all of a sudden be moved to cage free >>> houses >>> because any number of people begin to buy cage free eggs. They will >>> finish out their lives in the cages, and if a new cage free system is >>> established >>> where the battery method was being used, it will be with new different >>> hens >>> whose lives will not be improved...as I've been saying: it will be that >>> life or >>> nothing, so that's how people should think about it. >> >>Then you are contributing to the "elimination" of battery hens. > > I would vote for no more batter hens. I would make that illegal before > I would cock fighting. I'm certain that seems insane to you, and also > certain that your feelings are due to your own ignorance. Then you are contributing to the "elimination" of battery hens. You are using your own judgment of what you consider right and wrong and deciding that it is better that battery hens never get to experience life. Yet when ARAs use the exact same reasoning you claim that they are wrong for preventing animals from experiencing life. It's pure hypocrisy. >>You have an >>elimination agenda. You wish to deny future battery hens a chance to >>experience life. > > That's because I believe a significant percentage of them have > terrible lives. If I didn't, why would I be opposed to them. And ARAs believe that ALL livestock have terrible lives, therefore what they do is consistent with that belief, just as your is. >>How inconsiderate of you. > > Of course I view your beliefs as insane AND ignorant. Any mad fool would say as much. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life can have positive value
"usual suspect" > wrote >> But...but...then those chickens and dogs will NOT get to experience life! >> Oh, the horror! > > No problem -- a 46 year-old *** hillbilly who moves from his mom's house > onto a houseboat isn't exactly experiencing life, either. pppppppppppphhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttttttttt!!!!!!! !!!! |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life can have positive value
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 07:00:28 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:20:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>Then you are contributing to the "elimination" of battery hens. >> >> I would vote for no more batter hens. I would make that illegal before >> I would cock fighting. I'm certain that seems insane to you, and also >> certain that your feelings are due to your own ignorance. > >Then you are contributing to the "elimination" of battery hens. You are >using your own judgment of what you consider right and wrong and deciding >that it is better that battery hens never get to experience life. Why don't you just explain why I should feel differently? >Yet when >ARAs use the exact same reasoning you claim that they are wrong for >preventing animals from experiencing life. It's pure hypocrisy. > >>>You have an >>>elimination agenda. You wish to deny future battery hens a chance to >>>experience life. >> >> That's because I believe a significant percentage of them have >> terrible lives. If I didn't, why would I be opposed to them. > >And ARAs believe that ALL livestock have terrible lives, So do you. Why should anyone believe YOU/"ARAs"? >therefore what they >do is consistent with that belief, So far I certainly believe that YOU/"THEY" are INCREDIBLY ignorant for believing that life does not have positive value for any farm animals. >just as your is. > >>>How inconsiderate of you. >> >> Of course I view your beliefs as insane AND ignorant. > >Any mad fool would say as much. We agree that YOU/"ARAs" have done so, and probaby will continue to do so. As you mentioned, think how embarrassing it would be for anyone to admit they'd been wrong all these years...in your case: for YOU/"ARAs" to admit that you've been wrong, and that the method of husbandry can provide lives of positive value for farm animals. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life can have positive value
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:51:55 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>dh@. wrote: > >> On 16 Nov 2005 12:22:27 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote: >> >> >>>dh@. explained to the Goober: >> >> >>>> I believe most broilers, turkeys, beef and dairy cattle, and cage free >>>>hens have decent lives. >>> >>>You don't make any effort to ensure that the animals you consume had >>>decent lives. >> >> >> How could we do that? > >That's your problem. Meaning that you have no idea. >>>>>>You can not >>>>>>contribute to "better" lives for them, as you dishonestly claim. >>>>> >>>>>More tap-dancing. "Them" refers to all livestock, not to specific animals. >>>> >>>> LOL! Yes it does. When I buy cage free eggs to contribute to life for >>>>future cage free laying hens >>> >>>You aren't. >> >> >> I am. > >You aren't. You're eating eggs. > > >>>You are buying the eggs because you want to eat them. >> >> >> I don't buy cage free eggs because I particularly want to eat cage >> free eggs > >Then you shouldn't buy them. Why would you buy and eat >something you don't particularly want to eat? Because I DO particularly want to contribute to decent lives for laying hens, and don't mind eating those particular eggs in order to do so. YOU/"ARAs" could never understand, but that's how it is Goo. >You're >not making any sense (not that you ever did.) It's no surprise that YOU/"ARAs" have no clue why a person would want to contribute to decent lives for any domestic animals. >>>>>Once you consume an animal product it's too late for that animal, but by >>>>>making the right choices you can have a positive impact on the treatment of >>>>>animals in general. >>>> >>>> Of FUTURE animals. >>> >>>IF they exist. >> >> >> LOL. > >For some reason, that big "IF" seems to tie you up in >knots. I consider you a fool for trying to make a big deal out of it, as if it somehow reinforces the elimination objective even though it damn sure does NOT! |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life can have positive value
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 Goo wrote::
>dh@. pointed out: >> They exploit AW > >They don't. They want humane treatment of animals if >the animals exist. Period. If as you insist quality of life can't give life a positive value, why would "ARAs" care about it? >>>They may not consider it as good as >>>elimination of livestock, but they DO wish us to consider the animals' >>>lives, that is for sure. >> >> >> People who are in favor of decent lives for livestock should be OPPOSED >> to the elimination objective > >No. That's an illogical conclusion. Once again: >support for "decent lives for livestock" is completely >*conditional* on the animals existing at all Then which livestock animals are you saying "ARAs" would allow us to continue raising for food, and why should anyone believe they would? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>dh@. wrote: >> You may truly be too stupid to understand > >I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice. > The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs >"no life". In the case of farm animals who have decent lives, it is that or no life. It's funny and even more it's pathetic that YOU/"ARAs" can't understand that fact. Or maybe you can understand it also, but you just don't want everyone else to understand it too? IF! you don't believe me, then explain how our diet could improve life for any existing farm animals, so we can both understand how the fact I point out is "a false choice." |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:31:11 -0700, Louis Boyd > wrote:
>Leif Erikson wrote: > > >>> Either they benefit from their life or they don't. >> >> >> No animal benefits from coming into existence. Period. > >Humans don't either. They have to make something of their lives for >their lives to be of benefit to themselves or other. Do you feel that's true for other animals as well? If so, please explain how your limitation could prevent life from being a benefit for animals raised for food. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:49:16 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>Louis Boyd wrote: > >> Leif Erikson wrote: >> >> >>>> Either they benefit from their life or they don't. >>> >>> >>> >>> No animal benefits from coming into existence. Period. >> >> >> Humans don't either. > >Exactly right. > >> They have to make something of their lives for >> their lives to be of benefit to themselves or other. > >Exactly right again. > >But the original poster, ****wit David Harrison, >believes that farm animals somehow "benefit" simply by >coming into existence. That is, he believes that >"getting to experience life", versus never living at >all, is in and of itself a "benefit" to farm animals >(and, presumably, others.) That's a lie Goo. I'm aware that sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't, depending on quality of life. YOU/"ARAs" dishonestly, stupidly, ignorantly(?) insist that it NEVER is, regardless of quality of life. >It's easy to see what is wrong with this thinking. A >"benefit" is something that improves the welfare of the >entity that receives the benefit. But coming into >existence itself cannot be a benefit, because it >doesn't improve the welfare of the new entity: that >new entity didn't *have* a welfare to be improved. That shallow "argument" doesn't work for you guys, since whether or not entities benefit from life doesn't have anything to do with things that happened before they come into existence. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life can have positive value
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 07:00:28 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:20:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>>>Then you are contributing to the "elimination" of battery hens. >>> >>> I would vote for no more batter hens. I would make that illegal >>> before >>> I would cock fighting. I'm certain that seems insane to you, and also >>> certain that your feelings are due to your own ignorance. >> >>Then you are contributing to the "elimination" of battery hens. You are >>using your own judgment of what you consider right and wrong and deciding >>that it is better that battery hens never get to experience life. > > Why don't you just explain why I should feel differently? Because you attack vegans for using the same reasoning. You're saying it's OK to "eliminate" a group of animals (so they never experience life) if you believe that their lives are not worth living. It's exactly what they do. The form of reasoning they use is the same as yours, the only difference is that they apply it to more animals than you do. Your actual argument against them is that you agree with their reasoning but you disagree about which animals should be eliminated. >>Yet when >>ARAs use the exact same reasoning you claim that they are wrong for >>preventing animals from experiencing life. It's pure hypocrisy. >> >>>>You have an >>>>elimination agenda. You wish to deny future battery hens a chance to >>>>experience life. >>> >>> That's because I believe a significant percentage of them have >>> terrible lives. If I didn't, why would I be opposed to them. >> >>And ARAs believe that ALL livestock have terrible lives, > > So do you. No I don't. My believe is closer to yours, > Why should anyone believe YOU/"ARAs"? It's not a case of belief, it's opinion. >>therefore what they >>do is consistent with that belief, > > So far I certainly believe that YOU/"THEY" are INCREDIBLY ignorant > for believing that life does not have positive value for any farm animals. Why? It's just a difference of degree beween, you, me, and them. [..] |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life can have positive value
dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 19:51:55 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: > > >>dh@. wrote: >> >> >>>On 16 Nov 2005 12:22:27 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>dh@. explained to the Goober: >>> >>> >>>>> I believe most broilers, turkeys, beef and dairy cattle, and cage free >>>>>hens have decent lives. >>>> >>>>You don't make any effort to ensure that the animals you consume had >>>>decent lives. >>> >>> >>> How could we do that? >> >>That's your problem. > > > Meaning that Meaning that I recognize you question wasn't serious; just your usual attempt at time-wasting. >>>>>>>You can not >>>>>>>contribute to "better" lives for them, as you dishonestly claim. >>>>>> >>>>>>More tap-dancing. "Them" refers to all livestock, not to specific animals. >>>>> >>>>> LOL! Yes it does. When I buy cage free eggs to contribute to life for >>>>>future cage free laying hens >>>> >>>>You aren't. >>> >>> >>> I am. >> >>You aren't. You're eating eggs. >> >> >> >>>>You are buying the eggs because you want to eat them. >>> >>> >>> I don't buy cage free eggs because I particularly want to eat cage >>>free eggs >> >>Then you shouldn't buy them. Why would you buy and eat >>something you don't particularly want to eat? > > > Because I DO particularly want to contribute to decent lives No. You want to cause animals to live. That's all. > >>You're >>not making any sense (not that you ever did.) > > > It's no surprise that YOU/"ARAs" I'm not an "ara". >>>>>>Once you consume an animal product it's too late for that animal, but by >>>>>>making the right choices you can have a positive impact on the treatment of >>>>>>animals in general. >>>>> >>>>> Of FUTURE animals. >>>> >>>>IF they exist. >>> >>> >>> LOL. >> >>For some reason, that big "IF" seems to tie you up in >>knots. > > > I consider you a fool That big "IF" ties you up in knots. That much is clear. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life can have positive value
dh@. lied:
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 Leif Erikson wrote: > > >>dh@. lied: > > >>> They exploit AW >> >>They don't. They want humane treatment of animals if >>the animals exist. Period. > > > If as you insist quality of life can't give life a positive value I don't insist that. >>>>They may not consider it as good as >>>>elimination of livestock, but they DO wish us to consider the animals' >>>>lives, that is for sure. >>> >>> >>> People who are in favor of decent lives for livestock should be OPPOSED >>>to the elimination objective >> >>No. That's an illogical conclusion. Once again: >>support for "decent lives for livestock" is completely >>*conditional* on the animals existing at all |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: > > >>dh@. wrote: > > >>> You may truly be too stupid to understand >> >>I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice. >> The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs >>"no life". > > > In the case of farm animals who have decent lives, it is > that or no life. The choice is between "life" or "no life". That's all. > IF! you don't believe me You're a pathological liar. No one believes you. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:31:11 -0700, Louis Boyd > wrote: > > >>Leif Erikson wrote: >> >> >> >>>> Either they benefit from their life or they don't. >>> >>> >>>No animal benefits from coming into existence. Period. >> >>Humans don't either. They have to make something of their lives for >>their lives to be of benefit to themselves or other. > > > Do you feel that's true for other animals as well? If so, please > explain how your limitation He doesn't have a "limitation". A refusal to follow you down your path to ****witted insanity is not a "limitation". |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
dh@. lied:
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:49:16 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: > > >>Louis Boyd wrote: >> >> >>>Leif Erikson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>> Either they benefit from their life or they don't. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>No animal benefits from coming into existence. Period. >>> >>> >>>Humans don't either. >> >>Exactly right. >> >> >>>They have to make something of their lives for >>>their lives to be of benefit to themselves or other. >> >>Exactly right again. >> >>But the original poster, ****wit David Harrison, >>believes that farm animals somehow "benefit" simply by >>coming into existence. That is, he believes that >>"getting to experience life", versus never living at >>all, is in and of itself a "benefit" to farm animals >>(and, presumably, others.) > > > That's a lie. It isn't a lie: "Life itself is the benefit which makes all other benefits possible." - ****wit David Harrison You believe that life _per se_ is a benefit. Stop lying. > I'm aware Stop lying. You think life _per se_ is *always* a benefit. > >>It's easy to see what is wrong with this thinking. A >>"benefit" is something that improves the welfare of the >>entity that receives the benefit. But coming into >>existence itself cannot be a benefit, because it >>doesn't improve the welfare of the new entity: that >>new entity didn't *have* a welfare to be improved. > > > That shallow "argument" It's persuasive and conclusive. YOU sure as hell can't refute it. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life can have positive value, but that's not the issue
<dh@.> wrote > On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 Goo wrote:: > >>dh@. pointed out: > >>> They exploit AW >> >>They don't. They want humane treatment of animals if >>the animals exist. Period. > > If as you insist quality of life can't give life a positive value, why > would "ARAs" care about it? > >>>>They may not consider it as good as >>>>elimination of livestock, but they DO wish us to consider the animals' >>>>lives, that is for sure. >>> >>> >>> People who are in favor of decent lives for livestock should be >>> OPPOSED >>> to the elimination objective >> >>No. That's an illogical conclusion. Once again: >>support for "decent lives for livestock" is completely >>*conditional* on the animals existing at all > > Then which livestock animals are you saying "ARAs" would allow us > to continue raising for food, and why should anyone believe they would? If they had their way, NONE, but that doesn't mean they are being meanies by wanting to deny life to future livestock. Get past that idea, it's bullshit, nobody buys it, just as you don't buy my argument that you are denying life to mice in your bedroom by not raising them. The implications of AR/veganism are that they want to do something to cause *you* harm, to deny *you* and me, and Jonathan and rick, a fundamental freedom which we have and believe we are entitled to. THAT'S what we all are objecting to here, and rightfully so, not that they are "denying animals a chance to experience life". FFS Get a friggin grip. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 05:40:38 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>dh@. pointed out: > >> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:49:16 GMT, Goo lied: >>>But the original poster, ****wit David Harrison, >>>believes that farm animals somehow "benefit" simply by >>>coming into existence. That is, he believes that >>>"getting to experience life", versus never living at >>>all, is in and of itself a "benefit" to farm animals >>>(and, presumably, others.) >> >> >> That's a lie. > >It isn't a lie: > > "Life itself is the benefit which makes all other > benefits possible." - ****wit David Harrison > >You believe that life _per se_ is a benefit. Stop lying. > > >> I'm aware > >Stop lying. You think life _per se_ is *always* a benefit. It's just more details you can't understand. This particular detail you can't understand is the difference between life itself, or life _per se_, and the individual lives of animals. Until you can learn to understand the difference, and most likely you never will, you can't even think about details as to when "life is a benefit" and when it's not. LOL...how could you, if you can't understand how it EVER could be for any human or other animal? >>>It's easy to see what is wrong with this thinking. A >>>"benefit" is something that improves the welfare of the >>>entity that receives the benefit. But coming into >>>existence itself cannot be a benefit, because it >>>doesn't improve the welfare of the new entity: that >>>new entity didn't *have* a welfare to be improved. >> >> >> That shallow "argument" > >It's persuasive Not the way you intend it. >and conclusive. The conclusion is that it has absolutely nothing to do with which animals' lives are of positive value and which are not, much MUCH less does it prevent any of them from being positive while making ALL of them negative, as YOU/"ARAs" would like everyone to believe they are. >YOU sure as hell can't >refute it. "A "benefit" is something that improves the welfare of the entity that receives the benefit. But coming into existence itself cannot be a benefit, because it doesn't improve the welfare of the new entity:" Zygotes are new entities, and life is the benefit which allows them to grow into conscious beings. Unless the experiences of being conscious beings are not so bad that they give life a negative value, I believe it is of positive value in comparison to never existing at all. So. In order to make your theory anything more than nonesense, *you* need to explain how nonexistence --even nonexistence of imaginary nonexistent "entities"!-- could prevent life from being of positive value to everything that does live. You haven't done it, and I have absolute faith that you are unable to even try. It may be amusing if you do, but I don't expect to see any attempt. "that new entity didn't *have* a welfare to be improved." You're trying to make an overall statement about something that you can't even think about it detail. When does an egg become "alive"? When does a sperm? What are some differences between the kind of life that eggs have, sperm have, and conscious animals have? Those are all issues which you can't even contemplate, but YOU would have to EXPLAIN IN DETAIL before your proclamation could even be considered. So far it can't be. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 05:36:53 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>dh@. wrote: > >> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:31:11 -0700, Louis Boyd > wrote: >> >> >>>Leif Erikson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>> Either they benefit from their life or they don't. >>>> >>>> >>>>No animal benefits from coming into existence. Period. >>> >>>Humans don't either. They have to make something of their lives for >>>their lives to be of benefit to themselves or other. >> >> >> Do you feel that's true for other animals as well? If so, please >> explain how your limitation > >He doesn't have a "limitation". LOL! Yes he does, you poor fool. LOL!!! Oh Goo...you poor, poor Goober... He insists that only the lives of those who "make something of" them are "of benefit to themselves or other". That means that all beings who don't "make something of their lives" can not benefit from living. You can't understand it much less agree with it though, and you need to stop trying to think about it or you might hurt yourself. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 05:36:03 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>dh@. wrote: > >> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: >> >> >>>dh@. wrote: >> >> >>>> You may truly be too stupid to understand >>> >>>I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice. >>> The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs >>>"no life". >> >> >> In the case of farm animals who have decent lives, it is >> that or no life. > >The choice is between "life" or "no life". That's all. > > >> IF! you don't believe me > >You're a pathological liar. The truth is MY friend, not YOURS/"ARAs'". >No one believes you. That's because the facts I point out conflict with what YOU/"THEY" WANT TO believe, not because they aren't true. And that is why YOU lie...because the truth conflicts what YOU want other people to believe. And that is because it suggests that some alternative(s) could be ethically equivalent or superior to elimination. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:09:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: >> >>>dh@. wrote: >> >>>> You may truly be too stupid to understand >>> >>>I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice. >>> The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs >>>"no life". >> >> In the case of farm animals who have decent lives, it is >> that or no life. > >It would be my choice to support raising animals who in my opinion have >decent lives and stop supporting raising the ones who dont. > >Agree? Agreed. >> IF! you don't believe me, then explain how our diet could >> improve life for any existing farm animals, so we can both >> understand how the fact I point out is "a false choice." > >It's false because it's unbalanced and therefore incongruent, since you >compare "no life" with "decent life". You have a modifier on one and not the >other. To be logical you must say, "a life or no life", using no modifiers, >or else "a bad life or a decent life" using modifiers on both. It is the life they get or no life, not the life they get or a different one. Sometimes it's a good life or no life...sometimes it's a terrible life or no life...often it's in between...more often it changes...often more than once... If you contribute to lives which you feel are decent it's that or nothing, NOT that or something else. You can contribute to other things ALSO, or not, but for them *as well* it's those lives or nothing! If you can learn to understand that it could help you have a more accurate view of the situation, and possibly even some idea why I keep on and on about it. >You're mixing >dichotomies. You're still mixed up if you think your diet improves quality of life for any particular animals, unless you can explain how it improves their particular lives. You can't do that simply imo, but you would have to get right down there in it, and deliberately have influence which would help some particular animals. For example I've explained that people who want to actually DO something could get some of the newly hatched broiler pullets' brothers and raise them up and give them MUCH longer lives...as long as they wanted to...and then be sure to kill them as humanely as they wanted to take the trouble to do it. That would save them from the shitty death they do get, plus give them a LOT more life.... To let you know just how incredibly much I overestimated the people in these ngs--and this is really pretty amusing by now-- that is the sort of thing I imagined at least SOME of you people were already doing. Of course the amusing part is the reality: That not only are NONE of you even thinking about it, but for the past 6 years or however long, it's that sort of thinking that YOU/"ARAs" have been so maniacally trying to PREVENT. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life can have positive value, but that's not the issue
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:23:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote >> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 Goo wrote:: >> >>>dh@. pointed out: >> >>>> They exploit AW >>> >>>They don't. They want humane treatment of animals if >>>the animals exist. Period. >> >> If as you insist quality of life can't give life a positive value, why >> would "ARAs" care about it? >> >>>>>They may not consider it as good as >>>>>elimination of livestock, but they DO wish us to consider the animals' >>>>>lives, that is for sure. >>>> >>>> >>>> People who are in favor of decent lives for livestock should be >>>> OPPOSED >>>> to the elimination objective >>> >>>No. That's an illogical conclusion. Once again: >>>support for "decent lives for livestock" is completely >>>*conditional* on the animals existing at all >> >> Then which livestock animals are you saying "ARAs" would allow us >> to continue raising for food, and why should anyone believe they would? > >If they had their way, NONE Then people who want to see them provided with decent lives should be OPPOSED to the elimination objective, as I've been saying. >, but that doesn't mean they are being meanies by >wanting to deny life to future livestock. It means they have a different objective which conflicts with providing decent lives. >Get past that idea, it's bullshit, >nobody buys it, just as you don't buy my argument that you are denying life >to mice in your bedroom by not raising them. I've explained why they are completely different, and if you don't understand why then you never will...and it looks like you never will. >The implications of AR/veganism >are that they want to do something to cause *you* harm, to deny *you* and >me, and Jonathan and rick, a fundamental freedom which we have and believe >we are entitled to. THAT'S what we all are objecting to here, and rightfully >so, That shit is only about YOU, as I've pointed out. YOUR/MY personal benefits are a completely different thing than those of the animals, and should be considered as such. What you want, what you pretend to want, and what you encourage other people to want all are a completely different subject than whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise them for food. >not that they are "denying animals a chance to experience life". FFS Get >a friggin grip. The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise them for food, and much as YOU/"ARAs" have tried to pry me away from the subject, I have maintained a solid grip on it pretty much the whole time. I've even suggested that YOU/"ARAs" try to at least get a little tiny feel for it, which you always resist, so suggesting that you "Get a friggin grip" would almost undoubtedly be suggesting something that's way beyond what you will ever even attempt. To let you know how far from your position I am on this here's an example: When I decide whether or not to kill a bug that's in the house or take it out and let it die some other way, I consider that. I consider first of course whether I want to promote life for such a being or not...if not, it's dead. If so I will often try to take it outside and give it a chance to live for a while, sometimes even tiny little insects. When I compare the lives of animals raised for food as you do with imaginary child sex slaves etc, I compare them to the lives of insects, fish, birds, or whatever that actually does exist. Sometimes I compare them to my own life, but not to imaginary grotesqueries like you do. So my questions are more like: Isn't the 6 weeks that broiler chickens get a longer and richer experience than two or three weeks as a mosquito or some other lower form of life? So in that respect, can't we feel better about seeing a plate of fried chicken than we can about seeing many types of insects...? But after all the fantasising, and comparing different lives and potential lives etc, it still remains tha: It's the life they get or no life, for everything, every time! If you can never get a grip on that, you can never have a correct interpretation. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
dh@. lied:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 05:40:38 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: > > >>dh@. lied: >> >> >>>On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:49:16 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote: > > >>>>But the original poster, ****wit David Harrison, >>>>believes that farm animals somehow "benefit" simply by >>>>coming into existence. That is, he believes that >>>>"getting to experience life", versus never living at >>>>all, is in and of itself a "benefit" to farm animals >>>>(and, presumably, others.) >>> >>> >>> That's a lie. >> >>It isn't a lie: >> >> "Life itself is the benefit which makes all other >> benefits possible." - ****wit David Harrison >> >>You believe that life _per se_ is a benefit. Stop lying. >> >> >> >>>I'm aware >> >>Stop lying. You think life _per se_ is *always* a benefit. > > > It's just more details you can't understand. There is nothing in the world you understand that I cannot. Stop lying: you believe that life _per se_ is a benefit to animals. That belief is wrong and stupid. >>>>It's easy to see what is wrong with this thinking. A >>>>"benefit" is something that improves the welfare of the >>>>entity that receives the benefit. But coming into >>>>existence itself cannot be a benefit, because it >>>>doesn't improve the welfare of the new entity: that >>>>new entity didn't *have* a welfare to be improved. >>> >>> >>> That shallow "argument" >> >>It's persuasive > > > Not the way you intend it. Yes, the way I intend it. It is persuasive to all who think about what "benefit" means. >>and conclusive. > > > The conclusion is that The conclusion is that you have to deny the obvious. >>YOU sure as hell can't >>refute it. > > > "A "benefit" is something that improves the welfare of the > entity that receives the benefit. But coming into existence > itself cannot be a benefit, because it doesn't improve the > welfare of the new entity:" > > Zygotes are new entities, and life is the benefit which > allows them to grow into conscious beings. No, life is *NOT* a benefit to "zygotes", because: a) they didn't have a welfare before they existed, and b) zygotes don't *EVER* have a welfare > "that new entity didn't *have* a welfare to be improved." > > You're trying to make an overall statement about > something that you can't even think about it detail. I can think about it. Unlike you, I *can* think about it accurately and correctly. Your thoughts on the matter are worthless, because they are bizarre fantasies. You imagine that animals and zygotes and ****-knows what else have properties they do not, CANNOT, have. You are simply arguing for the sake of arguing and seeing your crap in usenet. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
dh@. lied:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 05:36:53 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: > > >>dh@. lied: >> >> >>>On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:31:11 -0700, Louis Boyd > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Leif Erikson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Either they benefit from their life or they don't. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>No animal benefits from coming into existence. Period. >>>> >>>>Humans don't either. They have to make something of their lives for >>>>their lives to be of benefit to themselves or other. >>> >>> >>> Do you feel that's true for other animals as well? If so, please >>>explain how your limitation >> >>He doesn't have a "limitation". > > > LOL! Yes he does No, he doesn't. He doesn't have a "limitation" that prevents him from correctly thinking about animals. YOU have one; actually, several. The first is your total lack of meaningful education. The second is your choice to be stupid. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
dh@. lied:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 05:36:03 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: > > >>dh@. lied: >> >> >>>On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>dh@. lied: >>> >>> >>>>> You may truly be too stupid to understand >>>> >>>>I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice. >>>>The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs >>>>"no life". >>> >>> >>> In the case of farm animals who have decent lives, it is >>>that or no life. >> >>The choice is between "life" or "no life". That's all. >> >> >> >>> IF! you don't believe me >> >>You're a pathological liar. > > > The truth is MY friend No, it definitely is not. You are a bald-faced liar. > >>No one believes you. > > > That's because the facts I point You don't point out facts. You keep blabbering your bizarre bullshit about coming into existence being a benefit, when any logically thinking person can see it isn't. You have not stated a single meaningful fact in over six years of wasting time in usenet. You're a fat Georgia homosexual who moved out of your mommy's house after age 40 and now live on a leaky houseboat. You're uneducated and incapable of true learning. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:09:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> >>>On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>dh@. wrote: >>> >>>>> You may truly be too stupid to understand >>>> >>>>I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice. >>>> The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs >>>>"no life". >>> >>> In the case of farm animals who have decent lives, it is >>>that or no life. >> >>It would be my choice to support raising animals who in my opinion have >>decent lives and stop supporting raising the ones who dont. >> >>Agree? > > > Agreed. > > >>> IF! you don't believe me, then explain how our diet could >>>improve life for any existing farm animals, so we can both >>>understand how the fact I point out is "a false choice." >> >>It's false because it's unbalanced and therefore incongruent, since you >>compare "no life" with "decent life". You have a modifier on one and not the >>other. To be logical you must say, "a life or no life", using no modifiers, >>or else "a bad life or a decent life" using modifiers on both. > > > It is the life they get or no life, Not coming into existence at all is meaningless. You keep stupidly insisting that people "ought" to contribute to "decent lives for farm animals" INSTEAD OF "no life at all", and that's just a stupid thing to say. You stupidly believe that causing animals to live, per se, is better than not wanting any farm animals to live, and you CANNOT SAY WHY. Your bullshit about "decent" lives is a laughable smokescreen; a stupid attempt at a dodge. No matter how thinly you try to slice your shit, it's still shit. You CANNOT SAY WHY it is "better" to cause animals to live than not to do so; you just keep STUPIDLY insisting that it is. >>You're mixing >>dichotomies. > > > You're still mixed up He isn't mixed up at all. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se is not a benefit
dh@. lied:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:23:00 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >><dh@.> lied >> >>>On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 Leif Erikson wrote: >>> >>> >>>>dh@. lied: >>> >>>>> They exploit AW >>>> >>>>They don't. They want humane treatment of animals if >>>>the animals exist. Period. >>> >>> If as you insist quality of life can't give life a positive value, why >>>would "ARAs" care about it? >>> >>> >>>>>>They may not consider it as good as >>>>>>elimination of livestock, but they DO wish us to consider the animals' >>>>>>lives, that is for sure. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> People who are in favor of decent lives for livestock should be >>>>>OPPOSED >>>>>to the elimination objective >>>> >>>>No. That's an illogical conclusion. Once again: >>>>support for "decent lives for livestock" is completely >>>>*conditional* on the animals existing at all >>> >>> Then which livestock animals are you saying "ARAs" would allow us >>>to continue raising for food, and why should anyone believe they would? >> >>If they had their way, NONE > > > Then people who want to see them provided with decent lives You mean, people who want to see them exist, period... You can't get away with your false choice; you'll be called on it every time. >>, but that doesn't mean they are being meanies by >>wanting to deny life to future livestock. > > > It means they have a different objective which conflicts with providing > decent lives. "Providing decent lives" ONLY matters if they're going to live. Providing life at all is not providing them a benefit. >>Get past that idea, it's bullshit, >>nobody buys it, just as you don't buy my argument that you are denying life >>to mice in your bedroom by not raising them. > > > I've explained why they are completely different Your "explanation" was self-serving bullshit. >>The implications of AR/veganism >>are that they want to do something to cause *you* harm, to deny *you* and >>me, and Jonathan and rick, a fundamental freedom which we have and believe >>we are entitled to. THAT'S what we all are objecting to here, and rightfully >>so, > > > That shit is only about YOU, as I've pointed out. YOUR/MY personal benefits > are a completely different thing than those of the animals, The animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence. "decent" lives for them ONLY is a consideration IF they exist. >>not that they are "denying animals a chance to experience life". FFS Get >>a friggin grip. > > > The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise them for > food, And "vegans" believe it is, and YOU don't even make an attempt to persuade them that they're wrong. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:09:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: >>> >>>>dh@. wrote: >>> >>>>> You may truly be too stupid to understand >>>> >>>>I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice. >>>> The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs >>>>"no life". >>> >>> In the case of farm animals who have decent lives, it is >>> that or no life. >> >>It would be my choice to support raising animals who in my opinion have >>decent lives and stop supporting raising the ones who dont. >> >>Agree? > > Agreed. That should be the end of our discussion. We agree on the most basic relevant issue before us. >>> IF! you don't believe me, then explain how our diet could >>> improve life for any existing farm animals, so we can both >>> understand how the fact I point out is "a false choice." >> >>It's false because it's unbalanced and therefore incongruent, since you >>compare "no life" with "decent life". You have a modifier on one and not >>the >>other. To be logical you must say, "a life or no life", using no >>modifiers, >>or else "a bad life or a decent life" using modifiers on both. > > It is the life they get or no life, not the life they get or a > different > one. Sometimes it's a good life or no life...sometimes it's a terrible > life or no life...often it's in between...more often it changes...often > more than once... Too convoluted... The options are; 1) supporting the raising of animals who have decent living conditions, 2) supporting the raising of animals who have poor living conditions, or 3) not supporting the raising of animals, by abstaining from animal products. The ARA believes that 3) is the only moral option. I believe that 1) and 3) are both moral. That's ALL there is to it. What is your disagreement with that? > If you contribute to lives which you feel are decent it's that or > nothing, > NOT that or something else. You can contribute to other things ALSO, or > not, but for them *as well* it's those lives or nothing! If you can learn > to > understand that it could help you have a more accurate view of the > situation, and possibly even some idea why I keep on and on about it. > >>You're mixing >>dichotomies. > > You're still mixed up if you think your diet improves quality of life > for any particular animals, unless you can explain how it improves > their particular lives. You can't do that simply imo, but you would > have to get right down there in it, and deliberately have influence > which would help some particular animals. For example I've > explained that people who want to actually DO something could > get some of the newly hatched broiler pullets' brothers and raise > them up and give them MUCH longer lives...as long as they > wanted to...and then be sure to kill them as humanely as they > wanted to take the trouble to do it. That would save them from > the shitty death they do get, plus give them a LOT more life.... > > To let you know just how incredibly much I overestimated > the people in these ngs--and this is really pretty amusing by now-- > that is the sort of thing I imagined at least SOME of you people > were already doing. Of course the amusing part is the reality: That > not only are NONE of you even thinking about it, but for the past > 6 years or however long, it's that sort of thinking that YOU/"ARAs" > have been so maniacally trying to PREVENT. Too convoluted, I can't make any sense out of any of that. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se is not a benefit
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Goo boasted:
>dh@. pointed out: >> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise them for >> food, > >And "vegans" believe it is Why do you think anyone/everyone should believe them? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:35:14 GMT, Goo lied:
>There is nothing in the world you understand that I cannot. I understand the difference between life itself and the individual life experiences animals have. You can not. I understand that life has a positive value for some animals. You can not. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:36:44 GMT, Goober dishonestly believed:
>dh@. lied: > >> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 05:36:53 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: >> >> >>>dh@. lied: >>> >>> >>>>On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:31:11 -0700, Louis Boyd > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Leif Erikson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Either they benefit from their life or they don't. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>No animal benefits from coming into existence. Period. >>>>> >>>>>Humans don't either. They have to make something of their lives for >>>>>their lives to be of benefit to themselves or other. >>>> >>>> >>>> Do you feel that's true for other animals as well? If so, please >>>>explain how your limitation >>> >>>He doesn't have a "limitation". >> >> >> LOL! Yes he does > >No, he doesn't. He doesn't have a "limitation" that >prevents him from correctly thinking about animals. You are completely lost on this one, you poor stupid Goober. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:01:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:09:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: >>>> >>>>>dh@. wrote: >>>> >>>>>> You may truly be too stupid to understand >>>>> >>>>>I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice. >>>>> The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs >>>>>"no life". >>>> >>>> In the case of farm animals who have decent lives, it is >>>> that or no life. >>> >>>It would be my choice to support raising animals who in my opinion have >>>decent lives and stop supporting raising the ones who dont. >>> >>>Agree? >> >> Agreed. > >That should be the end of our discussion. We agree on the most basic >relevant issue before us. > >>>> IF! you don't believe me, then explain how our diet could >>>> improve life for any existing farm animals, so we can both >>>> understand how the fact I point out is "a false choice." >>> >>>It's false because it's unbalanced and therefore incongruent, since you >>>compare "no life" with "decent life". You have a modifier on one and not >>>the >>>other. To be logical you must say, "a life or no life", using no >>>modifiers, >>>or else "a bad life or a decent life" using modifiers on both. >> >> It is the life they get or no life, not the life they get or a >> different >> one. Sometimes it's a good life or no life...sometimes it's a terrible >> life or no life...often it's in between...more often it changes...often >> more than once... > >Too convoluted... What I pointed out is true, but the truth is obviously more complicated than you are able to understand, much less think about in any detail. >The options are; >1) supporting the raising of animals who have decent living conditions, >2) supporting the raising of animals who have poor living conditions, or >3) not supporting the raising of animals, by abstaining from animal >products. > >The ARA believes that 3) is the only moral option. I believe that 1) and 3) >are both moral. That's ALL there is to it. > >What is your disagreement with that? YOU/"ARAs" are the ones who have been disagreeing with the suggestion that providing decent lives for farm animals could be ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination. >> If you contribute to lives which you feel are decent it's that or >> nothing, >> NOT that or something else. You can contribute to other things ALSO, or >> not, but for them *as well* it's those lives or nothing! If you can learn >> to >> understand that it could help you have a more accurate view of the >> situation, and possibly even some idea why I keep on and on about it. >> >>>You're mixing >>>dichotomies. >> >> You're still mixed up if you think your diet improves quality of life >> for any particular animals, unless you can explain how it improves >> their particular lives. You can't do that simply imo, but you would >> have to get right down there in it, and deliberately have influence >> which would help some particular animals. For example I've >> explained that people who want to actually DO something could >> get some of the newly hatched broiler pullets' brothers and raise >> them up and give them MUCH longer lives...as long as they >> wanted to...and then be sure to kill them as humanely as they >> wanted to take the trouble to do it. That would save them from >> the shitty death they do get, plus give them a LOT more life.... >> >> To let you know just how incredibly much I overestimated >> the people in these ngs--and this is really pretty amusing by now-- >> that is the sort of thing I imagined at least SOME of you people >> were already doing. Of course the amusing part is the reality: That >> not only are NONE of you even thinking about it, but for the past >> 6 years or however long, it's that sort of thinking that YOU/"ARAs" >> have been so maniacally trying to PREVENT. > >Too convoluted, I can't make any sense out of any of that. Of course you can't, because it involves thinking about the ANIMALS and not simply thinking about YOU/"ARAs". The idea of how people could actually contribute to decent lives for farm animals never even enters YOUR/"ARAs'" minds, and when someone points out one obvious way it could be done, YOU/"ARAs" can't make any sense out of any of it. I've been telling you this for quite a while now, here we have a perfect example of it, and still you can't understand. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
dh@. lied:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:35:14 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote: > > >There is nothing in the world you understand that I cannot. > > I understand the difference between life itself and You understand nothing meaningful regarding animal lives at all. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
dh@. lied:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:36:44 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote: > > >dh@. lied: > > > >> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 05:36:53 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: > >> > >> > >>>dh@. lied: > >>> > >>> > >>>>On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 13:31:11 -0700, Louis Boyd > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Leif Erikson wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Either they benefit from their life or they don't. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>No animal benefits from coming into existence. Period. > >>>>> > >>>>>Humans don't either. They have to make something of their lives for > >>>>>their lives to be of benefit to themselves or other. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Do you feel that's true for other animals as well? If so, please > >>>>explain how your limitation > >>> > >>>He doesn't have a "limitation". > >> > >> > >> LOL! Yes he does > > > >No, he doesn't. He doesn't have a "limitation" that > >prevents him from correctly thinking about animals. > > You are completely He doesn't have a "limitation" that prevents him from correctly thinking about animals. YOU have one. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se is not a benefit
dh@. lied:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote: > > >dh@. pointed out: > > >> The question is whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise them for > >> food, > > > >And "vegans" believe it is > > Why do you think anyone/everyone should believe them? You need to try to persuade them that their belief - that raising animals to eat them is cruel _per se_ - is erroneous. So far, in over six years, you have never tried. Your bullshit about life being a "benefit" does not address their beliefs, and everyone thinks you're nuts for clinging to it as it it is an insightful theory. It isn't. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
dh@. lied:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:01:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > > ><dh@.> lied: > >> > >> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:09:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > >>> > >>><dh@.> lied: > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>dh@. lied: > >>>> > >>>>>> You may truly be too stupid to understand > >>>>> > >>>>>I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice. > >>>>> The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs > >>>>>"no life". > >>>> > >>>> In the case of farm animals who have decent lives, it is > >>>> that or no life. > >>> > >>>It would be my choice to support raising animals who in my opinion have > >>>decent lives and stop supporting raising the ones who dont. > >>> > >>>Agree? > >> > >> Agreed. > > > >That should be the end of our discussion. We agree on the most basic > >relevant issue before us. > > > >>>> IF! you don't believe me, then explain how our diet could > >>>> improve life for any existing farm animals, so we can both > >>>> understand how the fact I point out is "a false choice." > >>> > >>>It's false because it's unbalanced and therefore incongruent, since you > >>>compare "no life" with "decent life". You have a modifier on one and not > >>>the > >>>other. To be logical you must say, "a life or no life", using no > >>>modifiers, > >>>or else "a bad life or a decent life" using modifiers on both. > >> > >> It is the life they get or no life, not the life they get or a > >> different > >> one. Sometimes it's a good life or no life...sometimes it's a terrible > >> life or no life...often it's in between...more often it changes...often > >> more than once... > > > >Too convoluted... > > What I pointed out is true, It isn't. > >The options are; > >1) supporting the raising of animals who have decent living conditions, > >2) supporting the raising of animals who have poor living conditions, or > >3) not supporting the raising of animals, by abstaining from animal > >products. > > > >The ARA believes that 3) is the only moral option. I believe that 1) and 3) > >are both moral. That's ALL there is to it. > > > >What is your disagreement with that? > > YOU/"ARAs" are the ones who have been disagreeing with the > suggestion that providing decent lives for farm animals could be > ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination. You have NEVER ATTEMPTED to explain why it is, other than to let drop the "decent lives" crapola and switch to saying that life is a "benefit". "Decent lives" may be morally superior to "shitty lives", but it IS NOT superior to "no life at all." > >> If you contribute to lives which you feel are decent it's that or > >> nothing, > >> NOT that or something else. You can contribute to other things ALSO, or > >> not, but for them *as well* it's those lives or nothing! If you can learn > >> to > >> understand that it could help you have a more accurate view of the > >> situation, and possibly even some idea why I keep on and on about it. > >> > >>>You're mixing > >>>dichotomies. > >> > >> You're still mixed up if you think your diet improves quality of life > >> for any particular animals, unless you can explain how it improves > >> their particular lives. You can't do that simply imo, but you would > >> have to get right down there in it, and deliberately have influence > >> which would help some particular animals. For example I've > >> explained that people who want to actually DO something could > >> get some of the newly hatched broiler pullets' brothers and raise > >> them up and give them MUCH longer lives...as long as they > >> wanted to...and then be sure to kill them as humanely as they > >> wanted to take the trouble to do it. That would save them from > >> the shitty death they do get, plus give them a LOT more life.... > >> > >> To let you know just how incredibly much I overestimated > >> the people in these ngs--and this is really pretty amusing by now-- > >> that is the sort of thing I imagined at least SOME of you people > >> were already doing. Of course the amusing part is the reality: That > >> not only are NONE of you even thinking about it, but for the past > >> 6 years or however long, it's that sort of thinking that YOU/"ARAs" > >> have been so maniacally trying to PREVENT. > > > >Too convoluted, I can't make any sense out of any of that. > > Of course you can't, because ....because it is convoluted bullshit. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:01:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 08:09:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>><dh@.> wrote in message m... >>>>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 20:27:48 GMT, Leif Erikson > >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>dh@. wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> You may truly be too stupid to understand >>>>>> >>>>>>I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice. >>>>>> The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs >>>>>>"no life". >>>>> >>>>> In the case of farm animals who have decent lives, it is >>>>> that or no life. >>>> >>>>It would be my choice to support raising animals who in my opinion have >>>>decent lives and stop supporting raising the ones who dont. >>>> >>>>Agree? >>> >>> Agreed. >> >>That should be the end of our discussion. We agree on the most basic >>relevant issue before us. There's nothing more of any significance to discuss... >>>>> IF! you don't believe me, then explain how our diet could >>>>> improve life for any existing farm animals, so we can both >>>>> understand how the fact I point out is "a false choice." >>>> >>>>It's false because it's unbalanced and therefore incongruent, since you >>>>compare "no life" with "decent life". You have a modifier on one and not >>>>the >>>>other. To be logical you must say, "a life or no life", using no >>>>modifiers, >>>>or else "a bad life or a decent life" using modifiers on both. >>> >>> It is the life they get or no life, not the life they get or a >>> different >>> one. Sometimes it's a good life or no life...sometimes it's a terrible >>> life or no life...often it's in between...more often it changes...often >>> more than once... >> >>Too convoluted... > > What I pointed out is true, but the truth is obviously more complicated > than you are able to understand, much less think about in any detail. OK, so what am I supposed to do with all that complicated information? Sometimes they have good lives, sometimes bad, sometimes both at different times... sometimes it's hard to know which... let's say all that's true, what do I do about it? Why don't we just keep it simple for the sake of discussion just say that we are able to tell which animals have decent lives and which do not? >>The options are; >>1) supporting the raising of animals who have decent living conditions, >>2) supporting the raising of animals who have poor living conditions, or >>3) not supporting the raising of animals, by abstaining from animal >>products. >> >>The ARA believes that 3) is the only moral option. I believe that 1) and >>3) >>are both moral. That's ALL there is to it. >> >>What is your disagreement with that? > > YOU/"ARAs" are the ones who have been disagreeing with the > suggestion that providing decent lives for farm animals could be > ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination. Would you please answer the specific question I asked? I thought we agreed on this already, do you agree that 1) and 3) above are moral and 2) is not? This should be very straightforward. Do you agree or not that it sums up the issue? If not, what's missing or wrong with it? >>> If you contribute to lives which you feel are decent it's that or >>> nothing, >>> NOT that or something else. You can contribute to other things ALSO, or >>> not, but for them *as well* it's those lives or nothing! If you can >>> learn >>> to >>> understand that it could help you have a more accurate view of the >>> situation, and possibly even some idea why I keep on and on about it. >>> >>>>You're mixing >>>>dichotomies. >>> >>> You're still mixed up if you think your diet improves quality of life >>> for any particular animals, unless you can explain how it improves >>> their particular lives. You can't do that simply imo, but you would >>> have to get right down there in it, and deliberately have influence >>> which would help some particular animals. For example I've >>> explained that people who want to actually DO something could >>> get some of the newly hatched broiler pullets' brothers and raise >>> them up and give them MUCH longer lives...as long as they >>> wanted to...and then be sure to kill them as humanely as they >>> wanted to take the trouble to do it. That would save them from >>> the shitty death they do get, plus give them a LOT more life.... >>> >>> To let you know just how incredibly much I overestimated >>> the people in these ngs--and this is really pretty amusing by now-- >>> that is the sort of thing I imagined at least SOME of you people >>> were already doing. Of course the amusing part is the reality: That >>> not only are NONE of you even thinking about it, but for the past >>> 6 years or however long, it's that sort of thinking that YOU/"ARAs" >>> have been so maniacally trying to PREVENT. >> >>Too convoluted, I can't make any sense out of any of that. > > Of course you can't, because it involves thinking about the > ANIMALS and not simply thinking about YOU/"ARAs". I have already stipulated in my 1), 2), 3) question that the treatment of the animal is PARAMOUNT in deciding if it's moral or not. I have also stated categorically that I believe that both 1) and 3) are moral, completely contrary to what ARAs believe, so I can't understand how you can refer to me as "YOU/ARAs", as if we have the same view, we don't. The > idea of how people could actually contribute to decent lives > for farm animals never even enters YOUR/"ARAs'" minds, > and when someone points out one obvious way it could be > done, YOU/"ARAs" can't make any sense out of any of it. > I've been telling you this for quite a while now, here we have > a perfect example of it, and still you can't understand. If you would please, just answer the question and stop muddying the waters. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
<dh@.> wrote
>>There is nothing in the world you understand that I cannot. > > I understand the difference between life itself and the individual > life experiences animals have. Yet you constantly equivocate between "life itself" and "a decent life" when you say that "no life" is the opposite of "a decent life" when it is actually the opposite of "life itself". So either you do understand the difference as you say and you're being deliberately dishonest, or you don't understand the difference. > I understand that life > has a positive value for some animals. That is a vague, subjective opinion and you provide no reason why anyone should consider it. No matter how you dress a pig it's still a pig, and your position is still The Logic of the Larder no matter how you try to disguise it. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Life can have positive value | Vegan | |||
Life can have positive value | Vegan | |||
Life can have positive value | Vegan | |||
Article: Soy: Positive: Men do not need to be scared of soy | Vegan | |||
Article: Soy: Positive: Men do not need to be scared of soy | Vegan |