XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova  wrote:   
      
   >On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared   
   >in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik :   
   >   
   >>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert    
   >>> wrote:   
   >   
   >>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet  wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.   
   >   
   >>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.   
   >   
   >>I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.   
   >   
   >Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same   
   >error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.   
      
       Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of   
   negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass   
   raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to   
   them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive   
   value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can   
   only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be   
   of positive value to a being without actually being "good".   
      
       I believe most livestock animals do experience decent lives of positive   
   value, but that probably most caged commercial laying hens do not. Also I don't   
   know enough about how pigs are raised to have a real belief about them, but   
   suspect that a high percentage of them have lives which are overall of negative   
   value. Most cattle and possibly even most veal experience lives of positive   
   value imo.   
      
       Goo doesn't believe any animals benefit from living and it's all the same   
   to   
   him regardless of the quality of their lives:   
      
   "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter   
   its quality of live" - 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   
      
   "It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter   
   how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo   
      
   "It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant   
   the existence." - Goo   
      
   "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you   
   ever wrote." - Goo   
      
   "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo   
      
   "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo   
      
   "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting   
   to experience life" - Goo   
      
   "Shut the fuck up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo   
      
   ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo   
      
   "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral   
   consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing   
   of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral   
   consideration, and gets it." - Goo   
      
   ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of   
   their deaths" - Goo   
      
   "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"   
   (in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for   
   killing them." - Goo   
      
   "You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind   
   of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Goo   
      
   "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to   
   experience life" deserves no consideration when asking   
   whether or not it is moral to kill them.  Zero." - Goo   
      
   "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   
      
   "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude   
   than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo   
      
   "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing   
   of the animals erases all of it." - Goo   
      
   "When considering your food choices ethically, assign   
   ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to   
   eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo   
      
   "one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the   
   ethically superior choice." - Goo   
      
   "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to   
   experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration   
   whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the   
   breeding of livestock" - Goo   
      
   "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get   
   to experience life" deserves no consideration when   
   asking whether or not it is moral to kill them.  Zero." - Goo   
      
   "It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions   
   of animals" at any point "get to experience life."   
   ZERO importance to it." - Goo   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)