Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
dh@. wrote:
> On 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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
<dh@.> wrote > On 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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
dh@. wrote:
> On 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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
dh@. wrote:
> On Sat, 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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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". |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
dh@. lied:
> On 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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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". |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
Life per se does not have a positive value
dh@. wrote:
> On 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. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural,sci.agriculture
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Life can have positive value | Vegan | |||
Life can have positive value | Vegan | |||
Life can have positive value | Vegan | |||
Article: Soy: Positive: Men do not need to be scared of soy | Vegan | |||
Article: Soy: Positive: Men do not need to be scared of soy | Vegan |