<dh@.> wrote
> 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

right... both of them are completely right. People who follow weird,
marginal ways of thinking frequently characterize them as "The Truth".
That's what you are doing.

<dh@.> wrote
> 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?

You don't "believe" what another person believes, you believe what they say,
or not. Both vegans and you are saying irrational, unbelievable things so
nobody should believe what they *or* you say.

In your desperate attempts to be the prophet carrying a great anti-AR
message to the world you have relegated yourself to eternal ****wittery.

dh@. lied:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >dh@. lied:
>
> >> 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.
>
> Why do you think anyone/everyone should believe them?

Forget that; it's a stupid question. Here's a good question: Why
won't you attempt to persuade "vegans" that they're wrong?

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:39:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> 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?
>
>You don't "believe" what another person believes, you believe what they say,
>or not. Both vegans and you are saying irrational, unbelievable things so
>nobody should believe what they *or* you say.

You're the one who comes up with fantasies. I just continue pointing
out the lives of billions of animals, and you keep saying not to think
about them because of imaginary ideas.

>In your desperate attempts to be the prophet carrying a great anti-AR
>message to the world you have relegated yourself to eternal ****wittery.

I'm just pointing out facts that YOU/"ARAs" don't want people to
think about. I guess you have to say I'm the dumbass for pointing
them out, since it's either that or face the fact that YOU/"THEY"
are the real dumbasses for having to have it pointed out to you,
and then going on denying the significance of billions of animals
for years after that. I wonder how many billion animals have lived
since YOU/"ARAs" first insisted that their lives are of no significance.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:30:37 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><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".

But when you take it down to the individual level there are
more details to consider if you're willing to consider them, but you
hate to consider details I've noticed, so...what? How could you?
Oh well, let's try it again......

>So either you do understand the
>difference as you say and you're being deliberately dishonest, or you don't
>understand the difference.

When you get down to considering if life is of positive value in
general to animals raised in particular ways, and even more so
if the lives of individual animals are of positive value--which I feel
sure you never do and don't want anyone to start doing--then it
becomes comparison of the particular lives/life in question, or
nonexistence. That is true whether the lives are good, terrible,
or in between. In the case of decent lives it's that or nothing, in
the case of terrible lives it's that or nothing...

>> 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.

Then why did you paste the fact that the method of husbandry
determines whether or not the life has positive or negative value to
the animal? WHY???

On 21 Nov 2005 17:19:15 -0800, Goo declaired:

>"Decent lives" may be morally superior to "shitty lives", but it IS NOT
>superior to "no life at all."

How could you possibly know that?

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 03:31:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:01:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...

>>>> 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?

Think about it until you become comfortable with it, instead of trying
to pretend it's not there.

>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?

Let it sink in and see if it gives you any more to think about.

>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?

That leads back to what you somehow have unlearned about life
sometimes having a positive value to the animal(s).

>>>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 did really, when I pointed out that YOU/"ARAs" are the ones
disagreeing with me. But my disagreement with YOU/"ARAs" is the
idea that 3) is the most ethically superior--much less "only"--option.

>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?

The whole thing comes down to whether or not to continue
with 1). When giving it consideration, the lives of the animals
MUST be considered, regardless of how much YOU/"ARAs"
obviously hate the fact. It's not my fault either BTW!!! I'm just
pointing it out to YOU/"ARAs" who are pretending that you
care somewhat about ANIMALS, but can't even get to the
most basic first step in considering them: considering THEM!

>>>> 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.

I refer to you and "them" in that way since you are using "their"
beliefs in an attempt to refute (or whatever) the facts I point out.
As yet I still must believe you are a dishonest "ARA" anyway, so
it's out of some consideration for you and Goo that I include the /,
feeling that's enough recognition of the micro-possibility that you
and he are really not "ARAs". Actually I'm insulting myself by
including it and playing along with your bullshit.

> 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.

LOL! Damn Dutch...I've already given you more info than you're
willing to think about. And I answer all your significant questions.
I even ask some of my own. By now I've surely given enough
info to let anyone know why I believe their lives should be
given as much or more consideration than their deaths. But over
6 damn years or however long it's been, no one has ever provided
a good reason why they should not...not even your fantastic
talking "AR" pig. They are no longer filthily housed, and as long as
they're killed humanely it doesn't matter how barberously they are
butchered, or even whether they are butchered at all. More details
that I consider, but to you are just confusing, bewildering, "muddying
the waters". They're still there though. This is just more complicated
than you want it to be. Again that's not my fault! You people hate
me and attack me though all I'm doing is pointing out facts which are
not my fault, but you/"they" are neglecting/refusing to consider,
which IS YOUR/"THEIR" fault. It all makes sense I guess...you not
only hate the facts, but you hate seeing them pointed out as much
or more than the facts themselves.

On 21 Nov 2005 17:15:42 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:

>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.

How have you?

>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.

In cases when it is for farm animals, "ARAs" want to disregard
the fact because it works against their objective to eliminate all of
them. It remains none the less, regardless of how much people
neglect or refuse to take it into consideration.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:33:53 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> 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
>
>right... both of them are completely right. People who follow weird,
>marginal ways of thinking frequently characterize them as "The Truth".
>That's what you are doing.

What I'm doing is pointing out things that YOU/"ARAs" don't
want to take into consideration, because they conflict with
whatever it is that YOU/"THEY" want to believe.
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
Decision-making is, for any reasonably intelligent person, a
difficult process. For a situation of even moderate complexity,
the number of inputs to consider is staggering. We all use a variety
of heuristics to narrow the data sets used for decision-making;
these heuristics are, of course, uniquely biased by the individual's
previous experiences. We tend to see the fewest number of choices
possible -- choosing among four options, for example, is
exponentially more difficult than choosing among two. Seeing a
decision as a choice between "this" or "that" (the two-party system,
for example) is a way of simplifying the decision-making process.

When you can see "this" or "that" as your only options -- two
distinct and opposite choices, even when they are not necessarily
opposed -- you can make a firm decision. Eliminating the "grey area"
introduced by extra choices is enormously important in reducing
cognitive dissonance. Once a decision is made, there is usually no
un-doing it, and so, really, there is no advantage to incorporating
new data into the schema related to the decision -- "gee, if I had
known, I would have..." does nothing but provoke regret. No one
likes to regret. Our aversion to cognitive dissonance keeps us sane.

If we all ran around seeing the grey areas and choosing among
dozens of subtly different options all the time, nothing would get
done. If we regretted every decision we made as our datasets
increased after the fact, we would be frozen by fear.

posted by uncleozzy at 03:48PM UTC on August 30, 2004

http://monkeyfilter.com/link.php/4334
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Unless you are an "ARA", the facts I point out should not
conflict with what you want to believe. Since they obviously
do conflict with whatever it is you want to believe, I'm left to
believe you must be a dishonest "ARA".

dh@. lied:
> On 21 Nov 2005 17:19:15 -0800, Leif Erikson wrote:
>
> >"Decent lives" may be morally superior to "shitty lives", but it IS NOT
> >superior to "no life at all."
>
> How could you possibly know that?

Because they cannot be compared. It is absurd to compare *any* quality
of life with "no life at all". The only comparison that makes sense is
of different qualities of life for an animal, given that it exists.
But the animal does not "benefit" from existing in the first place.

dh@. lied:
> On 21 Nov 2005 17:15:42 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>
> >dh@. lied:
> >> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>
> >> >dh@. lied:
> >>
> >> >> 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.
>
> How have you?

LOTS of ways, and you've seen them all; you just get some kind of sick
jollies by pretending you haven't.

In any case, it is irrelevant *how* I have done it; the relevant fact
is that I have, and you haven't. All you've offered in over six years
of ****ing away time is the same stale, illogical absurdity about the
goodness of causing animals to "experience life", as if that were some
kind of "benefit" to them. It isn't.


>
> >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.
>
> In cases when it is for farm animals,

It NEVER is for farm animals or any other kind of animal, including
humans: coming into existence NEVER is a benefit, for well documented
reasons.

dh@. lied:
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:39:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> ><dh@.> lied
> >> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Leif Canoza wrote:
> >>
> >>>dh@. lied:
> >>
> >>>> 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 don't "believe" what another person believes, you believe what they say,
> >or not. Both vegans and you are saying irrational, unbelievable things so
> >nobody should believe what they *or* you say.
>
> You're the one who comes up with fantasies. I just continue pointing
> out the lives of billions of animals, and you keep saying not to think
> about them because of imaginary ideas.
>
> >In your desperate attempts to be the prophet carrying a great anti-AR
> >message to the world you have relegated yourself to eternal ****wittery.
>
> I'm just pointing out facts that YOU/"ARAs"

You aren't pointing out any facts. You're blabbering on pointlessly
about an obvious absurdity.

On 23 Nov 2005 09:40:34 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:

>dh@. lied:
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:39:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><dh@.> lied
>> >> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:57:42 GMT, Leif Canoza wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>dh@. lied:
>> >>
>> >>>> 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 don't "believe" what another person believes, you believe what they say,
>> >or not. Both vegans and you are saying irrational, unbelievable things so
>> >nobody should believe what they *or* you say.
>>
>> You're the one who comes up with fantasies. I just continue pointing
>> out the lives of billions of animals, and you keep saying not to think
>> about them because of imaginary ideas.
>>
>> >In your desperate attempts to be the prophet carrying a great anti-AR
>> >message to the world you have relegated yourself to eternal ****wittery.
>>
>> I'm just pointing out facts that YOU/"ARAs"
>
>You aren't pointing out any facts. You're blabbering on pointlessly
>about an obvious absurdity.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:39:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> 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?
>>
>>You don't "believe" what another person believes, you believe what they
>>say,
>>or not. Both vegans and you are saying irrational, unbelievable things so
>>nobody should believe what they *or* you say.
>
> You're the one who comes up with fantasies. I just continue pointing
> out the lives of billions of animals, and you keep saying not to think
> about them because of imaginary ideas.

Billions of domestic animals raised and killed to be food is not "a good
thing" in and of itself. In any case there is good reason to believe that if
those animals were NOT raised, that a comparable number of wild animals or
more would subsist *in the wild* in more natural conditions using the same
pasture and other resources we currently use and extract to support
livestock. So by any rational assessment there is no "net gain" in animal
life by raising animals as livestock, *even if* you think that animal lives
are a good thing per se, and you haven't convinced anyone of that anyway..

>>In your desperate attempts to be the prophet carrying a great anti-AR
>>message to the world you have relegated yourself to eternal ****wittery.
>
> I'm just pointing out facts that YOU/"ARAs" don't want people to
> think about.

You aren't pointing out any facts, you are selecting information that you
think benefits your idiotic case and ignoring information that doesn't,
exactly what ARAs do.

> I guess you have to say I'm the dumbass for pointing
> them out, since it's either that or face the fact that YOU/"THEY"
> are the real dumbasses for having to have it pointed out to you,
> and then going on denying the significance of billions of animals
> for years after that. I wonder how many billion animals have lived
> since YOU/"ARAs" first insisted that their lives are of no significance.

Yes, you are a dumbass, and I *am* denying the moral significance of what
you "point out". I am also pointing out to you that raising livestock does
NOT result in a net increase in the number of animals, and does NOT make the
lives of animals any better. What it does is provide humans with valuable
products, and that is sufficient reason to do it.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:30:37 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><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".
>
> But when you take it down to the individual level there are
> more details to consider if you're willing to consider them, but you
> hate to consider details I've noticed, so...what? How could you?
> Oh well, let's try it again......
>
>>So either you do understand the
>>difference as you say and you're being deliberately dishonest, or you
>>don't
>>understand the difference.
>
> When you get down to considering if life is of positive value in
> general to animals raised in particular ways, and even more so
> if the lives of individual animals are of positive value--which I feel
> sure you never do and don't want anyone to start doing--then it
> becomes comparison of the particular lives/life in question, or
> nonexistence. That is true whether the lives are good, terrible,
> or in between. In the case of decent lives it's that or nothing, in
> the case of terrible lives it's that or nothing...

So either you do understand the difference as you say and you're being
deliberately dishonest, or you don't understand the difference.

Which is it?

>
>>> 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.
>
> Then why did you paste the fact that the method of husbandry
> determines whether or not the life has positive or negative value to
> the animal? WHY???

I WROTE it because it's true. It doesn't mean that raising livestock is a
good thing per se. Raising livestock is good because it's useful. It doesn't
cause MORE animals to be born, it doesn't cause animals to have better
lives, it doesn't do any of the things you stupidly try to imply that it
does.

<dh@.> wrote
> On 21 Nov 2005 17:19:15 -0800, Goo declaired:
>
>>"Decent lives" may be morally superior to "shitty lives", but it IS NOT
>>superior to "no life at all."
>
> How could you possibly know that?

Because he is much more intelligent than you. Your argument is an absurd
attempt to take a metaphysical notion about existence and mix it with an
argument about animal welfare. "Non-existence" is not a real state, and
cannot be used to formulate real arguments. The concept can be used in
metaphysical discussions to indicate not existing but it does not transfer
to real-world arguments. I realize you're far too dull to get any of this..

dh@. blabbered incoherently:
>
> When you get down to considering if life is of positive value in
> general to animals raised in particular ways,

NO. This is even more absurdity. You cannot "add up" the value of
life to individual animals and come up with some crazy-**** "value in
general". Things ONLY have value, if they have any value at all, to
individual organisms.


> and even more so
> if the lives of individual animals are of positive value

"getting to experience life" in and of itself is not not of *any* value
to any individual animals.

Six worthless years of your life. Just think how many more chickens
you could have ****ed if you hadn't wasted all this time going nowhere
in usenet.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 03:31:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:01:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>
>>>>> 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?
>
> Think about it until you become comfortable with it, instead of trying
> to pretend it's not there.

OK, I've thought about it, now what?

>>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?
>
> Let it sink in and see if it gives you any more to think about.

It didn't, now what?

>>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?
>
> That leads back to what you somehow have unlearned about life
> sometimes having a positive value to the animal(s).

And then?

>>>>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 did really, when I pointed out that YOU/"ARAs" are the ones
> disagreeing with me. But my disagreement with YOU/"ARAs" is the
> idea that 3) is the most ethically superior--much less "only"--option.

No, I am saying that 1) and 3) are equally ethical.

>>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?
>
> The whole thing comes down to whether or not to continue
> with 1).

I continue supporting the raising of animals humaely, yes.

> When giving it consideration, the lives of the animals
> MUST be considered,

I consider the conditions in which they live, not their metaphysical
existence.

> regardless of how much YOU/"ARAs"
> obviously hate the fact. It's not my fault either BTW!!! I'm just
> pointing it out to YOU/"ARAs" who are pretending that you
> care somewhat about ANIMALS, but can't even get to the
> most basic first step in considering them: considering THEM!

If that means using the logic of the larder, then I'm not going to do 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> I refer to you and "them" in that way since you are using "their"
> beliefs in an attempt to refute (or whatever) the facts I point out.

No, I am not. I just clearly outlined that I don't.

> As yet I still must believe you are a dishonest "ARA" anyway, so
> it's out of some consideration for you and Goo that I include the /,
> feeling that's enough recognition of the micro-possibility that you
> and he are really not "ARAs". Actually I'm insulting myself by
> including it and playing along with your bullshit.

You're not being honest at all, you never will, because you know that to do
so would mean admitting that NON-ARAs have a valid argument against this
silliness of yours.

>
>> 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.
>
> LOL! Damn Dutch...I've already given you more info than you're
> willing to think about.

I've thought about it.

> And I answer all your significant questions.

You agree, but you think 1) doesn't go far enough. It's not enough to
support the humane treatment of animals by selective consumption, we must
"consider" those animals' lives in some metaphysical mental equation that
ends up benefitting who exactly?

> I even ask some of my own. By now I've surely given enough
> info to let anyone know why I believe their lives should be
> given as much or more consideration than their deaths. But over
> 6 damn years or however long it's been, no one has ever provided
> a good reason why they should not...not even your fantastic
> talking "AR" pig. They are no longer filthily housed, and as long as
> they're killed humanely it doesn't matter how barberously they are
> butchered, or even whether they are butchered at all. More details
> that I consider, but to you are just confusing, bewildering, "muddying
> the waters". They're still there though. This is just more complicated
> than you want it to be. Again that's not my fault! You people hate
> me and attack me though all I'm doing is pointing out facts which are
> not my fault, but you/"they" are neglecting/refusing to consider,
> which IS YOUR/"THEIR" fault. It all makes sense I guess...you not
> only hate the facts, but you hate seeing them pointed out as much
> or more than the facts themselves.

You are promoting a nonsensical mode of thinking. That's not my fault.

Dutch wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote
>
>>On 21 Nov 2005 17:19:15 -0800, Goo declaired:
>>
>>
>>>"Decent lives" may be morally superior to "shitty lives", but it IS NOT
>>>superior to "no life at all."
>>
>> How could you possibly know that?
>
>
> Because he is much more intelligent than you. Your argument is an absurd
> attempt to take a metaphysical notion about existence and mix it with an
> argument about animal welfare. "Non-existence" is not a real state, and
> cannot be used to formulate real arguments. The concept can be used in
> metaphysical discussions to indicate not existing but it does not transfer
> to real-world arguments. I realize you're far too dull to get any of this..

If the quality of life is of little importance but vastly superior to
"no life at all" then the value of any mammal including farm animals or
humans must be determined by the millions of individual lives of
bacteria which inhabit their bodies rather than the value of the single
sentient life of the more complex beings. In my opinion life by
itself is inherntly worth nothing at all. It only gains "value" because
of the ability of various creatures to have thoughs and emotions about
their relations with other creatures. The ability to have such thoughts
and emotions certainly isn't restricted to humans, but isn't inherent in
all forms of life.

On 23 Nov 2005 09:34:54 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:

>dh@. lied:
>> On 21 Nov 2005 17:19:15 -0800, Leif Erikson wrote:
>>
>> >"Decent lives" may be morally superior to "shitty lives", but it IS NOT
>> >superior to "no life at all."
>>
>> How could you possibly know that?
>
>Because they cannot be compared.

You did compare them, and you did insist that: "Decent lives" IS NOT
superior to "no life at all." So what is the wrong in killing things Goo, if even
decent lives are NOT superior to no life?

On 23 Nov 2005 09:38:30 -0800, Goober lied:

>dh@. asked Goo:
>
>> How have you?
>
>LOTS of ways

Explain one. And if you are able to do that--which we know you
are NOT!--then go on to explain at least two more or it will be even
more obvious that you're a liar.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:19:11 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:39:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>>You don't "believe" what another person believes, you believe what they
>>>say,
>>>or not. Both vegans and you are saying irrational, unbelievable things so
>>>nobody should believe what they *or* you say.
>>
>> You're the one who comes up with fantasies. I just continue pointing
>> out the lives of billions of animals, and you keep saying not to think
>> about them because of imaginary ideas.
>
>Billions of domestic animals raised and killed to be food is not "a good
>thing" in and of itself. In any case there is good reason to believe that if
>those animals were NOT raised, that a comparable number of wild animals or
>more would subsist *in the wild* in more natural conditions using the same
>pasture and other resources we currently use and extract to support
>livestock.

Why should anyone believe that? Which particular wild
animals do you say we should think about in place of:

1) pigs

2) chickens

3) turkeys

4) sheep

5) cattle

>So by any rational assessment there is no "net gain" in animal
>life by raising animals as livestock, *even if* you think that animal lives
>are a good thing per se,

I can't believe that until I see which potential future wildlife you would
replace the livestock with. And if you didn't explain why when you wrote
in your theoretical wildlife alternative(s) above, please explain why we would
even consider making the change to those particular animals instead.

>and you haven't convinced anyone of that anyway..
>
>>>In your desperate attempts to be the prophet carrying a great anti-AR
>>>message to the world you have relegated yourself to eternal ****wittery.
>>
>> I'm just pointing out facts that YOU/"ARAs" don't want people to
>> think about.
>
>You aren't pointing out any facts,

That's a lie.

>you are selecting information

Proving that it was a lie.

>that you
>think benefits your idiotic case and ignoring information that doesn't,

What information doesn't?

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:23:08 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:30:37 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><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".
>>
>> But when you take it down to the individual level there are
>> more details to consider if you're willing to consider them, but you
>> hate to consider details I've noticed, so...what? How could you?
>> Oh well, let's try it again......
>>
>>>So either you do understand the
>>>difference as you say and you're being deliberately dishonest, or you
>>>don't
>>>understand the difference.
>>
>> When you get down to considering if life is of positive value in
>> general to animals raised in particular ways, and even more so
>> if the lives of individual animals are of positive value--which I feel
>> sure you never do and don't want anyone to start doing--then it
>> becomes comparison of the particular lives/life in question, or
>> nonexistence. That is true whether the lives are good, terrible,
>> or in between. In the case of decent lives it's that or nothing, in
>> the case of terrible lives it's that or nothing...
>
>So either you do understand the difference as you say

As I explained.

>and you're being
>deliberately dishonest, or you don't understand the difference.
>
>Which is it?

It's obviously too "complicated" for you to understand, or you
could now understand it.

>>>> 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.
>>
>> Then why did you paste the fact that the method of husbandry
>> determines whether or not the life has positive or negative value to
>> the animal? WHY???
>
>I WROTE it

Doubtful.

>because it's true.

Yes it is true, but it's also completely meaningless to YOU/"ARAs",
and I can not believe that you/"they" understand it.

>It doesn't mean that raising livestock is a
>good thing per se. Raising livestock is good because it's useful.

Their usefulness is meaningless in regards to whether or not it's
cruel to them.

>It doesn't
>cause MORE animals to be born,

I disbelieve you.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:48:27 -0700, Louis Boyd > wrote:

>Dutch wrote:
>> <dh@.> wrote
>>
>>>On 21 Nov 2005 17:19:15 -0800, Goo declaired:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Decent lives" may be morally superior to "shitty lives", but it IS NOT
>>>>superior to "no life at all."
>>>
>>> How could you possibly know that?
>>
>>
>> Because he is much more intelligent than you. Your argument is an absurd
>> attempt to take a metaphysical notion about existence and mix it with an
>> argument about animal welfare. "Non-existence" is not a real state, and
>> cannot be used to formulate real arguments. The concept can be used in
>> metaphysical discussions to indicate not existing but it does not transfer
>> to real-world arguments. I realize you're far too dull to get any of this..
>
>If the quality of life is of little importance

It's of great importance.

>but vastly superior to
>"no life at all" then the value of any mammal including farm animals or
> humans must be determined by the millions of individual lives of
>bacteria which inhabit their bodies rather than the value of the single
> sentient life of the more complex beings. In my opinion life by
>itself is inherntly worth nothing at all. It only gains "value" because
>of the ability of various creatures to have thoughs and emotions about
>their relations with other creatures.

Why would you restrict it to relations with other creatures?

>The ability to have such thoughts
>and emotions certainly isn't restricted to humans, but isn't inherent in
>all forms of life.

That's something that comes around once in a while. When I point
out that positive mental experiences are what give life a positive
value, people like Goo will try to create the impression that animals
can't experience positive feelings or emotions to the degree that it
could give life a positive value. But they can none the less.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:30:46 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On 21 Nov 2005 17:19:15 -0800, Goo declaired:
>>
>>>"Decent lives" may be morally superior to "shitty lives", but it IS NOT
>>>superior to "no life at all."
>>
>> How could you possibly know that?
>
>Because he is much more intelligent than you.

IF no life at all is equivalent or superior to decent lives, what is the
wrong in killing things?

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:42:09 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 03:31:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:01:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>
>> Think about it until you become comfortable with it, instead of trying
>> to pretend it's not there.
>
>OK, I've thought about it, now what?
>
>>>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?
>>
>> Let it sink in and see if it gives you any more to think about.
>
>It didn't, now what?

Now it should be no longer too convoluted. If it is, you didn't do
what you said you did.

>>>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?
>>
>> That leads back to what you somehow have unlearned about life
>> sometimes having a positive value to the animal(s).
>
>And then?

Then you can't understand, because you somehow have unlearned
about life sometimes having a positive value to the animal(s). So you're
stuck right there, unable to continue, unable to learn more, unable to
even comprehend anything regarding positive value TO THE ANIMALS.
As I've told you and you have demonstrated, there can be no "And then?"
for you, because YOU/"ARAs" are only capable of thinking about YOU.
"And then?" would require you to think about what the animals gain.

>>>>>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 did really, when I pointed out that YOU/"ARAs" are the ones
>> disagreeing with me. But my disagreement with YOU/"ARAs" is the
>> idea that 3) is the most ethically superior--much less "only"--option.
>
>No, I am saying that 1) and 3) are equally ethical.

But you don't feel that way, you're just saying it. If you really felt
that way you would have no problem with the facts I point out. But
the facts I point out obviously conflict with what YOU/"ARAs" want
to believe, which is that 3) is the ethically superior choice.

[...]
>> I refer to you and "them" in that way since you are using "their"
>> beliefs in an attempt to refute (or whatever) the facts I point out.
>
>No, I am not. I just clearly outlined that I don't.

No you didn't. You simply said that you don't, while you continue
to prove that you do...LOL...you couldn't be more obvious.

>> As yet I still must believe you are a dishonest "ARA" anyway, so
>> it's out of some consideration for you and Goo that I include the /,
>> feeling that's enough recognition of the micro-possibility that you
>> and he are really not "ARAs". Actually I'm insulting myself by
>> including it and playing along with your bullshit.
>
>You're not being honest at all, you never will, because you know that to do
>so would mean admitting that NON-ARAs have a valid argument against this
>silliness of yours.

LOL!!! Then why in the hell have I never heard it or seen it written?????
LOL....oh thanks for the great humor on Thanksgiving!!! LOL...I'm trying to
imagine what this valid argument is btw, and have been for years, so if you
could finally just go ahead and explain what it is, PLEASE do so. Goo never
could, Etter damn sure couldn't, Ward Clark didn't even make an attempt,
and Swamp could do no better than present a few "AR" beliefs that I don't
agree with and he might not either. But if you know a valid argument against
giving the animals' lives as much consideration as their deaths, I'd like to
finally learn what it is. But unless you get it to me before my Thanksgiving
dinner, I will be thankful for the food and also hope that the animals who
contributed to it had lives of positive value.

>>> 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.
>>
>> LOL! Damn Dutch...I've already given you more info than you're
>> willing to think about.
>
>I've thought about it.

Not enough to appreciate it. You probably have a greater "appreciation"
for a pretty sunset than you ever could for the lives of billions of farm
animals, and I doubt you could really appreciate a pretty sunset to any
extent. How could you?

>> And I answer all your significant questions.
>
>You agree, but you think 1) doesn't go far enough. It's not enough to
>support the humane treatment of animals by selective consumption, we must
>"consider" those animals' lives in some metaphysical mental equation that
>ends up benefitting who exactly?
>
>> I even ask some of my own. By now I've surely given enough
>> info to let anyone know why I believe their lives should be
>> given as much or more consideration than their deaths. But over
>> 6 damn years or however long it's been, no one has ever provided
>> a good reason why they should not...not even your fantastic
>> talking "AR" pig. They are no longer filthily housed, and as long as
>> they're killed humanely it doesn't matter how barberously they are
>> butchered, or even whether they are butchered at all. More details
>> that I consider, but to you are just confusing, bewildering, "muddying
>> the waters". They're still there though. This is just more complicated
>> than you want it to be. Again that's not my fault! You people hate
>> me and attack me though all I'm doing is pointing out facts which are
>> not my fault, but you/"they" are neglecting/refusing to consider,
>> which IS YOUR/"THEIR" fault. It all makes sense I guess...you not
>> only hate the facts, but you hate seeing them pointed out as much
>> or more than the facts themselves.
>
>You are promoting a nonsensical mode of thinking.

I'm not even promoting any "mode of thinking" except to consider
all of the issues regarding the animals, NOT just the ones that support
the gross misnomer "AR". I say consider the animals when we think
about human influence on animals, and hilariously/disgustingly
YOU/"ARAs" insist that we restrict ourselves from considering the
animals when we think about human influence on animals. LOL...the
very idea is so stupid it's funny.

>That's not my fault.

It is your fault--and very very much so--that YOU/"ARAs" want to
restrict our thinking to things which do not work against the suggestion
to "ethically" eliminate all farm animals, INSTEAD OF deliberately
providing them with decent lives. The second option is the "And then?"
you asked about, but YOU/"AR" can't go there, and that IS your fault.
It's not mine, that's for sure!

On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:20:17 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> I guess you have to say I'm the dumbass
>
>Agreed, for once.

It has yet to be explained how though, so explain how
if you think you can.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:19:11 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:39:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>>You don't "believe" what another person believes, you believe what they
>>>>say,
>>>>or not. Both vegans and you are saying irrational, unbelievable things
>>>>so
>>>>nobody should believe what they *or* you say.
>>>
>>> You're the one who comes up with fantasies. I just continue pointing
>>> out the lives of billions of animals, and you keep saying not to think
>>> about them because of imaginary ideas.
>>
>>Billions of domestic animals raised and killed to be food is not "a good
>>thing" in and of itself. In any case there is good reason to believe that
>>if
>>those animals were NOT raised, that a comparable number of wild animals or
>>more would subsist *in the wild* in more natural conditions using the same
>>pasture and other resources we currently use and extract to support
>>livestock.
>
> Why should anyone believe that? Which particular wild
> animals do you say we should think about in place of:
>
> 1) pigs
>
> 2) chickens
>
> 3) turkeys
>
> 4) sheep
>
> 5) cattle

Why do you need to think about any at all? If pasture and grain fields used
to support livestock were returned to the wild hundreds or thousands of
animal species would rebound. The list is too long to even start.

>>So by any rational assessment there is no "net gain" in animal
>>life by raising animals as livestock, *even if* you think that animal
>>lives
>>are a good thing per se,
>
> I can't believe that until I see which potential future wildlife you
> would
> replace the livestock with.

We don't need to "replace" them, the land naturally supports wildlife and
unless we have exterminated them completely the same ones will return, deer,
groundhogs, mice, birds, etc etc... on and on.

> And if you didn't explain why when you wrote
> in your theoretical wildlife alternative(s) above, please explain why we
> would
> even consider making the change to those particular animals instead.

We wouldn't "make the change", it would just happen if we stopped using
those lands and resources for livestock. I am merely pointing out that it
would not result in any net loss in animals "experiencing life" as you
falsely argue.

>
>>and you haven't convinced anyone of that anyway..
>>
>>>>In your desperate attempts to be the prophet carrying a great anti-AR
>>>>message to the world you have relegated yourself to eternal ****wittery.
>>>
>>> I'm just pointing out facts that YOU/"ARAs" don't want people to
>>> think about.
>>
>>You aren't pointing out any facts,
>
> That's a lie.

It's a fact.

>>you are selecting information
>
> Proving that it was a lie.

No

>
>>that you
>>think benefits your idiotic case and ignoring information that doesn't,
>
> What information doesn't?

See above.

<dh@.> wrote
>>It doesn't
>>cause MORE animals to be born,
>
> I disbelieve you.

You have no logical basis to disbelieve it. An acre of land supports many
more animals and a more diverse variety if it's left alone than if we
intrude on it constantly with poison and machinery, or kill off many other
species so one can use the resource. The fact that cattle are large and many
of the wild species are very small is strong evidence that MANY MORE animals
would replace the few livestock that use the land.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:30:46 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On 21 Nov 2005 17:19:15 -0800, Goo declaired:
>>>
>>>>"Decent lives" may be morally superior to "shitty lives", but it IS NOT
>>>>superior to "no life at all."
>>>
>>> How could you possibly know that?
>>
>>Because he is much more intelligent than you.
>
> IF no life at all is equivalent or superior to decent lives, what is
> the
> wrong in killing things?

That question demonstrates your moral confusion. Never being born is not the
same as being killed, not physically, metaphysically or morally. Have you
ever heard of a person being charged with the crime of not having children?

<dh@.> wrote the same old shit

Stop promoting The Logic of the Larder ****wit, it'll never work.

The fool continues to wonder:

>>>And then?
>
>> Then you can't understand, because you somehow have unlearned
>>about life sometimes having a positive value to the animal(s). So you're
>>stuck right there, unable to continue, unable to learn more, unable to
>>even comprehend anything regarding positive value TO THE ANIMALS.

>Stop promoting The Logic of the Larder ****wit, it'll never work.

Your imaginary talking "AR" pig is just a meaningless fantasy.
But even though Goo told your stupid gullible ass differently, life
does have positive value to some farm animals.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:17:33 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>>>It doesn't
>>>cause MORE animals to be born,
>>
>> I disbelieve you.
>
>You have no logical basis to disbelieve it. An acre of land supports many
>more animals and a more diverse variety if it's left alone than if we
>intrude on it constantly with poison and machinery, or kill off many other
>species so one can use the resource. The fact that cattle are large and many
>of the wild species are very small is strong evidence that MANY MORE animals
>would replace the few livestock that use the land.

I believe that livestock have better lives than most very small wild animals,
so why should I "ethically", "morally", or in any other way favor a bunch of
very small wild animals over a lesser number of the same animals AND livestock?
This will be another one you can't answer, like why we should favor only wildlife
in crop fields instead of that plus wildlife and livestock in grazing areas. And of
course you also can't explain why we should disregard the lives of livestock
which are of positive value, but how could you discuss ANY details about that
when you can't even comprehend what it means? LOL...obviously you can't.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:20:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:30:46 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>> On 21 Nov 2005 17:19:15 -0800, Goo declaired:
>>>>
>>>>>"Decent lives" may be morally superior to "shitty lives", but it IS NOT
>>>>>superior to "no life at all."
>>>>
>>>> How could you possibly know that?
>>>
>>>Because he is much more intelligent than you.
>>
>> IF no life at all is equivalent or superior to decent lives, what is
>> the
>> wrong in killing things?
>
>That question demonstrates your moral confusion.

It demonstrates that I believe Goo lied and can't explain his
own lie.

>Never being born is not the
>same as being killed, not physically, metaphysically or morally.

Only if Goo lied and decent lives ARE superior to no life at all.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:13:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:19:11 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:39:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't "believe" what another person believes, you believe what they
>>>>>say,
>>>>>or not. Both vegans and you are saying irrational, unbelievable things
>>>>>so
>>>>>nobody should believe what they *or* you say.
>>>>
>>>> You're the one who comes up with fantasies. I just continue pointing
>>>> out the lives of billions of animals, and you keep saying not to think
>>>> about them because of imaginary ideas.
>>>
>>>Billions of domestic animals raised and killed to be food is not "a good
>>>thing" in and of itself. In any case there is good reason to believe that
>>>if
>>>those animals were NOT raised, that a comparable number of wild animals or
>>>more would subsist *in the wild* in more natural conditions using the same
>>>pasture and other resources we currently use and extract to support
>>>livestock.
>>
>> Why should anyone believe that? Which particular wild
>> animals do you say we should think about in place of:
>>
>> 1) pigs
>>
>> 2) chickens
>>
>> 3) turkeys
>>
>> 4) sheep
>>
>> 5) cattle
>
>Why do you need to think about any at all?

Because YOU brought it up you moron. I know that just because
you brought it up doesn't mean you have any clue what you're trying
to talk about, so this is to confirm that you don't, AGAIN.

>If pasture and grain fields used
>to support livestock were returned to the wild hundreds or thousands of
>animal species would rebound.

Like what, and why should we support them over livestock?

>The list is too long to even start.

You just don't have a clue, which is why you are unable to
even start.

>>>So by any rational assessment there is no "net gain" in animal
>>>life by raising animals as livestock, *even if* you think that animal
>>>lives
>>>are a good thing per se,
>>
>> I can't believe that until I see which potential future wildlife you
>> would
>> replace the livestock with.
>
>We don't need to "replace" them, the land naturally supports wildlife and
>unless we have exterminated them completely the same ones will return, deer,
>groundhogs, mice, birds, etc etc... on and on.

They are there now you idiot. Name animals that aren't there that somehow
would be, and why anyone should want them instead.

>> And if you didn't explain why when you wrote
>> in your theoretical wildlife alternative(s) above, please explain why we
>> would
>> even consider making the change to those particular animals instead.
>
>We wouldn't "make the change", it would just happen if we stopped using
>those lands and resources for livestock.

That WOULD BE THE CHANGE you poor ignorant moron.

>I am merely pointing out that it
>would not result in any net loss in animals "experiencing life"

I disbelieve that stupid shit, which is coming from someone who
so far appears to have absolutely no clue what he's trying to talk
about (that's you).

>as you
>falsely argue.

Then explain what makes you think that we would just let land
sit around not being used for anything other than to allow wildlife
to live there. Explain how YOU/"ARAs" would get all the people
who are making money raising farm animals, to allow their land
to sit and do nothing just so these imaginary wild animals you're
fantasising about but are unable to describe can live there without
the livestock being there also.

>>>and you haven't convinced anyone of that anyway..
>>>
>>>>>In your desperate attempts to be the prophet carrying a great anti-AR
>>>>>message to the world you have relegated yourself to eternal ****wittery.
>>>>
>>>> I'm just pointing out facts that YOU/"ARAs" don't want people to
>>>> think about.
>>>
>>>You aren't pointing out any facts,
>>
>> That's a lie.
>
>It's a fact.
>
>>>you are selecting information
>>
>> Proving that it was a lie.
>
>No
>
>>
>>>that you
>>>think benefits your idiotic case and ignoring information that doesn't,
>>
>> What information doesn't?
>
>See above.

There is none. If you humorously believe there is, then just quote
whatever it is you think does the job and we can laugh about your
attempt.

<dh@.> wrote
> The fool continues to wonder:

Indeed...

>>>>And then?
>>
>>> Then you can't understand, because you somehow have unlearned
>>>about life sometimes having a positive value to the animal(s). So you're
>>>stuck right there, unable to continue, unable to learn more, unable to
>>>even comprehend anything regarding positive value TO THE ANIMALS.
>
>>Stop promoting The Logic of the Larder ****wit, it'll never work.
>
> Your imaginary talking "AR" pig is just a meaningless fantasy.

It's not meaningless, you just don't understand it.

> But even though Goo told your stupid gullible ass differently, life
> does have positive value to some farm animals.

Sure it does, and kudos for the person who facilitates the conditions that
cause "positive value" as opposed to a person who facilitates "negative
value" (i.e. suffering). But this has nothing to do with vegans. To use
people as an analogy, some children's lives have positive value as a result
of good parenting, some children's lives have negative value as a result of
bad parenting. One can legitimately draw a moral comparison between those
parents, i.e. the good parents are doing something more good, more moral by
creating lives of positive value compared to the bad parents. But some
people don't have children at all. It's not fair play to toss them into this
comparison at all, they are not doing anything wrong by not being parents.
They are judged on what they DO, not based on something someone else does.
Vegans are judged on what they DO, and that for the most part is to support
cds in agriculture, which contradicts their assumptions about animal death
and suffering. It's not relevant that they DON'T support lives for animals
that other people eat.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:17:33 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>It doesn't
>>>>cause MORE animals to be born,
>>>
>>> I disbelieve you.
>>
>>You have no logical basis to disbelieve it. An acre of land supports many
>>more animals and a more diverse variety if it's left alone than if we
>>intrude on it constantly with poison and machinery, or kill off many other
>>species so one can use the resource. The fact that cattle are large and
>>many
>>of the wild species are very small is strong evidence that MANY MORE
>>animals
>>would replace the few livestock that use the land.
>
> I believe that livestock have better lives than most very small wild
> animals,

You have no grounds to assume that. Wild animals have freedom to live as
nature intended, that's not for us to judge.

> so why should I "ethically", "morally", or in any other way favor a bunch
> of
> very small wild animals over a lesser number of the same animals AND
> livestock?

I didn't say you should. I pointed it out to show that your contention that
livestock means that more animals "get to experience life" is an empty
argument.

> This will be another one you can't answer, like why we should favor only
> wildlife
> in crop fields instead of that plus wildlife and livestock in grazing
> areas.

The question is why should we consider livestock and wildlife as any better
than only wildlife? How can you say that it's important to consider that
livestock *exist* and "experience life" when animals will *exist* and
"experience life" whether we raise livestock or not?

> And of
> course you also can't explain why we should disregard the lives of
> livestock
> which are of positive value,

What do mean by "disregard the lives"? Don't think about them? Why should
we?

> but how could you discuss ANY details about that
> when you can't even comprehend what it means? LOL...obviously you can't.

If you don't explain clearly what it means how can I comprehend it? Taking
your previous arguments as evidence I assume that it means that we want us
to think about the livestock that "enjoyed the experience" then as a result
feel satisfaction that we have done a good thing by consuming body parts. I
am not going to indulge in that kind of thinking because it's sophistry and
I see no point to it. Is that what you mean?

<dh@.> wrote
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:20:27 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:30:46 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>> On 21 Nov 2005 17:19:15 -0800, Goo declaired:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Decent lives" may be morally superior to "shitty lives", but it IS
>>>>>>NOT
>>>>>>superior to "no life at all."
>>>>>
>>>>> How could you possibly know that?
>>>>
>>>>Because he is much more intelligent than you.
>>>
>>> IF no life at all is equivalent or superior to decent lives, what is
>>> the
>>> wrong in killing things?
>>
>>That question demonstrates your moral confusion.
>
> It demonstrates that I believe Goo lied and can't explain his
> own lie.
>
>>Never being born is not the
>>same as being killed, not physically, metaphysically or morally.
>
> Only if Goo lied and decent lives ARE superior to no life at all.

No, unconditionally.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 20:13:04 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:19:11 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 01:39:14 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You don't "believe" what another person believes, you believe what
>>>>>>they
>>>>>>say,
>>>>>>or not. Both vegans and you are saying irrational, unbelievable things
>>>>>>so
>>>>>>nobody should believe what they *or* you say.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're the one who comes up with fantasies. I just continue
>>>>> pointing
>>>>> out the lives of billions of animals, and you keep saying not to think
>>>>> about them because of imaginary ideas.
>>>>
>>>>Billions of domestic animals raised and killed to be food is not "a good
>>>>thing" in and of itself. In any case there is good reason to believe
>>>>that
>>>>if
>>>>those animals were NOT raised, that a comparable number of wild animals
>>>>or
>>>>more would subsist *in the wild* in more natural conditions using the
>>>>same
>>>>pasture and other resources we currently use and extract to support
>>>>livestock.
>>>
>>> Why should anyone believe that? Which particular wild
>>> animals do you say we should think about in place of:
>>>
>>> 1) pigs
>>>
>>> 2) chickens
>>>
>>> 3) turkeys
>>>
>>> 4) sheep
>>>
>>> 5) cattle
>>
>>Why do you need to think about any at all?
>
> Because YOU brought it up you moron. I know that just because
> you brought it up doesn't mean you have any clue what you're trying
> to talk about, so this is to confirm that you don't, AGAIN.

I didn't bring it up, you did. You're the one that insists that we need to
"consider" (i.e. think about) animals that exist because we consume animal
products. I'm asking you why.

>>If pasture and grain fields used
>>to support livestock were returned to the wild hundreds or thousands of
>>animal species would rebound.
>
> Like what, and why should we support them over livestock?
>
>>The list is too long to even start.
>
> You just don't have a clue, which is why you are unable to
> even start.

Don't you know what kinds of animals live in plains, bush and forested
environments?

>>>>So by any rational assessment there is no "net gain" in animal
>>>>life by raising animals as livestock, *even if* you think that animal
>>>>lives
>>>>are a good thing per se,
>>>
>>> I can't believe that until I see which potential future wildlife you
>>> would
>>> replace the livestock with.
>>
>>We don't need to "replace" them, the land naturally supports wildlife and
>>unless we have exterminated them completely the same ones will return,
>>deer,
>>groundhogs, mice, birds, etc etc... on and on.
>
> They are there now you idiot. Name animals that aren't there that
> somehow
> would be, and why anyone should want them instead.

All of the ones I mentioned, and many more, in much larger numbers. And
there are plenty are reaons to want a diversity of animals to exist in the
wild. The question is, why should we think about animal raised in captivity
as you do and not consider that they exist onlt at the expense of many more
wild animals?

>>> And if you didn't explain why when you wrote
>>> in your theoretical wildlife alternative(s) above, please explain why we
>>> would
>>> even consider making the change to those particular animals instead.
>>
>>We wouldn't "make the change", it would just happen if we stopped using
>>those lands and resources for livestock.
>
> That WOULD BE THE CHANGE you poor ignorant moron.

So what? There would be a change, whoopee shit. Different animals would
exist, wild ones. Why should that concern me at all?

>>I am merely pointing out that it
>>would not result in any net loss in animals "experiencing life"
>
> I disbelieve that stupid shit, which is coming from someone who
> so far appears to have absolutely no clue what he's trying to talk
> about (that's you).

I don't care what you claim to disbelieve, make a valid argument against it.

>>as you
>>falsely argue.
>
> Then explain what makes you think that we would just let land
> sit around not being used for anything other than to allow wildlife
> to live there.

What's wrong with land being left alone? It's good for it, and for
biodiversity. We only need so many malls and condos.

> Explain how YOU/"ARAs" would get all the people
> who are making money raising farm animals, to allow their land
> to sit and do nothing just so these imaginary wild animals you're
> fantasising about but are unable to describe can live there without
> the livestock being there also.

I wouldn't "get them" to do anything. It's their land they can do what they
like with it.

>>>>and you haven't convinced anyone of that anyway..
>>>>
>>>>>>In your desperate attempts to be the prophet carrying a great anti-AR
>>>>>>message to the world you have relegated yourself to eternal
>>>>>>****wittery.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm just pointing out facts that YOU/"ARAs" don't want people to
>>>>> think about.
>>>>
>>>>You aren't pointing out any facts,
>>>
>>> That's a lie.
>>
>>It's a fact.
>>
>>>>you are selecting information
>>>
>>> Proving that it was a lie.
>>
>>No
>>
>>>
>>>>that you
>>>>think benefits your idiotic case and ignoring information that doesn't,
>>>
>>> What information doesn't?
>>
>>See above.
>
> There is none. If you humorously believe there is, then just quote
> whatever it is you think does the job and we can laugh about your
> attempt.

You ignore the fact that livestock occupy land and consume food and water
resources that would otherwise support much more abundant and diverse
wildlife population. I personally think it's a good trade-off, but
nonetheless, saying that supporting livestock farming is somehow related to
appreciating more animals "getting to experience life" is specious, at best.
Your argument is specious on so many different levels that it never ceases
to amaze me that you carry on with it.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 20:56:16 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote

>> This will be another one you can't answer, like why we should favor only
>> wildlife
>> in crop fields instead of that plus wildlife and livestock in grazing
>> areas.
>
>The question is why should we consider livestock and wildlife as any better
>than only wildlife? How can you say that it's important to consider that
>livestock *exist* and "experience life" when animals will *exist* and
>"experience life" whether we raise livestock or not?

It comes down to what we're going to promote life for, as I've been
pointing out for 6 years and YOU/"ARAs" have been objecting to the
entire time.

>> And of
>> course you also can't explain why we should disregard the lives of
>> livestock
>> which are of positive value,
>
>What do mean by "disregard the lives"? Don't think about them? Why should
>we?

Out of consideration for the animals, but you can't understand that. If
you can't understand, you can't understand. How could you understand,
if you can't understand? How????

>> but how could you discuss ANY details about that
>> when you can't even comprehend what it means? LOL...obviously you can't.
>
>If you don't explain clearly what it means how can I comprehend it?

If you had the ability to understand you wouldn't need anyone to explain
it. I didn't. But you don't have the ability to understand, so you can't understand.

>Taking
>your previous arguments as evidence I assume that it means that we want us
>to think about the livestock that "enjoyed the experience"

Right.

>then as a result
>feel satisfaction that we have done a good thing by consuming body parts.

We have contributed to more such lives in the future. Whether or not
you feel good about it is up to you. Obviously YOU/"ARAs" can not feel
good about it. I can.

>I
>am not going to indulge in that kind of thinking because it's sophistry
__________________________________________________ _______
Main Entry: soph·ist·ry
Pronunciation: 'sä-f&-strE
Function: noun
1 : subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
You lied. It's in no way sophistry to consider the fact that some farm
animals have decent lives. It's just a significant aspect of the situation
that YOU/"ARAs" do not want people to think about because is works
against the elimination objective.

>and
>I see no point to it.

That's because you are not capable of understanding that life can have
positive value to the animals, much less have any appreciation for when
it does.