XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian   
      
   On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:13:36 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
      
   >   
   > wrote in message news:j7dtn6hjla1j9pd8n1pphucmg4segh41rr@4ax.com...   
   >> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:53:31 -0800, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> wrote in message news:h7oin6ppu3g1tv0kidj3u29pdo6pt8ro55@4ax.com...   
   >>>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:32:44 -0800, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> wrote in message   
   >>>>>news:422gn61ddj4dtujmoidj9fc4s4p5ndil0t@4ax.com...   
   >>>>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:30:18 -0800, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> wrote   
   >>>>>>>>>*No* animals benefit by existing   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>    Many appear to Goo, so what do you want people to think prevents   
   >>>>>>>> them   
   >>>>>>>> from   
   >>>>>>>> benefitting as they appear to, and how do you want people to think   
   >>>>>>>> it   
   >>>>>>>> prevents   
   >>>>>>>> them?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>Logic, here's one argument:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>Two pigs exist, one has a good life provided by the farmer, Salatin,   
   >>>>>>>the   
   >>>>>>>other has a life full of pain,   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    From what?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Doesn't matter,   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    It does to me.   
   >>>   
   >>>I didn't mean that animal living conditions don't matter to me, I mean   
   >>>that   
   >>>for the purpose of this example it doesn't matter what the reason is for   
   >>>the   
   >>>suffering,   
   >>   
   >>    Yes it does.   
   >   
   >No it doesn't, the animal suffering, for whatever reason it occurs, is   
   >*stipulated*.   
   >   
   >>>the animals in the hypothetical are suffering, that's stipulated.   
   >>   
   >>    The opinion of an eliminationist as to whether or not an animal is   
   >> suffering   
   >> is of no value at all since you people believe all of them live lives of   
   >> suffering and I do not.   
   >   
   >I'm not a  "eliminationist", but even if I were, the animals in this   
   >argument are *stipulated* to be suffering.   
   >   
   >Do you even understand the word "stipulate"?   
      
       You're trying to get me to take your word for something you apparently   
   don't   
   have any idea about. What I've done is establish the fact that you have no idea   
   which I correctly predicted, but you had to show me before I could be sure. You   
   did.   
      
   >>>>>anything, sleeping on cold concrete or slats.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    IMO they should be provided with something better, but it's hard to   
   >>>> provide   
   >>>> pigs with something they won't make a huge mess of. When it's all they   
   >>>> ever   
   >>>> know, I'm not convinced concrete floors make life of negative value for   
   >>>> pigs.   
   >>>   
   >>>Bullshit,   
   >>   
   >>    If they never know anything different, there's no reason to believe   
   >> that   
   >> living on concrete makes life of negative value for them.   
   >   
   >That's not what I meant, but that is also debatable.   
      
       I'm convinced that it varies from one animal to the next, and has very much   
   to do with whether or not the animal has sores or other injuries.   
      
   >>>pigs are clean animals, if given the opportunity they will always   
   >>>keep their bedding and mess areas separate.   
   >>   
   >>    That doesn't stop them from making a mess, because whatever they have   
   >> for   
   >> bedding they will want to root through looking for food, which usually is   
   >> going   
   >> to end up getting it mixed in with their shit and also their food.   
   >   
   >Because they don't have enough space and/or their areas are not kept clean.   
   >Given a sleeping area, a feeding area and a clear area, they will shit and   
   >piss in the clear area and not spread it into their bedding or food.   
      
       I said they would spread their bedding around rooting for food, not that   
   they would spread their shit around. You can't handle even the most basic of   
   details, yet you want me to take your word on things I know you don't   
   understand   
   and even about things I know damn well you're wrong about.   
      
   >I've raised pigs,   
      
       I disbelieve you. In contrast to that I did raise some pigs...one sow who   
   had several litters. We raised some of her young to slaughter and eat, and sold   
   the rest. I was in high school at the time and my parents bought the feed for   
   my   
   sow in exchange for two pigs from each litter, which we raised to about 100   
   pounds, killed and butchered ourselves, and all ate.   
      
   >they're clean animals if given the opportunity. Pigs in filthy   
   >conditions will suffer, not only from poor health.   
   >   
   >>>But again, this is not relevant   
   >>>to my point.   
   >>   
   >>    It's all relevant. You just can't appreciate details enough to   
   >> understand   
   >> why.   
   >   
   >It's not relevant, you're just suffering from cognitive dissonance (CD).   
      
       LOL! No you poor fool, it's the guy who can't handle the details, which is   
   you, who are experiencing CD. Not the person presenting the details.   
      
   >Your brain on some level sees that this destroys your argument so is   
   >throwing up meaningless defenses against it.   
      
       In contrast to that I'm considering more details than you can handle, and   
   that's pretty much as "far" as it looks like it can ever get for you.   
      
   >>>>>>>suffering   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    From what?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>What does it matter, it's a theoretical example.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    Let's say a tail infection. That doesn't make life of negative value   
   >>>> still,   
   >>>> I hope.   
   >>>   
   >>>I hope also,   
   >>   
   >>    Maybe.   
   >   
   >Don't be ridiculous, nobody who has ever posted here wants animals to   
   >suffer.   
   >   
   >>>but again, not relevant to the point.   
   >>   
   >>    In contrast to that, if it's the case then it destroys your point.   
   >   
   >Why? I didn't say anything about a tail infection. Is it your contention   
   >that NO livestock suffer,   
      
       You know it's not, and I know you know it's not.   
      
   >EVER? If so, you're an idiot, if not, then the   
   >ones which do suffer are the ones I am talking about.  Those animals who do   
   >suffer *experience life* in the same measure as the ones who don't.   
   >Therefore *experiencing life* is not what creates value,   
      
       It can have positive or negative value, as I've pointed out to you   
   countless   
   times.   
      
   >it is a constant   
   >among ALL animals.   
      
       And should be taken into consideration for ALL creatures, instead of none   
   as   
   eliminationists insist.   
      
   >>>>>>>and deprivation   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    From what?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>Light, space, access to earth, whatever, it's unimportant what from,   
   >>>>>it's   
   >>>>>theoretical.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    We'll just forget that one since the concrete was covered above. Life   
   >>>> still   
   >>>> seems like it may have positive value to Salatin.   
   >>>   
   >>>Sigh, you are obviously missing the point.   
   >>   
   >>    No, I asked you for details to establish whether you had a point or   
   >> not. It   
   >> turns out in this case you don't.   
   >   
   >The point has been made very clear,   
      
       You couldn't even provide an example, much less make a point with it. Even   
   if you had though, since nothing can benefit after it's dead, and nothing   
   that's   
   not alive can benefit at all, it will always remain clear that life is one of   
   the benefits which makes all others possible regardless of how you try to lie   
   that it's not.   
   . . .   
   >>>>    It's a benefit which makes all others possible   
   >>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)