Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Does raising farm animals increase their intrinsic value and is that a benefit?
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Immortalist
May 31, 2013, 2:57:38 PM5/31/13
to
1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
as means to further some other ends.
2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
in themselves regardless of whether they
are also useful as means to other ends.
For instance, certain fruits have instrumental value for bats who feed
on them, since feeding on the fruits is a means to survival for the
bats. However, it is not widely agreed that fruits have value as ends
in themselves.
We can likewise think of a person who teaches others as having
instrumental value for those who want to acquire knowledge. Yet, in
addition to any such value, it is normally said that a person, as a
person, has intrinsic value, i.e., value in his or her own right
independently of his or her prospects for serving the ends of others.
For another example, a certain wild plant may have instrumental value
because it provides the ingredients for some medicine or as an
aesthetic object for human observers. But if the plant also has some
value in itself independently of its prospects for furthering some
other ends such as human health, or the pleasure from aesthetic
experience, then the plant also has intrinsic value.
Because the intrinsically valuable is that which is good as an end in
itself, it is commonly agreed that something's possession of intrinsic
value generates a prima facie direct moral duty on the part of moral
agents to protect it or at least refrain from damaging it.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/
Does raising farm animals increase their intrinsic value and is that a
benefit?
as means to further some other ends.
2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
in themselves regardless of whether they
are also useful as means to other ends.
For instance, certain fruits have instrumental value for bats who feed
on them, since feeding on the fruits is a means to survival for the
bats. However, it is not widely agreed that fruits have value as ends
in themselves.
We can likewise think of a person who teaches others as having
instrumental value for those who want to acquire knowledge. Yet, in
addition to any such value, it is normally said that a person, as a
person, has intrinsic value, i.e., value in his or her own right
independently of his or her prospects for serving the ends of others.
For another example, a certain wild plant may have instrumental value
because it provides the ingredients for some medicine or as an
aesthetic object for human observers. But if the plant also has some
value in itself independently of its prospects for furthering some
other ends such as human health, or the pleasure from aesthetic
experience, then the plant also has intrinsic value.
Because the intrinsically valuable is that which is good as an end in
itself, it is commonly agreed that something's possession of intrinsic
value generates a prima facie direct moral duty on the part of moral
agents to protect it or at least refrain from damaging it.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/
Does raising farm animals increase their intrinsic value and is that a
benefit?
%
May 31, 2013, 3:04:30 PM5/31/13
to
George Plimpton
May 31, 2013, 3:35:16 PM5/31/13
to
On 5/31/2013 11:57 AM, Immortalist wrote:
> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
> as means to further some other ends.
>
> 2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
> in themselves regardless of whether they
> are also useful as means to other ends.
The answer is "no", it does not increase their intrinsic value. If farm
> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
> as means to further some other ends.
>
> 2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
> in themselves regardless of whether they
> are also useful as means to other ends.
animals have any intrinsic value at all, what breeding them into
existence does is *establish* that value, but it does not increase it.
Sir Fred M. McNeill
May 31, 2013, 4:20:38 PM5/31/13
to
'Humans' need food, As hunter-gatherers 'we' evolved
that way. That evolvement included meat. So 'we' are.
Such is the way of this shit ass spooky place.
Animal 'husbandry' occurred along with agriculture.
that way. That evolvement included meat. So 'we' are.
Such is the way of this shit ass spooky place.
Animal 'husbandry' occurred along with agriculture.
Dutch
May 31, 2013, 4:45:25 PM5/31/13
to
"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:66737fb4-bae9-499d...@qn4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
or anything for that matter, has intrinsic value. We could discuss whether
or not various influences on a given entity are beneficial or not. What do
you mean by "raising"? Feeding? Feeding benefits farm animals in that it
prevents them from starving to death.
Ben Kaufman
May 31, 2013, 7:16:51 PM5/31/13
to
On Fri, 31 May 2013 11:57:38 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
The plant evolved an edible fruit because it is ultimately of benefit to the
plant, usually something related to reproduction.
Ben
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>For instance, certain fruits have instrumental value for bats who feed
>on them, since feeding on the fruits is a means to survival for the
>bats. However, it is not widely agreed that fruits have value as ends
>in themselves.
<SNIP>
>on them, since feeding on the fruits is a means to survival for the
>bats. However, it is not widely agreed that fruits have value as ends
>in themselves.
The plant evolved an edible fruit because it is ultimately of benefit to the
plant, usually something related to reproduction.
Ben
Olrik
Jun 1, 2013, 12:00:50 AM6/1/13
to
I've just ordered a bucket of KFC's intrinsically extra-valued yummy
chicken parts.
Thanks!
<snipage>
Dutch
Jun 1, 2013, 12:18:55 AM6/1/13
to
"Ben Kaufman" <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:nabiq8lmh0s4lit02...@4ax.com...
Species of plants with edible fruit tended to survive and propagate above
those that didn't because animals spread the seeds in the fruit. That is
maybe what you were trying to say, but plants don't develop fruit in order
to make their species survive better, edible fruit is a natural variation
that favors success.
What I am trying to say is that edible fruit enhanced success of those
species, the species didn't develop fruit in order to survive better.
news:nabiq8lmh0s4lit02...@4ax.com...
those that didn't because animals spread the seeds in the fruit. That is
maybe what you were trying to say, but plants don't develop fruit in order
to make their species survive better, edible fruit is a natural variation
that favors success.
What I am trying to say is that edible fruit enhanced success of those
species, the species didn't develop fruit in order to survive better.
Dutch
Jun 1, 2013, 12:27:54 AM6/1/13
to
"Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kobrdc$8ug$1...@dont-email.me...
Congratulations, according to the fuckwit theory you just encouraged farmers
to raise more broiler chickens causing them to possibly enjoy a few weeks of
life. That makes you their benefactor and clearly a more moral person that
any vegan who chooses to deny future chicken a chance at life.
Circular logic makes ethics easy.
news:kobrdc$8ug$1...@dont-email.me...
to raise more broiler chickens causing them to possibly enjoy a few weeks of
life. That makes you their benefactor and clearly a more moral person that
any vegan who chooses to deny future chicken a chance at life.
Circular logic makes ethics easy.
Bret Cahill
Jun 1, 2013, 1:10:11 AM6/1/13
to
GOP bottom fishing.is pretty much the same thing as cultivating farm
animals.
Did that increase the value of the GOP?
Bret Cahill
animals.
Did that increase the value of the GOP?
Bret Cahill
Olrik
Jun 1, 2013, 1:51:04 AM6/1/13
to
Just remember that you're an animal. It helps put things in perspective.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Dutch
Jun 1, 2013, 2:59:24 AM6/1/13
to
"Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:koc1s2$v4f$1...@dont-email.me...
Dare
Jun 1, 2013, 4:53:08 AM6/1/13
to
"Immortalist" <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:66737fb4-bae9-499d...@qn4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
to the one(s) raising it or to the animal itself, does that increase the animal's
intrinsic value?
Dare
Jun 1, 2013, 5:24:14 AM6/1/13
to
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message news:08d7ad5b-6c3c-4fab...@wg15g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
dysfunctional congress and top government officials mired in
corruption, grid-lock, divisiveness, scandals..and the effect
that has on the people...decrease its intrinsic value?
> GOP bottom fishing.is pretty much the same thing as cultivating farm
> animals.
>
> Did that increase the value of the GOP?
Does the way American-style Democracy is being used...with a
> animals.
>
> Did that increase the value of the GOP?
dysfunctional congress and top government officials mired in
corruption, grid-lock, divisiveness, scandals..and the effect
that has on the people...decrease its intrinsic value?
Jack McKinney
Jun 1, 2013, 5:32:03 AM6/1/13
to
On Fri, May 31, 2013, 11:57am (CDT-2) From: reanima...@yahoo.com
(Immortalist) wrote:
> Does raising farm animals increase their
> intrinsic value and is that a benefit?
One could just as easily ask, does a dog enjoy being a dog (family pet),
(Immortalist) wrote:
> Does raising farm animals increase their
> intrinsic value and is that a benefit?
or does a horse enjoy being a horse (farm animal); do these animals have
a sense of self worth? Do these animals feel that they are contributing
to the well being of their species, as well as contributing to the well
being of everything else in existence.... Or is it all "just is" as some
believe... that is to say, everything is the result of random chemical
reactions, that started with the "Big Bang".... and life is both
pointless and meaningless. (?)
Ben Kaufman
Jun 1, 2013, 8:55:16 AM6/1/13
to
implication of deliberacy in evolving the edible fruit.
Dakota
Jun 1, 2013, 9:18:02 AM6/1/13
to
than having them turn into humanitarians. :)
Dakota
Jun 1, 2013, 9:19:39 AM6/1/13
to
Dakota
Jun 1, 2013, 9:21:54 AM6/1/13
to
George Plimpton
Jun 1, 2013, 12:02:54 PM6/1/13
to
economic survival at a graduate level that biologists, as well as
economists, talk of plants and non-human animals developing their
respective "survival strategies", even though they know full well that
plants don't think at all and animals are not capable of strategic
thinking. They talk that way as a matter of analogy, not because they
mean it literally. There's a lot of "as if" analysis at play - it is
"as if" the plants consciously developed edible fruit as a means to
ensure reproductive fitness. For that matter, there's a lot of "as if"
analysis involving the study of human economic agents. Observers have
long noted that many firms do *not* appear to be trying to maximize
profits. A brilliant professor I had, Armen Alchian, who died only a
few months ago, is credited as one of the first to observe that it
doesn't matter if firms are consciously pursuing profit maximization or
not - the firms that *do* maximize profits are the ones that survive,
and it is "as if" that was their deliberate strategy.
Dutch
Jun 1, 2013, 2:09:04 PM6/1/13
to
"Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:kocs4h$imh$4...@dont-email.me...
stomachs, scavenging insects. But honestly it would not have surprised me,
primates are pretty opportunistic feeders.
Dutch
Jun 1, 2013, 2:09:52 PM6/1/13
to
"Dare" <clyd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kocchk$aft$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
Dutch
Jun 1, 2013, 2:10:31 PM6/1/13
to
"Dare" <clyd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kocebp$ini$1...@dont-email.me...
Dutch
Jun 1, 2013, 2:24:05 PM6/1/13
to
"Ben Kaufman" <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:n4rjq89qc24oqfsli...@4ax.com...
deliberateness.
The plant evolved an edible fruit because....[to benefit itself] That
implies there was some sort of purposefulness, that would involve
consciousness. I find that to be misleading.
What plants *do* is to propagate and grow with random variations. Fruit is
a successful variation *because* it spreads seeds, that is natural
selection.
Dutch
Jun 1, 2013, 2:25:58 PM6/1/13
to
"Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
are kind of a social disorder.
Dutch
Jun 1, 2013, 2:47:21 PM6/1/13
to
"Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:kocs8o$imh$5...@dont-email.me...
mean that plants are following some kind of conscious direction, "God's
plan" sort of thing. Plants don't DO anything except grow, and in the
process variations occur naturally and spontaneously, some of which are
"successful".
In places where there are a lot of burrowing insects, birds have long beaks.
Rather than saying that the birds evolved long beaks in order to survive,
which seems to imply some kind of conscious "plan", it is more accurate to
say that long beaks "evolved" (passive) as a successful random variation.
Sorry to sound picky, I am trying to be clear..
Dutch
Jun 1, 2013, 2:56:30 PM6/1/13
to
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
news:8ca60$51aa1a58$414e828e$32...@EVERESTKC.NET...
Interesting, the obvious flaw in the analogy is that plants never pursue
adaptation for success consciously, it occurs naturally. On your other
point, the service industry to be successful has to have a primary goal to
pursue excellence in customer service, in that way maximum profits happen.
news:8ca60$51aa1a58$414e828e$32...@EVERESTKC.NET...
adaptation for success consciously, it occurs naturally. On your other
point, the service industry to be successful has to have a primary goal to
pursue excellence in customer service, in that way maximum profits happen.
george152
Jun 1, 2013, 4:56:46 PM6/1/13
to
George Plimpton
Jun 1, 2013, 5:36:04 PM6/1/13
to
adaptation that leads to greater reproductive fitness survives. Whether
that adaptation was developed consciously or merely as a result of
random mutation is immaterial. Calling it a survival "strategy" is
merely a figure of speech, and a useful shorthand.
> On your other
> point, the service industry to be successful has to have a primary goal
> to pursue excellence in customer service, in that way maximum profits
> happen.
Dutch
Jun 1, 2013, 5:44:52 PM6/1/13
to
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
the context and you don't end up with confusion among those who would
believe that plant evolution is driven by some conscious process..
>
>
>> On your other
>> point, the service industry to be successful has to have a primary goal
>> to pursue excellence in customer service, in that way maximum profits
>> happen.
>
> Some firms maximize profits by cutting back on customer service.
I think you can cut back "services" and still succeed but not "customer
>
>> On your other
>> point, the service industry to be successful has to have a primary goal
>> to pursue excellence in customer service, in that way maximum profits
>> happen.
>
> Some firms maximize profits by cutting back on customer service.
service" as in the professionalism in the way customers are handled.
Dutch
Jun 1, 2013, 5:47:08 PM6/1/13
to
"george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
news:q9udnZaJI6SS_TfM...@giganews.com...
You think they'd do better if they hunted monkeys, or sheep? I think loss of
habitat and poachers are the main reasons gorilla populations are
threatened, not diet.
news:q9udnZaJI6SS_TfM...@giganews.com...
habitat and poachers are the main reasons gorilla populations are
threatened, not diet.
Jack McKinney
Jun 1, 2013, 6:25:59 PM6/1/13
to
Back to the original question.
REALITY (101)
Most people don't look at the big picture; everything that is, was
already subjectively in existence (but unmanifest) prior to the
existence of the physical universe... and everything that has manifested
as a physical entity of any kind, from rocks to humans, has come into
existence because it desired to be a part of physical reality... NOTHING
IS "JUST IS".... everything is the result of intent; that is to say,
everything that is, is an expression of creativity...therefore any and
all existence is both purposeful and meaningful...
REALITY (101)
Most people don't look at the big picture; everything that is, was
already subjectively in existence (but unmanifest) prior to the
existence of the physical universe... and everything that has manifested
as a physical entity of any kind, from rocks to humans, has come into
existence because it desired to be a part of physical reality... NOTHING
IS "JUST IS".... everything is the result of intent; that is to say,
everything that is, is an expression of creativity...therefore any and
all existence is both purposeful and meaningful...
Dakota
Jun 1, 2013, 6:59:53 PM6/1/13
to
they are imposed on others.
Dakota
Jun 1, 2013, 7:08:19 PM6/1/13
to
clarity is very important. In a society with so many who are
intentionally and proudly ignorant of the Theory of Evolution, we
would be wise to avoid saying anything that might possibly be
misconstrued. Using a passive construction is a good way of doing so.
Dakota
Jun 1, 2013, 7:19:06 PM6/1/13
to
alt.atheism, if we're not careful, the trolls are quick to say, "You
said evolution does blah, blah, etc."
Dutch
Jun 1, 2013, 8:02:15 PM6/1/13
to
"Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:kodu4f$eub$1...@dont-email.me...
problem. Most people can laugh and ignore posturing ninnies. I was a
vegetarian for 18 years and while the diet part was pretty beneficial for
most of that time, I developed a rather sanctimonious attitude that did not
serve me well. even though I hid it most of the time.
Dutch
Jun 1, 2013, 8:03:59 PM6/1/13
to
"Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
agree, opponents will jump all over any loose language.
Mr.Smartypants
Jun 1, 2013, 10:22:06 PM6/1/13
to
On Jun 1, 6:02 pm, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:kodu4f$eub$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/1/2013 1:25 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> >> "Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:kocs1g$imh$3...@dont-email.me...
> >>> On 6/1/2013 12:51 AM, Olrik wrote:
> >>>> Le 2013-06-01 00:27, Dutch a crit :
> "Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:kodu4f$eub$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/1/2013 1:25 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
> >> "Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:kocs1g$imh$3...@dont-email.me...
> >>> On 6/1/2013 12:51 AM, Olrik wrote:
> >>>>> "Olrik" <olrik...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Dare
Jun 2, 2013, 10:10:34 AM6/2/13
to
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:MPqqt.53013$9X5....@newsfe31.iad...
Can the intrinsic value of something change?
How?
For example: If a being is taught/learns aspects of moral
or ethical thinking and behavior that he didn't previously
know(if that is possible), would that being's intrinsic value
be increased?
How?
For example: If a being is taught/learns aspects of moral
or ethical thinking and behavior that he didn't previously
know(if that is possible), would that being's intrinsic value
be increased?
Dare
Jun 2, 2013, 10:17:10 AM6/2/13
to
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:rQqqt.53444$KM4....@newsfe25.iad...
Could it also decrease the perception of its instrumental value
to non-democratic nations...and thereby decrease the instrumental
value they would be able to use? If so, might that make them less
likely to want to try democracy?
to non-democratic nations...and thereby decrease the instrumental
value they would be able to use? If so, might that make them less
likely to want to try democracy?
Dutch
Jun 2, 2013, 2:03:41 PM6/2/13
to
news:kofjgk$el4$1...@dont-email.me...
I haven't thought about it. What do you think?
> How?
> For example: If a being is taught/learns aspects of moral or ethical
> thinking and behavior that he didn't previously know(if that is possible),
> would that being's intrinsic value be increased?
I think of intrinsic as meaning an inherent property, not something learned
for example, but maybe the capacity to learn. So if a person's intrinsic
value is tied to his ability to learn and by hard work he develops the
ability to learn, then perhaps his intrinsic value increases.
> How?
> For example: If a being is taught/learns aspects of moral or ethical
> thinking and behavior that he didn't previously know(if that is possible),
> would that being's intrinsic value be increased?
for example, but maybe the capacity to learn. So if a person's intrinsic
value is tied to his ability to learn and by hard work he develops the
ability to learn, then perhaps his intrinsic value increases.
Dutch
Jun 2, 2013, 2:05:34 PM6/2/13
to
"Dare" <clyd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kofjtc$gq9$1...@dont-email.me...
that we have had an overblown opinion of their intrinsic value.
Dare
Jun 3, 2013, 9:52:04 AM6/3/13
to
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> "Dare" <clyd...@hotmail.com> wrote
outside itself, as in Immortalist's example of someone
"raising farm animals, then it is not intrinsic. So any
change caused by acting on the animal would not be
a change in intrinsic value....
perhaps it would change the instrumental value.
>> How?
>> For example: If a being is taught/learns aspects of moral or ethical
>> thinking and behavior that he didn't previously know(if that is possible),
>> would that being's intrinsic value be increased?
>
> I think of intrinsic as meaning an inherent property, not something learned
> for example, but maybe the capacity to learn. So if a person's intrinsic
> value is tied to his ability to learn and by hard work he develops the
> ability to learn, then perhaps his intrinsic value increases.
If his hard work relates to an outside influence...teacher, information
gained by reading, etc....then seems to me it might not be strictly
a change in intrinsic value. The intrinsic value might be his original
ability to perceive and act on a need to change?
> "Dare" <clyd...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> Can the intrinsic value of something change?
>
> I haven't thought about it. What do you think?
It seems to me that if the change depends on something
>> Can the intrinsic value of something change?
>
> I haven't thought about it. What do you think?
outside itself, as in Immortalist's example of someone
"raising farm animals, then it is not intrinsic. So any
change caused by acting on the animal would not be
a change in intrinsic value....
perhaps it would change the instrumental value.
>> How?
>> For example: If a being is taught/learns aspects of moral or ethical
>> thinking and behavior that he didn't previously know(if that is possible),
>> would that being's intrinsic value be increased?
>
> I think of intrinsic as meaning an inherent property, not something learned
> for example, but maybe the capacity to learn. So if a person's intrinsic
> value is tied to his ability to learn and by hard work he develops the
> ability to learn, then perhaps his intrinsic value increases.
gained by reading, etc....then seems to me it might not be strictly
a change in intrinsic value. The intrinsic value might be his original
ability to perceive and act on a need to change?
Dare
Jun 3, 2013, 10:14:42 AM6/3/13
to
On 6/3/2013 9:52 AM, Dare wrote:
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>> "Dare" <clyd...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> Can the intrinsic value of something change?
>>
>> I haven't thought about it. What do you think?
>
> It seems to me that if the change depends on something outside itself,
> as in Immortalist's example of someone "raising farm animals, then it is
> not intrinsic. So any change caused by acting on the animal would not be
> a change in intrinsic value....
> perhaps it would change the instrumental value.
So, to answer the question....
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>> "Dare" <clyd...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> Can the intrinsic value of something change?
>>
>> I haven't thought about it. What do you think?
>
> It seems to me that if the change depends on something outside itself,
> as in Immortalist's example of someone "raising farm animals, then it is
> not intrinsic. So any change caused by acting on the animal would not be
> a change in intrinsic value....
> perhaps it would change the instrumental value.
It seems to me, No.
At this point, I don't see what change could occur,
without some kind of outside influence, that would
change somethings intrinsic value.
Hopefully, just getting old doesn't change one's
intrinsic value. :-)
Maybe that raises another question of how
intrinsic value is calculated....
is it the sum of the parts of something?
How far do you go before something can't be
further separated into parts?
Would the intrinsic value of "the whole"
include the value of any benefit gained from
interactions between the parts...
eg:the act itself of the farmer raising the animal?
Maybe I'm getting too far off-topic.
George Plimpton
Jun 3, 2013, 12:06:45 PM6/3/13
to
On 6/3/2013 6:52 AM, Dare wrote:
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>> "Dare" <clyd...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> Can the intrinsic value of something change?
>>
>> I haven't thought about it. What do you think?
>
> It seems to me that if the change depends on something outside itself,
> as in Immortalist's example of someone "raising farm animals, then it is
> not intrinsic. So any change caused by acting on the animal would not be
> a change in intrinsic value....
> perhaps it would change the instrumental value.
I think it's a nonsense to talk about "changing" intrinsic value.
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>> "Dare" <clyd...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> Can the intrinsic value of something change?
>>
>> I haven't thought about it. What do you think?
>
> It seems to me that if the change depends on something outside itself,
> as in Immortalist's example of someone "raising farm animals, then it is
> not intrinsic. So any change caused by acting on the animal would not be
> a change in intrinsic value....
> perhaps it would change the instrumental value.
Something either has intrinsic value, i.e. value as an end in itself, or
it doesn't. Here's what the OP gave as a definition:
Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
in themselves regardless of whether they
are also useful as means to other ends.
learning moral thinking, e.g., the normal development of a normal human
child, increase or change its intrinsic value, i.e., its value *to
itself*? Note the entire proposition of "animal rights" is based on the
idea that animals have intrinsic value even though *none* of them can
become a moral agent.
It seems clear to me that when discussing intrinsic value in an ethical
context, it's simply a binary quality: something has it (which alters
its moral considerability), or it hasn't.
>>> How?
>>> For example: If a being is taught/learns aspects of moral or ethical
>>> thinking and behavior that he didn't previously know(if that is
>>> possible), would that being's intrinsic value be increased?
>>
>> I think of intrinsic as meaning an inherent property, not something
>> learned for example, but maybe the capacity to learn. So if a
>> person's intrinsic value is tied to his ability to learn and by hard
>> work he develops the ability to learn, then perhaps his intrinsic
>> value increases.
>
> If his hard work relates to an outside influence...teacher, information
> gained by reading, etc....then seems to me it might not be strictly a
> change in intrinsic value. The intrinsic value might be his original
> ability to perceive and act on a need to change?
meaning only for how moral agents are obliged to view the entity.
Dutch
Jun 3, 2013, 1:47:54 PM6/3/13
to
news:koi6q1$53m$1...@dont-email.me...
intrinsic value and that quality is enhanced then the intrinsic value should
become greater.
>>> How?
>>> For example: If a being is taught/learns aspects of moral or ethical
>>> thinking and behavior that he didn't previously know(if that is
>>> possible), would that being's intrinsic value be increased?
>>
>> I think of intrinsic as meaning an inherent property, not something
>> learned for example, but maybe the capacity to learn. So if a person's
>> intrinsic value is tied to his ability to learn and by hard work he
>> develops the ability to learn, then perhaps his intrinsic value
>> increases.
>
> If his hard work relates to an outside influence...teacher, information
> gained by reading, etc....then seems to me it might not be strictly a
> change in intrinsic value. The intrinsic value might be his original
> ability to perceive and act on a need to change?
Right, and if that capacity for change increases then his intrinsic value
should change with it. We would still be referring to the entity's inherent
value, not his instrumental value (to others).
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>> "Dare" <clyd...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> Can the intrinsic value of something change?
>>
>> I haven't thought about it. What do you think?
>
> It seems to me that if the change depends on something outside itself, as
> in Immortalist's example of someone "raising farm animals, then it is not
> intrinsic. So any change caused by acting on the animal would not be a
> change in intrinsic value....
> perhaps it would change the instrumental value.
That doesn't makes sense. If a quality makes up part of an entity's
>> "Dare" <clyd...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> Can the intrinsic value of something change?
>>
>> I haven't thought about it. What do you think?
>
> It seems to me that if the change depends on something outside itself, as
> in Immortalist's example of someone "raising farm animals, then it is not
> intrinsic. So any change caused by acting on the animal would not be a
> change in intrinsic value....
> perhaps it would change the instrumental value.
intrinsic value and that quality is enhanced then the intrinsic value should
become greater.
>>> How?
>>> For example: If a being is taught/learns aspects of moral or ethical
>>> thinking and behavior that he didn't previously know(if that is
>>> possible), would that being's intrinsic value be increased?
>>
>> I think of intrinsic as meaning an inherent property, not something
>> learned for example, but maybe the capacity to learn. So if a person's
>> intrinsic value is tied to his ability to learn and by hard work he
>> develops the ability to learn, then perhaps his intrinsic value
>> increases.
>
> If his hard work relates to an outside influence...teacher, information
> gained by reading, etc....then seems to me it might not be strictly a
> change in intrinsic value. The intrinsic value might be his original
> ability to perceive and act on a need to change?
should change with it. We would still be referring to the entity's inherent
value, not his instrumental value (to others).
Dutch
Jun 3, 2013, 1:52:03 PM6/3/13
to
"Dare" <clyd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:koi847$d2u$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 6/3/2013 9:52 AM, Dare wrote:
>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>>> "Dare" <clyd...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Can the intrinsic value of something change?
>>>
>>> I haven't thought about it. What do you think?
>>
>> It seems to me that if the change depends on something outside itself,
>> as in Immortalist's example of someone "raising farm animals, then it is
>> not intrinsic. So any change caused by acting on the animal would not be
>> a change in intrinsic value....
>> perhaps it would change the instrumental value.
>
> So, to answer the question....
> It seems to me, No.
> At this point, I don't see what change could occur,
> without some kind of outside influence, that would
> change somethings intrinsic value.
> Hopefully, just getting old doesn't change one's
> intrinsic value. :-)
Why should we rule out changes that happen due to outside influences? A
>> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>>> "Dare" <clyd...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Can the intrinsic value of something change?
>>>
>>> I haven't thought about it. What do you think?
>>
>> It seems to me that if the change depends on something outside itself,
>> as in Immortalist's example of someone "raising farm animals, then it is
>> not intrinsic. So any change caused by acting on the animal would not be
>> a change in intrinsic value....
>> perhaps it would change the instrumental value.
>
> So, to answer the question....
> It seems to me, No.
> At this point, I don't see what change could occur,
> without some kind of outside influence, that would
> change somethings intrinsic value.
> Hopefully, just getting old doesn't change one's
> intrinsic value. :-)
value being intrinsic or instrumental depends on whether that value is self
serving or it serves others, not where the value originated from.
> Maybe that raises another question of how
> intrinsic value is calculated....
> is it the sum of the parts of something?
> How far do you go before something can't be
> further separated into parts?
> Would the intrinsic value of "the whole"
> include the value of any benefit gained from
> interactions between the parts...
> eg:the act itself of the farmer raising the animal?
>
> Maybe I'm getting too far off-topic.
exist objectively?
Dutch
Jun 3, 2013, 2:04:31 PM6/3/13
to
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
news:29ceb$51acc0d5$414e828e$17...@EVERESTKC.NET...
arbitrary concept. I am leaning right now towards the notion that we assign
certain properties to various entities as being contributing factors to that
entity's intrinsic value, therefore if any of those properties are in
greater quantity that would increase the intrinsic value. Therefore a human
in a persistent vegetative state might lack one of the properties that give
most humans intrinsic value, the capacity for consciousness.
>
>
>>>> How?
>>>> For example: If a being is taught/learns aspects of moral or ethical
>>>> thinking and behavior that he didn't previously know(if that is
>>>> possible), would that being's intrinsic value be increased?
>>>
>>> I think of intrinsic as meaning an inherent property, not something
>>> learned for example, but maybe the capacity to learn. So if a
>>> person's intrinsic value is tied to his ability to learn and by hard
>>> work he develops the ability to learn, then perhaps his intrinsic
>>> value increases.
>>
>> If his hard work relates to an outside influence...teacher, information
>> gained by reading, etc....then seems to me it might not be strictly a
>> change in intrinsic value. The intrinsic value might be his original
>> ability to perceive and act on a need to change?
>
> Intrinsic value has nothing to do with what the entity *does*; it has
> meaning only for how moral agents are obliged to view the entity.
Right, it is about what the entity *is*, which includes its range of
>
>>>> How?
>>>> For example: If a being is taught/learns aspects of moral or ethical
>>>> thinking and behavior that he didn't previously know(if that is
>>>> possible), would that being's intrinsic value be increased?
>>>
>>> I think of intrinsic as meaning an inherent property, not something
>>> learned for example, but maybe the capacity to learn. So if a
>>> person's intrinsic value is tied to his ability to learn and by hard
>>> work he develops the ability to learn, then perhaps his intrinsic
>>> value increases.
>>
>> If his hard work relates to an outside influence...teacher, information
>> gained by reading, etc....then seems to me it might not be strictly a
>> change in intrinsic value. The intrinsic value might be his original
>> ability to perceive and act on a need to change?
>
> Intrinsic value has nothing to do with what the entity *does*; it has
> meaning only for how moral agents are obliged to view the entity.
capabilities.
George Plimpton
Jun 3, 2013, 4:56:07 PM6/3/13
to
not something has it or not. Look at how "aras" approach it. They
simply declare that non-human animals have it. In fact, I don't have
much problem with the idea of the arbitrary declaration, because most of
us do the same thing with humans.
> I am leaning right now towards the notion that we
> assign certain properties to various entities as being contributing
> factors to that entity's intrinsic value, therefore if any of those
> properties are in greater quantity that would increase the intrinsic
> value. Therefore a human in a persistent vegetative state might lack
> one of the properties that give most humans intrinsic value, the
> capacity for consciousness.
parallel way to "is moral." NOTE: I'm not saying they mean the same
thing. Now, think back to the example I used to use with that moron
"Scented Nectar." If she sodomizes the eight-year-old boy living next
door to her with a broomstick "only" three times a week, while her
skanky slattern sister does the same thing to an eight-year-old boy
living next door to her 10 times a week, we cannot say that "Scented
Nectar" is "more moral" than her sister because she does less of an
immoral, despicable thing, even though there is a significant
quantitative difference in their behavior. No, if a person sodomizes
children with broom handles *any* number of times, then the person is
immoral. There are no "degrees" of morality, and there cannot be
degrees of intrinsic value. Note that intrinsic value as defined by the
OP, and as I think everyone who has weighed in here would agree, means
the entity has value as an end in itself rather than value based on
being instrumental to some other entity. The entity either has value as
an end in itself, or it doesn't. It makes no sense to talk about the
*amount* of value it has as an end in itself. The whole point of
distinguishing between intrinsic and instrumental value is only to say
where the locus of value is, not how much value there is.
>>>>> How?
>>>>> For example: If a being is taught/learns aspects of moral or ethical
>>>>> thinking and behavior that he didn't previously know(if that is
>>>>> possible), would that being's intrinsic value be increased?
>>>>
>>>> I think of intrinsic as meaning an inherent property, not something
>>>> learned for example, but maybe the capacity to learn. So if a
>>>> person's intrinsic value is tied to his ability to learn and by hard
>>>> work he develops the ability to learn, then perhaps his intrinsic
>>>> value increases.
>>>
>>> If his hard work relates to an outside influence...teacher, information
>>> gained by reading, etc....then seems to me it might not be strictly a
>>> change in intrinsic value. The intrinsic value might be his original
>>> ability to perceive and act on a need to change?
>>
>> Intrinsic value has nothing to do with what the entity *does*; it has
>> meaning only for how moral agents are obliged to view the entity.
>
> Right, it is about what the entity *is*, which includes its range of
> capabilities.
has greater instrumental value, to others, but not more intrinsic value
as an end in himself.
Dutch
Jun 3, 2013, 5:18:19 PM6/3/13
to
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
In fact, I don't have
> much problem with the idea of the arbitrary declaration, because most of
> us do the same thing with humans.
*properties* of an entity which added all together comprise it's "intrinsic
value".
succeed in life which will benefit me as well as others, and also I can
learn to be happier which benefits me as well. So if the capacity for the
expression of joy is an intrinsic property that comprises part of an
entity's intrinsic value then I may be able to improve my intrinsic value.
If we are going to say that apes have greater intrinsic value than fruit
flies then we are going to have to put some meaning to the term, or else it
will be meaningless.
dh
Jun 3, 2013, 6:47:02 PM6/3/13
to
On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:27:54 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>"Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
of the animals that they consume. You should try to get comfortable with that
particular FACT.
>causing them to possibly enjoy
I believe most broiler chickens and their parents, billions of them, do have
lives which are of positive value TO THEM.
>a few weeks of
>life. That makes you their benefactor
Their consumers are the ONLY reason broiler chickens are raised. You really
should try to accept and get comfortable with that particular FACT.
>and clearly a more moral person that
>any vegan
Vegans like people to think that veganism does something to help livestock
even though that's very contemptible since veganism does NOTHING to help any
animals at all. It does nothing to contribute to lives of any quality for any
livestock, and contributes only to the deaths of wildlife.
>who chooses to deny future chicken a chance at life.
>
>Circular logic makes ethics easy.
How do you want people to think that considering the facts we're discussing
is "circular logic"? Which facts would you deny people from taking into
consideration if you could, and why?
>"Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:kobrdc$8ug$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> I've just ordered a bucket of KFC's intrinsically extra-valued yummy
>> chicken parts.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> <snipage>
>
>Congratulations, according to the fuckwit theory you just encouraged farmers
>to raise more broiler chickens
It's more than just theory that consumers do encourage the raising of more
>>
>> I've just ordered a bucket of KFC's intrinsically extra-valued yummy
>> chicken parts.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> <snipage>
>
>Congratulations, according to the fuckwit theory you just encouraged farmers
>to raise more broiler chickens
of the animals that they consume. You should try to get comfortable with that
particular FACT.
>causing them to possibly enjoy
lives which are of positive value TO THEM.
>a few weeks of
>life. That makes you their benefactor
should try to accept and get comfortable with that particular FACT.
>and clearly a more moral person that
>any vegan
even though that's very contemptible since veganism does NOTHING to help any
animals at all. It does nothing to contribute to lives of any quality for any
livestock, and contributes only to the deaths of wildlife.
>who chooses to deny future chicken a chance at life.
>
>Circular logic makes ethics easy.
is "circular logic"? Which facts would you deny people from taking into
consideration if you could, and why?
George Plimpton
Jun 3, 2013, 8:55:59 PM6/3/13
to
put it into words very well, everyone has some sense - even if it's only
for himself - that he has intrinsic value that doesn't depend on what he
can do for others. That's where we get the idea that the lowliest
person, even someone from a pariah class and/or who is charged with some
truly loathsome offense, deserves the same legal consideration in a
court of law as someone widely seen as a good, productive and beneficial
person.
than a means to ends for others. It is that "end in oneself" that
matters for intrinsic value, and *only* that. When you start talking
about self improvement, you're getting into instrumentality - means to ends.
> So if the capacity
> for the expression of joy is an intrinsic property that comprises part
> of an entity's intrinsic value then I may be able to improve my
> intrinsic value.
it's whether you have it or not.
> If we are going to say that apes have greater intrinsic
> value than fruit flies
of ourselves, we find them interesting, and we see ourselves as part of
something greater by studying and contemplating them. We don't feel any
of that from observing fruit flies. The apes have greater
*instrumental* value for us - they are, even if we're not exploiting
them in the sense people usually (mis)understand that word, a means to
an end for us.
George Plimpton
Jun 3, 2013, 8:57:41 PM6/3/13
to
On 6/3/2013 3:47 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:27:54 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> "Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:kobrdc$8ug$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> I've just ordered a bucket of KFC's intrinsically extra-valued yummy
>>> chicken parts.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> <snipage>
>>
>> Congratulations, according to the fuckwit theory you just encouraged farmers
>> to raise more broiler chickens
>
> It's more than just theory that consumers do encourage the raising of more
> of the animals that they consume.
Meaningless.
>> causing them to possibly enjoy
>
> I believe most broiler chickens and their parents, billions of them, do have
> lives which are of positive value TO THEM.
Meaningless.
>> a few weeks of
>> life. That makes you their benefactor
>
> Their consumers are the ONLY reason broiler chickens are raised.
Meaningless.
>> and clearly a more moral person that
>> any vegan
>
> Vegans like people to think that veganism does something to help livestock
No, they do not believe or encourage others to believe that it does
anything to help any livestock.
>> who chooses to deny future chicken a chance at life.
>>
>> Circular logic makes ethics easy.
>
> How do you want people to think that
Write in English, *Goo*.
cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:27:54 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> "Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:kobrdc$8ug$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> I've just ordered a bucket of KFC's intrinsically extra-valued yummy
>>> chicken parts.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> <snipage>
>>
>> Congratulations, according to the fuckwit theory you just encouraged farmers
>> to raise more broiler chickens
>
> It's more than just theory that consumers do encourage the raising of more
> of the animals that they consume.
>> causing them to possibly enjoy
>
> I believe most broiler chickens and their parents, billions of them, do have
> lives which are of positive value TO THEM.
>> a few weeks of
>> life. That makes you their benefactor
>
> Their consumers are the ONLY reason broiler chickens are raised.
>> and clearly a more moral person that
>> any vegan
>
> Vegans like people to think that veganism does something to help livestock
anything to help any livestock.
>> who chooses to deny future chicken a chance at life.
>>
>> Circular logic makes ethics easy.
>
> How do you want people to think that
Dutch
Jun 4, 2013, 2:55:42 AM6/4/13
to
"George Plimpton" <geo...@si.not> wrote in message
have a rich and long experience of life for oneself.
> That's where we get the idea that the lowliest person, even someone from a
> pariah class and/or who is charged with some truly loathsome offense,
> deserves the same legal consideration in a court of law as someone widely
> seen as a good, productive and beneficial person.
value is comprised of intrinsic properties. As a matter of morals we extend
consideration to all humans.
pursue most self-improvement for my own satisfaction. I'm not sure that
increases my intrinsic value, whatever that is, but I feel better about
myself.
>
>
>> So if the capacity
>> for the expression of joy is an intrinsic property that comprises part
>> of an entity's intrinsic value then I may be able to improve my
>> intrinsic value.
>
> No, because it's not some measurable capacity for joy that matters - it's
> whether you have it or not.
Why? If I am perpetually depressed, distressed and suicidal and I manage to
>
>> So if the capacity
>> for the expression of joy is an intrinsic property that comprises part
>> of an entity's intrinsic value then I may be able to improve my
>> intrinsic value.
>
> No, because it's not some measurable capacity for joy that matters - it's
> whether you have it or not.
pull myself out of it its not only the people around me that benefit, most
of all I do .
>> If we are going to say that apes have greater intrinsic
>> value than fruit flies
>
> We don't. They have greater *instrumental* value to us - they remind us
> of ourselves, we find them interesting, and we see ourselves as part of
> something greater by studying and contemplating them. We don't feel any
> of that from observing fruit flies.
there has been study of gorillas.
The apes have greater
> *instrumental* value for us - they are, even if we're not exploiting them
> in the sense people usually (mis)understand that word, a means to an end
> for us.
fruit flies, irrespective of us. It's true we relate to them because they're
like us, but they have many intrinsic properties like ours too.
Zerkon
Jun 4, 2013, 10:59:30 AM6/4/13
to
On Fri, 31 May 2013 11:57:38 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
> Does raising farm animals increase their intrinsic value and is that a
> benefit?
Answered by a context.
> Does raising farm animals increase their intrinsic value and is that a
> benefit?
Does 'their' refer to the animal or the farmer? What value basis is used
to determine increase?
"intrinsically valuable" needs a context. No thing is intrinsically
valuable in itself as no thing can exist by itself.
dh
Jun 4, 2013, 2:25:43 PM6/4/13
to
entirely and very suddenly. For a brief fraction of time you claimed to be able
to appreciate when livestock animals experience lives of positive value, then
at some point you claim to have unlearned. HOW do you want people to believe
that you unlearned such a significant aspect of human influence on animals? You
said that considering when their lives are of positive value TO THEM makes you
feel "dirty", but you enjoy thinking about and encourage other people to think
about when their lives are of negative value to them. Why does it make you feel
"dirty" to think about when things are good for livestock animals, but you take
pleasure in and encourage considering when things are bad for them?
>and while the diet part was pretty beneficial for
>most of that time, I developed a rather sanctimonious attitude that did not
>serve me well. even though I hid it most of the time.
livestock. You STILL need to explain how you want people to feel that your
anti-consideration is superior to taking their lives into consideration. Try
doing it now. Go:
dh
Jun 4, 2013, 2:25:51 PM6/4/13
to
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 11:03:41 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>I think of intrinsic as meaning an inherent property, not something learned
>for example
"Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very
>I think of intrinsic as meaning an inherent property, not something learned
>for example
existence is analagous to taking moral credit for the
life of a daughter you sell onto the streets." - "Dutch"
>, but maybe the capacity to learn. So if a person's intrinsic
>value is tied to his ability to learn and by hard work he develops the
>ability to learn, then perhaps his intrinsic value increases.
animals experience lives of positive value, but then you claim that later in
some mysterious way you somehow unlearned. Perhaps that significantly reduced
your intrinsic value. It certainly reduced the value of your overly challenged
little mind. Perhaps it was some sort of brain illness or injury that caused
your unlearning and the resulting decrease in your tiny brain's value.
dh
Jun 4, 2013, 2:26:05 PM6/4/13
to
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 18:19:06 -0500, Dakota <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
>On 6/1/2013 4:44 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>
>>
>> Goo wrote in message
>On 6/1/2013 4:44 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>
>>
>> news:6e169$51aa687f$414e828e$22...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>> On 6/1/2013 11:56 AM, Dutch wrote:
>>>> Goo wrote in message
>>> On 6/1/2013 11:56 AM, Dutch wrote:
method of creation to a large extent.
dh
Jun 4, 2013, 2:27:48 PM6/4/13
to
to. The Universe? The galaxy? Solar system? Planet? To most humans it's obvious
what the value to humans is. It's ONLY not obvious to eliminationists. The
question really gets down to whether or not experiencing life is of positive
value to livestock animals. Eliminationists who enjoy abusing the absurd, gross
misnomer "animal rights", can't recognise much less appreciate the obvious fact
that some do and some don't. Recognition of that fact is a type of starting
line, but eliminationists can't get that "far". That prevents them from being
able to develop any sort of realistic interpretation as to the distinction
between when it is and when it's not of positive value. Normal people are not so
restricted by putting their faith in elimination, and can appreciate that some
livestock have lives of positive value TO THEM and others don't. Most of them do
imo. Broiler chickens and their parents, beef cattle and dairy cattle in general
appear to have lives of positive value imo. Most caged laying hens probably
don't...or at least a high percentage of them probably don't. Their parents and
other cage free birds probably generally do. Eliminationists can't think
realistically like that, but instead want very badly to believe that all
livestock animals experience lives of negative value that are filled with
suffering.
dh
Jun 4, 2013, 2:27:53 PM6/4/13
to
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 17:57:41 -0700, Goo wussed for his boy "Dutch":
>On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 18:47:02 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:27:54 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:kobrdc$8ug$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>> I've just ordered a bucket of KFC's intrinsically extra-valued yummy
>>>> chicken parts.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> <snipage>
>>>
>>>Congratulations, according to the fuckwit theory you just encouraged farmers
>>>to raise more broiler chickens
>>
>> It's more than just theory that consumers do encourage the raising of more
Not to people who are thinking things through, Goo.
>>>causing them to possibly enjoy
>>
>> I believe most broiler chickens and their parents, billions of them, do have
>>lives which are of positive value TO THEM.
>
>Meaningless.
Not to people who are thinking things through, Goo.
>>>a few weeks of
>>>life. That makes you their benefactor
>>
Not to people who are thinking things through, Goo.
>>>and clearly a more moral person that
>>>any vegan
>>
>> Vegans like people to think that veganism does something to help livestock
>>>who chooses to deny future chicken a chance at life.
>>>
>>>Circular logic makes ethics easy.
>>
Try answering the questions, Goo.
>On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 18:47:02 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:27:54 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:kobrdc$8ug$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>
>>>> I've just ordered a bucket of KFC's intrinsically extra-valued yummy
>>>> chicken parts.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> <snipage>
>>>
>>>Congratulations, according to the fuckwit theory you just encouraged farmers
>>>to raise more broiler chickens
>>
>> It's more than just theory that consumers do encourage the raising of more
>>of the animals that they consume. You should try to get comfortable with that
>>particular FACT.
>
>Meaningless.
>>particular FACT.
>
Not to people who are thinking things through, Goo.
>>>causing them to possibly enjoy
>>
>> I believe most broiler chickens and their parents, billions of them, do have
>>lives which are of positive value TO THEM.
>
>Meaningless.
>>>a few weeks of
>>>life. That makes you their benefactor
>>
>> Their consumers are the ONLY reason broiler chickens are raised. You really
>>should try to accept and get comfortable with that particular FACT.
>
>Meaningless.
>>should try to accept and get comfortable with that particular FACT.
>
Not to people who are thinking things through, Goo.
>>>and clearly a more moral person that
>>>any vegan
>>
>> Vegans like people to think that veganism does something to help livestock
>>even though that's very contemptible since veganism does NOTHING to help any
>>animals at all. It does nothing to contribute to lives of any quality for any
>>livestock, and contributes only to the deaths of wildlife.
>
>>animals at all. It does nothing to contribute to lives of any quality for any
>>livestock, and contributes only to the deaths of wildlife.
>
>No, they do not believe or encourage others to believe that it does
>anything to help any livestock.
Tell that to Rupert and your boy "Derek", Goo.
>anything to help any livestock.
>>>who chooses to deny future chicken a chance at life.
>>>
>>>Circular logic makes ethics easy.
>>
>> How do you want people to think that considering the facts we're discussing
>>is "circular logic"? Which facts would you deny people from taking into
>>consideration if you could, and why?
>
>Wr
>>is "circular logic"? Which facts would you deny people from taking into
>>consideration if you could, and why?
>
Try answering the questions, Goo.
dh
Jun 4, 2013, 2:28:02 PM6/4/13
to
On Fri, 31 May 2013 12:35:16 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On 5/31/2013 11:57 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>> as means to further some other ends.
>>
>> 2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
>animals have any intrinsic value at all, what breeding them into
>existence does is *establish* that value
It has already been established long ago Goob. Ten thousand years or more
ago, Goo.
>On 5/31/2013 11:57 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>> as means to further some other ends.
>>
>> in themselves regardless of whether they
>> are also useful as means to other ends.
>
>The answer is "no", it does not increase their intrinsic value. If farm
>> are also useful as means to other ends.
>
>animals have any intrinsic value at all, what breeding them into
>existence does is *establish* that value
It has already been established long ago Goob. Ten thousand years or more
ago, Goo.
dh
Jun 4, 2013, 2:28:13 PM6/4/13
to
On Fri, 31 May 2013 11:57:38 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>as means to further some other ends.
>
>2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
>in themselves regardless of whether they
>are also useful as means to other ends.
>
>1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>as means to further some other ends.
>
>2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
>in themselves regardless of whether they
>are also useful as means to other ends.
>
>For instance, certain fruits have instrumental value for bats who feed
>on them, since feeding on the fruits is a means to survival for the
>bats. However, it is not widely agreed that fruits have value as ends
>in themselves.
>
>on them, since feeding on the fruits is a means to survival for the
>bats. However, it is not widely agreed that fruits have value as ends
>in themselves.
>
>We can likewise think of a person who teaches others as having
>instrumental value for those who want to acquire knowledge.
I've been "teaching" people the fact that some livestock appear to have
>instrumental value for those who want to acquire knowledge.
lives which are of positive value TO THEM. That is the most significant aspect
regarding whether or not it's cruel to them for humans to raise them for food.
When it's of positive value to them and when it's of negative value to them is
the deciding factor and the starting line as to when it's cruel and when it's
not. I've been encouraging people to try to get as "far" as the starting line
for over a decade. The only one in the misnomer gang who ever claimed to reach
it is the "Dutch" character, but later he claims to have unlearned the
significance. He can't say how he unlearned something so significant as the
falue of life to other creatures, but only that he did. All he seems able to
recall is that considering when other creatures' lives are of positive value to
them, makes him feel "dirty". He enjoys considering when their lives are of
negative value to them and encourages other people to consider those lives with
him, but he feels dirty himself and encourages other people to never consider
when the lives of livestock animals appear to be of positive value to the
animals.
>Yet, in
>addition to any such value, it is normally said that a person, as a
>person, has intrinsic value, i.e., value in his or her own right
>independently of his or her prospects for serving the ends of others.
>For another example, a certain wild plant may have instrumental value
>because it provides the ingredients for some medicine or as an
>aesthetic object for human observers. But if the plant also has some
>value in itself independently of its prospects for furthering some
>other ends such as human health, or the pleasure from aesthetic
>experience, then the plant also has intrinsic value.
>
>itself,
Eliminationists dishonestly abusing the absurd and gross misnomer "animal
rights" say they don't want to see livestock animals killed, showing they
consider those lives to be of positive value TO THE ANIMALS. Yet they also are
maniacally in favor of preventing similar lives of similar or higher value to
potential animals in the future. Appreciating the lives they do not want to see
ended is a starting line, and eliminationists can't even get that "far".
> it is commonly agreed that something's possession of intrinsic
>value generates a prima facie direct moral duty on the part of moral
>agents to protect it or at least refrain from damaging it.
life for billions of animals. Not just damage it, but destroy it entirely.
>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/
>
>Does raising farm animals increase their intrinsic value
The value exists for each being.
>Does raising farm animals increase their intrinsic value
>and is that a benefit?
_________________________________________________________
1 b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the
distinctive quality of animate beings
2 a : the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make
up the existence of an individual
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/life
���������������������������������������������������������
are both benefits which are necessary in order to benefit from anything else,
afawk. The things we experience throughout our life (2 a) can give life a
positive or negative value, and of course that value can and does change.
dh
Jun 4, 2013, 2:28:21 PM6/4/13
to
On Fri, 31 May 2013 13:20:38 -0700, Sir Fred M. McNeill <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com>
wrote:
>'Humans' need food, As hunter-gatherers 'we' evolved
>that way. That evolvement included meat. So 'we' are.
>Such is the way of this shit ass spooky place.
>
>Animal 'husbandry' occurred along with agriculture.
How the animals are treated determines whether life is of positive or
negative value to them. We can feel similarly about when both domestic and wild
animals experience lives of positive value, even when we eat them.
wrote:
>'Humans' need food, As hunter-gatherers 'we' evolved
>that way. That evolvement included meat. So 'we' are.
>Such is the way of this shit ass spooky place.
>
>Animal 'husbandry' occurred along with agriculture.
How the animals are treated determines whether life is of positive or
negative value to them. We can feel similarly about when both domestic and wild
animals experience lives of positive value, even when we eat them.
Dakota
Jun 4, 2013, 6:50:31 PM6/4/13
to
It is the process by which mutations that provide a reproductive
advantage for organisms in their environment tend to have more
offspring than those without them.
And if no god exists, evolution proceeds just the same. You seem to be
trying to insert a god where none is needed.
Dutch
Jun 4, 2013, 11:02:33 PM6/4/13
to
"Zerkon" <Zer...@Z.Zorg> wrote in message news:kokvci$29q$3...@dont-email.me...
That's incorrect, intrinsic value means value to the entity itself. Value to
others is instrumental value. Humans are thought to possess great intrinsic
value, mainly based on capacities related to higher awareness.
others is instrumental value. Humans are thought to possess great intrinsic
value, mainly based on capacities related to higher awareness.
Dutch
Jun 4, 2013, 11:04:14 PM6/4/13
to
"Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote
dh@, aka Fuckwit Goober, takes a steaming dump every time he posts.
Jason
Jun 4, 2013, 11:13:44 PM6/4/13
to
calf until it's weight is about a hundred or more pounds. You will get a
higher price for it that if you sold it when it's weight was far less.
They can get far more steaks out of a 100 pound cow that a fifty pound
calf.
There are exceptions. Some people like to buy baby lambs since some chiefs
use them to make lamb chops and lamb stew.
dh
Jun 6, 2013, 6:05:20 PM6/6/13
to
>It is the process by which mutations that provide a reproductive
>advantage for organisms in their environment tend to have more
>offspring than those without them.
don't know of any specific examples in which one species has produced a
different speicies either in human breeding or natural evolution, afaik.
>And if no god exists, evolution proceeds just the same. You seem to be
>trying to insert a god where none is needed.
whether he's "needed" or not. You have no idea about that, btw. How could you be
unaware of that too?
dh
Jun 6, 2013, 6:05:37 PM6/6/13
to
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 20:02:33 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>intrinsic value means value to the entity itself.
>intrinsic value means value to the entity itself.
"Taking moral credit for a livestock animal's very
existence is analagous to taking moral credit for the
life of a daughter you sell onto the streets." - "Dutch"
"It's ethically impermissible to consider the lives
existence is analagous to taking moral credit for the
life of a daughter you sell onto the streets." - "Dutch"
of other creatures" - "Dutch"
"I decline to "consider" the lives of animals" - "Dutch"
"What am I denying that animal by refusing to give it this
"consideration" that I am failing to give?" - "Dutch"
"It is illogical and inadmissible to "consider" the lives
(existence) of livestock, or of any other creature" - "Dutch"
"abstaining from meat saves future animals from life" - "Dutch"
"What's important is the medium/long term implications,
that is no more animals "in bondage" to humans." - "Dutch"
"Life does not justify death" - "Dutch"
"you should become a vegan. I've been saying that to you
for years." - "Dutch"
George Plimpton
Jun 10, 2013, 12:21:14 PM6/10/13
to
On 6/4/2013 11:28 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
exist is not in any way a "benefit" to them. Existence - "getting to
experience life", in your shitty child-molesting way of writing - is not
a benefit.
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On 5/31/2013 12:35 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 5/31/2013 11:57 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>>> as means to further some other ends.
>>>
>>> 2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
>>> in themselves regardless of whether they
>>> are also useful as means to other ends.
>>
>> The answer is "no", it does not increase their intrinsic value. If farm
>> animals have any intrinsic value at all, what breeding them into
>> existence does is *establish* that value, but it does not increase it.
>> On 5/31/2013 11:57 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>>> as means to further some other ends.
>>>
>>> 2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
>>> in themselves regardless of whether they
>>> are also useful as means to other ends.
>>
>> The answer is "no", it does not increase their intrinsic value. If farm
>> animals have any intrinsic value at all, what breeding them into
>
> It has already been established long ago
Yes. It has been established long ago, *Goo*, that causing animals to
> It has already been established long ago
exist is not in any way a "benefit" to them. Existence - "getting to
experience life", in your shitty child-molesting way of writing - is not
a benefit.
George Plimpton
Jun 10, 2013, 12:21:15 PM6/10/13
to
On 6/4/2013 11:27 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>> causing them to possibly enjoy
>>>
>>> I believe most broiler chickens and their parents, billions of them, do have
>>> lives which are of positive value TO THEM.
>>
>> Meaningless.
>
> Not to people who
It's meaningless, *Goo*.
>>>> a few weeks of
>>>> life. That makes you their benefactor
>>>
>>> Their consumers are the ONLY reason broiler chickens are raised. You really
>>> should try to accept and get comfortable with that particular FACT.
>>
>> Meaningless.
>
> Not to people who are thinking things through
You *AREN'T* thinking things through, *Goo* - that's the whole problem.
It's meaningless, *Goo*.
>>>> and clearly a more moral person that
>>>> any vegan
>>>
>>> Vegans like people to think that veganism does something to help livestock
>>> even though that's very contemptible since veganism does NOTHING to help any
>>> animals at all. It does nothing to contribute to lives of any quality for any
>>> livestock, and contributes only to the deaths of wildlife.
>>
>> No, they do not believe or encourage others to believe that it does
>> anything to help any livestock.
>
> Tell that to
They do not believe or encourage others to believe that it does anything
to help any livestock.
>>>> who chooses to deny future chicken a chance at life.
>>>>
>>>> Circular logic makes ethics easy.
>>>
>>> How do you want people to think that
>>
>> Write in English, *Goo*.
>
> Try answering the
Write in English, *Goo*.
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On 6/3/2013 5:57 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 6/3/2013 3:47 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>> On 6/3/2013 3:47 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:27:54 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:kobrdc$8ug$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>>> I've just ordered a bucket of KFC's intrinsically extra-valued yummy
>>>>> chicken parts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> <snipage>
>>>>
>>>> Congratulations, according to the fuckwit theory you just encouraged
>>>> farmers
>>>> to raise more broiler chickens
>>>
>>> It's more than just theory that consumers do encourage the
>>> raising of more
>>> of the animals that they consume.
>>
>>>
>>>> "Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:kobrdc$8ug$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>
>>>>> I've just ordered a bucket of KFC's intrinsically extra-valued yummy
>>>>> chicken parts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>> <snipage>
>>>>
>>>> Congratulations, according to the fuckwit theory you just encouraged
>>>> farmers
>>>> to raise more broiler chickens
>>>
>>> It's more than just theory that consumers do encourage the
>>> raising of more
>>> of the animals that they consume.
>>
>> Meaningless.
>
> Not to people who
It's meaningless, *Goo*.
>
> Not to people who
>>>> causing them to possibly enjoy
>>>
>>> I believe most broiler chickens and their parents, billions of them, do have
>>> lives which are of positive value TO THEM.
>>
>> Meaningless.
>
> Not to people who
>>>> a few weeks of
>>>> life. That makes you their benefactor
>>>
>>> Their consumers are the ONLY reason broiler chickens are raised. You really
>>> should try to accept and get comfortable with that particular FACT.
>>
>> Meaningless.
>
> Not to people who are thinking things through
It's meaningless, *Goo*.
>>>> and clearly a more moral person that
>>>> any vegan
>>>
>>> Vegans like people to think that veganism does something to help livestock
>>> even though that's very contemptible since veganism does NOTHING to help any
>>> animals at all. It does nothing to contribute to lives of any quality for any
>>> livestock, and contributes only to the deaths of wildlife.
>>
>> No, they do not believe or encourage others to believe that it does
>> anything to help any livestock.
>
> Tell that to
to help any livestock.
>>>> who chooses to deny future chicken a chance at life.
>>>>
>>>> Circular logic makes ethics easy.
>>>
>>> How do you want people to think that
>>
>
> Try answering the
Write in English, *Goo*.
George Plimpton
Jun 10, 2013, 12:21:16 PM6/10/13
to
On 6/4/2013 11:27 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 14:59:30 +0000 (UTC), Zerkon <Zer...@Z.Zorg> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 31 May 2013 11:57:38 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>> Does raising farm animals increase their intrinsic value and is that a
>>> benefit?
>>
>> Answered by a context.
>>
>> Does 'their' refer to the animal or the farmer? What value basis is used
>> to determine increase?
>>
>> "intrinsically valuable" needs a context. No thing is intrinsically
>> valuable in itself as no thing can exist by itself.
>
> True. Intrinsic value is necessarily relative to whatever the value would be
> to.
No. By definition, *no*.
>
>> On Fri, 31 May 2013 11:57:38 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>> Does raising farm animals increase their intrinsic value and is that a
>>> benefit?
>>
>> Answered by a context.
>>
>> Does 'their' refer to the animal or the farmer? What value basis is used
>> to determine increase?
>>
>> "intrinsically valuable" needs a context. No thing is intrinsically
>> valuable in itself as no thing can exist by itself.
>
> True. Intrinsic value is necessarily relative to whatever the value would be
> to.
You stupid fuckwitted *goo*. You just can't do any of this.
George Plimpton
Jun 10, 2013, 12:21:25 PM6/10/13
to
On 6/4/2013 11:28 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
No, *Goo* - you have not "taught" anyone any "fact" - not ever.
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On Fri, 31 May 2013 11:57:38 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
> <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>> as means to further some other ends.
>>
>> 2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
>> in themselves regardless of whether they
>> are also useful as means to other ends.
>>
>> For instance, certain fruits have instrumental value for bats who feed
>> on them, since feeding on the fruits is a means to survival for the
>> bats. However, it is not widely agreed that fruits have value as ends
>> in themselves.
>>
>> We can likewise think of a person who teaches others as having
>> instrumental value for those who want to acquire knowledge.
>
> I've been "teaching" people the fact that some livestock
HA HA HA HA HA! LOL!!!!!
> <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>> as means to further some other ends.
>>
>> 2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
>> in themselves regardless of whether they
>> are also useful as means to other ends.
>>
>> For instance, certain fruits have instrumental value for bats who feed
>> on them, since feeding on the fruits is a means to survival for the
>> bats. However, it is not widely agreed that fruits have value as ends
>> in themselves.
>>
>> We can likewise think of a person who teaches others as having
>> instrumental value for those who want to acquire knowledge.
>
> I've been "teaching" people the fact that some livestock
No, *Goo* - you have not "taught" anyone any "fact" - not ever.
dh
Jun 11, 2013, 11:47:31 AM6/11/13
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:21:15 -0700, Goo wussed on:
>On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:27:53 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 17:57:41 -0700, Goo wussed for his boy "Dutch":
>>
>>>On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 18:47:02 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>particular FACT.
>>>
>>>Meaningless.
>>
>> Not to people who are thinking things through, Goo.
Goo.
>>>>>who chooses to deny future chicken a chance at life.
>>>>>
>>>>>Circular logic makes ethics easy.
>>>>
Try answering the questions Goo. Go:
>On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:27:53 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 17:57:41 -0700, Goo wussed for his boy "Dutch":
>>
>>>On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 18:47:02 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:27:54 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:kobrdc$8ug$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've just ordered a bucket of KFC's intrinsically extra-valued yummy
>>>>>> chicken parts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snipage>
>>>>>
>>>>>Congratulations, according to the fuckwit theory you just encouraged farmers
>>>>>to raise more broiler chickens
>>>>
>>>> It's more than just theory that consumers do encourage the raising of more
>>>>of the animals that they consume. You should try to get comfortable with that
>>>>
>>>>>"Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:kobrdc$8ug$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've just ordered a bucket of KFC's intrinsically extra-valued yummy
>>>>>> chicken parts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snipage>
>>>>>
>>>>>Congratulations, according to the fuckwit theory you just encouraged farmers
>>>>>to raise more broiler chickens
>>>>
>>>> It's more than just theory that consumers do encourage the raising of more
>>>>particular FACT.
>>>
>>>Meaningless.
>>
>> Not to people who are thinking things through, Goo.
>>
>>>>>causing them to possibly enjoy
>>>>
>>>> I believe most broiler chickens and their parents, billions of them, do have
>>>>lives which are of positive value TO THEM.
>>>
>>>Meaningless.
>>
>>>>>causing them to possibly enjoy
>>>>
>>>> I believe most broiler chickens and their parents, billions of them, do have
>>>>lives which are of positive value TO THEM.
>>>
>>>Meaningless.
>>
>> Not to people who are thinking things through, Goo.
>>
>>
>>>>>a few weeks of
>>>>>life. That makes you their benefactor
>>>>
>>>> Their consumers are the ONLY reason broiler chickens are raised. You really
>>>>should try to accept and get comfortable with that particular FACT.
>>>
>>>Meaningless.
>>
>> Not to people who are thinking things through, Goo.
>>>>>life. That makes you their benefactor
>>>>
>>>> Their consumers are the ONLY reason broiler chickens are raised. You really
>>>>should try to accept and get comfortable with that particular FACT.
>>>
>>>Meaningless.
>>
>>
>>>>>and clearly a more moral person that
>>>>>any vegan
>>>>
>>>> Vegans like people to think that veganism does something to help livestock
>>>>even though that's very contemptible since veganism does NOTHING to help any
>>>>animals at all. It does nothing to contribute to lives of any quality for any
>>>>livestock, and contributes only to the deaths of wildlife.
>>>
>>>No, they do not believe or encourage others to believe that it does
>>>anything to help any livestock.
>>
>>>>>and clearly a more moral person that
>>>>>any vegan
>>>>
>>>> Vegans like people to think that veganism does something to help livestock
>>>>even though that's very contemptible since veganism does NOTHING to help any
>>>>animals at all. It does nothing to contribute to lives of any quality for any
>>>>livestock, and contributes only to the deaths of wildlife.
>>>
>>>No, they do not believe or encourage others to believe that it does
>>>anything to help any livestock.
>>
>> Tell that to Rupert and your boy "Derek", Goo.
>
>
>They do not believe or encourage others to believe that it does anything
>to help any livestock.
Rupert wants people to believe it helps livestock by reducing suffering,
>to help any livestock.
Goo.
>>>>>who chooses to deny future chicken a chance at life.
>>>>>
>>>>>Circular logic makes ethics easy.
>>>>
>>>> How do you want people to think that considering the facts we're discussing
>>>>is "circular logic"? Which facts would you deny people from taking into
>>>>consideration if you could, and why?
>>>
>>>Wr
>>
>> Try answering the questions, Goo.
>
>Wr
>>>>is "circular logic"? Which facts would you deny people from taking into
>>>>consideration if you could, and why?
>>>
>>>Wr
>>
>> Try answering the questions, Goo.
>
Try answering the questions Goo. Go:
dh
Jun 11, 2013, 11:47:39 AM6/11/13
to
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:21:14 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:28:02 -0400, dh@. wrote:
Yet you tried to pretend that a speach by an imaginary talking pig somehow
destroyed the value of the lives of livestock, or some such idiocy Goots. If so,
it would mean that the value existed for about nine thousand nine hundred years
Goob and then was suddently destroyed by the imaginary pig sometime around a
hundred years ago. Which EXACT QUOTES by the pig do you want people to think
destroyed it, Goo?
(correct prediction: Goo can make no attempt to present the quotes he wants
people to think he's trying to talk about)
>On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:28:02 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 31 May 2013 12:35:16 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On 5/31/2013 11:57 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>>> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>>>> as means to further some other ends.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
>>>> in themselves regardless of whether they
>>>> are also useful as means to other ends.
>>>
>>>The answer is "no", it does not increase their intrinsic value. If farm
>>>animals have any intrinsic value at all, what breeding them into
>>>existence does is *establish* that value
>>
>>On Fri, 31 May 2013 12:35:16 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On 5/31/2013 11:57 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>>> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>>>> as means to further some other ends.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
>>>> in themselves regardless of whether they
>>>> are also useful as means to other ends.
>>>
>>>The answer is "no", it does not increase their intrinsic value. If farm
>>>animals have any intrinsic value at all, what breeding them into
>>>existence does is *establish* that value
>>
>> It has already been established long ago Goob. Ten thousand years or more
>>ago, Goo.
>
>Yes.
>>ago, Goo.
>
Yet you tried to pretend that a speach by an imaginary talking pig somehow
destroyed the value of the lives of livestock, or some such idiocy Goots. If so,
it would mean that the value existed for about nine thousand nine hundred years
Goob and then was suddently destroyed by the imaginary pig sometime around a
hundred years ago. Which EXACT QUOTES by the pig do you want people to think
destroyed it, Goo?
(correct prediction: Goo can make no attempt to present the quotes he wants
people to think he's trying to talk about)
George Plimpton
Jun 11, 2013, 2:10:48 PM6/11/13
to
On 6/11/2013 8:47 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
> by an imaginary talking pig
No, there was no "speach" [sic] by an imaginary talking pig, *Goo*.
There was an exposition by Salt that *destroyed* the LoL.
> destroyed the value of the lives of livestock,
No, it destroyed your bullshit claim to having done something to
"benefit" livestock by causing them to exist, *Goo*. That's what it
did, *Goo*.
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On 6/10/2013 9:21 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 6/4/2013 11:28 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>> On 6/4/2013 11:28 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 5/31/2013 12:35 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/2013 11:57 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>>>> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>>>>> as means to further some other ends.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
>>>>> in themselves regardless of whether they
>>>>> are also useful as means to other ends.
>>>>
>>>> The answer is "no", it does not increase their intrinsic value. If farm
>>>> animals have any intrinsic value at all, what breeding them into
>>>> On 5/31/2013 11:57 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>>>> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>>>>> as means to further some other ends.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
>>>>> in themselves regardless of whether they
>>>>> are also useful as means to other ends.
>>>>
>>>> The answer is "no", it does not increase their intrinsic value. If farm
>>>> animals have any intrinsic value at all, what breeding them into
>>>> existence does is *establish* that value, but it does not increase it.
>>>
>>>
>>> It has already been established long ago
>>
>>
>> Yes. It has been established long ago, *Goo*, that causing animals to
>> exist is not in any way a "benefit" to them. Existence - "getting to
>> experience life", in your shitty child-molesting way of writing - is not
>> a benefit.
>
>> exist is not in any way a "benefit" to them. Existence - "getting to
>> experience life", in your shitty child-molesting way of writing - is not
>> a benefit.
>
> Yet you tried to pretend that a speach
<chortle>
> by an imaginary talking pig
There was an exposition by Salt that *destroyed* the LoL.
> destroyed the value of the lives of livestock,
"benefit" livestock by causing them to exist, *Goo*. That's what it
did, *Goo*.
George Plimpton
Jun 11, 2013, 2:10:48 PM6/11/13
to
On 6/11/2013 8:47 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
times over the last 14 years, it fails. Rupert says 'veganism' reduces
suffering by reducing the number of livestock, *Goo*. He does not say
that it reduces the suffering of any livestock that exist, *Goo*.
Stop lying, *Goo*. Equivocation is lying. Stop lying, *Goo*.
>>>>>> who chooses to deny future chicken a chance at life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Circular logic makes ethics easy.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you want people to think that
>>>>
Write in English, *Goo*.
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On 6/10/2013 9:21 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 6/4/2013 11:27 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 6/3/2013 5:57 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 6/3/2013 3:47 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
>>>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>>>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 6/3/2013 5:57 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 6/3/2013 3:47 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid, illiterate
>>>> cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and doing nothing
>>>> but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:27:54 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:kobrdc$8ug$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've just ordered a bucket of KFC's intrinsically extra-valued yummy
>>>>>>> chicken parts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snipage>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Congratulations, according to the fuckwit theory you just encouraged
>>>>>> farmers
>>>>>> to raise more broiler chickens
>>>>>
>>>>> It's more than just theory that consumers do encourage the
>>>>> raising of more
>>>>> of the animals that they consume.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Olrik" <olri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:kobrdc$8ug$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've just ordered a bucket of KFC's intrinsically extra-valued yummy
>>>>>>> chicken parts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snipage>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Congratulations, according to the fuckwit theory you just encouraged
>>>>>> farmers
>>>>>> to raise more broiler chickens
>>>>>
>>>>> It's more than just theory that consumers do encourage the
>>>>> raising of more
>>>>> of the animals that they consume.
>>>>
>>>> Meaningless.
>>>
>>> Not to people who
>>
>> It's meaningless, *Goo*.
>>>
>>> Not to people who
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> causing them to possibly enjoy
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe most broiler chickens and their parents, billions of
>>>>> them, do have
>>>>> lives which are of positive value TO THEM.
>>>>
>>>> Meaningless.
>>>
>>> Not to people who
>>
>> It's meaningless, *Goo*.
>>
>>>>>> causing them to possibly enjoy
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe most broiler chickens and their parents, billions of
>>>>> them, do have
>>>>> lives which are of positive value TO THEM.
>>>>
>>>> Meaningless.
>>>
>>> Not to people who
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> a few weeks of
>>>>>> life. That makes you their benefactor
>>>>>
>>>>> Their consumers are the ONLY reason broiler chickens are raised.
>>>>> You really
>>>>> should try to accept and get comfortable with that particular FACT.
>>>>
>>>> Meaningless.
>>>
>>
>>>>>> a few weeks of
>>>>>> life. That makes you their benefactor
>>>>>
>>>>> Their consumers are the ONLY reason broiler chickens are raised.
>>>>> You really
>>>>> should try to accept and get comfortable with that particular FACT.
>>>>
>>>> Meaningless.
>>>
>>> Not to people who are thinking things through
>>
>> You *AREN'T* thinking things through, *Goo* - that's the whole problem.
>>
>> It's meaningless, *Goo*.
>>
>>
>> You *AREN'T* thinking things through, *Goo* - that's the whole problem.
>>
>> It's meaningless, *Goo*.
>>
>>>>>> and clearly a more moral person that
>>>>>> any vegan
>>>>>
>>>>> Vegans like people to think that veganism does something to help
>>>>> livestock
>>>>> even though that's very contemptible since veganism does NOTHING to
>>>>> help any
>>>>> animals at all. It does nothing to contribute to lives of any
>>>>> quality for any
>>>>> livestock, and contributes only to the deaths of wildlife.
>>>>
>>>> No, they do not believe or encourage others to believe that it does
>>>> anything to help any livestock.
>>>
>>> Tell that to
>>
>>>>>> any vegan
>>>>>
>>>>> Vegans like people to think that veganism does something to help
>>>>> livestock
>>>>> even though that's very contemptible since veganism does NOTHING to
>>>>> help any
>>>>> animals at all. It does nothing to contribute to lives of any
>>>>> quality for any
>>>>> livestock, and contributes only to the deaths of wildlife.
>>>>
>>>> No, they do not believe or encourage others to believe that it does
>>>> anything to help any livestock.
>>>
>>> Tell that to
>>
>> They do not believe or encourage others to believe that it does anything
>> to help any livestock.
>
> Rupert wants people to believe it helps livestock by reducing suffering,
You're trying to equivocate again, *Goo*, but just like all the other
>> to help any livestock.
>
> Rupert wants people to believe it helps livestock by reducing suffering,
times over the last 14 years, it fails. Rupert says 'veganism' reduces
suffering by reducing the number of livestock, *Goo*. He does not say
that it reduces the suffering of any livestock that exist, *Goo*.
Stop lying, *Goo*. Equivocation is lying. Stop lying, *Goo*.
>>>>>> who chooses to deny future chicken a chance at life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Circular logic makes ethics easy.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you want people to think that
>>>>
>>>> Write in English, *Goo*.
>>>
>>> Try answering the
>>
>> Write in English, *Goo*.
>
> Try answ
>>>
>>> Try answering the
>>
>> Write in English, *Goo*.
>
Write in English, *Goo*.
dh
Jun 13, 2013, 3:29:50 PM6/13/13
to
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:10:48 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:47:39 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:21:14 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:28:02 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
Then we agree the imaginary pig didn't say anthing that destroyed anything
Goob. The fact that you can't present any quotes that YOU think destroyed
anything prove that you don't believe any of them destroyed anything Goober.
This has been proved by you and is not in dispute, Goo.
>On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:47:39 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:21:14 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:28:02 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 31 May 2013 12:35:16 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 5/31/2013 11:57 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>>>>> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>>>>>> as means to further some other ends.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
>>>>>> in themselves regardless of whether they
>>>>>> are also useful as means to other ends.
>>>>>
>>>>>The answer is "no", it does not increase their intrinsic value. If farm
>>>>>animals have any intrinsic value at all, what breeding them into
>>>>>existence does is *establish* that value
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 5/31/2013 11:57 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>>>>> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>>>>>> as means to further some other ends.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
>>>>>> in themselves regardless of whether they
>>>>>> are also useful as means to other ends.
>>>>>
>>>>>The answer is "no", it does not increase their intrinsic value. If farm
>>>>>animals have any intrinsic value at all, what breeding them into
>>>>>existence does is *establish* that value
>>>>
>>>> It has already been established long ago Goob. Ten thousand years or more
>>>>ago, Goo.
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>
>> Yet you tried to pretend that a speach by an imaginary talking pig somehow
>>destroyed the value of the lives of livestock, or some such idiocy Goots. If so,
>>it would mean that the value existed for about nine thousand nine hundred years
>>Goob and then was suddently destroyed by the imaginary pig sometime around a
>>hundred years ago. Which EXACT QUOTES by the pig do you want people to think
>>destroyed it, Goo?
>
>No
>>>>ago, Goo.
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>
>> Yet you tried to pretend that a speach by an imaginary talking pig somehow
>>destroyed the value of the lives of livestock, or some such idiocy Goots. If so,
>>it would mean that the value existed for about nine thousand nine hundred years
>>Goob and then was suddently destroyed by the imaginary pig sometime around a
>>hundred years ago. Which EXACT QUOTES by the pig do you want people to think
>>destroyed it, Goo?
>
Then we agree the imaginary pig didn't say anthing that destroyed anything
Goob. The fact that you can't present any quotes that YOU think destroyed
anything prove that you don't believe any of them destroyed anything Goober.
This has been proved by you and is not in dispute, Goo.
George Plimpton
Jun 13, 2013, 5:04:41 PM6/13/13
to
On 6/13/2013 12:29 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
No, *absolutely* Salt - among many others - destroyed your fuckwitted
"getting to experience life" bullshit, *Goo*.
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On 6/11/2013 11:10 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 6/11/2013 8:47 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 6/10/2013 9:21 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/2013 11:28 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>
>> On 6/11/2013 8:47 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 6/10/2013 9:21 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 6/4/2013 11:28 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/31/2013 12:35 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/31/2013 11:57 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>>>>>> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>>>>>>> as means to further some other ends.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
>>>>>>> in themselves regardless of whether they
>>>>>>> are also useful as means to other ends.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The answer is "no", it does not increase their intrinsic value. If
>>>>>> farm
>>>>>> animals have any intrinsic value at all, what breeding them into
>>>>>> On 5/31/2013 11:57 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>>>>>> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>>>>>>> as means to further some other ends.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
>>>>>>> in themselves regardless of whether they
>>>>>>> are also useful as means to other ends.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The answer is "no", it does not increase their intrinsic value. If
>>>>>> farm
>>>>>> animals have any intrinsic value at all, what breeding them into
>>>>>> existence does is *establish* that value, but it does not increase it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It has already been established long ago
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes. It has been established long ago, *Goo*, that causing animals to
>>>> exist is not in any way a "benefit" to them. Existence - "getting to
>>>> experience life", in your shitty child-molesting way of writing - is not
>>>> a benefit.
>>>
>>>> exist is not in any way a "benefit" to them. Existence - "getting to
>>>> experience life", in your shitty child-molesting way of writing - is not
>>>> a benefit.
>>>
>>> Yet you tried to pretend that a speach
>>
>> <chortle>
>>
>>
>>
>>> by an imaginary talking pig
>>
>>
>>> by an imaginary talking pig
>>
>> No, there was no "speach" [sic] by an imaginary talking pig, *Goo*.
>> There was an exposition by Salt that *destroyed* the LoL.
>>
>>
>> There was an exposition by Salt that *destroyed* the LoL.
>>
>>
>>> destroyed the value of the lives of livestock,
>>
>>
>> No, it destroyed your bullshit claim to having done something to
>> "benefit" livestock by causing them to exist, *Goo*. That's what it
>> did, *Goo*.
>
> Then we agree [Salt] didn't say anthing that destroyed anything
>> "benefit" livestock by causing them to exist, *Goo*. That's what it
>> did, *Goo*.
>
No, *absolutely* Salt - among many others - destroyed your fuckwitted
"getting to experience life" bullshit, *Goo*.
Mr.Smartypants
Jun 14, 2013, 3:02:09 PM6/14/13
to
dh
Jun 18, 2013, 6:08:02 PM6/18/13
to
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:02:09 -0700 (PDT), "Mr.Smartypants"
<bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On Jun 13, 3:04 pm, the master of selfoutstupidification, Goo, wrote:
>> On 6/13/2013 12:29 PM, dh poited out:
>>
>> > Then we agree the talking pig didn't say anthing that destroyed anything
>>
>> No, *absolutely* ...[the talking pig] - among many others - destroyed your fuckwitted
ineptitude than by being unable to present a single quote that he thinks
supports his claims, when his claims depend entirely on what the supposed quote
would be IF it exists at all? I feel it's safe to say this is yet another grand
selfoutstupidification by the master of selfoutstupidification: Goo.
<bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote:
>On Jun 13, 3:04 pm, the master of selfoutstupidification, Goo, wrote:
>> On 6/13/2013 12:29 PM, dh poited out:
>>
>> > Then we agree the talking pig didn't say anthing that destroyed anything
>>
>> No, *absolutely* ...[the talking pig] - among many others - destroyed your fuckwitted
>> "getting to experience life" bullshit, *Goo*.
>
>
>Why can't you present any quotes that prove your case, Goobs?
How much more clearly could a Goober display his own cluelessness and
>
>
>Why can't you present any quotes that prove your case, Goobs?
ineptitude than by being unable to present a single quote that he thinks
supports his claims, when his claims depend entirely on what the supposed quote
would be IF it exists at all? I feel it's safe to say this is yet another grand
selfoutstupidification by the master of selfoutstupidification: Goo.
dh
Jun 18, 2013, 6:18:57 PM6/18/13
to
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:04:41 -0700, Goo proved dh correct:
>On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:29:50 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:10:48 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:47:39 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:21:14 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:28:02 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
You proved my prediction correct by being unable to make any attempt Goots.
>, *absolutely* Salt - among many others - destroyed your fuckwitted
>"getting to experience life"
Which lives do you want people to think they destroyed Goob? Who were these
supposed others and why can't you present any quotes from any of them including
the imaginary talking pig you love so well, Goo? You have NOTHING Goober! You
can't even try to pretend that you do, Goo.
>On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:29:50 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:10:48 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:47:39 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:21:14 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:28:02 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 31 May 2013 12:35:16 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 5/31/2013 11:57 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>>>>>>> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>>>>>>>> as means to further some other ends.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
>>>>>>>> in themselves regardless of whether they
>>>>>>>> are also useful as means to other ends.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The answer is "no", it does not increase their intrinsic value. If farm
>>>>>>>animals have any intrinsic value at all, what breeding them into
>>>>>>>existence does is *establish* that value
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 5/31/2013 11:57 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>>>>>>> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>>>>>>>> as means to further some other ends.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
>>>>>>>> in themselves regardless of whether they
>>>>>>>> are also useful as means to other ends.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The answer is "no", it does not increase their intrinsic value. If farm
>>>>>>>animals have any intrinsic value at all, what breeding them into
>>>>>>>existence does is *establish* that value
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has already been established long ago Goob. Ten thousand years or more
>>>>>>ago, Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Yet you tried to pretend that a speach by an imaginary talking pig somehow
>>>>destroyed the value of the lives of livestock, or some such idiocy Goots. If so,
>>>>it would mean that the value existed for about nine thousand nine hundred years
>>>>Goob and then was suddently destroyed by the imaginary pig sometime around a
>>>>hundred years ago. Which EXACT QUOTES by the pig do you want people to think
>>>>destroyed it, Goo?
>>>
>>>No
>>
>> Then we agree the imaginary pig didn't say anthing that destroyed anything
>>Goob. The fact that you can't present any quotes that YOU think destroyed
>>anything prove that you don't believe any of them destroyed anything Goober.
>>This has been proved by you and is not in dispute, Goo.
>>
>>>>(correct prediction: Goo can make no attempt to present the quotes he wants
>>>>people to think he's trying to talk about)
>
>No
>>>>>>ago, Goo.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes.
>>>>
>>>> Yet you tried to pretend that a speach by an imaginary talking pig somehow
>>>>destroyed the value of the lives of livestock, or some such idiocy Goots. If so,
>>>>it would mean that the value existed for about nine thousand nine hundred years
>>>>Goob and then was suddently destroyed by the imaginary pig sometime around a
>>>>hundred years ago. Which EXACT QUOTES by the pig do you want people to think
>>>>destroyed it, Goo?
>>>
>>>No
>>
>> Then we agree the imaginary pig didn't say anthing that destroyed anything
>>Goob. The fact that you can't present any quotes that YOU think destroyed
>>anything prove that you don't believe any of them destroyed anything Goober.
>>This has been proved by you and is not in dispute, Goo.
>>
>>>>(correct prediction: Goo can make no attempt to present the quotes he wants
>>>>people to think he's trying to talk about)
>
You proved my prediction correct by being unable to make any attempt Goots.
>, *absolutely* Salt - among many others - destroyed your fuckwitted
>"getting to experience life"
supposed others and why can't you present any quotes from any of them including
the imaginary talking pig you love so well, Goo? You have NOTHING Goober! You
can't even try to pretend that you do, Goo.
George Plimpton
Jun 18, 2013, 6:41:37 PM6/18/13
to
On 6/18/2013 3:18 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>
>> No, *absolutely* Salt - among many others - destroyed your fuckwitted
>> "getting to experience life" bullshit, *Goo*.
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On 6/13/2013 2:04 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 6/13/2013 12:29 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 6/11/2013 11:10 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/2013 8:47 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/10/2013 9:21 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/4/2013 11:28 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>
>> On 6/13/2013 12:29 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 6/11/2013 11:10 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 6/11/2013 8:47 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/10/2013 9:21 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/4/2013 11:28 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/31/2013 12:35 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2013 11:57 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>>>>>>>>> as means to further some other ends.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
>>>>>>>>> in themselves regardless of whether they
>>>>>>>>> are also useful as means to other ends.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The answer is "no", it does not increase their intrinsic value. If
>>>>>>>> farm
>>>>>>>> animals have any intrinsic value at all, what breeding them into
>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2013 11:57 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>>>>>>>>> as means to further some other ends.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
>>>>>>>>> in themselves regardless of whether they
>>>>>>>>> are also useful as means to other ends.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The answer is "no", it does not increase their intrinsic value. If
>>>>>>>> farm
>>>>>>>> animals have any intrinsic value at all, what breeding them into
>>>>>>>> existence does is *establish* that value, but it does not
>>>>>>>> increase it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> increase it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has already been established long ago
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. It has been established long ago, *Goo*, that causing animals to
>>>>>> exist is not in any way a "benefit" to them. Existence - "getting to
>>>>>> experience life", in your shitty child-molesting way of writing -
>>>>>> is not
>>>>>> a benefit.
>>>>>
>>>>>> exist is not in any way a "benefit" to them. Existence - "getting to
>>>>>> experience life", in your shitty child-molesting way of writing -
>>>>>> is not
>>>>>> a benefit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet you tried to pretend that a speach
>>>>
>>>> <chortle>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> by an imaginary talking pig
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> by an imaginary talking pig
>>>>
>>>> No, there was no "speach" [sic] by an imaginary talking pig, *Goo*.
>>>> There was an exposition by Salt that *destroyed* the LoL.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There was an exposition by Salt that *destroyed* the LoL.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> destroyed the value of the lives of livestock,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it destroyed your bullshit claim to having done something to
>>>> "benefit" livestock by causing them to exist, *Goo*. That's what it
>>>> did, *Goo*.
>>>
>>> Then we agree [Salt] didn't say anthing that destroyed anything
>>>> "benefit" livestock by causing them to exist, *Goo*. That's what it
>>>> did, *Goo*.
>>>
>>
>> No, *absolutely* Salt - among many others - destroyed your fuckwitted
>> "getting to experience life" bullshit, *Goo*.
>
> Which lives do you want people to think they destroyed
Didn't say anything about destroying "live", *Goo*. Learn to read.
> Which lives do you want people to think they destroyed
dh
Jun 20, 2013, 6:22:02 PM6/20/13
to
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:41:37 -0700, Goo wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:18:57 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:04:41 -0700, Goo proved dh correct:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:29:50 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:10:48 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:47:39 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:21:14 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:28:02 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>Who were these
>>supposed others and why can't you present any quotes from any of them including
>>the imaginary talking pig you love so well, Goo? You have NOTHING Goober! You
>>can't even try to pretend that you do, Goo.
. . .
>Learn
Try presenting something to back up your claims about "others" AND the pig,
Goob. Something like quotes which do so, Goo. Go:
>On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:18:57 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:04:41 -0700, Goo proved dh correct:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:29:50 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:10:48 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:47:39 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:21:14 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 14:28:02 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 31 May 2013 12:35:16 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 5/31/2013 11:57 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>>>>>>>>>> as means to further some other ends.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
>>>>>>>>>> in themselves regardless of whether they
>>>>>>>>>> are also useful as means to other ends.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The answer is "no", it does not increase their intrinsic value. If farm
>>>>>>>>>animals have any intrinsic value at all, what breeding them into
>>>>>>>>>existence does is *establish* that value
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On 5/31/2013 11:57 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>>>>>>>>>> as means to further some other ends.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
>>>>>>>>>> in themselves regardless of whether they
>>>>>>>>>> are also useful as means to other ends.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The answer is "no", it does not increase their intrinsic value. If farm
>>>>>>>>>animals have any intrinsic value at all, what breeding them into
>>>>>>>>>existence does is *establish* that value
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It has already been established long ago Goob. Ten thousand years or more
>>>>>>>>ago, Goo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet you tried to pretend that a speach by an imaginary talking pig somehow
>>>>>>destroyed the value of the lives of livestock, or some such idiocy Goots. If so,
>>>>>>it would mean that the value existed for about nine thousand nine hundred years
>>>>>>Goob and then was suddently destroyed by the imaginary pig sometime around a
>>>>>>hundred years ago. Which EXACT QUOTES by the pig do you want people to think
>>>>>>destroyed it, Goo?
>>>>>
>>>>>No
>>>>
>>>> Then we agree the imaginary pig didn't say anthing that destroyed anything
>>>>Goob. The fact that you can't present any quotes that YOU think destroyed
>>>>anything prove that you don't believe any of them destroyed anything Goober.
>>>>This has been proved by you and is not in dispute, Goo.
>>>>
>>>>>>(correct prediction: Goo can make no attempt to present the quotes he wants
>>>>>>people to think he's trying to talk about)
>>>
>>>No
>>
>> You proved my prediction correct by being unable to make any attempt Goots.
>>
>>>>>>>>ago, Goo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet you tried to pretend that a speach by an imaginary talking pig somehow
>>>>>>destroyed the value of the lives of livestock, or some such idiocy Goots. If so,
>>>>>>it would mean that the value existed for about nine thousand nine hundred years
>>>>>>Goob and then was suddently destroyed by the imaginary pig sometime around a
>>>>>>hundred years ago. Which EXACT QUOTES by the pig do you want people to think
>>>>>>destroyed it, Goo?
>>>>>
>>>>>No
>>>>
>>>> Then we agree the imaginary pig didn't say anthing that destroyed anything
>>>>Goob. The fact that you can't present any quotes that YOU think destroyed
>>>>anything prove that you don't believe any of them destroyed anything Goober.
>>>>This has been proved by you and is not in dispute, Goo.
>>>>
>>>>>>(correct prediction: Goo can make no attempt to present the quotes he wants
>>>>>>people to think he's trying to talk about)
>>>
>>>No
>>
>> You proved my prediction correct by being unable to make any attempt Goots.
>>
>>>, *absolutely* Salt - among many others - destroyed your fuckwitted
>>>"getting to experience life"
>>
>> Which lives do you want people to think they destroyed Goob?
>>>"getting to experience life"
>>
>
>Didn't say anything about destroying "live"
Write in English, Goo.
>Didn't say anything about destroying "live"
>>Who were these
>>supposed others and why can't you present any quotes from any of them including
>>the imaginary talking pig you love so well, Goo? You have NOTHING Goober! You
>>can't even try to pretend that you do, Goo.
>Learn
Try presenting something to back up your claims about "others" AND the pig,
Goob. Something like quotes which do so, Goo. Go:
George Plimpton
Jun 20, 2013, 7:15:01 PM6/20/13
to
On 6/20/2013 3:22 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>
>>>> No, *absolutely* Salt - among many others - destroyed your fuckwitted
>>>> "getting to experience life" bullshit, *Goo*.
"Which lives do you want people to think they destroyed" - *Goo*
I answered in plain English, *Goo*. You just can't read, *Goo*.
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
> On 6/18/2013 3:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 6/18/2013 3:18 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 6/13/2013 2:04 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 6/13/2013 12:29 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/11/2013 11:10 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/11/2013 8:47 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/10/2013 9:21 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2013 11:28 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>> On 6/18/2013 3:18 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>
>>> On 6/13/2013 2:04 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 6/13/2013 12:29 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/11/2013 11:10 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/11/2013 8:47 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/10/2013 9:21 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2013 11:28 AM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Goo* - stupid,
>>>>>>>> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2013 12:35 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2013 11:57 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>>>>>>>>>>> as means to further some other ends.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
>>>>>>>>>>> in themselves regardless of whether they
>>>>>>>>>>> are also useful as means to other ends.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The answer is "no", it does not increase their intrinsic
>>>>>>>>>> value. If
>>>>>>>>>> farm
>>>>>>>>>> animals have any intrinsic value at all, what breeding them into
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/31/2013 11:57 AM, Immortalist wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Instrumental Value: The value of things
>>>>>>>>>>> as means to further some other ends.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Intrinsic Value: The value of things as ends
>>>>>>>>>>> in themselves regardless of whether they
>>>>>>>>>>> are also useful as means to other ends.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The answer is "no", it does not increase their intrinsic
>>>>>>>>>> value. If
>>>>>>>>>> farm
>>>>>>>>>> animals have any intrinsic value at all, what breeding them into
>>>>>>>>>> existence does is *establish* that value, but it does not
>>>>>>>>>> increase it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> increase it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It has already been established long ago
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes. It has been established long ago, *Goo*, that causing
>>>>>>>> animals to
>>>>>>>> exist is not in any way a "benefit" to them. Existence -
>>>>>>>> "getting to
>>>>>>>> experience life", in your shitty child-molesting way of writing -
>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>> a benefit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> animals to
>>>>>>>> exist is not in any way a "benefit" to them. Existence -
>>>>>>>> "getting to
>>>>>>>> experience life", in your shitty child-molesting way of writing -
>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>> a benefit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet you tried to pretend that a speach
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <chortle>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> by an imaginary talking pig
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> by an imaginary talking pig
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, there was no "speach" [sic] by an imaginary talking pig, *Goo*.
>>>>>> There was an exposition by Salt that *destroyed* the LoL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was an exposition by Salt that *destroyed* the LoL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> destroyed the value of the lives of livestock,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it destroyed your bullshit claim to having done something to
>>>>>> "benefit" livestock by causing them to exist, *Goo*. That's what it
>>>>>> did, *Goo*.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then we agree [Salt] didn't say anthing that destroyed anything
>>>>>> "benefit" livestock by causing them to exist, *Goo*. That's what it
>>>>>> did, *Goo*.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, *absolutely* Salt - among many others - destroyed your fuckwitted
>>>> "getting to experience life" bullshit, *Goo*.
>>>
>>> Which lives do you want people to think they destroyed
>>
>>> Which lives do you want people to think they destroyed
>>
>> Didn't say anything about destroying "live", *Goo*. Learn to read.
>
> Write in English
>
"Which lives do you want people to think they destroyed" - *Goo*
I answered in plain English, *Goo*. You just can't read, *Goo*.
0 new messages