XPost: alt.fan.jai-maharaj, soc.culture.indian, alt.religion.hindu   
   XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.animals.rights.promotion,   
   soc.culture.usa   
   From: george@si.not   
      
   On 10/3/2013 4:00 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,   
   illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and   
   doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:   
      
   > On 10/2/2013 1:23 PM, George Plimpton wrote:   
   >> On 10/2/2013 12:22 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,   
   >> illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and   
   >> doing nothing but wasting time ever since, confessed and *lost again*:   
   >>   
   >>> We could also consider that animals   
   >>> raised for food aren't simply "killed" as the animals in crop fields   
   >>> are, but   
   >>> instead they experience whatever life they do, some of them good and   
   >>> some of   
   >>> them not good, ONLY because humans raise them for food.   
   >>   
   >> Meaningless.  Their "experiencing" of life is not morally considerable.   
   >> It has no moral importance at all.   
   >>   
   >> This is what I meant by you having no case, Fuckwit.  While what you   
   >> wrote is true, it is trivial.  It has no bearing on the ethical decision   
   >> of whether or not we *ought* to raise animals for food.  It offers no   
   >> clarity or ethical guidance at all.  It's a complete waste of time.   
   >>   
   >> You have no case.  You are not a man.   
   >   
   >      Why don't you feel that way about considering the killing   
      
   Because the animal was alive up to the point it was killed, Fuckwit.   
   *Once* it is alive, then its life has moral meaning.  Merely having some   
   prospect of existing has no moral meaning.   
      
   I get this, and you don't.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)