XPost: soc.culture.indian, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:59:37 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:
>
>
> wrote in message news:sadvn6hhp1on4dt81vg4kpbt9jsdtacuch@4ax.com...
>> 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.
>
>Some livestock suffer, right? They have "lives of negative value", right?
>Those are the ones I'm talking about.
You people think it's true for all livestock and that none of them have
lives of positive value.
>This is not hard.
It's impossible for you to evaluate whether or not it's cruel to the
animals
for humans to raise them for food.
>>>>>>>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.
>
>Right, therefore you DO know what I'm talking about,
Better than you ever will.
>contrary to your
>felching above.
>
>
>>>>>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 said that pigs
You lie that having consideration for the lives of other creatures is
sophistry...
>are clean animals, given the opportunity. It's a fact.
>>
>>>I've raised pigs,
>>
>> I disbelieve you.
>
>I don't give a flying fuck what redneck cracker goober cockfighting shitbags
>believe.
...and by that reaction and other things I know that you lied when you said you
raised pigs. I also know you lied when you said you raised cattle, and you lied
when you said you had children.
>> 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.
>
>You're not "presenting details",
Taking the animals' lives into consideration is a NECESSARY part of
evaluating whether life has positive or negative value to them. That's a very
significant basic aspect of the situation that eliminationists can not
comprehend.
>you're blowing smoke out of your ass.
You're either too stupid to comprehend why the animals' lives are important
in regards to the animals, or you're dishonestly pretending to be too stupid.
>>>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.
>
>Your "considering", like your "consideration" is bogus.
It's only impossible for eliminationists, but all the rest of it can do it.
>>>>>>>>>suffering
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From what?
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
