XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.philosophy, talk.politics.animals   
   XPost: alt.politics   
      
   On Thu, 03 May 2012 13:21:08 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
      
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 1 May 2012 10:23:05 -0700, "Dutch"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>   wrote in message news:2f4up7t87c51enh7jr8fnhpl8ujfj37acm@4ax.com...   
   >>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:43:57 -0700, Goo wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:27:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 10:57:57 -0700 (PDT), Rupert   
   >>>>>>    
   >>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> It's your job to provide a satisfactory definition   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>     It means lives that are good.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Right.  That's *all* it ever meant to you.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>     Because that's what it means, Goo. Duh Gooberdoodle, duh.   
   >>>   
   >>> Why are their lives good?   
   >>   
   >>      "The method of husbandry determines whether or not the life   
   >> has positive or negative value to the animal." - "Dutch"   
   >>   
   >> "I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock   
   >> animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"   
   >>   
   >> "Good "lives" (sequences of physical and mental   
   >> experiences) are beneficial to animals." - "Dutch"   
   >   
   >Their lives are good when we act to support AW. Bringing them into   
   >existence (arranged breeding) is no credit to us and it does not make   
   >their lives good. You are assigning moral significance to something   
   >which has none for your own misguided reasons.   
      
       In contrast to that dishonest eliminationist propaganda, considering the   
   lives as well as the deaths of livestock animals is a NECESSARY part of   
   developing a realistic interpretation of human influence on animals.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)