On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Jul 2, 9:31*am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>
>Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.

What sort of suffering do you think it inflicts to the point that you feel
the animals' lives are not worth living to the animals? Explain in detail which
livestock lives you feel are not worth living for the animals and why. Don't
just say "suffering" but explain what the suffering is from.

>It
>is not justifiable to inflict so much suffering just so that we can
>enjoy the taste of their flesh.

As yet you have no argument whatsoever. On top of having no argument until
you produce examples of the types of suffering you're referring to, you also
have yet to appreciate when life is good for any animals other than grass raised
beef, and you can't decide whether you should be opposed to it or not. Also
grass raised dairy certainly seems like it should provide lives of positive
value not only for the cattle themselves, but also all the wildlife that
benefits from the environment. I believe it's safe to say that wildlife benefit
more from grass raised cattle farming than they do from soybean farming and rice
farming.

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon aka Bumbledork the Clown,
attempted to bullshit:

> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>
>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>
> What sort of suffering do you think it inflicts to the point that you feel
> the animals' lives are not worth living to the animals?

The animals lives have no moral meaning. If the animals never exist and
therefore never "get to experience life", that has no meaning.



>> Itis not justifiable to inflict so much suffering just so that we can
>> enjoy the taste of their flesh.
>
> As yet you have no argument whatsoever.

He has no less argument than you.

Le 2012-07-03 12:42, dh@. a écrit :
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>
>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.

I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.

On 7/3/2012 8:24 PM, Olrik wrote:
> Le 2012-07-03 12:42, dh@. a écrit :
>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>
>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>
> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.

That's good. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that if they do,
it justifies eating them. It doesn't. The justification has to come
from elsewhere.

Le 2012-07-03 23:54, George Plimpton a écrit :
> On 7/3/2012 8:24 PM, Olrik wrote:
>> Le 2012-07-03 12:42, dh@. a écrit :
>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>
>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>
>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>
> That's good. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that if they do,

They have no say in it.

> it justifies eating them. It doesn't. The justification has to come
> from elsewhere.

Like hungriness? Taste? Protein-intake?

On 7/3/2012 9:02 PM, Olrik wrote:
> Le 2012-07-03 23:54, George Plimpton a écrit :
>> On 7/3/2012 8:24 PM, Olrik wrote:
>>> Le 2012-07-03 12:42, dh@. a écrit :
>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>
>>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>
>> That's good. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that if they do,
>
> They have no say in it.

I didn't suggest they did.


>> it justifies eating them. It doesn't. The justification has to come
>> from elsewhere.
>
> Like hungriness? Taste? Protein-intake?

Possibly.

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik >:

>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:

>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:

>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.

>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.

>I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.

Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

On 7/4/2012 10:11 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik >:
>
>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>
>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>
>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>
>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>
> Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
> error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.

It's completely a _non sequitur_, but he's been doing it for years.

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 09:51:50 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 12:42:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 2, 9:31*am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>
>>>Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>
>> What sort of suffering do you think it inflicts to the point that you feel
>>the animals' lives are not worth living to the animals? Explain in detail which
>>livestock lives you feel are not worth living for the animals and why. Don't
>>just say "suffering" but explain what the suffering is from.
>>
>>>It
>>>is not justifiable to inflict so much suffering just so that we can
>>>enjoy the taste of their flesh.
>>
>> As yet you have no argument whatsoever. On top of having no argument until
>>you produce examples of the types of suffering you're referring to, you also
>>have yet to appreciate when life is good for any animals other than grass raised
>>beef, and you can't decide whether you should be opposed to it or not. Also
>>grass raised dairy certainly seems like it should provide lives of positive
>>value not only for the cattle themselves, but also all the wildlife that
>>benefits from the environment. I believe it's safe to say that wildlife benefit
>>more from grass raised cattle farming than they do from soybean farming and rice
>>farming.
>
>He has no less argument

He has produced no argument at all Goober. Not a single example to back up
his claim.

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:54:08 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On 7/3/2012 8:24 PM, Olrik wrote:
>> Le 2012-07-03 12:42, dh@. a écrit :
>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>
>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>
>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>
>That's good.

If it's "good" then why are you maniacally opposed to people having
appreciation for when millions of livestock animals experience decent lives of
positive value, Goo?

>Just don't make the mistake of thinking that if they do,
>it justifies eating them. It doesn't.

For one thing you don't know whether it "does" or not Goob, and for another
only an eliminationist has reason to oppose giving the lives of livestock as
much or more consideration than their deaths. Olrik doesn't appear to be an
eliminationist and also doesn't appear to be opposed to taking the animals'
lives into consideration.

>The justification has to come
>from elsewhere.

Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving on
beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's good
and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and
only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals
works against the elimination objective.

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, Olrik > wrote:

>Le 2012-07-03 12:42, dh@. a écrit :
>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>
>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>
>I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.

Pigs are sort of a sad case and unfortunately I don't believe many of them
have much positive value to their lives. They live on concrete and don't get to
root and search for food, which is a strong instinct in them. They do get to
satisfy that to some degree by nosing around in their feed though. Boredom is a
big factor for pigs because they are smart being omnivores, so they have
stronger urges to do something than grazing beasts who are content to just stand
around and eat, or lie down and chew cud. They also tend to be aggressive making
things hard on each other.

On a happier note as I've mentioned to these eliminationists in aaev, many
livestock animals do appear to live decent lives of positive value...pretty much
all of them except caged commercial laying hens and maybe most pigs, imo. Most
dairy cows seem to have good lives, though veal tend to get a bad time of it.
Most beef cattle seem to have decent lives, spending the first several months
nursing from and then grazing with their mothers. Later when they're sent to the
feel lots they get to eat a lot of grain, which is what cattle like to do most
of all. Broiler chickens seem to have decent lives in general, though short, and
their parents are kept in cage free houses and live for a couple of years. The
parents of commercial laying hens are also kept cage free because cages make for
poor breeding results, but unfortunately most commercial laying hens in the US
are kept in cages which are imo very much overly restrictive for any type
creature, as well as encouraging to a horrible type of violence and suffering. I
encourage you to buy cage free eggs, free range or not doesn't really matter,
but cage free of any sort works against the horrible cage method of commercial
egg production. I'm certainly not the only egg consumer opposed to it either.
Some places in Europe have made it illegal to use the cage method, and there's
no doubt in my mind it was done for good reason. I would like to see it ended in
the US voluntarily, but that could not happen unless enough consumers become
opposed to the cage method and pay the extra price for cage free. That's what I
do, and again I encourage you to buy them in oppositition to the cage method.
They're more expensive then cage eggs--sometimes twice as much--but to me it's
worth it to spend that little bit of extra money against those damn horrible
cages.

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik >:
>
>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>
>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>
>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>
>>I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>
>Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
>error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.

Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
of positive value to a being without actually being "good".

I believe most livestock animals do experience decent lives of positive
value, but that probably most caged commercial laying hens do not. Also I don't
know enough about how pigs are raised to have a real belief about them, but
suspect that a high percentage of them have lives which are overall of negative
value. Most cattle and possibly even most veal experience lives of positive
value imo.

Goo doesn't believe any animals benefit from living and it's all the same to
him regardless of the quality of their lives:

"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo

"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo

"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo

"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - Goo

"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
ever wrote." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

"Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo

""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo

"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

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo

"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - 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

"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

"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo

"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
breeding of livestock" - 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

"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it." - Goo

****wit David Harrison, convicted felon aka Bumbledork the Clown,
attempted to bullshit:


>>>
>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>
>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>
>>> What sort of suffering do you think it inflicts to the point that you feel
>>> the animals' lives are not worth living to the animals?
>>
>> The animals lives have no moral meaning. If the animals never exist and therefore never "get to experience life", that has no meaning.
>
> He has produced

You have produced no argument at all showing that the animals' lives
have meaning.

Bumbledork the idiot clown and cousin-****ing redneck lied:
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:54:08 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On 7/3/2012 8:24 PM, Olrik wrote:
>>> Le 2012-07-03 12:42, dh@. a écrit :
>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>
>>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>
>> That's good. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that if they do,
>> it justifies eating them. It doesn't.
>
> For one thing you don't know whether it "does" or not

It doesn't. That has been proved conclusively.


>> The justification has to comefrom elsewhere.
>
> Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
> have to kill humans and

Show it.

****wit David Harrison admitted he has no concern for animal welfa
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, Olrik > wrote:
>
>> Le 2012-07-03 12:42, dh@. a écrit :
>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>
>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>
>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>
> Pigs are sort of a sad case and unfortunately I don't believe many of them
> have much positive value to their lives. They live on concrete and don't get to
> root and search for food, which is a strong instinct in them.
>
> But I eat pork anyway, because I don't care about animal welfare at all.

On 7/5/2012 10:14 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik >:
>>
>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>
>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>
>>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>
>> Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
>> error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.
>
> Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
> negative value to the animals.

How do you know he doesn't believe they live terrible lives of positive
value? Or wonderful, pleasant lives of negative value?

You stupid ****ing redneck douchebag: a terrible life is, by
definition, a life of [gag] "negative value"; and a wonderful, pleasant
life is, by definition, a life of [retch] "positive value".

You're being redundant, you stupid ****:

"decent lives" *EQUALS* "positive value"
"terrible lives" *EQLAUS* "negative value"

You stupid, idiotic, plodding redneck ****.


>
> I believe most livestock animals do experience decent lives of positive
> value

1. You don't know
2. You don't care


>
> George Plimpton doesn't believe any animals benefit from living

They don't. No living entity "benefits" simply from existing.
Existence, or "getting to experience life" in your wretchedly shitty
phrase, is not a benefit. It cannot be one.


All of the below are true statements.


>
> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
> its quality of live" - George Plimpton
>
> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - George Plimpton
>
> "It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
> how pleasant the condition of their existence." - George Plimpton
>
> "It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
> the existence." - George Plimpton
>
> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
> ever wrote." - George Plimpton
>
> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - George Plimpton
>
> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - George Plimpton
>
> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
> to experience life" - George Plimpton
>
> "Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - George Plimpton
>
> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - George Plimpton
>
> "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." - George Plimpton
>
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
> their deaths" - George Plimpton
>
> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
> (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
> killing them." - George Plimpton
>
> "You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
> of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - George Plimpton
>
> "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." - George Plimpton
>
> "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" - George Plimpton
>
> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - George Plimpton
>
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
> of the animals erases all of it." - George Plimpton
>
> "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." - George Plimpton
>
> "one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
> ethically superior choice." - George Plimpton
>
> "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
> experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
> whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
> breeding of livestock" - George Plimpton
>
> "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." - George Plimpton
>
> "It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
> of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
> ZERO importance to it." - George Plimpton
>

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik >:
>>
>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>
>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>
>>>I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>
>>Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
>>error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.
>
> Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
>negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
>raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
>them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
>value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
>only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
>of positive value to a being without actually being "good".

Maybe the reason he "can't comprehend it" is the fact that
"positive value", "good", "negative value" and "bad" are all
subjective value judgements, and as such have no intrinsic
meaning, something he appears to know and you don't. You
still conflate the related but distinct concepts of
existence and treatment, and now you've apparently added the
unknown of how the animals "feel about" all this.

> I believe most livestock animals do experience decent lives of positive
>value, but that probably most caged commercial laying hens do not. Also I don't
>know enough about how pigs are raised to have a real belief about them, but
>suspect that a high percentage of them have lives which are overall of negative
>value. Most cattle and possibly even most veal experience lives of positive
>value imo.
>
> Goo doesn't believe any animals benefit from living and it's all the same to
>him regardless of the quality of their lives:
>
>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>its quality of live" - Goo
>
>"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
>
>"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
>how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo
>
>"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
>the existence." - Goo
>
>"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
>ever wrote." - Goo
>
>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>
>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>
>"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>to experience life" - Goo
>
>"Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo
>
>""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
>
>"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
>
>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>their deaths" - Goo
>
>"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>killing them." - Goo
>
>"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
>of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - 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
>
>"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
>
>"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>
>"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
>experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
>whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
>breeding of livestock" - 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
>
>"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
>of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
>ZERO importance to it." - Goo
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:08:25 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik >:
>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>
>>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>
>>>>I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>>
>>>Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
>>>error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.
>>
>> Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
>>negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
>>raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
>>them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
>>value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
>>only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
>>of positive value to a being without actually being "good".
>
>Maybe the reason he "can't comprehend it" is the fact that
>"positive value", "good", "negative value" and "bad" are all
>subjective value judgements, and as such have no intrinsic
>meaning, something he appears to know and you don't.

In contrast to that I TOLD him we all must decide for ourselves which lives
seem to be of positive value and which do not, but he still couldn't get it and
afaik he still can't. BTW it's easy for me to understand that a life of positive
value still can not be "good", but it can be average without being truly good or
bad. A life of negative value can't be average though, but instead has to be
bad. That's the way I interpret it anyway. Rupert can't interpret it at all much
less appreciate distinctions between different situations like that, and it's
likely that you can't comprehend what I'm referring to in any way at all.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:39:22 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik >:
>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>
>>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>
>>>>I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>>
>>>Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
>>>error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.
>>
>> Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
>>negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
>>raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
>>them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
>>value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
>>only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
>>of positive value to a being without actually being "good".
>
>How do you know he doesn't believe they live terrible lives of positive
>value? Or wonderful, pleasant lives of negative value?

He can't comprehend the concept of lives of either positive value or
negative value. You pretend that you can Goober, so do you think you can help
your brother Rupert to comprehend as well? No, you can't Goo. No one can because
his brain is unfit to handle the task.

>> I believe most livestock animals do experience decent lives of positive
>>value, but that probably most caged commercial laying hens do not. Also I don't
>>know enough about how pigs are raised to have a real belief about them, but
>>suspect that a high percentage of them have lives which are overall of negative
>>value. Most cattle and possibly even most veal experience lives of positive
>>value imo.
>>
>> Goo doesn't believe any animals benefit from living and it's all the same to
>>him regardless of the quality of their lives:
>>
>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>
>>"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
>>
>>"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
>>how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo
>>
>>"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
>>the existence." - Goo
>>
>>"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
>>ever wrote." - Goo
>>
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>>"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>to experience life" - Goo
>>
>>"Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo
>>
>>""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
>>
>>"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
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>killing them." - Goo
>>
>>"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
>>of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - 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
>>
>>"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
>>
>>"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>
>>"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
>>experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
>>whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
>>breeding of livestock" - 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
>>
>>"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
>>of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
>>ZERO importance to it." - Goo






>On 7/5/2012 10:14 AM, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik >:
>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>
>>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>
>>>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>>
>>> Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
>>> error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.
>>
>> Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
>> negative value to the animals.
>
>How do you know he doesn't believe they live terrible lives of positive
>value? Or wonderful, pleasant lives of negative value?
>
>You stupid ****ing redneck douchebag: a terrible life is, by
>definition, a life of [gag] "negative value"; and a wonderful, pleasant
>life is, by definition, a life of [retch] "positive value".
>
>You're being redundant, you stupid ****:
>
> "decent lives" *EQUALS* "positive value"
> "terrible lives" *EQLAUS* "negative value"
>
>You stupid, idiotic, plodding redneck ****.
>
>
>>
>> I believe most livestock animals do experience decent lives of positive
>> value
>
> 1. You don't know
> 2. You don't care
>
>
>>
>> George Plimpton doesn't believe any animals benefit from living
>
>They don't. No living entity "benefits" simply from existing.
>Existence, or "getting to experience life" in your wretchedly shitty
>phrase, is not a benefit. It cannot be one.
>
>
>All of the below are true statements.
>
>
>>
>> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>> its quality of live" - George Plimpton
>>
>> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - George Plimpton
>>
>> "It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
>> how pleasant the condition of their existence." - George Plimpton
>>
>> "It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
>> the existence." - George Plimpton
>>
>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
>> ever wrote." - George Plimpton
>>
>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - George Plimpton
>>
>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - George Plimpton
>>
>> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>> to experience life" - George Plimpton
>>
>> "Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - George Plimpton
>>
>> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - George Plimpton
>>
>> "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." - George Plimpton
>>
>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>> their deaths" - George Plimpton
>>
>> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>> (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>> killing them." - George Plimpton
>>
>> "You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
>> of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - George Plimpton
>>
>> "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." - George Plimpton
>>
>> "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" - George Plimpton
>>
>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - George Plimpton
>>
>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>> of the animals erases all of it." - George Plimpton
>>
>> "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." - George Plimpton
>>
>> "one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>> ethically superior choice." - George Plimpton
>>
>> "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
>> experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
>> whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
>> breeding of livestock" - George Plimpton
>>
>> "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." - George Plimpton
>>
>> "It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
>> of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
>> ZERO importance to it." - George Plimpton
>>
>

On 7/10/2012 1:02 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:08:25 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik >:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>>
>>>>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>>>
>>>> Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
>>>> error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.
>>>
>>> Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
>>> negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
>>> raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
>>> them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
>>> value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
>>> only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
>>> of positive value to a being without actually being "good".
>>
>> Maybe the reason he "can't comprehend it" is the fact that
>> "positive value", "good", "negative value" and "bad" are all
>> subjective value judgements, and as such have no intrinsic
>> meaning, something he appears to know and you don't.
>
> In contrast to that

No.

"Getting to experience life" is of no meaning or value to animals.

****wit David Harrison, cracker lighting tech at Mega Amusement, lied:

>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>>
>>>>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>>>
>>>> Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
>>>> error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.
>>>
>>> Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
>>> negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
>>> raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
>>> them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
>>> value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
>>> only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
>>> of positive value to a being without actually being "good".
>>
>> How do you know he doesn't believe they live terrible lives of positive
>> value? Or wonderful, pleasant lives of negative value?
>
> He can't comprehend the concept of lives of

Nothing you write is beyond his comprehension. You just write shit.


All true statements below, except for the unethically mangled ones.
>>>
>>> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>> its quality of live" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
>>> how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
>>> the existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
>>> ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>> to experience life" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>> (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>> killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
>>> of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>

The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

>>> "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" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

>>>
>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.


>>>
>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

>>>
>>> "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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

>>>
>>> "one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>> ethically superior choice." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
>>> experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
>>> whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
>>> breeding of livestock" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
>>> of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
>>> ZERO importance to it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On 7/5/2012 10:14 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik >:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>>
>>>>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>>>
>>>> Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
>>>> error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.
>>>
>>> Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
>>> negative value to the animals.
>>
>> How do you know he doesn't believe they live terrible lives of positive
>> value? Or wonderful, pleasant lives of negative value?
>>
>> You stupid ****ing redneck douchebag: a terrible life is, by
>> definition, a life of [gag] "negative value"; and a wonderful, pleasant
>> life is, by definition, a life of [retch] "positive value".
>>
>> You're being redundant, you stupid ****:
>>
>> "decent lives" *EQUALS* "positive value"
>> "terrible lives" *EQLAUS* "negative value"
>>
>> You stupid, idiotic, plodding redneck ****.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I believe most livestock animals do experience decent lives of positive
>>> value
>>
>> 1. You don't know
>> 2. You don't care
>>
>>
>>>
>>> George Plimpton doesn't believe any animals benefit from living
>>
>> They don't. No living entity "benefits" simply from existing.
>> Existence, or "getting to experience life" in your wretchedly shitty
>> phrase, is not a benefit. It cannot be one.
>>
>>
>> All of the below are true statements.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>> its quality of live" - George Plimpton
>>>
>>> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - George Plimpton
>>>
>>> "It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
>>> how pleasant the condition of their existence." - George Plimpton
>>>
>>> "It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
>>> the existence." - George Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
>>> ever wrote." - George Plimpton
>>>
>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - George Plimpton
>>>
>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - George Plimpton
>>>
>>> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>> to experience life" - George Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - George Plimpton
>>>
>>> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - George Plimpton
>>>
>>> "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." - George Plimpton
>>>
>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>> their deaths" - George Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>> (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>> killing them." - George Plimpton
>>>
>>> "You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
>>> of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - George Plimpton
>>>
>>> "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." - George Plimpton
>>>
>>> "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" - George Plimpton
>>>
>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - George Plimpton
>>>
>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>> of the animals erases all of it." - George Plimpton
>>>
>>> "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." - George Plimpton
>>>
>>> "one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>> ethically superior choice." - George Plimpton
>>>
>>> "The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
>>> experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
>>> whatever, and certainly cannot be used to justify the
>>> breeding of livestock" - George Plimpton
>>>
>>> "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." - George Plimpton
>>>
>>> "It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
>>> of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
>>> ZERO importance to it." - George Plimpton
>>>
>>

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 10:33:16 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:13:55 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:54:08 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On 7/3/2012 8:24 PM, Olrik wrote:
>>>> Le 2012-07-03 12:42, dh@. a écrit :
>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert
>>>>> >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>>
>>>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>>
>>>That's good.
>>
>> If it's "good" then why are you maniacally opposed to people having
>>appreciation for when millions of livestock animals experience decent lives of
>>positive value, Goo?
>>
>>>Just don't make the mistake of thinking that if they do,
>>>it justifies eating them. It doesn't.
>>
>> For one thing you don't know whether it "does" or not Goob, and for another
>>only an eliminationist has reason to oppose giving the lives of livestock as
>>much or more consideration than their deaths. Olrik doesn't appear to be an
>>eliminationist and also doesn't appear to be opposed to taking the animals'
>>lives into consideration.
>>
>>>The justification has to come
>>>from elsewhere.
>>
>> Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
>>have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving on
>>beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's good
>>and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and
>>only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals
>>works against the elimination objective.
>
>Show it.

"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

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo

"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
you ever wrote." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo

****wit David Harrison, cracker lighting tech at Mega Amusement, lied:


>>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>>>
>>>> That's good.
>>>
>>> If it's "good" then why are you maniacally opposed to people having
>>> appreciation for when millions of livestock animals experience decent lives of
>>> positive value, Goo?
>>>
>>>> Just don't make the mistake of thinking that if they do,
>>>> it justifies eating them. It doesn't.
>>>
>>> For one thing you don't know whether it "does" or not Goob, and for another
>>> only an eliminationist has reason to oppose giving the lives of livestock as
>>> much or more consideration than their deaths. Olrik doesn't appear to be an
>>> eliminationist and also doesn't appear to be opposed to taking the animals'
>>> lives into consideration.
>>>
>>>> The justification has to come
>>> >from elsewhere.
>>>
>>> Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
>>> have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving on
>>> beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's good
>>> and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and
>>> only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals
>>> works against the elimination objective.
>>
>> Show it.
>
>

You didn't show it.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:02:40 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:08:25 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>>On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik >:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>>
>>>>>I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>>>
>>>>Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
>>>>error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.
>>>
>>> Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
>>>negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
>>>raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
>>>them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
>>>value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
>>>only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
>>>of positive value to a being without actually being "good".
>>
>>Maybe the reason he "can't comprehend it" is the fact that
>>"positive value", "good", "negative value" and "bad" are all
>>subjective value judgements, and as such have no intrinsic
>>meaning, something he appears to know and you don't.
>
> In contrast to that I TOLD him we all must decide for ourselves which lives
>seem to be of positive value and which do not, but he still couldn't get it and
>afaik he still can't. BTW it's easy for me to understand that a life of positive
>value still can not be "good", but it can be average without being truly good or
>bad. A life of negative value can't be average though, but instead has to be
>bad. That's the way I interpret it anyway. Rupert can't interpret it at all much
>less appreciate distinctions between different situations like that, and it's
>likely that you can't comprehend what I'm referring to in any way at all.

You're right; my comprehension of illogic and irrationality
is sorely lacking. And you're still conflating distinct
ideas.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:39:24 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:05:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:39:22 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, dh@. pointed out:
>>>
>>>> Goo doesn't believe any animals benefit from living and it's all the same to
>>>>him regardless of the quality of their lives:
>>>>
>>>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>>>at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
>>>>how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
>>>>the existence." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
>>>>ever wrote." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>>>to experience life" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"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
>>>>
>>>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>their deaths" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>>>(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>>>killing them." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
>>>>of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - 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 statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

>>>>"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 statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>
>The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

>>>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>
>The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

>>>>"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 statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.

>>>>"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>>>ethically superior choice." - Goo

>dh quoted Goo:
>>On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:30:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:13:55 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
>>>>have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving on
>>>>beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's good
>>>>and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and
>>>>only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals
>>>>works against the elimination objective.
>>>
>>>Show it.
>>
>>"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
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>killing them." - Goo
>>
>>"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
>>you ever wrote." - Goo
>>
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>>"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>to experience life" - Goo
>>
>>"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>
>You didn't show it.

I showed that you only want to consider bad things because and only because
considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals works against the
elimination objective, Goo.

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:19:56 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:02:40 -0400, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:08:25 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik >:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>>>
>>>>>>I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>>>>
>>>>>Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
>>>>>error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.
>>>>
>>>> Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
>>>>negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
>>>>raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
>>>>them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
>>>>value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
>>>>only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
>>>>of positive value to a being without actually being "good".
>>>
>>>Maybe the reason he "can't comprehend it" is the fact that
>>>"positive value", "good", "negative value" and "bad" are all
>>>subjective value judgements, and as such have no intrinsic
>>>meaning, something he appears to know and you don't.
>>
>> In contrast to that I TOLD him we all must decide for ourselves which lives
>>seem to be of positive value and which do not, but he still couldn't get it and
>>afaik he still can't. BTW it's easy for me to understand that a life of positive
>>value still can not be "good", but it can be average without being truly good or
>>bad. A life of negative value can't be average though, but instead has to be
>>bad. That's the way I interpret it anyway. Rupert can't interpret it at all much
>>less appreciate distinctions between different situations like that, and it's
>>likely that you can't comprehend what I'm referring to in any way at all.
>
>You're right

The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
positive value to them even though they don't feel that their particular life is
actually "good". The same sorts of conditions apply to some other types of
animals besides humans, though you and Rupert can't appreciate the fact even in
regards to humans much less to other types of animals as well.

dh@. wrote:

> I showed that you only want to consider bad things because and only because
> considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals works against the
> elimination objective, Goo.

Aside from battery hens, *you* only want to consider the good. You're
just as nonobjective as ARAs, in fact you're worse.

dh@. wrote:

> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
> truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
> positive value to them

Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.

On 7/12/2012 12:05 PM, ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon, lied:


The statements below are all true, except for the obvious forgeries.

>>>>> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>>>> its quality of live" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>>>> at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
>>>>> how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
>>>>> the existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
>>>>> ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>>>> to experience life" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>>>> (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>>>> killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
>>>>> of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>>>
>>>>> "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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>
>> The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.
>
> If you want people to

It's a forgery - not a quote.


>>>>> "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" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>
>> The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.
>
> If you want people

It's a forgery - not a quote.

>>>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>
>> The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.
>
> If you want people to think

It's a forgery - not a quote.

>>>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>
>> The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.
>
> If you want people to think

It's a forgery - not a quote.

>>>>> "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." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>
>> The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.
>
> If you want people

It's a forgery - not a quote.

>>>>> "one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>>>> ethically superior choice." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

****wit David Harrison shit in his panties:

>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
>>>>> have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving on
>>>>> beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's good
>>>>> and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and
>>>>> only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals
>>>>> works against the elimination objective.
>>>>
>>>> Show it.
>>>
>>> "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" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

It's a forgery - not a quote.

>>> "it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>> its quality of live" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

It's a forgery - not a quote.


>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>> (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>> killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
>>> you ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>> to experience life" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>

The one below is not a quote.

>>> "one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>> ethically superior choice." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>
>> You didn't show it.
>
> I showed that

You only showed that you're an incompetent liar.

On 7/12/2012 12:06 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:19:56 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:02:40 -0400, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>> On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:08:25 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik >:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
>>>>>> error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
>>>>> negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
>>>>> raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
>>>>> them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
>>>>> value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
>>>>> only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
>>>>> of positive value to a being without actually being "good".
>>>>
>>>> Maybe the reason he "can't comprehend it" is the fact that
>>>> "positive value", "good", "negative value" and "bad" are all
>>>> subjective value judgements, and as such have no intrinsic
>>>> meaning, something he appears to know and you don't.
>>>
>>> In contrast to that I TOLD him we all must decide for ourselves which lives
>>> seem to be of positive value and which do not, but he still couldn't get it and
>>> afaik he still can't. BTW it's easy for me to understand that a life of positive
>>> value still can not be "good", but it can be average without being truly good or
>>> bad. A life of negative value can't be average though, but instead has to be
>>> bad. That's the way I interpret it anyway. Rupert can't interpret it at all much
>>> less appreciate distinctions between different situations like that, and it's
>>> likely that you can't comprehend what I'm referring to in any way at all.
>>
>> You're right; my comprehension of illogic and irrationality
>> is sorely lacking. And you're still conflating distinct
>> ideas.
>
> The fact

Not a fact.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
Dutch > wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
>
>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
>> considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
>> that life still has positive value to them

It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated by
negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).

> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
> exist.

That's a logical point.

> You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid
of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against
the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."
-- Martin Luther (1533)

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:06:22 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:

>On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:19:56 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:02:40 -0400, the following appeared
>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>
>>>On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:08:25 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik >:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
>>>>>>error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
>>>>>negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
>>>>>raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
>>>>>them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
>>>>>value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
>>>>>only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
>>>>>of positive value to a being without actually being "good".
>>>>
>>>>Maybe the reason he "can't comprehend it" is the fact that
>>>>"positive value", "good", "negative value" and "bad" are all
>>>>subjective value judgements, and as such have no intrinsic
>>>>meaning, something he appears to know and you don't.
>>>
>>> In contrast to that I TOLD him we all must decide for ourselves which lives
>>>seem to be of positive value and which do not, but he still couldn't get it and
>>>afaik he still can't. BTW it's easy for me to understand that a life of positive
>>>value still can not be "good", but it can be average without being truly good or
>>>bad. A life of negative value can't be average though, but instead has to be
>>>bad. That's the way I interpret it anyway. Rupert can't interpret it at all much
>>>less appreciate distinctions between different situations like that, and it's
>>>likely that you can't comprehend what I'm referring to in any way at all.

>>You're right; my comprehension of illogic and irrationality
>>is sorely lacking. And you're still conflating distinct
>>ideas.

> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
>truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
>positive value to them even though they don't feel that their particular life is
>actually "good". The same sorts of conditions apply to some other types of
>animals besides humans, though you and Rupert can't appreciate the fact even in
>regards to humans much less to other types of animals as well.

Still can't quite grasp it, and have no recourse but to post
irrelevancies, huh? OK; HANL.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
>> truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
>> positive value to them
>
>Those people already exist,

So do animals in similar positions.

>life only has value to a being once they
>exist. You need to read Salt's essay again, not that you will understand it.

I understand that commercially raised pigs are no longer filthily housed and
fed, and also that Salt didn't have any idea whether life is of positive value
to most modern commercially raised pigs or not. I'd also say it's safe to
believe that he wouldn't feel any livestock animals' lives were worth living the
same as you and the Goober and all other misnomer addicts, meaning that none of
you could make a realistic distinction between which lives seem to be negative
and which seem to be positive.

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:43:26 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist
goddess" > wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:32:27 -0700
>Dutch > wrote:
>> dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be
>>> considered a truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us
>>> that life still has positive value to them
>
>It doesn't have to be a "positive" value. People can be motivated by
>negative values too ("revenge" could be an example).

It's still positive in respect that they want to continue living.

>> Those people already exist, life only has value to a being once they
>> exist.
>
>That's a logical point.

It's a useless thing for anyone to ever make a point of except for the fact
that I made a mistake in terminology about a decade ago and some people referred
to as the goos still dishonestly insist that I believe unconceived potential
future "beings" can somehow "suffer a loss" if "they" never experience life.
It's a lie, though I do consider the possibility that there could be multiple
lives somehow. I don't have a true belief, but do NOT believe unconceived
potential beings experience any sort of loss for not being born as livestock.
That doesn't mean I can't appreciate it when they are and experience decent
lives of positive value TO THEM. Eliminationists can't afford to consider that
aspect of human influence on animals, but anyone who favors decent AW over
elimination certainly should both consider and appreciate it. Appreciation for
that aspect is something eliminationists are opposed to, as you can see by the
goos' behavior. There are three goos, which include Goo himself, his boy "Dutch"
and his boy "Derek". In this thread we only have Goo and "Dutch", both of whom
are maniacally opposed to taking decent lives of livestock into consideration.
"Dutch" claims to have tried it once, and it made him feel "dirty". It made him
feel dirty to have appreciation for lives of positive value for the animals he
claims to consume. That's one of the ways he reveals that he does NOT favor AW
over elimination.

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 10:55:40 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:06:22 -0400, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:19:56 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:02:40 -0400, the following appeared
>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:08:25 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by dh@.:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 10:11:01 -0700, Bob Casanova > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:24:20 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>>>>in sci.skeptic, posted by Olrik >:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 12:50:12 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:31 am, Delvin Benet ýt> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently unethical about eating meat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Modern meat production inflicts considerable suffering on animals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I want pigs to lead a stupendously happy life until they become bacon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Same here. And apparently Rupert is locked into the same
>>>>>>>error as David, since his reply is a non sequitur.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rupert believes that almost all livestock live terrible lives which are of
>>>>>>negative value to the animals. Sometimes he seems to believe that some grass
>>>>>>raised cattle might possibly experience lives which are of positive value to
>>>>>>them, but other times he appears to believe no livestock live lives of positive
>>>>>>value. BTW he can't comprehend the meaning of lives of positive value and can
>>>>>>only think of it as "good", even though I've explained to him that life can be
>>>>>>of positive value to a being without actually being "good".
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe the reason he "can't comprehend it" is the fact that
>>>>>"positive value", "good", "negative value" and "bad" are all
>>>>>subjective value judgements, and as such have no intrinsic
>>>>>meaning, something he appears to know and you don't.
>>>>
>>>> In contrast to that I TOLD him we all must decide for ourselves which lives
>>>>seem to be of positive value and which do not, but he still couldn't get it and
>>>>afaik he still can't. BTW it's easy for me to understand that a life of positive
>>>>value still can not be "good", but it can be average without being truly good or
>>>>bad. A life of negative value can't be average though, but instead has to be
>>>>bad. That's the way I interpret it anyway. Rupert can't interpret it at all much
>>>>less appreciate distinctions between different situations like that, and it's
>>>>likely that you can't comprehend what I'm referring to in any way at all.
>
>>>You're right; my comprehension of illogic and irrationality
>>>is sorely lacking. And you're still conflating distinct
>>>ideas.
>
>> The fact that people who don't feel they have what could be considered a
>>truly "good" life don't all kill themselves tells us that life still has
>>positive value to them even though they don't feel that their particular life is
>>actually "good". The same sorts of conditions apply to some other types of
>>animals besides humans, though you and Rupert can't appreciate the fact even in
>>regards to humans much less to other types of animals as well.
>
>Still can't quite grasp it, and have no recourse but to post
>irrelevancies, huh?

That is the position Rupert and you are in apparently.

>OK; HANL.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:30:08 -0700, Dutch lied:

>dh@. wrote:
>
>> I showed that you only want to consider bad things because and only because
>> considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals works against the
>> elimination objective, Goo.
>
>Aside from battery hens, *you* only want to consider the good. You're
>just as nonobjective as ARAs, in fact you're worse.

There's no way that's true, so you're lying blatantly again. Not only are
you lying blatantly, but you also have no idea which other lives I might believe
are most often of negative value, if any.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:55:22 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:05:44 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>>dh quoted Goo:
>>>>On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 00:30:32 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:13:55 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Humans have as much justification to kill other animals as other animals
>>>>>>have to kill humans and other animals Goo. Some people are capable of moving on
>>>>>>beyond that point and actually consider the animals themselves and what's good
>>>>>>and bad for them. Others of you only want to consider bad things because and
>>>>>>only because considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals
>>>>>>works against the elimination objective.
>>>>>
>>>>>Show it.
>>>>
>>>>"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
>>>>
>>>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>their deaths" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>>>(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>>>killing them." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
>>>>you ever wrote." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>>>to experience life" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
>>>>ethically superior choice." - Goo
>>>
>>>You didn't show it.
>>
>> I showed that you only want to consider bad things because and only because
>>considering positive aspects for millions of livestock animals works against the
>>elimination objective, Goo.
>
>You

Goober as always if you want people to think you think you disagree with
yourself about any of your quotes then YOU need to try explaining HOW you want
people to think you think you do. But you can't even make an attempt Goob
because you agree with yourself about every bit of it. You agree with yourself
about every one of the quotes I presented, Goo.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:53:54 -0700, Goo wussiley puled:

>On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 15:05:20 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:39:24 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:05:06 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:39:22 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:14:14 -0400, dh@. pointed out:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Goo doesn't believe any animals benefit from living and it's all the same to
>>>>>>him regardless of the quality of their lives:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
>>>>>>its quality of live" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"It is not "better" in any moral way, and not in *any* way
>>>>>>at all to the animal itself, that the animal exists." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
>>>>>>how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
>>>>>>the existence." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you
>>>>>>ever wrote." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>>>>>to experience life" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>>>>their deaths" - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>>>>>(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>>>>>killing them." - Goo
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"You consider that it "got to experience life" to be some kind
>>>>>>of mitigation of the evil of killing it." - 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 statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.
>>
>> If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
>>Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
>>be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
>>about all of it.
>>
>>>>>>"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 statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.
>>
>> If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
>>Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
>>be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
>>about all of it.
>>
>>>>>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>>>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>>
>>>The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.
>>
>> If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
>>Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
>>be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
>>about all of it.
>>
>>>>>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>>>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>>
>>>The statement below is mangled from the original, and so is not a quote.
>>
>> If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about the quote below
>>Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
>>be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
>>about all of it.
>
>It's a forgery - not a quote.

If you want people to think you disagree with yourself about your own quotes
Goo then YOU need to try to explain how you think you do. Otherwise Goober we'll
be left with nothing else to believe other than that you do agree with yourself
about all of it.