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

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:56:40 GMT, "Rubystars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:48:59 GMT, "Rubystars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:19:27 GMT, "Rubystars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Jonathan Ball" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:44:28 GMT, "Rubystars"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >><snip>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>    See if you can get anything out of this. If so, maybe we can
>go
>> >on
>> >> >> >>>about it a little farther:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>Nope, seemed like a bunch of gibberish. :(
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>-Rubystars
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >     Please share any superior beliefs that you have about the
>issue.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Please share a well-founded, thought out belief in the
>> >> >> first place, Fuckwit.
>> >> >
>> >> >I think it's less a belief and more of a fact that something that
>doesn't
>> >> >exist yet can't make any claims on a right to exist.
>> >>
>> >>     Agreed. That was nothing.  Please share any superior beliefs that
>> >> you have about the issue...but by now it's already apparent that you
>> >> have none.
>> >
>> >Ok, I'm of the opinion that there would be no loss to any animals if
>fewer
>> >animals were bred for meat eating or other use. There would be fewer
>animals
>> >alive, but no animals that experienced a loss as a result of that lower
>> >number.
>>
>>     We agree. As I've pointed out many times, there would be no more loss
>> than the fact that we don't raise porcupines for food, dinosaurs are
>extinct,
>> rocks aren't alive, there is no life on Venus, etc...
>
>So then why do you go on about "Farming provides life as well as death."

    It does. Farming of animals and also of crops. If Dutch is reading this
maybe he'll throw in his plug for animals who live and die in crop fields,
but he doesn't bring that one up very often.

>> >A life full of unhappiness, such as a dog used in a dog fight, or a
>chicken
>> >that gets debeaked and kept in overcrowded conditions, is not a good
>thing
>> >for those who have it. Preventing that life from ever forming by not
>> >breeding the animal in the first place would've been much better, as an
>> >animal that does not exist can not suffer.
>> >
>> >-Rubystars
>>
>>     We agree that no life is better than a life of suffering. Where we
>> disagree is on the fact that some farm animals benefit from farming,
>> not on the fact that some do not.
>
>How do they benefit? By "getting to experience life?"
>
>-Rubystars

    It depends on the life. Do you believe that some lives are a benefit?
Do you believe that some lives are not? I believe some are and some
are not. That goes for farm animals, humans, wildlife, lab animals, pets,
performing animals, and any other types of animals there are.