<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:59:37 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:13:36 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:53:31 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:h7oin6ppu3g1tv0kidj3u29pdo6pt8ro55@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:32:44 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:422gn61ddj4dtujmoidj9fc4s4p5ndil0t@4a x.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:30:18 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>*No* animals benefit by existing
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Many appear to Goo, so what do you want people to think
>>>>>>>>>>> prevents
>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>> benefitting as they appear to, and how do you want people to
>>>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>> prevents
>>>>>>>>>>> them?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Logic, here's one argument:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Two pigs exist, one has a good life provided by the farmer,
>>>>>>>>>>Salatin,
>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>other has a life full of pain,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From what?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Doesn't matter,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It does to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I didn't mean that animal living conditions don't matter to me, I mean
>>>>>>that
>>>>>>for the purpose of this example it doesn't matter what the reason is
>>>>>>for
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>suffering,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it does.
>>>>
>>>>No it doesn't, the animal suffering, for whatever reason it occurs, is
>>>>*stipulated*.
>>>>
>>>>>>the animals in the hypothetical are suffering, that's stipulated.
>>>>>
>>>>> The opinion of an eliminationist as to whether or not an animal is
>>>>> suffering
>>>>> is of no value at all since you people believe all of them live lives
>>>>> of
>>>>> suffering and I do not.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not a <felch> "eliminationist", but even if I were, the animals in
>>>>this
>>>>argument are *stipulated* to be suffering.
>>>>
>>>>Do you even understand the word "stipulate"?
>>>
>>> You're trying to get me to take your word for something you
>>> apparently
>>> don't
>>> have any idea about. What I've done is establish the fact that you have
>>> no
>>> idea
>>> which I correctly predicted, but you had to show me before I could be
>>> sure. You
>>> did.
>>
>>Some livestock suffer, right? They have "lives of negative value", right?
>>Those are the ones I'm talking about.
>
> You people think it's true for all livestock and that none of them have
> lives of positive value.

I don't think all livestock have bad lives, you're using a strawman as a
dodge to evade my point. I'm specifically referring to those that *do*.

Those that *do* also *get to experience life* to exactly the same degree as
the animals who thrive. The difference, the only difference is how we treat
them. The fact that "they get to experience life" is a common factor when
comparing lives of negative and positive value, therefore as in all
equations, it can be eliminated from consideration.

>>This is not hard.
>
> It's impossible for you to evaluate whether or not it's cruel to the
> animals
> for humans to raise them for food.

It's simple, it's not. The purpose for which they are raised does not affect
them in any way.

The purpose for which animals are raised is unknown and invisible to the
animals therefore it is impossible for that purpose to be "cruel to them".
Therefore your statement has no meaning.


>>>>>>>>anything, sleeping on cold concrete or slats.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IMO they should be provided with something better, but it's hard
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> provide
>>>>>>> pigs with something they won't make a huge mess of. When it's all
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> ever
>>>>>>> know, I'm not convinced concrete floors make life of negative value
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> pigs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bullshit,
>>>>>
>>>>> If they never know anything different, there's no reason to believe
>>>>> that
>>>>> living on concrete makes life of negative value for them.
>>>>
>>>>That's not what I meant, but that is also debatable.
>>>
>>> I'm convinced that it varies from one animal to the next, and has
>>> very
>>> much
>>> to do with whether or not the animal has sores or other injuries.
>>
>>Right, therefore you DO know what I'm talking about,
>
> Better than you ever will.

Then why are you refusing to stipulate that some livestock animals suffer?
Why are you being blatantly evasive and dishonest?

>
>>contrary to your
>>felching above.
>>
>>
>>>>>>pigs are clean animals, if given the opportunity they will always
>>>>>>keep their bedding and mess areas separate.
>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't stop them from making a mess, because whatever they
>>>>> have
>>>>> for
>>>>> bedding they will want to root through looking for food, which usually
>>>>> is
>>>>> going
>>>>> to end up getting it mixed in with their shit and also their food.
>>>>
>>>>Because they don't have enough space and/or their areas are not kept
>>>>clean.
>>>>Given a sleeping area, a feeding area and a clear area, they will shit
>>>>and
>>>>**** in the clear area and not spread it into their bedding or food.
>>>
>>> I said they would spread their bedding around rooting for food, not
>>> that
>>> they would spread their shit around. You can't handle even the most
>>> basic
>>> of
>>> details, yet you want me to take your word on things I know you don't
>>> understand
>>> and even about things I know damn well you're wrong about.
>>
>>I said that pigs
>
> You lie that having consideration for the lives of other creatures is
> sophistry...
>
>>are clean animals, given the opportunity. It's a fact.
>>>
>>>>I've raised pigs,
>>>
>>> I disbelieve you.
>>
>>I don't give a flying **** what redneck cracker goober cockfighting
>>shitbags
>>believe.
>
> ...and by that reaction and other things I know that you lied when you
> said you
> raised pigs.

I raised a few pigs in 1971

> I also know you lied when you said you raised cattle

I raised cattle at the same time.

> and you lied
> when you said you had children.

I once referred to "my children" in hypothetical terms when making a point.

>>> In contrast to that I did raise some pigs...one sow who
>>> had several litters. We raised some of her young to slaughter and eat,
>>> and
>>> sold
>>> the rest. I was in high school at the time and my parents bought the
>>> feed
>>> for my
>>> sow in exchange for two pigs from each litter, which we raised to about
>>> 100
>>> pounds, killed and butchered ourselves, and all ate.
>>>
>>>>they're clean animals if given the opportunity. Pigs in filthy
>>>>conditions will suffer, not only from poor health.
>>>>
>>>>>>But again, this is not relevant
>>>>>>to my point.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's all relevant. You just can't appreciate details enough to
>>>>> understand
>>>>> why.
>>>>
>>>>It's not relevant, you're just suffering from cognitive dissonance (CD).
>>>
>>> LOL! No you poor fool, it's the guy who can't handle the details,
>>> which
>>> is
>>> you, who are experiencing CD. Not the person presenting the details.
>>
>>You're not "presenting details",
>
> Taking the animals' lives into consideration is a NECESSARY part of
> evaluating whether life has positive or negative value to them. That's a
> very
> significant basic aspect of the situation that eliminationists can not
> comprehend.

Livestock that suffer terribly (you now agree that some do) also have lives.
How does taking their lives into consideration change anything?

>
>>you're blowing smoke out of your ass.
>
> You're either too stupid to comprehend why the animals' lives are
> important
> in regards to the animals, or you're dishonestly pretending to be too
> stupid.

It's meaningless, imaginary. The animals' lives play no role at all in this
discussion.

>>>>Your brain on some level sees that this destroys your argument so is
>>>>throwing up meaningless defenses against it.
>>>
>>> In contrast to that I'm considering more details than you can handle,
>>> and
>>> that's pretty much as "far" as it looks like it can ever get for you.
>>
>>Your "considering", like your "consideration" is bogus.
>
> It's only impossible for eliminationists, but all the rest of it can do
> it.

Anyone can do it, if you want to imagine nonsense to support foolish
arguments.



suffering
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From what?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What does it matter, it's a theoretical example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's say a tail infection. That doesn't make life of negative
>>>>>>> value
>>>>>>> still,
>>>>>>> I hope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I hope also,
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe.
>>>>
>>>>Don't be ridiculous, nobody who has ever posted here wants animals to
>>>>suffer.
>>>>
>>>>>>but again, not relevant to the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> In contrast to that, if it's the case then it destroys your point.
>>>>
>>>>Why? I didn't say anything about a tail infection. Is it your contention
>>>>that NO livestock suffer,
>>>
>>> You know it's not, and I know you know it's not.
>>
>>Then why are you refusing to stipulate it?
>
> You can't do it, so I will.

Answer the question, why did you refuse to stipulate that some livestock
suffer then suddenly change your tune?

> The pig has a fractured leg and is in constant
> pain, and since it's in a weakened condition the other pigs attack and
> abuse it
> also. That pig has a life of negative value at this time, but as long as
> it has
> the benefit of life the value of its life can change.

Yea, it will be put out of it's misery by the farmer, if its lucky.

So now you agree that livestock sometimes suffer, congratulations, you are
1% of the way to being honest.

>
> In the above I referred to two different things with the word life. If
> you're too stupid to figure out which is which and when, then you are just
> mentally unfit to discuss this topic. If you are not too stupid to figure
> it out
> but pretend to be, then you are still unfit to discuss it.

Life does not become a benefit just because you choose to call it one. An
entity *is* the life that it is living.
>
>>>>EVER? If so, you're an idiot, if not, then the
>>>>ones which do suffer are the ones I am talking about. Those animals who
>>>>do
>>>>suffer *experience life* in the same measure as the ones who don't.
>>>>Therefore *experiencing life* is not what creates value,
>>>
>>> It can have positive or negative value, as I've pointed out to you
>>> countless
>>> times.
>>
>>It's conditions (circumstances) that create positive or negative value.
>>Life
>>itself is a constant.
>
> In that respect it's a benefit, since without it nothing else can be
> either.

That's not what benefit means. To benefit is a comparative where an entity
becomes better off after than it was prior. A harm is a comparative where an
entity is worse off after than it was prior. Coming into existence doesn't
fit these terms because there is no prior state.

> That fact is another one you're either too stupid to comprehend, or you
> are
> dishonestly pretending to be too stupid to comprehend.

That would be you here.


>
>>>>it is a constant
>>>>among ALL animals.
>>>
>>> And should be taken into consideration for ALL creatures, instead of
>>> none as
>>> eliminationists insist.
>>
>>If life itself apart from circumstances is a constant then it doesn't
>>matter
>>whether we consider it all cases or no cases. If we consider it in all
>>cases
>>then what do we do about the case of lives of negative value? What does
>>this
>>"consideration" tell us then?
>
> LOL! You really are showing you true colors now. I should milk this for
> a
> while but I'll tell you: We should change conditions so animals don't
> suffer but
> instead have lives of positive value.

That refers to changing "conditions", in other words AW, you said nothing
about "considering their lives"/


>>>>>>>>>>and deprivation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> From what?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Light, space, access to earth, whatever, it's unimportant what from,
>>>>>>>>it's
>>>>>>>>theoretical.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We'll just forget that one since the concrete was covered above.
>>>>>>> Life
>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>> seems like it may have positive value to Salatin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sigh, you are obviously missing the point.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I asked you for details to establish whether you had a point or
>>>>> not. It
>>>>> turns out in this case you don't.
>>>>
>>>>The point has been made very clear,
>>>
>>> You couldn't even provide an example, much less make a point with it.
>>> Even
>>> if you had though, since nothing can benefit after it's dead, and
>>> nothing
>>> that's
>>> not alive can benefit at all, it will always remain clear that life is
>>> one
>>> of
>>> the benefits which makes all others possible regardless of how you try
>>> to
>>> lie
>>> that it's not.
>>
>>Life makes benefits possible, it isn't a benefit itself. That's
>>impossible.
>>
>>> . . .
>>>>>>> It's a benefit which makes all others possible
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Calling it a benefit is begging the question, I have shown that it
>>>>>>isn't,
>>>>>>as
>>>>>>have others.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have simply claimed that it's not without being able to even
>>>>> attempt to
>>>>> explain what you want people to believe prevents it from being one.
>>>>
>>>>It's been explained to you probably a thousand times. A benefit means
>>>>"an
>>>>improvement to the welfare of an entity", that means an entity must have
>>>>two
>>>>states, one before and one after the benefit for such a measurement to
>>>>be
>>>>possible. Before existence there is no such state.
>>>
>>> How do you want us to believe that something about "Before existence"
>>> prevents beings from benefitting from lives they clearly appear to be
>>> benefitting from?
>>
>>They're not,
>
> What do you want us to think is preventing them from doing what they
> clearly
> appear to be doing?

They aren't doing it.

>>they are benefitting from positive circumstances.

Right

>>
>>>>> So far you
>>>>> have never been able to explain, so of course neither you nor I nor
>>>>> anyone
>>>>> else
>>>>> has any idea what you think you're trying to talk about. That being
>>>>> the
>>>>> case it
>>>>> continues to appear this is just something else you're trying to lie
>>>>> about
>>>>> in an
>>>>> attempt to support acceptance of elimination.
>>>>
>>>>I just explained it
>>>
>>> No you did not. All you did was make a claim that something about
>>> "Before
>>> existence" prevents animals from benefitting from lives they clearly
>>> appear to
>>> be benefitting from, but you can never explain what you want us to think
>>> does so
>>> or how you want us to think anything does so.
>>
>>I get it, you're TOO STUPID to grasp basic logic.
>
> LOL! No you don't get it either. IT is that you're TOO STUPID to tell
> us
> what you want us to think about pre-existence prevents us from benefitting
> from
> our own existence. Try explaining it now. GO:

See above
>
>
>>> . . .
>>>>>>"consideration" has never helped a single animal, never will, and
>>>>>>cannot.
>>>>>
>>>>> In contrast to that lie what you are afraid of is that considering
>>>>> the
>>>>> lives
>>>>> of the animals they consume would cause more people to favor decent AW
>>>>> over
>>>>> elimination, causing them to become more conscientious consumers of
>>>>> animal
>>>>> products instead of vegans.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not afraid of that because it's an absurdity. Nobody consumes meat
>>>>because it means livestock "get to experience life", not you, not me,
>>>>nobody.
>>>
>>> It wouldn't necessarily mean many people would stop being vegan in
>>> order to
>>> contribute to lives of positive value with their lifestyle. As you
>>> suggest
>>> most
>>> would be too selfish to consider anything like that and they are only
>>> vegan
>>> because they don't like meat, not in any real attempt to try to help
>>> livestock.
>>
>>That paragraph is false, misleading and misguided on a number of levels.
>>First, consuming meat is not a prerequisite for contributing to better
>>lives
>>for livestock.
>
> They would have to buy things that contribute to decent lives for
> livestock
> even if they throw the products in the trash in front of the grocery
> store, or
> just leave them sitting with the cashier after paying for them.

No, they could write to manufacturers, restaurant chains, politicians,
participate or contribute to AW campaigns. All things that you have never
done and never will do.

>>Second there is no reason to believe that vegetarians are
>>more selfish than meat eaters.
>
> There certainly is reason to consider supposedly ethical veg*ns to be
> more
> selfish, and any other people who have anti-consideration for the lives of
> livestock IF there are any other people. I doubt there are though. LOL...
> It
> sure would be stupid for any meat consumer to oppose consideration for the
> lives
> of livestock. LOL...such a person would have to be incredibly stupid IF
> there is
> such a person. A person that stupid would probably be unable to
> participate in
> any ngs.

Are you really as dense as you appear?

>
>>Finally, consuming animal products does not
>>"help livestock".
>
> In contrast to that lie, everything that helps livestock is also
> dependant
> upon people consuming them

Consuming livestock doesn't help them.

Here your dishonest tactic, probably unconsciously, is to equivocate (a word
you don't understand) between livestock as species and livestock as
individual animals. Livestock *species* are helped by being in demand as
sources of meat, not individual animals. Individual animals, by the time
they are in a position to be "helped", already exist.

The debate here however *is not* whether it is right to help domestic
livestock species to succeed, that is irrelevant, it is about how we treat
animals and what kinds of lives they are provided *if* they are brought into
existence.

>>You're just spinning your wheels with these stupid
>>assumptions.
>
> In contrast to your lie above, being vegan does nothing to help
> livestock.
> Being vegan contributes to deliberate death, but not life, for any
> animals.

Consuming meat contributes to animals being killed by meat packers. As I
said above the fact that it promotes the continuation of those species is
not a legitimate moral question and not what we should be talking about.

>>In fact I would say many vegetarians *would* like to eat meat
>>except that feel they can't for ethical reasons.
>
> Because they don't want to contribute to life of any quality for
> livestock,
> which could ONLY be for selfish reasons and NOT out of consideration for
> any
> livestock. DUH!!!

That's the reason YOU eat meat, selfishness.

>
>>> But there are those few who either have no personal aversion to
>>> eating
>>> meat
>>> or even like it, but (again) they have been fooled into believing
>>> veganism
>>> is
>>> ethically supreme. THOSE are the people who should learn to appreciate
>>> when
>>> livestock have lives of positive value so they can be more conscientious
>>> consumers of animal products and contribute to decent lives for
>>> livestock
>>> with
>>> their lifestyle instead of doing nothing. People in favor of elimination
>>> refuse
>>> to consider the animals for selfish personal reasons and will just never
>>> consider them, and as you demonstrate some of the more extreme are
>>> maniacally
>>> opposed to seeing people consider the animals. But some of us do in
>>> spite
>>> of you
>>> which is why cage free eggs are available, and why we pay extra to
>>> support
>>> cage
>>> free lives for laying hens and encourage other people to do so also.
>>
>>That's considering the "conditions" animals are provided, not the bullshit
>>"consider their lives"
>
> It all works together as I've told you countless times.

Only in your deluded mind. In reality they have nothing to do with one
another.

>>you are trying to push.
>
> ONLY eliminationists have reason to oppose considering the lives of
> livestock, as I've pointed out and we have seen countless times. NO ONE
> other
> than eliminationists has good reason to oppose considering the lives of
> the
> animals we're discussing.

Wrong, for the gazillionth time. Bogus and self-serving "consideration"
should be and is opposed by every conscientious person.