97c14109   
   XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.global-warming   
      
   On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:28:07 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist   
    wrote:   
      
   >On May 22, 3:10 pm, Goo wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 5/22/2010 11:51 AM, Mr.Shit4braincell bullshitted pointlessly and   
   >> with zero substance:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> > On May 21, 11:05 pm, Monsieur Turtoni  wrote:   
   >> >> On May 21, 7:59 pm, Immortalist  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >>> If this is true should we continue treating animals cruelly and   
   >> >>> carelessly?   
   >>   
   >> >> For the same reasons that we treat humans with cruelty and   
   >> >> carelessness? For example, as you sit up in your ivory white tower,   
   >> >> why don't you get your lazy ass to work in reducing the cruelty and   
   >> >> carelessness towards anything with your every waking hour? WHY DONT   
   >> >> YOU!!! ;-)   
   >>   
   >> > Quitting eating animal "food" products   
   >>   
   >> Many livestock animals are good and nutritious food.   
   >>   
   >   
   >So the moral standard is that if it is good and nutritious it is   
   >ethically correct to consume it?   
      
       That Goober agrees with you about practically everything. If   
   you think he doesn't, then see if you can get him to explain how   
   he wants people to think he disagrees with himself about any of   
   these claims he has made:   
      
   "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   
      
   "animals *DO NOT* benefit from being farmed, Goo." - Goo   
      
   "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo   
      
   "Life is not a "benefit" to livestock or any other animals." -   
   Goo   
      
   "No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing   
   benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals   
   benefit from farming." - Goo   
      
   "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way   
   at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - 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   
      
   "coming into existence didn't make me better off than   
   I was before." - Goo   
      
   "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter   
   its quality of live" - Goo   
      
   "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to   
   experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration   
   whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the   
   breeding of livestock" - Goo   
      
   "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get   
   to experience life" deserves no consideration when   
   asking whether or not it is moral to kill them.  Zero." - Goo   
      
   "It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions   
   of animals" at any point "get to experience life."   
   ZERO importance to it." - Goo   
      
   ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,   
   Fuckwit.  They want everyone to be "vegan", which would   
   mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's   
   an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo   
      
   "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans"." - Goo   
      
   ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.   
   And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would   
   live in bad conditions." - Goo   
      
   "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral   
   consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing   
   of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral   
   consideration, and gets it." - Goo   
      
   "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not   
   to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that   
   results from killing them." - Goo   
      
   "one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is   
   the ethically superior choice." - Goo   
      
   ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of   
   their deaths" - Goo   
      
   "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate   
   killing of the animals erases all of it." - Goo   
      
   "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude   
   than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo   
      
   "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an   
   animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . .   
   the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" -   
   Goo   
      
   "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." -   
   Goo   
      
   "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not   
   to exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)