=?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_=BFCalculation_to_evaluate_cruelty_to_animals=3F_=28wa?=

<dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message news:n1m7j4ti26sn02ubo0e8gfe39412pejanb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 13:10:52 -0800, "Dutch" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>><dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:pp55j418gmej3u13vv7tafjtnv1ctritc6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 19:29:51 -0800, "Dutch" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>>>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:06:55 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>>>>> <rupertmccallum@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>[..]
>>>>
>>>>>>What "considering the lives of the animals" means stands in need of
>>>>>>clarification.
>>>>>
>>>>>    It takes into consideration what life does for/to the animals. If
>>>>> they
>>>>> have decent lives then that's what it does for them, and if they
have
>>>>> lives of negative value that's what it does to them.
>>>>
>>>>Life doesn't "do" anything for/to animals,
>>>
>>>    In contrast to that most obviously blatant of lies it does
everything
>>> for/to us. You sure get a big DUH!!! for that lie.
>>
>>You ARE your life,
>>
>> "it" doesn't "do" anything for_you.
>
>    You just can't understand that cir***stances influence our
> quality of life, etc, much less appreciate how, much much much
> less how the same it true for animals.

You refuse to grasp that the cir***stances of your life are not your life.

Your life *IS you*, therefore it cannot be "a benefit" to you,
cir***stances 
can.

>>>>that's the shabby sophism of the Logic of the Larder.
>>>
>>>    It's one of those obvious facts that work against the misnomer,
>>> so you hate it.
>>
>>Since you reintroduced the human element, let's follow that train of
>>thought. Let's agree for the sake of argument that everything you say is
>>true,
>
>    Facing the truth would be a new approach for you no doubt,
> but I'm predicting before reading your supposed attempt that all
> you'll be able to end up doing is making up some fantasy that's
> in no way similar, but claiming it's the same thing.
>
>>we'll say life is a benefit and life does everything for us. That's
>>great, now your parents are the benefactors of this great gift to you
and
>>you are the beneficiary. So what now? What actions, what behavior on the
>>part of your parents towards you is now justified that would not have
been
>>if you had not looked at your life as a gift, a benefit given to you by 
>>your
>>parents?
>
>    Them telling me what to do and what not to do, or even asking.

That's just their role as a parent, it can be and is assigned to others, 
such as nannies.

>
>>How does this revelation instruct your parents?
>
>    They know it gives them some authority over me, and that I
> owe them my life and am not so stupid that I can't comprehend
> the fact.

You do not "owe them your life", they CAN'T take it back if they want, it
is 
yours and yours alone. They have a responsibility to guide you, as
parents, 
that is it.

>
>>How does it change
>>what is admissible for them to do to you?
>
>    It gives them authority over me that parents of different
> people don't have. Duh.

It gives them responsibility, not any license to harm you or to take away 
your life.

If they adopted you they would have the same responsibility, but NO
license 
to do anything to you or take anything essential from you, and I don't
mean 
your toys.

Saying "that being owes his life to me", is nonsense, it gives you no 
different ability to cause harm to that being. A child cannot be harmed 
because of it, and a chicken being raised for food can be harmed in the
same 
way whether we say it or not.


>
>>It is im****tant that you answer
>>this because the debate here is about what is admissible for us to do to
>>animals. The question you need to answer is what difference does it make

>>to
>>think of life as a benefit, a gift?
>
>    When it is, then acknowledging the fact allows us to consider a huge
> amount more of the big picture than trying to dishonestly deny it. In
fact 
> just as
> honest acceptance allows us to realistically comprehend more of the
whole,
> the dishonest denials allow so much less that it distorts your 
> interpretation
> of reality.

Now you're just rambling incoherently again.