Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 03:37:11 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:56:15 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> 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.


  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

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

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 03:37:11 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:56:15 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> 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".
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
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: >

<dh@.> 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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
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"
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

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

>
><dh@.> 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?
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

dh@. wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> 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.
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value


<dh@.> wrote
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> 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.




  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

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

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> 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.
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

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

>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>><dh@.> 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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

__________________________________________________ _______
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.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
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.
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value


<dh@.> wrote
<snip repetition>

>>I understand it. The point you made above doesn't change anything, you are
>>still trying to extract some moral credit from that act of combining egg
>>and
>>sperm, and it just doesn't work. It doesn't deserve any.

>
> It provides life for an animal. Life that it otherwise would NOT have.


That fact has no moral content. The morally relevant facts are; the animal
was bred to be food, well-treated or not, killed humanely or not, sold and
consumed. 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.


  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value


<dh@.> 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.


  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

dh@. wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:06:26 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>><dh@.> 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.


  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

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

>
><dh@.> wrote
><snip repetition>
>
>>>I understand it. The point you made above doesn't change anything, you are
>>>still trying to extract some moral credit from that act of combining egg
>>>and
>>>sperm, and it just doesn't work. It doesn't deserve any.

>>
>> It provides life for an animal. Life that it otherwise would NOT have.

>
>That fact has no moral content. The morally relevant facts are; the animal
>was bred to be food, well-treated or not, killed humanely or not, sold and
>consumed.


LOL!!! Hilarious that you consider what happens to the dead bodies to
be morally significant, but that the living animals' lives are not.

>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.
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

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

>
><dh@.> 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.
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

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

>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:06:26 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> 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.
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:48:14 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:06:26 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> 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.
  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

dh@. wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:48:14 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:06:26 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> 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.


  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

dh@. wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:32:22 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> 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


And they weren't "better off" for having "got to live".
Being born and "getting to live" didn't make them
better off than they were before, because before...they
WEREN'T.


>>I didn't think so...You're a fraud.

>
>
> You don't think.


He does. He thinks lucidly and cogently. YOU don't
think, as evidenced by your insane clinging to your
wrong belief that you are doing something nice for
animals by causing them to be born and then eating them.
  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

dh@. lied:

> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:27:03 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> lied
>>
>>>On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>I understand exactly what you're doing,
>>>
>>> No, not what I'm doing


He understands exactly what you're doing. We all do.
You're trying a cheap, sophomoric trick. You've been
trying it for six years. You've failed to complete it
for six years. You will always fail at it.


>>>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.


That is morally MEANINGLESS. The very fact you state
it as if it's something important *proves* that Dutch
is correct: you are trying to claim some moral credit
for having done something good. You have NOT done
something good by causing the animal to live. You earn
no moral credit.


> Life that it otherwise would NOT have.


Irrelevant. You haven't done the animal a good deed.


>>>>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


They're very good analogies. They show exactly what is
foul about your belief.


>>>>>reason you feel comforted by taking refuge in your little fantasies,


YOU are the one harboring a fantasy: the fantastical,
false belief that you are doing something good for
animals by causing them to live. You aren't.


>>>>>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.


No.


>>>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.


It wouldn't matter if we did. In NEITHER case do
humans earn moral credit for manipulating reality to
cause the animals to live.


>
>>in captivity so we can kill them more easily.

>
>
> Nope.


>>>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.


It doesn't earn humans any moral credit for being the
pimps.


>>>>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.


Yes, it does. We do not "provide life". We arrange
for them to breed. We are not doing them a good deed.


>>>because we do.


We don't.


>>>If you want to pretend we don't,


It isn't a pretense. We don't. You are projecting
your wish system onto what it is we do.


>>>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.


It is not "providing life". You are arrogant and wrong
to think it.


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

>
>
> That's a lie.


No, it isn't.


>>> 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,


That's false: he *does* consider them, but only
*after* they exist.


> then you have no business showing regard
> for life in general either.


Not for you to say.


>>>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!!!


You should try it.


>>which begins at conception and ends at
>>death.

>
>
> No.


Yes.


>>Any such speculation is meaningless.

>
>
> Well since YOU/"ARAs" consider thinking about their lives
> to be shameful and whatever,


No, and he isn't an "ara", which you know.

He *does* believe that thinking about their lifes,
*after* they exist, is worthwhile. More specifically,
it is thinking about the *quality* of their lives that
is worthwhile; thinking about some moral meaning of the
fact they "get to live" at all is stupid.
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

dh@. lied:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:26:41 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> ><dh@.> lied:
> ><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.


He doesn't consider what happens to the dead bodies to be morally
significant.

He *does* consider the quality of life of the animals to be
significant. He doesn't consider their "getting to experience life" to
be significant, and he is right: it's meaningless.


>
> >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


Indirectly causing them to be bred into existence is not doing "them" a
good deed, and therefore the meat eater cannot take moral credit for a
good deed simply for his dietary choices.

  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Seeker
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:26:41 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>><snip repetition>
>>
>>>>I understand it. The point you made above doesn't change anything, you
>>>>are
>>>>still trying to extract some moral credit from that act of combining egg
>>>>and
>>>>sperm, and it just doesn't work. It doesn't deserve any.
>>>
>>> It provides life for an animal. Life that it otherwise would NOT
>>> have.

>>
>>That fact has no moral content. The morally relevant facts are; the animal
>>was bred to be food, well-treated or not, killed humanely or not, sold and
>>consumed.

>
> LOL!!! Hilarious that you consider what happens to the dead bodies to
> be morally significant, but that the living animals' lives are not.


What happens to the dead bodies is morally significant because it indicates
why we killed them, which is part of the moral calculation. The living
animals lives are morally significant because they indicate how we treat the
animals.

>>Combining egg and sperm for the purpose of creating a product
>>involves no sacrifice, no "consideration" of the well-being of any animal.
>>Those are the morally relevant concepts in this equation.
>>
>>The rest is just more of your rubbish.

>
> You can contribute to the lives they get, or try not to.


And if their lives are not decent then you shouldn't. You don't make any
effort to ensure that they are.

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


More tap-dancing. "Them" refers to all livestock, not to specific animals.
Once you consume an animal product it's too late for that animal, but by
making the right choices you can have a positive impact on the treatment of
animals in general.



  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

Seeker wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
> > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:26:41 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >><dh@.> wrote
> >><snip repetition>
> >>
> >>>>I understand it. The point you made above doesn't change anything, you
> >>>>are
> >>>>still trying to extract some moral credit from that act of combining egg
> >>>>and
> >>>>sperm, and it just doesn't work. It doesn't deserve any.
> >>>
> >>> It provides life for an animal. Life that it otherwise would NOT
> >>> have.
> >>
> >>That fact has no moral content. The morally relevant facts are; the animal
> >>was bred to be food, well-treated or not, killed humanely or not, sold and
> >>consumed.

> >
> > LOL!!! Hilarious that you consider what happens to the dead bodies to
> > be morally significant, but that the living animals' lives are not.

>
> What happens to the dead bodies is morally significant because it indicates
> why we killed them, which is part of the moral calculation.


No, that's not right. You killed the steer in order to eat it, but
after killing it, you discover it has BSE or some other condition that
keeps you from eating it, so you incinerate it instead. Or, you bought
the package of steaks with every intention of grilling them, but while
you were away from the house for a few days the refrigerator broke
down, and everything in it spoiled, so you threw the steaks in the
garbage bin.

The *ultimate* disposition of the corpse has no moral meaning at all;
it's just a corpse. It's the purpose in raising and killing them that
matters, not what ultimately happens to the body. Raising the steer to
eat it seems like a morally worthy choice; to many people, raising it
as a bull to be used in bullfights seems a morally corrupt choice.


> The living
> animals lives are morally significant because they indicate how we treat the
> animals.
>
> >>Combining egg and sperm for the purpose of creating a product
> >>involves no sacrifice, no "consideration" of the well-being of any animal.
> >>Those are the morally relevant concepts in this equation.
> >>
> >>The rest is just more of your rubbish.

> >
> > You can contribute to the lives they get, or try not to.

>
> And if their lives are not decent then you shouldn't. You don't make any
> effort to ensure that they are.


Or, if you decide mostly for health but partly for aesthetic reasons
not to eat meat, you also shouldn't.


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

>
> More tap-dancing. "Them" refers to all livestock, not to specific animals.
> Once you consume an animal product it's too late for that animal, but by
> making the right choices you can have a positive impact on the treatment of
> animals in general.




  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:56:54 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:

>dh@. lied:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:27:03 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>><dh@.> lied
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I understand exactly what you're doing,
>>>>
>>>> No, not what I'm doing

>
>He understands exactly what you're doing. We all do.
>You're trying a cheap, sophomoric trick. You've been
>trying it for six years. You've failed to complete it
>for six years. You will always fail at it.


I'm trying to get YOU/"ARAs" to give the animals'
lives as much or more consideration than their deaths.
Since you can't come up with any real opposition to
the suggestion, but you hate it because it suggests
that some alternative(s) might be ethically equivalent
or superior to the elimination of livestock, you invent
fantasies and restrictions that support what YOU/"ARAs"
want people to believe.

>>>>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.

>
>That is morally MEANINGLESS. The very fact you state
>it as if it's something important *proves* that Dutch
>is correct: you are trying to claim some moral credit
>for having done something good. You have NOT done
>something good by causing the animal to live. You earn
>no moral credit.


Dutch has amusingly pretended to believe it's a moral
bonus to provide a decent life over a bad one, but there
is no such alternative. You contribute to the lives they get,
or you don't, and since you think that's meaningless you
must think it doesn't matter what type of lives people
contribute to because you feel it " is morally MEANINGLESS".
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:53:30 -0800, "Seeker" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:26:41 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>><snip repetition>
>>>
>>>>>I understand it. The point you made above doesn't change anything, you
>>>>>are
>>>>>still trying to extract some moral credit from that act of combining egg
>>>>>and
>>>>>sperm, and it just doesn't work. It doesn't deserve any.
>>>>
>>>> It provides life for an animal. Life that it otherwise would NOT
>>>> have.
>>>
>>>That fact has no moral content. The morally relevant facts are; the animal
>>>was bred to be food, well-treated or not, killed humanely or not, sold and
>>>consumed.

>>
>> LOL!!! Hilarious that you consider what happens to the dead bodies to
>> be morally significant, but that the living animals' lives are not.

>
>What happens to the dead bodies is morally significant because it indicates
>why we killed them, which is part of the moral calculation. The living
>animals lives are morally significant because they indicate how we treat the
>animals.


When considering whether or not it's cruel *to the animals* to raise them
for food, a person must take their lives into consideration. "ARAs" do NOT
want us to take the animals' lives into consideration, because some of them
are of positive value. Since providing food animals with lives of positive
value could be considered ethically equivalent or superior to eliminating them,
"ARAs" are very much opposed to it being considered.

>>>Combining egg and sperm for the purpose of creating a product
>>>involves no sacrifice, no "consideration" of the well-being of any animal.
>>>Those are the morally relevant concepts in this equation.
>>>
>>>The rest is just more of your rubbish.

>>
>> You can contribute to the lives they get, or try not to.

>
>And if their lives are not decent then you shouldn't. You don't make any
>effort to ensure that they are.


I believe most broilers, turkeys, beef and dairy cattle, and cage free
hens have decent lives. Other than vegetable products, most of what
I eat comes from those groups. I don't know what to think about pork
yet, but I eat very little of it.

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

>
>More tap-dancing. "Them" refers to all livestock, not to specific animals.


LOL! Yes it does. When I buy cage free eggs to contribute to life for
future cage free laying hens--to support them--"them" does not refer to
*any* other livestock, much less to *all* OTHER livestock.

>Once you consume an animal product it's too late for that animal, but by
>making the right choices you can have a positive impact on the treatment of
>animals in general.


Of FUTURE animals. No one contributes to "better" lives for animals....
battery hens are not going to all of a sudden be moved to cage free houses
because any number of people begin to buy cage free eggs. They will
finish out their lives in the cages, and if a new cage free system is established
where the battery method was being used, it will be with new different hens
whose lives will not be improved...as I've been saying: it will be that life or
nothing, so that's how people should think about it.
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

On 15 Nov 2005 18:02:50 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:

>Seeker wrote:
>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:26:41 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >><dh@.> wrote
>> >><snip repetition>
>> >>
>> >>>>I understand it. The point you made above doesn't change anything, you
>> >>>>are
>> >>>>still trying to extract some moral credit from that act of combining egg
>> >>>>and
>> >>>>sperm, and it just doesn't work. It doesn't deserve any.
>> >>>
>> >>> It provides life for an animal. Life that it otherwise would NOT
>> >>> have.
>> >>
>> >>That fact has no moral content. The morally relevant facts are; the animal
>> >>was bred to be food, well-treated or not, killed humanely or not, sold and
>> >>consumed.
>> >
>> > LOL!!! Hilarious that you consider what happens to the dead bodies to
>> > be morally significant, but that the living animals' lives are not.

>>
>> What happens to the dead bodies is morally significant because it indicates
>> why we killed them, which is part of the moral calculation.

>
>No, that's not right. You killed the steer in order to eat it, but
>after killing it, you discover it has BSE or some other condition that
>keeps you from eating it, so you incinerate it instead. Or, you bought
>the package of steaks with every intention of grilling them, but while
>you were away from the house for a few days the refrigerator broke
>down, and everything in it spoiled, so you threw the steaks in the
>garbage bin.
>
>The *ultimate* disposition of the corpse has no moral meaning at all;
>it's just a corpse. It's the purpose in raising and killing them that
>matters, not what ultimately happens to the body. Raising the steer to
>eat it seems like a morally worthy choice; to many people, raising it
>as a bull to be used in bullfights seems a morally corrupt choice.


Since YOU/"ARAs" insist that life has no value for any animals or
humans regardless of quality, how and why could it matter what the
quality of their lives happen to be like?

>> The living
>> animals lives are morally significant because they indicate how we treat the
>> animals.
>>
>> >>Combining egg and sperm for the purpose of creating a product
>> >>involves no sacrifice, no "consideration" of the well-being of any animal.
>> >>Those are the morally relevant concepts in this equation.
>> >>
>> >>The rest is just more of your rubbish.
>> >
>> > You can contribute to the lives they get, or try not to.

>>
>> And if their lives are not decent then you shouldn't. You don't make any
>> effort to ensure that they are.

>
>Or, if you decide mostly for health but partly for aesthetic reasons
>not to eat meat, you also shouldn't.


These quotes explain how YOU/"ARAs" want everyone to feel
about raising animals for food:
__________________________________________________ _______
We're ONLY talking about deliberate human killing
ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
consideration.
You consider that it "got to experience life" to be
some kind of mitigation of the evil of killing it
people who consume animals justify the harm they inflict
on the animals by believing that "giving" life to the
animals somehow mitigates the harm.
Fact: IF it is wrong to kill animals deliberately for
food, then having deliberately caused them to live in
the first place does not mitigate the wrong in any way
"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths
It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in
other words - if humans kill animals they don't need
to kill, i.e. not in self defense. There's your answer
killing the animals needlessly and merely for human
convenience is the worst violation of their rights
humans deliberately killing animals for food is an immoral
thing to do.
Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it.
People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions.
You invent some arbitrary line and head off in some other
bizarre direction...all by yourself.
[That "other bizarre direction" is the idea of deliberately
providing decent AW for the animals we raise to eat]
there is no moral loss if domesticated species go extinct.
Since there is no moral loss to any animals, there is
nothing for any human to take into consideration
There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals
not to exist as a step towards creating a more just world.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:39:18 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:48:14 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:06:26 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>><dh@.> 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.


Then you have admitted that you can't comprehend how life
could have positive value to an animal or a human. IF! you care to
make an attempt at pretending not to be admittedly too stupid to
understand, then *try* explaining how it possibly could.

>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.


Since you have no clue how anything could ever
benefit from living--regardless of quality of life--it's no
wonder that you have no clue how any livestock could
benefit from living. It doesn't mean none do, it only
means that YOU/"ARAs" have no idea how any of them
could. That being the case though, YOU/"ARAs" should
not care whether wildlife or livestock are encouraged by
humans, which means you should not care that I encourage
life for livestock. But you do care. YOU/"ARAs" hate it,
even though you don't believe life has any more value
for one type of animal than it does for another, you still
insanely oppose encouragement of one over the other.

  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

dh@. lied:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:39:18 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
> >dh@. lied:
> >
> >> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:48:14 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>dh@. lied:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:06:26 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>dh@. lied:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>><dh@.> 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.

>
> Then you have admitted


I haven't admitted anything. You misuse that word every time you use
it.

> that you can't comprehend how life
> could have positive value to an animal or a human.


Life per se DOES NOT HAVE any intrinsic moral worth to any entity. You
are wrong to assert, without support as always, that it does. It is
the *quality* of life, once an entity exists, that matters. "Getting
to experience life" in the first place has ZERO value.


> >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.

>
> Since you have no clue how anything could ever
> benefit from living--regardless of quality of life


NOTHING "benefits" from coming into existence. An entity benefits by
having a high quality life compared with a low quality life; NOT
comparing it with never existence.

Your choice is a FALSE choice: not "decent life" versus "no life at
all", rather "decent life" vs "bad life".


> It doesn't mean none do


No animal "benefits" from coming into existence. Animals benefit from
humane treatment IF they exist.



  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

dh@. lied:
> On 15 Nov 2005 18:02:50 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>
> >Seeker wrote:
> >> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:26:41 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >><dh@.> wrote
> >> >><snip repetition>
> >> >>
> >> >>>>I understand it. The point you made above doesn't change anything, you
> >> >>>>are
> >> >>>>still trying to extract some moral credit from that act of combining egg
> >> >>>>and
> >> >>>>sperm, and it just doesn't work. It doesn't deserve any.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It provides life for an animal. Life that it otherwise would NOT
> >> >>> have.
> >> >>
> >> >>That fact has no moral content. The morally relevant facts are; the animal
> >> >>was bred to be food, well-treated or not, killed humanely or not, sold and
> >> >>consumed.
> >> >
> >> > LOL!!! Hilarious that you consider what happens to the dead bodies to
> >> > be morally significant, but that the living animals' lives are not.
> >>
> >> What happens to the dead bodies is morally significant because it indicates
> >> why we killed them, which is part of the moral calculation.

> >
> >No, that's not right. You killed the steer in order to eat it, but
> >after killing it, you discover it has BSE or some other condition that
> >keeps you from eating it, so you incinerate it instead. Or, you bought
> >the package of steaks with every intention of grilling them, but while
> >you were away from the house for a few days the refrigerator broke
> >down, and everything in it spoiled, so you threw the steaks in the
> >garbage bin.
> >
> >The *ultimate* disposition of the corpse has no moral meaning at all;
> >it's just a corpse. It's the purpose in raising and killing them that
> >matters, not what ultimately happens to the body. Raising the steer to
> >eat it seems like a morally worthy choice; to many people, raising it
> >as a bull to be used in bullfights seems a morally corrupt choice.

>
> Since YOU/"ARAs"


I'm not an "ara".

> insist that life has no value for any animals or
> humans regardless of quality,


No animal or person "benefits" from coming into existence.


> >> The living
> >> animals lives are morally significant because they indicate how we treat the
> >> animals.
> >>
> >> >>Combining egg and sperm for the purpose of creating a product
> >> >>involves no sacrifice, no "consideration" of the well-being of any animal.
> >> >>Those are the morally relevant concepts in this equation.
> >> >>
> >> >>The rest is just more of your rubbish.
> >> >
> >> > You can contribute to the lives they get, or try not to.
> >>
> >> And if their lives are not decent then you shouldn't. You don't make any
> >> effort to ensure that they are.

> >
> >Or, if you decide mostly for health but partly for aesthetic reasons
> >not to eat meat, you also shouldn't.

>
> These quotes explain how YOU/"ARAs" want everyone to feel
> about raising animals for food


I'm not an "ara".

  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:53:30 -0800, "Seeker" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:26:41 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>><snip repetition>
>>>>
>>>>>>I understand it. The point you made above doesn't change anything, you
>>>>>>are
>>>>>>still trying to extract some moral credit from that act of combining
>>>>>>egg
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>sperm, and it just doesn't work. It doesn't deserve any.
>>>>>
>>>>> It provides life for an animal. Life that it otherwise would NOT
>>>>> have.
>>>>
>>>>That fact has no moral content. The morally relevant facts are; the
>>>>animal
>>>>was bred to be food, well-treated or not, killed humanely or not, sold
>>>>and
>>>>consumed.
>>>
>>> LOL!!! Hilarious that you consider what happens to the dead bodies to
>>> be morally significant, but that the living animals' lives are not.

>>
>>What happens to the dead bodies is morally significant because it
>>indicates
>>why we killed them, which is part of the moral calculation. The living
>>animals lives are morally significant because they indicate how we treat
>>the
>>animals.

>
> When considering whether or not it's cruel *to the animals* to raise
> them
> for food, a person must take their lives into consideration. "ARAs" do NOT
> want us to take the animals' lives into consideration, because some of
> them
> are of positive value.


That should mean the same as their treatment is not cruel, not that they
experience life as opposed to "no life". That idea has no place in the
calculation.

> Since providing food animals with lives of positive
> value could be considered ethically equivalent or superior to eliminating
> them,
> "ARAs" are very much opposed to it being considered.


You are WRONG. As a matter of fact, ARAs consider it very important to
consider the humane treatment of animals. They are among the most vocal
campaigners for livestock welfare. They may not consider it as good as
elimination of livestock, but they DO wish us to consider the animals'
lives, that is for sure.

>>>>Combining egg and sperm for the purpose of creating a product
>>>>involves no sacrifice, no "consideration" of the well-being of any
>>>>animal.
>>>>Those are the morally relevant concepts in this equation.
>>>>
>>>>The rest is just more of your rubbish.
>>>
>>> You can contribute to the lives they get, or try not to.

>>
>>And if their lives are not decent then you shouldn't. You don't make any
>>effort to ensure that they are.

>
> I believe most broilers, turkeys, beef and dairy cattle, and cage free
> hens have decent lives. Other than vegetable products, most of what
> I eat comes from those groups. I don't know what to think about pork
> yet, but I eat very little of it.


Then you are not contributing to decent lives for pigs, how terrible.

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

>>
>>More tap-dancing. "Them" refers to all livestock, not to specific animals.

>
> LOL! Yes it does. When I buy cage free eggs to contribute to life for
> future cage free laying hens--to support them--"them" does not refer to
> *any* other livestock, much less to *all* OTHER livestock.


>>Once you consume an animal product it's too late for that animal, but by
>>making the right choices you can have a positive impact on the treatment
>>of
>>animals in general.

>
> Of FUTURE animals. No one contributes to "better" lives for animals....
> battery hens are not going to all of a sudden be moved to cage free houses
> because any number of people begin to buy cage free eggs. They will
> finish out their lives in the cages, and if a new cage free system is
> established
> where the battery method was being used, it will be with new different
> hens
> whose lives will not be improved...as I've been saying: it will be that
> life or
> nothing, so that's how people should think about it.


Then you are contributing to the "elimination" of battery hens. You have an
elimination agenda. You wish to deny future battery hens a chance to
experience life. How inconsiderate of you.


  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

dh@. lied:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:53:30 -0800, "Seeker" > wrote:
>
> >
> ><dh@.> lied:
> >> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:26:41 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>><dh@.> wrote
> >>><snip repetition>
> >>>
> >>>>>I understand it. The point you made above doesn't change anything, you
> >>>>>are
> >>>>>still trying to extract some moral credit from that act of combining egg
> >>>>>and
> >>>>>sperm, and it just doesn't work. It doesn't deserve any.
> >>>>
> >>>> It provides life for an animal. Life that it otherwise would NOT
> >>>> have.
> >>>
> >>>That fact has no moral content. The morally relevant facts are; the animal
> >>>was bred to be food, well-treated or not, killed humanely or not, sold and
> >>>consumed.
> >>
> >> LOL!!! Hilarious that you consider what happens to the dead bodies to
> >> be morally significant, but that the living animals' lives are not.

> >
> >What happens to the dead bodies is morally significant because it indicates
> >why we killed them, which is part of the moral calculation. The living
> >animals lives are morally significant because they indicate how we treat the
> >animals.

>
> When considering whether or not it's cruel *to the animals* to raise them
> for food, a person must take their lives into consideration.


No. Their "getting to live" is not morally important in any way.

It is the *quality* of life, if they exist, that one should consider.

> "ARAs" do NOT
> want us to take the animals' lives into consideration, because


....because "getting to live" is not worthy of any moral consideration.


> >>>Combining egg and sperm for the purpose of creating a product
> >>>involves no sacrifice, no "consideration" of the well-being of any animal.
> >>>Those are the morally relevant concepts in this equation.
> >>>
> >>>The rest is just more of your rubbish.
> >>
> >> You can contribute to the lives they get, or try not to.

> >
> >And if their lives are not decent then you shouldn't. You don't make any
> >effort to ensure that they are.

>
> I believe most broilers, turkeys, beef and dairy cattle, and cage free
> hens have decent lives.


You don't make any effort to ensure that the animals you consume had
decent lives.


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

> >
> >More tap-dancing. "Them" refers to all livestock, not to specific animals.

>
> LOL! Yes it does. When I buy cage free eggs to contribute to life for
> future cage free laying hens


You aren't. You are buying the eggs because you want to eat them.


> >Once you consume an animal product it's too late for that animal, but by
> >making the right choices you can have a positive impact on the treatment of
> >animals in general.

>
> Of FUTURE animals.


IF they exist. There is no moral reason for them to exist.

  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

dh@. lied:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:56:54 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
> >dh@. lied:
> >
> >> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:27:03 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>><dh@.> lied
> >>>
> >>>>On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>I understand exactly what you're doing,
> >>>>
> >>>> No, not what I'm doing

> >
> >He understands exactly what you're doing. We all do.
> >You're trying a cheap, sophomoric trick. You've been
> >trying it for six years. You've failed to complete it
> >for six years. You will always fail at it.

>
> I'm trying to get YOU/"ARAs"


I'm not an "ara".

You don't need to tell me what you're trying to do. I've known for a
long time what you're trying to do: a cheap, sophomoric, ****witted
trick. It hasn't worked in over six years, and it's not going to work
now.


> to give the animals'
> lives as much or more consideration than their deaths.


Their lives - their "getting to experience life" - is not worthy of any
moral consideration at all. Their deaths *are* worthy of moral
consideration. That's just how it is.


> >>>>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.

> >
> >That is morally MEANINGLESS. The very fact you state
> >it as if it's something important *proves* that Dutch
> >is correct: you are trying to claim some moral credit
> >for having done something good. You have NOT done
> >something good by causing the animal to live. You earn
> >no moral credit.

>
> Dutch has amusingly pretended to believe it's a moral
> bonus to provide a decent life over a bad one, but there
> is no such alternative. You contribute to the lives they get,
> or you don't, and since you think that's meaningless you
> must think it doesn't matter what type of lives people
> contribute to because you feel it " is morally MEANINGLESS".


No, what is morally meaningless is whether they "get to experience
life" at all. If they come into existence, then it is morally
MEANINGFUL what quality of life they have. If everyone stopped buying
inhumanely raised animal products and began buying only humanely raised
animal products, then soon there would only be humanely raised animal
products available. But there is no moral reason for farmed animal
products to exist at all, from the standpoint of the animals.

  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:20:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:53:30 -0800, "Seeker" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:26:41 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>><snip repetition>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I understand it. The point you made above doesn't change anything, you
>>>>>>>are
>>>>>>>still trying to extract some moral credit from that act of combining
>>>>>>>egg
>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>sperm, and it just doesn't work. It doesn't deserve any.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It provides life for an animal. Life that it otherwise would NOT
>>>>>> have.
>>>>>
>>>>>That fact has no moral content. The morally relevant facts are; the
>>>>>animal
>>>>>was bred to be food, well-treated or not, killed humanely or not, sold
>>>>>and
>>>>>consumed.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!! Hilarious that you consider what happens to the dead bodies to
>>>> be morally significant, but that the living animals' lives are not.
>>>
>>>What happens to the dead bodies is morally significant because it
>>>indicates
>>>why we killed them, which is part of the moral calculation. The living
>>>animals lives are morally significant because they indicate how we treat
>>>the
>>>animals.

>>
>> When considering whether or not it's cruel *to the animals* to raise
>> them
>> for food, a person must take their lives into consideration. "ARAs" do NOT
>> want us to take the animals' lives into consideration, because some of
>> them
>> are of positive value.

>
>That should mean the same as their treatment is not cruel, not that they
>experience life as opposed to "no life". That idea has no place in the
>calculation.


That's ALL there is to it, so that is EXACTLY what needs to be considered
if you want to stick with reality. Let's test that: if you don't want to consider
the fact that it's the life they experience as opposed to "no life", what fantasy
do you want to consider in place of "no life", and why????

>> Since providing food animals with lives of positive
>> value could be considered ethically equivalent or superior to eliminating
>> them,
>> "ARAs" are very much opposed to it being considered.

>
>You are WRONG. As a matter of fact, ARAs consider it very important to
>consider the humane treatment of animals. They are among the most vocal
>campaigners for livestock welfare.


They exploit AW i$$ue$ for $ome rea$on...and I believe even you have
a clue what that rea$on might be.

>They may not consider it as good as
>elimination of livestock, but they DO wish us to consider the animals'
>lives, that is for sure.


People who are in favor of decent lives for livestock should be OPPOSED
to the elimination objective, no matter how much YOU/"ARAs" hate it, and
in part because you do.

>>>>>Combining egg and sperm for the purpose of creating a product
>>>>>involves no sacrifice, no "consideration" of the well-being of any
>>>>>animal.
>>>>>Those are the morally relevant concepts in this equation.
>>>>>
>>>>>The rest is just more of your rubbish.
>>>>
>>>> You can contribute to the lives they get, or try not to.
>>>
>>>And if their lives are not decent then you shouldn't. You don't make any
>>>effort to ensure that they are.

>>
>> I believe most broilers, turkeys, beef and dairy cattle, and cage free
>> hens have decent lives. Other than vegetable products, most of what
>> I eat comes from those groups. I don't know what to think about pork
>> yet, but I eat very little of it.

>
>Then you are not contributing to decent lives for pigs,


I feel sure that when they are suckling pigs their lives are of positive
value. After that I don't know what to think about it, since I don't know
just how they are raised. One thing I am certain about though is that
life has positive value for some, and negative for others.

>how terrible.


As I've said many times and incredibly no one has had what little
brain it requires to understand: it's not when animals don't live that
matters, it's when they do. Since obviously none of you can understand
how that could be, considering details about it must be out of the question.

>>>>You can not
>>>> contribute to "better" lives for them, as you dishonestly claim.
>>>
>>>More tap-dancing. "Them" refers to all livestock, not to specific animals.

>>
>> LOL! Yes it does. When I buy cage free eggs to contribute to life for
>> future cage free laying hens--to support them--"them" does not refer to
>> *any* other livestock, much less to *all* OTHER livestock.

>
>>>Once you consume an animal product it's too late for that animal, but by
>>>making the right choices you can have a positive impact on the treatment
>>>of
>>>animals in general.

>>
>> Of FUTURE animals. No one contributes to "better" lives for animals....
>> battery hens are not going to all of a sudden be moved to cage free houses
>> because any number of people begin to buy cage free eggs. They will
>> finish out their lives in the cages, and if a new cage free system is
>> established
>> where the battery method was being used, it will be with new different
>> hens
>> whose lives will not be improved...as I've been saying: it will be that
>> life or
>> nothing, so that's how people should think about it.

>
>Then you are contributing to the "elimination" of battery hens.


I would vote for no more batter hens. I would make that illegal before
I would cock fighting. I'm certain that seems insane to you, and also
certain that your feelings are due to your own ignorance.

>You have an
>elimination agenda. You wish to deny future battery hens a chance to
>experience life.


That's because I believe a significant percentage of them have
terrible lives. If I didn't, why would I be opposed to them.

>How inconsiderate of you.


Of course I view your beliefs as insane AND ignorant.


  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

On 16 Nov 2005 12:22:27 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:

>dh@. explained to the Goober:


>> I believe most broilers, turkeys, beef and dairy cattle, and cage free
>> hens have decent lives.

>
>You don't make any effort to ensure that the animals you consume had
>decent lives.


How could we do that?

>> >>You can not
>> >> contribute to "better" lives for them, as you dishonestly claim.
>> >
>> >More tap-dancing. "Them" refers to all livestock, not to specific animals.

>>
>> LOL! Yes it does. When I buy cage free eggs to contribute to life for
>> future cage free laying hens

>
>You aren't.


I am. You just don't have what little brain it takes to understand the
concept, but I am regardless of the pitiful limits to which your restricted
feeble mind is capable of understanding.

>You are buying the eggs because you want to eat them.


I don't buy cage free eggs because I particularly want to eat cage
free eggs Goo. If I didn't give a shit like you don't, I would buy the
cheaper and what I consider to be better quality regular eggs. It's
ONLY to encourage life for future cage free laying hens, that I pay
the extra price for cage free eggs. You are not capable of understanding,
but that's how it is regardless of your severe mental restrictions.

>> >Once you consume an animal product it's too late for that animal, but by
>> >making the right choices you can have a positive impact on the treatment of
>> >animals in general.

>>
>> Of FUTURE animals.

>
>IF they exist.


LOL. No shit you fool, no shit.

>There is no moral reason for them to exist.


And so what?
  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

On 16 Nov 2005 12:26:56 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:

>dh@. explained to Goo:
>> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:56:54 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>>
>> >dh@. lied:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:27:03 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>><dh@.> lied
>> >>>
>> >>>>On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>I understand exactly what you're doing,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> No, not what I'm doing
>> >
>> >He understands exactly what you're doing. We all do.
>> >You're trying a cheap, sophomoric trick. You've been
>> >trying it for six years. You've failed to complete it
>> >for six years. You will always fail at it.

>>
>> I'm trying to get YOU/"ARAs"

>
>I'm not an "ara".
>
>You don't need to tell me what you're trying to do.


No. We both know I'm encouraging people to consider
THE ANIMALS, and we both know that YOU/"ARAs"
HATE IT.

>I've known for a
>long time what you're trying to do: a cheap, sophomoric, ****witted
>trick.


It says quite a lot that you consider the FACTS I point out and
YOU/"ARAs" hate so much, to be a trick. And says even more
that you consider an imaginary fantasy about a talking "AR" pig,
to be of greater significance than the lives of billions of animals.

>It hasn't worked in over six years, and it's not going to work
>now.


[...]
>Their deaths *are* worthy of moral consideration.


Why?

>That's just how it is.
>
>> >>>>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.
>> >
>> >That is morally MEANINGLESS. The very fact you state
>> >it as if it's something important *proves* that Dutch
>> >is correct: you are trying to claim some moral credit
>> >for having done something good. You have NOT done
>> >something good by causing the animal to live. You earn
>> >no moral credit.

>>
>> Dutch has amusingly pretended to believe it's a moral
>> bonus to provide a decent life over a bad one, but there
>> is no such alternative. You contribute to the lives they get,
>> or you don't, and since you think that's meaningless you
>> must think it doesn't matter what type of lives people
>> contribute to because you feel it " is morally MEANINGLESS".

>
>No, what is morally meaningless is whether they "get to experience
>life" at all.


It has meaning when they do, not when they don't. You can't
understand that either, but that's how it is regardless of your gross
mental inabilities.

>If they come into existence, then it is morally
>MEANINGFUL what quality of life they have. If everyone stopped buying
>inhumanely raised animal products and began buying only humanely raised
>animal products, then soon there would only be humanely raised animal
>products available.


Then a lot more animals would have decent lives, which YOU/"ARAs"
don't care a bit about. But no doubt you would still care about their deaths.
You would still prevent their lives--even if you knew they would be decent
lives--because YOU/"ARAs" believe that: "no matter how "decent" the
conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it."

>But there is no moral reason for farmed animal
>products to exist at all, from the standpoint of the animals.


Are you aware of *any* reason(s) how farmed animal products could be
of significance to farm animals, Goo?
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

On 16 Nov 2005 Goo desperately lied:

>I'm not an "ara".
>
>> insist that life has no value for any animals or
>> humans regardless of quality,

>
>No animal or person "benefits" from coming into existence.


YOU/"ARAs" insist life can not have positive value for farm animals
because you believe "the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it",
regardless of quality of life and the humaness of their death.

>> >> The living
>> >> animals lives are morally significant because they indicate how we treat the
>> >> animals.
>> >>
>> >> >>Combining egg and sperm for the purpose of creating a product
>> >> >>involves no sacrifice, no "consideration" of the well-being of any animal.
>> >> >>Those are the morally relevant concepts in this equation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>The rest is just more of your rubbish.
>> >> >
>> >> > You can contribute to the lives they get, or try not to.
>> >>
>> >> And if their lives are not decent then you shouldn't. You don't make any
>> >> effort to ensure that they are.
>> >
>> >Or, if you decide mostly for health but partly for aesthetic reasons
>> >not to eat meat, you also shouldn't.

>>
>> These quotes explain how YOU/"ARAs" want everyone to feel
>> about raising animals for food

>
>I'm not an "ara".


LOL! Of course I can't believe that Goo. But notice I've been
insulting myself by accomodating YOU and your boy by adding
the / between YOU and "ARAs"? Yes, I'm sure you noticed,
but you just don't appreciate any grand gesture like that.
  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

On 16 Nov 2005 12:16:42 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:

>dh@. pointed out to Goo:


>> Since you have no clue how anything could ever
>> benefit from living--regardless of quality of life

>
>NOTHING "benefits" from coming into existence. An entity benefits by
>having a high quality life compared with a low quality life; NOT
>comparing it with never existence.
>
>Your choice is a FALSE choice: not "decent life" versus "no life at
>all", rather "decent life" vs "bad life".


You may truly be too stupid to understand, but you can only
contribute to whatever they get, not a better or worse life for them.
For example I contribute to cage free egg production, which ONLY
contributes to that type life for those birds, not better/"decent vs bad"
life for them. You obviously want to pretend some other stupid thing
that I imagine you can't even explain, but if you think you can, then
try explaining how think you could contribute to better life for any
particular farm animal(s).

>> It doesn't mean none do

>
>No animal "benefits" from coming into existence. Animals benefit from
>humane treatment IF they exist.


Either they benefit from their life or they don't. Some do and some
do not, depending on quality of life. It's very easy to understand, but
somehow, stupidly, you just can not grasp such an easy fact.
  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

dh@. lied:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:20:06 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>><dh@.> lied:
>>
>>>On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 17:53:30 -0800, "Seeker" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>><dh@.> lied:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:26:41 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> lied:
>>>>>><snip repetition>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I understand it. The point you made above doesn't change anything, you
>>>>>>>>are
>>>>>>>>still trying to extract some moral credit from that act of combining
>>>>>>>>egg
>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>sperm, and it just doesn't work. It doesn't deserve any.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It provides life for an animal. Life that it otherwise would NOT
>>>>>>>have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That fact has no moral content. The morally relevant facts are; the
>>>>>>animal
>>>>>>was bred to be food, well-treated or not, killed humanely or not, sold
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>consumed.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!!! Hilarious that you consider what happens to the dead bodies to
>>>>>be morally significant, but that the living animals' lives are not.
>>>>
>>>>What happens to the dead bodies is morally significant because it
>>>>indicates
>>>>why we killed them, which is part of the moral calculation. The living
>>>>animals lives are morally significant because they indicate how we treat
>>>>the
>>>>animals.
>>>
>>> When considering whether or not it's cruel *to the animals* to raise
>>>them
>>>for food, a person must take their lives into consideration. "ARAs" do NOT
>>>want us to take the animals' lives into consideration, because some of
>>>them
>>>are of positive value.

>>
>>That should mean the same as their treatment is not cruel, not that they
>>experience life as opposed to "no life". That idea has no place in the
>>calculation.

>
>
> That's ALL there is to it, so that is EXACTLY what needs to be considered


There is NO REASON to consider or weigh the animals'
"getting to experience life" vs "no life". It's
meaningless.


>>>Since providing food animals with lives of positive
>>>value could be considered ethically equivalent or superior to eliminating
>>>them,
>>>"ARAs" are very much opposed to it being considered.

>>
>>You are WRONG. As a matter of fact, ARAs consider it very important to
>>consider the humane treatment of animals. They are among the most vocal
>>campaigners for livestock welfare.

>
>
> They exploit AW


They don't. They want humane treatment of animals if
the animals exist. Period.



>>They may not consider it as good as
>>elimination of livestock, but they DO wish us to consider the animals'
>>lives, that is for sure.

>
>
> People who are in favor of decent lives for livestock should be OPPOSED
> to the elimination objective


No. That's an illogical conclusion. Once again:
support for "decent lives for livestock" is completely
*conditional* on the animals existing at all; it does
NOT imply that one "ought" to want the animals to exist.

It is 100% consistent to believe, as "aras" believe, "I
don't want livestock to exist, but if they do, I want
them to have decent lives." Fully consistent.


>>>>>>Combining egg and sperm for the purpose of creating a product
>>>>>>involves no sacrifice, no "consideration" of the well-being of any
>>>>>>animal.
>>>>>>Those are the morally relevant concepts in this equation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The rest is just more of your rubbish.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can contribute to the lives they get, or try not to.
>>>>
>>>>And if their lives are not decent then you shouldn't. You don't make any
>>>>effort to ensure that they are.
>>>
>>> I believe most broilers, turkeys, beef and dairy cattle, and cage free
>>>hens have decent lives. Other than vegetable products, most of what
>>>I eat comes from those groups. I don't know what to think about pork
>>>yet, but I eat very little of it.

>>
>>Then you are not contributing to decent lives for pigs,

>
>
> I feel sure that when they are suckling pigs their lives are of positive
> value.


Pigs don't place a value on "getting to exist". YOU do.


>>how terrible.

>
>
> As I've said many times


Always a waste.


>>>>>You can not
>>>>>contribute to "better" lives for them, as you dishonestly claim.
>>>>
>>>>More tap-dancing. "Them" refers to all livestock, not to specific animals.
>>>
>>> LOL! Yes it does. When I buy cage free eggs to contribute to life for
>>>future cage free laying hens--to support them--"them" does not refer to
>>>*any* other livestock, much less to *all* OTHER livestock.

>>
>>>>Once you consume an animal product it's too late for that animal, but by
>>>>making the right choices you can have a positive impact on the treatment
>>>>of
>>>>animals in general.
>>>
>>> Of FUTURE animals. No one contributes to "better" lives for animals....
>>>battery hens are not going to all of a sudden be moved to cage free houses
>>>because any number of people begin to buy cage free eggs. They will
>>>finish out their lives in the cages, and if a new cage free system is
>>>established
>>>where the battery method was being used, it will be with new different
>>>hens
>>>whose lives will not be improved...as I've been saying: it will be that
>>>life or
>>>nothing, so that's how people should think about it.

>>
>>Then you are contributing to the "elimination" of battery hens.

>
>
> I would vote for no more batter hens.


So you'd take away whatever life they get.


>>You have an
>>elimination agenda. You wish to deny future battery hens a chance to
>>experience life.

>
>
> That's because


That's because you're wildly inconsistent and stupid.


>
>>How inconsiderate of you.



  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

dh@. wrote:

> On 16 Nov 2005 12:22:27 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. explained to the Goober:

>
>
>>> I believe most broilers, turkeys, beef and dairy cattle, and cage free
>>>hens have decent lives.

>>
>>You don't make any effort to ensure that the animals you consume had
>>decent lives.

>
>
> How could we do that?


That's your problem.


>>>>>You can not
>>>>>contribute to "better" lives for them, as you dishonestly claim.
>>>>
>>>>More tap-dancing. "Them" refers to all livestock, not to specific animals.
>>>
>>> LOL! Yes it does. When I buy cage free eggs to contribute to life for
>>>future cage free laying hens

>>
>>You aren't.

>
>
> I am.


You aren't. You're eating eggs.


>>You are buying the eggs because you want to eat them.

>
>
> I don't buy cage free eggs because I particularly want to eat cage
> free eggs


Then you shouldn't buy them. Why would you buy and eat
something you don't particularly want to eat? You're
not making any sense (not that you ever did.)


>>>>Once you consume an animal product it's too late for that animal, but by
>>>>making the right choices you can have a positive impact on the treatment of
>>>>animals in general.
>>>
>>> Of FUTURE animals.

>>
>>IF they exist.

>
>
> LOL.


For some reason, that big "IF" seems to tie you up in
knots.


>>There is no moral reason for them to exist.

  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

dh@. lied:

> On 16 Nov 2005 12:26:56 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. lied:
>>
>>>On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:56:54 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>dh@. lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:27:03 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> lied
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:32:29 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I understand exactly what you're doing,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, not what I'm doing
>>>>
>>>>He understands exactly what you're doing. We all do.
>>>>You're trying a cheap, sophomoric trick. You've been
>>>>trying it for six years. You've failed to complete it
>>>>for six years. You will always fail at it.
>>>
>>> I'm trying to get YOU/"ARAs"

>>
>>I'm not an "ara".
>>
>>You don't need to tell me what you're trying to do.

>
>
> No.


No. I've identified your cheap sophomoric trick long ago.


>>I've known for a
>>long time what you're trying to do: a cheap, sophomoric, ****witted
>>trick.

>
>
> It says quite a lot that you consider the FACTS I point out


You don't point out any facts. You blabber a lot of
nonsense, predicated on the false belief that animals'
"getting to experience life" is a morally significant
thing. It is not.


>>It hasn't worked in over six years, and it's not going to work
>>now.

>
>
> [...]
>
>>Their lives - their "getting to experience life" - is not worthy of any
>>moral consideration at all. Their deaths *are* worthy of moral consideration.

>
>
> Why?


Because we place a moral value on the preservation of
life of living things, and if we're going to end a
life, our axiomatic belief that continued life
generally is good requires that we reflect on what
we're about to do.


>>That's just how it is.
>>
>>
>>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>That is morally MEANINGLESS. The very fact you state
>>>>it as if it's something important *proves* that Dutch
>>>>is correct: you are trying to claim some moral credit
>>>>for having done something good. You have NOT done
>>>>something good by causing the animal to live. You earn
>>>>no moral credit.
>>>
>>> Dutch has amusingly pretended to believe it's a moral
>>>bonus to provide a decent life over a bad one, but there
>>>is no such alternative. You contribute to the lives they get,
>>>or you don't, and since you think that's meaningless you
>>>must think it doesn't matter what type of lives people
>>>contribute to because you feel it " is morally MEANINGLESS".

>>
>>No, what is morally meaningless is whether they "get to experience
>>life" at all.

>
>
> It has meaning when they do


It doesn't have ANY meaning compared to "never get to
live".


>>If they come into existence, then it is morally
>>MEANINGFUL what quality of life they have. If everyone stopped buying
>>inhumanely raised animal products and began buying only humanely raised
>>animal products, then soon there would only be humanely raised animal
>>products available.

>
>
> Then a lot more animals would have decent lives


And if everyone decided to become strictly vegetarian,
for whatever reason, then there wouldn't be any
livestock animals, and that would NOT be morally
meaningful at all.


>>But there is no moral reason for farmed animal
>>products to exist at all, from the standpoint of the animals.

>
>
> Are you aware of *any* reason(s) how farmed animal products could be
> of significance to farm animals


MORALLY significant? There is no reason. Farm animals
"getting to experience life" is not morally significant
at all.
  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life can have positive value

dh@. lied:

> On 16 Nov 2005 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>I'm not an "ara".
>>
>>
>>>insist that life has no value for any animals or
>>>humans regardless of quality,

>>
>>No animal or person "benefits" from coming into existence.

>
>
> YOU/"ARAs"


I'm not an "ara".


> insist life can not have positive value for farm animals


"Getting to experience life" per se has no value to
farm animals; none whatever.


>>>>>The living
>>>>>animals lives are morally significant because they indicate how we treat the
>>>>>animals.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Combining egg and sperm for the purpose of creating a product
>>>>>>>involves no sacrifice, no "consideration" of the well-being of any animal.
>>>>>>>Those are the morally relevant concepts in this equation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The rest is just more of your rubbish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can contribute to the lives they get, or try not to.
>>>>>
>>>>>And if their lives are not decent then you shouldn't. You don't make any
>>>>>effort to ensure that they are.
>>>>
>>>>Or, if you decide mostly for health but partly for aesthetic reasons
>>>>not to eat meat, you also shouldn't.
>>>
>>> These quotes explain how YOU/"ARAs" want everyone to feel
>>>about raising animals for food

>>
>>I'm not an "ara".

>
>
> LOL!


It's the truth.
  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

dh@. wrote:

> On 16 Nov 2005 12:16:42 -0800, "Leif Erikson" > wrote:
>
>
>>dh@. pointed out to Goo:

>
>
>>> Since you have no clue how anything could ever
>>>benefit from living--regardless of quality of life

>>
>>NOTHING "benefits" from coming into existence. An entity benefits by
>>having a high quality life compared with a low quality life; NOT
>>comparing it with never existing.
>>
>>Your choice is a FALSE choice: not "decent life" versus "no life at
>>all", rather "decent life" vs "bad life".

>
>
> You may truly be too stupid to understand


I understand it fully. You are posing a false choice.
The choice is not "decent lives for farm animals" vs
"no life".


>>>It doesn't mean none do

>>
>>No animal "benefits" from coming into existence. Animals benefit from
>>humane treatment IF they exist.

>
>
> Either they benefit from their life or they don't.


No animal benefits from coming into existence. Period.
  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
Louis Boyd
 
Posts: n/a
Default Life per se does not have a positive value

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.

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Life can have positive value dh@. Vegan 10 16-11-2005 09:07 PM
Life can have positive value [email protected] Vegan 9 09-11-2005 10:11 PM
Life can have positive value [email protected] Vegan 0 27-10-2005 11:22 PM
Article: Soy: Positive: Men do not need to be scared of soy [email protected] Vegan 0 30-12-2004 10:37 PM
Article: Soy: Positive: Men do not need to be scared of soy William Hershman Vegan 15 30-12-2004 10:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"