XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,   
   rec.food.cooking   
   XPost: alt.gothic   
      
   On Thu, 20 Dec 2012 21:57:25 -0700, Lord Infomouse    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 12/20/2012 3:43 PM, dh@. wrote:   
   >> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:05:39 -0800, Goo lied again for his brother Rupert:   
   >>   
   >>> On 12/17/2012 12:15 PM, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:57:10 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> On Dec 13, 9:27 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >>>>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:43:12 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   >>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> It's a commonly understood concept.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>       It's meaningless unless YOU can define it. Try defining it. Go:   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> There are different possible ways to spell out what a "good life"   
   >>>>> involves, which could be the subject of reasonable debate. Some would   
   >>>>> say that it involves one's life having a strong balance of hedonically   
   >>>>> pleasant experiences over aversive ones, some would say that it   
   >>>>> involves a strong balance of desire-satisfaction over desire-   
   >>>>> frustration, some would say that it consists in the achievement of   
   >>>>> "objective goods" like attainment of knowledge, awareness of true   
   >>>>> beauty, loving and being loved by other people, and so forth. However,   
   >>>>> there would be a significant degree of convergence among people when   
   >>>>> it came to judging which lives were in fact reasonably good (both in   
   >>>>> the cases of humans and nonhuman animals). It involves reference to   
   >>>>> the level of well-being experienced by the individual. The notion of   
   >>>>> "well-being" probably cannot be helpfully defined in other terms, but   
   >>>>> it can be explained by giving examples of things which could be   
   >>>>> plausibly thought to contribute to well-being. You could also define   
   >>>>> it as involving being in a state that you have self-interested reasons   
   >>>>> to want to be in.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>       That sucked.   
   >>>   
   >>> No.   
   >>   
   >>      It sure did Goo. There is no definition at all, in fact. His attempt to   
   >> provide a definition is nowhere near as good as the definition that I   
   provide.   
   >> . . .   
   >>>>> I was speaking of the outcome   
   >>>>> being better from the perspective of an impartial observer.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>       LOL!!! That is your most pathetic yet!   
   >>>   
   >>> It's a little bit better than what you've done   
   >>   
   >>      LOL!!!!! Goober he isn't even able to attempt considering anything   
   from the   
   >> animals' pov, which is what determines whether or not something is cruel.   
   The   
   >> question is whether or not things are cruel TO THE ANIMALS Goob. You   
   >> eliminationists think the question is what's cruel to those of you who are   
   >> horribly disturbed by the fact that other people eat meat...LOL...but in   
   fact it   
   >> doesn't have a damn thing to do with whether you people like it or not, Goo.   
   >   
   >They are right that you don't define a lot of terms that you use or   
   >phrases that you use,   
      
       Most people don't. What terms or phrases do you think Goo has defined, for   
   example? Which has Rupert defined other than his lame rant about "good"?   
      
   >but I think I agree with what you are saying here.   
   >   
   >It is kind of a common vegetarian opinion that people who eat meat take   
   >part in the murders of the animals involved.   
      
       They want people to ONLY consider the animals' deaths, but not the fact   
   that   
   they would have had no life at all if they hadn't been raised for food. That   
   part should certainly be given as much or more consideration than their deaths,   
   but eliminationists are desperate that doesn't become popular because and only   
   because doing so works against elimination:   
      
   "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   
      
   "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   
      
   "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   
      
   "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter   
   its quality of live" - Goo   
      
      
      
       Veg*ns contribute to the same deaths of wildlife that everyone else does in   
   most ways including their diet. What they try to avoid is contributing to life   
   and death for livestock with their lifestyle, but they do contribute to the   
   deaths of wildlife whose lives they didn't contribute to at all.   
      
   >However,   
   >   
   >1) If we count the people eating the meat, and the actual killers of the   
   >cattle, and all the in-between people who make it happen, we are   
   >recording multiple cow-slayings per cow-slaying, which is clearly incorrect.   
      
       That's the sort of tricks they like to get away with. They also hate it   
   when   
   people point out that some animal products involve not only decent lives for   
   livestock but also fewer deaths of wildlife. For example grass raised cow milk   
   involves far fewer animal deaths per serving than rice milk, and probably a   
   good   
   bit less than most soy milk, while at the same time providing decent lives for   
   livestock animals.   
      
   >2) Cut the shit.  I am sitting in my home enjoying a delightful steak,   
   >causing harm to no one.  I am slaying no animal,   
      
       That same animal would have lived and died even if you had never been born.   
      
   >yet indulging my   
   >God-given hunger with tasty delights.  I am a gentle person who does not   
   >harm animals, and am looking into getting a pet kitten.  (A kitten who   
   >will enjoy beefy delights I might add).   
      
       I encourage you to buy cage free eggs if you don't already. The cages are   
   overly restrictive for one thing, and they encourage violence and suffering   
   from   
   abuse rather than discouraging it imo. It must be pretty much the opinion of a   
   lot of people since the cage method has been banned in some places in Europe.   
   Buying cage free eggs is more expensive, but it works against a nasty way of   
   raising hens just because it makes it a lot easier to deal with the eggs, and   
   because they can stack chickens on top of each other that way. Easier and more   
   money per house for humans, but if there are a couple of overly aggresive hens   
   in a cage with one they like to pick on they will attack her and make her bury   
   her head in a corner afraid to pull it out. That happens less in open houses   
   where they can get away.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)