XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, alt.food.vegan, talk.politics.animals
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 20:47:29 +0000, Derek wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:46:58 GMT, dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 16:00:34 +0000, Derek wrote:
>>>On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 00:51:53 GMT, dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:12:05 +0000, Derek wrote:
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>I think you ought to answer this question,
>>
>>"why should we assume that
>>'their' current position can be bettered by bringing
>>'them' into being?"
>> One reason is that since 'they' probably do not
>>exist, a decent life would be a good thing, imo.
>
>For whom or what would life be a good thing?
>
>> Your turn:
>>
>>why should we assume that
>>'their' current position is better than not bringing
>>'them' into being?
>
>That's what I'm asking you, Harrison, and you must
>find an answer or you'll have no position to argue from.
Oh, okay. We have absolutely no reason to believe
that 'they' have any current position, and there is no
reason not to bring 'them' into being. We can agree on
that from here on, and thanks for allowing me to answer
for you.
>>>because
>>>without an adequate explanation you don't have a
>>>position to argue from.
>>
>> The same goes even more for you
>
>No, it doesn't,
It does, but since you let me answer for both of us
we now both agree that your position is retarded.
>so stop trying to divert the issue from
>yourself onto me,
You wanted to be the retard.
>and answer the question.
I answered for myself, and now I've answered for you too.
>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>> We might not be.
>>>
>>>Then make your case, Harrison.
>>>1) prove non-existent beings exist
>>
>> They don't.
>
>Yet in another thread to this this afternoon you've
>insisted they do exist when referring to your non-
>existent chicks as "them".
>
> "What I would have originally set out to do would
> have been to give them 6 months instead of nothing."
If they had gotten the 6 months there would have
been them in the form of baby chicks. Since they didn't,
there was still them in the form of zygotes.
>In the same thread you also insist that anyone opposed
>to considering "them" are really disgusting.
>
> [start- you]
> >So those of you who are OPPOSED to seeing anyone
> >else consider them are really disgusting imo,
> [me]
> By "them", are you referring to currently living beasts
I'm referring to the animals we raise for food.
> or non-existent nothings?
> [end]
We both give 'them' consideration. I'd like to see 'them'
have decent lives. You would like to see 'them' never
have any life.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
