Livestock gain nothing from life.

Michael Saunby wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" <jonball.RemoveThis@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:KfuXb.3849$tL3.1809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Michael Saunby wrote:
>>
>
>
> ...
>
>
>>It is important to note that Salt is NOT giving a
>>compelling reason to be vegetarian. What he IS doing
>>is demolishing FUCKWIT's "getting to experience life"
>>rationale as a reason to be a meat eater.
>
>
> He seems to confuse the term "livestock" with "individual".

Since you furnish no context, I have no idea what
you're talking about. However, an individual farm
animal is part of what are collectively considered
livestock. Rather obviously, only individual animals
"get to experience life"; there is no collective
experience.

>
> I wonder what the Pope might make of this argument in relation to
> contraception? Clearly there can be no harm in preventing an animal, or
> person, being concieved.

Catholics aren't concerned with the welfare of the
prevented human. It's the interference with God's
intentions that they don't like.

> Until they are conceived they cannot be harmed.
> Or is the harm done to some entity other than the unborn child? If so
> perhaps others can be harmed by unborn livestock, even if the unborn
> creature cannot be harmed.
>
> Livestock is isn't just a collection of individuals, each breed is an
> entity in its own right,

Not an experiential, autonomous entity. Breeds and
herds don't experience anything.

> perhaps the only real entity when we talk of
> living things since each organism has such a very short and uncertain life.

A breed has no moral interest at all.

> The only reliable way of maintaining a breed is for the breeding stock to
> breed. Granted the same cannot be applied to the "crop". Though there is
> some justification in that too, since the only sensible measure of the
> quality of the breeding stock is in the quailty of the crop.
>
> There is most certainly a benefit for the keeper of livestock in livestock
> being born.

That's clearly not what FUCKWIT is talking about, nor
is it what Salt is arguing against.

> The only reason why some might consider this unethical is
> because they consider, without proof, that humans benefit directly from
> their own life but never from causing the life of another - i.e. that a
> mother does not benefit from having a child. So we imagine that causing
> something to be born is not a benefit, but in truth we know that it is - to
> us, but not to the new life.
>
> ....
>
> Michael Saunby
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Livestock gain nothing from life. 

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 20:21:35 -0000, "Michael Saunby" <msaunby.TakeThisOut@despammed.com> wrote:

>
>"Jonathan Ball" <jonball.TakeThisOut@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>news:KfuXb.3849$tL3.1809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Michael Saunby wrote:
>>
>
>...
>
>>
>> It is important to note that Salt is NOT giving a
>> compelling reason to be vegetarian. What he IS doing
>> is demolishing FUCKWIT's "getting to experience life"
>> rationale as a reason to be a meat eater.
>
>He seems to confuse the term "livestock" with "individual".
>
>I wonder what the Pope might make of this argument in relation to
>contraception? Clearly there can be no harm in preventing an animal, or
>person, being concieved. Until they are conceived they cannot be harmed.
>Or is the harm done to some entity other than the unborn child? If so
>perhaps others can be harmed by unborn livestock, even if the unborn
>creature cannot be harmed.
>
>Livestock is isn't just a collection of individuals, each breed is an
>entity in its own right, perhaps the only real entity when we talk of
>living things since each organism has such a very short and uncertain life.
[...]

Details like that are far beyond what this "discussion" is ever likely to
come to with many people, it appears. These "ARAs" are desperate to
maintain the idea that no farm animals benefit from farming, in order to
put incredible restrictions on our thinking. According to their argument
no farm animals can even benefit more than other farm animals, because
none of them can benefit at all. Those who have a horrible life, benefit
no more or less than those who have a good one. Those who have a
long life, benefit no more or less than those who have a short one. Those
who have a decent life and easy death, benefit no more or less than
wildlife who have a terrible life and die a slow and painful death like
some animals in crop fields. If people begin to realise that some farm
animals benefit from farming, then "ARAs" would not have the advantage
of deceptively promoting the impression that eliminating all farm animals
would be the ethically best course of action. Instead people might decide
that providing them with decent lives would be the best way to go instead,
and that's the last thing that "ARAs" want to see happen.
 >> Stay informed about: Livestock gain nothing from life. 

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:55:53 -0000, "Tony" <Rodney DeleteThis @10uk.net> wrote:

>"Jonathan Gonad" <jongonad DeleteThis @whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>news:lnis20p1b36h6n263vsmmh0hjlpo9q97em@4ax.com...
>> The animals don't gain anything from living.
>
>Here we go! Perhaps posting the charter was timely!
>
>Can I suggest that no one reply to this troll and if you do then remove all
>cross groups. Damn - broke my own rule.

As anyone can see, these "Animal Rights" people want to promote
the impression that all farm animals suffer horrible lives, and gain nothing
from living. That is a lie. They also want to promote the thought that
billions of animals are simply "killed" for food, without people giving any
thought to the fact that many of them have decent lives only because
they are raised to be eaten. It's because no one points out their false
impressions that they are able to promote them successfully. Anyone
who is in favor of promoting decent lives for farm animals should be
*very!!!* opposed to "AR", and maybe should say something about it.

>If I had a cynical mind I would
>guess our absent father wants to kill his baby group and has unleashed the
>kraken on us.
>
>We're gonna get deluged!
>
>T.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Livestock gain nothing from life. 

<dh_ld.RemoveThis@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:h26v20pcvi188l371vf27ujanjc74e2km2@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:55:53 -0000, "Tony" <Rodney.RemoveThis@10uk.net> wrote:
>
> >"Jonathan Gonad" <jongonad.RemoveThis@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> >news:lnis20p1b36h6n263vsmmh0hjlpo9q97em@4ax.com...
> >> The animals don't gain anything from living.
> >
> >Here we go! Perhaps posting the charter was timely!
> >
> >Can I suggest that no one reply to this troll and if you do then remove
all
> >cross groups. Damn - broke my own rule.
>
> As anyone can see, these "Animal Rights" people want to promote
> the impression that all farm animals suffer horrible lives, and gain
nothing
> from living. That is a lie. They also want to promote the thought that
> billions of animals are simply "killed" for food, without people giving
any
> thought to the fact that many of them have decent lives only because
> they are raised to be eaten. It's because no one points out their false
> impressions that they are able to promote them successfully. Anyone
> who is in favor of promoting decent lives for farm animals should be
> *very!!!* opposed to "AR", and maybe should say something about it.
>
> >If I had a cynical mind I would
> >guess our absent father wants to kill his baby group and has unleashed
the
> >kraken on us.
> >
> >We're gonna get deluged!

Let's hope not.............

> >
> >T.
> >

Anyone who can't distinguish between 'living' as in farm animals and 'life'
as in hman beings definitely has a problem. Wake up folks. It's not the
same. If animals have a life then we're no better than animals. I don't
know about other folks but I'm positively BETTER than any animal!

CM

You can take it or leave it...........
 >> Stay informed about: Livestock gain nothing from life. 

dh_ld.TakeThisOut@nomail.com wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 20:47:50 -0000, "ipse dixit" <nospam.TakeThisOut@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Michael Saunby" <msaunby.TakeThisOut@despammed.com> wrote in message news:c0m00o$avq$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jonball.TakeThisOut@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:KfuXb.3849$tL3.1809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>>Michael Saunby wrote:
>>>>
>>>>It is important to note that Salt is NOT giving a
>>>>compelling reason to be vegetarian. What he IS doing
>>>>is demolishing FUCKWIT's "getting to experience life"
>>>>rationale as a reason to be a meat eater.
>>>
>>>He seems to confuse the term "livestock" with "individual".
>>>
>>>I wonder what the Pope might make of this argument in relation to
>>>contraception? Clearly there can be no harm in preventing an animal, or
>>>person, being concieved.
>>
>>You cannot prevent something that doesn't already
>>exist from doing or being something, stupid, but being
>>an animal farmer you want people to believe livestock
>>owe their lives to your stinking industry,
>
>
> That's because they do....billions of them do.

That has no moral meaning.

> How many
> owe their lives to veg*ns? None. Veg*ns are only responsible
> for the deaths of animals, not for their lives.

There is no moral credit earned for causing farm
animals to live.
 >> Stay informed about: Livestock gain nothing from life. 

"Jonathan Ball" <jonball RemoveThis @whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:BCyXb.4065$tL3.2188@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Michael Saunby wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jonball RemoveThis @whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > news:KfuXb.3849$tL3.1809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>Michael Saunby wrote:
> >>
> >
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
> >>It is important to note that Salt is NOT giving a
> >>compelling reason to be vegetarian. What he IS doing
> >>is demolishing FUCKWIT's "getting to experience life"
> >>rationale as a reason to be a meat eater.
> >
> >
> > He seems to confuse the term "livestock" with "individual".
>
> Since you furnish no context, I have no idea what
> you're talking about. However, an individual farm
> animal is part of what are collectively considered
> livestock. Rather obviously, only individual animals
> "get to experience life"; there is no collective
> experience.

He dwell on the concerns a pig might have. A pig has no such concerns,
it's is not a philosopher, it's a pig.

Pigs are the instruments by which pig genetics are transferred into the
future. Whether genes have any particular desire to reach into the future
I couldn't say. However the same effect is seen in all things derived from
genetic material, plants, animals, but not other natural things.

The notion of an individual pig, a member of a herding species, is as
pointless as considering the life of an individual ant. Unless of course
you choose to think of a pig as a four legged person - but why would you
wish to do that?

>
> >
> > I wonder what the Pope might make of this argument in relation to
> > contraception? Clearly there can be no harm in preventing an animal,
or
> > person, being concieved.
>
> Catholics aren't concerned with the welfare of the
> prevented human. It's the interference with God's
> intentions that they don't like.

God's intention being what? Presumably that living things, except Priests,
reproduce.

>
> > Until they are conceived they cannot be harmed.
> > Or is the harm done to some entity other than the unborn child? If so
> > perhaps others can be harmed by unborn livestock, even if the unborn
> > creature cannot be harmed.
> >
> > Livestock is isn't just a collection of individuals, each breed is an
> > entity in its own right,
>
> Not an experiential, autonomous entity. Breeds and
> herds don't experience anything.

Just as human societies can't experience anything. Well, of course there's
history and culture, but perhaps that's just a fiction invented by aliens.

>
> > perhaps the only real entity when we talk of
> > living things since each organism has such a very short and uncertain
life.
>
> A breed has no moral interest at all.
>

What possible moral interest has a single pig?

> > The only reliable way of maintaining a breed is for the breeding stock
to
> > breed. Granted the same cannot be applied to the "crop". Though there
is
> > some justification in that too, since the only sensible measure of the
> > quality of the breeding stock is in the quailty of the crop.
> >
> > There is most certainly a benefit for the keeper of livestock in
livestock
> > being born.
>
> That's clearly not what FUCKWIT is talking about, nor
> is it what Salt is arguing against.
>

Salt is arguing for the consideration of other entities being equivalent to
ourselves. Granted the well-being of any random pig is as important to me
as your well-being. Both being of considerably less concern to me than the
well-being of my bicycle - an inanimate object with no moral interests at
all.

> > The only reason why some might consider this unethical is
> > because they consider, without proof, that humans benefit directly from
> > their own life but never from causing the life of another - i.e. that a
> > mother does not benefit from having a child. So we imagine that
causing
> > something to be born is not a benefit, but in truth we know that it
is - to
> > us, but not to the new life.
> >
> > ....
> >

Michael Saunby
 >> Stay informed about: Livestock gain nothing from life. 

Michael Saunby wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" <jonball.DeleteThis@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:BCyXb.4065$tL3.2188@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Michael Saunby wrote:
>>
>>

>>>>It is important to note that Salt is NOT giving a
>>>>compelling reason to be vegetarian. What he IS doing
>>>>is demolishing FUCKWIT's "getting to experience life"
>>>>rationale as a reason to be a meat eater.
>>>
>>>
>>>He seems to confuse the term "livestock" with "individual".
>>
>>Since you furnish no context, I have no idea what
>>you're talking about. However, an individual farm
>>animal is part of what are collectively considered
>>livestock. Rather obviously, only individual animals
>>"get to experience life"; there is no collective
>>experience.
>
>
> He dwell on the concerns a pig might have. A pig has no such concerns,
> it's is not a philosopher, it's a pig.

Come on, now. He's trying to put himself in the pig's
place. It's a legitimate thought exercise. The people
who subscribe to the (il)logic of the larder are, in
effect, doing it, too: they are presuming that the pig
is better off for having existed. Given that Salt is
trying to attack their belief, it is perfectly
legitimate that he would try to attack it using their
terms.

>
> Pigs are the instruments by which pig genetics are transferred into the
> future. Whether genes have any particular desire to reach into the future
> I couldn't say. However the same effect is seen in all things derived from
> genetic material, plants, animals, but not other natural things.
>
> The notion of an individual pig, a member of a herding species, is as
> pointless as considering the life of an individual ant.

No, it emphatically is not. It is the *individual* pig
that lives, that "gets to experience life", that the
nitwits subscribing to the (il)logic of the larder are
talking about. Only individual animals "get to
experience life". The idiot subscribers to the false
philosophy certainly aren't talking about the moral
benefit of Pigness.

> Unless of course
> you choose to think of a pig as a four legged person - but why would you
> wish to do that?

I don't. Nor does Salt. He's writing rhetorically.

I had thought you were more perceptive than this.

>
>
>>>I wonder what the Pope might make of this argument in relation to
>>>contraception? Clearly there can be no harm in preventing an animal,
>
> or
>
>>>person, being concieved.
>>
>>Catholics aren't concerned with the welfare of the
>>prevented human. It's the interference with God's
>>intentions that they don't like.
>
>
> God's intention being what?

Ask some Catholics. I'm not interested in pursuing this.

> Presumably that living things, except Priests,
> reproduce.
>
>
>>>Until they are conceived they cannot be harmed.
>>>Or is the harm done to some entity other than the unborn child? If so
>>>perhaps others can be harmed by unborn livestock, even if the unborn
>>>creature cannot be harmed.
>>>
>>>Livestock is isn't just a collection of individuals, each breed is an
>>>entity in its own right,
>>
>>Not an experiential, autonomous entity. Breeds and
>>herds don't experience anything.
>
>
> Just as human societies can't experience anything. Well, of course there's
> history and culture, but perhaps that's just a fiction invented by aliens.
>
>
>>>perhaps the only real entity when we talk of living things
>>>since each organism has such a very short and uncertain life.
>
>>A breed has no moral interest at all.
>>
>
>
> What possible moral interest has a single pig?

An individual pig has interests. Humans who are
interested in the morality of our use of animals can
fairly talk about the interests of pigs, and can try to
define what *we* view as their moral interests.

>
>
>>>The only reliable way of maintaining a breed is for the breeding stock to
>>>breed. Granted the same cannot be applied to the "crop". Though there is
>>>some justification in that too, since the only sensible measure of the
>>>quality of the breeding stock is in the quailty of the crop.
>>>
>>>There is most certainly a benefit for the keeper of livestock in livestock
>>>being born.
>>
>>That's clearly not what FUCKWIT is talking about, nor
>>is it what Salt is arguing against.
>>
>
>
> Salt is arguing for the consideration of other entities being equivalent to
> ourselves.

I'm not sure he's arguing their equivalence, just that
other animals - not species - have interests.

> Granted the well-being of any random pig is as important to me
> as your well-being.

Well, prior to that gratuitous insult, I would have
said that your well-being was *more* important to me
than the well-being of any pig you might imagine, but I
suppose I'll have to reconsider.

> Both being of considerably less concern to me than the
> well-being of my bicycle - an inanimate object with no moral interests at
> all.

So, if a speeding car were to veer off onto the
pavement (sidewalk), and your bicycle and a human child
were in its path, you'd save the bicycle.

Fuck you, shitbag. Fuck you and everyone named Saunby,
then.

>
>
>>>The only reason why some might consider this unethical is
>>>because they consider, without proof, that humans benefit directly from
>>>their own life but never from causing the life of another - i.e. that a
>>>mother does not benefit from having a child. So we imagine that causing
>>>something to be born is not a benefit, but in truth we know that it is - to
>>>us, but not to the new life.
>>>
>>>....
>>>
>
>
> Michael Saunby, moral bankrupt
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Livestock gain nothing from life. 

"Jonathan Ball" <jonball RemoveThis @whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:MgQXb.4863$WW3.1240@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Michael Saunby wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" <jonball RemoveThis @whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> > news:BCyXb.4065$tL3.2188@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>Michael Saunby wrote:
> >>
> >>
>
> >>>>It is important to note that Salt is NOT giving a
> >>>>compelling reason to be vegetarian. What he IS doing
> >>>>is demolishing FUCKWIT's "getting to experience life"
> >>>>rationale as a reason to be a meat eater.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>He seems to confuse the term "livestock" with "individual".
> >>
> >>Since you furnish no context, I have no idea what
> >>you're talking about. However, an individual farm
> >>animal is part of what are collectively considered
> >>livestock. Rather obviously, only individual animals
> >>"get to experience life"; there is no collective
> >>experience.
> >
> >
> > He dwell on the concerns a pig might have. A pig has no such concerns,
> > it's is not a philosopher, it's a pig.
>
> Come on, now. He's trying to put himself in the pig's
> place. It's a legitimate thought exercise. The people

Sure and in my work I'm capable of putting myself in the position of an
orbiting satellite and imagining what the world might look like from that
POV, but I don't actually believe the damned things actually experience
what I imagine. That would be crazy.

> who subscribe to the (il)logic of the larder are, in
> effect, doing it, too: they are presuming that the pig
> is better off for having existed. Given that Salt is
> trying to attack their belief, it is perfectly
> legitimate that he would try to attack it using their
> terms.
>

Well it doesn't work. You can't argue that being born isn't a benefit,
without arguing that not being born isn't a benefit. The two things must
have equal value. So just as there is no benefit to the pig in being born,
there is no loss to the pig in being born either. Salt didn't seem to get
that, and it seems you don't either.

> >
> > Pigs are the instruments by which pig genetics are transferred into the
> > future. Whether genes have any particular desire to reach into the
future
> > I couldn't say. However the same effect is seen in all things derived
from
> > genetic material, plants, animals, but not other natural things.
> >
> > The notion of an individual pig, a member of a herding species, is as
> > pointless as considering the life of an individual ant.
>
> No, it emphatically is not. It is the *individual* pig
> that lives, that "gets to experience life", that the
> nitwits subscribing to the (il)logic of the larder are
> talking about. Only individual animals "get to
> experience life". The idiot subscribers to the false
> philosophy certainly aren't talking about the moral
> benefit of Pigness.

So what's wrong with considering a worker ant, a sterile animal that cannot
under any circumstances reproduce? Why do you wish to consider that a pig
might "experience life" but not an ant, or even a tulip?

You and I both know that many animals do not exist in a meaningful way as
individuals, just as a leaf on a tree might also be alive, it's very
unlikely that it experiences anything that we might relate to, other than
the normal sensations of any living thing when it caries out the bacis
processes of life.

Is the life of a grass plant in a lawn and less worthwhile than one growing
on the plains? Why should the life of a pig on a farm be any less
worthwhile than that of a pig in a forest? Be honest this is what Salt and
the vegans are arguing. That living a life in one way rather than another
is worse than not living at all. No thought experiement can sort that out.

>
> > Unless of course
> > you choose to think of a pig as a four legged person - but why would
you
> > wish to do that?
>
> I don't. Nor does Salt. He's writing rhetorically.
>
> I had thought you were more perceptive than this.
>

At least. Try this one. Given the lack of opportunity to express the
things that pigs must value for each and every human ever born, would a pig
see any value in being born a human. Better to never be born, wouldn't you
say? But how can that be, born or not born it cannot be any different.

> >
> >
> >>>I wonder what the Pope might make of this argument in relation to
> >>>contraception? Clearly there can be no harm in preventing an animal,
> >
> > or
> >
> >>>person, being concieved.
> >>
> >>Catholics aren't concerned with the welfare of the
> >>prevented human. It's the interference with God's
> >>intentions that they don't like.
> >
> >
> > God's intention being what?
>
> Ask some Catholics. I'm not interested in pursuing this.
>
> > Presumably that living things, except Priests,
> > reproduce.
> >
> >
> >>>Until they are conceived they cannot be harmed.
> >>>Or is the harm done to some entity other than the unborn child? If so
> >>>perhaps others can be harmed by unborn livestock, even if the unborn
> >>>creature cannot be harmed.
> >>>
> >>>Livestock is isn't just a collection of individuals, each breed is an
> >>>entity in its own right,
> >>
> >>Not an experiential, autonomous entity. Breeds and
> >>herds don't experience anything.
> >
> >
> > Just as human societies can't experience anything. Well, of course
there's
> > history and culture, but perhaps that's just a fiction invented by
aliens.
> >
> >
> >>>perhaps the only real entity when we talk of living things
> >>>since each organism has such a very short and uncertain life.
> >
> >>A breed has no moral interest at all.
> >>
> >
> >
> > What possible moral interest has a single pig?
>
> An individual pig has interests. Humans who are
> interested in the morality of our use of animals can
> fairly talk about the interests of pigs, and can try to
> define what *we* view as their moral interests.
>

So what are those interests? Surely for any living thing those interests
are little more than the expression of its genetics. If we select those
genes then it seems there is a very strong chance that being livestock is
precisely what their interests are. Or do pet dogs really want to be
astronauts or film stars but are held back by oppressive owners?


> >
> >
> >>>The only reliable way of maintaining a breed is for the breeding stock
to
> >>>breed. Granted the same cannot be applied to the "crop". Though there
is
> >>>some justification in that too, since the only sensible measure of the
> >>>quality of the breeding stock is in the quailty of the crop.
> >>>
> >>>There is most certainly a benefit for the keeper of livestock in
livestock
> >>>being born.
> >>
> >>That's clearly not what FUCKWIT is talking about, nor
> >>is it what Salt is arguing against.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Salt is arguing for the consideration of other entities being
equivalent to
> > ourselves.
>
> I'm not sure he's arguing their equivalence, just that
> other animals - not species - have interests.

He argues that their interests are more like our own. Why should that be?
What makes animals more like us and less like furniture?

>
> > Granted the well-being of any random pig is as important to me
> > as your well-being.
>
> Well, prior to that gratuitous insult, I would have
> said that your well-being was *more* important to me
> than the well-being of any pig you might imagine, but I
> suppose I'll have to reconsider.

Of course, and you can. You have free will. Does a pig have such a
capaicity? What about a tree?

>
> > Both being of considerably less concern to me than the
> > well-being of my bicycle - an inanimate object with no moral interests
at
> > all.
>
> So, if a speeding car were to veer off onto the
> pavement (sidewalk), and your bicycle and a human child
> were in its path, you'd save the bicycle.
>

Who knows. I'd do what came naturally at the time, as I'm sure would the
child and it's parents. Perhaps it's more important to consider what the
pig would do?

I certainly do feel it makes sense for me to maintain my bicycle and keep
it safe. I don't feel the same obligation on a daily basis to ensure that
no harm comes in any child in my neighbourhood, the western hemisphere, or
wherever.

> Fuck you, shitbag. Fuck you and everyone named Saunby,
> then.
>

Heck relatives of mine have loved their pets and bombed German cities in
the past. We each do what seems right at the time. My life is not
governed by a moral code that ranks all species in order of merit. What is
mine necessarily has a greater value to me that that which is not mine.

> >
> >
> >>>The only reason why some might consider this unethical is
> >>>because they consider, without proof, that humans benefit directly
from
> >>>their own life but never from causing the life of another - i.e. that
a
> >>>mother does not benefit from having a child. So we imagine that
causing
> >>>something to be born is not a benefit, but in truth we know that it
is - to
> >>>us, but not to the new life.
> >>>
> >>>....
> >>>
> >
> >
> > Michael Saunby, moral bankrupt
> >


Whatever.

Michael Saunby
 >> Stay informed about: Livestock gain nothing from life. 

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:41:40 -0000, "Michael Saunby"
<msaunby DeleteThis @despammed.com> wrote:

>
>"Jonathan Ball" <jonball DeleteThis @whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>news:MgQXb.4863$WW3.1240@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Michael Saunby wrote:
>>
>> > "Jonathan Ball" <jonball DeleteThis @whitehouse.not> wrote in message
>> > news:BCyXb.4065$tL3.2188@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> >>Michael Saunby wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> >>>>It is important to note that Salt is NOT giving a
>> >>>>compelling reason to be vegetarian. What he IS doing
>> >>>>is demolishing FUCKWIT's "getting to experience life"
>> >>>>rationale as a reason to be a meat eater.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>He seems to confuse the term "livestock" with "individual".
>> >>
>> >>Since you furnish no context, I have no idea what
>> >>you're talking about. However, an individual farm
>> >>animal is part of what are collectively considered
>> >>livestock. Rather obviously, only individual animals
>> >>"get to experience life"; there is no collective
>> >>experience.
>> >
>> >
>> > He dwell on the concerns a pig might have. A pig has no such concerns,
>> > it's is not a philosopher, it's a pig.
>>
>> Come on, now. He's trying to put himself in the pig's
>> place. It's a legitimate thought exercise. The people
>
>Sure and in my work I'm capable of putting myself in the position of an
>orbiting satellite and imagining what the world might look like from that
>POV, but I don't actually believe the damned things actually experience
>what I imagine. That would be crazy.

It would be even crazier to imagine what the satellites would have
imagined had they never been constructed or launched.

>> who subscribe to the (il)logic of the larder are, in
>> effect, doing it, too: they are presuming that the pig
>> is better off for having existed. Given that Salt is
>> trying to attack their belief, it is perfectly
>> legitimate that he would try to attack it using their
>> terms.
>>
>
>Well it doesn't work. You can't argue that being born isn't a benefit,
>without arguing that not being born isn't a benefit.

I disagree. Not being born is null. There is no moral consideration
one can give to a non-entity.

>The two things must have equal value.

How does one evaluate nothing? Not zero. *Nothing*.

>So just as there is no benefit to the pig in being born,
>there is no loss to the pig in being born either. Salt didn't seem to get
>that, and it seems you don't either.

I believe you snipped Jon's pertinent reply here, so you two carry on.

>Michael Saunby

Much more attentive to attribs these days,

-- swamp
 >> Stay informed about: Livestock gain nothing from life. 

You know, jonnie, I'm beginning to think Harrison is right -- you are
an ARA at heart, but you are simply disguising it for some reason by
engaging in personal attacks on individual ARAs.

You clearly understand the basics of AR -- the individual moral
standing of SOL animals (i.e., those with interests.) You clearly
agree this presents a moral question and creates moral obligations.

Why do you refuse to follow out the implications of your views
honestly?

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>

>>> Come on, now. He's trying to put himself in the pig's
>>> place. It's a legitimate thought exercise. The people

<snip>
> Not from being born, but then there *is* a loss to the
> pig in having its life ended at the hands of humans.
<snip>
>>> No, it emphatically is not. It is the *individual* pig
>>> that lives, that "gets to experience life", that the
>>> nitwits subscribing to the (il)logic of the larder are
>>> talking about. Only individual animals "get to
>>> experience life". The idiot subscribers to the false
>>> philosophy certainly aren't talking about the moral
>>> benefit of Pigness.

<snip>

> The tulip is obvious. The ant might not be as obvious
> to a confused person like you. The pig has an
> experiential reality.

That "experiential reality" is much what Regan means by
being SOL.

<snip>
> I think, and you think, that quite a lot of animals
> *do* exist in a meaningful way.

<snip>
>>>>> A breed has no moral interest at all.

>>>> What possible moral interest has a single pig?

>>> An individual pig has interests. Humans who are
>>> interested in the morality of our use of animals can
>>> fairly talk about the interests of pigs, and can try to
>>> define what *we* view as their moral interests.

>> So what are those interests?

> Not suffering.

> I probably condensed it a little much. Humans can
> consider what it is proper for a moral actor to do to a
> moral patient. They can look at the pig and say that
> it is immoral for humans to do certain things to the
> pig, or immoral to do some things that are moral in and
> of themselves, say kill them to eat them, but not moral
> to do in certain ways. That is what I mean by the
> moral interests of a pig.

<snip>
> Don't you basically want to be
> left alone, not made to suffer by your fellows? If
> not, saphead, maybe I can oblige you.

>> What makes animals more like us and less like furniture?

> They have interests.

<snip>

I could have written most of that post.

Are you arguing against AR just be be contrary?

Rat
 >> Stay informed about: Livestock gain nothing from life. 

"Michael Saunby" <msaunby.TakeThisOut@despammed.com> wrote in message news:c0olig$amq$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>You can't argue that being born isn't a benefit

Once that intentional double negative is removed
from your sentence it gives us;

"You can argue that being born is a benefit."

Being born is clearly a benefit to the unborn
foetus struggling for its first breath of air, but
that isn't the issue being raised here. The issue
is that you believe unconceived animals can
be benefited by our moral consideration to
bring whatever "they" may currently be into a
physical World. This begs a question and
presumes a knowledge of their pre-existent
state, and that it can be benefited in some way.
If the non-existent is to be given any identity at
all for the benefit of argument, why do you
assume "it" isn't enjoying "things" just as they
are?

A benefit is something gained from a relative
position, but if that position is non-existent it
isn't relative to anything but itself and cannot
be advantaged in any way.
 >> Stay informed about: Livestock gain nothing from life. 

"Rat & Swan" <labrat.DeleteThis@cybermesa.com> wrote in message news:c0qnib$7ks$1@reader2.nmix.net...
>
>
> You know, jonnie, I'm beginning to think Harrison is right -- you are
> an ARA at heart, but you are simply disguising it for some reason by
> engaging in personal attacks on individual ARAs.
>
> You clearly understand the basics of AR -- the individual moral
> standing of SOL animals (i.e., those with interests.) You clearly
> agree this presents a moral question and creates moral obligations.
>
Someone shoot him! I just can't bear to see him like
this anymore!

> Why do you refuse to follow out the implications of your views
> honestly?
>
Jon's whole family is vegan. He used to email me
pictures of his son and cat etc. a long while ago,
and I noticed a "Meat Is Murder" sticker next to
his calendar on the kitchen wall in one of them.
 >> Stay informed about: Livestock gain nothing from life. 

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> You know, jonnie, I'm beginning to think Harrison is right -- you are
> an ARA at heart, but you are simply disguising it for some reason by
> engaging in personal attacks on individual ARAs.

No, you don't think that at all. You're just out of
gas, and you need some issue to flap your gums over.

>
> You clearly understand the basics of AR -- the individual moral
> standing of SOL animals (i.e., those with interests.) You clearly
> agree this presents a moral question and creates moral obligations.

Just not rights. Hence, I'm not an "ara".

>
> Why do you refuse to follow out the implications of your views
> honestly?

I do, fully.

Why do you fail to live out the implications of your
views, Karen? Your views oblige you not to kill
animals at all, not merely refrain from consuming
animal parts. You kill animals wantonly, and you don't
make any effort at all to stop. Why? Why are you such
an appalling hypocrite and liar?
 >> Stay informed about: Livestock gain nothing from life.