Livestock gain nothing from life.

Michael Saunby wrote:

> "ipse dixit" <nospam DeleteThis @email.com> wrote in message
> news:1031idvl8q0rq21@news.supernews.com...
>
>>"Michael Saunby" <msaunby DeleteThis @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?
>
>
> NO. I'm arguing that the world benefits from them being born.

The world? You mean the Matterhorn and Lake Superior
and the molten core somehow are better off because
there are farm animals? How so? Actually, to the
extent animal waste pollutes the Great Lakes, I think
Lake Superior might be worse off.

> You didn't
> get any benefit from being born, since almost certainly you were a great
> deal smarter in the unborn state. However when you die you will be food
> for many thousands of worms, and until then they wait patiently.

Perhaps you mean, mainly, that people are better off
from the farm animals being born. Fair enough. The
farm animals themselves, though, are not better off,
unless you believe they existed in some pre-born state,
AND you believe that state isn't as good as the one
they experience once they're born. Since you have no
rational reason to think they existed in a pre-born
state, and since even if you do believe it you have no
knowledge of the quality of their existence in that
state, there is no rational reason for you to believe
the farm animals themselves "benefit" from being born.

>
>
>>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.
>>
>
>
> Really? What will the worms make of that I wonder?

The worms, if they exist, might benefit from Dreck's
existence and subsequent death. Dreck himself didn't
benefit from being born. The worms also didn't benefit
from being born. No living thing benefited from coming
into existence.
 >> Stay informed about: Livestock gain nothing from life. 

"Jonathan Ball" <jonball RemoveThis @whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:Iy8Yb.6167$tL3.2177@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Michael Saunby wrote:
>
> > "ipse dixit" <nospam RemoveThis @email.com> wrote in message
> > news:1031idvl8q0rq21@news.supernews.com...
> >
> >>"Michael Saunby" <msaunby RemoveThis @despammed.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:c0olig$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?
> >
> >
> > NO. I'm arguing that the world benefits from them being born.
>
> The world? You mean the Matterhorn and Lake Superior
> and the molten core somehow are better off because
> there are farm animals? How so? Actually, to the
> extent animal waste pollutes the Great Lakes, I think
> Lake Superior might be worse off.

Very many people today argue that the environment be protected from harm
and biodiversity be preserved. Granted vegans aren't among this number,
but they're a tiny bunch of oddballs,

> > You didn't
> > get any benefit from being born, since almost certainly you were a
great
> > deal smarter in the unborn state. However when you die you will be
food
> > for many thousands of worms, and until then they wait patiently.
>
> Perhaps you mean, mainly, that people are better off
> from the farm animals being born. Fair enough. The
> farm animals themselves, though, are not better off,
> unless you believe they existed in some pre-born state,
> AND you believe that state isn't as good as the one
> they experience once they're born. Since you have no
> rational reason to think they existed in a pre-born
> state, and since even if you do believe it you have no
> knowledge of the quality of their existence in that
> state, there is no rational reason for you to believe
> the farm animals themselves "benefit" from being born.
>

Living things do exist in an elimentary unborn state, they exist as DNA and
that DNA is lost if it is not moved from one generation to the next in
living things. How do you propose that life continues if "being born" is
such a poor deal? Surely if you're not happy about having been born you
have it within you power to give up your life?

The only possible argument that livestock might have less reason to live
than people is that people have an uncertain future. Why should an
uncertain future be such a big deal?

> >
> >
> >>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.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Really? What will the worms make of that I wonder?
>
> The worms, if they exist, might benefit from Dreck's
> existence and subsequent death. Dreck himself didn't
> benefit from being born. The worms also didn't benefit
> from being born. No living thing benefited from coming
> into existence.
>

Yet it happens, and has done for a long time amongst the less creatures on
this planet. Granted the smart one, dinosaurs, etc. gave it up as a poor
way of existing long ago. Now it's mostly just us and the other livestock.

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

Michael Saunby wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" <jonball RemoveThis @whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:Iy8Yb.6167$tL3.2177@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>>Michael Saunby wrote:
>>
>>

>>>>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?
>>>
>>>
>>>NO. I'm arguing that the world benefits from them being born.
>>
>>The world? You mean the Matterhorn and Lake Superior
>>and the molten core somehow are better off because
>>there are farm animals? How so? Actually, to the
>>extent animal waste pollutes the Great Lakes, I think
>>Lake Superior might be worse off.
>
>
> Very many people today argue that the environment be protected from harm
> and biodiversity be preserved.

Argumentum ad populum.

Are *you* arguing that, Saunby?

> Granted vegans aren't among this number,
> but they're a tiny bunch of oddballs,
>
>
>>>You didn't
>>>get any benefit from being born, since almost certainly you were a
>
> great
>
>>>deal smarter in the unborn state. However when you die you will be
>
> food
>
>>>for many thousands of worms, and until then they wait patiently.
>>
>>Perhaps you mean, mainly, that people are better off
>>from the farm animals being born. Fair enough. The
>>farm animals themselves, though, are not better off,
>>unless you believe they existed in some pre-born state,
>>AND you believe that state isn't as good as the one
>>they experience once they're born. Since you have no
>>rational reason to think they existed in a pre-born
>>state, and since even if you do believe it you have no
>>knowledge of the quality of their existence in that
>>state, there is no rational reason for you to believe
>>the farm animals themselves "benefit" from being born.
>>
>
>
> Living things do exist in an elimentary unborn state, they exist as DNA and
> that DNA is lost if it is not moved from one generation to the next in
> living things.

DNA is not what those who employ the (il)logic of the
larder are talking about, and you know it. They are
talking about the supposed "benefit" that accrues to a
"subject-of-a-life" animal from being born and "getting
to experience life". You know that.

> How do you propose that life continues if "being born" is
> such a poor deal? Surely if you're not happy about having been born you
> have it within you power to give up your life?

Now that I'm here, I want to continue to live a good
while longer. I never said I was unhappy about having
been born. You need to learn to read more attentively.

>
> The only possible argument that livestock might have less reason to live
> than people is that people have an uncertain future. Why should an
> uncertain future be such a big deal?
>
>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Really? What will the worms make of that I wonder?
>>
>>The worms, if they exist, might benefit from Dreck's
>>existence and subsequent death. Dreck himself didn't
>>benefit from being born. The worms also didn't benefit
>>from being born. No living thing benefited from coming
>>into existence.
>>
>
>
> Yet it happens,

Realization of a "benefit" from being born? No, it
does not happen. It cannot happen.

> and has done for a long time amongst the less creatures on
> this planet. Granted the smart one, dinosaurs, etc. gave it up as a poor
> way of existing long ago.

You're a dope. The dinosaurs didn't voluntarily go out
of existence.

> Now it's mostly just us and the other livestock.
>
> Michael Saunby

"Other" livestock? I guess you ought to count yourself
among livestock.
 >> Stay informed about: Livestock gain nothing from life. 

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> It seems a good possibility, given your argument with Saunby.

No, you don't think it at all. You're just trolling.


>>> 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".
>
>
> I gather you agree that rights are socially created

No. Socially recognized.

> -- that they
> are constructs of human social groups -- for humans. It seems
> reasonable, given your views on the nature of non-human animals,
> that they would have the same potential for rights as humans, if
> humans agreed to recognize or "give" them rights.

It is eminently unreasonable that they ever *would*
agree ot "give" them rights.

> Given your
> views on the moral standing of at least some non-human animals,
> why would you not agree that they would be deserving of some sort
> of rights -- perhaps "rights lite" of some kind -- similar to those
> granted human moral patients?

Why don't YOU agree they deserve rights? You clearly
don't; you casually participate in the death of animals
on a daily basis, and are making no effort to stop.

> You specifically describe them as
> moral patients in your post.
>
>>> Why do you refuse to follow out the implications of your views
>>> honestly?
>
>
>> I do, fully.
>
>
> I think you are refusing to face the question squarely.

I'm not. I KNOW you are refusing to adhere to the
demands of your supposed philosophy.

>
>> 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.
>
>
> No, no more than your views oblige you to avoid all products which have
> some human deaths involved, as almost all products do.

We've been through this before. You lost unequivocally
and devastatingly, and we're not considering it again.
The collateral deaths you cause are not morally
comparable to the human deaths, and you know it. You
know what the moral differences are.

>
> I think if we move beyond strictly personal attack

There is no personal attack going on. You have shown
yourself to be thoroughly unqualified to discuss
morality with anyone. You abandoned your son, and now
try to rationalize it with the foulest sophistry. You
slaughter animals, and you try to rationalize it with
the foulest sophistry. You are a hypocrite and a liar.
Decent people, of whom I am one, do not take moral
instruction from lying, hypocritical moral bankrupts.
 >> Stay informed about: Livestock gain nothing from life. 

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>
> (I)...do not take moral instruction....

Perhaps not, but why not engage in discussion of the issues?

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

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>

> Because the issues have been discussed to death, and you have nothing
> left to say; you lost, unambiguously, on the issues.


This is true of you, certainly. You no longer discuss issues at all,
even when offered the opportunity. You trot out your one personal
attack, your one disproven argument, and lazily assume you need no
more specific or on-topic argument.

> This is chiefly a
> moral discussion, and you wish to impose your moral values.

Yes, that is so. And readers easily see that a person who HAS no
moral argument in support of his position, but relies solely on
personal attack, nasty, childish obscenities and calling names, has
nothing real to say about the subject. You have long since given up
presenting any argument on the moral issues involved in discussion
of AR or vegetarianism; you realize yours are dubious and difficult
to argue, and require a degree of learning and intellectual
sophistication to present adequately that you simply do not have.
You have taken the lazy way out, and now do nothing but shout rude
nicknames and personal insults at those who disagree with you.

As I said, despite your black and wizened spirit, and your cruelty,
and your childishness, you do still bear the image of Christ, who died
for us both. I do not despair of your possible turn to humility and
charity toward your fellow beings, human and non-human, and I do pray
for you.

Rat

<snip>
 >> Stay informed about: Livestock gain nothing from life. 

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>

> Go. Go NOW, Karen. You are finished.

If you really believed that, you wouldn't be so shrill about it.
You protest too much, methinks, jonnie. :)
 >> Stay informed about: Livestock gain nothing from life. 

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:12:30 GMT, "Michael" <michael-nooospppammmmsan.DeleteThis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>"Tony" <Rodney.DeleteThis@10uk.net> wrote in message
>news:c0ljod$18gf5p$1@ID-156344.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> "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. 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!
>
>Quickly killfile this guy. I was wondering why my killfile starting
>deleting posts on this group. He has been a true pain on misc.rural for a
>few years. His crossposting will quickly bring in many others who do not
>check the "newsgroups" header on the return.
>
>As an example, over half the posts to misc.rural are deleted because they
>come from JB or are crossposts.

It's too bad that none of you people who raise animals are willing to
stick up for the fact that many animals benefit from being raised by
humans....even some of them who are eaten. That certainly gives the
"ARAs" a great advantage. But then, maybe none of you believe the
animals you raise *do* benefit from farming. Apparently you don't believe
they do enough to point it out to people who aren't aware of it.
 >> Stay informed about: Livestock gain nothing from life. 

Jonathan Gonad <jongonad.RemoveThis@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<lnis20p1b36h6n263vsmmh0hjlpo9q97em.RemoveThis@4ax.com>...
> From: Jonathan Ball <jonball.RemoveThis@whitehouse.not>
> Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
> Subject: Re: "getting to experience life" = the (il)logic of the larder
> Message-ID: <LzrXb.3676$tL3.811@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 15:57:31 GMT
>
>
>
> The animals don't gain anything from living.



Perhaps if we introduced them to the arts...
 >> Stay informed about: Livestock gain nothing from life.