Re: Way to go, Dutch - you just made Fuckwit's argument for him.

"Jonathan Ball" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<snip>
> Fuckwit doesn't explicitly say they have a right to be
> conceived.  It's something that derives *necessarily*
> from what he does say.

Ok. I've read a lot of his posts before and I have to wonder what's going on
with him.

> > I mean, a hundred generations from now, there will be
> > cockroaches, but those roaches don't exist right now.
>
> Fuckwit makes a distinction between the animals that
> humans raise to use and other animals.  Right now,
> today, some humans intend for "future farm animals" to
> exist.  It is this intent, coupled with his irrational
> belief that "getting to experience life" is a good
> thing per se, that confers a "right to be conceived" on
> them.

Is that why he says that farming animals for meat provides both life and
death for them?
That doesn't make a lot of sense.

> > If I smash a female
> > with an egg case on her behind and smash that too, does that mean I've
> > deprived those roaches a hundred generations from now of the right to
> > experience life?
>
> Yes, but because humans don't intend for roaches to
> live, you haven't done anything wrong in Fuckwit's
> weird view.

Ok.

>On the other hand, if you were to persuade
> all humans to stop eating meat, so that farm animals
> were to go extinct, Fuckwit would have to believe that
> you have done a great evil to "future farm animals":
> you would have "deprive[d] them of having what life
> they could have?"

I don't have a lot of empathy for animals that don't even exist yet. I mean,
let's say everyone was a vegetarian, and animals weren't being bred for meat
anymore. So there would be a lot fewer cows, chickens, and pigs, as well as
other animals. I still don't see what the problem is. If an animal hasn't
been conceived yet, then it effectively doesn't exist. How can something
that doesn't exist be deprived of something?

Here's something that involves human intent. My grandmother came from a
family where she had several brothers, like about 7 or 8 of them. I only
have one sister and no other siblings. So, according to dh_ld, would my
parents have denied the other potential kids "the right to experience life"
because they were never conceived?

(Feel free to speak for yourself, dh_ld)

-Rubystars