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

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:08:39 -0800, "Dutch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

><[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?

    Yup.

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

    Point it out to people. What do you do, besides encouraging
people not to give it any thought?

>> 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.

    Why are you extremely opposed to people thinking that it might?

>Your position is essentially that any "experience of life" justifies raising
>an animal, 

    No it's not. Why do you Gonads so very very VERY badly want 
people to believe it is? One thing is for sure: you are afraid of the truth for
some reason. VERY afraid of it, to the point that you won't even acknowledge
it. Since my lying enemies are so afraid of it, it must be a good thing to keep
pointing it out.

>including fighting cocks and dogs, and I presume bullfighting.
>
>You're a bizarre cross between an animal rights extremist an animal
>exploitation extremist.
>