Re: What If We Don't Raise Cattle To Eat Them?
dh
<clis...@aol.com> wrote:
>Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
>they wouldn't have a chance to live.
That's how it is. What dishonesty could have led you to think
there's something controversial about the fact, can you say?
>And, they seem to live to eat - I
>think that's what they enjoy.
It's the main thing in their lives.
>Since we want them to grow rapidly, they get
>to eat a lot - perhaps that makes them happy.
Of course it makes them as happy as cattle can be.
>Of course they are killed
>early, but if we didn't raise them, they wouldn't get to live at all.
� Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. �
>I don't really feel this way,
Do you think you feel that cattle would become part of our
society, and maybe even get jobs, if humans stopped raising them?
>but it is an interesting viewpoint, don't you think?
>- Jeff
� Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:
tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. �
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
> <clis...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
>> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>
> That's how it is.
It's meaningless.
Jared
wrote:
It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
It means nothing ethically. There is no moral or ethical loss
experienced by never-conceived cattle (or any other never-conceived
livestock) if humans stop breeding them into existence.
John Stafford
If it's so bad to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?
jack...@kick_fwit.com
> If it's so bad to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?
Haw haw haw haw haw! Oh, har har har har har! [folds over double,
slaps knee] Hee hee hee hee hee!
Fuck me, but that's just as funny as when I first heard it 53 years ago.
Michael Gordge
I will only eat vegetarian cows and sheep.
MG
Rod Speed
I'm happy to eat omnivore pigs and carnivore fish too.
Dutch
"Jared" <jare...@gmail.com> wrote
--->
It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared. Cattle
are not waiting in some ethereal corral waiting for their "chance to live".
Dutch
<jackhole@kick_fwit.com> wrote in message
news:vN2dnbu8U5HChanW...@earthlink.com...
And the 500 times between then and now were all pretty special too.
It ranks right up there with PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals.
Jared
The same argument implies there is no moral or ethical gain either.
Dutch
Dutch
"Jared" <jare...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2d8d4d2d-7c5f-4672...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
----->
Right, there is no moral/ethical component to it.
Clave
news:2OZYm.108$yy2...@newsfe01.iad...
A nice pumpernickel would be good.
Jim
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not "better"
for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals don't "get"
anything out of coming into existence.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
And no welfare component, either: animals are not "better off" as a
result of coming into existence.
dh
These people are maniacally opposed to giving the animals'
lives as much or more consideration than their deaths, because
doing so suggests that providing them with decent lives of
positive value could be considered ethically equivalent or even
superior to their elimination. Decent animal welfare means lives
of positive value for millions of domestic animals. In absolute
contrast to that the gross misnomer "animal rights" would mean
the elimination of domestic animals. Since they are completely
different ideas these people are opposed seeing decent AW
promoted because that works against the elimination objective, so
that's why they are opposed to taking the animals' lives into
consideration.
Stan de SD
> If it's so bad to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?
You are clearly going over the heads of the vegans, you wise speaker
of truth... :Oo
dh
>
>"Jared" <jare...@gmail.com> wrote
>On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>wrote:
>> dh@. wrote:
>> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>> > <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat
>> >> them,
>> >> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>>
>> > That's how it is.
>>
>> It's meaningless.
>
>It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
>--->
>
>It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
>existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.
So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
from lives of positive value.
>Cattle
>are not waiting in some ethereal corral waiting for their "chance to live".
How do you think that prevents cattle who do exist, from
benefitting from their existence? If you can't think of any way
that it does, then why in tf do you keep bringing the stupidity
up consistently, don't you have any idea at all? Or do you have
some clue but you just can't say what it is because that would
make you appear as more of a dishonestly lying scum, than just
honestly stupid and clueless?
Day Brown
> Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
> gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not "better"
> for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals don't "get"
> anything out of coming into existence.
matched the inherited behavior patterns of Native European children, it
would be an agrarian village (which my ancestors evolved in over the
course of the last 10,000 years. I myself was born on a farm.)
The bone middens dont show us any vegetarians in the white gene pool. I
have not studied other gene pools enuf to say they dont have any. Also,
we know that browsing stock absorbs trace minerals from the pastures and
wild brush, and that these trace minerals in the diet are used by some
of the 150+ neurotransmitters identified so far in the laying down of
new neural pathways during childhood mental development.
Its perhaps indicative that the above paragraph is too complex for many
of those raised on sugar cereals, junkfood, and soda... to handle.
It must be admitted however, that the modern diet has ten times the
amount of meat in it. Were the appropriate amount of meat eaten, then
the deforestation now going on to create cattle pasture would not pay.
The wiser approach is the Athenian Deme, in which urbanites had an
investment in rural land, a kind of coop, which provided vegetables and
meat, while they in return went out to the land to help with the work.
Which provided the necessary exercise to promote maximum mental
functionality. At the same time, they had enuf control over the way
stock and crops were produced, and could therefore limit agribusiness
chemical contamination. Which also damages childhood mental development.
3877
> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>> Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
>> gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not
>> "better" for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals
>> don't "get" anything out of coming into existence.
> Neither do children. But, if we were to design an environment that
> best matched the inherited behavior patterns of Native European
> children, it would be an agrarian village (which my ancestors evolved
> in over the course of the last 10,000 years.
And then the world moved on from those to a much more viable
environment that ended up producing the industrial revolution
that completely revolutionized the way we live.
I myself was born on a
> farm.)
And kids born today do not get polio in the first world anymore,
because the first world moved away from villages and worked out
how to apply rigorous science to vaccination and vaccine production.
> The bone middens dont show us any vegetarians in the white gene pool.
Because vegetarian waste does not end up in bone middens, stupid.
> I have not studied other gene pools enuf to say they dont have any.
You have not even 'studied' the white gene pool well enough
to say a damned thing about what most of them ate.
> Also, we know that browsing stock absorbs trace minerals from the
> pastures and wild brush, and that these trace minerals in the diet
> are used by some of the 150+ neurotransmitters identified so far in
> the laying down of new neural pathways during childhood mental
> development.
We also know that vegetarians end up with those in their diet too.
> Its perhaps indicative that the above paragraph is too complex for
> many of those raised on sugar cereals, junkfood, and soda... to handle.
Or you are just another loon that has not got a clue about rigorous science.
> It must be admitted however, that the modern diet has ten times the
> amount of meat in it. Were the appropriate amount of meat eaten, then
> the deforestation now going on to create cattle pasture would not pay.
There is fuck all of that anymore in the modern first world.
> The wiser approach is the Athenian Deme, in which urbanites had an
> investment in rural land, a kind of coop, which provided vegetables
> and meat, while they in return went out to the land to help with the work.
And then the world moved on just a tad when we worked out
how to industrialise agriculture and completely eliminated any
possibility of having to watch your kids die in drought etc.
> Which provided the necessary exercise to promote maximum mental functionality.
You are always free to do that sort of thing yourself.
Corse in your case there isn't anything viable between your ears to work with.
> At the same time, they had enuf control over the way stock and crops were produced, and could therefore limit
> agribusiness
> chemical contamination. Which also damages childhood mental
> development.
Easy to claim that last. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
Poetic Justice
Kill babies and Prisoners on death row, but cry for the chickens?
Vegans have a nutritional deficiency that leaves them incoherent and
they can't function in a rational way. The concept of priorities is
foreign to vegans and the Liberals in general.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
> > Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
> > gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not "better"
> > for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals don't "get"
> > anything out of coming into existence.
>
> Neither do children.
Nothing does.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:24:25 -0800 (PST), Jared
>
>
>
>
>
> <jared4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 24, 6:43 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> >wrote:
> >> Jared wrote:
> >> > On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> dh@. wrote:
> >> >>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
> >> >>> <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
> >> >>>> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
> >> >>> That's how it is.
> >> >> It's meaningless.
>
> >> > It means something.
>
> >> It means nothing ethically. There is no moral or ethical loss
> >> experienced by never-conceived cattle (or any other never-conceived
> >> livestock) if humans stop breeding them into existence.
>
> >The same argument implies there is no moral or ethical gain either.
>
> These people are maniacally opposed to giving the animals'
> lives as much or more consideration
Their lives don't merit any consideration. You don't give them any,
either.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:01:51 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> >wrote:
> >> dh@. wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
> >> > <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat
> >> >> them,
> >> >> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>
> >> > That's how it is.
>
> >> It's meaningless.
>
> >It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
> >--->
>
> >It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
> >existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.
>
> So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
> been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
> from lives of positive value.
>
> >Cattle
> >are not waiting in some ethereal corral waiting for their "chance to live".
>
> How do you think that prevents cattle who do exist,
Not the topic.
Dutch
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:24:25 -0800 (PST), Jared
> <jare...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 24, 6:43 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>>wrote:
>>> Jared wrote:
>>> > On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >> dh@. wrote:
>>> >>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>>> >>> <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>>> >>>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat
>>> >>>> them,
>>> >>>> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>>> >>> That's how it is.
>>> >> It's meaningless.
>>>
>>> > It means something.
>>>
>>> It means nothing ethically. There is no moral or ethical loss
>>> experienced by never-conceived cattle (or any other never-conceived
>>> livestock) if humans stop breeding them into existence.
>>
>>The same argument implies there is no moral or ethical gain either.
>
> These people are maniacally opposed to giving the animals'
> lives as much or more consideration than their deaths
That's a strawman. You have been told why 100s of times.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:h24aj5h2ndqah2n6n...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:01:51 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jared" <jare...@gmail.com> wrote
>>On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>>wrote:
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>>> > <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat
>>> >> them,
>>> >> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>>>
>>> > That's how it is.
>>>
>>> It's meaningless.
>>
>>It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
>>--->
>>
>>It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
>>existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.
>
> So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
> been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
> from lives of positive value.
I never said it did, I said that coming into existence cannot be and is not
a benefit to any animal.
>>Cattle
>>are not waiting in some ethereal corral waiting for their "chance to
>>live".
>
> How do you think that prevents cattle who do exist, from
> benefitting from their existence?
Obvious goalpost move. Your problem is that you think everyone else is as
stupid as you.
Poetic Justice
>
> <dh@.> wrote in message news:h24aj5h2ndqah2n6n...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:01:51 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Jared" <jare...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>>>> > <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat
>>>> >> them,
>>>> >> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>>>>
>>>> > That's how it is.
>>>>
>>>> It's meaningless.
>>>
>>> It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
>>> --->
>>>
>>> It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
>>> existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.
>>
>> So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
>> been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
>> from lives of positive value.
>
> I never said it did, I said that coming into existence cannot be and is
> not a benefit to any animal.
>
Then why is making them extinct so evil?
ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
> On 12/25/2009 10:55 PM, Dutch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> dh@. wrote:
> >>>> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
> >>>> > <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> >> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat
> >>>> >> them,
> >>>> >> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>
> >>>> > That's how it is.
>
> >>>> It's meaningless.
>
> >>> It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
> >>> --->
>
> >>> It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
> >>> existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.
>
> >> So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
> >> been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
> >> from lives of positive value.
>
> > I never said it did, I said that coming into existence cannot be and is
> > not a benefit to any animal.
>
> Then why is making them extinct so evil?
Who says it is, and why?
ex-PFC Wintergreen
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> dh@. wrote:
> >>>> > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
> >>>> > <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> >> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat
> >>>> >> them,
> >>>> >> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>
> >>>> > That's how it is.
>
> >>>> It's meaningless.
>
> >>> It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
> >>> --->
>
> >>> It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
> >>> existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.
>
> >> So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
> >> been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
> >> from lives of positive value.
>
> > I never said it did, I said that coming into existence cannot be and is
> > not a benefit to any animal.
>
> Then why is making them extinct so evil?
Who says it is, and why?
Dutch
"Poetic Justice" <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote in message
news:o4gZm.10106$Gf3....@newsfe18.iad...
It isn't of course, livestock species have no inherent value. But the actual
issue is individual animals, and one cannot say they are deprived by not
existing.
dh
<dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>> Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
>> gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not "better"
>> for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals don't "get"
>> anything out of coming into existence.
>Neither do children. But, if we were to design an environment that best
>matched the inherited behavior patterns of Native European children, it
>would be an agrarian village (which my ancestors evolved in over the
>course of the last 10,000 years. I myself was born on a farm.)
Have you been around farming enough to have learned to
appreciate the animals' lives as well as their deaths? Or do you
agree with the misnomer addicts who say that their deaths should
always be considered but their lives should not be? If so, what
is a good reason for that? So far the only "reasons" I've been
given have been either outright lies, or something so meaningless
that it can't even be considered a reason at all. I find that
sort of thing to be not only typical of misnomer advocates, but
more like consistent with them. LOL...the idea that something
about our actual conception could prevent all beings from
benefitting from their own lives is undoubtedly idiotic on the
surface, and there is nothing else to it. These people can't even
attempt to explain what they think could be significant about our
conception, yet they go on about it as if there is some hidden
significance that we should just accept for some strange reason.
>The bone middens dont show us any vegetarians in the white gene pool.
I've pointed out to these people that they and everyone they
know would not exist if humans had not begun to eat meat, but
they don't care about that any more than the lives of the animals
we're discussing.
>I
>have not studied other gene pools enuf to say they dont have any. Also,
>we know that browsing stock absorbs trace minerals from the pastures and
>wild brush, and that these trace minerals in the diet are used by some
>of the 150+ neurotransmitters identified so far in the laying down of
>new neural pathways during childhood mental development.
It makes sense that as kids they were repulsed by the idea of
eating meat--as they still are today--and for that reason they
didn't get proper nurishment to develop a proper brain. The
problem keeps feeding itself as they get older, and they feed and
support each other... It is litterally like a sort of mutant
society, with the mutation caused by nutritional deficiency which
was caused by the original brain quirk of having a mental problem
with eating meat.
>Its perhaps indicative that the above paragraph is too complex for many
>of those raised on sugar cereals, junkfood, and soda... to handle.
Yes, and it goes on to leading to extremes that are now and
always will have a negative influence on our societies in
general, as well as negative influence on the lives of humans and
other animals who in the future will endure more suffering than
they would have had to if not for the deliberate interference of
misnomer terrorists on medical research.
>It must be admitted however, that the modern diet has ten times the
>amount of meat in it. Were the appropriate amount of meat eaten, then
>the deforestation now going on to create cattle pasture would not pay.
Misnomer addicts want to create the impression that
deforestation is done to raise cattle, but the things I read
about it from other sources have indicated that the forests are
cleared to raise crops like soy or corn to begin with, and those
crops quickly deplete the quality of the soil to the point that
such crops and forest plants will no longer grow. After it gets
depleted to that extent by raising crops, THEN it is planted with
grasses in the hopes that enough grass can grow to support some
cattle. The people with the most money invested are the crop
growers who cut down the forests and reap good harvests for a
couple of seasons, then they move on to cut down their next area
of forest, selling the old depleted property to livestock
farmers.
>The wiser approach is the Athenian Deme, in which urbanites had an
>investment in rural land, a kind of coop, which provided vegetables and
>meat, while they in return went out to the land to help with the work.
>Which provided the necessary exercise to promote maximum mental
>functionality. At the same time, they had enuf control over the way
>stock and crops were produced, and could therefore limit agribusiness
>chemical contamination. Which also damages childhood mental development.
The people devoted their entire lives to surviving and
growing food. You can still go places and do that, ONLY because
so few people want to devote their entire lives to trying to
producing their own food and trying to survive. But with the
advantages we have today if you wanted to you could find a place
where someone would rent you enough land that you could go make a
nice garden. If you want to go devote hundreds or thousands of
hours to working in the dirt, pulling weeds, and tending to
plants then you could find a place, and probably an acre would
give you as much time with it as you care to have. Your kids
would probably get sick of it their first time out there. I
always hated it, but liked working with the animals. Then again
there are people who like tending to plants I guess, so maybe
your kids would be into it after all...for a while.
dh
<PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> pointed out:
>Vegans have a nutritional deficiency that leaves them incoherent and
>they can't function in a rational way.
My experience with them has led me to that same conclusion:
_________________________________________________________
"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo
"It is not "good"for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo
"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo
"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare" - Goo
"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was" - Goo
"I have examined the question at length, and feel
there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
is not a benefit." - Goo
���������������������������������������������������������
>The concept of priorities is
>foreign to vegans and the Liberals in general.
They are extremists, so in that respect I suppose they could
only have the one priority to promote acceptance of their
elimination objective. Even knowing that I constantly wonder how
much of their crap they actually believe, and how much they don't
but are hoping that some other people will be stupid enough to
believe:
_________________________________________________________
"you are their grim reaper, procuring them from their timeless
ethereal paradise and casting them into your filthy pits of pain,
misery and utter despair. Where they once experienced only bliss,
by your hand they now suffer agonies constantly administered by
the vivisectionist who toys with them, and by the farmer who
callously exploits their now tender flesh for food. For them your
world is hell" - Goo
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo
"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
ever wrote." - Goo
���������������������������������������������������������
dh
It's not a question of whether it's evil or not but a
question of whether or not it's better, and if so for whom or
what is it better. It's certainly not better for the animals
these people are pretending to care about. Advocates of the gross
misnomer "animal righs" want to eliminate all domestic animals,
not provide them with better lives, or rights, or anything at
all. Advocates for decent animal welfare in complete contrast to
that DO want to provide domestic animals with better lives, so
that billions of them can benefit from lives of positive value in
the future. So whether it's evil or not, AW advocates want to
provide billions of future animals with lives of positive value,
while misnomer advocates want to prevent that from happening.
dh
So what if nothing does Goo? You still haven't explained how
you think it prevents millions of livestock animals from
benefitting from their existence, nor have you explained how you
think it prevents you from benefitting from your own. How Goober?
HOW???
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:22:45 -0800 (PST), ex-PFC Wintergreen
>
> >On Dec 25, 12:06 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
> >> > Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
> >> > gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not "better"
> >> > for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals don't "get"
> >> > anything out of coming into existence.
>
> >> Neither do children.
>
> >Nothing does.
>
> So what if nothing does
Then there's nothing to consider.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 14:06:05 -0600, Day Brown
>
> >ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
> >> Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
> >> gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not "better"
> >> for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals don't "get"
> >> anything out of coming into existence.
> >Neither do children. But, if we were to design an environment that best
> >matched the inherited behavior patterns of Native European children, it
> >would be an agrarian village (which my ancestors evolved in over the
> >course of the last 10,000 years. I myself was born on a farm.)
>
> Have you been around farming enough
You haven't.
Dutch
> Have you been around farming enough to have learned to
> appreciate the animals' lives as well as their deaths?
That is a false construct. The animals "lives" do not warrant moral
consideration, they are other living creatures, period. "Their deaths" don't
warrant moral consideration either, living creatures die.
What is under scrutiny is *how we treat* living creatures in our care, do we
meet their needs adequately? If we kill or harm them do we have a valid
reason, and do we do it with compassion?
"Appreciate their lives and their deaths.." is just so much vague,
meaningless and frankly dishonest verbiage.
Make this the year you finally get this through your thick skull.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:mmgcj5dqkf57iie4l...@4ax.com...
Is it better that the slaughterhouses get ALL of them? How?
> Advocates of the gross
> misnomer "animal righs" want to eliminate all domestic animals,
Who or what is harmed by that? Certainly not the animals. Livestock would
not be harmed by the non-perpetuation of their species, they don't care.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> <dh@.> wrote
>> Have you been around farming enough to have learned to
>> appreciate the animals' lives as well as their deaths?
>
> That is a false construct.
It's complete hogwash.
> The animals "lives" do not warrant moral
> consideration,
Their treatment during their lives is what warrants moral consideration,
as you note below.
> they are other living creatures, period. "Their deaths"
> don't warrant moral consideration either, living creatures die.
>
> What is under scrutiny is *how we treat* living creatures in our care,
> do we meet their needs adequately? If we kill or harm them do we have a
> valid reason, and do we do it with compassion?
>
> "Appreciate their lives and their deaths.." is just so much vague,
> meaningless and frankly dishonest verbiage.
It is utterly and deliberately dishonest. It's a lame attempt at trying
to create yet another false moral issue.
Day Brown
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
> <clis...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
>> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
look at the initiation of agriculture in SE Europe which produced the
world's first free market mercantile empire that lasted from 8000 to
4000 BC, when it looks like Anthrax came in, and the survivors dispersed
across Europe and central Asia.
There are hundreds of tels along the rivers that empty into the west end
of the Black sea, that down thru 4000 years of occupation layers,
there's no evidence of warfare.
Partly due to the abundance agriculture created. Soil cores show these
villages managed the same land, using crop rotation with pasturage that
never depleted the fertility of the soil. Even in the Medieval era,
Villages were still rotating crop and pasturage sustainably.
A careful look shows life wasnt all that hard. Outside of those few
times like planting and harvest when every able bodied villager worked
long hours, 12-20 hours/week met the per capita needs for food and fuel
with meat from the unworked pasturage also providing leather, tallow,
hoof glue, and other necessities.
Cattle, goats, sheep, pigs, and horses were all synergistic in the
management of the local resource base. The middens show nobody was
vegtartian, altho the bones suggest rabbits were the most common meat
source, easily acquired by the kids walking the trap lines.
Unless the pasturage was high quality grass, horses didnt do well, and
oxen were needed as draft animals.
Poetic Justice
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:22:45 -0800 (PST), ex-PFC Wintergreen
> <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 25, 12:06 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>>>> Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
>>>> gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not "better"
>>>> for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals don't "get"
>>>> anything out of coming into existence.
Existence is just a short interlude in eternity.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
That was a trite comment.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>> <clis...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat
>>> them, they wouldn't have a chance to live.
> There are, and always have been wild cattle.
Correct, but beside the point.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
No one is talking about animals that exist. People are talking about
animals that don't yet exist, and whether or not they should. It is a
nonsense to talk about something being "better" or "worse" for animals
that don't exist.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 16:14:15 -0500, Poetic Justice
> <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> pointed out:
>
>> Vegans have a nutritional deficiency that leaves them incoherent and
>> they can't function in a rational way.
>
> My experience with them
Animals "getting to experience life" deserves no consideration.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
stop, why would anyone care that no more livestock animals would "get to
experience life"? Why /should/ anyone care?
dh
I have pointed out to them that afawk death is the same as
before the animals existed, so the only thing that IS significant
is their lives. But these people can't acknowledge much less
appreciate things like that that work against the elimination
objective. If it works against promoting acceptance of
elimination, these people don't want to hear it, are opposed to
it, and will often/usually either deny it or deny that there's
any significance to it.
dh
<dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>> <clis...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
>>> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>There are, and always have been wild cattle.
� The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
that begins their particular existence. Those animals will
only live if people continue to raise them for food.
Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
for their existence. �
>It may be instructive to
>look at the initiation of agriculture in SE Europe which produced the
>world's first free market mercantile empire that lasted from 8000 to
>4000 BC, when it looks like Anthrax came in, and the survivors dispersed
>across Europe and central Asia.
>
>There are hundreds of tels along the rivers that empty into the west end
>of the Black sea, that down thru 4000 years of occupation layers,
>there's no evidence of warfare.
>
>Partly due to the abundance agriculture created. Soil cores show these
>villages managed the same land, using crop rotation with pasturage that
>never depleted the fertility of the soil. Even in the Medieval era,
>Villages were still rotating crop and pasturage sustainably.
� From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. �
dh
><dh@.> wrote
>> Have you been around farming enough to have learned to
>> appreciate the animals' lives as well as their deaths?
>
>That is a false construct. The animals "lives" do not warrant moral
>consideration,
They do when you're willing to consider them.
dh
You can't appreciate the lives of any domestic animals,
afawk.
>> Advocates of the gross
>> misnomer "animal righs" want to eliminate all domestic animals,
>
>Who or what is harmed by that? Certainly not the animals. Livestock would
>not be harmed by the non-perpetuation of their species, they don't care.
No. So to you that means your own life is not a benefit to
you. I disagree, but maybe your life has been so bad that you
can't imagine how life could be of positive value to anything.
Mine hasn't gotten that bad yet, so I can still understand that
often it is positive.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:11:38 -0500, Poetic Justice
> <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/26/2009 12:08 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:22:45 -0800 (PST), ex-PFC Wintergreen
>>> <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 25, 12:06 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>>>>>> Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
>>>>>> gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not "better"
>>>>>> for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals don't "get"
>>>>>> anything out of coming into existence.
>> Existence is just a short interlude in eternity.
>
> I have pointed out to them that afawk death is the same as
> before the animals existed,
No, you haven't "pointed that out", because it isn't true. You know
nothing about what comes after death, nor about what comes before life.
The fact is, "getting to experience life" is not a benefit in any way.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Nothing to appreciate. If they come into existence, *then* we can care
about the quality of their lives, but the lives themselves have no value.
>>> Advocates of the gross
>>> misnomer "animal righs" want to eliminate all domestic animals,
>> Who or what is harmed by that?
You didn't answer his question. Who or what is harmed by the wish to
eliminate domestic animals? Who or what would be harmed if they got
their wish?
Answer the question.
>> Certainly not the animals. Livestock would
>> not be harmed by the non-perpetuation of their species, they don't care.
>
> No. So to you that means your own life is not a benefit to
> you.
Correct: "getting to experience life", for which you substitute the
shorthand "your life", is not a benefit.
> I disagree, but maybe your life has been so bad
No, now you're talking about the *content* of the life, not the life itself.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Nope.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 16:26:30 -0600, Day Brown
> <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>>> <clis...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
>>>> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>> There are, and always have been wild cattle.
>
Cattle "getting to experience life" is not a benefit to the cattle.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:01:51 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jared" <jare...@gmail.com> wrote
>> On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>>>> <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat
>>>>> them,
>>>>> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>>> It's meaningless.
>> It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
>> --->
>>
>> It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
>> existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.
>
> So far, much as you wish that meant something,
It means plenty.
> you haven't
> been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
> from lives of positive value.
Animals do not benefit from coming into existence. When you write
"benefit from lives of positive value", what you mean is "benefit from
coming into existence", and animals do not benefit from coming into
existence.
Immortalist
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>
> <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
> >they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>
> there's something controversial about the fact, can you say?
>
> >And, they seem to live to eat - I
> >think that's what they enjoy.
>
> It's the main thing in their lives.
>
> >Since we want them to grow rapidly, they get
> >to eat a lot - perhaps that makes them happy.
>
> Of course it makes them as happy as cattle can be.
>
> >Of course they are killed
> >early, but if we didn't raise them, they wouldn't get to live at all.
>
> · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
> if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
> reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
> we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
> killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
> of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
> experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·
>
> >I don't really feel this way,
>
> Do you think you feel that cattle would become part of our
> society, and maybe even get jobs, if humans stopped raising them?
>
> >but it is an interesting viewpoint, don't you think?
> >- Jeff
>
> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
Then you people have stolen the definition of vegan. I have been one a
long time and it is a way of life attempting to use as little animal
products as possible. Also no seeds, nuts, grains or dairy products,
no yogurt, veganism is the strictest way short of fruitarianism or
breathtarianism which wont get you very far. Maybe vegan is a term
that needs to mean something else because in todays fat festival a
radical vegetarian is off the radar and looks like he must be on
drugs, whatever.
> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
> in order to be successful:
>
> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
> gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
>
> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
> being vegan.
> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
Dutch
>>Existence is just a short interlude in eternity.
>
> I have pointed out to them that afawk death is the same as
> before the animals existed
So if you kill somebody and are charged with murder you can just argue that
its as if the victim never existed.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:8rrkj5hnvdekblrk1...@4ax.com...
Nope, not an issue.
Dutch
>>> Advocates of the gross
>>> misnomer "animal righs" want to eliminate all domestic animals,
>>
>>Who or what is harmed by that? Certainly not the animals. Livestock would
>>not be harmed by the non-perpetuation of their species, they don't care.
>
> No. So to you that means your own life is not a benefit to
> you
That is meaningless rhetoric and a non sequitur.
> I disagree, but maybe your life has been so bad that you
> can't imagine how life could be of positive value to anything.
I think life is great, but that is of no consequence to the question being
discussed.
> Mine hasn't gotten that bad yet, so I can still understand that
> often it is positive.
That's nice, but irrelevant.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
Nope.
> I have been one a long time
You have not. You've been mistaken for a long time.
> and it is a way of life attempting to use as little animal
> products as possible.
No, that's *WRONG*. It demands that *NO* animal-derived or
animal-produced products be used, period, and not merely in the diet:
no leather upholstery or clothing, no wool garments, no silk, no chamois
to dry your Prius, no lanolin in lotions, no refined sugar (if the
refining medium was bone char). It demands no use of products tested
for safety on animals.
> Also no seeds, nuts, grains
No, that's *COMPLETELY* wrong. It does *not* mandate no seeds, nuts or
grains. You're an idiot.
> or dairy products,
> no yogurt, veganism is the strictest way short of fruitarianism or
> breathtarianism which wont get you very far.
It isn't "veganism" if it isn't done out of an allegedly ethical motive.
If it's done only for health, it's not "veganism".
> Maybe vegan is a term
> that needs to mean something else because
Maybe you need to admit you didn't know what you were talking about for
decades.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
What is it he always used to say? "That's a completely different
subject."
I've never encountered anyone who was so intent on preserving and
cultivating his ignorance as Harrison.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:24:25 -0800 (PST), Jared
> <jare...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 24, 6:43 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen <pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>>>>>> <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
>>>>>>> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>>>>>> That's how it is.
>>>> It means something.
>>> experienced by never-conceived cattle (or any other never-conceived
>>> livestock) if humans stop breeding them into existence.
>> The same argument implies there is no moral or ethical gain either.
>
> These people are maniacally opposed to giving the animals'
> lives as much or more consideration than their deaths, because
> doing so suggests that providing them with decent lives of
> positive value could be considered ethically equivalent or even
> superior to their elimination.
That's a long-winded, clumsy way of saying you believe it is "better",
for the animals themselves, if they exist rather than never existing.
Your belief is false, of course, because the comparison cannot logically
and rationally be made. "Better" means a comparison of their welfare in
two different states, but as there are no animals, and hence no welfare,
in one of the states (nonexistence of animals), then no comparison can
be made, and your claim is absurd.
We only give consideration to the *content* of animals' lives - not to
the fact of living itself - in the event they come into existence and
live. If they never do, there is nothing to consider.
dh
How can that fact mean "we" stole a defintion of anything?
>I have been one a
>long time and it is a way of life attempting to use as little animal
>products as possible. Also no seeds, nuts, grains or dairy products,
>no yogurt, veganism is the strictest way short of fruitarianism or
>breathtarianism which wont get you very far. Maybe vegan is a term
>that needs to mean something else because in todays fat festival a
>radical vegetarian is off the radar and looks like he must be on
>drugs, whatever.
They still contribute in the ways I described. The only way
out is to leave the type of society you're bitching about and
working against, and go live where you will no longer benefit
from it. Even if you stop contributing altogether you are still
enjoying the benefits of the society without making any
contribution to it.
>> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. �
dh
<pia...@catch-2222222.org> wrote:
>dh@. pointed out:
>>
>> These people are maniacally opposed to giving the animals'
>> lives as much or more consideration than their deaths, because
>> doing so suggests that providing them with decent lives of
>> positive value could be considered ethically equivalent or even
>> superior to their elimination.
. . .
>We only give consideration to the *content* of animals' lives - not to
>the fact of living itself - in the event they come into existence and
>live.
Right there you necessarily took their lives into
consideration immediately after dishonestly denying you would do
so, Goo.
dh
The only difference from our pov, and maybe or maybe not the
victim's, is his LIFE which I suggest we take into consideration
and you say we should not. His life is what was taken, and even
though you don't think it should be given any consideration at
all, it's the taking of his life that is illegal. You poor idiot.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:45:27 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> <dh@.> wrote
>>>> Existence is just a short interlude in eternity.
>>> I have pointed out to them that afawk death is the same as
>>> before the animals existed
>> So if you kill somebody and are charged with murder you can just argue that
>> its as if the victim never existed.
>
> The only difference from our pov, and maybe or maybe not the
> victim's, is his LIFE which I suggest we take into consideration
There is no reason to place any moral value on his "getting to
experience life" in the first place. *Once* he exists, then there is a
reason to place a value on his continued existence.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
No, I didn't. By "take their lives into consideration", what you *mean*
is to attach moral importance to their coming into existence in the
first place. That's what you mean. I do not attach any moral
importance to their coming into existence. You do, and it is irrational
and stupid.
You simply haven't learned a thing in over 10 futile years of
time-wasting, ignorant cracker effort. For over 10 years, you have been
trying to persuade people that farm animals "ought" to exist, and that
if "aras" were to succeed in putting a stop to livestock husbandry, some
moral harm would be inflicted on animals. That is what you've been on
about, and we all know it. This more recent crappy statement about
"benefit from lives of positive value" is just a *FAILED* attempt at
changing your terminology.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
>
> They still contribute in the ways I described. The only way
> out is to leave the type of society you're bitching about and
> working against, and go live where you will no longer benefit
> from it. Even if you stop contributing altogether you are still
> enjoying the benefits of the society without making any
> contribution to it.
Your contribution to society is 100% harmful. Society would
unequivocally be better off if you weren't in it.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:vv3nj5dpssqh6modm...@4ax.com...
You changed the subject, but OK..
If the victim's life is relevant as you suggest then why does the court not
accept it as evidence in favor of the killer? You're sitting there in your
jail cell thinking about how you gave that kid a life of positive value,
wondering why that is not taken into consideration in your murder trial. Can
you figure out why not?
I'll tell you..
It is *the taking of the life* that is morally relevant, that act is
performed by a person whose moral actions are being questioned. The victim's
own life or it's alleged "value" has nothing to do with that question. That
is a cheap and sleazy attempt at diversion. The same goes for livestock.
And to the point you tried to make above, killing a being and them never
existing are not morally or factually similar, at all.
Michael Gordge
> How do you think that prevents cattle who do exist,
Hahhahaha..... '...prevents cows and bulls who do exist?.....
hahahahaha ewes are funny, what next?
Hellooooooo I'm Jake the bull - tweedle dee tweedle dee -
with two extra legs - tweedle dee tweedle dee
Humans shoot and eat animals because they cant be reasoned with.
MG
ex-PFC Wintergreen
>> are not waiting in some ethereal corral waiting for their "chance to live".
>
> How do you think that prevents cattle who do exist,
We aren't talking about cattle who do exist, and we never were talking
about them. We always have been talking about cattle and other
livestock who do not yet exist, and which "aras" do not want ever to
exist. You hate "aras" for that wish.
Your rantings over 10 years have always been about non-existent "future
farm animals" and whether or not they "ought" to exist.
The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Goo/Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Goo/Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Goo/Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
Goo/Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
Okay: Existence, and then life itself are the
most important benefits for any being. Though
life itself is a necessary benefit for all
beings, the individual life experiences of the
animals are completely different things and not
necessarily a benefit for every animal,
depending on the particular things that they
experience.
Goo/Fuckwit - 03/22/2005
Stop talking about animals that exist - they're not the issue, and you
know it.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:vv3nj5dpssqh6modm...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:45:27 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>Existence is just a short interlude in eternity.
>>>>
>>>> I have pointed out to them that afawk death is the same as
>>>> before the animals existed
>>>
>>>So if you kill somebody and are charged with murder you can just argue
>>>that
>>>its as if the victim never existed.
>>
>> The only difference from our pov, and maybe or maybe not the
>> victim's, is his LIFE which I suggest we take into consideration
>> and you say we should not. His life is what was taken, and even
>> though you don't think it should be given any consideration at
>> all, it's the taking of his life that is illegal. You poor idiot.
>
>You changed the subject,
I considered an aspect of it that you can't comprehend.
>but OK..
>
>If the victim's life is relevant as you suggest then why does the court not
>accept it as evidence in favor of the killer?
Try explaining how you think they could.
>You're sitting there in your
>jail cell thinking about how you gave that kid a life of positive value,
All of a sudden you're changing your murder victim to your
own child. You really are a freak about that and child sex.
>wondering why that is not taken into consideration in your murder trial. Can
>you figure out why not?
>
>I'll tell you..
>
>It is *the taking of the life* that is morally relevant, that act is
>performed by a person whose moral actions are being questioned. The victim's
>own life or it's alleged "value" has nothing to do with that question. That
>is a cheap and sleazy attempt at diversion. The same goes for livestock.
No it doesn't. You people try to act like you have the best
intentions for animals that you want to eliminate, and you hate
it when I point that out.
>And to the point you tried to make above, killing a being and them never
>existing are not morally or factually similar, at all.
Because of their LIFE which is why their life should be taken
into consideration. You can't get as far as the basics, BECAUSE
doing so works against the misnomer.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:d3gsj5p3qjn45jtqv...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:29:33 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:vv3nj5dpssqh6modm...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:45:27 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>Existence is just a short interlude in eternity.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have pointed out to them that afawk death is the same as
>>>>> before the animals existed
>>>>
>>>>So if you kill somebody and are charged with murder you can just argue
>>>>that
>>>>its as if the victim never existed.
>>>
>>> The only difference from our pov, and maybe or maybe not the
>>> victim's, is his LIFE which I suggest we take into consideration
>>> and you say we should not. His life is what was taken, and even
>>> though you don't think it should be given any consideration at
>>> all, it's the taking of his life that is illegal. You poor idiot.
>>
>>You changed the subject,
>
> I considered an aspect of it that you can't comprehend.
I comprehend it fine, it is illegitimate.
>
>>but OK..
>>
>>If the victim's life is relevant as you suggest then why does the court
>>not
>>accept it as evidence in favor of the killer?
>
> Try explaining how you think they could.
They can't, that's the point, "considering life" is illegitimate,
irrelevant, and meaningless.
>>You're sitting there in your
>>jail cell thinking about how you gave that kid a life of positive value,
>
> All of a sudden you're changing your murder victim to your
> own child. You really are a freak about that and child sex.
I gave that child "a life of positive value", why is it that not relevant
when I am told that killing him is immoral?
>>wondering why that is not taken into consideration in your murder trial.
>>Can
>>you figure out why not?
>>
>>I'll tell you..
>>
>>It is *the taking of the life* that is morally relevant, that act is
>>performed by a person whose moral actions are being questioned. The
>>victim's
>>own life or it's alleged "value" has nothing to do with that question.
>>That
>>is a cheap and sleazy attempt at diversion. The same goes for livestock.
>
> No it doesn't. You people try to act like you have the best
> intentions for animals that you want to eliminate, and you hate
> it when I point that out.
I pity you you when you "point it out".
Which animals do "we" want to eliminate? Those alleged animals don't exist
therefore they have no interests, and the *species* only value is
utilitarian.
>>And to the point you tried to make above, killing a being and them never
>>existing are not morally or factually similar, at all.
>
> Because of their LIFE which is why their life should be taken
> into consideration. You can't get as far as the basics, BECAUSE
> doing so works against the misnomer.
The basics are, their LIFE is not relevant to this discussion.
dh
<pia...@catch-2222222.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:37:09 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:56:07 -0800, ex-PFC Wintergreen
>><pia...@catch-2222222.org> wrote:
>>
>>>dh@. pointed out:
>>>>
>>>> These people are maniacally opposed to giving the animals'
>>>> lives as much or more consideration than their deaths, because
>>>> doing so suggests that providing them with decent lives of
>>>> positive value could be considered ethically equivalent or even
>>>> superior to their elimination.
>>. . .
>>>We only give consideration to the *content* of animals' lives - not to
>>>the fact of living itself - in the event they come into existence and
>>>live.
>>
>> Right there you necessarily took their lives into
>>consideration immediately after dishonestly denying you would do
>>so, Goo.
>
>No, I didn't. By "take their lives into consideration", what you *mean*
>is to attach moral importance to their coming into existence in the
>first place. That's what you mean. I do not attach any moral
>importance to their coming into existence.
LOL!!! Of course you refuse to BECAUSE doing so works against
the elimination objective, Goo.
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:d3gsj5p3qjn45jtqv...@4ax.com...
>>
>> You people try to act like you have the best
>> intentions for animals that you want to eliminate, and you hate
>> it when I point that out.
>
>I pity you you when you "point it out".
There's no reason to pity me for pointing out the truth.
>Which animals do "we" want to eliminate? Those alleged animals don't exist
>therefore they have no interests, and the *species* only value is
>utilitarian.
They want to eliminate them NOT provide them with rights none
the less. Why are you so maniacally opposed to seeing that fact
pointed out?
>>>And to the point you tried to make above, killing a being and them never
>>>existing are not morally or factually similar, at all.
>>
>> Because of their LIFE which is why their life should be taken
>> into consideration. You can't get as far as the basics, BECAUSE
>> doing so works against the misnomer.
>
>The basics are, their LIFE is not relevant to this discussion.
Their life is certainly as relevant as their death.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:0u0tj51fgmumt2ers...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 14:01:12 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:d3gsj5p3qjn45jtqv...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> You people try to act like you have the best
>>> intentions for animals that you want to eliminate, and you hate
>>> it when I point that out.
>>
>>I pity you you when you "point it out".
>
> There's no reason to pity me for pointing out the truth.
Your "truth" is everyone else's meaingless drivel.
>>Which animals do "we" want to eliminate? Those alleged animals don't exist
>>therefore they have no interests, and the *species* only value is
>>utilitarian.
>
> They want to eliminate them
"them" who? There is no "them" for you or anyone else to be concerned about.
> NOT provide them with rights
"them" who?
> none
> the less. Why are you so maniacally opposed to seeing that fact
> pointed out?
It's not a fact, it is a tortured, confused, idiotic misperception of
reality.
"AR" refers to the animal world in general, and an animal world with no
livestock would certainly be more in keeping with the "freedom" ideal of AR
than now.
They don't want to eliminate any animals, they want to eliminate the
practice of raising livestock, which would result in certain types of
animals not being raised, which refers to animals that do not currently
exist, and therefore have no interests or moral significance. No animals
would be "eliminated" that are not slated for slaughter already anyway.
>>>>And to the point you tried to make above, killing a being and them never
>>>>existing are not morally or factually similar, at all.
>>>
>>> Because of their LIFE which is why their life should be taken
>>> into consideration. You can't get as far as the basics, BECAUSE
>>> doing so works against the misnomer.
>>
>>The basics are, their LIFE is not relevant to this discussion.
>
> Their life is certainly as relevant as their death.
No it is not. When we kill a being we automatically have to answer a moral
question, Why did you do it and did you cause it to suffer?
When a being lives in our care the only relevant moral question is "How are
you treating it" not "Did it live?"
Dutch
What a complete hopeless sap you are.
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:0u0tj51fgmumt2ers...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 14:01:12 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message news:d3gsj5p3qjn45jtqv...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> You people try to act like you have the best
>>>> intentions for animals that you want to eliminate, and you hate
>>>> it when I point that out.
>>>
>>>I pity you you when you "point it out".
>>
>> There's no reason to pity me for pointing out the truth.
>
>Your "truth" is everyone else's meaingless drivel.
>
>>>Which animals do "we" want to eliminate? Those alleged animals don't exist
>>>therefore they have no interests, and the *species* only value is
>>>utilitarian.
>>
>> They want to eliminate them
>
>"them" who? There is no "them" for you or anyone else to be concerned about.
LOL! If that were true misnomer addicts wouldn't be trying to
prevent "them", but instead you/they would not "be concerned
about" them at all.
>> NOT provide them with rights
>
>"them" who?
The potential lives you insist people should not take into
consideration, meaning they should not consider potential
wildlife either of course.
>> none
>> the less. Why are you so maniacally opposed to seeing that fact
>> pointed out?
>
>It's not a fact,
That's a blatant lie.
>it is a tortured, confused, idiotic misperception of
>reality.
>
>"AR" refers to the animal world in general, and an animal world with no
>livestock would certainly be more in keeping with the "freedom" ideal of AR
>than now.
>
>They don't want to eliminate any animals,
That's another blatant lie....or is it the same lie again?
Sometimes it's hard to tell with you whether it's a different
lie, or the same one from a different angle or something.
>they want to eliminate the
>practice of raising livestock, which would result in certain types of
>animals not being raised, which refers to animals that do not currently
>exist, and therefore have no interests or moral significance. No animals
>would be "eliminated" that are not slated for slaughter already anyway.
They would all be eliminated as you admitted after denying it
above.
>>>>>And to the point you tried to make above, killing a being and them never
>>>>>existing are not morally or factually similar, at all.
>>>>
>>>> Because of their LIFE which is why their life should be taken
>>>> into consideration. You can't get as far as the basics, BECAUSE
>>>> doing so works against the misnomer.
>>>
>>>The basics are, their LIFE is not relevant to this discussion.
>>
>> Their life is certainly as relevant as their death.
>
>No it is not.
That is another blatant lie for sure, not the same one again
this time.
>When we kill a being we automatically have to answer a moral
>question, Why did you do it and did you cause it to suffer?
Only because their lives are as relevant as their deaths, as
you dishonestly denied they are.
>When a being lives in our care the only relevant moral question is "How are
>you treating it" not "Did it live?"
They go together as I consistently point out, and you
consistently dishonestly want to deny because it works against
acceptance of the elimination objective.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:0bvuj51iof2u21jov...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 19:49:51 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message news:0u0tj51fgmumt2ers...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 14:01:12 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>news:d3gsj5p3qjn45jtqv...@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> You people try to act like you have the best
>>>>> intentions for animals that you want to eliminate, and you hate
>>>>> it when I point that out.
>>>>
>>>>I pity you you when you "point it out".
>>>
>>> There's no reason to pity me for pointing out the truth.
>>
>>Your "truth" is everyone else's meaingless drivel.
>>
>>>>Which animals do "we" want to eliminate? Those alleged animals don't
>>>>exist
>>>>therefore they have no interests, and the *species* only value is
>>>>utilitarian.
>>>
>>> They want to eliminate them
>>
>>"them" who? There is no "them" for you or anyone else to be concerned
>>about.
>
> LOL! If that were true misnomer addicts wouldn't be trying to
> prevent "them", but instead you/they would not "be concerned
> about" them at all.
There is no "them", wake up. They have no interests unless and until they're
born.
>
>>> NOT provide them with rights
>>
>>"them" who?
>
> The potential lives you insist people should not take into
> consideration, meaning they should not consider potential
> wildlife either of course.
Your so confused you're arguing against yourself.
>
>>> none
>>> the less. Why are you so maniacally opposed to seeing that fact
>>> pointed out?
>>
>>It's not a fact,
>
> That's a blatant lie.
>
>>it is a tortured, confused, idiotic misperception of
>>reality.
>>
>>"AR" refers to the animal world in general, and an animal world with no
>>livestock would certainly be more in keeping with the "freedom" ideal of
>>AR
>>than now.
>>
>>They don't want to eliminate any animals,
>
> That's another blatant lie....or is it the same lie again?
> Sometimes it's hard to tell with you whether it's a different
> lie, or the same one from a different angle or something.
It's not a lie.
>
>>they want to eliminate the
>>practice of raising livestock, which would result in certain types of
>>animals not being raised, which refers to animals that do not currently
>>exist, and therefore have no interests or moral significance. No animals
>>would be "eliminated" that are not slated for slaughter already anyway.
>
> They would all be eliminated as you admitted after denying it
> above.
Livestock are always "eliminated". There is no content to any argument based
on whether they are or not.
>>>>>>And to the point you tried to make above, killing a being and them
>>>>>>never
>>>>>>existing are not morally or factually similar, at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because of their LIFE which is why their life should be taken
>>>>> into consideration. You can't get as far as the basics, BECAUSE
>>>>> doing so works against the misnomer.
>>>>
>>>>The basics are, their LIFE is not relevant to this discussion.
>>>
>>> Their life is certainly as relevant as their death.
>>
>>No it is not.
>
> That is another blatant lie for sure, not the same one again
> this time.
It's the truth you can't stomach because it skewers you and your ten wasted
years of promoting the LoL.
>
>>When we kill a being we automatically have to answer a moral
>>question, Why did you do it and did you cause it to suffer?
>
> Only because their lives are as relevant as their deaths, as
> you dishonestly denied they are.
Non sequitur, "their lives" are not relevant to this debate, how and why we
kill them are the questions.
>
>>When a being lives in our care the only relevant moral question is "How
>>are
>>you treating it" not "Did it live?"
>
> They go together
No, they don't "go together" as I have clearly demonstrated a hundred times.
> as I consistently point out
You "point it out" but it is untrue, which is demonstrated by the fact you
have no evidence of it.
, and you
> consistently dishonestly want to deny because it works against
> acceptance of the elimination objective.
Fallacy and strawman.
dh
I'm pointing out that misnomer addicts don't offer anything
better than decent AW, afawk.
>>>> none
>>>> the less. Why are you so maniacally opposed to seeing that fact
>>>> pointed out?
>>>
>>>It's not a fact,
>>
>> That's a blatant lie.
>>
>>>it is a tortured, confused, idiotic misperception of
>>>reality.
>>>
>>>"AR" refers to the animal world in general, and an animal world with no
>>>livestock would certainly be more in keeping with the "freedom" ideal of
>>>AR
>>>than now.
>>>
>>>They don't want to eliminate any animals,
>>
>> That's another blatant lie....or is it the same lie again?
>> Sometimes it's hard to tell with you whether it's a different
>> lie, or the same one from a different angle or something.
>
>It's not a lie.
LOL! Now that IS a different lie. It's a new lie about one of
your old lies. Aren't you fun?
>>>they want to eliminate the
>>>practice of raising livestock, which would result in certain types of
>>>animals not being raised, which refers to animals that do not currently
>>>exist, and therefore have no interests or moral significance. No animals
>>>would be "eliminated" that are not slated for slaughter already anyway.
>>
>> They would all be eliminated as you admitted after denying it
>> above.
>
>Livestock are always "eliminated".
Then you shouldn't have lied about it.
>There is no content to any argument based
>on whether they are or not.
>
>>>>>>>And to the point you tried to make above, killing a being and them
>>>>>>>never
>>>>>>>existing are not morally or factually similar, at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because of their LIFE which is why their life should be taken
>>>>>> into consideration. You can't get as far as the basics, BECAUSE
>>>>>> doing so works against the misnomer.
>>>>>
>>>>>The basics are, their LIFE is not relevant to this discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Their life is certainly as relevant as their death.
>>>
>>>No it is not.
>>
>> That is another blatant lie for sure, not the same one again
>> this time.
>
>It's the truth you can't stomach because it skewers you and your ten wasted
>years of promoting the LoL.
How many billion livestock animals do you think have
experienced decent lives of positive value because they were
raised for food, since you first began insisting that their lives
are insignificant?
Do you think more livestock have experienced lives of
positive value, or of negative value, during that time?
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:3ng4k5pul5b8lm3qh...@4ax.com...
There is no misnomer, get clear about that first. By calling AR a
'misnomer", i.e charging that ARAs are denying life to animals, you are
implying that future farm animals have a right to exist. I know you don't
get it and probably never will, but there you have it. You are a mutant ARA.
>
>>>>> none
>>>>> the less. Why are you so maniacally opposed to seeing that fact
>>>>> pointed out?
>>>>
>>>>It's not a fact,
>>>
>>> That's a blatant lie.
>>>
>>>>it is a tortured, confused, idiotic misperception of
>>>>reality.
>>>>
>>>>"AR" refers to the animal world in general, and an animal world with no
>>>>livestock would certainly be more in keeping with the "freedom" ideal of
>>>>AR
>>>>than now.
>>>>
>>>>They don't want to eliminate any animals,
>>>
>>> That's another blatant lie....or is it the same lie again?
>>> Sometimes it's hard to tell with you whether it's a different
>>> lie, or the same one from a different angle or something.
>>
>>It's not a lie.
>
> LOL! Now that IS a different lie. It's a new lie about one of
> your old lies. Aren't you fun?
Not a lie, fact. They do not WANT to eliminate any animals. The animals you
are talking about, the pigs, cows and chickens of tommorrow, do not need to
be nor can they be eliminated. They are only imagination.
>
>>>>they want to eliminate the
>>>>practice of raising livestock, which would result in certain types of
>>>>animals not being raised, which refers to animals that do not currently
>>>>exist, and therefore have no interests or moral significance. No animals
>>>>would be "eliminated" that are not slated for slaughter already anyway.
>>>
>>> They would all be eliminated as you admitted after denying it
>>> above.
>>
>>Livestock are always "eliminated".
>
> Then you shouldn't have lied about it.
I didn't. ARAs do not want to eliminate any livestock, they want them to
never exist at all.
>
>>There is no content to any argument based
>>on whether they are or not.
>>
>>>>>>>>And to the point you tried to make above, killing a being and them
>>>>>>>>never
>>>>>>>>existing are not morally or factually similar, at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because of their LIFE which is why their life should be taken
>>>>>>> into consideration. You can't get as far as the basics, BECAUSE
>>>>>>> doing so works against the misnomer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The basics are, their LIFE is not relevant to this discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Their life is certainly as relevant as their death.
>>>>
>>>>No it is not.
>>>
>>> That is another blatant lie for sure, not the same one again
>>> this time.
>>
>>It's the truth you can't stomach because it skewers you and your ten
>>wasted
>>years of promoting the LoL.
>
> How many billion livestock animals do you think have
> experienced decent lives of positive value because they were
> raised for food, since you first began insisting that their lives
> are insignificant?
I never said their lives were insignificant, I said that the lives of
livestock are not relevant to the moral calculation about raising them for
food, not a defense against those who say it is wrong, because it is a
circular argument, self-serving, and relies on an illogical, invalid
comparison between existence and non-existence. We raise them as food if we
need it and want it, and it is a moral action because sustenance is a
worthwhile reason, as opposed to, say, animal combat sport , which is an
immoral and unworthy reason. Get it yet?
No, you don't get it because you are incapable of understanding such things
as equivocations and circluar arguments, you just use them and they sound
peachy to you, and it because it allows you to justify fighting animals in
pits like the lowlife you are.
> Do you think more livestock have experienced lives of
> positive value, or of negative value, during that time?
Negative, no contest. Years ago it might have been different, not now.
Fred C. Dobbs
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
> <clis...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
>> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>
> That's how it is.
It's meaningless.
>> And, they seem to live to eat - I
>> think that's what they enjoy.
>
> It's the main thing in their lives.
They wouldn't miss getting to eat if they never lived.
>> but it is an interesting viewpoint, don't you think?
>> - Jeff
No.
Fred C. Dobbs
> On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen<pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>>> <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
>>>> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>>
>>> That's how it is.
>>
>> It's meaningless.
>
It means nothing. It has no importance.
Fred C. Dobbs
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:24:25 -0800 (PST), Jared
> <jare...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> Jared wrote:
>>>> On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen<pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>>>>>> <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
>>>>>>> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>>>>>> That's how it is.
>>>>> It's meaningless.
>>>
>>>> It means something.
>>>
>>> experienced by never-conceived cattle (or any other never-conceived
>>> livestock) if humans stop breeding them into existence.
>>
>> The same argument implies there is no moral or ethical gain either.
>
> lives as much or more consideration
There is nothing to consider.
Fred C. Dobbs
> On Dec 24, 6:43 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen<pian...@catch-2222222.org>
> wrote:
>> Jared wrote:
>>> On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen<pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>>>>> <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
>>>>>> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>>>>> That's how it is.
>>>> It's meaningless.
>>
>>> It means something.
>>
>> It means nothing ethically. There is no moral or ethical loss
>> experienced by never-conceived cattle (or any other never-conceived
>> livestock) if humans stop breeding them into existence.
>
> The same argument implies there is no moral or ethical gain either.
There is no moral or ethical gain to the animals if they live.
Fred C. Dobbs
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:22:45 -0800 (PST), ex-PFC Wintergreen
> <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 25, 12:06 pm, Day Brown<dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>>>> Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
>>>> gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not "better"
>>>> for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals don't "get"
>>>> anything out of coming into existence.
>>>
>>> Neither do children.
>>
>> Nothing does.
>
> So what if nothing does? You still haven't explained how
> you think it prevents millions of livestock animals from
> benefitting from their existence,
I have explained it, countless times.
Fred C. Dobbs
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:11:38 -0500, Poetic Justice
> <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/26/2009 12:08 PM, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:22:45 -0800 (PST), ex-PFC Wintergreen
>>> <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Dec 25, 12:06 pm, Day Brown<dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ex-PFC Wintergreen wrote:
>>>>>> Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
>>>>>> gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not "better"
>>>>>> for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals don't "get"
>>>>>> anything out of coming into existence.
>>
>
> I have pointed out to them that afawk death is the same as
> is their lives.
Their lives have no significance until they exist.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On 12/25/2009 11:20 AM, dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:01:51 -0800, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Jared"<jare...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC Wintergreen<pian...@catch-2222222.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>>>>> <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat
>>>>>> them,
>>>>>> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>>>>
>>>>> That's how it is.
>>>>
>>>> It's meaningless.
>>>
>>> --->
>>>
>>> It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
>>> existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.
>>
>> So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
>> been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
>> from lives of positive value.
>
> No being benefits from coming into existence.
Do you morn when you step on an ant?
Rod Speed
> On 6/27/2010 6:11 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:14:11 -0500, Poetic Justice
>>>> <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/25/2009 10:55 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:01:51 -0800, "Dutch"<n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jared"<jare...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> On Dec 24, 1:00 pm, ex-PFC
>>>>>>>> Wintergreen<pian...@catch-2222222.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff
>>>>>>>>>> <cliste...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle
>>>>>>>>>>> to eat them,
>>>>>>>>>>> they wouldn't have a chance to live.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's how it is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's meaningless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
>>>>>>>> --->
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to
>>>>>>>> coming into existence, because existence and never existing
>>>>>>>> cannot be compared.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
>>>>>>> been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
>>>>>>> from lives of positive value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and is not a benefit to any animal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why is making them extinct so evil?
>>>>
>>>> It's not a question of whether it's evil or not but a
>>>> question of whether or not it's better, and if so for whom or
>>>> what is it better.
>>>
>>> Who is harmed if we stop raising livestock animals?
>>
>> The animals that never got to live.
>
> No, that's impossible. You can't harm something that doesn't exist.
Wrong, as always.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Fred C. Dobbs wrote
>>>>> Who is harmed if we stop raising livestock animals?
>>>> The animals that never got to live.
>>> No, that's impossible. You can't harm something that doesn't exist.
>> Wrong, as always.
> How so?
They were harmed by never getting to live.