Meat eaters contribute to life and death

dh_ld RemoveThis @nomail.com wrote:

> · Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
> if we didn't raise them for that purpose,

There is no moral good that arises out of the animals'
"getting to experience life". Therefore, if the entire
human race were to decide to become strictly
vegetarian, and no more "billions of farm animals" were
to be produced, there would be no moral loss.
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 19:56:05 +0100, "Zakhar" <nospam.DeleteThis@donotuse123.com>
wrote:

>
><dh_ld.DeleteThis@nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:ciumlvku2f77je0rm415hr0rnad42a4tv1@4ax.com...
>> · 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. ·
>
>Think of all the life you waste every time you have a wank.

Catholicism. Zakhar.. Isn't ecumenism the goal?

Careful,

--swamp
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 19:56:05 +0100, "Zakhar" <nospam RemoveThis @donotuse123.com> wrote:

>
><dh_ld RemoveThis @nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:ciumlvku2f77je0rm415hr0rnad42a4tv1@4ax.com...
>> · 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. ·
>
>Think of all the life you waste every time you have a wank.

OK...none. Think of all the life we contribute to every time
we eat some chicken or turkey.
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

dh_ld.RemoveThis@nomail.com wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 19:56:05 +0100, "Zakhar" <nospam.RemoveThis@donotuse123.com> wrote:
>
>
>><dh_ld.RemoveThis@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>news:ciumlvku2f77je0rm415hr0rnad42a4tv1@4ax.com...
>>
>>> · 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. ·
>>
>>Think of all the life you waste every time you have a wank.
>
>
> OK...none. Think of all the life we contribute to every time
> we eat some chicken or turkey.

You are not doing a moral good deed.
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

Bill wrote:
> dh_ld.TakeThisOut@nomail.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 19:56:05 +0100, "Zakhar" <nospam.TakeThisOut@donotuse123.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> <dh_ld.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ciumlvku2f77je0rm415hr0rnad42a4tv1@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> · 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. ·
>>>
>>> Think of all the life you waste every time you have a wank.
>>
>>
>> OK...none. Think of all the life we contribute to every time
>> we eat some chicken or turkey.
>
> You are not doing a moral good deed.

2 Questions:

1 ) 'Not doing moral good deed' by wanking or eating turkey?

2 ) What do you consider moral?

Dave.
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

Dave wrote:

> Bill wrote:
>
>>dh_ld@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 19:56:05 +0100, "Zakhar" <nospam.RemoveThis@donotuse123.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>><dh_ld.RemoveThis@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:ciumlvku2f77je0rm415hr0rnad42a4tv1@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> · 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. ·
>>>>
>>>>Think of all the life you waste every time you have a wank.
>>>
>>>
>>> OK...none. Think of all the life we contribute to every time
>>>we eat some chicken or turkey.
>>
>>You are not doing a moral good deed.
>
>
> 2 Questions:
>
> 1 ) 'Not doing moral good deed' by wanking or eating turkey?

The OP believes, irrationally, that some kind of moral
good or utility results from an animal being born and
"getting to experience life" (his words). Thus, he
believes that if "vegans" were to implement a regime of
strict vegetarianism, which obviously would lead to the
near-extinction of domestic farm animals (no need for
them), there would be a net reduction of this
particular kind of moral goodness or utility. He then
goes on to conclude, irrationally and stupidly, that
"vegans" are evil for advocating something that would
lead to this reduction.

Another poster in one of the cross-posted groups noted
that, by wanking rather than impregnating a woman (and
causing a new human to "get to experience life"), the
OP was causing a sub-optimal outcome.

>
> 2 ) What do you consider moral?

Whatever it is, it involves the relations between two
living entities who already exist. It is *not* a moral
issue to cause the entities to come into existence, so
if some course of action prevents potential living
entities from coming into existence (and "getting to
experience life"), there also is no moral dimension.
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

<dh_ld.TakeThisOut@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:ciumlvku2f77je0rm415hr0rnad42a4tv1@4ax.com...
> · 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. ·

Hi Dave,

i follow what you're saying... it's better to experience some life rather
than none and also if the animals would be happy while alive, and also be
killed painlessly, then it would seem good.

i follow the idea... but let me ask 1 difficult question.... if it was good
to create lives and then kill the individuals:
- if someone was repeatedly breeding dogs and then killing them after 5
months, would this also be good?
- if someone was having children, and killing them after a few years, would
this be okay?


to be philosophical, i think that if something is "given" it then belongs to
who has it, and it 'can't' be taken back
....if you give money to a charity (similar to creating lives for their
ability to experience life), you 'can't' steal the same amount of money from
them later

at least this is the way i feel about it
Jon
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

Jon Janssen wrote:

> <dh_ld.DeleteThis@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:ciumlvku2f77je0rm415hr0rnad42a4tv1@4ax.com...
>
>> · 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. ·
>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> i follow what you're saying... it's better to experience some life rather
> than none

That's wrong. It isn't better. It isn't worse,
either. The comparison cannot be made.

You STILL are, without question, the worst writer ever
to spend time in these newsgroups. I know that English
is your native tongue, and you write it as if you
barely got out of elementary school.
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

That was far too much to read, can you summarise the key points instead of
pasting an entire web page's worth?

Dave.
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 02:22:14 -0400, "Jon Janssen" <notmyaddress RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:

>
><dh_ld RemoveThis @nomail.com> wrote in message
>news:ciumlvku2f77je0rm415hr0rnad42a4tv1@4ax.com...
>> · 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. ·
>
>Hi Dave,

Hi Jon.

>i follow what you're saying... it's better to experience some life rather
>than none and also if the animals would be happy while alive, and also be
>killed painlessly, then it would seem good.

Some lives are worth experiencing and some are not, and that goes
for wildlife, domestic animals, humans, and whatever else. The best
case of a life not worth living that I've seen was in a documentary
about alligators, where some eggs were hatching but had been laid
in an ant nest. Some of the poor little guys never got out of the shell.

>i follow the idea... but let me ask 1 difficult question.... if it was good
>to create lives and then kill the individuals:
>- if someone was repeatedly breeding dogs and then killing them after 5
>months, would this also be good?

Maybe. We are conditioned to think it would not however, so
that's what we think. I was faced with that question when raising
chickens, and giving it the most open consideration I could is
what lead me to the way I now feel. There were some hens I
didn't really want to raise chicks from, but just kept them around
in case something happened to their mother who I did want to
raise chicks from...the daughter would be the next best thing. But,
I could let them raise some chicks and kill them after a month, or
two months...or turn them loose in the woods someplace to be
killed by predators. It would allow them to enjoy the best time of
life for chickens imo, when everything is new and they have a
lot of enthusiasm. They would get to experience chasing bugs,
and cuddling up under their mother, and interacting with each
other, along with the basic things like sight, hearing, tasting,
etc. But I rarely let "them" have those experiences, because I
didn't want to have to deal with it. That doesn't mean we
shouldn't give the aspect consideration when we think about
the animals that we do raise to eat. There is no reason to give
their death more consideration than their life.

>- if someone was having children, and killing them after a few years, would
>this be okay?

Not to me. But we do all die after a few years. Life is short,
as they say.

>to be philosophical, i think that if something is "given" it then belongs to
>who has it, and it 'can't' be taken back

It gets taken back from all of us. The main difference between raising
animals for food and not, is their lives not their deaths. They don't exist
before they're raised, and they don't exist after they're raised...life is the
difference.

>...if you give money to a charity (similar to creating lives for their
>ability to experience life), you 'can't' steal the same amount of money from
>them later
>
>at least this is the way i feel about it
>Jon

It's not the same thing to me. There is nothing to experience the
loss when you take its life away. On the other hand, if there is life
after death for animals, think of all the animals who get it because
they're raised for food.
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

"Dave" <weird_dave DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bjlog0$fjo$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
>
> That was far too much to read,

By who's standard?

> can you summarise the key points instead of
> pasting an entire web page's worth?
>
Yes, I could.
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

Dreck wrote:
>>That was far too much to read,
>
> By who's standard?

WHOSE, you imbecile cross-poster.

>>can you summarise the key points instead of
>>pasting an entire web page's worth?
>
> Yes, I could.

No, you can't. You're a lame blowhard incapable of doing anything
beneficial for society.
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death 

Derek wrote:
> "Dave" <weird_dave RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bjlog0$fjo$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
>>
>> That was far too much to read,
>
> By who's standard?

Mine


>> can you summarise the key points instead of
>> pasting an entire web page's worth?
>>
> Yes, I could.

Cool.

Dave.
 >> Stay informed about: Meat eaters contribute to life and death