XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, alt   
   food.vegan.science   
      
   On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:59:21 -0700, Goo wrote:   
      
   >On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:29:00 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:40:09 -0800, Goo wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>>“Veganism” *is* bullshit. Here’s why. It claims to be an ethical   
   >>>response to an ethical problem, but 1) there is no agreement that there   
   >>>is an ethical problem   
   >>   
   >>"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   
   >>   
   >>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude   
   >>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo   
   >>   
   >>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of   
   >>their deaths" - Goo   
   >>   
   >>"Life "justifying" death is the   
   >>stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo   
   >>   
   >>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo   
   >>   
   >>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - 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   
   >>   
   >>"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting   
   >>to experience life" - Goo   
   >>   
   >>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing   
   >>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo   
   >>   
   >>"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"   
   >>(in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for   
   >>killing them." - Goo   
   >>. . .   
   >>>2) the response is ethically empty.   
   >>   
   >>"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".   
   >>"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any   
   >>quality for farm animals:  they don't want there to be farm   
   >>animals." - 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   
   >>   
   >>""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   
   >>   
   >>"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   
   >>   
   >>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to   
   >>exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo   
   >   
   >True.   
      
       At least we see that you agree with yourself about all of it at this   
   particular time Goob.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)