Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    rec.pets.dogs.misc    |    All other topics, chat, humor, etc    |    8,070 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 6,376 of 8,070    |
|    Derek to dh_ld@nomail.com    |
|    Re: Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - f    |
|    07 Feb 05 15:12:05    |
      XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.food.vegan, talk.politics.animals       From: derek.nash@gmail.com              On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:16:25 GMT, dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:       >       > The lives of potential future animals raised for food       >are more than just "nothing" in the sense that they will       >exist if nothing prevents them              If we're going to give potential future beings any       consideration at all, why should we assume that       'their' current position can be bettered by bringing       'them' into being? Preventing 'them' from coming       into being might be preferable to 'them', especially       if 'they're' going to be farmed and slaughtered for       food or medical research.              > and possibly as Gonad       >suggests they also exist in some pre-conceived state.              He's never suggested that.              >Regardless of whether they do or not, whatever stops       >their lives from happening is truly preventing animals       >from having life they otherwise would have had.       > Revised - 02/02/05              Until we know something of 'their' current state       we might be doing 'them' a disservice by bringing       'them' into our World, merely to be farmed and       slaughtered after a few months, or used as human       models for medical research.               [It is interesting to note that this fallacy—the        assumption that it is a kindness to bring a being into        the world—is as old as the time of Lucretius, who        deals with it, in another connection, in a passage of        his great philosophical poem, De Rerum Natura        (v. 176-180), which may be rendered thus:               What loss were ours, if we had known not birth?        Let living men to longer life aspire,        While fond affection binds their hearts to earth:        But whoso ne'er hath tasted life's desire,        Unborn, impersonal, can feel no dearth.               We see, then, that a vulgar sophism of to-day was        clearly exposed nearly two thousand years ago. It        is quite possible that fools may be repeating it two        thousand years hence.]        Logic of the Larder by Henry S. Salt        http://tinyurl.com/59lku              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca