XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.philosophy, talk.politics.animals   
   XPost: alt.politics   
      
   On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:07:11 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
      
   >dh@. wrote:   
   >> On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:47:34 -0700, Dutch  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> dh@. wrote:   
   >>>> 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:2f4up7t87c51e   
   h7jr8fnhpl8ujfj37acm@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   
   >>>   
   >>> There's no difference.   
   >>>   
   >>>   and ONLY an eliminationist has reason to lie that   
   >>>> there is not.   
   >>>   
   >>> Morally speaking, ZERO. Hunting for food, farming animals for food, both   
   >>> perfectly acceptable activities which involve killing animals.   
   >>>   
   >>> NO DIFFERENCE   
   >>   
   >>      LOL! They're both morally acceptable in general but they are MUCH   
   different.   
   >   
   >Of course they're "different", but moral differences are all that matter   
   >in this context. This is a discussion about morals and ethics, in case   
   >you forgot.   
      
       I includes that the animals gain from the influence of humans, for example   
   every single thing including their life, but you have never been able to get   
   that far. Well...you did for a second one time so you say, but it made you feel   
   dirty to consider the big picture.   
      
   >  >>>> 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".   
   >>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)