Mr.Gray
User
Newbie
| Posts: 5 |   |
Karma: 0
|
animal life - 2003/10/26 04:11
What alive 'animals' are you referring to? The one's that are alive and the ones that aren't?
What animal isn't alive?
Popular posts by Mr.Gray
animal life reconsidered twice
Free range Egg dump
animal life reconsidered
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
tbell9995
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 30 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:animal life - 2003/10/26 09:12
Billions of farm animals benefit from farming. You are just trying to change the subject, like "ARAs" often do when you don't have an argument.
Popular posts by tbell9995
What "ARAs" mean....
animal life reconsidered twice
We should eat more rats
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Chi Psi Upsilon
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 19 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:animal life - 2003/10/26 11:24
No. If you think that, then you have thoroughly misread what I have written.
You are confirming that you have misread what I have written. Furthermore, you cannot slaughter a dead animal. Slaughter means "to kill", and if the animal is already dead, you cannot kill it again.
What will happen to me if I don't?
I don't think I "need", in any sense of that word, to answer anything you've written. You have misread my position, and your questions don't make any sense.
The mere fact of farm animals "getting to experience life", in the turgid phrasing of "my antagonist", is not an ethical positive. It is neutral.
Fuckwit (formerly known as David Harrison) IS the one making the positive assertion. Fuckwit asserts that the mere fact of animals "getting to experience life" is a moral benefit. It is not.
Popular posts by Chi Psi Upsilon
No need for farm animals.
Karen Winter's bad character (attn...
Camden Arts Centre
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Chi Psi Upsilon
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 19 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:animal life - 2003/10/26 16:38
The animals that will be raised for us to eat are more than just "nothing", because they *will* be born unless something stops their lives from happening. Since that is the case, if something stops their lives from happening, whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying" them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born if nothing prevents that from happening, that would experience the loss if their lives are prevented.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
What gives you the right to want to deprive them [unborn animals] of having what life they could have?
Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that *could* get to live, is for people not to consider the fact that they are only keeping these animals from being killed, by keeping them from getting to live at all.
Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
No farm animals "benefit" from being raised for human consumption. None.
Popular posts by Chi Psi Upsilon
No need for farm animals.
Karen Winter's bad character (attn...
Camden Arts Centre
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Chi Psi Upsilon
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 19 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:animal life - 2003/10/26 17:25
You don't believe that. You believe they DO exist:
The animals that will be raised for us to eat are more than just "nothing", because they *will* be born unless something stops their lives from happening. Since that is the case, if something stops their lives from happening, whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying" them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born if nothing prevents that from happening, that would experience the loss if their lives are prevented.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
What gives you the right to want to deprive them [unborn animals] of having what life they could have?
Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that *could* get to live, is for people not to consider the fact that they are only keeping these animals from being killed, by keeping them from getting to live at all.
Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
ALL of those statements that you freely made indicate you believe they exist, in some state. Not tangibly, but existence any other way.
You're a very shitty liar, Fuckwit. You really ought to stop lying, you're so bad at it.
No. Their lives, in and of themselves, have no moral importance. If billions of farm animals "never get to experience life", because "they" are "prevented", there is no moral difference in the universe, at all. None.
But the fact of their deaths at the hands of moral agents DOES have moral meaning. To me, it isn't meaning such that we ought not do it; to "vegans", it is.
There is moral meaning to the fact of their deaths.
Their is NO moral meaning to the mere fact of their
"getting to experience life"; none.
You believe there is, you fucking ignorant dope:
Then I guess raising billions of animals for food provides billions of beings with a place in eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least some of it.
Fuckwit - 04/12/2002
It doesn't. There is no life after death, and there is no moral importance to their "getting to experience life" on earth.
You're an idiot, Fuckwit.
Popular posts by Chi Psi Upsilon
No need for farm animals.
Karen Winter's bad character (attn...
Camden Arts Centre
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Chi Psi Upsilon
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 19 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:animal life - 2003/10/26 19:58
Do you know what "tangible" even means, Fuckwit? No, I didn't think you did.
You believe the unconceived farm animals exist, in whatever weird, ethereal state it is. Only you know what that state is, but you DO believe it, as your writing makes perfectly clear:
The animals that will be raised for us to eat are more than just "nothing", because they *will* be born unless something stops their lives from happening. Since that is the case, if something stops their lives from happening, whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying" them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born if nothing prevents that from happening, that would experience the loss if their lives are prevented.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
What gives you the right to want to deprive them [unborn animals] of having what life they could have?
Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that *could* get to live, is for people not to consider the fact that they are only keeping these animals from being killed, by keeping them from getting to live at all.
Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
There is no getting around it: you believe they exist.
These statements from you were not "mistakes"; they are what you believe.
Popular posts by Chi Psi Upsilon
No need for farm animals.
Karen Winter's bad character (attn...
Camden Arts Centre
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Chi Psi Upsilon
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 19 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:animal life - 2003/10/26 23:34
Wait another 30 years, if it interests you that much.
Popular posts by Chi Psi Upsilon
No need for farm animals.
Karen Winter's bad character (attn...
Camden Arts Centre
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
tbell9995
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 30 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:animal life - 2003/10/27 02:25
When I think of the group farm animals, I generally think of it as including those which are alive, have lived in the past, and will live in the future. If we want to break it down into more restricted groups, then we should go into more detail about it.
Is a dead animal still an animal? I'd say no it's a dead animal.
As far as we know, before conception and after death they do not exist, so the biggest difference in raising them for food and not doing so is their lives, not their deaths. If there is some type of life after death for animals, then raising them for food provides them with that much more life....
Popular posts by tbell9995
What "ARAs" mean....
animal life reconsidered twice
We should eat more rats
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Chi Psi Upsilon
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 19 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:animal life - 2003/10/27 03:27
The original poster, Fuckwit - formerly known as David
Harrison - has a stupid angle for trying to beat up on
"vegans". He says that they're doing evil by wanting to prevent farm animals from being born.
"vegans", of course, eat no meat, the reason being they believe it is immoral to kill animals for that purpose (or pretty much any purpose, except maybe self defense.) Fuckwit claims to believe that it is morally acceptable to kill animals for meat, and in fact,
Fuckwit believes that humans are doing a morally good deed by "providing life" to farm animals.
Fuckwit is merely trying to play a little rhetorical trick on "vegans". He's trying to piggy back on their moral outrage, while redirectly it back at them. Thus, he says it isn't morally wrong to kill animals for human use, but that it *is* wrong to prevent them from being born.
Fuckwit believes that unconceived farm animals "exist" in some sense, and that "vegans" are doing them wrong.
Don't pay him any further attention. You won't get an honest answer out of him, ever.
Popular posts by Chi Psi Upsilon
No need for farm animals.
Karen Winter's bad character (attn...
Camden Arts Centre
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Chi Psi Upsilon
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 19 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:animal life - 2003/10/27 08:15
That's right, I don't. Fuckwit does believe in one, and I think he's a fool for it (along with about 99,999 other reasons he's a fool.)
It's what I think now, and for over 30 years.
Popular posts by Chi Psi Upsilon
No need for farm animals.
Karen Winter's bad character (attn...
Camden Arts Centre
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
Chi Psi Upsilon
User
Junior Member
| Posts: 19 | |
Karma: 0
|
re:animal life - 2003/10/27 11:04
Do you know what "tangible" even means, Fuckwit? No, I didn't think you did.
You believe the unconceived farm animals exist, in whatever weird, ethereal state it is. Only you know what that state is, but you DO believe it, as your writing makes perfectly clear:
The animals that will be raised for us to eat are more than just "nothing", because they *will* be born unless something stops their lives from happening. Since that is the case, if something stops their lives from happening, whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying" them of the life they otherwise would have had.
Fuckwit - 12/09/1999
Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be born if nothing prevents that from happening, that would experience the loss if their lives are prevented.
Fuckwit - 08/01/2000
What gives you the right to want to deprive them [unborn animals] of having what life they could have?
Fuckwit - 10/12/2001
What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that *could* get to live, is for people not to consider the fact that they are only keeping these animals from being killed, by keeping them from getting to live at all.
Fuckwit - 10/19/1999
There is no getting around it: you believe they exist. These statements from you were not "mistakes"; they are what you believe.
Popular posts by Chi Psi Upsilon
No need for farm animals.
Karen Winter's bad character (attn...
Camden Arts Centre
|
|
|
| | | post reply |
|
post new topic