"Martin Willett" > wrote
> ant and dec wrote:

>> But not much respect for the pig?
>
> If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as most
> of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and die
> than not to.
>
> Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there, so
> don't bother pointing it out.

I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up to
now, but that is a fallacy. You cannot compare living and dying to *not*
living, since never being born, never existing is not a real state. This is
called "The Logic of the Larder" and there is one fruitcake here who has
already replied to you who makes it his life's work to promote this idea.

http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf
There, in brief, is the key to the whole matter.
The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to
compare existence with non-existence. A person who is already in existence
may feel that he
would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the terra firma of
existence to argue
from; the moment he begins to argue as if from the abyss of the
non-existent, he talks
nonsense, by predicating good or evil, happiness or unhappiness, of that of
which we can
predicate nothing.

When, therefore, we talk of "bringing a being," as we vaguely express it,
"into the world," we
cannot claim from that being any gratitude for our action, or drive a
bargain with him, and a
very shabby one, on that account; nor can our duties to him be evaded by any
such quibble, in
which the wish is so obviously father to the thought. Nor, in this
connection, is it necessary to
enter on the question of ante-natal existence, because, if such existence
there be, we have no
reason for assuming that it is less happy than the present existence; and
thus equally the
argument falls to the ground. It is absurd to compare a supposed
preexistence, or non-
existence, with actual individual life as known to us here. All reasoning
based on such
comparison must necessarily be false, and will lead to grotesque
conclusions.

Dutch wrote:
> "Martin Willett" > wrote
>
>>ant and dec wrote:
>
>
>>>But not much respect for the pig?
>>
>>If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as most
>>of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and die
>>than not to.
>>
>>Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there, so
>>don't bother pointing it out.
>
>
> I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up to
> now, but that is a fallacy. You cannot compare living and dying to *not*
> living, since never being born, never existing is not a real state. This is
> called "The Logic of the Larder" and there is one fruitcake here who has
> already replied to you who makes it his life's work to promote this idea.
>
> http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf
> There, in brief, is the key to the whole matter.
> The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to
> compare existence with non-existence. A person who is already in existence
> may feel that he
> would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the terra firma of
> existence to argue
> from; the moment he begins to argue as if from the abyss of the
> non-existent, he talks
> nonsense, by predicating good or evil, happiness or unhappiness, of that of
> which we can
> predicate nothing.
>
> When, therefore, we talk of "bringing a being," as we vaguely express it,
> "into the world," we
> cannot claim from that being any gratitude for our action, or drive a
> bargain with him, and a
> very shabby one, on that account; nor can our duties to him be evaded by any
> such quibble, in
> which the wish is so obviously father to the thought. Nor, in this
> connection, is it necessary to
> enter on the question of ante-natal existence, because, if such existence
> there be, we have no
> reason for assuming that it is less happy than the present existence; and
> thus equally the
> argument falls to the ground. It is absurd to compare a supposed
> preexistence, or non-
> existence, with actual individual life as known to us here. All reasoning
> based on such
> comparison must necessarily be false, and will lead to grotesque
> conclusions.
>
>

Do you start your reasoning from first principles and work upwards to
conclusions and lifestyle choices that might come as a surprise you or
do you work backwards from the practical policy stances you are most
comfortable with and in the process discover what your principles "must
have been"?

Do you regard lying to yourself as a form of sin?

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org

"Martin Willett" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Martin Willett" > wrote
>>
>>>ant and dec wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>But not much respect for the pig?
>>>
>>>If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as most
>>>of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and die
>>>than not to.
>>>
>>>Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there,
>>>so don't bother pointing it out.
>>
>>
>> I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up
>> to now, but that is a fallacy. You cannot compare living and dying to
>> *not* living, since never being born, never existing is not a real state.
>> This is called "The Logic of the Larder" and there is one fruitcake here
>> who has already replied to you who makes it his life's work to promote
>> this idea.
>>
>> http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf
>> There, in brief, is the key to the whole matter.
>> The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to
>> compare existence with non-existence. A person who is already in
>> existence may feel that he
>> would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the terra firma
>> of existence to argue
>> from; the moment he begins to argue as if from the abyss of the
>> non-existent, he talks
>> nonsense, by predicating good or evil, happiness or unhappiness, of that
>> of which we can
>> predicate nothing.
>>
>> When, therefore, we talk of "bringing a being," as we vaguely express it,
>> "into the world," we
>> cannot claim from that being any gratitude for our action, or drive a
>> bargain with him, and a
>> very shabby one, on that account; nor can our duties to him be evaded by
>> any such quibble, in
>> which the wish is so obviously father to the thought. Nor, in this
>> connection, is it necessary to
>> enter on the question of ante-natal existence, because, if such existence
>> there be, we have no
>> reason for assuming that it is less happy than the present existence; and
>> thus equally the
>> argument falls to the ground. It is absurd to compare a supposed
>> preexistence, or non-
>> existence, with actual individual life as known to us here. All reasoning
>> based on such
>> comparison must necessarily be false, and will lead to grotesque
>> conclusions.
>
> Do you start your reasoning from first principles and work upwards to
> conclusions and lifestyle choices that might come as a surprise you or do
> you work backwards from the practical policy stances you are most
> comfortable with and in the process discover what your principles "must
> have been"?

I think it's probably a combination, but that does not quite capture the
essence of my argument here. In the current context you said about
livestock, "it must surely better to live and die than not to". "Not to"
implies the existence a state of *unborness*, that's where the fallacy lies.
If such a state exists, then in order to call it inferior to "living and
dying" we must know something about it, and I submit that we don't. If it
doesn't exist then the statement cannot logically be made. As the author
above says, we make such statements with "the terra firma of existence to
argue from", and a very pleasant existence at that. I think that we *can*
say something quite similar to your statement to summarize the morality of
breeding livestock, and that is, *if* we breed animals to be food for us,
and we ensure that their lives are happy and content, then no person can
fairly accuse us of wrongdoing. Can you see what I am getting at? It is the
"ensuring that their lives are happy and content" that contains the valid
moral principle here.

> Do you regard lying to yourself as a form of sin?

I would have to say most likely yes, because such dishonesty would
inevitably lead to unjust behaviour towards others.

I would also like to add that it has been a very, very long time since
someone new of your caliber has come to these groups to address these
issues, I hope you decide to stay a while and share your insights.

Dutch wrote:
> "Martin Willett" > wrote
>
>> Dutch wrote:
>>
>>> "Martin Willett" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> But not much respect for the pig?
>>>>
>>>> If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As
>>>> long as most of their life is happy and content it must surely
>>>> better to live and die than not to.
>>>>
>>>> Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put
>>>> it there, so don't bother pointing it out.
>>>
>>>
>>> I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have
>>> said up to now, but that is a fallacy. You cannot compare living
>>> and dying to *not* living, since never being born, never existing
>>> is not a real state. This is called "The Logic of the Larder" and
>>> there is one fruitcake here who has already replied to you who
>>> makes it his life's work to promote this idea.
>>>
>>> http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf There, in
>>> brief, is the key to the whole matter. The fallacy lies in the
>>> confusion of thought which attempts to compare existence with
>>> non-existence. A person who is already in existence may feel that
>>> he would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the
>>> terra firma of existence to argue from; the moment he begins to
>>> argue as if from the abyss of the non-existent, he talks
>>> nonsense, by predicating good or evil, happiness or unhappiness,
>>> of that of which we can predicate nothing.
>>>
>>> When, therefore, we talk of "bringing a being," as we vaguely
>>> express it, "into the world," we cannot claim from that being any
>>> gratitude for our action, or drive a bargain with him, and a very
>>> shabby one, on that account; nor can our duties to him be evaded
>>> by any such quibble, in which the wish is so obviously father to
>>> the thought. Nor, in this connection, is it necessary to enter on
>>> the question of ante-natal existence, because, if such existence
>>> there be, we have no reason for assuming that it is less happy
>>> than the present existence; and thus equally the argument falls
>>> to the ground. It is absurd to compare a supposed preexistence,
>>> or non- existence, with actual individual life as known to us
>>> here. All reasoning based on such comparison must necessarily be
>>> false, and will lead to grotesque conclusions.
>>
>> Do you start your reasoning from first principles and work upwards
>> to conclusions and lifestyle choices that might come as a surprise
>> you or do you work backwards from the practical policy stances you
>> are most comfortable with and in the process discover what your
>> principles "must have been"?
>
>
> I think it's probably a combination, but that does not quite capture
> the essence of my argument here. In the current context you said
> about livestock, "it must surely better to live and die than not to".
> "Not to" implies the existence a state of *unborness*, that's where
> the fallacy lies. If such a state exists, then in order to call it
> inferior to "living and dying" we must know something about it, and I
> submit that we don't. If it doesn't exist then the statement cannot
> logically be made. As the author above says, we make such statements
> with "the terra firma of existence to argue from", and a very
> pleasant existence at that. I think that we *can* say something quite
> similar to your statement to summarize the morality of breeding
> livestock, and that is, *if* we breed animals to be food for us, and
> we ensure that their lives are happy and content, then no person can
> fairly accuse us of wrongdoing. Can you see what I am getting at? It
> is the "ensuring that their lives are happy and content" that
> contains the valid moral principle here.
>

From my own personal experience I know that it is possible to raise
animals for meat and they have a good life. I have seen it in action, I
have seen animals being cared for by my mother and by her father. I know
that farming is not by its fundamental nature cruel. It can become cruel
if the drive to keep down food prices is allowed to reduce the standards
of husbandry to unacceptible levels. It is the banks and supermarket
buyers that are determining how cruel farming is.

I see no reason to give up eating meat entirely for ever just because
some animals have been kept in poor conditions. I think drink driving is
a terrible thing but I don't see how going teetotal myself and whingeing
on about it to anybody who will listen (while making out that I'm not
trying to portray myself as morally superior) is the best way to prevent it.

If there is an issue with the welfare of farm animals there is an issue
with the welfare of farm animals and I say it should be addressed
directly and I will have no problem in paying more for food as a
consequence.


>> Do you regard lying to yourself as a form of sin?
>
>
> I would have to say most likely yes, because such dishonesty would
> inevitably lead to unjust behaviour towards others.
>
> I would also like to add that it has been a very, very long time
> since someone new of your caliber has come to these groups to address
> these issues, I hope you decide to stay a while and share your
> insights.
>
>
>

I like the cut of your jib.

(In case you're not familiar with that phrase I'm sure the origin is
nautical and has nothing to do with butchery.)

I think I have just worked out a new moral principle that is better than
the not eating anything smarter than a pig principle but also has the
same virtue of not making me change my ways and not painting me as a
hypocrite in the front of ravenous aliens: I'll not kill or contribute
to the death of any animal for food purposes /if that animal is clearly
capable of making a moral choice/, unless they have given me explicit
permission.

--
Martin Willett


http://mwillett.org

Martin Willett wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Martin Willett" > wrote
>>
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Martin Willett" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> But not much respect for the pig?
>>>>>
>>>>> If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As
>>>>> long as most of their life is happy and content it must surely
>>>>> better to live and die than not to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put
>>>>> it there, so don't bother pointing it out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have
>>>> said up to now, but that is a fallacy. You cannot compare living
>>>> and dying to *not* living, since never being born, never existing
>>>> is not a real state. This is called "The Logic of the Larder" and
>>>> there is one fruitcake here who has already replied to you who
>>>> makes it his life's work to promote this idea.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf There, in
>>>> brief, is the key to the whole matter. The fallacy lies in the
>>>> confusion of thought which attempts to compare existence with
>>>> non-existence. A person who is already in existence may feel that
>>>> he would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the
>>>> terra firma of existence to argue from; the moment he begins to
>>>> argue as if from the abyss of the non-existent, he talks nonsense,
>>>> by predicating good or evil, happiness or unhappiness,
>>>> of that of which we can predicate nothing.
>>>>
>>>> When, therefore, we talk of "bringing a being," as we vaguely
>>>> express it, "into the world," we cannot claim from that being any
>>>> gratitude for our action, or drive a bargain with him, and a very
>>>> shabby one, on that account; nor can our duties to him be evaded
>>>> by any such quibble, in which the wish is so obviously father to
>>>> the thought. Nor, in this connection, is it necessary to enter on
>>>> the question of ante-natal existence, because, if such existence
>>>> there be, we have no reason for assuming that it is less happy
>>>> than the present existence; and thus equally the argument falls
>>>> to the ground. It is absurd to compare a supposed preexistence,
>>>> or non- existence, with actual individual life as known to us
>>>> here. All reasoning based on such comparison must necessarily be
>>>> false, and will lead to grotesque conclusions.
>>>
>>> Do you start your reasoning from first principles and work upwards
>>> to conclusions and lifestyle choices that might come as a surprise
>>> you or do you work backwards from the practical policy stances you
>>> are most comfortable with and in the process discover what your
>>> principles "must have been"?
>>
>>
>> I think it's probably a combination, but that does not quite capture
>> the essence of my argument here. In the current context you said
>> about livestock, "it must surely better to live and die than not to".
>> "Not to" implies the existence a state of *unborness*, that's where
>> the fallacy lies. If such a state exists, then in order to call it
>> inferior to "living and dying" we must know something about it, and I
>> submit that we don't. If it doesn't exist then the statement cannot
>> logically be made. As the author above says, we make such statements
>> with "the terra firma of existence to argue from", and a very
>> pleasant existence at that. I think that we *can* say something quite
>> similar to your statement to summarize the morality of breeding
>> livestock, and that is, *if* we breed animals to be food for us, and
>> we ensure that their lives are happy and content, then no person can
>> fairly accuse us of wrongdoing. Can you see what I am getting at? It
>> is the "ensuring that their lives are happy and content" that
>> contains the valid moral principle here.
>>
>
> From my own personal experience I know that it is possible to raise
> animals for meat and they have a good life. I have seen it in action, I
> have seen animals being cared for by my mother and by her father. I know
> that farming is not by its fundamental nature cruel. It can become cruel
> if the drive to keep down food prices is allowed to reduce the standards
> of husbandry to unacceptible levels. It is the banks and supermarket
> buyers that are determining how cruel farming is.
>
> I see no reason to give up eating meat entirely for ever just because
> some animals have been kept in poor conditions. I think drink driving is
> a terrible thing but I don't see how going teetotal myself and whingeing
> on about it to anybody who will listen (while making out that I'm not
> trying to portray myself as morally superior) is the best way to prevent
> it.
>
> If there is an issue with the welfare of farm animals there is an issue
> with the welfare of farm animals and I say it should be addressed
> directly and I will have no problem in paying more for food as a
> consequence.

Do you buy your food from the supermarket? Do you know or particularly
care where it comes from?


>
>
>>> Do you regard lying to yourself as a form of sin?
>>
>>
>> I would have to say most likely yes, because such dishonesty would
>> inevitably lead to unjust behaviour towards others.
>>
>> I would also like to add that it has been a very, very long time
>> since someone new of your caliber has come to these groups to address
>> these issues, I hope you decide to stay a while and share your
>> insights.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I like the cut of your jib.
>
> (In case you're not familiar with that phrase I'm sure the origin is
> nautical and has nothing to do with butchery.)
>
> I think I have just worked out a new moral principle that is better than
> the not eating anything smarter than a pig principle but also has the
> same virtue of not making me change my ways and not painting me as a
> hypocrite in the front of ravenous aliens: I'll not kill or contribute
> to the death of any animal for food purposes /if that animal is clearly
> capable of making a moral choice/, unless they have given me explicit
> permission.
>

What prompted this rethink?

Your lack of response in other threads in interesting. - Perhaps you're
more suited to 'debating' with a sycophant.

What difference does the ability to make a moral choice have on your
want to kill and eat a species?

Do you *know* that a pig can not differentiate between right and wrong?

"ant and dec" > wrote in message
...
> Martin Willett wrote:
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> "Martin Willett" > wrote
>>>
>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Martin Willett" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> But not much respect for the pig?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all.
>>>>>> As
>>>>>> long as most of their life is happy and content it must
>>>>>> surely
>>>>>> better to live and die than not to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I
>>>>>> put
>>>>>> it there, so don't bother pointing it out.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything
>>>>> you have
>>>>> said up to now, but that is a fallacy. You cannot compare
>>>>> living
>>>>> and dying to *not* living, since never being born, never
>>>>> existing
>>>>> is not a real state. This is called "The Logic of the
>>>>> Larder" and
>>>>> there is one fruitcake here who has already replied to you
>>>>> who
>>>>> makes it his life's work to promote this idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf
>>>>> There, in
>>>>> brief, is the key to the whole matter. The fallacy lies in
>>>>> the
>>>>> confusion of thought which attempts to compare existence
>>>>> with
>>>>> non-existence. A person who is already in existence may
>>>>> feel that
>>>>> he would rather have lived than not, but he must first have
>>>>> the
>>>>> terra firma of existence to argue from; the moment he
>>>>> begins to
>>>>> argue as if from the abyss of the non-existent, he talks
>>>>> nonsense, by predicating good or evil, happiness or
>>>>> unhappiness,
>>>>> of that of which we can predicate nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>> When, therefore, we talk of "bringing a being," as we
>>>>> vaguely
>>>>> express it, "into the world," we cannot claim from that
>>>>> being any
>>>>> gratitude for our action, or drive a bargain with him, and
>>>>> a very
>>>>> shabby one, on that account; nor can our duties to him be
>>>>> evaded
>>>>> by any such quibble, in which the wish is so obviously
>>>>> father to
>>>>> the thought. Nor, in this connection, is it necessary to
>>>>> enter on
>>>>> the question of ante-natal existence, because, if such
>>>>> existence
>>>>> there be, we have no reason for assuming that it is less
>>>>> happy
>>>>> than the present existence; and thus equally the argument
>>>>> falls
>>>>> to the ground. It is absurd to compare a supposed
>>>>> preexistence,
>>>>> or non- existence, with actual individual life as known to
>>>>> us
>>>>> here. All reasoning based on such comparison must
>>>>> necessarily be
>>>>> false, and will lead to grotesque conclusions.
>>>>
>>>> Do you start your reasoning from first principles and work
>>>> upwards
>>>> to conclusions and lifestyle choices that might come as a
>>>> surprise
>>>> you or do you work backwards from the practical policy
>>>> stances you
>>>> are most comfortable with and in the process discover what
>>>> your
>>>> principles "must have been"?
>>>
>>>
>>> I think it's probably a combination, but that does not quite
>>> capture
>>> the essence of my argument here. In the current context you
>>> said
>>> about livestock, "it must surely better to live and die than
>>> not to".
>>> "Not to" implies the existence a state of *unborness*, that's
>>> where
>>> the fallacy lies. If such a state exists, then in order to
>>> call it
>>> inferior to "living and dying" we must know something about
>>> it, and I
>>> submit that we don't. If it doesn't exist then the statement
>>> cannot
>>> logically be made. As the author above says, we make such
>>> statements
>>> with "the terra firma of existence to argue from", and a very
>>> pleasant existence at that. I think that we *can* say
>>> something quite
>>> similar to your statement to summarize the morality of
>>> breeding
>>> livestock, and that is, *if* we breed animals to be food for
>>> us, and
>>> we ensure that their lives are happy and content, then no
>>> person can
>>> fairly accuse us of wrongdoing. Can you see what I am
>>> getting at? It
>>> is the "ensuring that their lives are happy and content" that
>>> contains the valid moral principle here.
>>>
>>
>> From my own personal experience I know that it is possible to
>> raise
>> animals for meat and they have a good life. I have seen it in
>> action, I have seen animals being cared for by my mother and
>> by her father. I know that farming is not by its fundamental
>> nature cruel. It can become cruel if the drive to keep down
>> food prices is allowed to reduce the standards of husbandry to
>> unacceptible levels. It is the banks and supermarket buyers
>> that are determining how cruel farming is.
>>
>> I see no reason to give up eating meat entirely for ever just
>> because some animals have been kept in poor conditions. I
>> think drink driving is a terrible thing but I don't see how
>> going teetotal myself and whingeing on about it to anybody who
>> will listen (while making out that I'm not trying to portray
>> myself as morally superior) is the best way to prevent it.
>>
>> If there is an issue with the welfare of farm animals there is
>> an issue with the welfare of farm animals and I say it should
>> be addressed directly and I will have no problem in paying
>> more for food as a consequence.
>
> Do you buy your food from the supermarket? Do you know or
> particularly care where it comes from?
> ==============================
Like you, I have no idea where the fruits and veggies I eat come
from specifically. I know that much of it is imported, very
little is actually local, and that it requires lots of processing
and transportation. Now, as to the beef I eat, I know exactly
where it comes from. Not more than a few miles away. Is
completely grass-fed, never goes to a feedlot or fed any grains,
never given any hormones, and is not given anti-biotics as a
standard practice. It goes to a local slaughter house, and then
to my freezer. The whole process occurs completely without
minutes of my house.



>
>>
>>
>>>> Do you regard lying to yourself as a form of sin?
>>>
>>>
>>> I would have to say most likely yes, because such dishonesty
>>> would inevitably lead to unjust behaviour towards others.
>>>
>>> I would also like to add that it has been a very, very long
>>> time
>>> since someone new of your caliber has come to these groups to
>>> address
>>> these issues, I hope you decide to stay a while and share
>>> your
>>> insights.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I like the cut of your jib.
>>
>> (In case you're not familiar with that phrase I'm sure the
>> origin is
>> nautical and has nothing to do with butchery.)
>>
>> I think I have just worked out a new moral principle that is
>> better than the not eating anything smarter than a pig
>> principle but also has the same virtue of not making me change
>> my ways and not painting me as a hypocrite in the front of
>> ravenous aliens: I'll not kill or contribute to the death of
>> any animal for food purposes /if that animal is clearly
>> capable of making a moral choice/, unless they have given me
>> explicit permission.
>>
>
> What prompted this rethink?
>
> Your lack of response in other threads in interesting. -
> Perhaps you're more suited to 'debating' with a sycophant.
>
> What difference does the ability to make a moral choice have on
> your want to kill and eat a species?
>
> Do you *know* that a pig can not differentiate between right
> and wrong?
========================
What a coincidence, neither can usenet vegans....
>

ant and dec wrote:
> Martin Willett wrote:
snip

>>
>> I like the cut of your jib.
>>
>> (In case you're not familiar with that phrase I'm sure the origin is
>> nautical and has nothing to do with butchery.)
>>
>> I think I have just worked out a new moral principle that is better
>> than the not eating anything smarter than a pig principle but also has
>> the same virtue of not making me change my ways and not painting me as
>> a hypocrite in the front of ravenous aliens: I'll not kill or
>> contribute to the death of any animal for food purposes /if that
>> animal is clearly capable of making a moral choice/, unless they have
>> given me explicit permission.
>>
>
> What prompted this rethink?
>
> Your lack of response in other threads in interesting. - Perhaps you're
> more suited to 'debating' with a sycophant.

You do have a right to remain silent, but that does leave people to
draw their own conclusions.


>
> What difference does the ability to make a moral choice have on your
> want to kill and eat a species?
>
> Do you *know* that a pig can not differentiate between right and wrong?
>

Martin Willett wrote:
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> "Martin Willett" > wrote
>>
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Martin Willett" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> But not much respect for the pig?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As
>>>>> long as most of their life is happy and content it must surely
>>>>> better to live and die than not to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put
>>>>> it there, so don't bother pointing it out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have
>>>> said up to now, but that is a fallacy. You cannot compare living
>>>> and dying to *not* living, since never being born, never existing
>>>> is not a real state. This is called "The Logic of the Larder" and
>>>> there is one fruitcake here who has already replied to you who
>>>> makes it his life's work to promote this idea.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf There, in
>>>> brief, is the key to the whole matter. The fallacy lies in the
>>>> confusion of thought which attempts to compare existence with
>>>> non-existence. A person who is already in existence may feel that
>>>> he would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the
>>>> terra firma of existence to argue from; the moment he begins to
>>>> argue as if from the abyss of the non-existent, he talks nonsense,
>>>> by predicating good or evil, happiness or unhappiness,
>>>> of that of which we can predicate nothing.
>>>>
>>>> When, therefore, we talk of "bringing a being," as we vaguely
>>>> express it, "into the world," we cannot claim from that being any
>>>> gratitude for our action, or drive a bargain with him, and a very
>>>> shabby one, on that account; nor can our duties to him be evaded
>>>> by any such quibble, in which the wish is so obviously father to
>>>> the thought. Nor, in this connection, is it necessary to enter on
>>>> the question of ante-natal existence, because, if such existence
>>>> there be, we have no reason for assuming that it is less happy
>>>> than the present existence; and thus equally the argument falls
>>>> to the ground. It is absurd to compare a supposed preexistence,
>>>> or non- existence, with actual individual life as known to us
>>>> here. All reasoning based on such comparison must necessarily be
>>>> false, and will lead to grotesque conclusions.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you start your reasoning from first principles and work upwards
>>> to conclusions and lifestyle choices that might come as a surprise
>>> you or do you work backwards from the practical policy stances you
>>> are most comfortable with and in the process discover what your
>>> principles "must have been"?
>>
>>
>>
>> I think it's probably a combination, but that does not quite capture
>> the essence of my argument here. In the current context you said
>> about livestock, "it must surely better to live and die than not to".
>> "Not to" implies the existence a state of *unborness*, that's where
>> the fallacy lies. If such a state exists, then in order to call it
>> inferior to "living and dying" we must know something about it, and I
>> submit that we don't. If it doesn't exist then the statement cannot
>> logically be made. As the author above says, we make such statements
>> with "the terra firma of existence to argue from", and a very
>> pleasant existence at that. I think that we *can* say something quite
>> similar to your statement to summarize the morality of breeding
>> livestock, and that is, *if* we breed animals to be food for us, and
>> we ensure that their lives are happy and content, then no person can
>> fairly accuse us of wrongdoing. Can you see what I am getting at? It
>> is the "ensuring that their lives are happy and content" that
>> contains the valid moral principle here.
>>
>
> From my own personal experience I know that it is possible to raise
> animals for meat and they have a good life. I have seen it in action, I
> have seen animals being cared for by my mother and by her father. I know
> that farming is not by its fundamental nature cruel. It can become cruel
> if the drive to keep down food prices is allowed to reduce the standards
> of husbandry to unacceptible levels. It is the banks and supermarket
> buyers that are determining how cruel farming is.

No, the ultimate responsibility for the conditions
animals are raised in lies squarely with the consumer.
If consumers demanded - and were willing to pay the
extra cost for - free range chickens and grass fed beef
and pork from hogs raised in velvet-lined stalls,
that's what would be produced. Most consumers, at
least in America, just want the food to be cheap and
reasonably healthful (Americans don't particularly care
about flavor); they are oblivious to the conditions in
which the animals are raised and transported and
slaughtered, because they just don't care.

It is indeed possible to raise animals that have a good
life, at least good as we conceive of it for them, but
that *still* doesn't mean that it's better for animals
raised humanely to have existed rather than never
existing. There is NO moral meaning, to the animal,
from "getting to exist".



>
> I see no reason to give up eating meat entirely for ever just because
> some animals have been kept in poor conditions. I think drink driving is
> a terrible thing but I don't see how going teetotal myself and whingeing
> on about it to anybody who will listen (while making out that I'm not
> trying to portray myself as morally superior) is the best way to prevent
> it.
>
> If there is an issue with the welfare of farm animals there is an issue
> with the welfare of farm animals and I say it should be addressed
> directly and I will have no problem in paying more for food as a
> consequence.
>
>
>>> Do you regard lying to yourself as a form of sin?
>>
>>
>>
>> I would have to say most likely yes, because such dishonesty would
>> inevitably lead to unjust behaviour towards others.
>>
>> I would also like to add that it has been a very, very long time
>> since someone new of your caliber has come to these groups to address
>> these issues, I hope you decide to stay a while and share your
>> insights.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I like the cut of your jib.
>
> (In case you're not familiar with that phrase I'm sure the origin is
> nautical and has nothing to do with butchery.)
>
> I think I have just worked out a new moral principle that is better than
> the not eating anything smarter than a pig principle but also has the
> same virtue of not making me change my ways and not painting me as a
> hypocrite in the front of ravenous aliens: I'll not kill or contribute
> to the death of any animal for food purposes /if that animal is clearly
> capable of making a moral choice/, unless they have given me explicit
> permission.

So you permit yourself to eat human infants, as well as
adults who have suffered major head trauma or who
suffer from severe mental illness?

"Martin Willett" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:

> From my own personal experience I know that it is possible to raise
> animals for meat and they have a good life. I have seen it in action, I
> have seen animals being cared for by my mother and by her father. I know
> that farming is not by its fundamental nature cruel.

I agree.

> It can become cruel if the drive to keep down food prices is allowed to
> reduce the standards of husbandry to unacceptible levels. It is the banks
> and supermarket buyers that are determining how cruel farming is.

As consumers I say we share that burden through our complacency.

[..]

>> I would also like to add that it has been a very, very long time
>> since someone new of your caliber has come to these groups to address
>> these issues, I hope you decide to stay a while and share your
>> insights.
>>
>>
>>
>
> I like the cut of your jib.

Likewise skipper, you have given me quite a few belly laughs.

Martin Willett wrote:

> Dutch wrote:
>
>> "Martin Willett" > wrote
>>
>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> But not much respect for the pig?
>>>
>>>
>>> If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as
>>> most of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live
>>> and die than not to.
>>>
>>> Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it
>>> there, so don't bother pointing it out.
>>
>>
>>
>> I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said
>> up to now, but that is a fallacy. You cannot compare living and dying
>> to *not* living, since never being born, never existing is not a real
>> state. This is called "The Logic of the Larder" and there is one
>> fruitcake here who has already replied to you who makes it his life's
>> work to promote this idea.
>>
>> http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf
>> There, in brief, is the key to the whole matter.
>> The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to
>> compare existence with non-existence. A person who is already in
>> existence may feel that he
>> would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the terra
>> firma of existence to argue
>> from; the moment he begins to argue as if from the abyss of the
>> non-existent, he talks
>> nonsense, by predicating good or evil, happiness or unhappiness, of
>> that of which we can
>> predicate nothing.
>>
>> When, therefore, we talk of "bringing a being," as we vaguely express
>> it, "into the world," we
>> cannot claim from that being any gratitude for our action, or drive a
>> bargain with him, and a
>> very shabby one, on that account; nor can our duties to him be evaded
>> by any such quibble, in
>> which the wish is so obviously father to the thought. Nor, in this
>> connection, is it necessary to
>> enter on the question of ante-natal existence, because, if such
>> existence there be, we have no
>> reason for assuming that it is less happy than the present existence;
>> and thus equally the
>> argument falls to the ground. It is absurd to compare a supposed
>> preexistence, or non-
>> existence, with actual individual life as known to us here. All
>> reasoning based on such
>> comparison must necessarily be false, and will lead to grotesque
>> conclusions.
>>
>
> Do you start your reasoning from first principles and work upwards to
> conclusions and lifestyle choices that might come as a surprise you or
> do you work backwards from the practical policy stances you are most
> comfortable with and in the process discover what your principles "must
> have been"?

Your question doesn't seem a reasonable response to the
excerpt from The Logic of the Larder that Dutch posted.


>
> Do you regard lying to yourself as a form of sin?

How about you?

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 01:38:45 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
>"Martin Willett" > wrote
>> ant and dec wrote:
>
>>> But not much respect for the pig?
>>
>> If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as most
>> of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and die
>> than not to.
>>
>> Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there, so
>> don't bother pointing it out.
>
>I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up to
>now, but

Now he has suggested that something could be ethically equivalent
or superior to the elimination of domestic animals, so of course YOU/"ARAs"
are getting another dose of cognitive dissonance.

>that is a fallacy. You cannot compare living and dying to *not*
>living, since never being born, never existing is not a real state. This is
>called "The Logic of the Larder"

Other than YOU/"ARAs", who else calls considering farm animals' lives
The Logic of the Larder? Of course when I see Logic of the Larder, I
understand what you're really referring to is your hero Salt's Logic of the
Fantastic "AR" Talking Pig, and nothing else. I also understand that there
are no such pigs, and most likely never will be. There are billions of farm
animals' lives to consider however, for those of us able to consider them.

>and there is one fruitcake here who has
>already replied to you who makes it his life's work to promote this idea.

It's just something I've been doing because I hate the mental restrictions
YOU/"ARAs" would impose on everyone if you could, but I doubt that
I've made even half as many posts promoting consideration of the
animals' lives as YOU/"ARAs" have made opposing the suggestion.
Goo alone has probably made far more than twice as many posts
opposing the suggestion as I've made encouraging it.

>http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf
>There, in brief, is the key to the whole matter.
>The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to
>compare existence with non-existence. A person who is already in existence
>may feel that he
>would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the terra firma of
>existence to argue
>from; the moment he begins to argue as if from the abyss of the
>non-existent, he talks
>nonsense,

You pasted the fact that:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Message-ID: >

The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life
has positive or negative value to the animal.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
even though you continue to prove it's something you can't
understand.

>by predicating good or evil, happiness or unhappiness, of that of
>which we can
>predicate nothing.
>
>When, therefore, we talk of "bringing a being," as we vaguely express it,
>"into the world," we

Could consider Christmas...well...some of us can and others can
not.

>cannot claim from that being any gratitude for our action, or drive a
>bargain with him,
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Message-ID: >

Hear that ****wit? The pig says . . .
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>and a very shabby one,

I've been asking for years what YOU/"ARAs" have to offer that
is better, and what it would be better for. So far the best you've been
able to say is that it would be or could be better for mice, frogs and
ground hogs if we eliminate all livestock. Is it really my fault if I can't
see any ethical superiority in that because YOU/"ARAs" are totally
incapable of explaining it? The superiority is not obvious, which even
you should be able to understand if only because of your complete
inability to explain how it would be. What YOU/"ARAs" need to
explain is why it would be superior to make the huge CHANGE of
eliminating ALL livestock for the supposed benefit of mice, frogs and
ground hogs, and whatever else is dinging around inside your hollow
skull.

>on that account; nor can our duties to him be evaded by any
>such quibble, in
>which the wish is so obviously father to the thought. Nor, in this
>connection, is it necessary to
>enter on the question of ante-natal existence, because, if such existence
>there be, we have no
>reason for assuming that it is less happy than the present existence;

Which always brings us back to wondering why you pasted the fact
that life could have positive value to animals, when you obviously can't
understand the fact much less consider it to be signifant in regards to
human influence on animals. And also brings up the question of why
you pasted this when you obviously can't consider it to be signifant in
regards to human influence on animals.
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "apostate" >
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 03:04:25 GMT

Wild animals on average suffer more than farm animals, I think that's
obvious.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>and
>thus equally the
>argument falls to the ground. It is absurd to compare a supposed
>preexistence, or non-
>existence, with actual individual life as known to us here. All reasoning
>based on such
>comparison must necessarily be false, and will lead to grotesque
>conclusions.

YOU/"ARAs" promote grotesque ideas imo, like:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Message-ID: >

Life does not justify death
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Message-ID: >

Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very existence is analagous to
taking moral credit for the life of a daughter you sell onto the streets.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
You >
"Hear that ****wit? The pig says, if you are set on killing me for my flesh,
then so be it, just spare me the self-serving bullshit."

The pig doesn't know, and you couldn't explain anything to him
about it if you tried. That dishonest grotesquery is self serving
to YOU/"ARAs" apparently, and it is most obviously bullshit.

<dh@.> wrote
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 01:38:45 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Martin Willett" > wrote
>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>
>>>> But not much respect for the pig?
>>>
>>> If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as most
>>> of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and die
>>> than not to.
>>>
>>> Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there,
>>> so
>>> don't bother pointing it out.
>>
>>I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up
>>to
>>now, but
>
> Now he has suggested that something could be ethically equivalent
> or superior to the elimination of domestic animals,

That's got nothing to do with it dipshit. I don't dispute that *using animal
products* is "ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of
domestic animals" to use your awkward wording. My argument is simply
examining the logic of the premise "If we didn't eat the pigs they would
never exist at all..."

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 20:16:35 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 01:38:45 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Martin Willett" > wrote
>>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>
>>>>> But not much respect for the pig?
>>>>
>>>> If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as most
>>>> of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and die
>>>> than not to.
>>>>
>>>> Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there,
>>>> so
>>>> don't bother pointing it out.
>>>
>>>I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up
>>>to
>>>now, but
>>
>> Now he has suggested that something could be ethically equivalent
>> or superior to the elimination of domestic animals,
>
>That's got nothing to do with it dipshit.

Bullshit.

>I don't dispute that *using animal
>products* is "ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of
>domestic animals" to use your awkward wording.

Try to do better.

>My argument is simply
>examining the logic of the premise "If we didn't eat the pigs they would
>never exist at all..."

LOL! In what magical way do you think they might exist if we didn't
raise them for food? And don't tell me some stupid crap about wild pigs.
You might just as well mention that ANY other animal might exist, because
NO other animal has anything to do with the fact that if we didn't raise the
animals we raise to eat they would never exist...not wild pigs, not wild goats,
and not even your wild mice, frogs and groundhogs.

In an earlier post, didn't you give us permission to consider the lives of
animals when they are terrible, but not those that have positive value to
the animals? Since you refuse to make a list, a person is forced to guess
what you allow and what you don't. So far my guess is that you would
allow us to consider the lives of wild animals, and the lives of livestock
only if they are terrible. If there are other things you would allow or forbid,
let's you set it straight right now or I'll know my guess was correct.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 20:16:35 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 01:38:45 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Martin Willett" > wrote
>>>>> ant and dec wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> But not much respect for the pig?
>>>>>
>>>>> If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as
>>>>> most
>>>>> of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and
>>>>> die
>>>>> than not to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it
>>>>> there,
>>>>> so
>>>>> don't bother pointing it out.
>>>>
>>>>I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said
>>>>up
>>>>to
>>>>now, but
>>>
>>> Now he has suggested that something could be ethically equivalent
>>> or superior to the elimination of domestic animals,
>>
>>That's got nothing to do with it dipshit.
>
> Bullshit.

Yes, bullshit, we have never suggested that.

>>I don't dispute that *using animal
>>products* is "ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of
>>domestic animals" to use your awkward wording.
>
> Try to do better.

Better than directly respond to your point? How is that possible?

>>My argument is simply
>>examining the logic of the premise "If we didn't eat the pigs they would
>>never exist at all..."
>
> LOL! In what magical way do you think they might exist if we didn't
> raise them for food?

They wouldn't, and that would be no loss to them, because they would never
have existed.

> And don't tell me some stupid crap about wild pigs.
> You might just as well mention that ANY other animal might exist, because
> NO other animal has anything to do with the fact that if we didn't raise
> the
> animals we raise to eat they would never exist...not wild pigs, not wild
> goats,
> and not even your wild mice, frogs and groundhogs.

The amount of land we appropriate for animal feed and pasture is roughly
inversely proportional to the number of animals that can live undisturbed on
that same land and with those resources.

> In an earlier post, didn't you give us permission to consider the lives
> of
> animals when they are terrible, but not those that have positive value to
> the animals? Since you refuse to make a list, a person is forced to guess
> what you allow and what you don't. So far my guess is that you would
> allow us to consider the lives of wild animals, and the lives of livestock
> only if they are terrible. If there are other things you would allow or
> forbid,
> let's you set it straight right now or I'll know my guess was correct.

It's close. The lives of animals we raise per se are NOT a moral
consideration, but once we raise them, how we treat them *is* is a moral
consideration. That's the way it is, and it's not your prerogative to change
it.

****wit David Harrison lied:
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 20:16:35 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >
> >****wit David Harrison lied:
> >> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 01:38:45 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"Martin Willett" > wrote
> >>>> ant and dec wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> But not much respect for the pig?
> >>>>
> >>>> If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as most
> >>>> of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and die
> >>>> than not to.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there,
> >>>> so
> >>>> don't bother pointing it out.
> >>>
> >>>I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up
> >>>to
> >>>now, but
> >>
> >> Now he has suggested that something could be ethically equivalent
> >> or superior to the elimination of domestic animals,
> >
> >That's got nothing to do with it dipshit.
>
> Bullshit.

Nope. You're the one spreading bullshit.


>
> >I don't dispute that *using animal
> >products* is "ethically equivalent or superior to the elimination of
> >domestic animals" to use your awkward wording.
>
> Try to do better.

Your thinking is as muddy as your language. Your langugage is a
reflection of your thinking.


>
> >My argument is simply
> >examining the logic of the premise "If we didn't eat the pigs they would
> >never exist at all..."
>
> LOL! In what magical way do you think they might exist if we didn't
> raise them for food?

He doesn't. Their existence isn't morally significant, and does not
justify your eating them.

dh@. wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 01:38:45 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Martin Willett" > wrote
>>
>>>ant and dec wrote:
>>
>>>>But not much respect for the pig?
>>>
>>>If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as most
>>>of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and die
>>>than not to.
>>>
>>>Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there, so
>>>don't bother pointing it out.
>>
>>I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up to
>>now, but
>
>
> Now he has suggested that something could be ethically equivalent
> or superior to the elimination of domestic animals,

No. There is no moral credit to be taken for causing
domestic animals to exist. The animals are in no way
"better off" for having come into existence.


>
>>that is a fallacy. You cannot compare living and dying to *not*
>>living, since never being born, never existing is not a real state. This is
>>called "The Logic of the Larder"
>
>
> Other than YOU/"ARAs", who else calls considering farm animals' lives
> The Logic of the Larder?

Everyone who thinks about it seriously and correctly.


>>and there is one fruitcake here who has
>>already replied to you who makes it his life's work to promote this idea.
>
>
> It's just something I've been doing because

Because you stupidly subscribe to the Illogic of the
Larder.


>
>>http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt02.pdf
>>There, in brief, is the key to the whole matter.
>>The fallacy lies in the confusion of thought which attempts to
>>compare existence with non-existence. A person who is already in existence
>>may feel that he
>>would rather have lived than not, but he must first have the terra firma of
>>existence to argue
>>from; the moment he begins to argue as if from the abyss of the
>>non-existent, he talks
>>nonsense,

On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 20:21:32 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 01:38:45 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Martin Willett" > wrote
>>>
>>>>ant and dec wrote:
>>>
>>>>>But not much respect for the pig?
>>>>
>>>>If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as most
>>>>of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and die
>>>>than not to.
>>>>
>>>>Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there, so
>>>>don't bother pointing it out.
>>>
>>>I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up to
>>>now, but
>>
>>
>> Now he has suggested that something could be ethically equivalent
>> or superior to the elimination of domestic animals,
>
>No. There is no moral credit to be taken for causing
>domestic animals to exist. The animals are in no way
>"better off" for having come into existence.

Explain how lives of positive value are not as good as or better than
nothing.

****wit David Harrison lied:
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 20:21:32 GMT, Leif Erikson > wrote:
>
> >****wit David Harrison lied:
> >
> >> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 01:38:45 GMT, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Martin Willett" > wrote
> >>>
> >>>>ant and dec wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>But not much respect for the pig?
> >>>>
> >>>>If we didn't eat the pigs they would never exist at all. As long as most
> >>>>of their life is happy and content it must surely better to live and die
> >>>>than not to.
> >>>>
> >>>>Of course I know there's a qualifier in that statement. I put it there, so
> >>>>don't bother pointing it out.
> >>>
> >>>I really like your posts Martin, I agree with everything you have said up to
> >>>now, but
> >>
> >>
> >> Now he has suggested that something could be ethically equivalent
> >> or superior to the elimination of domestic animals,
> >
> >No. There is no moral credit to be taken for causing
> >domestic animals to exist. The animals are in no way
> >"better off" for having come into existence.
>
> Explain how lives of positive value are not as good as or better than
> nothing.

No, ****wit - YOU must demonstrate that getting to live is better than
not getting to live. "Positive values" has nothing to do with it.

Get busy, you chickenshit cocksucking punk.