On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:00:14 -0800, "Dutch" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
><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.
Try explaining why you think no being could ever benefit from
its life.
>>>>>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",
Yes I do. If you were an accident or specifically unwanted
then you do not, but I owe mine.
>they CAN'T take it back if they want,
If they had raised me to be killed, then it would be that
or nothing just as it is for billions of livestock. They did
decide to have another child--meaning to give life to
one--knowin it would also result in my death. We do the
same with livestock and pets, etc. Death is part of the
package. Always. For everything. Always.
>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
As I correctly predicted you are now trying to pretend that completely
different situations should be thought of in the same way. So try to
explain why you think we should think about murdering children who
are not raised to be slaughtered, in the same way we think about
slaughtering animals who are raised to be slaughtered. Go:
>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.
Incoherent defines how your severe limitations would cause you
to interpret such facts very well, now that you mention it. You're
not blind to the animals' lives, you're just incoherent to the
significance
of them because you can only consider yourself...the big picture is
incoherent to you in that particular area no doubt, and probably several
more areas as well. You being among the most clueless people on Earth
about the significance of domestic animals, also experience incoherence
when the significance of their lives is presented to you.
|
