www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:18:11 GMT, "Rubystars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"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.
It's easy enough.
I realize that some farm animals benefit from being farmed and some don't.
Apparently no one else realizes that any of them do.
It certainly doesn't make me feel inferior to realize something that other people in these ngs appear unaware of.
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?
I say it because it does.
You can say it doesn't, but it still does none the less.
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)
I don't believe nothing can suffer a loss,
The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999 Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000or be deprived of anything.
What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
Fuckwit - 10/12/2001I explained how I feel about the issue already,
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
