Vegetarian Discussion: Animals' "getting To Experience Life"

Animals' "getting To Experience Life"
Posts: 57

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   Next  (First | Last)

George Plimpton
2013-09-04 03:59:26 EST
There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.

Andy E Barnes
2013-09-04 10:05:38 EST
On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 08:59:26 UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
> If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
>
> better for them than experiencing a bad life.

You would need to define a 'good' or 'bad' life. for instance, a cow with three legs has a very difficult life. Is this a 'bad' life because it has caused suffering or is it 'good' because she has overcome her disability and still thrived?

George Plimpton
2013-09-04 10:18:21 EST
On 9/4/2013 7:05 AM, Andy E Barnes wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 September 2013 08:59:26 UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
>> animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
>> livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
>> animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
>> better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
>> the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.
>
> You would need to define a 'good' or 'bad' life.

People have a good intuitive life of what this is. We're talking about
typical lives for livestock animals, not extremes.

Hens that live entirely "free range" have better lives than battery hens
in tiny cramped cages. Beef cattle that spend their entire lives on
grass pasture and range land before slaughter have better lives than
those that are taken to hot dusty feed lots and fed hundreds of pounds
of grain that sickens them.

There is no great difficulty in understanding what is a good life and
what is a bad life for livestock animals.


> for instance, a cow with three legs has a very difficult life.

A cow with only three legs is atypical.


Dhu On Gate
2013-09-05 06:00:35 EST
On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

> There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
> animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
> livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
> animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
> better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
> the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.

This is specious baltch. The question is whether it is good for
us humans to have domestic animals, and while our exploitation of
other species evolutionary ends is empowered by a deep empathy you
are apparently lacking, the answer is that animals (and plants)
do real good for humans when they are treated with respect.

Dhu


--
Ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco.

George Plimpton
2013-09-05 10:13:30 EST
On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
>> animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
>> livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
>> animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
>> better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
>> the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.
>
> The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic animals, and

No, that isn't the question.


Dhu On Gate
2013-09-05 20:21:11 EST
On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 07:13:30 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:

> On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>> There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
>>> animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
>>> livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
>>> animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
>>> better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
>>> the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.
>>
>> The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic animals, and
>
> No, that isn't the question.

Still think there's no harm in pullin' wings offa flies, eh?
You'd 'a' made a fine sonterkommando.

Dhu


--
Ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco.

George Plimpton
2013-09-05 22:18:43 EST
On 9/5/2013 5:21 PM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 07:13:30 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>>> On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
>>>> animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
>>>> livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
>>>> animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
>>>> better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
>>>> the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.
>>>
>>> The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic animals, and
>>
>> No, that isn't the question.
>
> Still think there's no harm in pullin' wings offa flies, eh?

That isn't the topic, either.


D*@.
2013-09-06 17:17:38 EST
On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 10:00:35 GMT, Dhu on Gate <campbell@neotext.ca> wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>> There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
>> animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
>> livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
>> animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
>> better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
>> the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.
>
>This is specious baltch. The question is whether it is good for
>us humans to have domestic animals,

That's only one aspect of it but it doesn't have anything to do with whether
or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food. For some it
is and for some it's not depending on the quality of their lives. That is the
starting line on this topic, but eliminationists who feel that:

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

can't get as "far" as the starting line

>and while our exploitation of
>other species evolutionary ends is empowered by a deep empathy you
>are apparently lacking

Eliminationists like Goo are opposed to considering the animals' lives and
what animals gain from human influence, because and ONLY because considering
that aspect works against elimination.

D*@.
2013-09-06 17:18:31 EST
On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 07:13:30 -0700, Goo wrote:
.
>On 9/5/2013 3:00 AM, Dhu on Gate wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, Goo wrote:
>>
>>> There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
>>> animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
>>> livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
>>> animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
>>> better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
>>> the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.
>>
>> The question is whether it is good for us humans to have domestic animals, and
>
>No, that isn't the question.

That is ALL you care about Goober. You claim to eat meat:
_________________________________________________________
"I eat meat." - Goo

"I consume meat. I consume it daily - I can't even remember a day in my life
when I didn't." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
while you maniacally oppose giving any consideration to the lives of the animals
you dishonestly imo claim you consume:
_________________________________________________________
"Life "justifying" death is the
stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo

The statements below are all true.
Message-ID: <MHuvg.1478$bP5.65@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

"Shut the fuck up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo

""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in Fuckwit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
You may or may not eat meat but I believe you're lying and that you're some sort
of veg*n eliminationist Goob. Whether you really do eat a tiny bit of meat from
time to time or whether you don't though Goober, we KNOW you don't give the
animals' lives any consideration and you are maniacally opposed to anyone else
considering the life of any animal raised for food:

"no matter its quality of live" - Goo

All you claim to care about is the products with no consideration for the
animals' lives or the quality of their lives because and only because
considering that aspect works against elimination, Goo.

George Plimpton
2013-09-06 17:36:42 EST
On 9/6/2013 2:17 PM, Fuckwit David Harrison - *Gloo* - stupid,
illiterate cracker and convicted felon, defeated entirely in 1999 and
doing nothing but wasting time ever since, lied:

> On Thu, 05 Sep 2013 10:00:35 GMT, Dhu on Gate <campbell@neotext.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:59:26 -0700, George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>> There is no importance at all to the "getting". If some livestock
>>> animals "get to experience life", that isn't good for them; and if no
>>> livestock animals "get to experience life", that isn't bad for any
>>> animals. If livestock animals exist, then experiencing a good life is
>>> better for them than experiencing a bad life. It is not "better" for
>>> the animals to experience a good life than never to live at all.
>>
>> This is specious baltch. The question is whether it is good for
>> us humans to have domestic animals,
>
> That's only one aspect of it but it doesn't have anything to do with whether
> or not it's cruel TO THE ANIMALS for humans to raise them for food.

It certainly isn't cruel to any animals not to breed livestock animals
into existence in the first place, *Gloo*.


>> and while our exploitation of
>> other species evolutionary ends is empowered by a deep empathy you
>> are apparently lacking
>
> Eliminationists

No such thing.

You're just wasting time, *Gloo*, as you've done for 14 years in losing.
Go do something else.


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6   Next  (First | Last)


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