It just means "existence" to Fuckwit. He doesn't care about the quality of livestock animals' lives, as he has frequently indicated.
It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005
I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999
I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999
I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
to make the effort.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - July 31, 2003
Fuckwit only cares about the products and services they provide - mainly meat, but also disgusting animal combats that Fuckwit enjoys watching.
There is no "deal" struck with livestock animals. "Getting to experience life" is not some kind of compensation for the fact that they're slaughtered. "Getting to experience life" is not a benefit in any way for animals (or for any other living entity.)
It is not "more ethical" to want livestock animals to exist, rather than not wanting them to exist.
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal >>>>>>>>>>suffering"
>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>"appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals".
>>>>>>>>> Consideration of suffering is considering a negative aspect.
>>>>>>>>Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention. Positive
>>>>>>>>situations are already just fine as they are.
>>>>>>>>> The other
>>>>>>>>> considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing it >>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive aspect", >>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>it
>>>>>>>>clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.
>>>>>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's a
>>>>>>> necessary
>>>>>>> part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.
>>>>>>Explain why it is necessary.
>>>>> Because it's a significant aspect of the big picture. The fact that
>>>>> you
>>>>> can't recognise much less appreciate the significance is another one >>>>> of
>>>>> the ways
>>>>> that you reveal yourself
>>>>Repeating that you *think* it is significant is not an explanation. An
>>>>explanation involves giving reasons.
>>>>Hint: Don't bother straining your brain trying to think of one, there
>>>>aren't
>>>>any.
>>> There's the fact that it's a very significant aspect of human >>> influence
>>> on
>>> animals.
>>You keep saying its significant but you can't say how
> It allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive value.
No it doesn't. Our desire to consume animal products leads to them existing in the first place, our desire to alleviate their suffering then doing something about it "allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive value". You're not adding anything of value by "considering what they get out of it", you're just patting yourself on the back.
>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal >>>>>>>>>>>suffering"
>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>"appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals".
>>>>>>>>>> Consideration of suffering is considering a negative aspect.
>>>>>>>>>Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention. Positive
>>>>>>>>>situations are already just fine as they are.
>>>>>>>>>> The other
>>>>>>>>>> considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing it >>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>>It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive aspect", >>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>it
>>>>>>>>>clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.
>>>>>>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's a
>>>>>>>> necessary
>>>>>>>> part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.
>>>>>>>Explain why it is necessary.
>>>>>> Because it's a significant aspect of the big picture. The fact that
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> can't recognise much less appreciate the significance is another one >>>>>> of
>>>>>> the ways
>>>>>> that you reveal yourself
>>>>>Repeating that you *think* it is significant is not an explanation. An
>>>>>explanation involves giving reasons.
>>>>>Hint: Don't bother straining your brain trying to think of one, there
>>>>>aren't
>>>>>any.
>>>> There's the fact that it's a very significant aspect of human >>>> influence
>>>> on
>>>> animals.
>>>You keep saying its significant but you can't say how
>> It allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive value.
>No it doesn't. Our desire to consume animal products leads to them existing >in the first place,
That's what's significant, and refusing to consider that aspect of the
situation produces the stifled and unrealistic desire to see all livestock
eliminated which is why ONLY eliminationists have reason to refuse to consider
the big picture, and that is why YOU are opposed to people considering the big
picture. Because considering the big picture works against elimination.
>our desire to alleviate their suffering then doing >something about it "allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive >value". You're not adding anything of value by "considering what they get >out of it"
ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering what happens when AW
is successful, and ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering when
animals experience lives of positive value for reasons that are not legally
regulated. DUH!!! You of course oppose both, and ONLY an eliminationist has
reason to do so. Certainly no one who's truly in favor of AW over elimination
has any reason to oppose considering when AW is successful, so your opposition
to considering it is one of the ways you reveal yourself.
>>>>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal
>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering"
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> "appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals".
>>>>>>>>>>> Consideration of suffering is considering a negative aspect.
>>>>>>>>>> Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention. Positive
>>>>>>>>>> situations are already just fine as they are.
>>>>>>>>>>> The other
>>>>>>>>>>> considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing it
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>>> It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive aspect",
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.
>>>>>>>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's a
>>>>>>>>> necessary
>>>>>>>>> part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.
>>>>>>>> Explain why it is necessary.
>>>>>>> Because it's a significant aspect of the big picture. The fact that
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> can't recognise much less appreciate the significance is another one
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the ways
>>>>>>> that you reveal yourself
>>>>>> Repeating that you *think* it is significant is not an explanation. An
>>>>>> explanation involves giving reasons.
>>>>>> Hint: Don't bother straining your brain trying to think of one, there
>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>> any.
>>>>> There's the fact that it's a very significant aspect of human
>>>>> influence
>>>>> on
>>>>> animals.
>>>> You keep saying its significant but you can't say how
>>> It allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive value.
>> No it doesn't. Our desire to consume animal products leads to them existing
>> in the first place,
> That's what's significant,
It has no moral significance at all.
>> our desire to alleviate their suffering then doing
>> something about it "allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive
>> value". You're not adding anything of value by "considering what they get
>> out of it"
> ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering what happens
The animals don't "get something out of it". "Getting to experience life" in the first place is meaningless to animals.
Fuckwit David Harrison - convicted of breeding fighting dogs - lied:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:22:51 -0700, Prof. Geo. Plimpton wrote:
>> It just means "existence" to Fuckwit. He doesn't care about the quality of livestock animals' lives, as he has frequently indicated.
> Not to me, but
Yes, to you, Goo. You don't *care* about the quality of their lives, Goo:
It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005
I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999
I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999
I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
to make the effort.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - July 31, 2003
It's far too late for you to try to maintain the lie, Goo. You're fucked.
>>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal
>>>>>>>>>>>>suffering"
>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>"appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock >>>>>>>>>>>>animals".
>>>>>>>>>>> Consideration of suffering is considering a negative aspect.
>>>>>>>>>>Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention. >>>>>>>>>>Positive
>>>>>>>>>>situations are already just fine as they are.
>>>>>>>>>>> The other
>>>>>>>>>>> considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing it
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>>>It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive aspect",
>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>it
>>>>>>>>>>clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.
>>>>>>>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's a
>>>>>>>>> necessary
>>>>>>>>> part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.
>>>>>>>>Explain why it is necessary.
>>>>>>> Because it's a significant aspect of the big picture. The fact >>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> can't recognise much less appreciate the significance is another one
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the ways
>>>>>>> that you reveal yourself
>>>>>>Repeating that you *think* it is significant is not an explanation. An
>>>>>>explanation involves giving reasons.
>>>>>>Hint: Don't bother straining your brain trying to think of one, there
>>>>>>aren't
>>>>>>any.
>>>>> There's the fact that it's a very significant aspect of human
>>>>> influence
>>>>> on
>>>>> animals.
>>>>You keep saying its significant but you can't say how
>>> It allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive value.
>>No it doesn't. Our desire to consume animal products leads to them >>existing
>>in the first place,
> That's what's significant,
Right, so what?
> and refusing to consider that aspect of the
> situation produces the stifled and unrealistic desire to see all livestock
> eliminated which is why ONLY eliminationists have reason to refuse to > consider
> the big picture, and that is why YOU are opposed to people considering the > big
> picture. Because considering the big picture works against elimination.
You're not seeing any "big picture", you're seeing a narrow, trumped up picture.
>>our desire to alleviate their suffering then doing
>>something about it "allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive
>>value". You're not adding anything of value by "considering what they get
>>out of it"
> ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering what happens > when AW
> is successful
I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose "considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish anything.
> and ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering when
> animals experience lives of positive value for reasons that are not > legally
> regulated. DUH!!! You of course oppose both, and ONLY an eliminationist > has
> reason to do so. Certainly no one who's truly in favor of AW over > elimination
> has any reason to oppose considering when AW is successful, so your > opposition
> to considering it is one of the ways you reveal yourself.
I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose "considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish anything.
You're proposing that we believe that something bad would happen if livestock were eliminated, and that bad thing somehow relates to "AW", that the animals that wouldn't exist would 'miss out' on something, or whatever. The whole theory is incoherent nonsense.
Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted breeder of fighting birds, lied:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:22:51 -0700, George Plimpton authoritatively wrote:
>> It just means "existence"
> Not to me, but
Yes, it only means existence to you, Goo. You don't give any consideration to the quality of life for farm animals at all, Goo - you've told us repeatedly that you don't:
It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005
I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999
I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999
I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
to make the effort.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - July 31, 2003
*ALL* you care about is if they exist, Goo. Stop lying about your "consideration", Goo - it's fake.
>>>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>suffering"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock >>>>>>>>>>>>>animals".
>>>>>>>>>>>> Consideration of suffering is considering a negative aspect.
>>>>>>>>>>>Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention. >>>>>>>>>>>Positive
>>>>>>>>>>>situations are already just fine as they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The other
>>>>>>>>>>>> considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing it
>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>>>>It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive aspect",
>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>it
>>>>>>>>>>>clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.
>>>>>>>>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's a
>>>>>>>>>> necessary
>>>>>>>>>> part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.
>>>>>>>>>Explain why it is necessary.
>>>>>>>> Because it's a significant aspect of the big picture. The fact >>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> can't recognise much less appreciate the significance is another one
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the ways
>>>>>>>> that you reveal yourself
>>>>>>>Repeating that you *think* it is significant is not an explanation. An
>>>>>>>explanation involves giving reasons.
>>>>>>>Hint: Don't bother straining your brain trying to think of one, there
>>>>>>>aren't
>>>>>>>any.
>>>>>> There's the fact that it's a very significant aspect of human
>>>>>> influence
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> animals.
>>>>>You keep saying its significant but you can't say how
>>>> It allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive value.
>>>No it doesn't. Our desire to consume animal products leads to them >>>existing
>>>in the first place,
>> That's what's significant,
>Right, so what?
So we have no ethical reason to avoid eating meat if we feel that the
animals have lives of positive value even though you people want everyone to
believe:
"abstaining from meat saves future animals from life" - "Dutch"
>> and refusing to consider that aspect of the
>> situation produces the stifled and unrealistic desire to see all livestock
>> eliminated which is why ONLY eliminationists have reason to refuse to >> consider
>> the big picture, and that is why YOU are opposed to people considering the >> big
>> picture. Because considering the big picture works against elimination.
>You're not seeing any "big picture", you're seeing a narrow, trumped up >picture.
I'm pointing out significant things that eliminationists don't want people
to take into consideration because they work against the elimination objective.
>>>our desire to alleviate their suffering then doing
>>>something about it "allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive
>>>value". You're not adding anything of value by "considering what they get
>>>out of it"
>> ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering what happens >> when AW
>> is successful
>I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose >"considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish >anything.
It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're opposed to
it.
>> and ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering when
>> animals experience lives of positive value for reasons that are not >> legally
>> regulated. DUH!!! You of course oppose both, and ONLY an eliminationist >> has
>> reason to do so. Certainly no one who's truly in favor of AW over >> elimination
>> has any reason to oppose considering when AW is successful, so your >> opposition
>> to considering it is one of the ways you reveal yourself.
>I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose >"considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish >anything.
It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're opposed to
it.
>>>>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>suffering"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>animals".
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consideration of suffering is considering a negative >>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Positive
>>>>>>>>>>>>situations are already just fine as they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing >>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive >>>>>>>>>>>>aspect",
>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>it
>>>>>>>>>>>>clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.
>>>>>>>>>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's >>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> necessary
>>>>>>>>>>> part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.
>>>>>>>>>>Explain why it is necessary.
>>>>>>>>> Because it's a significant aspect of the big picture. The fact
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> can't recognise much less appreciate the significance is another >>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the ways
>>>>>>>>> that you reveal yourself
>>>>>>>>Repeating that you *think* it is significant is not an explanation. >>>>>>>>An
>>>>>>>>explanation involves giving reasons.
>>>>>>>>Hint: Don't bother straining your brain trying to think of one, >>>>>>>>there
>>>>>>>>aren't
>>>>>>>>any.
>>>>>>> There's the fact that it's a very significant aspect of human
>>>>>>> influence
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> animals.
>>>>>>You keep saying its significant but you can't say how
>>>>> It allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive value.
>>>>No it doesn't. Our desire to consume animal products leads to them
>>>>existing
>>>>in the first place,
>>> That's what's significant,
>>Right, so what?
> So we have no ethical reason to avoid eating meat if we feel that the
> animals have lives of positive value even though you people want everyone > to
> believe:
> "abstaining from meat saves future animals from life" - "Dutch"
>>> and refusing to consider that aspect of the
>>> situation produces the stifled and unrealistic desire to see all >>> livestock
>>> eliminated which is why ONLY eliminationists have reason to refuse to
>>> consider
>>> the big picture, and that is why YOU are opposed to people considering >>> the
>>> big
>>> picture. Because considering the big picture works against elimination.
>>You're not seeing any "big picture", you're seeing a narrow, trumped up
>>picture.
> I'm pointing out significant things that eliminationists don't want > people
> to take into consideration because they work against the elimination > objective.
>>>>our desire to alleviate their suffering then doing
>>>>something about it "allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of >>>>positive
>>>>value". You're not adding anything of value by "considering what they >>>>get
>>>>out of it"
>>> ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering what happens
>>> when AW
>>> is successful
>>I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose
>>"considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
>>anything.
> It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
> ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're > opposed to
> it.
>>> and ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering when
>>> animals experience lives of positive value for reasons that are not
>>> legally
>>> regulated. DUH!!! You of course oppose both, and ONLY an eliminationist
>>> has
>>> reason to do so. Certainly no one who's truly in favor of AW over
>>> elimination
>>> has any reason to oppose considering when AW is successful, so your
>>> opposition
>>> to considering it is one of the ways you reveal yourself.
>>I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose
>>"considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
>>anything.
> It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
> ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're > opposed to
> it.
>>>>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal
>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering"
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> "appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals".
>>>>>>>>>>> Consideration of suffering is considering a negative aspect.
>>>>>>>>>> Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention. Positive
>>>>>>>>>> situations are already just fine as they are.
>>>>>>>>>>> The other
>>>>>>>>>>> considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing it
>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>>> It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive aspect",
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.
>>>>>>>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's a
>>>>>>>>> necessary
>>>>>>>>> part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.
>>>>>>>> Explain why it is necessary.
>>>>>>> Because it's a significant aspect of the big picture. The fact that
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> can't recognise much less appreciate the significance is another one
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the ways
>>>>>>> that you reveal yourself
>>>>>> Repeating that you *think* it is significant is not an explanation. An
>>>>>> explanation involves giving reasons.
>>>>>> Hint: Don't bother straining your brain trying to think of one, there
>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>> any.
>>>>> There's the fact that it's a very significant aspect of human
>>>>> influence
>>>>> on
>>>>> animals.
>>>> You keep saying its significant but you can't say how
>>> It allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive value.
>> No it doesn't. Our desire to consume animal products leads to them existing
>> in the first place,
> That's what's significant,
That is *NOT* morally significant in any way - not to the animals, not to us. It has a *practical* significance to us; it has *NO* significance to the animals. The animals don't care that they exist, they don't "benefit" from coming into existence.
There is nothing to consider regarding the animals' existence.
>> our desire to alleviate their suffering then doing
>> something about it "allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive
>> value". You're not adding anything of value by "considering what they get
>> out of it"
> ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering what happens when AW
> is successful,
Animals "getting to experience life" has no significance - not to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>suffering"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>animals".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consideration of suffering is considering a negative >>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Positive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>situations are already just fine as they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive >>>>>>>>>>>>>aspect",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's >>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary
>>>>>>>>>>>> part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.
>>>>>>>>>>>Explain why it is necessary.
>>>>>>>>>> Because it's a significant aspect of the big picture. The fact
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>> can't recognise much less appreciate the significance is another >>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> the ways
>>>>>>>>>> that you reveal yourself
>>>>>>>>>Repeating that you *think* it is significant is not an explanation. >>>>>>>>>An
>>>>>>>>>explanation involves giving reasons.
>>>>>>>>>Hint: Don't bother straining your brain trying to think of one, >>>>>>>>>there
>>>>>>>>>aren't
>>>>>>>>>any.
>>>>>>>> There's the fact that it's a very significant aspect of human
>>>>>>>> influence
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> animals.
>>>>>>>You keep saying its significant but you can't say how
>>>>>> It allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive value.
>>>>>No it doesn't. Our desire to consume animal products leads to them
>>>>>existing
>>>>>in the first place,
>>>> That's what's significant,
>>>Right, so what?
>> So we have no ethical reason to avoid eating meat if we feel that the
>> animals have lives of positive value even though you people want everyone >> to
>> believe:
>> "abstaining from meat saves future animals from life" - "Dutch"
>That made no sense.
It's your quote regardless of how stupid it seems to you.
>>>> and refusing to consider that aspect of the
>>>> situation produces the stifled and unrealistic desire to see all >>>> livestock
>>>> eliminated which is why ONLY eliminationists have reason to refuse to
>>>> consider
>>>> the big picture, and that is why YOU are opposed to people considering >>>> the
>>>> big
>>>> picture. Because considering the big picture works against elimination.
>>>You're not seeing any "big picture", you're seeing a narrow, trumped up
>>>picture.
>> I'm pointing out significant things that eliminationists don't want >> people
>> to take into consideration because they work against the elimination >> objective.
>You're not seeing anything significant.
The lives of the animlas humans kill deserve as much or more consideration
than their deaths.
>>>>>our desire to alleviate their suffering then doing
>>>>>something about it "allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of >>>>>positive
>>>>>value". You're not adding anything of value by "considering what they >>>>>get
>>>>>out of it"
>>>> ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering what happens
>>>> when AW
>>>> is successful
>>>I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose
>>>"considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
>>>anything.
>> It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
>> ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're >> opposed to
>> it.
>It does nothing.
That's a blatant lie since it does what I pointed out, and we both know it.
>>>> and ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering when
>>>> animals experience lives of positive value for reasons that are not
>>>> legally
>>>> regulated. DUH!!! You of course oppose both, and ONLY an eliminationist
>>>> has
>>>> reason to do so. Certainly no one who's truly in favor of AW over
>>>> elimination
>>>> has any reason to oppose considering when AW is successful, so your
>>>> opposition
>>>> to considering it is one of the ways you reveal yourself.
>>>I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose
>>>"considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
>>>anything.
>> It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
>> ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're >> opposed to
>> it.
>It does nothing.
That's a blatant lie since it does what I pointed out, and we both know it.
>>>>>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals".
>>>>>>>>>>>> Consideration of suffering is considering a negative aspect.
>>>>>>>>>>> Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention. Positive
>>>>>>>>>>> situations are already just fine as they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The other
>>>>>>>>>>>> considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing it
>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>>>> It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive aspect",
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.
>>>>>>>>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's a
>>>>>>>>>> necessary
>>>>>>>>>> part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.
>>>>>>>>> Explain why it is necessary.
>>>>>>>> Because it's a significant aspect of the big picture. The fact that
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> can't recognise much less appreciate the significance is another one
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the ways
>>>>>>>> that you reveal yourself
>>>>>>> Repeating that you *think* it is significant is not an explanation. An
>>>>>>> explanation involves giving reasons.
>>>>>>> Hint: Don't bother straining your brain trying to think of one, there
>>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>>> any.
>>>>>> There's the fact that it's a very significant aspect of human
>>>>>> influence
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> animals.
>>>>> You keep saying its significant but you can't say how
>>>> It allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive value.
>>> No it doesn't. Our desire to consume animal products leads to them existing
>>> in the first place,
>> That's what's significant,
>That is *NOT* morally significant in any way
It's worthy of as much or more consideration that their deaths Goo, and of
course it's more from my pov. ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose
consideratoin and appreciation for when decent AW results in lives of positive
value for millions of livestock animals. In fact ONLY eliminationist have reason
to oppose consideration and appreciation for anything and everything that
results in lives of positive value for millions of livestock animals. Your
opposition to appreciating those situations is one of the ways you reveal
yourself, Goob.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 16:01:26 -0700, "Dutch"<n...@email.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animals".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consideration of suffering is considering a negative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Positive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> situations are already just fine as they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect",
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary
>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain why it is necessary.
>>>>>>>>>>> Because it's a significant aspect of the big picture. The fact
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>> can't recognise much less appreciate the significance is another
>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> the ways
>>>>>>>>>>> that you reveal yourself
>>>>>>>>>> Repeating that you *think* it is significant is not an explanation.
>>>>>>>>>> An
>>>>>>>>>> explanation involves giving reasons.
>>>>>>>>>> Hint: Don't bother straining your brain trying to think of one,
>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>>>>>> any.
>>>>>>>>> There's the fact that it's a very significant aspect of human
>>>>>>>>> influence
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> animals.
>>>>>>>> You keep saying its significant but you can't say how
>>>>>>> It allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive value.
>>>>>> No it doesn't. Our desire to consume animal products leads to them
>>>>>> existing
>>>>>> in the first place,
>>>>> That's what's significant,
>>>> Right, so what?
>>> So we have no ethical reason to avoid eating meat if we feel that the
>>> animals have lives of positive value even though you people want everyone
>>> to
>>> believe:
>>> "abstaining from meat saves future animals from life" - "Dutch"
>>>>> and refusing to consider that aspect of the
>>>>> situation produces the stifled and unrealistic desire to see all
>>>>> livestock
>>>>> eliminated which is why ONLY eliminationists have reason to refuse to
>>>>> consider
>>>>> the big picture, and that is why YOU are opposed to people considering
>>>>> the
>>>>> big
>>>>> picture. Because considering the big picture works against elimination.
>>>> You're not seeing any "big picture", you're seeing a narrow, trumped up
>>>> picture.
>>> I'm pointing out significant things that eliminationists don't want
>>> people
>>> to take into consideration because they work against the elimination
>>> objective.
>> You're not seeing anything significant.
> The lives of the animlas humans kill deserve as much or more consideration
They deserve zero consideration. "Getting to experience life" is meaningless.
>>>>>> our desire to alleviate their suffering then doing
>>>>>> something about it "allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of
>>>>>> positive
>>>>>> value". You're not adding anything of value by "considering what they
>>>>>> get
>>>>>> out of it"
>>>>> ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering what happens
>>>>> when AW
>>>>> is successful
>>>> I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose
>>>> "considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
>>>> anything.
>>> It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
>>> ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're
>>> opposed to
>>> it.
>> It does nothing.
> That's a blatant lie since
It's not a lie; it's the truth. "Providing life" is ethically meaningless.
>>>>> and ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering when
>>>>> animals experience lives of positive value for reasons that are not
>>>>> legally
>>>>> regulated. DUH!!! You of course oppose both, and ONLY an eliminationist
>>>>> has
>>>>> reason to do so. Certainly no one who's truly in favor of AW over
>>>>> elimination
>>>>> has any reason to oppose considering when AW is successful, so your
>>>>> opposition
>>>>> to considering it is one of the ways you reveal yourself.
>>>> I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose
>>>> "considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
>>>> anything.
>>> It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
>>> ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're
>>> opposed to
>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Explain the distinction between "consideration of animal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffering"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "appreciation for lives of positive value for livestock animals".
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consideration of suffering is considering a negative aspect.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Negative aspects are only ones that require our attention. Positive
>>>>>>>>>>>> situations are already just fine as they are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The other
>>>>>>>>>>>>> considers a positive aspect which is why you've been opposing it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It serves no constructive purpose to "consider a positive aspect",
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly smacks of self serving rationalization.
>>>>>>>>>>> In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist perspective it's a
>>>>>>>>>>> necessary
>>>>>>>>>>> part of considering the big picture in a realistic way.
>>>>>>>>>> Explain why it is necessary.
>>>>>>>>> Because it's a significant aspect of the big picture. The fact that
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> can't recognise much less appreciate the significance is another one
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> the ways
>>>>>>>>> that you reveal yourself
>>>>>>>> Repeating that you *think* it is significant is not an explanation. An
>>>>>>>> explanation involves giving reasons.
>>>>>>>> Hint: Don't bother straining your brain trying to think of one, there
>>>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>>>> any.
>>>>>>> There's the fact that it's a very significant aspect of human
>>>>>>> influence
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> animals.
>>>>>> You keep saying its significant but you can't say how
>>>>> It allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of positive value.
>>>> No it doesn't. Our desire to consume animal products leads to them existing
>>>> in the first place,
>>> That's what's significant,
>> That is *NOT* morally significant in any way - not to the animals, not to us.
>> It has a *practical* significance to us; it has *NO* significance to the animals.
>> The animals don't care that they exist, they don't "benefit" from coming into existence.
> It's worthy of as much or more consideration
It is not worthy of any consideration at all. It's meaningless.
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:22:07 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose
>>>>"considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
>>>>anything.
>>> It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
>>> ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're
>>> opposed to
>>> it.
>>It does nothing.
> That's a blatant lie since it does what I pointed out, and we both know > it.
It doesn't do what you think it does, you're deluding yourself.
> <dh@.> wrote
>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:22:07 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>> I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I
>>>>> oppose
>>>>> "considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
>>>>> anything.
>>>> It suggests that providing lives of positive value
>>> It does nothing.
>> That's a blatant lie since
> It doesn't do what you think it does, you're deluding yourself.
It doesn't do anything. Causing animals to exist - or "get to experience life" - doesn't do anything for them. "Providing life" for farm animals is meaningless.
Fuckwit David Harrison - convicted for breeding fighting dogs - lied:
>>>>>>>>> There's the fact that it's a very significant aspect of human
>>>>>>>>> influence on animals.
>>>>>>>> You keep saying its significant but you can't say how
>>>>>>> It allows billions of animals to get to experience life.
No significance.
>>>>>> No it doesn't. Our desire to consume animal products leads to them
>>>>>> existing in the first place,
>>>>> That's what's significant,
Not significant.
>>>> Right, so what?
>>> So we have no ethical reason to avoid eating meat
We have no ethical reason to want animals to "get to experience life".
>>> "abstaining from meat saves future animals from life" - "Dutch"
>> That made no sense.
> It's your quote
It's not a quote.
>>>>> and refusing to consider that aspect of the
>>>>> situation
Nothing to consider.
>>>> You're not seeing any "big picture", you're seeing a narrow, trumped up
>>>> picture.
>>> I'm pointing out significant things
No. You're blabbering about things with no significance at all.
>> You're not seeing anything significant.
> The lives of the animlas humans kill deserve as much or more consideration
They deserve no consideration - zero. It is not important in any way that livestock animals "get to experience life". This has been proved.
>>>>>> our desire to alleviate their suffering then doing
>>>>>> something about it "allows billions of animals to enjoy lives of
>>>>>> positive value". You're not adding anything of value by "considering
>>>>>> what they get out of it"
They get *nothing* "out of it."
>>>>> ONLY an eliminationist has reason to oppose considering what happens
>>>>> when AW is successful
"when AW is successful" - bullshit cracker-speak. That's just vomit.
>>>> I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose
>>>> "considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
>>>> anything.
>>> It suggests that providing lives
It's meaningless.
>> It does nothing.
> That's a blatant lie since
It's not a lie. Causing animals to "get to experience life", which is all you care about, is ethically meaningless. Proved.
On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:26:36 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:22:07 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose
>>>>>"considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
>>>>>anything.
>>>> It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
>>>> ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're
>>>> opposed to
>>>> it.
>>>It does nothing.
>> That's a blatant lie since it does what I pointed out, and we both know >> it.
>It doesn't do what you think it does
It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're
opposed to it.
> On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:26:36 -0700, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
>> <dh@.> wrote
>>> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 00:22:07 -0700, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I don't oppose considering what happens when AW is successful, I oppose
>>>>>> "considering what they get out of it" because it doesn't accomplish
>>>>>> anything.
>>>>> It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
>>>>> ethically equivalent or superior to elimination, which is why you're
>>>>> opposed to
>>>>> it.
>>>> It does nothing.
>>> That's a blatant lie since it does what I pointed out, and we both know
>>> it.
>> It doesn't do what you think it does
> It suggests that providing lives of positive value can be considered
> ethically equivalent or superior
All you care about is that the animals exist. You don't care about "decent lives", all you want is for them to exist so you can consume them.
It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005
I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999
I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999
I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
to make the effort.
Goo/Fuckwit David Harrison - July 31, 2003
You only care about the products and services they provide - mainly meat, but also disgusting animal combats that you enjoy watching.
