XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism   
   XPost: sci.skeptic   
      
   On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:33:16 -0700, Goo wrote:   
      
   >On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:13:55 -0400, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:54:08 -0700, Goo wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>On 7/3/2012 8:24 PM, Olrik wrote:   
   >>>> Le 2012-07-03 12:42, dh@. a écrit :   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>>That's good.   
   >>   
   >>    If it's "good" then why are you maniacally opposed to people having   
   >>appreciation for when millions of livestock animals experience decent lives   
   of   
   >>positive value, Goo?   
   >>   
   >>>Just don't make the mistake of thinking that if they do,   
   >>>it justifies eating them.  It doesn't.   
   >>   
   >>    For one thing you don't know whether it "does" or not Goob, and for   
   another   
   >>only an eliminationist has reason to oppose giving the lives of livestock as   
   >>much or more consideration than their deaths. Olrik doesn't appear to be an   
   >>eliminationist and also doesn't appear to be opposed to taking the animals'   
   >>lives into consideration.   
   >>   
   >>>The justification has to come   
   >>>from elsewhere.   
   >>   
   >>    Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals   
   >>have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving   
   on   
   >>beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's   
   good   
   >>and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and   
   >>only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals   
   >>works against the elimination objective.   
   >   
   >Show it.   
      
   "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   
      
   "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter   
   its quality of live" - 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   
      
   "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   
      
   "one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the   
   ethically superior choice." - Goo   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)