XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.philosophy, talk.politics.animals   
   XPost: alt.politics   
      
   On Sun, 06 May 2012 15:30:55 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
      
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> 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:2f4up7t87c51enh7jr8fnhpl8uj   
   j37acm@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.   
   >   
   >No it isn't, its meaningless.   
      
       It is NECESSARY in order to develop a realistic interpretation, and ONLY an   
   eliminationist would have reason to lie that it's not. An eliminationist   
   wouldn't be correct to tell that particular lie, but an eliminationist is the   
   only type person who would have reason to tell it.   
      
   >Their lives don't balance their deaths,   
      
       Why don't you feel that way about humans having children too, or do you   
   want   
   to claim that you do?   
      
   >that's not what the discussion is about at all.   
      
       It's certainly a significant part of it and again ONLY an eliminationist   
   would have reason to lie that it's not.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)