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

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> 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.

That doesn't do anything to promote more contentment and less suffering for
farm animals.

> What do you do, besides encouraging
> people not to give it any thought?

It's not my campaign, it's yours, and you give it less than the barest lip
service.

> >> 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"?

How do you know? How do you judge? Are you just assuming it?

> >> >> > 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?

I'm not opposed to people thinking along the lines of the extreme
utilitarian as I described because it contains a moral condition. That is,
if humans were to take animals and create a kind of ideal environment for
them, as in The Polyface Farm
http://www.westonaprice.org/farming/pasturedpoultry.html then it conceivably
becomes a supportable step to then say, their lives amount to a net good,
*and* we have had a hand in that good. It would be a logical extension of an
Animal Welfare position, a good thing.

But as I say right below, you're saying that simply because some of them
somewhere probably have some positive sensations from time to time,
therefore we should consider *that* in our moral judgment of raising them
for food. That's a really, really cheap rationalization.

> >Your position is essentially that any "experience of life" justifies
raising
> >an animal,
>
>     No it's not.

That's what you're saying, you want us to consider it morally relevant that
"some animals" have decent lives, you don't even specify that we have to
find out which ones and use meat from those particular ones.

> 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.

Then what are you saying? Why should it be relevant to me, a meat eater,
that "some livestock live decent lives"? Is it supposed to make me feel
better? It would only do so if I specifically patronized those farms where
those animals lived. Is it supposed to make ARAs think differently? They
don't believe that we ought to be exploiting animals as food as all. There's
no audience for a message like yours anywhere.

By the way, apparently I agree with you and am making your argument for you.


> >including fighting cocks and dogs, and I presume bullfighting.

This is true right? After all, some of them probably live decent lives, at
least some of the time..


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