Vegetarian Discussion: Livestock Husbandry Not Justified By "benefits" Enjoyed By Livestock

Livestock Husbandry Not Justified By "benefits" Enjoyed By Livestock
Posts: 252

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)

T. Howard Pines, Jr.
2011-01-23 12:38:28 EST
Livestock animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence, no matter
how pleasant their lives. "Vegans" and other animal rights believers
who say livestock husbandry should end are not, either directly or
indirectly, thereby advocating the withholding of any "benefit" from any
animals.

*No* consideration is due the lives of livestock animals that might
exist. The prospect of the animals "getting to experience life" has no
value - especially not to merely prospective animals who may, or may
not, ever exist. "Vegans" and other animal advocates are not guilty of
any moral failure for refusing to give consideration - whatever that's
supposed to mean - to the potential lives of livestock animals that do
not exist.

This so-called "consideration" for the merely potential future lives of
livestock animals is fake - a complete sham. It is used as a flimsy,
garbage bit of sophistry to try to conceal their self interest, by some
people who want to consume animal products. They feel their self
interest in consuming animal products cannot be defended as what it is,
so they fabricate this bogus altruism - this *fake* consideration for
the lives of animals - because of their own intellectual weakness. They
have succumbed to the noxious and wrong dogma that self interest is
dirty and illegitimate. Self interest is *not* dirty or illegitimate.
What is dirty and illegitimate is to acting in self interest while
trying to pass it off as something else.

Michael Gray
2011-01-24 04:06:38 EST
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 09:38:28 -0800, "T. Howard Pines, Jr."
<*y@somewhere.now> wrote:

>Livestock animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence,

I do not forward that bogus straw-man reason to justify livestock
management.
Are you a vegan?
Do you ever wash your hands?
By doing so, you kill billions of bacteria.
They are living beings.
Where do you draw the line between living and non-living?
Would you eat clean, fresh, disease-free road-kill?
If not, what could possibly be your moral objection, given that you
muder bacteria every millisecond?


--
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, is still there

Dutch
2011-01-24 04:40:40 EST

"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:62gqj6hrsqh22e850g8lhk5bn17t67ud1r@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 09:38:28 -0800, "T. Howard Pines, Jr."
> <someguy@somewhere.now> wrote:
>
>>Livestock animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence,
>
> I do not forward that bogus straw-man reason to justify livestock
> management.

It's not a strawman and he's not attributing it to you.

> Are you a vegan?
> Do you ever wash your hands?
> By doing so, you kill billions of bacteria.
> They are living beings.
> Where do you draw the line between living and non-living?
> Would you eat clean, fresh, disease-free road-kill?
> If not, what could possibly be your moral objection, given that you
> muder bacteria every millisecond?

He has no objection.


George Plimpton
2011-01-24 10:06:45 EST
On 1/24/2011 1:06 AM, Michael Gray wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 09:38:28 -0800, "T. Howard Pines, Jr."
> <someguy@somewhere.now> wrote:
>
>> Livestock animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence,
>
> I do not forward that bogus straw-man reason to justify livestock
> management.
> Are you a vegan?
> Do you ever wash your hands?
> By doing so, you kill billions of bacteria.
> They are living beings.
> Where do you draw the line between living and non-living?
> Would you eat clean, fresh, disease-free road-kill?
> If not, what could possibly be your moral objection, given that you
> muder bacteria every millisecond?

I have no objection to raising livestock and killing and consuming them.
I eat meat.


--
...and that's just how it is.

Troll
2011-01-24 10:41:01 EST
On Jan 23, 9:38 am, "T. Howard Pines, Jr." <some...@somewhere.now>
wrote:
> Livestock animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence, no matter
> how pleasant their lives.  

This sounds like a philosophic question. Almost
like whether worms feel 'fear' rather than feel
'pain', or whether a 'fearful' worm is different
from a worm in pain.

Reasonably, when the livestock gradually
comes into existence, the state of 'benefit'
versus 'non-benefit' or 'harm' comes into
existence with respect to the livestock.

It seems more difficult to say whether the
potential for both states might have some
absolute frame of reference that it could
be compared against, or for that matter,
what it could be based upon.


Zinnic
2011-01-24 10:55:38 EST
On Jan 24, 9:06 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 1/24/2011 1:06 AM, Michael Gray wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 09:38:28 -0800, "T. Howard Pines, Jr."
> > <some...@somewhere.now>  wrote:
>
> >> Livestock animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence,
>
> > I do not forward that bogus straw-man reason to justify livestock
> > management.
> > Are you a vegan?
> > Do you ever wash your hands?
> > By doing so, you kill billions of bacteria.
> > They are living beings.
> > Where do you draw the line between living and non-living?
> > Would you eat clean, fresh, disease-free road-kill?
> > If not, what could possibly be your moral objection, given that you
> > muder bacteria every millisecond?
>
> I have no objection to raising livestock and killing and consuming them.
>   I eat meat.
>
> --
> ...and that's just how it is.

Please be reasonable! Your behavior makes some humans so uncomfortable
that, given the opportunity, they would command that you change your
ways and allow them to really savor their porridge. :-/

WangoTango
2011-01-24 11:21:30 EST
In article <62gqj6hrsqh22e850g8lhk5bn17t67ud1r@4ax.com>,
m*y@newsguy.com says...
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 09:38:28 -0800, "T. Howard Pines, Jr."
> <someguy@somewhere.now> wrote:
>
> >Livestock animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence,
>
> I do not forward that bogus straw-man reason to justify livestock
> management.
> Are you a vegan?
> Do you ever wash your hands?
> By doing so, you kill billions of bacteria.
> They are living beings.
> Where do you draw the line between living and non-living?
> Would you eat clean, fresh, disease-free road-kill?
> If not, what could possibly be your moral objection, given that you
> muder bacteria every millisecond?

Do they know how many animals are killed by cultivating land?

Giga2
2011-01-24 12:50:21 EST

"T. Howard Pines, Jr." <someguy@somewhere.now> wrote in message
news:Wb6dnUltlegK-qHQnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> Livestock animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence, no matter how
> pleasant their lives.

What about the survival of their species?



George Plimpton
2011-01-24 12:55:49 EST
On 1/24/2011 7:41 AM, troll wrote:
> On Jan 23, 9:38 am, "T. Howard Pines, Jr."<some...@somewhere.now>
> wrote:
>> Livestock animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence, no matter
>> how pleasant their lives.
>
> This sounds like a philosophic question. Almost
> like whether worms feel 'fear' rather than feel
> 'pain', or whether a 'fearful' worm is different
> from a worm in pain.
>
> Reasonably, when the livestock gradually
> comes into existence, the state of 'benefit'
> versus 'non-benefit' or 'harm' comes into
> existence with respect to the livestock.

But coming into existence *itself* cannot be a benefit, because it
didn't make the entity better off, that is, improve its state of
well-being. Coming into existence *established* the state of well-being
in the first place; it didn't improve it.

T. Howard Pines, Jr.
2011-01-24 13:07:40 EST
On 1/24/2011 9:50 AM, Giga2 <Giga2 wrote:
> "T. Howard Pines, Jr."<someguy@somewhere.now> wrote in message
> news:Wb6dnUltlegK-qHQnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>> Livestock animals do not "benefit" by coming into existence, no matter how
>> pleasant their lives.
>
> What about the survival of their species?

What about it?
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron