XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, alt   
   food.vegan.science   
      
   On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:44:47 -0700, Goo wrote:   
      
   >On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:07:04 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:41:56 -0700, Goo wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:01:31 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 13:13:54 -0700, Goo wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:49:07 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:47:27 -0700, Goo wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>      Wilson Woods:   
   >>>>>>>      They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense   
   >>>>>>>      - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they   
   >>>>>>>      don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's   
   >>>>>>>      your answer.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>So, the mangled pseudo-quote was not anyone speaking on his own behalf,   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    You told us the way you feel about it Goob, but if you want to try   
   >>>>>>explaining how you think you disagree with yourself then try doing it.   
   Go:   
   >>>>>>. . .   
   >>>>>>>> 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."   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>Actual statement:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>      If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe   
   >>>>>>>      that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately   
   >>>>>>>      to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in   
   >>>>>>>      magnitude than either the potential moral "loss" that   
   >>>>>>>      results from not raising the animal in the first place,   
   >>>>>>>      or the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in   
   >>>>>>>      existing at all, then 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.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>    Goober we know you DO believe that:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>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.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>"A high-welfare life is not a "benefit" compared   
   >>>>>>with never existing." - Goo   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in   
   >>>>>>magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from   
   >>>>>>"decent lives"" - 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   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter   
   >>>>>>its quality of live" - Goo   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>"No animal "benefits" from coming into existence." - Goo   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>No animal is "better off" as a result of existing, versus   
   >>>>>>never existing." - Goo   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing   
   >>>>>>benefits from coming into existence." - 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   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>"NO animals benefit from farming" - Goo   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them:  it does   
   >>>>>>not make them better off than before" - Goo   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>"Being born is not a benefit in any way.  It can't be." - Goo   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even   
   >>>>>>to humans " - Goo   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>"It is not "better" to exist than not to exist" - Goo   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>"getting to experience life" is not a benefit." - Goo   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>"Coming into existence is not a benefit for any animal" - Goo   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>"I *know* animals don't "benefit" from "getting to   
   >>>>>>experience life".  They don't because there is no   
   >>>>>>alternative.  They don't because they don't care   
   >>>>>>that they "get to experience life".  They don't   
   >>>>>>because they can't conceive of the idea of "benefit"" - Goo   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>"Existence per se is not a "benefit" to ANY living thing" - Goo   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>"Then livestock animals' existence is not a "benefit"   
   >>>>>>to them" - Goo   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>""life" CANNOT be a "benefit" to animals" - Goo   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>"life itself is NOT a benefit at all. " - Goo   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>"An entity's coming into existence is not a benefit to   
   >>>>>>that entity." - Goo   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>No.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    So you now believe animals do benefit from their existence Goo?   
   >>>   
   >>>Of course not, Fuckwit - they don't.   
   >>   
   >>    Then you still agree that "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   
   >>. . .   
   >>>>    If not, you still agree that "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."   
   >>>   
   >>>Coming into existence *CANNOT* be a benefit   
   >>   
   >>    Then you still agree that "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   
   >   
   >"Ge   
      
       Then according to yourself Goob, 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.   
      
   "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, then 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   
      
      
      
      
      
   >Fuckwit David Harrison - THE Goo - lied:   
   >   
   >   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>       Wilson Woods:   
   >>>>>>>       They answer, "It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense   
   >>>>>>>       - unjust, in other words - if humans kill animals they   
   >>>>>>>       don't need to kill, i.e. not in self defense." There's   
   >>>>>>>       your answer.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> So, the mangled pseudo-quote was not anyone speaking on his own behalf,   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>     You told us the way you feel about it   
   >   
   >No, Goo.  I told you how "vegans" feel about 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."   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Actual statement:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>       If you are an "animal rights activist", and you believe   
   >>>>>>>       that the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately   
   >>>>>>>       to kill an animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)