[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 03:37:11 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:56:15 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 15:42:36 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

Who decides?

More proof that you're an "ARA" here. The fact that you can't
distinguish
between whether life has a positive value or not for animals, shows that
you
agree with "ARAs" that none do.

YOU use the concept in all your arguments then when asked to define it
that's the best you can do?

It's a question that must be asked, though we agree that asking
YOU/"ARAs"
anything about the subject at all is a waste of time, since YOU/"ARAs"
have no
clue at all about it.

I repeat, the onus is on YOU to define what you mean by it. You have never
even tried.

I did. You can't understand. I'll simplify it for you, and you still
won't
understand:

If it's not so abusive or overly restrictive conditions that it gives life
a
negative value, then I believe it has a positive one.

What exactly comprises "abusive or overly restrictive conditions"? We need
to know exactly what you mean if we are going to attempt to follow your
suggestions.

[...]
I explained my belief about it clearly enough that if it were
possible
for you
to understand the concept, you would be able to understand my belief.
But
since YOU/"ARAs" can't comprehend how life could possibly have any value
for animals raised for food, how could you comprehend how life could
have
any
value for animals raised for food no matter what anyone tells you about
it?

That's not the point. No matter how much "value" livestock might derive
from
life in this completely undefined nonsensical position of yours, YOU as a
consumer of meat get NO credit for it.

LOL! This is classic. You, who can't even comprehend how life could
have positive or negative value for the animal, are trying to tell
everybody
how to feel about the fact.

I don't need to tell "everybody", "everybody" but you already knows how to
feel about it.

It is right to feel regret or anger if an animal is mistreated, and it is
right to feel glad if an animal is well-treated.

It is crass sophistry to feel pride than an animal someone else raises for
you to eat "experiences life".

This is a discussion of human ethics,

No it's not.

Yes it is.

It's about human influence on animals, and whether or not
particular things are cruel TO THE ANIMALS!

Cruelty is an issue of human ethics. You just contradicted yourself while
demonstrating that after all this time you don't even understand the basis
of these discussions.

NOT YOUR imaginary
moral browny points.

Satisfaction that animals "get to experience life" is *your* concept, not
mine.

and they are NOT impacted AT ALL by food animals "experiencing life".

Your browny points don't mean anything to me Dutch,

You're lying. You advocate feeling satisfaction that animals "get to
experience life".

but the animals'
lives do.

Exactly what I said, what the animals lives mean to you is that YOU have
done something worthwhile FOR THE ANIMALS by consuming animal products.

So it in some twisted way makes sense that the animals' lives
don't mean anything to you Dutch, but your browny points do.

*You* are the one claiming brownie points ****wit, make no mistake.

And you
amusingly claim ethical supperiority for YOU/"ARAs" for feeling that way!

You need to stop claiming ethical superiority for causing animals to
"experience life", it's sophistry.

The
Logic of the Larder is discredited sophistry, not only by Salt, by many
people on this forum.

Considering the animals' lives can't be discredited regardless of how
hard YOU/"ARAs" try to discredit it,

Their lives are not what I have discredited, I, and others, have discredited
your notion that their lives are a moral bonus for consumers.

but I certainly continue to invite
you to present anything better than you imaginary talking "AR" pig. And
what do think the imaginary talking "AR" opponent pig might say? Huh?
You sure can't comprehend anything like that...

I sure can't comprehend how anyone can think like you do, that's for sure.

On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 20:23:06 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 03:37:11 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:56:15 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 15:42:36 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

Who decides?

More proof that you're an "ARA" here. The fact that you can't
distinguish
between whether life has a positive value or not for animals, shows that
you
agree with "ARAs" that none do.

YOU use the concept in all your arguments then when asked to define it
that's the best you can do?

It's a question that must be asked, though we agree that asking
YOU/"ARAs"
anything about the subject at all is a waste of time, since YOU/"ARAs"
have no
clue at all about it.

I repeat, the onus is on YOU to define what you mean by it. You have never
even tried.

I did. You can't understand. I'll simplify it for you, and you still
won't
understand:

If it's not so abusive or overly restrictive conditions that it gives life
a
negative value, then I believe it has a positive one.

What exactly comprises "abusive or overly restrictive conditions"? We need
to know exactly what you mean if we are going to attempt to follow your
suggestions.

At one time didn't you admit that is up to the individual? And that YOU/"ARAs"
feel that life can not be of positive value for any farm animals, regardless of conditions?
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Message-ID:

Please answer a few questions about the line between animals that benefit
and those that don't.
[...]
Who decides where the line is drawn between animals "benefitting" and not
benefitting? Surely the only person who could do it is the individual.
[...]
Vegans have a line, it's at "none".
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I believe you did say that, and you do feel that way. That being the case, how could
YOU/"ARAs" possibly understand any situation in which the conditions are decent
enough that life could have a possitive value for farm animals?

[...]
I explained my belief about it clearly enough that if it were
possible
for you
to understand the concept, you would be able to understand my belief.
But
since YOU/"ARAs" can't comprehend how life could possibly have any value
for animals raised for food, how could you comprehend how life could
have
any
value for animals raised for food no matter what anyone tells you about
it?

That's not the point. No matter how much "value" livestock might derive
from
life in this completely undefined nonsensical position of yours, YOU as a
consumer of meat get NO credit for it.

LOL! This is classic. You, who can't even comprehend how life could
have positive or negative value for the animal, are trying to tell
everybody
how to feel about the fact.

I don't need to tell "everybody", "everybody" but you already knows how to
feel about it.

It is right to feel regret or anger if an animal is mistreated, and it is
right to feel glad if an animal is well-treated.

But not for the animal, only for YOU? Is that right? You damn sure can't
feel glad for me if an animal is well-treated, and if you can't feel glad for an
animal if it has a life of positive value, you damn sure can't feel glad for it
about anything else.

It is crass sophistry to feel pride than an animal someone else raises for
you to eat "experiences life".

And we can't even feel "glad" if it had a life of positive value, so how
exactly are we permitted by YOU/"ARAs" to feel "glad"???

This is a discussion of human ethics,

No it's not.

Yes it is.

It's about human influence on animals, and whether or not
particular things are cruel TO THE ANIMALS!

[...]
I sure can't comprehend how anyone can think like you do, that's for sure.

Well, yes, you have certainly proven you can't consider that farm
animals' lives could ever be of positive value for them, much less conclude
that when they do we should give the fact as much consideration as when
they don't, and/or as their deaths, when we think about human influence
on animals. That shows you are incapable of considering all aspects of
human influence on animals, and are only willing to consider those which
support whatever it is that YOU WANT to believe.

You also can't understand what exactly YOU WANT to believe. Because
at one time you pasted the quote: "The method of husbandry determines
whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal", and then
later reconfirmed the belief:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:34:02 -0800
Message-ID:

[email protected] pointed out:

Before we could even *pretend* to begin to discuss the ethics of
anything like that, wouldn't we both have to understand how it's
possible for life to have possitive value for at least SOME ANIMALS?

I've already said that it's possible, in the quote you keep asking me about.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
But later you didn't understand any more--you unlearned that life can have
positive value for some farm animals--most likely after email reprimanding
from Goo. I feel sure he's still laughing....LOL...it is kind of funny...

Anyway, the point is that you can't even understand what you yourself
believe, or even want to believe:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 13:27:01 -0800
Message-ID:

some mystical "value to the animals"
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
It's quite obvious that you're bewildered and confused by an aspect of
the situation your cognitive dissonance prevents you from understanding,
though it appears that you actually might *wish* you could understand it.
Maybe you can overcome...rise out of your tiny little stinking, stagnant pool
of disgusting "analogies" about livestock and child sex slaves, and fantastic
grotesqueries about talking pigs who know of their fate, children eating their
parents, etc... Sadly, and this part isn't funny, probably not though. For some
reason you feel comforted by taking refuge in your little fantasies, while the
mean old truth for some rea$on scares the hell out of YOU/"ARAs":
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Message-ID:

wrote

AW means better lives for animals. "AR" means the elimination of
farm animals, and as much as you obviously want to believe they're
the same thing, they are completely different objectives.

Shut the **** up you stupid ****ing moron. Do the world a favour and go blow
your stupid ****ing head off with the biggest ****ing gun you can find.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch"
Message-ID:

The vast majority of the financial support for PeTA comes from people who
do NOT subscribe to the complete elimination of animal use.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 20:23:06 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

It is right to feel regret or anger if an animal is mistreated, and it is
right to feel glad if an animal is well-treated.

But not for the animal, only for YOU? Is that right?

No, for the animal, and by association morally for the producer and the
consumer.

So I can feel glad for you, and for me, that the animal got to experience
a decent life, as long as I don't feel any pride for anyone for causing it to
happen?

You damn sure can't
feel glad for me if an animal is well-treated

Sure you can.

and if you can't feel glad for an
animal if it has a life of positive value, you damn sure can't feel glad
for it
about anything else.

You can feel glad that an animal's life was good.

It is crass sophistry to feel pride than an animal someone else raises for
you to eat "experiences life".

And we can't even feel "glad" if it had a life of positive value, so
how
exactly are we permitted by YOU/"ARAs" to feel "glad"???

You're confused.

You're the one confused. So far you haven't been able to define
your restrictions very well, and still show no signs of understanding
how life could have positive value TO THE ANIMAL even though
you say you do, and of course you have never come close to
explaining why anyone with any interest in promoting decent AW
would completely disregard the fact (EVER!!!) when considering
human influence on animals.

This is a discussion of human ethics,

No it's not.

Yes it is.

Cruelty is an issue of human ethics. You just contradicted yourself while
demonstrating that after all this time you don't even understand the basis
of these discussions.

It's about human influence on animals, and whether or not
particular things are cruel TO THE ANIMALS!

[...]
I sure can't comprehend how anyone can think like you do, that's for sure.

Well, yes, you have certainly proven you can't consider that farm
animals' lives could ever be of positive value for them,

Wrong, their lives CAN be positive, decent, I think they sometimes are.

Okay then, out of consideration for those particular animals, how do you
feel it's ethically superior to completely disregard that fact when we consider
whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise them?

much less conclude
that when they do we should give the fact as much consideration as when
they don't,

I think we DO need to give consideration when they don't.

It's obvious that YOU/"ARAs" very much DO want us to consider
when they don't. But you certainly don't want any consideration given
to when they do, much less as much as is given when they don't,
*because* it suggests that something could be ethically equivalent or
superior to veganism.

That's why I eat
only organic free-range beef and chicken and free-range eggs, because I want
the animals I eat to have decent lives. For me that is morally superior to
close confinement where animals are pumped with drugs.

and/or as their deaths, when we think about human influence
on animals. That shows you are incapable of considering all aspects of
human influence on animals, and are only willing to consider those which
support whatever it is that YOU WANT to believe.

You're wrong. I am willing to take moral satisfaction in the fact that an
animal did better because I chose an organic free-range product. What I am
NOT willing or able to do is take satisfaction in their life

You couldn't take much moral satisfaction if they had a horrible life,
or if they never lived...

per se. Please
try to understand the distinction.

....so trying to take satisfaction that they "did better" without having
satisfaction that they did well is absurd. Restricting what you
consider in such absurd ways produces an absurd view of reality.

Taking satisfaction that an animal "did better" is just absurdity,
because if there had been a completely different farming method in
place (I'm guessing you're talking about on a specific area of land,
but it's hard to tell with you...), then the exact pairing of sperm and egg
which produce particular animals would often and very likely always
result in different animals being born. For example instead of this
particular egg being fertilized by this particular sperm, a different sperm
would fertilize it, and often/always a different egg would be fertilized.
Once that happens the first time, completely different animals will be
born to that group from then on. In some/many cases, entirely different
breeds of animals will be raised if a different farming method is used.
So you are not helping any animals do "better". You are simply contributing
to that type of life for animals, as I've been encouraging people to do
and you have been in my ass for encouraging, for years now. I understand
the distinction between deluding yourself into believing "an animal did better",
and realising that no animal did "better", but that it did have a life of positive
value because that's what a person contributes to.

You also can't understand what exactly YOU WANT to believe. Because
at one time you pasted the quote: "The method of husbandry determines
whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal", and
then
later reconfirmed the belief:

I still believe that.

It's quite obvious that you're bewildered and confused by an aspect of
the situation your cognitive dissonance prevents you from understanding,
though it appears that you actually might *wish* you could understand it.

I understand exactly what you're doing,

No, not what I'm doing or what you're doing, unless you can understand
what I explained above...which sure doesn't seem likely after all these years.

I just don't agree with it.

Maybe you can overcome...rise out of your tiny little stinking, stagnant
pool
of disgusting "analogies" about livestock and child sex slaves, and
fantastic
grotesqueries about talking pigs who know of their fate, children eating
their
parents, etc... Sadly, and this part isn't funny, probably not though. For
some
reason you feel comforted by taking refuge in your little fantasies, while
the
mean old truth for some rea$on scares the hell out of YOU/"ARAs":

Those analogies are to show you one thing that you don't get, when we
"consider all aspects of human influence on animals" we cannot reach the
conclusion that the fact that those animals we eat "experience life" is a
fact that we can take pride in. We can take pride in providing better lives
for them, but not in "providing life" for them, because we do not "provide
life",

Yes, we do. The porcupines are still an excellent example, if you're
ready to begin trying to understand with something very simple. Try
something like:

Do we provide experience of life for billions of chickens raised for food?
Do we provide experience of life for millions of porcupines raised for food?

If you can seriously see no difference the in degree to which we provide
life for chickens and the degree to which we provide life for porcupines,
please let me know.

we aren't Gods.

That doesn't mean we don't provide life for beings, because we
do. If you want to pretend we don't, then that is just you either being
dishonest with yourself, and/or still not understanding how we do.

I thought you disbelieve in God btw. If you do, then your comment
is ridiculous. If you don't, do you believe there is any possibility of a
life after this for any humans or animals? If so, for which ones?

[email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...

On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 20:23:06 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:


It is right to feel regret or anger if an animal is mistreated, and it is
right to feel glad if an animal is well-treated.

But not for the animal, only for YOU? Is that right?

No, for the animal, and by association morally for the producer and the
consumer.


So I can feel glad for you, and for me, that the animal got to experience
a decent life, as long as I don't feel any pride for anyone for causing it to
happen?

You can feel good about a "decent" life as opposed to a
painful life. You may not legitimately feel good about
the animal living versus never living, which is what's
always lurking behind your nonsense about "decent
life". You are not doing animals a good deed by
causing them to live in the first place.

[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 20:23:06 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

It is right to feel regret or anger if an animal is mistreated, and it
is
right to feel glad if an animal is well-treated.

But not for the animal, only for YOU? Is that right?

No, for the animal, and by association morally for the producer and the
consumer.

So I can feel glad for you, and for me, that the animal got to
experience
a decent life, as long as I don't feel any pride for anyone for causing it
to
happen?

Causing which to happen, the life or the decent conditions? This is where
you equivocate, and where the distinction you refuse to make lies. I may
"cause" one but not the other.

You damn sure can't
feel glad for me if an animal is well-treated

Sure you can.

and if you can't feel glad for an
animal if it has a life of positive value, you damn sure can't feel glad
for it
about anything else.

You can feel glad that an animal's life was good.

It is crass sophistry to feel pride than an animal someone else raises
for
you to eat "experiences life".

And we can't even feel "glad" if it had a life of positive value, so
how
exactly are we permitted by YOU/"ARAs" to feel "glad"???

You're confused.

You're the one confused. So far you haven't been able to define
your restrictions very well, and still show no signs of understanding
how life could have positive value TO THE ANIMAL even though
you say you do, and of course you have never come close to
explaining why anyone with any interest in promoting decent AW
would completely disregard the fact (EVER!!!) when considering
human influence on animals.

What is disregarded in the moral calculation is that the animal "got to
experience life". This is not something you can claim credit for. Everything
else, like "positive value TO THE ANIMAL" is fair game.

This is a discussion of human ethics,

No it's not.

Yes it is.

Cruelty is an issue of human ethics. You just contradicted yourself while
demonstrating that after all this time you don't even understand the basis
of these discussions.

It's about human influence on animals, and whether or not
particular things are cruel TO THE ANIMALS!

[...]
I sure can't comprehend how anyone can think like you do, that's for
sure.

Well, yes, you have certainly proven you can't consider that farm
animals' lives could ever be of positive value for them,

Wrong, their lives CAN be positive, decent, I think they sometimes are.

Okay then, out of consideration for those particular animals, how do
you
feel it's ethically superior to completely disregard that fact when we
consider
whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise them?

It's not. It's a misstep to claim credit for "causing the animal to
experience life", not to claim credit for "causing the animal to experience
A GOOD life". Can't you see the difference between those statements?

much less conclude
that when they do we should give the fact as much consideration as when
they don't,

I think we DO need to give consideration when they don't.

It's obvious that YOU/"ARAs" very much DO want us to consider
when they don't.

Isn't that what AW is all about?

But you certainly don't want any consideration given
to when they do, much less as much as is given when they don't,

I already said I do. I purchase free range beef and eggs for the very reason
that I give consideration when they do.

*because* it suggests that something could be ethically equivalent or
superior to veganism.

You are suggesting that since some livestock live decent lives, that makes
consuming meat morally superior or equivalent to veganism. I'm telling you
that this is a false comparison. By abstaining from animal products vegans
remove themselves from this equation. They are still culpable for all the
collateral deaths in the products they consume but that's another issue
entirely. The valid comparison if there is one is between those who choose
animal products willy-nilly and those who consider the conditions in which
the animals live.

That's why I eat
only organic free-range beef and chicken and free-range eggs, because I
want
the animals I eat to have decent lives. For me that is morally superior to
close confinement where animals are pumped with drugs.

and/or as their deaths, when we think about human influence
on animals. That shows you are incapable of considering all aspects of
human influence on animals, and are only willing to consider those which
support whatever it is that YOU WANT to believe.

You're wrong. I am willing to take moral satisfaction in the fact that an
animal did better because I chose an organic free-range product. What I am
NOT willing or able to do is take satisfaction in their life

You couldn't take much moral satisfaction if they had a horrible life,

Correct, in fact I might properly feel guilt or remorse. Do you ever feel
guilt or remorse when consuming animal products willy-nilly?

or if they never lived...

If they never lived I would feel nothing about them, how could I?

per se. Please
try to understand the distinction.

...so trying to take satisfaction that they "did better" without having
satisfaction that they did well is absurd.

Of course, the two ideas are the same.

Restricting what you
consider in such absurd ways produces an absurd view of reality.

Taking satisfaction in promoting a good or better life for an animal is
relative to promoting a bad life or not considering the animal's welfare at
all. It's not relative to NOT demanding the animal be bred at all. You
constantly conflate the two arguments.

Taking satisfaction that an animal "did better" is just absurdity,
because if there had been a completely different farming method in
place (I'm guessing you're talking about on a specific area of land,
but it's hard to tell with you...), then the exact pairing of sperm and
egg
which produce particular animals would often and very likely always
result in different animals being born. For example instead of this
particular egg being fertilized by this particular sperm, a different
sperm
would fertilize it, and often/always a different egg would be fertilized.
Once that happens the first time, completely different animals will be
born to that group from then on. In some/many cases, entirely different
breeds of animals will be raised if a different farming method is used.
So you are not helping any animals do "better". You are simply
contributing
to that type of life for animals, as I've been encouraging people to do
and you have been in my ass for encouraging, for years now. I understand
the distinction between deluding yourself into believing "an animal did
better",
and realising that no animal did "better", but that it did have a life of
positive
value because that's what a person contributes to.

The fact remains, the only valid comparison is between contributing to lives
of animals who will "do well" and contributing to the lives of animals who
will "do poorly". Contributing to NO livestock lives by completely
abstaining, such as by fasting or being a vegetarian, is not comparable to
these options when discussing the effect of humans "on those animals".
Abstaining encourages that the sperm and egg are never combined, therefore
"the animals" never exist in the first place. I can't be judged based on
something that never happens.


You also can't understand what exactly YOU WANT to believe. Because
at one time you pasted the quote: "The method of husbandry determines
whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal",
and
then
later reconfirmed the belief:

I still believe that.

It's quite obvious that you're bewildered and confused by an aspect of
the situation your cognitive dissonance prevents you from understanding,
though it appears that you actually might *wish* you could understand
it.

I understand exactly what you're doing,

No, not what I'm doing or what you're doing, unless you can understand
what I explained above...which sure doesn't seem likely after all these
years.

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.


I just don't agree with it.

Maybe you can overcome...rise out of your tiny little stinking, stagnant
pool
of disgusting "analogies" about livestock and child sex slaves, and
fantastic
grotesqueries about talking pigs who know of their fate, children eating
their
parents, etc... Sadly, and this part isn't funny, probably not though.
For
some
reason you feel comforted by taking refuge in your little fantasies,
while
the
mean old truth for some rea$on scares the hell out of YOU/"ARAs":

Those analogies are to show you one thing that you don't get, when we
"consider all aspects of human influence on animals" we cannot reach the
conclusion that the fact that those animals we eat "experience life" is a
fact that we can take pride in. We can take pride in providing better
lives
for them, but not in "providing life" for them, because we do not "provide
life",

Yes, we do. The porcupines are still an excellent example, if you're
ready to begin trying to understand with something very simple. Try
something like:

Do we provide experience of life for billions of chickens raised for food?

We manipulate reality in such a way that billions of chickens raised for
food are born in captivity so we can kill them more easily. We don't
"provide experience of life", that's self-serving, back-patting sophistry.

Do we provide experience of life for millions of porcupines raised for
food?

No. We don't manipulate reality in such a way that millions of porcupines
are born in captivity so we can kill them more easily.

If you can seriously see no difference the in degree to which we provide
life for chickens and the degree to which we provide life for porcupines,
please let me know.

We don't "provide life", we arrange animal sex.

we aren't Gods.

That doesn't mean we don't provide life for beings,

Yes it does, that's exactly what it means.

because we
do. If you want to pretend we don't, then that is just you either being
dishonest with yourself, and/or still not understanding how we do.

I understand that man has not yet learned how to create life, he can only
arrange the circumstances of when and where it occurs.

I thought you disbelieve in God btw.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in god. She has not revealed herself to me,
so I have no basis on which to base a conclusion.

If you do, then your comment
is ridiculous.

I used "Gods" as a way to express the "source of life".

If you don't, do you believe there is any possibility of a
life after this for any humans or animals? If so, for which ones?

I prefer to stick to the reality which begins at conception and ends at
death. Any such speculation is meaningless.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:27:03 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 20:23:06 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

It is right to feel regret or anger if an animal is mistreated, and it
is
right to feel glad if an animal is well-treated.

But not for the animal, only for YOU? Is that right?

No, for the animal, and by association morally for the producer and the
consumer.

So I can feel glad for you, and for me, that the animal got to
experience
a decent life, as long as I don't feel any pride for anyone for causing it
to
happen?

Causing which to happen, the life or the decent conditions? This is where
you equivocate, and where the distinction you refuse to make lies. I may
"cause" one but not the other.

I consider both. You consider one.

You damn sure can't
feel glad for me if an animal is well-treated

Sure you can.

and if you can't feel glad for an
animal if it has a life of positive value, you damn sure can't feel glad
for it
about anything else.

You can feel glad that an animal's life was good.

It is crass sophistry to feel pride than an animal someone else raises
for
you to eat "experiences life".

And we can't even feel "glad" if it had a life of positive value, so
how
exactly are we permitted by YOU/"ARAs" to feel "glad"???

You're confused.

You're the one confused. So far you haven't been able to define
your restrictions very well, and still show no signs of understanding
how life could have positive value TO THE ANIMAL even though
you say you do, and of course you have never come close to
explaining why anyone with any interest in promoting decent AW
would completely disregard the fact (EVER!!!) when considering
human influence on animals.

What is disregarded in the moral calculation is that the animal "got to
experience life". This is not something you can claim credit for.

As much as taking it away. To you it doesn't seem that way
because all YOU WANT to think about is their death, but humans
are responsible for both. At one time you pretended to understand
that:

"The reason that ... should be considered is that they are a direct result of
activities which humans undertake for their own benefit. Since we cause
these events to happen as a direct result of feeding ourselves we must bear
some responsibility for the ... ."

but as you unlearned about life having positive value, you apparently
unlearned we should consider things that are a direct result of activities
which humans undertake for their own benefit.

Everything
else, like "positive value TO THE ANIMAL" is fair game.

So far all I've been doing is suggesting we consider that, and all
you've been doing is trying to prevent consideration of it in any way
you can. Of course the question "why?" still looms enourmously,
and the answer "because you're a dishonest "ARA"" remains most
likely.

This is a discussion of human ethics,

No it's not.

Yes it is.

Cruelty is an issue of human ethics. You just contradicted yourself while
demonstrating that after all this time you don't even understand the basis
of these discussions.

It's about human influence on animals, and whether or not
particular things are cruel TO THE ANIMALS!

[...]
I sure can't comprehend how anyone can think like you do, that's for
sure.

Well, yes, you have certainly proven you can't consider that farm
animals' lives could ever be of positive value for them,

Wrong, their lives CAN be positive, decent, I think they sometimes are.

Okay then, out of consideration for those particular animals, how do
you
feel it's ethically superior to completely disregard that fact when we
consider
whether or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS to raise them?

It's not. It's a misstep to claim credit for "causing the animal to
experience life", not to claim credit for "causing the animal to experience
A GOOD life". Can't you see the difference between those statements?

Better than you ever could. I can understand that life can have
positive or negative value to the animals, and that the value can and
often/usually changes throughout its life. For all of us. If you had to spend
your whole life in pain for example, as some people do, it may well have
a negative value for you. People kill themselves. Other people enjoy
life. Most people enjoy life more some days than they do others. The
same is true of animals. But since you don't think their lives should be
given any consideration, that aspect of it may as well not exist to you,
because it doesn't exist in whatever it is you want to believe. You argue
that we shouldn't even consider the animals' lives, so where does that
leave room for considering whether or not they're of value to the animals?

much less conclude
that when they do we should give the fact as much consideration as when
they don't,

I think we DO need to give consideration when they don't.

It's obvious that YOU/"ARAs" very much DO want us to consider
when they don't.

Isn't that what AW is all about?

AW is about decent lives. "AR" is about no lives. If you want to
change the subject to wildlife, explain exactly which type animals
you begin referring to and why we should favor them over livestock.

But you certainly don't want any consideration given
to when they do, much less as much as is given when they don't,

I already said I do. I purchase free range beef and eggs for the very reason
that I give consideration when they do.

*because* it suggests that something could be ethically equivalent or
superior to veganism.

You are suggesting that since some livestock live decent lives, that makes
consuming meat morally superior or equivalent to veganism. I'm telling you
that this is a false comparison. By abstaining from animal products vegans
remove themselves from this equation. They are still culpable for all the
collateral deaths in the products they consume but that's another issue
entirely. The valid comparison if there is one is between those who choose
animal products willy-nilly and those who consider the conditions in which
the animals live.

If you won't consider all aspects of it, then you'll never have a respectable
interpretation.

That's why I eat
only organic free-range beef and chicken and free-range eggs, because I
want
the animals I eat to have decent lives. For me that is morally superior to
close confinement where animals are pumped with drugs.

and/or as their deaths, when we think about human influence
on animals. That shows you are incapable of considering all aspects of
human influence on animals, and are only willing to consider those which
support whatever it is that YOU WANT to believe.

You're wrong. I am willing to take moral satisfaction in the fact that an
animal did better because I chose an organic free-range product. What I am
NOT willing or able to do is take satisfaction in their life

You couldn't take much moral satisfaction if they had a horrible life,

Correct, in fact I might properly feel guilt or remorse. Do you ever feel
guilt or remorse when consuming animal products willy-nilly?

I consider all of it. I need feel no guilt. I've spent more time trying to
get YOU/"ARAs" to actually GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE ANIMALS
than probably anyone else on the planet by this time. But you can't,
because it suggests something could be "better" than your elimination
objective. THAT is a blast of cognitive dissonance that slams your
brains into shut down mode. But it's still there.............oh shiiiiit..........
so you come up with the fantasy grotesqueries. That's what keeps
going on.......

or if they never lived...

If they never lived I would feel nothing about them, how could I?

per se. Please
try to understand the distinction.

...so trying to take satisfaction that they "did better" without having
satisfaction that they did well is absurd.

Of course, the two ideas are the same.

No they're not. Having satisfaction that they did well doesn't
depend on some alternative period when they did worse. "Did
better" does depend on that, and is not applicable to any particular
animals I can think of. Can you point out any particular animals
whose life improves because of what humans eat? That means
that some particular animals life gets "better". If you can't think of
any, then all you are ever referring to is the animals' lives--NOT
BETTER LIVES--just as I am. The difference is that I'm aware
of it, and you are not....if you honestly don't understand.

Restricting what you
consider in such absurd ways produces an absurd view of reality.

Taking satisfaction in promoting a good or better life for an animal is
relative to promoting a bad life or not considering the animal's welfare at
all. It's not relative to NOT demanding the animal be bred at all. You
constantly conflate the two arguments.

Taking satisfaction that an animal "did better" is just absurdity,
because if there had been a completely different farming method in
place (I'm guessing you're talking about on a specific area of land,
but it's hard to tell with you...), then the exact pairing of sperm and
egg
which produce particular animals would often and very likely always
result in different animals being born. For example instead of this
particular egg being fertilized by this particular sperm, a different
sperm
would fertilize it, and often/always a different egg would be fertilized.
Once that happens the first time, completely different animals will be
born to that group from then on. In some/many cases, entirely different
breeds of animals will be raised if a different farming method is used.
So you are not helping any animals do "better". You are simply
contributing
to that type of life for animals, as I've been encouraging people to do
and you have been in my ass for encouraging, for years now. I understand
the distinction between deluding yourself into believing "an animal did
better",
and realising that no animal did "better", but that it did have a life of
positive
value because that's what a person contributes to.

The fact remains, the only valid comparison is between contributing to lives
of animals who will "do well" and contributing to the lives of animals who
will "do poorly".

We can compare either to any collateral lives, and any deliberate lives,
as well as collateral deaths and deliberate deaths. YOU/"ARAs" pick and
choose what you want to think about, and also what you want other people
to think about, which is even less than you restrict yourselves to.

Contributing to NO livestock lives by completely
abstaining, such as by fasting or being a vegetarian,

or dying,

is not comparable to
these options when discussing the effect of humans "on those animals".
Abstaining encourages that the sperm and egg are never combined, therefore
"the animals" never exist in the first place. I can't be judged based on
something that never happens.

When you buy cage free eggs, you are contributing to MORE of the
animals required to produce them. REGARDLESS of whatever else you
do and don't contribute to!!! So it breaks down to what you are going to
deliberately contribute to, and what you're not....you can deliberately
contribute to life for cage free layers, or you can not. That's all there is
to it, regardless of what *different!* things you do and don't contribute
to as well.

You also can't understand what exactly YOU WANT to believe. Because
at one time you pasted the quote: "The method of husbandry determines
whether or not the life has positive or negative value to the animal",
and
then
later reconfirmed the belief:

I still believe that.

It's quite obvious that you're bewildered and confused by an aspect of
the situation your cognitive dissonance prevents you from understanding,
though it appears that you actually might *wish* you could understand
it.

I understand exactly what you're doing,

No, not what I'm doing or what you're doing, unless you can understand
what I explained above...which sure doesn't seem likely after all these
years.

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. Even
if we can exist as ourselves in some way outside our bodies, it provides the
experience the being has in the body that develops from the act, so THAT
is what we're responsible for.

I just don't agree with it.

Maybe you can overcome...rise out of your tiny little stinking, stagnant
pool
of disgusting "analogies" about livestock and child sex slaves, and
fantastic
grotesqueries about talking pigs who know of their fate, children eating
their
parents, etc... Sadly, and this part isn't funny, probably not though.
For
some
reason you feel comforted by taking refuge in your little fantasies,
while
the
mean old truth for some rea$on scares the hell out of YOU/"ARAs":

Those analogies are to show you one thing that you don't get, when we
"consider all aspects of human influence on animals" we cannot reach the
conclusion that the fact that those animals we eat "experience life" is a
fact that we can take pride in. We can take pride in providing better
lives
for them, but not in "providing life" for them, because we do not "provide
life",

Yes, we do. The porcupines are still an excellent example, if you're
ready to begin trying to understand with something very simple. Try
something like:

Do we provide experience of life for billions of chickens raised for food?

We manipulate reality in such a way that billions of chickens raised for
food are born in captivity so we can kill them more easily. We don't
"provide experience of life", that's self-serving, back-patting sophistry.

Do we provide experience of life for millions of porcupines raised for
food?

No. We don't manipulate reality in such a way that millions of porcupines
are born

No, we don't. There are probably some laws in place to protect them
somewhere though, so maybe a few hundred or thousand....

in captivity so we can kill them more easily.

Nope. That would sure be a pain in the ass.

If you can seriously see no difference the in degree to which we provide
life for chickens and the degree to which we provide life for porcupines,
please let me know.

We don't "provide life", we arrange animal sex.

OHHH! LOL!!!....this may come as a great shock to you, but when
animals have sex, very very often that results in a little baby animal.
Not right away, but that's what starts it. Ask your mommy or daddy
to explain more about it.

we aren't Gods.

That doesn't mean we don't provide life for beings,

Yes it does, that's exactly what it means.

No it doesn't. I can't believe even you are too stupid to understand
that...but then, you can't discuss possibilities in any detail, so maybe
you honestly don't have any clue as you insist?

because we
do. If you want to pretend we don't, then that is just you either being
dishonest with yourself, and/or still not understanding how we do.

I understand that man has not yet learned how to create life,

That's my understanding. That doesn't mean he can't make more or
less life occur on this planet. Man can certainly do that, and THAT is
what YOU/"ARAs" want to prevent people from taking into consideration.
Why do you think Goo or whoever told you to shut up about the cls
involved in farming? Remember when you could think about cls as well
as cds for wildlife....before you unlearned that one?

he can only
arrange the circumstances of when and where it occurs.

That's a lie. He can often arrange whether it does or not, which
is THE aspect of the situation that I and YOU/"ARAs" disagree about
the most.

I thought you disbelieve in God btw.

I neither believe nor disbelieve in god. She has not revealed herself to me,
so I have no basis on which to base a conclusion.

If you do, then your comment
is ridiculous.

I used "Gods" as a way to express the "source of life".

Stop referring to it at all. Since you won't consider the individual
lives of any animals, then you have no business showing regard
for life in general either.

If you don't, do you believe there is any possibility of a
life after this for any humans or animals? If so, for which ones?

I prefer to stick to the reality

LOL!!! "Hear that ****wit? The pig says..." LOL!

which begins at conception and ends at
death.

No. That's their LIVES. Remember??? YOU/"ARAs" are
the ones saying we can NOT consider their lives, and I'm
the one saying that we SHOULD!

Any such speculation is meaningless.

Well since YOU/"ARAs" consider thinking about their lives
to be shameful and whatever, it only makes sense that thinking
about any possible life beyond this must be meaningless to you
as well.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:06:26 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...

On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 20:23:06 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:


It is right to feel regret or anger if an animal is mistreated, and it is
right to feel glad if an animal is well-treated.

But not for the animal, only for YOU? Is that right?

No, for the animal, and by association morally for the producer and the
consumer.


So I can feel glad for you, and for me, that the animal got to experience
a decent life, as long as I don't feel any pride for anyone for causing it to
happen?

You can feel good about a "decent" life as opposed to a
painful life. You may not legitimately feel good about
the animal living versus never living, which is what's
always lurking behind your nonsense about "decent
life".

That's all there is. An animal that would be born as a grass raised
steer isn't going to be born as a different kind of animal if it's not born
as a grass raised steer, for example. So you're not contributing to
a "decent" life over a less decent one for any animals. You're only
contributing to what they get, which is why I encourage people to
consider what they get. Why you oppose it is still a huge question.
Why do you oppose people thinking about it the way it is?

You are not doing animals a good deed by
causing them to live in the first place.
__________________________________________________ _______
From: Jonathan Ball
Message-ID: . net

Either farm animals "exist" in some kind of pre-conceived,
pre-born state, or they do not.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Rudy Canoza"
Message-ID: . com

If one believes they do, one has no
knowledge of that state of pre-existence, and one cannot rationally
consider that ending that state and beginning life constitutes an
improvement. Note that this applies EVEN WITH the very best animal
welfare conditions one might provide: they STILL might not be as good
as the "pre-existence" state was for the animals; one simply cannot
know.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
One of the few honest things you may have said is that one simply cannot
know, but now you claim that you do know. Not only that you do know,
but also--ABSURDLY!!!--to know that it's the same for all animals, regardless
of the quality of their life....that life is not of positive value for any of them.

[email protected] 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. 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.

[email protected] wrote
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:06:26 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:

You can feel good about a "decent" life as opposed to a
painful life. You may not legitimately feel good about
the animal living versus never living, which is what's
always lurking behind your nonsense about "decent
life".

That's all there is. An animal that would be born as a grass raised
steer isn't going to be born as a different kind of animal if it's not
born
as a grass raised steer, for example. So you're not contributing to
a "decent" life over a less decent one for any animals. You're only
contributing to what they get, which is why I encourage people to
consider what they get. Why you oppose it is still a huge question.
Why do you oppose people thinking about it the way it is?

Have ever even eaten grass-fed beef? I didn't think so...

You're a fraud.

[email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:06:26 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:


[email protected] wrote:


On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...


On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 20:23:06 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:


It is right to feel regret or anger if an animal is mistreated, and it is
right to feel glad if an animal is well-treated.

But not for the animal, only for YOU? Is that right?

No, for the animal, and by association morally for the producer and the
consumer.


So I can feel glad for you, and for me, that the animal got to experience
a decent life, as long as I don't feel any pride for anyone for causing it to
happen?

You can feel good about a "decent" life as opposed to a
painful life. You may not legitimately feel good about
the animal living versus never living, which is what's
always lurking behind your nonsense about "decent
life".


That's all there is. An animal that would be born as a grass raised
steer isn't going to be born as a different kind of animal if it's not born
as a grass raised steer, for example.

There is no moral good *to the animal* that results
from it being born at all.

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:26:41 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] 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.

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. You can not
contribute to "better" lives for them, as you dishonestly claim.

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:32:22 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:06:26 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:

You can feel good about a "decent" life as opposed to a
painful life. You may not legitimately feel good about
the animal living versus never living, which is what's
always lurking behind your nonsense about "decent
life".

That's all there is. An animal that would be born as a grass raised
steer isn't going to be born as a different kind of animal if it's not
born
as a grass raised steer, for example. So you're not contributing to
a "decent" life over a less decent one for any animals. You're only
contributing to what they get, which is why I encourage people to
consider what they get. Why you oppose it is still a huge question.
Why do you oppose people thinking about it the way it is?

Have ever even eaten grass-fed beef?

We used to raise our own, when we had some land available. And
you know what? No, and you still won't after I tell you, but here it is:
It was that life or no life for the ones we raised too, just like it is for all
the rest of them. You can't contribute to "better" lives for them. You
can only contribute to what they get, or try not to, but you can't
contribute to "better" lives for them as you dishonestly reap in your
imaginary moral browny points for claiming to do.

I didn't think so...

No surprise there...no surprise at all.

You're a fraud.

You don't think. Maybe you could, but so far you have yet
to give it a try....in fact, so far all you're done is insist that we do
NOT think.

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:48:14 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:06:26 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:


[email protected] wrote:


On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:



[email protected] wrote in message ...


On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 20:23:06 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:


It is right to feel regret or anger if an animal is mistreated, and it is
right to feel glad if an animal is well-treated.

But not for the animal, only for YOU? Is that right?

No, for the animal, and by association morally for the producer and the
consumer.


So I can feel glad for you, and for me, that the animal got to experience
a decent life, as long as I don't feel any pride for anyone for causing it to
happen?

You can feel good about a "decent" life as opposed to a
painful life. You may not legitimately feel good about
the animal living versus never living, which is what's
always lurking behind your nonsense about "decent
life".


That's all there is. An animal that would be born as a grass raised
steer isn't going to be born as a different kind of animal if it's not born
as a grass raised steer, for example.

There is no moral good *to the animal* that results
from it being born at all.

You can't comprehend how life could have positive value to
an animal, and probably not even to a human, so your supposed
opinion on the issue could not possibly be of any value. We know
that YOU/"ARAs" feel that life could never be of positive value for
animals raised for food, regardless of quality, so how could your
supposed opinion about the subject be worth anything, when you
have no understanding of how the issue could exist? Since you
can't comprehend how life could have positive value for any animals,
you certainly can't even attempt to think about which ones do and
which ones do not. You are not capable of forming any opinion
about it, much less considering any details regarding it. You are
admittedly a perfect example of having no clue at all. None.

[email protected] wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:48:14 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:


[email protected] wrote:


On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:06:26 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:



[email protected] wrote:



On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:




[email protected] wrote in message ...



On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 20:23:06 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:


It is right to feel regret or anger if an animal is mistreated, and it is
right to feel glad if an animal is well-treated.

But not for the animal, only for YOU? Is that right?

No, for the animal, and by association morally for the producer and the
consumer.


So I can feel glad for you, and for me, that the animal got to experience
a decent life, as long as I don't feel any pride for anyone for causing it to
happen?

You can feel good about a "decent" life as opposed to a
painful life. You may not legitimately feel good about
the animal living versus never living, which is what's
always lurking behind your nonsense about "decent
life".


That's all there is. An animal that would be born as a grass raised
steer isn't going to be born as a different kind of animal if it's not born
as a grass raised steer, for example.

There is no moral good *to the animal* that results
from it being born at all.

You can't comprehend how life could have positive value to
an animal

That is a nonsensical response to what I wrote. I
said, there is no moral good *to the animal* that
results from it being born. As you always have, you
keep trying to confuse, deliberately, two entirely
separate considerations.

[email protected] wrote:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:48:14 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:


[email protected] wrote:


On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:06:26 GMT, Leif Erikson wrote:



[email protected] wrote:



On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:




[email protected] wrote in message ...



On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 20:23:06 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:


It is right to feel regret or anger if an animal is mistreated, and it is
right to feel glad if an animal is well-treated.

But not for the animal, only for YOU? Is that right?

No, for the animal, and by association morally for the producer and the
consumer.


So I can feel glad for you, and for me, that the animal got to experience
a decent life, as long as I don't feel any pride for anyone for causing it to
happen?

You can feel good about a "decent" life as opposed to a
painful life. You may not legitimately feel good about
the animal living versus never living, which is what's
always lurking behind your nonsense about "decent
life".


That's all there is. An animal that would be born as a grass raised
steer isn't going to be born as a different kind of animal if it's not born
as a grass raised steer, for example.

There is no moral good *to the animal* that results

from it being born at all.

You can't comprehend how life could have positive value to
an animal, and probably not even to a human, so your supposed
opinion on the issue could not possibly be of any value.

First of all, life itself - life per se - has no value
to any animal, including humans. One cannot compare
"getting to live" versus "never being born"; such a
comparison is *nonsense*.

Secondly, it is clear from all your bad writing that it
is only *your* conception of "positive value", not the
animal's. You have no insight into animals'
philosophical beliefs about life. You are projecting;
that's all.

Thirdly, it is clear from all your bad writing that you
believe you are doing something nice for animals by
causing them to be born and then eating them. That
*is* absurd, everyone else *believes* it is absurd, and
you're an idiot for sticking with it.