XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, alt   
   food.vegan.science   
      
   On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:24:19 -0700, Goo wrote:   
      
   >On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:50:59 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:24:59 -0700, Goo wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 15:57:56 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>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   
   >>>   
   >>>"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit, Fuckwit.   
   >>   
   >> Then according to yourself Goob, you MUST believe that it makes moral sense   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)