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

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> 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.

What does that mean? Do you mean some are mostly contented and others are
mostly miserable?

What do you do to promote the former and discourage the latter?

> Apparently no one else realizes that any of them do.

The way you use the word "benefit" doesn't make sense.

> It
> certainly doesn't make me feel inferior to realize something that other
people in
> these ngs appear unaware of. You can tell me they don't exist, but I can
see
> animals benefitting from farming every day, so I know you're wrong.

You mean you see cows grazing? So what? How do you know that their lives
amount to a net "benefit"?

> >> > 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.

You're only rationalizing the use of animals. The fact that livestock "get
to experience life" is not now and will never be a factor in deciding to
farm them.

The only other people who argue a point like this are extreme animal rights
utilitarians like Singer who argue that *if* animals were farmed in ideal
conditions, then their lives would constitute a net good.

Your position is essentially that any "experience of life" justifies raising
an animal, including fighting cocks and dogs, and I presume bullfighting.

You're a bizarre cross between an animal rights extremist an animal
exploitation extremist.