Re: If life is a benefit...

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:07:46 -0500, "Miller"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jonathan Ball" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Miller wrote:
> >>
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >
> >> >>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:58 GMT, ipse dixit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>If life is a benefit, then it's logically certain that
> >> >>no life [ie never existing at all] is a loss.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Why is deference to dualism logical?  And what does "life is a
benefit"
> >mean
> >> > to you in the first place?
> >>
> >> You have to go back to the moron who has introduced
> >> this loathsome construction in the first place, a
> >> high-school dropout in Atlanta named David Harrison,
> >> better known as Fuckwit.  He believes that the mere
> >> fact of "getting to experience life" (his phrasing,
> >> hence the quotes) is a "benefit" to farm animals.  As a
> >> logically necessary consequence, and borne out in his
> >> further incoherent scribblings on the topic, he
> >> believes that "vegans" are trying to impose a loss on
> >> unconceived "future farm animals" by trying to get
> >> everyone to become vegetarian, thereby ensuring the
> >> extinction of farm animals raised for human consumption.
> >>
> >> It's a dirty, juvenile, stupid clumsy trick he's been
> >> trying to play on "vegans" for about four and a half
> >> years now.
> >
> >Well, its somewhat interesting, I guess.  Seems to engender a bit of
fierce
> >opposition.
> >
> >Scott
>
>     Which is expected. "ARAs" want people to believe that the
> most ethical approach we could take would be to all become
> veg*n, so no more animals are "killed" for food. They seem to
> have promoted that idea fairly successfully, and the last thing
> they would want is to see people decide it would be better to
> provide farm animals with decent lives, than it would be to
> prevent them from having any. They are also very opposed to
> seeing it pointed out that some types of meat involve fewer
> animal deaths than some types of veggies. We can get over
> 500 servings of beef from the life and death of a grass raised
> steer. Due to plowing, planting, use of *icides, harvesting, and
> protection of stored grains, a few servings of tofu are likely to
> involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings of grass
> raised beef. If veg*ns really cared about animals, they would
> want such things pointed out. But since they don't, they are
> opposed to seeing them pointed out, and as you can see they
> are opposed to seeing it pointed out that some farm animals
> benefit from farming....things like that don't contribute to the
> impression of ethical superiority they want to promote for
> themselves.
>


Good lord!  Who can afford grass or even grain-fed beef these days!  And do
you really believe it takes less energy and resources to raise beef than it
does to raise the equivalent in vegetable products?  Sounds like you got a
bone to pick with these Vegan guys.

Scott