XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.global-warming   
      
   On Sun, 23 May 2010 Goo wrote:   
      
   >On Sun, 23 May 2010 12:34:30 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>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   
   >   
   >Prove it.   
      
       LOL! Your quotes above show it Goober. Of course if you now   
   think you disagree with yourself about some of those claims, then   
   try explaining which of them you think you disagree with and WHY.   
   When you can't explain how or why you think you disagree with   
   yourself about any of them Goo, it will be proof that you agree   
   with all of them as I pointed out to begin with. Then the only   
   question remaining will be if the rest of your eliminationist   
   brethren disagree with you on any of them or not. At this point   
   of course we shall take it for granted that all of you agree with   
   all of your claims, Goob.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)