dh@. wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2006 07:11:39 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 20 Feb 2006 17:20:34 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 18 Feb 2006 16:55:01 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On 17 Feb 2006 15:33:22 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> The animals are not being cheated out of any part
> >> >> >> >> >> of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
> >> >> >> >> >> experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
> >> >> >> >> >other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> How do they?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >In exactly the same way farmed animals would get "cheated"
> >> >> >> >out of their lives if no one raised them for food.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The fact which you refer to as an argument, is that animals
> >> >> >> who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of life.
> >> >> >> That's in reply to the "ar" insistence tha
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That argument is no more valid than the argument that wild
> >> >> >animals whose habitat is destroyed in order to feed farm animals
> >> >> >are cheated out of the whole of their lives.
> >> >>
> >> >> Animals who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of
> >> >> life.
> >> >
> >> >When an animal is killed it is "cheated" out of the remainder of
> >> >its life. You can not use the fact that it only lives because it
> >> >is being raised for food as mitigation without (a) being logically
> >> >inconsistent or (b) accepting that the wild animals who could
> >> >live if natural habitats weren't being used to support these livestock
> >> >*are* being cheated out of life.
> >>
> >> LOL! Of course I can't agree with either of your claims, since
> >> both are absurd and of course can never be supported.
> >
> >The only way I can see for both claims to be incorrect is if animals
> >have no moral entitlement to life.
>
> None of us do.

Then none of us can be "cheated" out of life.

> But that has nothing to do with it.
>
> >If that is what you believe then
> >why make such a big deal about "providing life for animals"?
>
> Because even though all of you amusingly pretend that you
> can't understand, or pathetically TRULY can not understand,
> what we're really discussing is which animals we should and
> should not provide life for, and why.

We were discussing the fact that livestock farming makes a
difference to which particular animals become actual
animals and your absurd idea that this mitigates the killing
of actual animals in any way.

> >> >> You're having an amazingly hard time understanding that
> >> >> easy fact.
> >> >
> >> >Not at all. What I am having a hard time doing is convincing
> >> >you that you can not have your proverbial cake and eat it.
> >>
> >> We can and sure do provide animals with life and eat them
> >> too.
> >
> >Livestock farming is not a necessary condition for animal life to
> >occur. You haven't even be able to demonstrate that it leads
> >to more animal life than an AR/vegan utopia.
>
> You

I need do no such thing. I am not advocating this change.
I am advocating a shift away from factory farming and towards
veganism, but I am not advocating that we cease using and
killing animals altogether.

/"aras" need to explain why we should make the change,
> but none of you can do it.

That is demonstrably false. Derek, Pearl and Glorfindel have each
discussed in detail why they feel we should make the change.


> So we are left with absolutely no
> reason to consider anything other than the lives of the livestock
> who are actually living because we raise them.

We have been given no sensible reasons for considering
what you actually mean with the above sentence.

> >>.well....those of us who eat meat contribute to them while
> >> you/"aras" only contribute to the deaths of wildlife.
> >
> >What about those animals who thrive inc crop fields until
> >the crops are harvested. By the same standard that meat eaters
> >provide life for livestock, do plant eaters not provide life
> >for field animals?
>
> Not deliberately as meat consumers do.

As Derek points out you are setting one set of rules for
livestock/meat and another for wildlife/plants. You are
always promoting the [probably incorrect] theory that
a serving of rice or soy causes more deaths than 100s
of servings of beef from grass-raised cattle and seem
not to care that (by the defintion you apply above) vegans
do not deliberately contribute to these deaths as meat
consumers do.

> Since you can't even
> consider the lives of livestock which are raised deliberately,
> what makes you think you would be able to consider the lives
> of which type animals you imagine happen to live as a result of crop
> production? Why can't you apply that same imagined consideration
> to the animals that you know for a fact live as a result of raising
> them for food?

Here's how it works. A potential animal deserves the same
consideration as another comparable potential animal. An
actual animal deserves the same consideration as another
comparable actual animal. Why don't you agree?

> >> >> [...]
> >> >>I ask you why we should STOP raising them so your potential
> >> >> wildlife can live instead, but none of you can explain why.

Derek wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2006 15:28:27 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >Leif Erikson wrote:
> >> Dave wrote:
> >> >
> >> > If the pleasant experiences of the chicken outweigh the
> >> > negative than the chicken can be said to have benefited
> >> > from being alive.
> >>
> >> No, ABSOLUTELY NOT. The chicken "benefited" from
> >> having pleasant experiences vs. having unpleasant ones.
> >> It did NOT "benefit" from "getting to experience
> >> life" vs. never being born in the first place. That is
> >> an absurd comparison. Being conceived and born, thus
> >> "getting to experience life", IS NOT a "benefit"
> >> compared to never existing at all. It simply *cannot* be.
> >
> >I don't agree. I think a happy existence is preferable to
> >non-existence.
>
> You have no knowledge concerning the preconceived state
> of animals, or even if such a preconceived state actually
> exists. That in mind, you cannot then assert that existence
> is preferable to this unknowable, disputed state.

This is a fair point. I am working on the assumption that the
preconcieved state is unconsciousness. I can not prove this to
be true but it is very difficult to have any basis for morality
without making such assumptions. For example if I killed
you I would be sending you to an "unknowable, disputed state"
This state may be preferable to the state you are currently in
so you "can not assert" that I would be doing anything wrong.

> Your task
> is now to describe this unknowable state and then argue
> that it is better to be brought from that place into being.

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
> > Leif Erikson wrote:
> >
> >>Dave wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Leif Erikson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Dave wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On 17 Feb 2006 15:33:22 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>The animals are not being cheated out of any part
> >>>>>>>>>>of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
> >>>>>>>>>>experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
> >>>>>>>>>other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> How do they?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In exactly the same way farmed animals would get "cheated"
> >>>>>>>out of their lives if no one raised them for food.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The fact which you refer to as an argument, is that animals
> >>>>>>who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of life.
> >>>>>>That's in reply to the "ar" insistence tha
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That argument is no more valid than the argument that wild
> >>>>>animals whose habitat is destroyed in order to feed farm animals
> >>>>>are cheated out of the whole of their lives. You are still trying to
> >>>>>have it both ways.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>is transparantly selective and self serving.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>You can't tell me why it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>would be better to have a couple dozen quail hatch in an area, for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>example, and be killed by foxes, hawks, etc within a month of when
> >>>>>>>>>>>>they're born, than for 20 thousand chickens to live there for six weeks
> >>>>>>>>>>>>without ever having to be afraid or hungry.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>If you're referring to the standard method of raising broiler chickens
> >>>>>>>>>>>I would raise the following concerns. Do they have enough room?
> >>>>>>>>>>>is the litter clean enough to prevent them getting hock burns?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I believe so:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/3ss2m
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>What stage of their life cycle are the chickens in that picture?
> >>>>>>>>>They do look a bit crowded for me but I don't know how much
> >>>>>>>>>space chickens need to be happy. As for hock burns, the
> >>>>>>>>>evidence is still there when you buy a whole chicken from
> >>>>>>>>>a supermarket. Not all chickens but an unacceptably high
> >>>>>>>>>percentage.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's not enough to make their lives of negative value imo.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Enough to make there lives of less positive value than the wild
> >>>>>>>animals they compete for resources with....
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not to me. You need to explain which wildlife would have it enough
> >>>>>>better that we should replace broilers with them. As yet you haven't
> >>>>>>come close, and by now we know you never will. The chickens remain
> >>>>>>the only option to even consider.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>I've been in several broiler houses, and always thought the houses
> >>>>>>>>>>were a great place for chickens.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>AW organisations take the opposite PoV
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You would have to show me more than one example before
> >>>>>>>>I would believe you, and "ar" organisations do *not!* count.
> >>>>>>>>Note that as yet you haven't even shown one example.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>"We want to improve the lives of these chickens, the majority
> >>>>>>>of which are reared to standards that the RSPCA believes are
> >>>>>>>unacceptably low."
> >>>>>>>http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Sate...ckens/chickens
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Please be aware when buying chicken - either at the supermarket,
> >>>>>>>the butchers or at fast foodoutlets - that the bird will probably
> >>>>>>>have
> >>>>>>>gone through great misery during its life. Yes, it's cheap- but its
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>knock-down price has been bought at the cost of great suffering
> >>>>>>>to the chicken.
> >>>>>>>http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/...cheap_2002.pdf
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>There's more than one.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Good enough then. I'm glad to see people promoting better lives. It's a nice contrast
> >>>>>>to only seeing people who want to see them eliminated.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>They are not promoting life for the chickens as such.
> >>>>
> >>>>Exactly. No sensible person thinks the chickens "get
> >>>>something" out of the "deal".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I wouldn't go that far. If the pleasant experiences of the chicken
> >>>outweigh the negative than the chicken can be said to have benefited
> >>>from being alive.
> >>
> >>No, ABSOLUTELY NOT. The chicken "benefited" from
> >>having pleasant experiences vs. having unpleasant ones.
> >> It did NOT "benefit" from "getting to experience
> >>life" vs. never being born in the first place. That is
> >>an absurd comparison. Being conceived and born, thus
> >>"getting to experience life", IS NOT a "benefit"
> >>compared to never existing at all. It simply *cannot* be.
> >
> >
> > I don't agree. I think a happy existence is preferable to
> > non-existence.
>
> That's patently absurd. You have to exist in the first
> place in order to think that. Existence (at any
> quality of life) vs. non-existence simply isn't a
> legitimate comparison to make.
>
> ****wit calls existence, *irrespective* of quality of
> life, a "benefit" for livestock animals. It isn't. A
> benefit is something that improves the welfare of the
> entity that receives the benefit, compared with its
> welfare prior to receiving it. Life (existence)
> *cannot* be a benefit, because it doesn't improve the
> entity's welfa prior to existing, there was no
> entity, hence there was no welfare that could be
> improved. It's that simple.

Prior to the entity existing it had zero welfare. As a
result of existing it's overall welfare may be positive,
negative or zero. That's the way I look at it.
>
> Suppose, on the other hand, you believe - as ****wit
> frequently gives evidence of believing - that animals
> and other entities are sitting around in some kind of
> "pre-existence", just waiting for their chance to be
> incorporated into physically existing entities. We
> have no knowledge of their state of existence, so by
> "causing" them to come into existence, we don't know if
> we are improving their welfare, degrading it, or
> leaving it unchanged.
>
> Life is not a benefit.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>>I think it would be better
> >>
> >>For whom?
> >
> >
> > the collective consciousness of the universe.
>
> No such thing.
>
>
> >>>to have a fertile planet
> >>>that supports a lot of animal and human lives rather than a sterile
> >>>lifeless planet.
> >>
> >>Bullshit.
> >
> >
> > I'm sorry you have such a dim view of life.
>
> I don't have a dim view of life. I don't make - won't
> attempt to make - absurd, invalid comparisons.

On 26 Feb 2006 16:08:34 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 26 Feb 2006 15:28:27 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >Leif Erikson wrote:
>> >> Dave wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > If the pleasant experiences of the chicken outweigh the
>> >> > negative than the chicken can be said to have benefited
>> >> > from being alive.
>> >>
>> >> No, ABSOLUTELY NOT. The chicken "benefited" from
>> >> having pleasant experiences vs. having unpleasant ones.
>> >> It did NOT "benefit" from "getting to experience
>> >> life" vs. never being born in the first place. That is
>> >> an absurd comparison. Being conceived and born, thus
>> >> "getting to experience life", IS NOT a "benefit"
>> >> compared to never existing at all. It simply *cannot* be.
>> >
>> >I don't agree. I think a happy existence is preferable to
>> >non-existence.
>>
>> You have no knowledge concerning the preconceived state
>> of animals, or even if such a preconceived state actually
>> exists. That in mind, you cannot then assert that existence
>> is preferable to this unknowable, disputed state.
>
>This is a fair point. I am working on the assumption that the
>preconcieved state is unconsciousness.

You can't even do that, because you're yet to show that
a preconceived state even exists, conscious or not. To
assert "existence is preferable to non-existence" without
even knowing whether pre-existence exists is a huge
mistake.

>I can not prove this to
>be true but it is very difficult to have any basis for morality
>without making such assumptions.

Nonsense. Assuming that a disputed preconceived state
exists unconsciously doesn't give your argument a "basis
for morality." It's not a basis for anything.

>For example if I killed
>you I would be sending you to an "unknowable, disputed state"
>This state may be preferable to the state you are currently in
>so you "can not assert" that I would be doing anything wrong.

Of course you would be doing something wrong, because
I'm already alive and hold a right against you not to kill me.
You are obligated not to intentionally kill me, and if you do
you'll be doing something very wrong.

>> Your task
>> is now to describe this unknowable state and then argue
>> that it is better to be brought from that place into being.

Whenever you're ready; take your time.

petulant flamboyant homo fudgepacker ronnnnnnnnnnnie
hamilton IMPOTENTLY shrieked:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>Dave wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dave wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 17 Feb 2006 15:33:22 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The animals are not being cheated out of any part
>>>>>>>>>>of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
>>>>>>>>>>experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
>>>>>>>>>other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do they?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In exactly the same way farmed animals would get "cheated"
>>>>>>>out of their lives if no one raised them for food.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact which you refer to as an argument, is that animals
>>>>>>who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of life.
>>>>>>That's in reply to the "ar" insistence tha
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That argument is no more valid than the argument that wild
>>>>>animals whose habitat is destroyed in order to feed farm animals
>>>>>are cheated out of the whole of their lives. You are still trying to
>>>>>have it both ways.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>is transparantly selective and self serving.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>You can't tell me why it
>>>>>>>>>>>>would be better to have a couple dozen quail hatch in an area, for
>>>>>>>>>>>>example, and be killed by foxes, hawks, etc within a month of when
>>>>>>>>>>>>they're born, than for 20 thousand chickens to live there for six weeks
>>>>>>>>>>>>without ever having to be afraid or hungry.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>If you're referring to the standard method of raising broiler chickens
>>>>>>>>>>>I would raise the following concerns. Do they have enough room?
>>>>>>>>>>>is the litter clean enough to prevent them getting hock burns?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I believe so:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/3ss2m
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What stage of their life cycle are the chickens in that picture?
>>>>>>>>>They do look a bit crowded for me but I don't know how much
>>>>>>>>>space chickens need to be happy. As for hock burns, the
>>>>>>>>>evidence is still there when you buy a whole chicken from
>>>>>>>>>a supermarket. Not all chickens but an unacceptably high
>>>>>>>>>percentage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's not enough to make their lives of negative value imo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Enough to make there lives of less positive value than the wild
>>>>>>>animals they compete for resources with....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to me. You need to explain which wildlife would have it enough
>>>>>>better that we should replace broilers with them. As yet you haven't
>>>>>>come close, and by now we know you never will. The chickens remain
>>>>>>the only option to even consider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I've been in several broiler houses, and always thought the houses
>>>>>>>>>>were a great place for chickens.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>AW organisations take the opposite PoV
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You would have to show me more than one example before
>>>>>>>>I would believe you, and "ar" organisations do *not!* count.
>>>>>>>>Note that as yet you haven't even shown one example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"We want to improve the lives of these chickens, the majority
>>>>>>>of which are reared to standards that the RSPCA believes are
>>>>>>>unacceptably low."
>>>>>>>http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Sate...ckens/chickens
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Please be aware when buying chicken - either at the supermarket,
>>>>>>>the butchers or at fast foodoutlets - that the bird will probably
>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>gone through great misery during its life. Yes, it's cheap- but its
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>knock-down price has been bought at the cost of great suffering
>>>>>>>to the chicken.
>>>>>>>http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/...cheap_2002.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There's more than one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good enough then. I'm glad to see people promoting better lives. It's a nice contrast
>>>>>>to only seeing people who want to see them eliminated.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>They are not promoting life for the chickens as such.
>>>>
>>>>Exactly. No sensible person thinks the chickens "get
>>>>something" out of the "deal".
>>>
>>>
>>>I wouldn't go that far. If the pleasant experiences of the chicken
>>>outweigh the negative than the chicken can be said to have benefited
>>>from being alive.
>>
>>No, ABSOLUTELY NOT. The chicken "benefited" from
>>having pleasant experiences vs. having unpleasant ones.
>> It did NOT "benefit" from "getting to experience
>>life" vs. never being born in the first place. That is
>>an absurd comparison. Being conceived and born, thus
>>"getting to experience life", IS NOT a "benefit"
>>compared to never existing at all. It simply *cannot* be.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I think it would be better
>>
>>For whom?
>>
>>
>>
>>>to have a fertile planet
>>>that supports a lot of animal and human lives rather than a sterile
>>>lifeless planet.
>>
>
>>Bullshit.
>
>
>
> And you claim you aren't a meat/drug/dairy industry shill.

Right. I'm not. No one in this group is.



>>>However I don't think David Harrison has explained
>>>why this preference means I should encourage people to eat meat,
>>>milk and eggs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is no moral
>>>>content to "providing life" for any livestock.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>AR says animals should not be raised for food period.
>>>>>standard AW says animals that are raised for food should be treated
>>>>>kindly.
>>>>>You say animals should be raised for food specifically so that they
>>>>>can be treated kindly.
>>>>
>>>>Not quite. It's just the best he *can* say. His
>>>>concern for animal welfare is a complete and utter
>>>>sham; a fraud. He doesn't CARE how livestock animals
>>>>are treated; he just wants to ensure they continue to
>>>>exist, and his excuse for that is that they "get
>>>>something" out of some "deal". He's full of shit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>How many AR organisations can you
>>>>>>>find that agree with you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> About what?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>About whether welfare standards applied to indoor raised broiler
>>>>>chickens are acceptable.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The point is that LoL if applied consistently requires you to
>>>>>>>>>minimize land use so that more animals can experience life.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not to me it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Where they are part of a mixed enterprise with the animals
>>>>>>>>>>>fertilizing the soil and supplementing their feed with forage,
>>>>>>>>>>>waste products and sometimes even weeds and pests then
>>>>>>>>>>>I'm not so confident.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They always are. It's synergistic. Things supporting other
>>>>>>>>>>things. The more supported things replace the less supported
>>>>>>>>>>things. Which is why I always stress that we need to consider
>>>>>>>>>>what we want to support, as much or more than what we don't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>(b) Growing crops requires us to appropriate less land than grazing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>cattle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You read the differences. You don't care about wildlife, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>is what you just proved. You people ALWAYS prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>No. I didn't. I pointed out relevant factors that you appear to have
>>>>>>>>>>>neglected when promoting the meat.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I probably didn't neglect them. I probably considered them and
>>>>>>>>>>concluded that I'm okay with the hundreds of thousands of chickens
>>>>>>>>>>over a few quail, Dutch's mice frogs and groundhogs, and whatever
>>>>>>>>>>else you want to throw in.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Take all the land used to grow crops for chickens minus the land
>>>>>>>>>that would be needed to grow crops directly for humans if we weren't
>>>>>>>>>eating those chickens. Now I want to throw in all the animals that
>>>>>>>>>could have lived on that land if it had been left wild. Ok?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now throw in why anyone should support them instead of the
>>>>>>>>chickens.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>They don't need our support. They just need us to stop taking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They would need for us to stop using particular land to grow food
>>>>>>for ourselves and for chickens, so the wild animals could live there
>>>>>>instead. The problem remains that you can provide no good reason
>>>>>>for people to make that change.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I am not trying to present a reason why people should make that change.
>>>>
>>>>Don't worry - he'll accuse you of it all the same.
>>>>
>>>>In ****wit's unreality, if you don't accept his fatuous
>>>>and ****witted rationale for opposing "ar" (he doesn't
>>>>really oppose "ar" at all), then *you* become an "ara".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I am merely trying to explain to you that you can't have this both
>>>>>ways.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And if you do throw them in I'll consider them,
>>>>>>>>>>but most likely still be okay with the chickens.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Okay but don't claim you are doing it so that animals
>>>>>>>>>can experience life.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't. I also don't disregard the fact that they do, even though
>>>>>>>>"aras" desperately want us to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Every
>>>>>>>>>>>>single time people prove that they care more about promoting
>>>>>>>>>>>>veganism than they do about human influence on animals,
>>>>>>>>>>>>when we get to the examples where veggies cause more deaths
>>>>>>>>>>>>than livestock farming.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>(A) I thought we agreed that the amount of animal life is more
>>>>>>>>>>>important than the number of animals we kill.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In that regard we *should* agree that life always means death,
>>>>>>>>>>every single time, for every animal and human!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Truism. What is its significance?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Animal life is equal to that of animals killed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Eh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only way to eliminate death, is to eliminate life.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes but if you kill an animal you still cause it to die
>>>>>prematurely.
>>>>
>>>>Earlier than it would die if you bred it, then chose
>>>>*not* to kill it.
>>>
>>>
>

Dave wrote:

> Derek wrote:
>
>>On 26 Feb 2006 15:28:27 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dave wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>If the pleasant experiences of the chicken outweigh the
>>>>>negative than the chicken can be said to have benefited
>>>>>from being alive.
>>>>
>>>>No, ABSOLUTELY NOT. The chicken "benefited" from
>>>>having pleasant experiences vs. having unpleasant ones.
>>>> It did NOT "benefit" from "getting to experience
>>>>life" vs. never being born in the first place. That is
>>>>an absurd comparison. Being conceived and born, thus
>>>>"getting to experience life", IS NOT a "benefit"
>>>>compared to never existing at all. It simply *cannot* be.
>>>
>>>I don't agree. I think a happy existence is preferable to
>>>non-existence.
>>
>>You have no knowledge concerning the preconceived state
>>of animals, or even if such a preconceived state actually
>>exists. That in mind, you cannot then assert that existence
>>is preferable to this unknowable, disputed state.
>
>
> This is a fair point. I am working on the assumption that the
> preconcieved state is unconsciousness.

There *is* no state at all prior to existence.



> I can not prove this to
> be true but it is very difficult to have any basis for morality
> without making such assumptions. For example if I killed
> you I would be sending you to an "unknowable, disputed state"
> This state may be preferable to the state you are currently in
> so you "can not assert" that I would be doing anything wrong.
>
>
>>Your task
>>is now to describe this unknowable state and then argue
>>that it is better to be brought from that place into being.
>
>

Dave wrote:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>Dave wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dave wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Dave wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 17 Feb 2006 15:33:22 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On 13 Feb 2006 18:29:31 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>****wit David Harrisonm, ignorant pig-****ing cracker, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The animals are not being cheated out of any part
>>>>>>>>>>>>of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
>>>>>>>>>>>>experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>To use that argument whilst dismissing the argument that
>>>>>>>>>>>other wild animals do get "cheated" out of thier life
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How do they?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In exactly the same way farmed animals would get "cheated"
>>>>>>>>>out of their lives if no one raised them for food.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact which you refer to as an argument, is that animals
>>>>>>>>who ARE raised for food are NOT being cheated out of life.
>>>>>>>>That's in reply to the "ar" insistence tha
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That argument is no more valid than the argument that wild
>>>>>>>animals whose habitat is destroyed in order to feed farm animals
>>>>>>>are cheated out of the whole of their lives. You are still trying to
>>>>>>>have it both ways.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>is transparantly selective and self serving.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You can't tell me why it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>would be better to have a couple dozen quail hatch in an area, for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>example, and be killed by foxes, hawks, etc within a month of when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they're born, than for 20 thousand chickens to live there for six weeks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>without ever having to be afraid or hungry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>If you're referring to the standard method of raising broiler chickens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I would raise the following concerns. Do they have enough room?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>is the litter clean enough to prevent them getting hock burns?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe so:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>http://tinyurl.com/3ss2m
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>What stage of their life cycle are the chickens in that picture?
>>>>>>>>>>>They do look a bit crowded for me but I don't know how much
>>>>>>>>>>>space chickens need to be happy. As for hock burns, the
>>>>>>>>>>>evidence is still there when you buy a whole chicken from
>>>>>>>>>>>a supermarket. Not all chickens but an unacceptably high
>>>>>>>>>>>percentage.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's not enough to make their lives of negative value imo.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Enough to make there lives of less positive value than the wild
>>>>>>>>>animals they compete for resources with....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not to me. You need to explain which wildlife would have it enough
>>>>>>>>better that we should replace broilers with them. As yet you haven't
>>>>>>>>come close, and by now we know you never will. The chickens remain
>>>>>>>>the only option to even consider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I've been in several broiler houses, and always thought the houses
>>>>>>>>>>>>were a great place for chickens.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>AW organisations take the opposite PoV
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You would have to show me more than one example before
>>>>>>>>>>I would believe you, and "ar" organisations do *not!* count.
>>>>>>>>>>Note that as yet you haven't even shown one example.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"We want to improve the lives of these chickens, the majority
>>>>>>>>>of which are reared to standards that the RSPCA believes are
>>>>>>>>>unacceptably low."
>>>>>>>>>http://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Sate...ckens/chickens
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Please be aware when buying chicken - either at the supermarket,
>>>>>>>>>the butchers or at fast foodoutlets - that the bird will probably
>>>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>>>gone through great misery during its life. Yes, it's cheap- but its
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>knock-down price has been bought at the cost of great suffering
>>>>>>>>>to the chicken.
>>>>>>>>>http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/...cheap_2002.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>There's more than one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good enough then. I'm glad to see people promoting better lives. It's a nice contrast
>>>>>>>>to only seeing people who want to see them eliminated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>They are not promoting life for the chickens as such.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Exactly. No sensible person thinks the chickens "get
>>>>>>something" out of the "deal".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I wouldn't go that far. If the pleasant experiences of the chicken
>>>>>outweigh the negative than the chicken can be said to have benefited
>>>>
>>>>>from being alive.
>>>>
>>>>No, ABSOLUTELY NOT. The chicken "benefited" from
>>>>having pleasant experiences vs. having unpleasant ones.
>>>> It did NOT "benefit" from "getting to experience
>>>>life" vs. never being born in the first place. That is
>>>>an absurd comparison. Being conceived and born, thus
>>>>"getting to experience life", IS NOT a "benefit"
>>>>compared to never existing at all. It simply *cannot* be.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't agree. I think a happy existence is preferable to
>>>non-existence.
>>
>>That's patently absurd. You have to exist in the first
>>place in order to think that. Existence (at any
>>quality of life) vs. non-existence simply isn't a
>>legitimate comparison to make.
>>
>>****wit calls existence, *irrespective* of quality of
>>life, a "benefit" for livestock animals. It isn't. A
>>benefit is something that improves the welfare of the
>>entity that receives the benefit, compared with its
>>welfare prior to receiving it. Life (existence)
>>*cannot* be a benefit, because it doesn't improve the
>>entity's welfa prior to existing, there was no
>>entity, hence there was no welfare that could be
>>improved. It's that simple.
>
>
> Prior to the entity existing it had zero welfare.

Prior to coming into existence, there WAS no entity, so
the very expression "it had" makes no sense: there was
no "it", hence no subject to which the verb "to have"
could apply. There wasn't zero welfare; there was null.

As an existing entity, I might have zero money, but it
makes no sense at all to ask how much money, or
welfare, some non-existent entity "has".


> As a
> result of existing it's overall welfare may be positive,
> negative or zero. That's the way I look at it.

But it makes no sense to compare existence with never
existing. You can compare different states of
existence, but you can't compare existence to never
existing.


>>Suppose, on the other hand, you believe - as ****wit
>>frequently gives evidence of believing - that animals
>>and other entities are sitting around in some kind of
>>"pre-existence", just waiting for their chance to be
>>incorporated into physically existing entities. We
>>have no knowledge of their state of existence, so by
>>"causing" them to come into existence, we don't know if
>>we are improving their welfare, degrading it, or
>>leaving it unchanged.
>>
>>Life is not a benefit.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>I think it would be better
>>>>
>>>>For whom?
>>>
>>>
>>>the collective consciousness of the universe.
>>
>>No such thing.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>to have a fertile planet
>>>>>that supports a lot of animal and human lives rather than a sterile
>>>>>lifeless planet.
>>>>
>>>>Bullshit.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm sorry you have such a dim view of life.
>>
>>I don't have a dim view of life. I don't make - won't
>>attempt to make - absurd, invalid comparisons.
>
>

Derek wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2006 16:08:34 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On 26 Feb 2006 15:28:27 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >Leif Erikson wrote:
> >> >> Dave wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If the pleasant experiences of the chicken outweigh the
> >> >> > negative than the chicken can be said to have benefited
> >> >> > from being alive.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, ABSOLUTELY NOT. The chicken "benefited" from
> >> >> having pleasant experiences vs. having unpleasant ones.
> >> >> It did NOT "benefit" from "getting to experience
> >> >> life" vs. never being born in the first place. That is
> >> >> an absurd comparison. Being conceived and born, thus
> >> >> "getting to experience life", IS NOT a "benefit"
> >> >> compared to never existing at all. It simply *cannot* be.
> >> >
> >> >I don't agree. I think a happy existence is preferable to
> >> >non-existence.
> >>
> >> You have no knowledge concerning the preconceived state
> >> of animals, or even if such a preconceived state actually
> >> exists. That in mind, you cannot then assert that existence
> >> is preferable to this unknowable, disputed state.
> >
> >This is a fair point. I am working on the assumption that the
> >preconcieved state is unconsciousness.
>
> You can't even do that, because you're yet to show that
> a preconceived state even exists, conscious or not. To
> assert "existence is preferable to non-existence" without
> even knowing whether pre-existence exists is a huge
> mistake.

I assert that existence is preferable to non-conscious-existence
when the positive experiences assocaited with conscious existence
outweigh the negatives. I accept that I can not be certain that the
disputed preconceived state is non-conscious.
>
> >I can not prove this to
> >be true but it is very difficult to have any basis for morality
> >without making such assumptions.
>
> Nonsense. Assuming that a disputed preconceived state
> exists unconsciously doesn't give your argument a "basis
> for morality." It's not a basis for anything.

Since we know nothing about the preconceived state it seems
to me the most reasonable thing is to behave as if there are
no conscious pre-conceived or post-deceased states. YMMD.

> >For example if I killed
> >you I would be sending you to an "unknowable, disputed state"
> >This state may be preferable to the state you are currently in
> >so you "can not assert" that I would be doing anything wrong.
>
> Of course you would be doing something wrong, because
> I'm already alive and hold a right against you not to kill me.

"To assert "premature death is preferable to eventual death" without
even knowing whether post-existence exists is a huge mistake."

> You are obligated not to intentionally kill me,

Why?

> and if you do you'll be doing something very wrong.
>
> >> Your task
> >> is now to describe this unknowable state and then argue
> >> that it is better to be brought from that place into being.
>
> Whenever you're ready; take your time.

I have already conceeded that I do not know anything about
this "unknowable state" just as you do not know anything
about the state you would end up in if I killed you.

Dave wrote:

> Derek wrote:
>
>>On 26 Feb 2006 16:08:34 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 26 Feb 2006 15:28:27 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Leif Erikson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Dave wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If the pleasant experiences of the chicken outweigh the
>>>>>>>negative than the chicken can be said to have benefited
>>>>>>>from being alive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, ABSOLUTELY NOT. The chicken "benefited" from
>>>>>>having pleasant experiences vs. having unpleasant ones.
>>>>>> It did NOT "benefit" from "getting to experience
>>>>>>life" vs. never being born in the first place. That is
>>>>>>an absurd comparison. Being conceived and born, thus
>>>>>>"getting to experience life", IS NOT a "benefit"
>>>>>>compared to never existing at all. It simply *cannot* be.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't agree. I think a happy existence is preferable to
>>>>>non-existence.
>>>>
>>>>You have no knowledge concerning the preconceived state
>>>>of animals, or even if such a preconceived state actually
>>>>exists. That in mind, you cannot then assert that existence
>>>>is preferable to this unknowable, disputed state.
>>>
>>>This is a fair point. I am working on the assumption that the
>>>preconcieved state is unconsciousness.
>>
>>You can't even do that, because you're yet to show that
>>a preconceived state even exists, conscious or not. To
>>assert "existence is preferable to non-existence" without
>>even knowing whether pre-existence exists is a huge
>>mistake.
>
>
> I assert that existence is preferable to non-conscious-existence

You are moving the goalposts. The debate is over
existence vs. never existing.

Goalpost move disallowed.

On 26 Feb 2006 17:31:56 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 26 Feb 2006 16:08:34 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On 26 Feb 2006 15:28:27 -0800, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >Leif Erikson wrote:
>> >> >> Dave wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If the pleasant experiences of the chicken outweigh the
>> >> >> > negative than the chicken can be said to have benefited
>> >> >> > from being alive.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, ABSOLUTELY NOT. The chicken "benefited" from
>> >> >> having pleasant experiences vs. having unpleasant ones.
>> >> >> It did NOT "benefit" from "getting to experience
>> >> >> life" vs. never being born in the first place. That is
>> >> >> an absurd comparison. Being conceived and born, thus
>> >> >> "getting to experience life", IS NOT a "benefit"
>> >> >> compared to never existing at all. It simply *cannot* be.
>> >> >
>> >> >I don't agree. I think a happy existence is preferable to
>> >> >non-existence.
>> >>
>> >> You have no knowledge concerning the preconceived state
>> >> of animals, or even if such a preconceived state actually
>> >> exists. That in mind, you cannot then assert that existence
>> >> is preferable to this unknowable, disputed state.
>> >
>> >This is a fair point. I am working on the assumption that the
>> >preconcieved state is unconsciousness.
>>
>> You can't even do that, because you're yet to show that
>> a preconceived state even exists, conscious or not. To
>> assert "existence is preferable to non-existence" without
>> even knowing whether pre-existence exists is a huge
>> mistake.
>
>I assert that existence is preferable to non-conscious-existence

You're trying to move the goalposts from comparing non-
existence with existence to comparing non-conscious
existence with existence. The latter comparison is
different from the former in that both states exist. Bad
effort, pesco dummy.

>when the positive experiences assocaited with conscious existence
>outweigh the negatives.

You cannot assert anything of the kind while totally
ignorant of "this unknowable state."

>I accept that I can not be certain that the
>disputed preconceived state is non-conscious.

You can't accept or reject anything to do with "this
unknowable state", let alone draw a conclusion from
it by comparing it with a knowable state: existence.

>> >I can not prove this to
>> >be true but it is very difficult to have any basis for morality
>> >without making such assumptions.
>>
>> Nonsense. Assuming that a disputed preconceived state
>> exists unconsciously doesn't give your argument a "basis
>> for morality." It's not a basis for anything.
>
>Since we know nothing about the preconceived state it seems
>to me the most reasonable thing is to behave as if there are
>no conscious pre-conceived or post-deceased states.

No, there is no "reasonable thing" to be drawn from it at
all, "Since we know nothing about the preconceived state",
let alone draw "a basis for morality" from it like you insist.
You simply don't know what you're talking about.

>> >For example if I killed
>> >you I would be sending you to an "unknowable, disputed state"
>> >This state may be preferable to the state you are currently in
>> >so you "can not assert" that I would be doing anything wrong.
>>
>> Of course you would be doing something wrong, because
>> I'm already alive and hold a right against you not to kill me.
>
>"To assert "premature death is preferable to eventual death" without
>even knowing whether post-existence exists is a huge mistake."

Non sequitur and false. Where did I assert that "premature
death is preferable to eventual death", pesco dummy?

>> You are obligated not to intentionally kill me,
>
>Why?

If that self-evident truth isn't self-evident to you, you
cannot regard yourself as a moral agent. If it is self-
evident to you, and my guess is that it is and you're
simply trying to waste my time, go and waste someone
else's time instead.

>> and if you do you'll be doing something very wrong.
>>
>> >> Your task
>> >> is now to describe this unknowable state and then argue
>> >> that it is better to be brought from that place into being.
>>
>> Whenever you're ready; take your time.
>
>I have already conceeded that I do not know anything about
>this "unknowable state"

Then
1) you have no basis on which to compare it to existence.
2) "there is no "reasonable thing" to be drawn from it."
3) you cannot "work on the assumption that the preconceived
state is unconsciousness."
4) you're as big a ****wit as Harrison is.

Way to go, pesco dummy.

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 Goo wrote:

>I don't have a dim view of life. I don't make - won't
>attempt to make - absurd, invalid comparisons.

"coming into existence is NOT A BENEFIT compared with
never existing." - Goo

"Causing farm animals to live is NOT an "ethically superior"
thing than wanting farm animals not to exist" - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does not make
them better off than before they existed." - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude than
ANY benefit" - Goo

"logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place
is the ethically superior choice." - Goo

"Existing is NOT a benefit." - Goo

"getting to experience life" <retch> is not a benefit" - Goo

"No animals "benefit" from farming" - Goo

" Life is not a benefit, period." - Goo

"Existence itself is NOT a benefit." - Goo

"Life per se is not a benefit to farm animals" - Goo

"Existence _per se_ is not a benefit to any farm animals." - Goo

"existence, per se, cannot be a benefit" - Goo

****wit David Harrison lied:

> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>
>>I don't have a dim view of life. I don't make - won't
>>attempt to make - absurd, invalid comparisons.
>
>
> "coming into existence is NOT A BENEFIT compared with
> never existing."

That's a true statement.


> "Causing farm animals to live is NOT an "ethically superior"
> thing than wanting farm animals not to exist"

True statement.


>
> "Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does not make
> them better off than before they existed."

True statement.


>
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
> of the animals erases all of it."

Not what I wrote, Goober.

3. Because you have not addressed the real complaints
of "vegans" regarding human use of animals:

a. your "decent conditions" are not decent enough
in their opinion
b. no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the
deliberate killing of the animals erases all
of it.


I was presenting "vegans'" view, ****wit, not my own.
You knew that - you lied by taking it out of context.
You always get caught when you do that, Goober****wit.


>
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
> their deaths"

Here is what was written, Goober****wit:

Goober****wit David Harrison:
>>> Eating meat has the added consideration that it
>>>deliberately provides life and death for billions of
>>>animals.

Leif Erikson:
>>Which does not earn you any moral credit at all.

>>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.

Goober****wit David Harrison:
> Yes it does.

Leif Erikson:
No, it doesn't. But feel free to tie yourself in knots
explaining why YOU stupidly think it does.

"giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths, if indeed it is wrong.


You always get caught when you attempt to lie,
Goober****wit.


>
> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude than
> ANY benefit"

Not what I wrote.


>
> "logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place
> is the ethically superior choice."

Not what I wrote.


>
> "Existing is NOT a benefit."

True statement.


> "getting to experience life" <retch> is not a benefit"

True statement.


>
> "No animals "benefit" from farming"

True statement.


>
> " Life is not a benefit, period."

True statement.


>
> "Existence itself is NOT a benefit."

True statement.


>
> "Life per se is not a benefit to farm animals"

True statement.


>
> "Existence _per se_ is not a benefit to any farm animals."

True statement.


> "existence, per se, cannot be a benefit"

True statement.

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 Goo wrote:

>dh asked:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 Goo boasted:
>>
>>
>>>I was presenting "vegans'" views
>>
>>
>> If you disagree with it, why do you present it?
>
>Because you lie and misstate what they say.

You can present no example(s) of that Gonad. The reason you can
present no examples, is because there are no examples to present.

>I'm reversing your clumsy lies.
>
>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude than
>>>>ANY benefit"
>>>
>>>Not what I wrote.
>>
>>
>> If you're going to pretend to disagree with it
>
>It's not what I

If you're going to amusingly pretend to disagree Goob, explain *why*
or it will be hilariously clear that you DO agree...LOL...and it's already
pretty damn clear you do, Goo.

>wrote, ****wit. You deleted half of
>what I actually wrote. You're too clumsy to get away
>with it. Repost *all* of what I wrote, in context,
>then maybe we can get somewhere. You won't - you
>*need* to lie that way.

Goober, all I did was remove the part where you dishonestly pretended
--very poorly!--not to agree with yourself.

>>>>"logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place
>>>>is the ethically superior choice."
>>>
>>>Not what I wrote.
>>
>>
>> If you're going to pretend
>
>It's not what I wrote,

You wrote and presented the argument Goo, and I'm still not completely
convinced that you're truly stupid enough to disagree with yourself, especially
since you can provide no arguments against you.