XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.philosophy, talk.politics.animals
XPost: alt.politics
On Wed, 16 May 2012 19:01:19 -0700, Dutch wrote:
>dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 17:19:20 -0700, Dutch wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 16:52:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 13:32:11 -0700, Dutch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> 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:2f4up7t87c51enh7jr8
nhpl8ujfj37acm@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,
>>>>>
>>>>> No it isn't, it's meaningless.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only a moron would think that it has any relevance.
>>>>
>>>> That's an obvious lie, since anyone who is truly in favor of AW over
>>>> elimination can certainly appreciate when it results in lives of positive
value
>>>> for billions of animals. DUH!
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> I do feel that way about humans.
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you feel that any humans' lives balance their deaths? No
doubt you
>>>> resent your parents for having you since you don't believe your own life
>>>> balances your own death. You might believe most people feel that same way
about
>>>> it like you do, but I doubt most people resent their parents because they
don't
>>>> feel that their life balances their death. I believe you're in an area
pretty
>>>> much alone on that one, except of course for some people who commit
>>>> suicide...not all, but some.
>>>> . . .
>>>>> a dozen antis have openly opposed the LoL.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen a single one do it, and you can't provide any examples
of any
>>>> doing it. The "closest" any came was Ward Clark saying he didn't agree
with me
>>>> but never giving a single reason why not, and that other guy but I forget
his
>>>> name at the moment...maybe it was Rick Etter. He never gave any reason
either,
>>>> but just said he didn't agree like Ward did. Swamp doesn't count because
his
>>>> arguments were all just eliminationist arguments. You lied blatantly
again.
>>>
>>> When we aid in causing certain animals to come into existence
>>> that does not give us any more right to kill them for food than we have
>>> to hunt and kill wild animals for food.
>>
>> Yes it sure does.
>
>No, it doesn't.
>
> > Hunting regulations are one of the things that should tell
>> even someone as clueless as yourself that it does. Why do you want people to
>> believe it doesn't, are you able to say?
>
>Hunting regulations are there to manage wildlife populations. There is
>no essential difference between hunting and killing wild animals for
>food and raising them and killing them for food. None.
There's a huge difference and ONLY an eliminationist has reason to lie that
there is not.
>The two acts are
>exactly the same from a moral-ethical point of view. If I have some
>moose meat and some beef in my freezer I am not judged differently with
>respect to either one. There is no extra legitimacy to the beef because
>the animal it came from "got to experience life".
Of course there is. Unless the moose was raised on a farm it got LESS life
because someone killed it, where the animal the beef came from got whatever
life
it got--meaning MORE than no life at all--because it was raised for food.
The moose meat probably involved fewer CDs than the beef, but if you can't
appreciate what I pointed out above there's not much chance you could
appreciate
details about the amount of CDs involved either.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
