What If We Don't Raise Cattle To Eat Them?

[d***@.]

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is. What dishonesty could have led you to think
there's something controversial about the fact, can you say?

And, they seem to live to eat - I
think that's what they enjoy.

It's the main thing in their lives.

Since we want them to grow rapidly, they get
to eat a lot - perhaps that makes them happy.

Of course it makes them as happy as cattle can be.

Of course they are killed
early, but if we didn't raise them, they wouldn't get to live at all.

· Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·

I don't really feel this way,

Do you think you feel that cattle would become part of our
society, and maybe even get jobs, if humans stopped raising them?

but it is an interesting viewpoint, don't you think?
- Jeff

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

[Jared]

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

    That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something.

It means nothing ethically. There is no moral or ethical loss
experienced by never-conceived cattle (or any other never-conceived
livestock) if humans stop breeding them into existence.

[Jared]

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

    That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something.

It means nothing ethically.  There is no moral or ethical loss
experienced by never-conceived cattle (or any other never-conceived
livestock) if humans stop breeding them into existence.

The same argument implies there is no moral or ethical gain either.

[Dutch]

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something.

It means nothing ethically. There is no moral or ethical loss
experienced by never-conceived cattle (or any other never-conceived
livestock) if humans stop breeding them into existence.

The same argument implies there is no moral or ethical gain either.
----->

Right, there is no moral/ethical component to it.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by Jared

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to

eat >>>> them,

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.

they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something.

It means nothing ethically. There is no moral or ethical loss
experienced by never-conceived cattle (or any other never-conceived
livestock) if humans stop breeding them into existence.

The same argument implies there is no moral or ethical gain either.
----->
Right, there is no moral/ethical component to it.

And no welfare component, either: animals are not "better off" as a
result of coming into existence.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something.

It means nothing ethically. There is no moral or ethical loss
experienced by never-conceived cattle (or any other never-conceived
livestock) if humans stop breeding them into existence.

The same argument implies there is no moral or ethical gain either.

Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not "better"
for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals don't "get"
anything out of coming into existence.

[Day Brown]

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not "better"
for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals don't "get"
anything out of coming into existence.

Neither do children. But, if we were to design an environment that best
matched the inherited behavior patterns of Native European children, it
would be an agrarian village (which my ancestors evolved in over the
course of the last 10,000 years. I myself was born on a farm.)

The bone middens dont show us any vegetarians in the white gene pool. I
have not studied other gene pools enuf to say they dont have any. Also,
we know that browsing stock absorbs trace minerals from the pastures and
wild brush, and that these trace minerals in the diet are used by some
of the 150+ neurotransmitters identified so far in the laying down of
new neural pathways during childhood mental development.

Its perhaps indicative that the above paragraph is too complex for many
of those raised on sugar cereals, junkfood, and soda... to handle.

It must be admitted however, that the modern diet has ten times the
amount of meat in it. Were the appropriate amount of meat eaten, then
the deforestation now going on to create cattle pasture would not pay.

The wiser approach is the Athenian Deme, in which urbanites had an
investment in rural land, a kind of coop, which provided vegetables and
meat, while they in return went out to the land to help with the work.
Which provided the necessary exercise to promote maximum mental
functionality. At the same time, they had enuf control over the way
stock and crops were produced, and could therefore limit agribusiness
chemical contamination. Which also damages childhood mental development.

[3877]

Post by Day Brown

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not
"better" for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals
don't "get" anything out of coming into existence.

Neither do children. But, if we were to design an environment that
best matched the inherited behavior patterns of Native European
children, it would be an agrarian village (which my ancestors evolved
in over the course of the last 10,000 years.

And then the world moved on from those to a much more viable
environment that ended up producing the industrial revolution
that completely revolutionized the way we live.

I myself was born on a

Post by Day Brown
farm.)

And kids born today do not get polio in the first world anymore,
because the first world moved away from villages and worked out
how to apply rigorous science to vaccination and vaccine production.

Post by Day Brown
The bone middens dont show us any vegetarians in the white gene pool.

Because vegetarian waste does not end up in bone middens, stupid.

Post by Day Brown
I have not studied other gene pools enuf to say they dont have any.

You have not even 'studied' the white gene pool well enough
to say a damned thing about what most of them ate.

Post by Day Brown
Also, we know that browsing stock absorbs trace minerals from the
pastures and wild brush, and that these trace minerals in the diet
are used by some of the 150+ neurotransmitters identified so far in
the laying down of new neural pathways during childhood mental
development.

We also know that vegetarians end up with those in their diet too.

Post by Day Brown
Its perhaps indicative that the above paragraph is too complex for
many of those raised on sugar cereals, junkfood, and soda... to handle.

Or you are just another loon that has not got a clue about rigorous science.

Post by Day Brown
It must be admitted however, that the modern diet has ten times the
amount of meat in it. Were the appropriate amount of meat eaten, then
the deforestation now going on to create cattle pasture would not pay.

There is fuck all of that anymore in the modern first world.

Post by Day Brown
The wiser approach is the Athenian Deme, in which urbanites had an
investment in rural land, a kind of coop, which provided vegetables
and meat, while they in return went out to the land to help with the work.

And then the world moved on just a tad when we worked out
how to industrialise agriculture and completely eliminated any
possibility of having to watch your kids die in drought etc.

Post by Day Brown
Which provided the necessary exercise to promote maximum mental functionality.

You are always free to do that sort of thing yourself.

Corse in your case there isn't anything viable between your ears to work with.

Post by Day Brown
At the same time, they had enuf control over the way stock and crops were produced, and could therefore limit
agribusiness
chemical contamination. Which also damages childhood mental
development.

Easy to claim that last. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by Day Brown

Correct.  It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
gain at all - to the animals to come into existence.  It is not "better"
for the animals to exist than not to exist.  The animals don't "get"
anything out of coming into existence.

Neither do children.

Nothing does.

[d***@.]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:22:45 -0800 (PST), ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by Day Brown

Correct.  It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
gain at all - to the animals to come into existence.  It is not "better"
for the animals to exist than not to exist.  The animals don't "get"
anything out of coming into existence.

Neither do children.

Nothing does.

So what if nothing does Goo? You still haven't explained how
you think it prevents millions of livestock animals from
benefitting from their existence, nor have you explained how you
think it prevents you from benefitting from your own. How Goober?
HOW???

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by d***@.
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:22:45 -0800 (PST), ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by Day Brown

Correct.  It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
gain at all - to the animals to come into existence.  It is not "better"
for the animals to exist than not to exist.  The animals don't "get"
anything out of coming into existence.

Neither do children.

Nothing does.

    So what if nothing does

Then there's nothing to consider.

[Poetic Justice]

Post by d***@.
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:22:45 -0800 (PST), ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not "better"
for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals don't "get"
anything out of coming into existence.

Existence is just a short interlude in eternity.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by Poetic Justice

Post by d***@.
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:22:45 -0800 (PST), ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not "better"
for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals don't "get"
anything out of coming into existence.

Existence is just a short interlude in eternity.

That was a trite comment.

[d***@.]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:11:38 -0500, Poetic Justice

Post by Poetic Justice

Post by d***@.
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:22:45 -0800 (PST), ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not "better"
for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals don't "get"
anything out of coming into existence.

Existence is just a short interlude in eternity.

I have pointed out to them that afawk death is the same as
before the animals existed, so the only thing that IS significant
is their lives. But these people can't acknowledge much less
appreciate things like that that work against the elimination
objective. If it works against promoting acceptance of
elimination, these people don't want to hear it, are opposed to
it, and will often/usually either deny it or deny that there's
any significance to it.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by d***@.
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:11:38 -0500, Poetic Justice

Post by Poetic Justice

Post by d***@.
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:22:45 -0800 (PST), ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not "better"
for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals don't "get"
anything out of coming into existence.

Existence is just a short interlude in eternity.

I have pointed out to them that afawk death is the same as
before the animals existed,

No, you haven't "pointed that out", because it isn't true. You know
nothing about what comes after death, nor about what comes before life.

The fact is, "getting to experience life" is not a benefit in any way.

[Dutch]

Post by d***@.

Post by Poetic Justice
Existence is just a short interlude in eternity.

I have pointed out to them that afawk death is the same as
before the animals existed

So if you kill somebody and are charged with murder you can just argue that
its as if the victim never existed.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by Dutch

Post by d***@.

Post by Poetic Justice
Existence is just a short interlude in eternity.

I have pointed out to them that afawk death is the same as
before the animals existed

So if you kill somebody and are charged with murder you can just argue
that its as if the victim never existed.

What is it he always used to say? "That's a completely different
subject."

I've never encountered anyone who was so intent on preserving and
cultivating his ignorance as Harrison.

[d***@.]

Post by Dutch

Post by d***@.

Post by Poetic Justice
Existence is just a short interlude in eternity.

I have pointed out to them that afawk death is the same as
before the animals existed

So if you kill somebody and are charged with murder you can just argue that
its as if the victim never existed.

The only difference from our pov, and maybe or maybe not the
victim's, is his LIFE which I suggest we take into consideration
and you say we should not. His life is what was taken, and even
though you don't think it should be given any consideration at
all, it's the taking of his life that is illegal. You poor idiot.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by d***@.

Post by Dutch

Post by d***@.

Post by Poetic Justice
Existence is just a short interlude in eternity.

I have pointed out to them that afawk death is the same as
before the animals existed

So if you kill somebody and are charged with murder you can just argue that
its as if the victim never existed.

The only difference from our pov, and maybe or maybe not the
victim's, is his LIFE which I suggest we take into consideration

There is no reason to place any moral value on his "getting to
experience life" in the first place. *Once* he exists, then there is a
reason to place a value on his continued existence.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

If the breeding and husbandry of livestock animals were suddenly to
stop, why would anyone care that no more livestock animals would "get to
experience life"? Why /should/ anyone care?

[d***@.]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 14:06:05 -0600, Day Brown

Post by Day Brown

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
Correct. It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
gain at all - to the animals to come into existence. It is not "better"
for the animals to exist than not to exist. The animals don't "get"
anything out of coming into existence.

Neither do children. But, if we were to design an environment that best
matched the inherited behavior patterns of Native European children, it
would be an agrarian village (which my ancestors evolved in over the
course of the last 10,000 years. I myself was born on a farm.)

Have you been around farming enough to have learned to
appreciate the animals' lives as well as their deaths? Or do you
agree with the misnomer addicts who say that their deaths should
always be considered but their lives should not be? If so, what
is a good reason for that? So far the only "reasons" I've been
given have been either outright lies, or something so meaningless
that it can't even be considered a reason at all. I find that
sort of thing to be not only typical of misnomer advocates, but
more like consistent with them. LOL...the idea that something
about our actual conception could prevent all beings from
benefitting from their own lives is undoubtedly idiotic on the
surface, and there is nothing else to it. These people can't even
attempt to explain what they think could be significant about our
conception, yet they go on about it as if there is some hidden
significance that we should just accept for some strange reason.

Post by Day Brown
The bone middens dont show us any vegetarians in the white gene pool.

I've pointed out to these people that they and everyone they
know would not exist if humans had not begun to eat meat, but
they don't care about that any more than the lives of the animals
we're discussing.

Post by Day Brown
I
have not studied other gene pools enuf to say they dont have any. Also,
we know that browsing stock absorbs trace minerals from the pastures and
wild brush, and that these trace minerals in the diet are used by some
of the 150+ neurotransmitters identified so far in the laying down of
new neural pathways during childhood mental development.

It makes sense that as kids they were repulsed by the idea of
eating meat--as they still are today--and for that reason they
didn't get proper nurishment to develop a proper brain. The
problem keeps feeding itself as they get older, and they feed and
support each other... It is litterally like a sort of mutant
society, with the mutation caused by nutritional deficiency which
was caused by the original brain quirk of having a mental problem
with eating meat.

Post by Day Brown
Its perhaps indicative that the above paragraph is too complex for many
of those raised on sugar cereals, junkfood, and soda... to handle.

Yes, and it goes on to leading to extremes that are now and
always will have a negative influence on our societies in
general, as well as negative influence on the lives of humans and
other animals who in the future will endure more suffering than
they would have had to if not for the deliberate interference of
misnomer terrorists on medical research.

Post by Day Brown
It must be admitted however, that the modern diet has ten times the
amount of meat in it. Were the appropriate amount of meat eaten, then
the deforestation now going on to create cattle pasture would not pay.

Misnomer addicts want to create the impression that
deforestation is done to raise cattle, but the things I read
about it from other sources have indicated that the forests are
cleared to raise crops like soy or corn to begin with, and those
crops quickly deplete the quality of the soil to the point that
such crops and forest plants will no longer grow. After it gets
depleted to that extent by raising crops, THEN it is planted with
grasses in the hopes that enough grass can grow to support some
cattle. The people with the most money invested are the crop
growers who cut down the forests and reap good harvests for a
couple of seasons, then they move on to cut down their next area
of forest, selling the old depleted property to livestock
farmers.

Post by Day Brown
The wiser approach is the Athenian Deme, in which urbanites had an
investment in rural land, a kind of coop, which provided vegetables and
meat, while they in return went out to the land to help with the work.
Which provided the necessary exercise to promote maximum mental
functionality. At the same time, they had enuf control over the way
stock and crops were produced, and could therefore limit agribusiness
chemical contamination. Which also damages childhood mental development.

The people devoted their entire lives to surviving and
growing food. You can still go places and do that, ONLY because
so few people want to devote their entire lives to trying to
producing their own food and trying to survive. But with the
advantages we have today if you wanted to you could find a place
where someone would rent you enough land that you could go make a
nice garden. If you want to go devote hundreds or thousands of
hours to working in the dirt, pulling weeds, and tending to
plants then you could find a place, and probably an acre would
give you as much time with it as you care to have. Your kids
would probably get sick of it their first time out there. I
always hated it, but liked working with the animals. Then again
there are people who like tending to plants I guess, so maybe
your kids would be into it after all...for a while.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by d***@.
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 14:06:05 -0600, Day Brown

Post by Day Brown

Correct.  It is neither a moral nor a welfare gain - not any kind of
gain at all - to the animals to come into existence.  It is not "better"
for the animals to exist than not to exist.  The animals don't "get"
anything out of coming into existence.

Neither do children. But, if we were to design an environment that best
matched the inherited behavior patterns of Native European children, it
would be an agrarian village (which my ancestors evolved in over the
course of the last 10,000 years. I myself was born on a farm.)

    Have you been around farming enough

You haven't.

[Dutch]

Post by d***@.
Have you been around farming enough to have learned to
appreciate the animals' lives as well as their deaths?

That is a false construct. The animals "lives" do not warrant moral
consideration, they are other living creatures, period. "Their deaths" don't
warrant moral consideration either, living creatures die.

What is under scrutiny is *how we treat* living creatures in our care, do we
meet their needs adequately? If we kill or harm them do we have a valid
reason, and do we do it with compassion?

"Appreciate their lives and their deaths.." is just so much vague,
meaningless and frankly dishonest verbiage.

Make this the year you finally get this through your thick skull.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by Dutch

Post by d***@.
Have you been around farming enough to have learned to
appreciate the animals' lives as well as their deaths?

That is a false construct.

It's complete hogwash.

Post by Dutch
The animals "lives" do not warrant moral
consideration,

Their treatment during their lives is what warrants moral consideration,
as you note below.

Post by Dutch
they are other living creatures, period. "Their deaths"
don't warrant moral consideration either, living creatures die.
What is under scrutiny is *how we treat* living creatures in our care,
do we meet their needs adequately? If we kill or harm them do we have a
valid reason, and do we do it with compassion?
"Appreciate their lives and their deaths.." is just so much vague,
meaningless and frankly dishonest verbiage.

It is utterly and deliberately dishonest. It's a lame attempt at trying
to create yet another false moral issue.

Post by Dutch
Make this the year you finally get this through your thick skull.

[d***@.]

Post by Dutch

Post by d***@.
Have you been around farming enough to have learned to
appreciate the animals' lives as well as their deaths?

That is a false construct. The animals "lives" do not warrant moral
consideration,

They do when you're willing to consider them.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by d***@.

Post by Dutch

Post by d***@.
Have you been around farming enough to have learned to
appreciate the animals' lives as well as their deaths?

That is a false construct. The animals "lives" do not warrant moral
consideration,

They do when you're willing to consider them.

Nope.

[Dutch]

Post by d***@.

Post by Dutch

Post by d***@.
Have you been around farming enough to have learned to
appreciate the animals' lives as well as their deaths?

That is a false construct. The animals "lives" do not warrant moral
consideration,

They do when you're willing to consider them.

Nope, not an issue.

[d***@.]

On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:24:25 -0800 (PST), Jared

Post by Jared

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

    That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something.

It means nothing ethically.  There is no moral or ethical loss
experienced by never-conceived cattle (or any other never-conceived
livestock) if humans stop breeding them into existence.

The same argument implies there is no moral or ethical gain either.

These people are maniacally opposed to giving the animals'
lives as much or more consideration than their deaths, because
doing so suggests that providing them with decent lives of
positive value could be considered ethically equivalent or even
superior to their elimination. Decent animal welfare means lives
of positive value for millions of domestic animals. In absolute
contrast to that the gross misnomer "animal rights" would mean
the elimination of domestic animals. Since they are completely
different ideas these people are opposed seeing decent AW
promoted because that works against the elimination objective, so
that's why they are opposed to taking the animals' lives into
consideration.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by d***@.
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:24:25 -0800 (PST), Jared

Post by Jared

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

    That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something.

It means nothing ethically.  There is no moral or ethical loss
experienced by never-conceived cattle (or any other never-conceived
livestock) if humans stop breeding them into existence.

The same argument implies there is no moral or ethical gain either.

    These people are maniacally opposed to giving the animals'
lives as much or more consideration

Their lives don't merit any consideration. You don't give them any,
either.

[Dutch]

Post by d***@.
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:24:25 -0800 (PST), Jared

Post by Jared

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something.

It means nothing ethically. There is no moral or ethical loss
experienced by never-conceived cattle (or any other never-conceived
livestock) if humans stop breeding them into existence.

The same argument implies there is no moral or ethical gain either.

These people are maniacally opposed to giving the animals'
lives as much or more consideration than their deaths

That's a strawman. You have been told why 100s of times.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by d***@.
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:24:25 -0800 (PST), Jared

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something.

It means nothing ethically. There is no moral or ethical loss
experienced by never-conceived cattle (or any other never-conceived
livestock) if humans stop breeding them into existence.

The same argument implies there is no moral or ethical gain either.

These people are maniacally opposed to giving the animals'
lives as much or more consideration than their deaths, because
doing so suggests that providing them with decent lives of
positive value could be considered ethically equivalent or even
superior to their elimination.

That's a long-winded, clumsy way of saying you believe it is "better",
for the animals themselves, if they exist rather than never existing.
Your belief is false, of course, because the comparison cannot logically
and rationally be made. "Better" means a comparison of their welfare in
two different states, but as there are no animals, and hence no welfare,
in one of the states (nonexistence of animals), then no comparison can
be made, and your claim is absurd.

We only give consideration to the *content* of animals' lives - not to
the fact of living itself - in the event they come into existence and
live. If they never do, there is nothing to consider.

[d***@.]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:56:07 -0800, ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
These people are maniacally opposed to giving the animals'
lives as much or more consideration than their deaths, because
doing so suggests that providing them with decent lives of
positive value could be considered ethically equivalent or even
superior to their elimination.

. . .

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
We only give consideration to the *content* of animals' lives - not to
the fact of living itself - in the event they come into existence and
live.

Right there you necessarily took their lives into
consideration immediately after dishonestly denying you would do
so, Goo.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:56:07 -0800, ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
These people are maniacally opposed to giving the animals'
lives as much or more consideration than their deaths, because
doing so suggests that providing them with decent lives of
positive value could be considered ethically equivalent or even
superior to their elimination.

. . .

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
We only give consideration to the *content* of animals' lives - not to
the fact of living itself - in the event they come into existence and
live.

Right there you necessarily took their lives into
consideration

No, I didn't. By "take their lives into consideration", what you *mean*
is to attach moral importance to their coming into existence in the
first place. That's what you mean. I do not attach any moral
importance to their coming into existence. You do, and it is irrational
and stupid.

You simply haven't learned a thing in over 10 futile years of
time-wasting, ignorant cracker effort. For over 10 years, you have been
trying to persuade people that farm animals "ought" to exist, and that
if "aras" were to succeed in putting a stop to livestock husbandry, some
moral harm would be inflicted on animals. That is what you've been on
about, and we all know it. This more recent crappy statement about
"benefit from lives of positive value" is just a *FAILED* attempt at
changing your terminology.

[John Stafford]

If it's so bad to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?

[j***@kick_fwit.com]

Post by John Stafford
If it's so bad to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?

Haw haw haw haw haw! Oh, har har har har har! [folds over double,
slaps knee] Hee hee hee hee hee!

Fuck me, but that's just as funny as when I first heard it 53 years ago.

[Michael Gordge]

Post by John Stafford
If it's so bad to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?

Haw haw haw haw haw!  Oh, har har har har har!  [folds over double,
slaps knee]  Hee hee hee hee hee!
Fuck me, but that's just as funny as when I first heard it 53 years ago.

I will only eat vegetarian cows and sheep.

MG

[Rod Speed]

Post by Michael Gordge

Post by John Stafford
If it's so bad to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?

Haw haw haw haw haw! Oh, har har har har har!
[folds over double, slaps knee] Hee hee hee hee hee!
Fuck me, but that's just as funny as when I first heard it 53 years ago.

I will only eat vegetarian cows and sheep.

I'm happy to eat omnivore pigs and carnivore fish too.

[Dutch]

Post by John Stafford
If it's so bad to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?

Haw haw haw haw haw! Oh, har har har har har! [folds over double,
slaps knee] Hee hee hee hee hee!
Fuck me, but that's just as funny as when I first heard it 53 years ago.

I will only eat vegetarian cows and sheep.
------>

Are we on a roll or what?

[Clave]

Post by Michael Gordge

Post by John Stafford
If it's so bad to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?

Haw haw haw haw haw! Oh, har har har har har! [folds over double,
slaps knee] Hee hee hee hee hee!
Fuck me, but that's just as funny as when I first heard it 53 years ago.

I will only eat vegetarian cows and sheep.
------>
Are we on a roll or what?

A nice pumpernickel would be good.

Jim

[Dutch]

Post by John Stafford
If it's so bad to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?

Haw haw haw haw haw! Oh, har har har har har! [folds over double, slaps
knee] Hee hee hee hee hee!
Fuck me, but that's just as funny as when I first heard it 53 years ago.

And the 500 times between then and now were all pretty special too.

It ranks right up there with PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals.

[Stan de SD]

Post by John Stafford
If it's so bad to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?

You are clearly going over the heads of the vegans, you wise speaker
of truth... :Oo

[Poetic Justice]

Post by Stan de SD

Post by John Stafford
If it's so bad to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?

You are clearly going over the heads of the vegans, you wise speaker
of truth... :Oo

Kill babies and Prisoners on death row, but cry for the chickens?


Vegans have a nutritional deficiency that leaves them incoherent and
they can't function in a rational way. The concept of priorities is
foreign to vegans and the Liberals in general.

[d***@.]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 16:14:15 -0500, Poetic Justice

Post by Poetic Justice
Vegans have a nutritional deficiency that leaves them incoherent and
they can't function in a rational way.

My experience with them has led me to that same conclusion:
_________________________________________________________
"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

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

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

"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare" - Goo

"coming into existence didn't make me better off than
I was" - Goo

"I have examined the question at length, and feel
there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
is not a benefit." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Post by Poetic Justice
The concept of priorities is
foreign to vegans and the Liberals in general.

They are extremists, so in that respect I suppose they could
only have the one priority to promote acceptance of their
elimination objective. Even knowing that I constantly wonder how
much of their crap they actually believe, and how much they don't
but are hoping that some other people will be stupid enough to
believe:
_________________________________________________________
"you are their grim reaper, procuring them from their timeless
ethereal paradise and casting them into your filthy pits of pain,
misery and utter despair. Where they once experienced only bliss,
by your hand they now suffer agonies constantly administered by
the vivisectionist who toys with them, and by the farmer who
callously exploits their now tender flesh for food. For them your
world is hell" - 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

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

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by d***@.
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 16:14:15 -0500, Poetic Justice

Post by Poetic Justice
Vegans have a nutritional deficiency that leaves them incoherent and
they can't function in a rational way.

My experience with them

Animals "getting to experience life" deserves no consideration.

[Dutch]

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
--->

It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared. Cattle
are not waiting in some ethereal corral waiting for their "chance to live".

[d***@.]

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
--->
It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.

So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
from lives of positive value.

Post by Jared
Cattle
are not waiting in some ethereal corral waiting for their "chance to live".

How do you think that prevents cattle who do exist, from
benefitting from their existence? If you can't think of any way
that it does, then why in tf do you keep bringing the stupidity
up consistently, don't you have any idea at all? Or do you have
some clue but you just can't say what it is because that would
make you appear as more of a dishonestly lying scum, than just
honestly stupid and clueless?

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
--->
It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.

    So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
from lives of positive value.

Post by Jared
Cattle
are not waiting in some ethereal corral waiting for their "chance to live".

    How do you think that prevents cattle who do exist,

Not the topic.

[Dutch]

Post by d***@.

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
--->
It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.

So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
from lives of positive value.

I never said it did, I said that coming into existence cannot be and is not
a benefit to any animal.

Post by d***@.

Post by Jared
Cattle
are not waiting in some ethereal corral waiting for their "chance to live".

How do you think that prevents cattle who do exist, from
benefitting from their existence?

Obvious goalpost move. Your problem is that you think everyone else is as
stupid as you.

[Poetic Justice]

Post by Dutch

Post by d***@.

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
--->
It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.

So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
from lives of positive value.

I never said it did, I said that coming into existence cannot be and is
not a benefit to any animal.

Then why is making them extinct so evil?

Post by Dutch

Post by d***@.

Post by Jared
Cattle
are not waiting in some ethereal corral waiting for their "chance to live".

How do you think that prevents cattle who do exist, from
benefitting from their existence?

Obvious goalpost move. Your problem is that you think everyone else is
as stupid as you.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by Poetic Justice

Post by Dutch

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
--->
It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.

   So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
from lives of positive value.

I never said it did, I said that coming into existence cannot be and is
not a benefit to any animal.

Then why is making them extinct so evil?

Who says it is, and why?

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by Poetic Justice

Post by Dutch

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
--->
It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.

   So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
from lives of positive value.

I never said it did, I said that coming into existence cannot be and is
not a benefit to any animal.

Then why is making them extinct so evil?

Who says it is, and why?

[Dutch]

Post by Poetic Justice

Post by Dutch

Post by d***@.

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
--->
It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.

So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
from lives of positive value.

I never said it did, I said that coming into existence cannot be and is
not a benefit to any animal.

Then why is making them extinct so evil?

It isn't of course, livestock species have no inherent value. But the actual
issue is individual animals, and one cannot say they are deprived by not
existing.

Post by Poetic Justice

Post by Dutch

Post by d***@.

Post by Jared
Cattle
are not waiting in some ethereal corral waiting for their "chance to live".

How do you think that prevents cattle who do exist, from
benefitting from their existence?

Obvious goalpost move. Your problem is that you think everyone else is
as stupid as you.

[d***@.]

On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:14:11 -0500, Poetic Justice

Post by Poetic Justice

Post by Dutch

Post by d***@.

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
--->
It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.

So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
from lives of positive value.

I never said it did, I said that coming into existence cannot be and is
not a benefit to any animal.

Then why is making them extinct so evil?

It's not a question of whether it's evil or not but a
question of whether or not it's better, and if so for whom or
what is it better. It's certainly not better for the animals
these people are pretending to care about. Advocates of the gross
misnomer "animal righs" want to eliminate all domestic animals,
not provide them with better lives, or rights, or anything at
all. Advocates for decent animal welfare in complete contrast to
that DO want to provide domestic animals with better lives, so
that billions of them can benefit from lives of positive value in
the future. So whether it's evil or not, AW advocates want to
provide billions of future animals with lives of positive value,
while misnomer advocates want to prevent that from happening.

[Dutch]

Post by d***@.
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:14:11 -0500, Poetic Justice

Post by Poetic Justice

Post by Dutch

Post by d***@.

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
--->
It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.

So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
from lives of positive value.

I never said it did, I said that coming into existence cannot be and is
not a benefit to any animal.

Then why is making them extinct so evil?

It's not a question of whether it's evil or not but a
question of whether or not it's better, and if so for whom or
what is it better. It's certainly not better for the animals
these people are pretending to care about.

Is it better that the slaughterhouses get ALL of them? How?

Post by d***@.
Advocates of the gross
misnomer "animal righs" want to eliminate all domestic animals,

Who or what is harmed by that? Certainly not the animals. Livestock would
not be harmed by the non-perpetuation of their species, they don't care.

[d***@.]

Post by Dutch

Post by d***@.
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:14:11 -0500, Poetic Justice

Post by Poetic Justice

Post by Dutch

Post by d***@.

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
--->
It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.

So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
from lives of positive value.

I never said it did, I said that coming into existence cannot be and is
not a benefit to any animal.

Then why is making them extinct so evil?

It's not a question of whether it's evil or not but a
question of whether or not it's better, and if so for whom or
what is it better. It's certainly not better for the animals
these people are pretending to care about.

Is it better that the slaughterhouses get ALL of them? How?

You can't appreciate the lives of any domestic animals,
afawk.

Post by Dutch

Post by d***@.
Advocates of the gross
misnomer "animal righs" want to eliminate all domestic animals,

Who or what is harmed by that? Certainly not the animals. Livestock would
not be harmed by the non-perpetuation of their species, they don't care.

No. So to you that means your own life is not a benefit to
you. I disagree, but maybe your life has been so bad that you
can't imagine how life could be of positive value to anything.
Mine hasn't gotten that bad yet, so I can still understand that
often it is positive.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by d***@.

Post by Dutch

Post by d***@.
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:14:11 -0500, Poetic Justice

Post by Poetic Justice

Post by Dutch

Post by d***@.

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
--->
It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.

So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
from lives of positive value.

I never said it did, I said that coming into existence cannot be and is
not a benefit to any animal.

Then why is making them extinct so evil?

It's not a question of whether it's evil or not but a
question of whether or not it's better, and if so for whom or
what is it better. It's certainly not better for the animals
these people are pretending to care about.

Is it better that the slaughterhouses get ALL of them? How?

You can't appreciate the lives of any domestic animals,

Nothing to appreciate. If they come into existence, *then* we can care
about the quality of their lives, but the lives themselves have no value.

Post by d***@.

Post by Dutch

Post by d***@.
Advocates of the gross
misnomer "animal righs" want to eliminate all domestic animals,

Who or what is harmed by that?

You didn't answer his question. Who or what is harmed by the wish to
eliminate domestic animals? Who or what would be harmed if they got
their wish?

Answer the question.

Post by d***@.

Post by Dutch
Certainly not the animals. Livestock would
not be harmed by the non-perpetuation of their species, they don't care.

No. So to you that means your own life is not a benefit to
you.

Correct: "getting to experience life", for which you substitute the
shorthand "your life", is not a benefit.

Post by d***@.
I disagree, but maybe your life has been so bad

No, now you're talking about the *content* of the life, not the life itself.

[Dutch]

Post by d***@.

Post by Dutch

Post by d***@.
Advocates of the gross
misnomer "animal righs" want to eliminate all domestic animals,

Who or what is harmed by that? Certainly not the animals. Livestock would
not be harmed by the non-perpetuation of their species, they don't care.

No. So to you that means your own life is not a benefit to
you

That is meaningless rhetoric and a non sequitur.

Post by d***@.
I disagree, but maybe your life has been so bad that you
can't imagine how life could be of positive value to anything.

I think life is great, but that is of no consequence to the question being
discussed.

Post by d***@.
Mine hasn't gotten that bad yet, so I can still understand that
often it is positive.

That's nice, but irrelevant.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by d***@.
On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:14:11 -0500, Poetic Justice

Post by Poetic Justice

Post by Dutch

Post by d***@.

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
--->
It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.

So far, much as you wish that meant something, you haven't
been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
from lives of positive value.

I never said it did, I said that coming into existence cannot be and is
not a benefit to any animal.

Then why is making them extinct so evil?

It's not a question of whether it's evil or not but a
question of whether or not it's better, and if so for whom or
what is it better. It's certainly not better for the animals
these people are pretending to care about.

No one is talking about animals that exist. People are talking about
animals that don't yet exist, and whether or not they should. It is a
nonsense to talk about something being "better" or "worse" for animals
that don't exist.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by d***@.

Post by Jared

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is.

It's meaningless.

It means something. It shouldn't be surprising.
--->
It has no importance, the cattle are not "better off" due to coming into
existence, because existence and never existing cannot be compared.

So far, much as you wish that meant something,

It means plenty.

Post by d***@.
you haven't
been able to explain how it prevents animals from benefitting
from lives of positive value.

Animals do not benefit from coming into existence. When you write
"benefit from lives of positive value", what you mean is "benefit from
coming into existence", and animals do not benefit from coming into
existence.

[dorayme]

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
When you write
"benefit from lives of positive value", what you mean is "benefit from
coming into existence", and animals do not benefit from coming into
existence.

How do you know this is what this means? A pig that roams is better off
than a pig that is enslaved in stocks in various ways. Such a pig is
luckier than its enslaved cousin. If the enslaved pig were set loose, it
would gain a benefit from this, its freedom.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
When you write
"benefit from lives of positive value", what you mean is "benefit from
coming into existence", and animals do not benefit from coming into
existence.

How do you know this is what this means?

Long experience pinning the guy down.

Post by dorayme
A pig that roams is better off
than a pig that is enslaved in stocks in various ways.

That's not what he's talking about. He's talking about the pig being
better off simply from existing, rather than never existing. That's
impossible.

[dorayme]

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
When you write
"benefit from lives of positive value", what you mean is "benefit from
coming into existence", and animals do not benefit from coming into
existence.

How do you know this is what this means?

Long experience pinning the guy down.

Post by dorayme
A pig that roams is better off
than a pig that is enslaved in stocks in various ways.

That's not what he's talking about. He's talking about the pig being
better off simply from existing, rather than never existing. That's
impossible.

Indeed, that would make no sense, there are not two things to compare.
But some interpretation might be: a world with a pig in it is a better
world than one without (independent of how the pig lives).

I have sometimes wondered if the more extreme right-to-lifers are
befuddled with this one... They seem to me to go awfully close, a mere
cell seems to be enough for them... They might as well go all the way
and say that sometimes it is a sin to have an empty part of the world -
for example, the empty space in a childless cot. <g>

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
When you write
"benefit from lives of positive value", what you mean is "benefit from
coming into existence", and animals do not benefit from coming into
existence.

How do you know this is what this means?

Long experience pinning the guy down.

Post by dorayme
A pig that roams is better off
than a pig that is enslaved in stocks in various ways.

That's not what he's talking about. He's talking about the pig being
better off simply from existing, rather than never existing. That's
impossible.

Indeed, that would make no sense, there are not two things to compare.

Exactly.

Post by dorayme
But some interpretation might be: a world with a pig in it is a better
world than one without (independent of how the pig lives).

Not better for the pig, though - better for someone else.

Post by dorayme
I have sometimes wondered if the more extreme right-to-lifers are
befuddled with this one... They seem to me to go awfully close, a mere
cell seems to be enough for them... They might as well go all the way
and say that sometimes it is a sin to have an empty part of the world -
for example, the empty space in a childless cot. <g>

They aren't advancing a utilitarian argument for the right of the
conceived human to be born. They're saying that it's wrong for a human
to abort a developing human life.

[dorayme]

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme
I have sometimes wondered if the more extreme right-to-lifers are
befuddled with this one... They seem to me to go awfully close, a mere
cell seems to be enough for them... They might as well go all the way
and say that sometimes it is a sin to have an empty part of the world -
for example, the empty space in a childless cot. <g>

They aren't advancing a utilitarian argument for the right of the
conceived human to be born. They're saying that it's wrong for a human
to abort a developing human life.

Utility has absolutely nothing to do with it. They mostly think there is
a right of some things no matter how slight their existence (the
potentiality of the object is *nearly* everything for some, for others
it is because of some sacred status of a god given immaterial soul).

For those who argue largely on the basis of potentiality, the ground is
very dangerous indeed because it opens the possibility of making it a
moral imperative to have children (yes, from nothing at all, as it were).

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme
I have sometimes wondered if the more extreme right-to-lifers are
befuddled with this one... They seem to me to go awfully close, a mere
cell seems to be enough for them... They might as well go all the way
and say that sometimes it is a sin to have an empty part of the world -
for example, the empty space in a childless cot. <g>

They aren't advancing a utilitarian argument for the right of the
conceived human to be born. They're saying that it's wrong for a human
to abort a developing human life.

Utility has absolutely nothing to do with it.

In your conception of your bogus moral imperative, it has everything to
do with it.

Post by dorayme
They mostly think there is
a right of some things no matter how slight their existence (the
potentiality of the object is *nearly* everything for some, for others
it is because of some sacred status of a god given immaterial soul).
For those who argue largely on the basis of potentiality, the ground is
very dangerous indeed because it opens the possibility of making it a
moral imperative to have children

No, it doesn't open any such imperative at all. It's entirely a
conditional proposition: if conception occurs, resulting in a
developing human entity, then it is wrong for a human to end that
development. That's all there is.

[dorayme]

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme
I have sometimes wondered if the more extreme right-to-lifers are
befuddled with this one... They seem to me to go awfully close, a mere
cell seems to be enough for them... They might as well go all the way
and say that sometimes it is a sin to have an empty part of the world -
for example, the empty space in a childless cot. <g>

They aren't advancing a utilitarian argument for the right of the
conceived human to be born. They're saying that it's wrong for a human
to abort a developing human life.

Utility has absolutely nothing to do with it.

In your conception of your bogus moral imperative, it has everything to
do with it.

If I don't think right to lifers are arguing a *utilitarian* position,
how does that make *me* the owner of some 'bogus moral imperative'?

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme
They mostly think there is
a right of some things no matter how slight their existence (the
potentiality of the object is *nearly* everything for some, for others
it is because of some sacred status of a god given immaterial soul).
For those who argue largely on the basis of potentiality, the ground is
very dangerous indeed because it opens the possibility of making it a
moral imperative to have children

No, it doesn't open any such imperative at all. It's entirely a
conditional proposition: if conception occurs, resulting in a
developing human entity, then it is wrong for a human to end that
development. That's all there is.

No, that is not all there is to it. It might be all there is to you. But
you are simply missing that if so much of the serious weight of argument
is on the pontentiality, the condition might easily not include an
actual set of cells joined.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme
I have sometimes wondered if the more extreme right-to-lifers are
befuddled with this one... They seem to me to go awfully close, a mere
cell seems to be enough for them... They might as well go all the way
and say that sometimes it is a sin to have an empty part of the world -
for example, the empty space in a childless cot. <g>

They aren't advancing a utilitarian argument for the right of the
conceived human to be born. They're saying that it's wrong for a human
to abort a developing human life.

Utility has absolutely nothing to do with it.

In your conception of your bogus moral imperative, it has everything to
do with it.

If I don't think right to lifers are arguing a *utilitarian* position,
how does that make *me* the owner of some 'bogus moral imperative'?

You *are* contending that they're arguing a utilitarian position, if you
think they're arguing or edging close to arguing that there is some kind
of imperative to have children. The *only* way there could be such an
imperative is based on utilitarian calculations. If you think they're
close to saying that, then you necessarily are imputing a utilitarian
argument to them. It's a straw man, of course, because they are in no
way advocating such an imperative.

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme
They mostly think there is
a right of some things no matter how slight their existence (the
potentiality of the object is *nearly* everything for some, for others
it is because of some sacred status of a god given immaterial soul).
For those who argue largely on the basis of potentiality, the ground is
very dangerous indeed because it opens the possibility of making it a
moral imperative to have children

No, it doesn't open any such imperative at all. It's entirely a
conditional proposition: if conception occurs, resulting in a
developing human entity, then it is wrong for a human to end that
development. That's all there is.

No, that is not all there is to it.

Yes, it is.

Post by dorayme
It might be all there is to you. But
you are simply missing that if so much of the serious weight of argument
is on the pontentiality,

The potentiality is only morally meaningful to them *IF* conception
occurs, and that moral meaning *only* extends to an injunction against
stopping the development - it does *not* extend to an imperative to get
it started.

[dorayme]

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme
I have sometimes wondered if the more extreme right-to-lifers are
befuddled with this one... They seem to me to go awfully close, a mere
cell seems to be enough for them... They might as well go all the way
and say that sometimes it is a sin to have an empty part of the world -
for example, the empty space in a childless cot. <g>

They aren't advancing a utilitarian argument for the right of the
conceived human to be born. They're saying that it's wrong for a human
to abort a developing human life.

Utility has absolutely nothing to do with it.

In your conception of your bogus moral imperative, it has everything to
do with it.

If I don't think right to lifers are arguing a *utilitarian* position,
how does that make *me* the owner of some 'bogus moral imperative'?

You *are* contending that they're arguing a utilitarian position, if you
think they're arguing or edging close to arguing that there is some kind
of imperative to have children.

You are going to say why I assume.

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
The *only* way there could be such an
imperative is based on utilitarian calculations.

That is not an argument that I am contending they are using a
utilitarian calculation.

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
If you think they're
close to saying that, then you necessarily are imputing a utilitarian
argument to them.

How am I doing this, never mind the necessarily bit, how at all?

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
It's a straw man, of course, because they are in no
way advocating such an imperative.

It does not follow that because they are not explicitly arguing such a
thing, my mere mentioning it as very close to what they are essentially
arguing, means it is a straw man argument. It is a germ of an idea of a
line of criticism against them.

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme
They mostly think there is
a right of some things no matter how slight their existence (the
potentiality of the object is *nearly* everything for some, for others
it is because of some sacred status of a god given immaterial soul).
For those who argue largely on the basis of potentiality, the ground is
very dangerous indeed because it opens the possibility of making it a
moral imperative to have children

No, it doesn't open any such imperative at all. It's entirely a
conditional proposition: if conception occurs, resulting in a
developing human entity, then it is wrong for a human to end that
development. That's all there is.

No, that is not all there is to it.

Yes, it is.

Post by dorayme
It might be all there is to you. But
you are simply missing that if so much of the serious weight of argument
is on the pontentiality,

The potentiality is only morally meaningful to them *IF* conception
occurs,

Yes, I am fully aware of this. It does not follow that you or they know
what is morally meaningful to them. No one in their right mind, who did
not believe in souls, would think there was anything to so specially
morally value in a couple of cells apart from its potentiality.

And what I am saying and what you are simply denying is that it would
not be so surprising if they thought a sperm and an egg just about to
join should never be stopped from joining. It would miss only a rather
unimportant detail, the condition you are highlighting.

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
and that moral meaning *only* extends to an injunction against
stopping the development - it does *not* extend to an imperative to get
it started.

I know what it does and does not. That is not the point at all.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme
I have sometimes wondered if the more extreme right-to-lifers are
befuddled with this one... They seem to me to go awfully close, a mere
cell seems to be enough for them... They might as well go all the way
and say that sometimes it is a sin to have an empty part of the world -
for example, the empty space in a childless cot. <g>

They aren't advancing a utilitarian argument for the right of the
conceived human to be born. They're saying that it's wrong for a human
to abort a developing human life.

Utility has absolutely nothing to do with it.

In your conception of your bogus moral imperative, it has everything to
do with it.

If I don't think right to lifers are arguing a *utilitarian* position,
how does that make *me* the owner of some 'bogus moral imperative'?

You *are* contending that they're arguing a utilitarian position, if you
think they're arguing or edging close to arguing that there is some kind
of imperative to have children.

You are going to say why I assume.

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
The *only* way there could be such an
imperative is based on utilitarian calculations.

That is not an argument that I am contending they are using a
utilitarian calculation.

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
If you think they're
close to saying that, then you necessarily are imputing a utilitarian
argument to them.

How am I doing this, never mind the necessarily bit, how at all?

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
It's a straw man, of course, because they are in no
way advocating such an imperative.

It does not follow that because they are not explicitly arguing such a
thing, my mere mentioning it as very close to what they are essentially
arguing, means it is a straw man argument. It is a germ of an idea of a
line of criticism against them.

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme
They mostly think there is
a right of some things no matter how slight their existence (the
potentiality of the object is *nearly* everything for some, for others
it is because of some sacred status of a god given immaterial soul).
For those who argue largely on the basis of potentiality, the ground is
very dangerous indeed because it opens the possibility of making it a
moral imperative to have children

No, it doesn't open any such imperative at all. It's entirely a
conditional proposition: if conception occurs, resulting in a
developing human entity, then it is wrong for a human to end that
development. That's all there is.

No, that is not all there is to it.

Yes, it is.

Post by dorayme
It might be all there is to you. But
you are simply missing that if so much of the serious weight of argument
is on the pontentiality,

The potentiality is only morally meaningful to them *IF* conception
occurs,

Yes, I am fully aware of this. It does not follow that you or they know
what is morally meaningful to them.

We're talking about what is morally meaningful to the right-to-lifers,
you goof, and we have ample opportunity and ability to know.

Post by dorayme
And what I am saying and what you are simply denying is that it would
not be so surprising if they thought a sperm and an egg just about to
join should never be stopped from joining. It would miss only a rather
unimportant detail, the condition you are highlighting.

Right-to-lifers are anti-abortion advocates. They are not all, or even
mostly, Roman Catholics, some of whom oppose birth control.

This nonsensical "moral imperative" to procreate that you have invented
out of thin air is not the position of right-to-lifers.

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
and that moral meaning *only* extends to an injunction against
stopping the development - it does *not* extend to an imperative to get
it started.

I know what it does and does not.

You clearly seem not to know.

[dorayme]

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
We're talking about what is morally meaningful to the right-to-lifers,
you goof, and we have ample opportunity and ability to know.

Right, so that I don't have to back track and find the point at which
you "come-out" as the average insolent and abusive confrontational
usenet guy, I note your loss of cool. You are a rude and arrogant man
and ignorant about fundamentals. The one thing most right-to-lifers are
not is utilitarians! I passed over this ignorant idea of yours politely.
There is no need to be polite to you any more now that you have shown
your character.

You might be talking about what right to lifers actually talk about, but
I was indicating something which you would have to stretch your mind
beyond the mere facts to follow, something clearly you have difficulty
with.

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme
And what I am saying and what you are simply denying is that it would
not be so surprising if they thought a sperm and an egg just about to
join should never be stopped from joining. It would miss only a rather
unimportant detail, the condition you are highlighting.

Right-to-lifers are anti-abortion advocates. They are not all, or even
mostly, Roman Catholics, some of whom oppose birth control.
This nonsensical "moral imperative" to procreate that you have invented
out of thin air is not the position of right-to-lifers.

No, you clearly have no practice in following arguments and seeing how
the grounds for them lend weight to absurd positions. It is part of the
process of reductio ad absurdum, the drawing out of possible weaknesses
and artificial limitations in people's views. No wonder they have such a
good go, these right-to-lifers with blockheads like you on the other
side.

You clearly know little about philosophy. I notice you are cross posting
from something to do with vegetables. Perhaps you are a carrot or a
potato or perhaps something more indigestible like a raw and green
pumpkin. Clearly any serious discussion with you is hopeless. Go and
join the basketweaving class.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
We're talking about what is morally meaningful to the right-to-lifers,
you goof, and we have ample opportunity and ability to know.

Right, so that I don't have to back track and find the point at which
you "come-out" as the average insolent and abusive confrontational
usenet guy, I note your loss of cool.

Grow up.

Post by dorayme
You are a rude and arrogant man
and ignorant about fundamentals.

Wrong.

Post by dorayme
The one thing most right-to-lifers are
not is utilitarians!

EXACTLY - which is why your blather about seeing a "moral imperative" to
have children in their position is complete nonsense.

Post by dorayme
I passed over this ignorant idea of yours politely.
There is no need to be polite to you any more now that you have shown
your character.

Your politesse was a sham anyway.

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme
And what I am saying and what you are simply denying is that it would
not be so surprising if they thought a sperm and an egg just about to
join should never be stopped from joining. It would miss only a rather
unimportant detail, the condition you are highlighting.

Right-to-lifers are anti-abortion advocates. They are not all, or even
mostly, Roman Catholics, some of whom oppose birth control.
This nonsensical "moral imperative" to procreate that you have invented
out of thin air is not the position of right-to-lifers.

No, you clearly have no practice in following arguments and seeing how
the grounds for them lend weight to absurd positions.

I have plenty of practice, and I'm very good at spotting straw man
arguments fobbed off by extremists like you.

[Dutch]

Post by dorayme
No one in their right mind, who did
not believe in souls, would think there was anything to so specially
morally value in a couple of cells apart from its potentiality.

Souls have nothing to do with a living human organism, regardless of the
stage of development. What I have a problem understanding is how anyone in
their right mind can think that the stage of development has such moral
significance.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by Dutch

Post by dorayme
No one in their right mind, who did
not believe in souls, would think there was anything to so specially
morally value in a couple of cells apart from its potentiality.

Souls have nothing to do with a living human organism, regardless of the
stage of development. What I have a problem understanding is how anyone
in their right mind can think that the stage of development has such
moral significance.

To some religious believers, souls have *everything* to do with living
human organisms. If a religious believer includes in his belief set
that humans have souls, and that we are endowed with them by God, then
the question becomes at what point does that endowment occur.

If you believe there's something spiritually special about human life -
its endowment with a soul - such that it deserves society's protection,
then you're faced with the problem of concluding when the soul exists,
thus obliging society to protect the human. Many religious believers
conclude that the soul exists from the moment of conception. It is a
philosophically defensible position.

If you don't believe in souls, but do believe that humans have rights
and that human life deserves protection, then you're faced with a three
part question: why /does/ human life deserve protection, and when is it
eligible for that protection, and why then and not some other time?

Note that, in order to try to be logically consistent, radical abortion
advocates would maintain that the baby can be killed right up to the
moment of birth. To them, a full-term baby still inside the womb of a
woman who is several hours into labor is still just a "collection of cells".

[Dutch]

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme
I have sometimes wondered if the more extreme right-to-lifers are
befuddled with this one... They seem to me to go awfully close, a mere
cell seems to be enough for them... They might as well go all the way
and say that sometimes it is a sin to have an empty part of the world -
for example, the empty space in a childless cot. <g>

They aren't advancing a utilitarian argument for the right of the
conceived human to be born. They're saying that it's wrong for a human
to abort a developing human life.

Utility has absolutely nothing to do with it. They mostly think there is
a right of some things no matter how slight their existence (the
potentiality of the object is *nearly* everything for some, for others
it is because of some sacred status of a god given immaterial soul).
For those who argue largely on the basis of potentiality, the ground is
very dangerous indeed because it opens the possibility of making it a
moral imperative to have children (yes, from nothing at all, as it were).

I fail to see the connection, however the imperative to "be fruitful and
multiply" already exists among religious groups.

[dorayme]

Post by Dutch

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme
I have sometimes wondered if the more extreme right-to-lifers are
befuddled with this one... They seem to me to go awfully close, a mere
cell seems to be enough for them... They might as well go all the way
and say that sometimes it is a sin to have an empty part of the world -
for example, the empty space in a childless cot. <g>

They aren't advancing a utilitarian argument for the right of the
conceived human to be born. They're saying that it's wrong for a human
to abort a developing human life.

Utility has absolutely nothing to do with it. They mostly think there is
a right of some things no matter how slight their existence (the
potentiality of the object is *nearly* everything for some, for others
it is because of some sacred status of a god given immaterial soul).
For those who argue largely on the basis of potentiality, the ground is
very dangerous indeed because it opens the possibility of making it a
moral imperative to have children (yes, from nothing at all, as it were).

I fail to see the connection, however the imperative to "be fruitful and
multiply" already exists among religious groups.

Indeed about your however.

I will try to address your puzzle on what I mean though: In a way, I am
making a simple point. You are not likely to be familiar with it.

The more the right-to-lifers emphasise that the value of the early
foetus is in its potentiality, the more they can be pressured into
admitting the same potentiality to other objects or events or
situations. Now the potentiality of a particular sperm and a particular
egg that has not yet been penetrated is pretty well exactly the same in
terms of potential.

And yet most right-to-lifers would hardly show reverence to a mere
couple of objects, a sperm on its way to fertilise an egg. This pair
would, presumably, have no *right to life* in their view. I expect not
at least. Of course, one could never argue the point with such people,
they are not that subtle, they would not even understand the problem!

Have you ever wondered what quite it is about the early foetus that
people get so emotional about. It is not *just* the mere wondrous living
nature of it - plenty of wonders in the natural world abound! It is
either because they really think that it has a soul (and don't get me
started on this one! <g>) or they simply think that it is sacred because
of its potential to grow into something capable of loving and being
loved etc. But, this capability also belongs to objects in certain
configurations before the time of fertilisation.

[d***@.]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:12:30 +1100, dorayme

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
When you write
"benefit from lives of positive value", what you mean is "benefit from
coming into existence", and animals do not benefit from coming into
existence.

How do you know this is what this means?

Long experience pinning the guy down.

Post by dorayme
A pig that roams is better off
than a pig that is enslaved in stocks in various ways.

That's not what he's talking about. He's talking about the pig being
better off simply from existing, rather than never existing. That's
impossible.

Indeed, that would make no sense, there are not two things to compare.

So there is no comparison to make. But those of us who feel
that we benefit from lives of positive value, as well as animals
who appear to regardless of whether or not they can think about
it directly, *do* appear to benefit from lives of positive value
REGARDLESS of anything to do with pre-existence, or whether or
not there is a pre-existent "state"...LOL...or whether or not the
act of conception is a benefit to the zygote. It's amusing to
talk about Goo's supposed arguments, but it certainly has done
nothing to encourage me to believe that life is never a benefit
for anything.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:12:30 +1100, dorayme

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
When you write
"benefit from lives of positive value", what you mean is "benefit from
coming into existence", and animals do not benefit from coming into
existence.

How do you know this is what this means?

Long experience pinning the guy down.

Post by dorayme
A pig that roams is better off
than a pig that is enslaved in stocks in various ways.

That's not what he's talking about. He's talking about the pig being
better off simply from existing, rather than never existing. That's
impossible.

Indeed, that would make no sense, there are not two things to compare.

So there is no comparison to make.

So, you don't have a point to make.

Post by d***@.
But those of us who feel
that we benefit from lives of positive value,

*IF* you exist in the first place...yes, go on...

Post by d***@.
as well as animals
who appear to regardless of whether or not they can think about
it directly, *do* appear to benefit from lives of positive value

Empty tautology, and a dishonest attempt to change the subject.

Stop lying about this. You are, and always have been, concerned with
the implication of preventing animals from existing in the first place.
All this garbage about "lives of positive value" is a stupid attempt
at diversion. It fails.

[Rod Speed]

A pig that roams is better off than a pig
that is enslaved in stocks in various ways.

Not necessarily, pet pigs have a better life than wild roaming
pigs in some ways, particularly having food provided and
vets to deal with what medical problems they have etc.

Such a pig is luckier than its enslaved cousin.

Not necessarily.

If the enslaved pig were set loose, it would gain a benefit from this, its freedom.

Not necessarily. In spades with dogs and cats etc.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by Rod Speed

A pig that roams is better off than a pig
that is enslaved in stocks in various ways.

Not necessarily, pet pigs

He specified a pig in "stocks", which excludes pet pigs. Try to pay
attention.

[Rod Speed]

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by Rod Speed

A pig that roams is better off than a pig
that is enslaved in stocks in various ways.

Not necessarily, pet pigs

He specified a pig in "stocks",

No pigs are ever enslaved in 'stocks'

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
which excludes pet pigs.

Nope.

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
Try to pay attention.

Try to let go of your dick before you end up completely blind.

On the other hand...

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by Rod Speed

A pig that roams is better off than a pig
that is enslaved in stocks in various ways.

Not necessarily, pet pigs

He specified a pig in "stocks",

No pigs are ever enslaved in 'stocks'

He's referring to pigs kept in various crates, such as farrowing crates
for nursing sows.

Post by Rod Speed

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
which excludes pet pigs.

Nope.

YEP

[Rod Speed]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by Rod Speed

A pig that roams is better off than a pig
that is enslaved in stocks in various ways.

Not necessarily, pet pigs

He specified a pig in "stocks",

No pigs are ever enslaved in 'stocks'

He's referring to pigs kept in various crates, such as farrowing crates for nursing sows.

Like hell he is, those dont 'enslave'

Post by Rod Speed

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
which excludes pet pigs.

Nope.

YEP

NOPE.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Rod Speed

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by Rod Speed

A pig that roams is better off than a pig
that is enslaved in stocks in various ways.

Not necessarily, pet pigs

He specified a pig in "stocks",

No pigs are ever enslaved in 'stocks'

He's referring to pigs kept in various crates, such as farrowing crates for nursing sows.

Like hell he is, those dont 'enslave'

They confine involuntarily - morally equivalent to enslavement.

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Rod Speed

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
which excludes pet pigs.

Nope.

YEP

NOPE.

YEP

[Rod Speed]

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Rod Speed

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by Rod Speed

A pig that roams is better off than a pig
that is enslaved in stocks in various ways.

Not necessarily, pet pigs

He specified a pig in "stocks",

No pigs are ever enslaved in 'stocks'

He's referring to pigs kept in various crates, such as farrowing crates for nursing sows.

Like hell he is, those dont 'enslave'

They confine involuntarily

So are pet pigs in that situation.

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
- morally equivalent to enslavement.

Wrong, as always.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by Rod Speed

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Rod Speed

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by Rod Speed

A pig that roams is better off than a pig
that is enslaved in stocks in various ways.

Not necessarily, pet pigs

He specified a pig in "stocks",

No pigs are ever enslaved in 'stocks'

He's referring to pigs kept in various crates, such as farrowing crates for nursing sows.

Like hell he is, those dont 'enslave'

They confine involuntarily

So are pet pigs in that situation.

No. Living as a pet with the freedom to move around the house and/or
yard is in no way equivalent to being confined to a crate.

Post by Rod Speed

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
- morally equivalent to enslavement.

Wrong, as always.'

Nope - completely right, as usual.

[d***@.]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:57:24 -0800, ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by Rod Speed

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Rod Speed

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by Rod Speed

A pig that roams is better off than a pig
that is enslaved in stocks in various ways.

Not necessarily, pet pigs

He specified a pig in "stocks",

No pigs are ever enslaved in 'stocks'

He's referring to pigs kept in various crates, such as farrowing crates for nursing sows.

Like hell he is, those dont 'enslave'

They confine involuntarily

So are pet pigs in that situation.

No. Living as a pet with the freedom to move around the house and/or
yard is in no way equivalent to being confined to a crate.

Farrowing crates aren't just to be mean to the sow Goo, they
are to protect the baby pigs from their own mother. She doesn't
deliberately want to hurt or kill them, but sows unintentionally
step on and roll over on their new offspring. After they get a
week or so old they can handle it a lot better, plus they learn
to get out of the way, but at first they're very small and easily
killed or injured. The crate restricts the sow's movements so the
pigs have a better chance of not being hurt or killed.

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by Rod Speed

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
- morally equivalent to enslavement.

Wrong, as always.'

Nope - completely right, as usual.

Goo slaves have to do things. They have to work for the owner
that they may very well hate, making life better for him while
their own life is not nearly as good. They can dream of freedom
while being afraid to attempt it...afraid for their very lives.

In contrast to that the animals we're discussing don't have
to work for their owner, and in fact are not even aware that they
are owned. They don't dream of freedom, nor do they even have a
way of learing about the concept. As usual, Goo, your supposed
comparison is nothing even close to a similar situation.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:57:24 -0800, ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by Rod Speed

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by Rod Speed

Post by Rod Speed

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by Rod Speed

A pig that roams is better off than a pig
that is enslaved in stocks in various ways.

Not necessarily, pet pigs

He specified a pig in "stocks",

No pigs are ever enslaved in 'stocks'

He's referring to pigs kept in various crates, such as farrowing crates for nursing sows.

Like hell he is, those dont 'enslave'

They confine involuntarily

So are pet pigs in that situation.

No. Living as a pet with the freedom to move around the house and/or
yard is in no way equivalent to being confined to a crate.

Farrowing crates aren't just to be mean to the sow

Hogs are often confined to crates for other reasons.

Post by d***@.

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen

Post by Rod Speed

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
- morally equivalent to enslavement.

Wrong, as always.'

Nope - completely right, as usual.

slaves have to do things. They have to work for the owner
that they may very well hate,

The comparison between slaves and farm animals is instructive, if not exact.

[d***@.]

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:33:07 +1100, dorayme

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
When you write
"benefit from lives of positive value", what you mean is "benefit from
coming into existence", and animals do not benefit from coming into
existence.

How do you know this is what this means?

He says what he wants other people to believe, regardless and
often in direct opposition to the truth.

"benefit from coming into existence" is the actual conception of
a being where sperm and egg unite to form the zygote. Goo argues
that that particular step is not a benefit to the being who is
produced by it, meaning every mammal on the planet.

"benefit from lives of positive value" is the experiences of life
a being encounters after "coming into existence".

I point out that many animals raised for food benefit from lives
of positive value. Goo is trying to argue that that aspect should
be given no consideration and that animals don't benefit from
lives of positive value, because of something to do with his
insistance that the act of conception is not a benefit to the
resulting zygote. His claim seems absurd so a person is justified
in challenging him to try to explain what about conception he
thinks prevents the rest of their lives from being a benefit to
them, but he has never been able to provide a decent explanation
or even make a good attempt at doing so. When confronted with it
he usually just maunders his idea that the act of conception is
not a benefit to the zygote, and can't get beyond that.

Post by dorayme
A pig that roams is better off
than a pig that is enslaved in stocks in various ways. Such a pig is
luckier than its enslaved cousin. If the enslaved pig were set loose, it
would gain a benefit from this, its freedom.

· The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
that begins their particular existence. Those animals will
only live if people continue to raise them for food.

Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
for their existence. ·

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:33:07 +1100, dorayme

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
When you write
"benefit from lives of positive value", what you mean is "benefit from
coming into existence", and animals do not benefit from coming into
existence.

How do you know this is what this means?

He says what he wants other people to believe

No, I accurately restate your crappy writing.

Post by d***@.
"benefit from coming into existence" is the actual conception of
a being where sperm and egg unite to form the zygote. He argues
that that particular step is not a benefit to the being who is
produced by it, meaning every mammal on the planet.

And that is *correct*. Prior to a welfare-experiencing entity existing,
there is no welfare. *NECESSARILY* coming into existence does not
improve the welfare - it creates it, which is not an improvement on it.

Post by d***@.
"benefit from lives of positive value" is the experiences of life
a being encounters after "coming into existence".

No. That expression is two things: first, it's your attempt to weasel
out of what you originally said; the attempt *FAILS*. Second, it's just
your dishonest substitution.

Your issue is, and always has been, that you want to pretend that
"vegans" would be doing harm to "unborn future farm animals". By being
non-existent, they aren't experiencing [gag] "lives of positive value".
You want them to exist: period.

Post by d***@.

Post by dorayme
A pig that roams is better off
than a pig that is enslaved in stocks in various ways. Such a pig is
luckier than its enslaved cousin. If the enslaved pig were set loose, it
would gain a benefit from this, its freedom.

[snip boilerplate garbage]

Coming into existence does not benefit any animal. If no more farm
animals exist, no harm has been done to any animals. There is nothing
to consider.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by dorayme

Post by ex-PFC Wintergreen
When you write
"benefit from lives of positive value", what you mean is "benefit from
coming into existence", and animals do not benefit from coming into
existence.

How do you know this is what this means? A pig that roams is better off
than a pig that is enslaved in stocks in various ways. Such a pig is
luckier than its enslaved cousin. If the enslaved pig were set loose, it
would gain a benefit from this, its freedom.

Article in Des Moines Register about negative public reaction to hog
confinement: http://tinyurl.com/y9nexvs

Among other things in the article:

But not all hog confinement opponents are pet lovers.

Lisa Morrison of Van Meter grew up on a 160-acre farm near the
Jasper/Story County line that was sold in the early 1970s. The farm
had cattle and hogs, all raised in the barnyard.

"I never thought of the pigs as pets," she said. "And I don't think
pigs are particularly smart, either."

But, she said, "I'm against confinements. Pigs should be able to be
outdoors and run around."

[Day Brown]

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

There are, and always have been wild cattle. It may be instructive to
look at the initiation of agriculture in SE Europe which produced the
world's first free market mercantile empire that lasted from 8000 to
4000 BC, when it looks like Anthrax came in, and the survivors dispersed
across Europe and central Asia.

There are hundreds of tels along the rivers that empty into the west end
of the Black sea, that down thru 4000 years of occupation layers,
there's no evidence of warfare.

Partly due to the abundance agriculture created. Soil cores show these
villages managed the same land, using crop rotation with pasturage that
never depleted the fertility of the soil. Even in the Medieval era,
Villages were still rotating crop and pasturage sustainably.

A careful look shows life wasnt all that hard. Outside of those few
times like planting and harvest when every able bodied villager worked
long hours, 12-20 hours/week met the per capita needs for food and fuel
with meat from the unworked pasturage also providing leather, tallow,
hoof glue, and other necessities.

Cattle, goats, sheep, pigs, and horses were all synergistic in the
management of the local resource base. The middens show nobody was
vegtartian, altho the bones suggest rabbits were the most common meat
source, easily acquired by the kids walking the trap lines.

Unless the pasturage was high quality grass, horses didnt do well, and
oxen were needed as draft animals.

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by Day Brown

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat
them, they wouldn't have a chance to live.

There are, and always have been wild cattle.

Correct, but beside the point.

[d***@.]

On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 16:26:30 -0600, Day Brown

Post by Day Brown

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

There are, and always have been wild cattle.

· The meat industry includes habitats in which a small
variety of animals are raised. The animals in those
habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant
on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also
depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg
that begins their particular existence. Those animals will
only live if people continue to raise them for food.

Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild
animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely
different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few
animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals
which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers
for their existence. ·

Post by Day Brown
It may be instructive to
look at the initiation of agriculture in SE Europe which produced the
world's first free market mercantile empire that lasted from 8000 to
4000 BC, when it looks like Anthrax came in, and the survivors dispersed
across Europe and central Asia.
There are hundreds of tels along the rivers that empty into the west end
of the Black sea, that down thru 4000 years of occupation layers,
there's no evidence of warfare.
Partly due to the abundance agriculture created. Soil cores show these
villages managed the same land, using crop rotation with pasturage that
never depleted the fertility of the soil. Even in the Medieval era,
Villages were still rotating crop and pasturage sustainably.

· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by d***@.
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 16:26:30 -0600, Day Brown

Post by Day Brown

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

There are, and always have been wild cattle.

[garbage]

Cattle "getting to experience life" is not a benefit to the cattle.

[Immortalist]

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

    That's how it is. What dishonesty could have led you to think
there's something controversial about the fact, can you say?

And, they seem to live to eat - I
think that's what they enjoy.

    It's the main thing in their lives.

Since we want them to grow rapidly, they get
to eat a lot - perhaps that makes them happy.

    Of course it makes them as happy as cattle can be.

Of course they are killed
early, but if we didn't raise them, they wouldn't get to live at all.

  · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·

I don't really feel this way,

    Do you think you feel that cattle would become part of our
society, and maybe even get jobs, if humans stopped raising them?

but it is an interesting viewpoint, don't you think?
- Jeff

  · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.

Then you people have stolen the definition of vegan. I have been one a
long time and it is a way of life attempting to use as little animal
products as possible. Also no seeds, nuts, grains or dairy products,
no yogurt, veganism is the strictest way short of fruitarianism or
breathtarianism which wont get you very far. Maybe vegan is a term
that needs to mean something else because in todays fat festival a
radical vegetarian is off the radar and looks like he must be on
drugs, whatever.

Post by d***@.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules,  adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
    The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
    From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by Immortalist

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

That's how it is. What dishonesty could have led you to think
there's something controversial about the fact, can you say?

And, they seem to live to eat - I
think that's what they enjoy.

It's the main thing in their lives.

Since we want them to grow rapidly, they get
to eat a lot - perhaps that makes them happy.

Of course it makes them as happy as cattle can be.

Of course they are killed
early, but if we didn't raise them, they wouldn't get to live at all.

· Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·

I don't really feel this way,

Do you think you feel that cattle would become part of our
society, and maybe even get jobs, if humans stopped raising them?

but it is an interesting viewpoint, don't you think?
- Jeff

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.

Then you people have stolen the definition of vegan.

Nope.

Post by Immortalist
I have been one a long time

You have not. You've been mistaken for a long time.

Post by Immortalist
and it is a way of life attempting to use as little animal
products as possible.

No, that's *WRONG*. It demands that *NO* animal-derived or
animal-produced products be used, period, and not merely in the diet:
no leather upholstery or clothing, no wool garments, no silk, no chamois
to dry your Prius, no lanolin in lotions, no refined sugar (if the
refining medium was bone char). It demands no use of products tested
for safety on animals.

Post by Immortalist
Also no seeds, nuts, grains

No, that's *COMPLETELY* wrong. It does *not* mandate no seeds, nuts or
grains. You're an idiot.

Post by Immortalist
or dairy products,
no yogurt, veganism is the strictest way short of fruitarianism or
breathtarianism which wont get you very far.

It isn't "veganism" if it isn't done out of an allegedly ethical motive.
If it's done only for health, it's not "veganism".

Post by Immortalist
Maybe vegan is a term
that needs to mean something else because

Maybe you need to admit you didn't know what you were talking about for
decades.

[d***@.]

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 20:34:55 -0800 (PST), Immortalist

Post by Immortalist

Post by d***@.
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:07:23 +0000 (UTC), Jeff

Here's a controversial viewpoint: If we didn't raise cattle to eat them,
they wouldn't have a chance to live.

    That's how it is. What dishonesty could have led you to think
there's something controversial about the fact, can you say?

And, they seem to live to eat - I
think that's what they enjoy.

    It's the main thing in their lives.

Since we want them to grow rapidly, they get
to eat a lot - perhaps that makes them happy.

    Of course it makes them as happy as cattle can be.

Of course they are killed
early, but if we didn't raise them, they wouldn't get to live at all.

  · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
killed. The animals are not being cheated out of any part
of their life by being raised for food, but instead they are
experiencing whatever life they get as a result of it. ·

I don't really feel this way,

    Do you think you feel that cattle would become part of our
society, and maybe even get jobs, if humans stopped raising them?

but it is an interesting viewpoint, don't you think?
- Jeff

  · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.

Then you people have stolen the definition of vegan.

How can that fact mean "we" stole a defintion of anything?

Post by Immortalist
I have been one a
long time and it is a way of life attempting to use as little animal
products as possible. Also no seeds, nuts, grains or dairy products,
no yogurt, veganism is the strictest way short of fruitarianism or
breathtarianism which wont get you very far. Maybe vegan is a term
that needs to mean something else because in todays fat festival a
radical vegetarian is off the radar and looks like he must be on
drugs, whatever.

They still contribute in the ways I described. The only way
out is to leave the type of society you're bitching about and
working against, and go live where you will no longer benefit
from it. Even if you stop contributing altogether you are still
enjoying the benefits of the society without making any
contribution to it.

Post by Immortalist

Post by d***@.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules,  adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
    The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
    From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

[ex-PFC Wintergreen]

Post by d***@.
They still contribute in the ways I described. The only way
out is to leave the type of society you're bitching about and
working against, and go live where you will no longer benefit
from it. Even if you stop contributing altogether you are still
enjoying the benefits of the society without making any
contribution to it.

Your contribution to society is 100% harmful. Society would
unequivocally be better off if you weren't in it.