On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 11:13:22 -0800, "Dutch" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
><dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:7u9aj4p3ihi605h9ajhqf0k7rjb6becnt3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> 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.
>
>I just did, it's a meanless circular expression. Your life *is* what you
>are, you *are* your life. You don't benefit from you, you benefit from
the
>things that happen *in* your life.
You still haven't explained why you think nothing has ever benefitted
from its life, so trying to get you to try explaining how you think the
stupid
idea should prevent people from considering the lives of animals would
no doubt be a waste of time. You have nothing, never did, and never
will. You have nothing with which to attack the significance of animals'
lives.
>>>>>>>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.
>
>No you don't,
You don't because you were unwanted, but I do because
they planned for the birth in my case.
>it is not a debt you carry. You own your own life, completely.
>
>>>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.
>
>We take the lives of livestock animals for our sustenance because we can.
>They don't "owe" us anything. This idea that livestock "owe" us because
we
>"gave them life" is repulsive nonsense and you should reject it.
It's an aspect of the situation which NECESSARILY must be
taken into consideration in order to get a realistic idea of
whether or not a practice is cruel to the animals. You apparently
will never be able to think realistically about the issue, but that's
a limitation we must expect from people like yourself. You people
are all the same in that. Rupert is the only one who has shown to
have any clue at all, and he appears to be ashamed of it.
|
